Year: 2026

Israel or Jew

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

This is the third post of what I am working on with regard to the phrase in Paul ‘and all Israel will be saved’. This post begins to show the distinction between the terms ‘Israel’ and ‘Jew’. They are not synonymous.

Israel or Jew

A common response and understanding of the terms ‘Israel’ and ‘Jew’ is to see them as simply synonymous, such as we read in the following quote,

Generally speaking, the terms Hebrews, Jews, and Israelites all refer to the same people – the nation which sprang from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, a nation promised and chosen by God in the Old Testament (https://www.timberlandchurch.org/articles/is-there-a-difference-between-hebrews-jews-and-israelites#:~:text=Generally%20speaking%2C%20the%20terms%20Hebrews%2C,the%20Old%20Testament%20(Genesis%2012%3A1%2D3).

The work of Jason Staples has shown that the two terms are not simply two descriptions for the one entity and that Paul follows the distinction that writers such as Josephus and Philo make.

Josephus (37-100AD) who wrote the Jewish Antiquites (a history of Israel) referred to Israel/Israelites 188 times in the first 11 volumes but does not use those words outside of those 11 volumes; he uses the term ‘Jew’ only 26 times in the first 10 volumes, but in the remaining 9 volumes he only refers to the term ‘Jew’ (1162 times), never using the term ‘Israel’. If the terms were interchangeable we would expect a much more even spread. Something happened in the history to highlight ‘Israel’ in the earlier period but ‘Jew’ in accounts relating to the later history. It was only ‘Jews’ who returned from the exile in Babylon – Jews being from the southern kingdom of Judah.

When these Jews (Ioudaioi) learned of the king’s piety towards God, and his kindness towards Ezra, they loved [him] most dearly, and many took up their possessions and went to Babylon, desiring to go down to Jerusalem. But all the people of Israel remained in that land. So it came about that only two tribes [Benjamin, a smaller tribe is included, also some from Levi who were distributed in both the northern and southern kingdoms] came to Asia and Europe and are subject to the Romans, but the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates until now and are a countless multitude whose number is impossible to know (Ant. 11:132-133).

Jospehus writing in the Roman era describes the other 10 tribes as being beyond Roman territory. His change of usage indicates that ‘Israel’ (the 10 northern tribes that were taken away in the Assyrian conquest) did not return and he could not use the term ‘Israel’ of returning Jews. Israel was either used to refer to the whole people or the northern tribes; the Iuodaioi (Jews) were the southern kingdom that did return after the Babylonian exile.

The later volumes of Josephus cover the history after the northern kingdom went into their exile (never to return), hence those that remain are referred to as ‘Jews’. Once the Southern kingdom later returns from Babylon the people are only referred to as ‘Jews’ by Josephus; Jews then are a subset of Israel and all Jews together do not constitute Israel – this will become important when we come to Paul’s statement of ‘all Israel will be saved’.

A few paragraphs later Josephus writes,

From the time they went up from Babylon they were called by this name [Ioudaios] after the tribe of Judah. Since the tribe was the prominent one to come from those parts, both the people themselves and the country have taken their name from it (Ant. 11:173).

Jews are those from the tribe of Judah – the southern kingdom. It was the tribe of Judah and Benjamin that went into Babylonian captivity and who returned.

Within the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament) and the books that are post-Babylonian exile the term ‘Jew’ only refers to those who were from the tribe of Judah (and Benjamin and some from Levi who were distributed across the northern and southern kingdoms). Philo of Alexandria (20-50AD) likewise uses the term Israel(ite) eighty times in his Greek works, but he never uses it synonymously with Jew, nor does he ever refer to the contemporary people as Israel or Israelites. Like Josephus, he uses Ioudaios to refer to contemporary Jews.

The shift that takes place is the demise of the northern kingdom who are taken into exile by Assyria and eventually are scattered among the nations. That northern kingdom carried the name ‘Israel’ whereas the southern kingdom was termed Judah – the tribes splitting after Solomon dies. Israel could be used as a term describing the whole people (descendents of Jacob/Israel) or of the northern kingdom by itself, but the southern kingdom was never referred to as Israel.

This distinction remains consistent in the Old Testament Scriptures. It is the ‘elders of the Jews’ (Ezra 6:14) who are those who rebuild the Temple and when the Temple is dedicated a sin offering is made for all Israel, twelve male goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel (Ezra 6:17). ‘Jews’ have returned from the Babylonian exile, but the remainder of Israel had not, hence the elders were the elders of the Jews. Yet a hope persisted for the restoration of the twelve tribes (Israel / all Israel) such as was articulated by Paul,

And now I stand here on trial on account of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors, a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship day and night. It is for this hope, Your Excellency, that I am accused by Jews (Acts 26:6,7).

The prophetic hope was for the twelve tribes, but Paul was accused by Jews! The hope was expressed in different passages but the ‘I will make a new covenant’ passage in Jeremiah is a good summary of the future hope of restoration (emphases added below) of Israel – the fullness of the 12 tribes:

At that time, says the Lord, I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people… The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of humans and the seed of animals. And just as I have watched over them to pluck up and break down, to overthrow, destroy, and bring evil, so I will watch over them to build and to plant, says the Lord… The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. 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 within them, and I will write it on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jer. 31:1, 27-28, 31-33).

[A sidenote – there was a partial return of the northern kingdom but it was ethnically mixed, being based in Samaria they were known as Samaritans. They are never known as Jews, but did refer to themselves as ‘Samarian Israelites’ or as ‘guardians of the Torah’, thus further making the identification of ‘Jew’ with those of the southern kingdom. They viewed themselves as Israelites (not as Jews) while the majority of Jews viewed them as illegitimate. The debate was not whether they were Jews – that point was agreed on by all: they were not Jews. The debate was whether they were legitimately part of Israel. Thus again we see that even the sum total of all Jews could not be termed ‘all Israel’.]

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Ethnic or faith

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Israel is both bigger than we might suppose ‘Israel’ to be and also smaller! The name Israel is used for the covenant people because of the patriarch ‘Jacob’ whose name was changed to ‘Israel’. [Israel has three applications: the land of Israel; the whole 12 tribes; and the northern ‘10 tribes’ sometimes also called ‘Ephraim’. Jews, as we will see, are part of Israel, but are not ‘Israel’. They are those who are of the tribe of Judah (and Benjamin is included, along with some of Levi who were originally distributed throughout the land).] They are the covenant people who come from the line of ‘Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’. The twelve tribes we might assume are descended from the 12 sons of Jacob / Israel but that is only approximately true. Joseph’s two sons (Ephraim and Manasseh) are described either as two tribes or as half-tribes with the two together making up the tribe of Joseph. The bigger point though is one of ethnicity. The sons of Joseph are born in Egypt to the daughter of the priest of On; Asenath, Joseph’s Egyptian wife, gave birth to two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. They are not only included but give identity as tribes so much so that in later history ‘Ephraim’ can be given as an umbrella name for the 10 northern kingdom tribes. Ethnicity is not in view! 

[There are various lists of the tribes; for example ‘Joseph’ is included in the blessing of Jacob over his sons prior to his death (Gen. 49: 3-27); in the census of the tribes (Num. 1:20-43) Ephraim and Manasseh are included (Joseph nor Levi are listed); and in Revelation 7:5-8 the list includes Manasseh, Levi and Joseph but drops Dan and Ephraim.]

At the time of the Exodus we read that not only those descended from Jacob’s immediate family exit the land but that an ‘alien’ who joined themselves to those of ‘Israel’ were to be considered as ‘natives of the land’ and as a result a ‘mixed multitude’ left Egypt (Exod. 12: 36-38). Those who enter the land are not all descended from Abraham. They are considered to be part of Israel though they are not ethnically descended from the patriarchs.

As they enter the land we read of Rahab and her household being added to the covenant people and later of Ruth (a Moabite) who becomes an ancestor of David. In the Rahab story Achan and his household (Israelites) are cut off from the people while she and her household are incorporated. Matthew in his Gospel that is very ‘Jewish’ lists both those women as part of the genealogy of Jesus.

Caleb (a great hero) was a Kennizite as was Othniel, the judge. The Kennizites were either a tribe in Canaan or descended from Kenaz, a grandson of Esau.At that level ‘Israel’ is not confined to those whose genealogies are ethnically off ‘Israel’, but includes a larger group whose allegiance is to the God of Israel,

[Y]our people shall be my people and your God my God (Ruth 1:16).

We can further add the challenges from the New Testament, such as John the Baptist’s statement that confronted the claim to ethnicity as the marker,

We have Abraham as our ancestor,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham (Matt. 3:8).

Or Paul’s pushback on ‘external’ factors as defining who is a ‘Jew’,

For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not the written code. Such a person receives praise not from humans (Rom. 2:28,29).

In those passages we have both a widening of those who are of Israel and also a narrowing. Either way faith seems to take precedence over ethnicity.

‘Israel’ being smaller than ‘Israel’ is summed up in Paul’s words,

It is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all those descended from Israel are Israelites, and not all of Abraham’s children are his descendants (Rom. 9:6,7).

This was not unique to Paul, for within Judaism (Judaisms?) this ‘narrowing’ view is what fuelled the diverse sects. The stricter the sect the more they saw themselves as truly Israel and others as not being faithful to the ways of God. The ‘sinners’ we read about in the Gospels were those considered not to be part of the covenant people, even though ethnically they might have been pure. 

‘Being cut off from this people’ meant in spite of ethnicity a failure to keep the covenant required those people to be excluded (Lev. 7:27, 18:29, 23:29); Peter uses the same understanding (now provocatively as he centres everything in on Jesus) with his entreaty to his audience to,

Save yourselves from this corrupt generation. (Acts 2:40)

Ethnicity is further challenged by Jesus in Matthew 21:43,

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces its fruits.

The complexity of Israel being both larger and smaller than ‘Israel’ means we cannot simply draw (for example) a straight line from the Israel of the Bible to the state of Israel today.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

And (all) Israel?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I am reading, not just some history, but material around the terms ‘Israel’ and ‘Jew’, hopefully ending up with around 10,000 words that I can put out as a pdf and then when I get back to Spain will look to host an open Zoom around the material. I thought in the process of writing as I get some material ready I will post it here and also hope that any comments will provoke me further. The final pdf might not follow the posts exactly…

All Israel will be saved (Ro. 11:26)

The verse is toward the end of Paul’s discourse that had begun in Ro. 9 and is a fitting conclusion to his statement in 9:6

It is not as though the word of God has failed.

In these chapters he is concerned to show his understanding of how God has been faithful to his promises to Israel, ending then with the fuller statement ‘And in this way all Israel will be saved’. He is focused primarily on how (‘this way’) not on a time-table (translating or reading καὶ οὕτως (kai houtōs) wrongly as ‘and then’).

In eschatology there is often a focus on the land of ‘Israel’ and events that can indicate what the time is on ‘God’s clock’. There are accusations of ‘replacement theology’ (church has replaced Israel) on the one side and of ‘Christian Zionism’ on the other, with the extreme being of two ways of ‘salvation’. This paper will suggest that we need to distinguish between two central descriptions, that of ‘Israel’ and of ‘Jews’. The central verse of Romans 11:26 (‘and all Israel will be saved’) has been taken as a statement about the future and understood to mean that in the ‘end-times’ or at the parousia there will be a wholesale turning to Jesus as Messiah. There are many difficulties with such a reading:

  • It does not use a temporal clause, such as ‘and then’ or ‘after this’.
  • It does not say ‘all Jews’ but ‘all Israel’.
  • With such a reading that proposes a future event, what about all those from Israel or all Jews who had lived prior to this future event – would this Scripture be limited to those alive at this future event? If it extends beyond this we would expect somehow that anyone ethnically of Abraham’s seed would have been ‘saved’ all along – something hard to align with the preaching in Acts (calling the audience to a response and at first the audience is only a Jewish one) or to the ‘conversion’ of Paul.

We will explore this Pauline statement, but for now I note that there is no temporal statement in this verse and to translate it as a ‘and then’ clause is simply in error. ‘In this way’ is the only valid way to translate καὶ οὕτως (kai houtōs) as it is not a temporal clause, but indicates an outcome or a result.

A second factor to consider is how the term ‘all Israel’ was used here by Paul. He has already stated that,

For not all those descended from Israel are Israelites, and not all of Abraham’s children are his descendants, but “it is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” (Rom. 9:6,7).

We thus enter an interesting scenario: not all those descended from Abraham are considered to be ‘Israel’, and as we will explore, ‘Israel’ is bigger than those who are called ‘Jews’! (Smaller and larger!)

One final Scripture to add in this introduction is that of Paul’s statement before Agrippa,

And now I stand here on trial on account of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors, a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship day and night (Acts 26:6,7).

I get ahead of myself, but simply wanted to flag up one key direction that I will be taking, and that is the difference between the term ‘Jew’ and the bigger definition of Israel, or as Paul uses here the ‘twelve tribes’.

There are a number of aspects we need to keep in focus as we progress.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Ten weeks and a bit more

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

It has been a little while since I have posted about our small adventure in Sicily. We are now into our 11th week here – probably about half way through. Today is the second day of a storm centred on the island; yesterday Gayle left for Malaysia with an overnight in Rome. Of course objectively Gayle is not at a Pauline level of shifting the powers but subjectively of course she is! Paul left Sicily to get to Rome and we held on to that with regard to her getting on that first stage of her journey and that she would not be storm-bound. She heads east – to the ‘far east’.

In previous posts (to the point of boredom?) I have shared my take on the ekklesiastical (yes my spelling) task. The gospel of the kingdom to the nations… or ‘the Pauline gospel to the ends of the earth’. Paul cheekingly claimed the gospel had gone throughout the entire world, knowing full-well it was impacting the entire world of the Roman empire, but the far east? I think the world-view those early Christians had was of ‘once this is completed everything follows’. Once Jerusalem was ‘split’ (Zech. 4) everything else could follow… once Rome had been ‘split’ (the apostolic task, embodied particularly in Paul) the rest can follow… and here we are at a wonderful time in history. (By split I intend to mean separated from the previous dependency and set apart to the revelation that is from heaven.) Western empires (drawing on Rome) are crumbling, the east is rising and it is time for the gospel to go eastward. And absolutely the gospel has been there in great abundance already, and at numerous levels a purer gospel, and yet…

Christendom has to go. Sicily sits in the old maps as the world under the domination of Christendom, so I do consider that if something can shift here there is a knock on effect. And for all of us anxious about the future we are told to cast our anxiety on ‘him’. For all of us who trust in the world economic system to save us we will need to shift our trust asap. For there is no ultimate shift without there being an economic jolt within cities / empires in Scripture.

Gone a bit off-track.

While Gayle has gone I have some walking to do, some sight to ask for; and predominantly have to seek to keep the western gate shut to Christendom’s appeal. Then between Gayle and I we have to allow the territory to expand, for her to sow seed where she goes that is not the seed of western imperialism. Simple task, Gayle!

Here I have time to reflect. We have considered that our time in Sicily will be marked by three phases. An angel came in a dream with a book (four corners to a book) supported at three of its ‘corners’. We discover the island is a triangle marked in history with three capes. Now we are coming to the end of the first phase – much deeper than I can grasp but essentially the issue of colonialism in the history, right through to the unification of Italy through Garibaldi (who physically began his conquest from one of three capes – the north west in Marsala). In a dream ‘he’ came saying ‘what I have done cannot be undone’. I take that two ways – a challenge and also we don’t have to ‘undo’ what has been done but to cleanse what was done. He conquered Sicily and a follow on was / has been the impoverishment of the island. From being wealthier than the northern states it became poverty-racked within a few short years following unification.

Garibaldi conquered Sicily for the king of Sardinia (Vittorio Emanuele) who once Sicily was added became the first king of Sicily. Garibaldi did this in spite of being a republican. Here in Avola (and this is repeated in other Sicilian cities – not sure about Italy) the street honouring the then king and the street named after Garibaldi cross – here it is very marked as they cross right in the mid-point of the hexagon that marks the centre of the city.

[The screenshot from blessed google shows the hexagon. The word ‘Avola’ is on the centre and holds the main square… the road from left to right passing through that square is Corso Vittorio Emanuele and the road from top to bottom crossing that square is Corso Garibaldi. This kind of imagery on land / within locations is not uncommon and helps us to have open eyes to see how history affects geography, and how history within geography shapes spiritual powers.]

I stay here in Avola while Gayle is gone and also a few days with her when she returns. Then (hopefully more than a ‘fantasy’) we will move into the second phase. It will include a re-visit to the south easterly point, a re-visit to Agrigento – a place that seems to be a pivotal point between past and future, and a revisit to Sracusa – where Paul spent three days and the Greek tyrant Dionysius ruled from, a major despot in history. That initial second phase I am sure will surprise us as to what unfolds… then toward the end of that time we will base ourselves close to Mount Etna. It would be sweet if it breathes fire as we anticipate that – but not too close!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Jew to Gentile to Gentile to Israel

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

OK still working on all of this (Rom. 9-11) and why Paul uses the term ‘Jew’ in most of his writings but then seldom uses ‘Jew’ (but uses Israel) in those chapters in Romans… leaning heavily on Jason Staples’ writings and hopefully will get a pdf out before we leave Sicily. In popular understanding ‘Jew ‘ and ‘Israel’ are synonymous and used simply for variation… however it does seem to stack up in ‘second temple’ writings nor in the NT. (This is my little break in the days from concentrating on the land here…) A lot to cover yet but before I get too deep into it all two Scriptures are with me ‘Are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel‘ (not to us Jews) and then one of my ‘central’ verses from the Pauline writings,

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (Gal 3: 12,14).

I think Paul does not go to penal substitution at any point in his writings and also we have to work with a Jew / Gentile progression (so common in Romans ‘to the Jew first then the Greeks). In these verses in Gal. 3 he presents the cross as the answer to a Jewish problem (and I use ‘Jew’ here not ‘Israel’ as his language in the previous chapter has been Jew / Gentile and then he follows in this chapter with ‘neither Jew nor Greek’. This is not to suggest that the cross is not universal in scope – it certainly is and has also to be coupled to the resurrection. Greek / Gentile I do think are more or less synonymous – the Graeco-Roman empire. Outside of the Roman world are the Barbarians, Scythians and the like!).

The curse is the curse of the law so Paul is tightly focused on the Jewish problem – he became a curse for us (usually in his tight arguments ‘us’ is us ‘Jews’. The redeeming nation is under a curse. Far from being blessed as Abraham’s seed and hence a blessing to the nations, thus they are unable to fulfil being who they were called to be for the ‘world’ / nations. Hence no hope for the world until deliverance is brought to the ‘chosen’ nation. Jesus is Israel’s Messiah. Hence it follows if ‘in Messiah’ they are the descendants of Abraham. ‘All’ who are in Messiah! Jews are not alone at being descendants of Abraham – we have to think ‘Israel’ (12 tribes, not 1), hence the change of language in Rom. 9-11.

‘Redeemed us’ so that Abraham’s blessings might not be locked up but flow to the gentiles (language ‘us’ and ‘gentiles / nations’). And then comes something that I have missed in the past as it seems to be even more tightly put… so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit (through faith). The ‘we’ language is used again. I understood that to be an inclusive ‘we’ (= ‘all’) but am being pushed to understand that Paul has in mind the promised Holy Spirit who will write the torah on the heart (OT hope particularly in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, with new covenant language applied to both the house of Israel and the house of Judah). This is for all the ‘us’ – wider than Jews but defined by who are descendants of Israel. indeed to ‘us’ (those of the house of Israel). I think this is what is expanded in Rom. 9-11.

Galatians ch. 4 (written to Gentiles, or if not exclusively to them, for them) is where Paul pulls together who are the children / descendants of Abraham. Beginning with the last verse of ch. 3: And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise. He then continues in ch. 4,

And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Gal. 4:6).
Now you, my brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, like Isaac (Gal.4:28).

Remove the curse, the blessings can flow beyond any former boundary, for within that flow the promise to Israel can be fulfilled. There is a sequence: death in Jerusalem to unlock / break the curse open resulting in (Abrahamic) blessings to the nations and within that flow Israel also receives all that was promised – not because of ethnicity, but through faith. Far from there being some ‘end-time’ timetable, the cross is the end and the beginning, and thus (to jump to where I will eventually get to when I write) in that way all Israel will be saved. A process has been under way since that first Easter as the invitation has gone out to respond in faith to Messiah. For there is no other name under heaven by which salvation comes. No patriarch, no other god – covering both ‘to the Jew first, also to the Greek’.

I appreciate this has been a little tight with a lot of ‘what on earth do you mean by / what about this Scripture etc’… I am in process but wanted to get some of this perspective in this form ere too long.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Ethics

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Well that is a title! An ethics course all sorted in one short post – thus proving that miracles are for today. Cessationism has ceased as of now (had to look up how to spell that word… I always have difficulty with such words… also Calvinism or Reformed – just don’t know why).

How we should behave. That is important as our faith runs much deeper than what we believe and although the books like to separate justification from sanctification that is bit like dissecting the frog to see how it functions, but afterwards the frog just does not work.

The ethics of the NT are relational, eschatological, and redemptive. Or so I think.

Relational:

[S]o we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another (Rom. 12:5).
[Gifts] for the common good (1 Cor. 12).
So then, putting away falsehood, let each of you speak the truth with your neighbor, for we are members of one another (Ephes. 4:25).

Strong words indeed. And the wording goes beyond ‘you are members of a body’ but ‘of one another’. This is not being added to an organisation and even goes beyond being added to a living fellowship where we have something in common. We are – whether we like it or not – intrinsically part of each other, and Paul suggests that we are Christ (clumsy language by the aforementioned apostle?). Well he is not at any level of confusion, no more than the one who spoke from heaven saying that Paul was persecuting him (he does not say why are you persecuting my followers). There is Jesus the resurrected Messiah but those who have responded are so ‘in Messiah’ that they are intrinsically connected to each other. This depth of relational bond is deep and seems to shape Paul’s ‘household code’ instructions. He does not resort to hierarchy (submit to the one above) but to mutual submission to one another ‘in the fear of Christ’ – a voluntary and reciprocal relationship to one another.

The ethics are eschatological: not based simply on a future event when we will be assessed but acknowledging that ‘new creation’ is here. It affects our sight of everyone, all former (‘fallen’ creation) categories are irrelevant and gone (2 Cor. 5:16). And the ‘new creation’ is one of openness, thus it is not a case of ‘not lying’ but of not leaving a falsehood (Eph. 4:25, as far as is possible, we cannot take responsibility for what a person hears but we can go a long way so as they receive a true picture).

The ethics of the kingdom do not bring things back to ‘neutral’ but go from the negative to the positive,

Those who steal must give up stealing; rather, let them labor, doing good work with their own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy (Ephes. 4:25).

To steal is to take what is not ours (the negative) and the response is to stop stealing (the neutral position) so as to give (giving what is theirs… thus a complete shift beyond the ‘stopping’ of an action.

Redemptive. There are times that ‘the lesser of two evils’ is used thus acknowledging that we live in a challenging world. I understand what that phrase means but I think we should reshape it to be ‘make the most redemptive choice possible’. I think God does this continually. When eggs are scrambled it is not possible to put them back in their shells and life can be like that. Messed up and no way to go ‘back’ to the pre-mess state. God is the God of the future… so where to from here. Redemptive choices are of that order. We find ourselves here, what can be done to move to a better place, acknowledging it is not going to be perfect place.

So there you have it my very inadequate ethics class!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A veritable company of saints

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I saw a video clip yesterday of an apologist being asked about Matt. 27:51-53. ‘Do you believe that is literal?’ was the question.

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.

He replied ‘maybe apocalyptic language, maybe literal – I don’t know’. He was then a bit on the back foot and was critiqued for having made an exhaustive enquiry and defence for the literal resurrection of Jesus, but claimed not to know what Matthew intended with these verses and the ‘resurrection’ of these saints. No problem with being agnostic over biblical texts – there are so many that I have not got a clue about!

The problem with the apocalyptic language answer is the context is not apocalyptic but the culmination of prophetic Scripture, with the list of ‘and… and…and’. If apocalyptic then maybe the crucifixion (not to mention the later resurrection) might also not be literal but simply a way of describing the impact of the life Jesus of Nazareth. So Matthew gives us a description of what literally took place – even though strange.

Back tracking for a moment. Between life as we experience it ending (living in the land of the dying) and the parousia the Scriptures can be read in different ways as to the ‘existence’ of those who have passed away. The consistent hope in Scripture is not that of ‘going to heaven when I die’ (very Platonic) but that at the ultimate great reversal those who have been judged righteous will be resurrected. Scripture does not answer our questions as it comes with a different world view. Belief in the resurrection of the dead becomes the prominent Jewish belief (not so for the Sadduccees) as it is the answer to the question about God’s faithfulness. If the renewal of all things is ‘here’ then those alive at that time would be rewarded… but a question remained: what about those not ‘here’ for they have died before that time? Answer – God will raise them up, and then the NT makes clear that those of us who are alive will not enter that time simply as we are but our bodies will be transformed. Resurrection and transformation then were the belief that answered the ‘problem’ of those who have died.

[It is hard to make out what is believed about the ‘interim state’ – Scriptures such as Paul’s ‘I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better’ could simply be that or pulling on a Jewish tradition of the reward for the martyrs (comes through also in Revelation 20 and the resurrection of the martyrs). Bottom line is that those who die in Christ are in Christ and I strongly lean to a non-resurrected, but conscious existence with Christ’].

One aspect that is often overlooked in the strange (and unique) passage in Matthew is that of verse 53: ‘after his resurrection’. They are not resurrected prior to Jesus – their tombs are opened at the hour of crucifixion (presumably the effect of the earthquake) – but the resurrection is after Jesus comes forth. Not metaphorical, nor apocalyptic for we then have the same historical language used of Jesus – they appeared to many.

Resurrection ‘ahead’ of the time-line! The resurrection of Jesus is intensely physical; it is not only far beyond ‘he is alive’ to ‘you cannot find his body’… but the effects of the resurrection are physical to such a level that this creation will be renewed and it has left an impress on time so that there can be inbreakings of ‘end-time / eschatological’ events out of expected time sequence. This aligns post resurrection-time (the time we live in) with incarnational time – now there is a thought!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

An update

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

Been a while since I wrote about what we are up to in Sicily. I have page of notes that come close to boring me so not about to blah on for ever. I did write a newsletter today – if you don’t receive it then here is a link:
https://mailchi.mp/543da0e94eaf/january-2026-update
It will hopefully give a feel to date. We continue in Avola for this month.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

The rhyme we call history

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

History keeps repeating and we don’t learn or as Mark Twain said

History Doesn’t Repeat Itself, but It Often Rhymes.

We start another year – what does it hold? For us personally or big question ‘what does it hold globally?’ The book The Fourth Turning might have a focus on the USA and so its analysis of the rhyming of history might be looking at too short a period of time to rely on totally but it would indicate that we are overdue / coming to a time in the very near future when war will break out. Can we break the rhyme?

Occasionally Gayle has a dream where she meets a world leader and dialogues with them. This morning I was typing and she woke up with ‘I have just been with…’ In the dream she was advocating for another way and asked the leader ‘so when will war end’… ‘After this one there will be peace’. The leader was intent on being seen as a peacemaker but insisted that love is never the way and ‘this war’ will be necessary to bring peace.

OUCH!!!!

Jesus came at the fullness of time – not necessarily the most evil of times but at a time when the Greek / Gentile world has no hope and the nation that was called to be the redemptive nation was under its own curse. No hope for the world. And the Roman Empire was the archetype of, and for, all empires. As I have written before the Pax Romana was based on war. Building its temple to peace (Pax) on the field dedicated to the god of war (Mars). Peace for all who comply and have been conquered. And peace motivated to bring the resources of those territories conquered back to the centre (thank God we have the book of Revelation!!).

But can we see something different and the rhyme be broken?

We were in Augusta a military city in Sicily with a street that many cities have within them – a street called Via Garibaldi, but unlike the others we have seen it had a strap line: Eroe del Risorgimento: the hero! Does war bring peace? I appreciate that we live in a fallen world and there are horrendous choices that leaders have to make… maybe(???) war is a choice at times, but we have to measure everything against is it the most redemptive choice that can be made (my governing principle with regard to ethical choices).

Is there a hope? I am a big European advocate and am very grateful for the extensive time that John & Yvonne Pressdee spent praying over the numerous WWI & WWII battle field sites before the end of the previous century. Prayer and forgiveness can affect the rhyme.

Europe, a continent that many despair over. A continent that needs so much to turn within it… but maybe it can change the rhyme. Otherwise the new rising power will look to take its ‘rebellious island’ and the diminishing power that has inherited the Western imperial spirit (from Rome) will seek to take what it needs to take… but simply so as the resources will flow in the direction to the centre.

So I say ‘come on Europe… and little Sicily be a catalyst – you are in the centre of ‘middle earth’.

I wrote in a WhatsApp group a few days ago:

One aspect that we carry with us is a) we could be misled totally even coming to Sicily and b) our interpretation as we bumble along could be so far off… but hey ho!!!

So let’s push on with all the ‘hey ho’s’ that we can!!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives