May 2026 – Perspectives

Creation and / or?

Posted on 15th May, 202614th May, 2026
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

With the model I presented in the previous post (and for now by-passing discussions on what we mean by inspiration and any other in- words) the protology presented by our Scriptures is essentially all that we see and experience came through the spoken word / activity of God (and the NT nails that down as being as a result of personhood – through the Word).

The ancient world has numerous creation stories. Understandably so, for there will always be a reaching out for explanations for ‘how’ something came to be the way it is. The genre we give to those stories is ‘myth’. Myth does not necessarily mean ‘made up’ but neither does it mean ‘take this literally as if a historical event was being described by an eye-witness’. We have not only differences in the two versions between Genesis 1 and 2, but it seems we also have other ancient stories that come through such as that of the slaying of the chaos monster:

Yet God my King is from of old,
    working salvation in the earth.
You divided the sea by your might;
    you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
    you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness (Ps. 74:12-14).

Those verses probably are reflecting an account of how creation came into being that is more ancient than the Genesis versions.The slaying of the monster is common to Babylonian, Norse, Greek and Egyptian; for example the Babylonian version (Enuma Elish) has Marduk, the storm god, killing the primordial chaos goddess Tiamat, who is depicted as a chaotic sea monster or dragon. Marduk creates the heavens and earth by splitting her body in half, separating her water-dominated form to create structure. Something of that seems to be reflected in the Psalm I quoted.

There are both similarities and differences between the seven-day account (Gen. 1:1 – 2:4) and the ‘Adam and Eve’ account (Gen. 2:4-25). I think it is a pointless task to try and hammer out the differences. Differences are present and we do a great dishonour to the ancient writers if we think they simply were not smart enough to spot the obvious differences.There are two accounts, one highly structured that over six ‘days’ – and I do think they were aware that until the sun and moon came into being ‘days’ as in 24 hour periods cannot be measured!! I kinda think if they were to read how certain apologists try and modernise the language that they might just think – after all those millennia they are not so smart after all. The highly structured first account shows how over the first three days the problem of ‘without form’ is dealt with and how the ‘void’ issue is eliminated over the final 3 days. The second account is human-centric and goes beyond the ‘formless and void’ issue to where the relational aspect is central; human companionship being the solution to loneliness.

The differences between those two accounts can be noted.

There is a difference of order:
Genesis 1 has plants, then animals, then humans last.
Genesis 2 has human either as male or as containing both male and female (‘Adam’ can certainly be pulled in either direction), then plants, then animals, then woman (or human as expressed as distinct persons).

A different Deity name is used:
Genesis 1 uses “Elohim”.
Genesis 2 uses “Yahweh”.

There is a difference regarding the method of creation:
Genesis 1 features creation by command (“Let there be”).
Genesis 2 features God forming creation by hand.

I don’t think the differences were missed by the ancients nor is there evidence that they tried to iron out the differences! The creation stories are just that.They are not of the same genre as Jesus’ parables but no ancient hearer was going to set about an investigation as to what the date was when the sower went out to sow and if he really sowed seed among thorns on that day! The genre meant that the historicity of the parable would never be subject to such an investigation. The creation stories is of a different genre to that of the parables (don’t be offended ‘myth’) but they were similar in that history, in the sense of observable activity, was never thought to be what was at stake as if unless they were ‘historically’ (factual and perhaps also scientifically) accurate that the stories did not carry authenticity. And certainly there is no science present in the story – that is to subject the genre to a false investigation not to mention how that would be importing questions from an inappropriate other era.

And on the big question of the ‘when’ of creation I would actually have less problems if eventually we found out that creation was eternal than the idea of a young creation. Mysteries for sure with it all, but was there ever when God who is creative was not creating? We will never solve the puzzle, and thankfully Scripture does not get bogged down in them. It pushes us beyond and higher than such questions.

And maybe a word about the ‘theory’ of evolution. Great pleasure can be taken from the word ‘theory’ as if there is within it a self-acknowledgement that it is ‘just’ a theory. But a ‘theory’ in the scientific world is the current way that an examination of the facts can be explained. Gravity is a ‘theory’ as well a ‘relativity’. Both might be revised / nuanced but I don’t think we should campaign to make sure that such theories are simply guesses and no Bible-believing person should engage with either!

Yes, there can be significant personal reasons why someone might wish to adopt evolution as their explanation of the world; particularly an evolution that eliminates a personal deity. I am far from being a scientist and am neither interested in seeking to refute nor give it major space. The ‘how’ of creation has some options, the ‘why’ is where the Scriptures focus.

The ‘well who created the god who created the god who created the world?’ retort is meaningless. If it carried meaning then the question would be infinitely long. The God who created is the uncreated God. Removing God from the equation (as with a non-theistic evolution) is what presents enormous issues – for that to ‘work’ at some point something began from nothing!

I am slowly getting into this set of posts as I want to explore the thought of Scriptures I would rather not be there! The creation stories are not part of that. Embarrassing for some people, maybe, but only if we try and twist them into something that they are not. Leave them alone and there is a profound richness within them. God providing for humanity, not just an environment, but food (other ancient stories have humanity existing to provide food for the gods); God setting humanity at the pinnacle of creation; of giving dignity to humanity as image-bearers – other sources have stories of temples with images, images that cannot talk nor walk. Creation as a temple and a call to look at humanity as the very image of the divine. Relational harmony.

One final observation I am not convinced that Genesis presents us with a perfect creation – it seems to indicate that creation is good and everything is present for (infinite) growth toward perfection.

Well, Genesis 1 & 2, I am very glad you are in there. The ‘protology’ (first word) helps us on our journey toward a healthy eschatology. God loves humanity and approves!

What is this book?

Posted on 14th May, 202614th May, 2026
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Of course I have could have entitled this post ‘what are these books?’ but regardless of choice of title we still run into issues. What books should be included? We operate with 66 books with a firm line around them so that none others can enter – but other traditions use a different set. I have always struggled with the arguments that inevitably use various in- (fallible / errant) words to defend a doctrine of Scripture. Each lecture I sat through no New Testament introduction had to prove that the authorship was ‘apostolic’. I suspect that in part fuelled the view that became reasonably popular in the more-academic charismatic circles that the Old Testament prophets spoke the very words of God and the New Testament prophets were not at that level… the New Testament apostles being the counterpart of the Old Testament prophets. I have never driven a bus but I think without any training I could drive right through that without hitting anything! It all ends up so convenient; the church is built on the foundation of the prophets (=OT) and apostles (=NT)! Built on a book or on the lives of those who provoked people to follow the ‘Lamb wherever the Lamb goes’?

Yes Houston we have a problem.

The ‘canon’ is a problem that I do not think can ever be fully bottomed out. Not too different to that the Jews faced. They had books / scrolls, but it might surprise us if we were able to find out which books Jesus read. Maybe 1 Enoch was in there – a book that definitely does not go back to Enoch, not at any level in spite of being quoted as ‘Enoch the tenth from Adam said…’ No. It seems that the Jews formed – or moved toward forming a canon pretty much to exclude other writings, probably the list to be excluded included some of what we term the ‘New Testament’. There are other ‘gospels’ out there that are not included. Some might contain authentic sayings of Jesus, but…

I am very happy with the 66 we got! I treat them as authoritative (and inspired) in a way that I don’t treat other incredibly helpful (and inspired at a level) pieces of writing. The practical issue is the interpretation of what is written.

The first incredibly helpful presentation I heard on the authority of Scripture was from a youngish-definitely-up-and-coming person who went by the name of Tom Wright. (This was 1989; he has become fairly well-known globally since – his writings are more widespread even than mine!) He suggested that the authority of Scripture lay in its narrative and suggested if a lost (and unfinished) Shakesperean play had recently been found it might be a good analogy to the book(s) we have.

The play in 5 parts with:

Act 1 being that of origins / creation
Act 2 that of the Fall / falls
Act 3 Abraham and the historic people of God that we read of in what we term the OT
Act 4 being centred on Jesus, and
Act 5 being the opening scenes of the New Testament and the spread of the message… then the script is clearly unfinished although within the existing texts there are ‘hints’ where the play will end.

Wright put forward that the authority of Scripture is the narrative with the centre being Jesus.

I have suggested we could have three responses to the ‘Shakesperean’ story:

We realise the value of the writing, store the script in a museum and organise regular lectures on the play, its historical context etc.
We draw together experts who could ‘write’ the missing part and through their knowledge enable us to have in our hands a completed play.
We bring together Shakesperean actors who immerse themselves in what we have, rent a theatre and let the play roll. When the original script runs out just let them carry on with no predetermined script nor action.

Those three options do not have to be totally exclusive one of the other, but the priority has to be the third option. The theatre – our world; the actors – well these are not professionals, but are from the ‘not many…’ group! Passionate about the story, learning to act, react, speak, listen, challenge, making mistakes, but increasingly with a passion for the narrative and wanting to move the story forward toward the hints (‘new creation’) that are within the existing script. Acting ‘under’ the story, motivated by the Spirit, and with an eye on where the narrative is headed.

It does not answer all the issues of ‘canon’ or in what way are the texts ‘inspired’, but maybe that model describes what we do have before us and how we should respond to it. All our attempts to tie up the loose ends probably only take us to places that are unhelpful. ‘All Scripture’ (and what did that mean in the context of that text???) ‘is inspired… and is useful‘. That would not make for a very long lecture if that was the extent of what we had to say on our doctrine of Scripture. But once we make statements beyond that (the ‘Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy’ (1978) for example maybe did not give us much material to enable our response to the Bible to be useful but certainly gave us material to argue with others!) we run into the favourite land that Protestants / evangelicals have inhabited: ‘I am right and you are wrong’. Now all readers of these posts know I am right(!!) but (sadly) I discovered years ago that being right did not seem to be high on God’s agenda as a goal for my life. ‘Being perfect as My Father in heaven is perfect’ was certainly nearer the goal for my life! And that perfection (in the context where Jesus made that statement) was to do with how I related to others. Inspired and useful. (Maybe useful should be translated ‘will nail you down’?)

Subsequent to reading Tom Wright’s narratival approach I discovered the Anabaptist ‘Jesus hermeneutic’. Scriptures are not at the centre, but Jesus is, therefore the Gospel accounts of Jesus are not subject to the clever theology of the letters but rather the other way round. I am not a Marcionite (see last post: the god of the Old Testament is not the God of the New) but to give a hint of where I will be headed in future posts – not everything declared about God / what the text implies are an accurate reflection of who God is.

Jesus is the express image of the invisible God.

I am not Barthian (apologies to all the current wave of Trinitarian writers) but his description of the three-fold dimension of the ‘word’ of God is helpful. Our speech (or for Barth ‘preach’) that is based on Scripture that bears witness to the revealed word of God in Jesus. If we wish to use inspired, inerrant etc. with capitals we reserve that for Jesus – although even he had to ‘learn’.

So far then my overall approach to Scripture is both that of narrative and that it has to pass through the ‘Jesus lens’ to be authoritative! For example the patriarchal parts? No they don’t pass.

I have not resolved everything but have noticed recently that there are some YouTubes and articles on ‘how reading the Bible made me an atheist’. We could certainly add to that ‘How reading the Bible made me a religious bigot / hate anyone different / afraid of the world / want Palestinians to be wiped out…’

We do have (a) difficult book(s).

I write this glad that we have the NT. One of my readings this morning was:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.

Useful. Now it requires me to align, for ‘we are NOT justified by faith alone!’

I struggle with…

Posted on 13th May, 2026
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

A few posts about to come. And if I was the reflective type, I am sure an all-but infinite number if I were to follow through on the title, but not being too reflective (strength: I look forward; weakness: I learn next to nothing!) and I am narrowing these posts down to Scripture – so nothing close to an infinite number about to be written. For sure most of us would be more comfortable if certain parts of Scripture were simply erased. I will probably miss out huge parts I don’t get cos I will try to write as things come to mind and am not working from a list that I have kept over the years.

Scripture…one can almost get from it what one wants. The death penalty – there it is. Slavery – clearer than abolition. Male supremacy and ‘headship’. The list is endless. I often say to Gayle that of the three Abrahamic faiths I am so glad we have a ‘New Testament’. Imagine simply having what we term the Old Testament or the Quran. Take for example Paul who writes a hefty part of the NT prior to his ‘conversion’. His pinnacle of righteousness was that of persecuting the church, approving of deaths. And he has Scripture defending him, nay endorsing him – the Levites were just one of the ‘ordinary’ tribes until they rose up and slaughtered 3000 of those who deserved to die(!), once they had done that they were rewarded for their zealousness (an aside: contrast the 3000 who find salvation on the day of Pentecost, the feast when the giving of the law was celebrated, that being the context of the zealous slaughter carried out by the Levites).

Marcion of Sinope (85- 160) was always held up as a heretic because he went full-blooded with the god of the Old Testament is not the God of the New Testament. A radical solution… but if push comes to shove I would rather that approach than a case built on OT Scriptures that are used to justify violence (such as with the Crusades… and has that ‘crusade mentality’ ceased?).

I will have to have a go at how I (currently) handle those texts that I would rather be eliminated(!!), but will go a little slower over the next few posts till I get there.

Labels are a challenge. Gayle was with a very soft-hearted Sikh a couple of days ago who was part of a workshop. The person in private said ‘I can see you are spiritual, are you a Christian?’. Shorthand answer would be ‘yes’, but that kind of answer does not help because it depends on what the hearer has in mind. So we often answer obliquely with something along the lines of ‘I don’t use that term as it can mean so many different things…. but Jesus…’ And that ultimately is where it will become evident that I land. I do not understand loads of Scripture but if it is to point me to Jesus I have to centre there (the well thought through term that Norman Krauss used of ‘a Jesus hermeneutic’).

Anyway labels. In common with the evangelical world there are a minimum of two elements that are at the centre of my faith – an approach to Scripture which I claim is the authority by which I believe what I believe, and that the cross of Jesus is the pivotal point of all history through which people are reconciled to God. Others might wish to add much more than that at the centre. I was glancing at a YouTube video of someone I met years ago declaring how anyone who embraces ‘open theology’ is heretical; I might wish to suggest that anyone embracing Reformed Theology is incorrect in their approach! The person on YouTube had a few more than two points at the core… and I think he would not be happy if I were to suggest that I fit within certain ‘orthodox’ theological houses!

Ah well I am so glad I can go to sleep every night knowing that I am correct at every key point of interpretation!

Alternative society?

Posted on 12th May, 202612th May, 2026
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I wrote a few days ago about ‘no kings’ and ‘no temples’ and thought I would give a bit of a follow up on that post. First my background. I was shaped from around 20 years old (50 years ago!!) by what was termed the ‘House Church Movement’ in the UK; its roots go back to very early explorations (1950’s) of ‘church’ and its NT form. Many of the early participants were from a Plymouth Brethren background so already came in with an anti-clerical perspective; they also came with a background in ‘Dispensationalism’! The thrust of those very early conferences was that of ‘the restoration of the church’ and inevitably there was a clash between that hope and belief and the pessimistic outlook of the eschatology (I had a copy of some early notes and in the margin someone had written ‘what about Laodicea?’, indicating the clash. In such movements (and I observed this in my years of travelling to the USA teaching on eschatology goes on the back-burner for a while… until the conviction is strong enough on ‘the restoration of the church’.)

Texts such as Acts 3: 20,21 were fairly central:

Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration [restoration of all things] that God announced long ago through his holy prophets.

That was to be understood as the return of Christ would not take place until (‘until’ being a key word) there was the restoration of the church (something that had begun in earnest with the Reformation – apologies to all prophetic voices such as the gentleman in Rome). Add to that Ephesians 4 with the foundation being the apostles and prophets so that the body might grow up (mature) until it was presented to the Lord without ‘spot or wrinkle’.

Dating the house church movement is not an exact science, but there was distinct growth from the late 1960s and the magazines of the two distinct streams (though there were other less defined streams) Fulness and Restoration had a major influence in the UK and beyond. (Even yesterday I was on a zoom with a representative of a significant stream in Brazil that drew from those magazines from those early days.)

Gradual restoration? Maybe I am still influenced by that perspective, but more below. (In 1997 I completed a thesis on the Eschatology of the New Church movement with some interesting (and fair) examiners. Partly to push back on them I had a section in there that suggested that the idea of ‘restoration’ was not novel to some ‘apostles and prophets’ but that theologians were so convinced they had made advance that they now knew more about what Paul meant than he did! True/false? Simply the fruit of good scholarship / the fruit of the Enlightenment?)

Before coming to ‘and the truth that I believe today’ section (whole truth and nothing but the truth of course) I am coming back to the former post. God works everywhere – as evidenced by the king being anointed and the Temple filled with God’s presence… those manifestations being rooted in a rejection of God! Yet God is always ‘looking’ for something and where does s/he look for it? Among those who have taken on the name of Jesus. I see a very big principle in the words of Jesus when he said, ‘you have heard it said… but I say to you…’ If we want to see a shift in ‘murder’ there has to a shift at a ‘seed’ level etc. The Christian faith is not here to give us a ticket to heaven (a Hellenistic reading into the text) but to enable us to be seed within society. Seed and harvest with a time gap between the two, hence long-term vision is required. The phrase made popular in the Civil Rights movement that originated during the abolitionist period remains so apt for us:

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

God is always at work… and at work means working toward an eschaton. BUT… and here comes the but! But does not work independently, but with those who at some level are aligned to that work. I can see it no other way but the Pauline mission was not a big evangelistic tent crusade but a proclamation that ‘new creation’ had broken in and the right response was that of repentance toward God, faith in Jesus, receive the Holy Spirit and to carry the message of reconciliation (of all things) throughout their world. In it all was the transformation of the world.

Back in the day it was that of ‘get the church right and all will want to come join’. Let the body of Christ manifest an alternative society. Some part of that still seems right! But the centre is not the ‘church’ but the world with (as those of ancient times wrote) the body of Christ as the soul / life source to the world in the same way the ‘soul’ is to the body.

I am not a millennialist – it is understandable that some (only some) within that original Restorationist perspective of the House Church Movement were post-millennial (Jesus in heaven until) – I am not post-, pre- (not even in its historic, pre-rapture form), nor a-millennialist. Maybe I am apocalyptically-milennially? Beasts with heads, allowed to run riot for 42 months etc… Put away the calendar and the time lines, and I suggest we do the same with the millennium. Let Revelation and the throne room of heaven stand as the true and every other throne with 24 elders around it be seen as counterfeit. Why do I mention ‘millennial’ at this point? Because it is often shaped by, and shapes, our expectations. Dispensationalism with God will get us out of here is shaped by a view of an antagonistic world, and further shapes and fuels all kinds of conspiracy theories; triumphalism looks within the four walls and a full stadium and proclaims the kingdom has arrived.

The pessimist looks at the glass and it is half empty; the optimist and proclaims it is half full; I suggest the one touched by heaven says what can I contribute to raise the level in the glass? There might be a leak, but even if there is here I am to contribute. Judging the level of the glass contents is not to make a contribution!

I am so ignorant on so many topics and totally agnostic (and I do claim to have read the relevant Scriptures many times) on such issues as an antiChrist, a millennium, a great persecution and the like. Start with a system and one can work it all out (or start with a Bible with notes… read the text, don’t understand it, read the notes now I understand it – or the notes have become my Bible. The ‘brilliance’ of the Scoffield Bible). But ditch the system then just be free to make a small contribution that might make this world a tiny more like heaven (as the ‘citizens’ in Philippi were encouraged to do).

And on the corporate level the kings and temples (temple-mentality) really needs to be shelved.

I get briefly discouraged when there are ‘church’ exposures but then think ‘well that has to go if something more authentic is to come’… and then I think if there is something more authentic then there is hope that the long arc of history is bending in a good and righteous direction.

I have no idea what is to occur before the return of Christ and honestly do not believe that the Bible comes up with predictions, but it sure does come up with instruction in the meantime. In a heavily apocalyptic set of verses discussing the delay of the Lord’s coming Peter provokes us as to:

what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness.

No kings… and no temple

Posted on 9th May, 20269th May, 2026
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

‘I have a dream’ said the man in August 1963; ‘I saw a new heaven and a new earth… I saw no temple in the city’ so said the Seer some 65 years after his Master had died (well not 100% sure of the date). We await the fulfilment of the dream and of the sight that was declared. When will they be fulfilled? Not a clue, and I don’t need a clue, for both are to provoke us in the present. I am reading in 1 Samuel at the moment and of course in there is the painful dialogue of ‘give us a king’. Samuel gets upset but God points out the rejection is not of Samuel but of God. They were never supposed to have a king… and how they loved to recount in later generations how amazing David was as king and that one day a king from that royal line will come and rule over them.

Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them (1 Sam. 8:7).

Yet God anoints the king… God’s blessing does not indicate God’s ‘approval’ of our choices.

Later the people realise they have gone in a wrong direction (1 Sam. 10) but Samuel responds with a perspective that further indicates God will work with whatever we present:

See, here is the king whom you have chosen, for whom you have asked; see, the Lord has set a king over you. If you will fear the Lord and serve him and heed his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God, it will be well (1 Sam. 12:13, 14)

The temple – centralised, controlled worship – once a path is entered on there is a direction that is hard to reverse. Did God want a temple?

You shall not build me a house to live in. For I have not lived in a house since the day I brought out Israel to this very day, but I have lived in a tent and a tabernacle. Wherever I have moved about among all Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people, saying, ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’ (1 Chron. 17:4-6).

The tabernacle – a tent, not so impressive as the grandiose temples of the surrounding nations. We so want people to be impressed by God we know we are the ones born to help God out. When Jesus appeared and ‘moved into the neighbourhood’ John uses the verb ‘tabernacled’ among us. Moving here and there, never giving undeniable proof, but to those of humble heart his glory (truth within the grace container) was there to be seen.

And then John who had many times made the journey to Jerusalem, that temple that had a city around it (20% of the land was temple and temple buildings). It was way beyond being a city with a temple (like Canterbury – a city with a cathedral) – it was a temple-city; the astounding vision he has is the city had no temple when describing the new Jerusalem. The contrast is enormous.

A tent!

Put it up, put it down. Move it from here to there. Mobility.

Never get discouraged when something comes that is the most amazing manifestation of God’s presence… and then it goes. Mobility. There will always be a ‘God is here’ shout. Meanwhile it is necessary to continue to hold a dream. ‘I saw no impressive people who were ‘head and shoulders’ above the rest of us; but I saw unimpressive people and God was moving here and there among them and through them’.

I am NOT post-millennialist (mainly because I am not millennialist) and have no idea of what will be. But I continue with a dream. And while on such subjects as the ‘end-times’ the way we are headed there will be an antiChrist (or many more to join the ones already here… but not because the Bible says so (I don’t think it makes such a prediction!)… there will be because that is the outcome of where we are pushing. God’s people hold the key and the more we continue to believe in ‘we need a king’ and promote platforms the more we are sowing into the realisation of an anitChrist. Look at the trajectory from 1 Sam. 8 to the crucifixion – the inevitable outcome is ‘we have no king other than Caesar’!!!

I would rather be off the wall with my (lack of) end-time beliefs and hold on to a dream of ‘one day no king and no temple’ than have a set of beliefs that stop the dream.

Many others have carried a dream – but again I give thanks for MLK and that Seer on Patmos.

A summary of ‘all Israel’

Posted on 6th May, 2026
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

From time to time I write an ‘extended article’ where it is to explore a theological topic. As part of the ever-so-slow to write on various aspects of eschatology but also as feeding into issues surrounding soteriology (salvation – what does that entail) this latest piece on Israel seemed to be what came next. The full article can be read /downloaded:

All Israel will be saved

It is a bit of a read so now that it is completed here is a summary of the key points.

‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’ are not used synonymously

Consistently from the Exile (597BC) and even from the Assyrian conquest (722BC) the term ‘Israel’ and the term ‘Jew’ were not used synonymously. Jew being the term for the people of the southern kingdom (of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin); Israel never returning to the land (northern 10 tribes) – though Samaritans claimed to be Israelites. This Samaritan claim was debated but never was it debated that they were Jews. Consistently in what is termed Second Temple Judaism the term ‘Israel’ was only applied to the whole nation (or the ‘lost’ tribes), to the people when referring to them in history past, or when expressing a hope in the future of their restoration (hence the question to Jesus by the disciples).

All Israel will be saved is not referring to the Jews of Paul’s day, but is expressing the hope that has been carried for centuries, such as is expressed in the New Covenant promise of Jer. 31 – a covenant made with both houses (north and south) thus with ‘Israel’.

Paul does not use a temporal phrase such as ‘and then’

The phrase he uses is ‘and in this way’ all Israel will be saved. This is the normal way the phrase is used and the consistent way he uses the phrase in his writings. He could / would have used a totally different phrase should he have wished to convey something that will suddenly occur at the eschaton.

He has been arguing from the opening Romans 9 concerning how God has been and continues to be faithful to his/her promises. He is not outlining a timetable nor even seeking to explain why so many Jews had not welcomed their Messiah.

God is faithful and Paul argues that there is a process going on that will lead to all Israel being saved. That process is already taking place – and the process involves the Gospel going to the nations (the Gentiles – ta ethne).
Israel (as in the northern tribes) are among the nations (Josephus goes to great lengths to explain this) so for them to come in the Gospel has to go to them, even though the majority of them have been ‘Gentilised’, such is the faithfulness of God.

Those Gentiles who respond to Jesus are incorporated into Israel

Converted Gentiles do not become Jews but the terms used of Israel are applied to them. Israel’s ancestors are their ancestors; Paul describes converts as ‘when you were Gentiles’ and as ‘chiidren of Abraham’.

Thus a second strand of ‘all Israel’ is that of Gentiles being incorporated in – or as described in Rom. 11 – grated into the (one) Olive tree.

‘All Israel’ never meant ‘all Jews’ and it also never meant all physical descendants of Abraham, for not all ‘children / offspring of Abraham’ were the ‘seed of Abraham’. Faith meant that those who were of Abraham was (both) smaller than those who were physically descended from Abraham and also that it was bigger than those who were physically descended from Abraham.

Salvation then is a process that is ongoing as the good news of Jesus comes to the whole world, and in this way the promises will be fulfilled by the faithful God.

Of course there is much more in what I have written in the article and I acknowledge the recent research and writings of Jason Staples (such as ‘Paul and the Resurrection of Israel’).

A return to the land was always predicated on repentance; nowhere in the New Testament is there indicated that there are two paths to salvation (an using that word we should not reduce it to the binary understanding of ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’).

I do suggest in the article that there is a particular focus on the land we call Israel as a place where reconciliation of differences should be manifested; I do not look to the land as somehow carrying a ‘promise’ in the way that Christian Zionism does – I think Paul gives that hope to the world (kosmos).

SHARE ON:

SHARE ON:

SHARE ON:

SHARE ON:

SHARE ON:

SHARE ON: