We have found that Oliva is a refreshing, re-orienting place for many. These days we don’t have so many guests – there was a time when for a few years we had people with us between 100-130 days / nights of the year. A season that was. It was interesting finding this place for as I indicated in the previous post we were living in Cadiz when Gayle had that dream of ‘C/ Azahar’. We took ourselves off to Valencia just after Christmas of 2013 and started to drive from 100kms north of Valencia. 2 days in that direction but nothing resonated; 2 days south 100kms of Valencia and finally came to Oliva. We were ready to go home as we had found nothing that resonated. Anything ‘prophetic’ has to ultimately be witnessed to internally. And nothing witnessed. We stopped for a final cup of coffee before planning that our journey was fruitless when we suddenly realised that this was the place as we stepped out of the car at a cafe.
5:55 so read the clock the next morning as I woke. It might have been 7:05 and hopefully not 6:16(there is an alternative MS reading of 616 to the 666 reading!!)… can be coincidence but I was convinced it was not simply a time on the clock. I began to pray… ‘5’ generally the number representing grace, 3 times over. Then this came to me – we will make an offer on 3 properties and it will be a grace package with each one costing more than the one before. ‘Grace package’ is often taken to mean ‘cost less’, but I realised that grace is the emptier we are (our pockets) the more they can be filled. Long story but that is exactly what happened with the final offer being refused with a ‘don’t even talk to me’ coming back from the owner. A phone call out of the blue some weeks later – there is an angel you need to connect with to release you from Cadiz and open the door for you to go. Next morning off we went… and within 30 minutes of the connection the phone rang, and it was the agent in Oliva – ‘I don’t know what has happened but the owner who said not even to talk to him has just called me to say that I am to tell you that you can have the apartment at the price you offered’.
Where did we move – to Calle Isla de Sicilia – Sicily Island street. We have never dug deep into the significance but have wondered why ‘Sicily’ street. From a street to an island – this is the plan.
Last night while seeking to get some keys to the island I read: Sicily’s geographical position makes it a central point in the Mediterranean, connecting it to the Arabic world, North Africa, and Europe.
At times I probably read too much into what others might term coincidences, but the above quote seems alive. Geography has always been important for us – with over 1200 references to land in Scripture maybe this is not surprising. I kinda think there is treasure hidden in the land there that might just make a contribution to the coming age.
October 6th… plan November 1,2,3 (?) having loaded up the van drive north into France, take a slight detour, then south, south, south to further south than the north of Africa, cross some water and enter the land of Sicily. Our plans are moving and we think we will probably be there for around 6 months.
Although most of the readers of this blog will be aware of our plans I thought I will simply try and give over a few posts some background and any insight that come this way as we plan.
The wonderful aspect about life is it is very personal and from a faith perspective there are as many paths as there individuals as far as following Christ. So these posts are simply personal perspectives.
Where to start? We are in Oliva, an hour south of Valencia and came here as a result of two dreams Gayle had. At the time we were living in Cadiz, south-west Spain and had no sight on this area at all. In one dream Gayle was showing someone where we lived saying, we no longer live in San Isidro (our address in Cadiz) and then she opened her computer and typed in ‘Azahar’ – not knowing that it was a Spanish word (orange blossom). In the morning she typed out what she remembered and lo and behold it was a genuine Spanish word.
Here are two images from google maps – we live right in between these two signs – one is 800 metres in one direction and the second 800 metres in the other direction.
Second from bottom: ‘Azahar’ – pointing in the direction of our apartmentBottom on sign: ‘Azahar’ – pointing back toward out apartment
So to Oliva we came in March, 2014. Being somewhat nomadic it is quite a surprise we are still based here in 2025. 2017 we also managed to obtain an apartment in Madrid, having prayed for some time that ‘you have given us the lower springs, now also give us the upper springs’. We much later discovered that here at sea level (‘lower’) that the water table is high as a result of underground springs flowing from the centre of Spain to the sea; Madrid seems to be from old Arabic meaning ‘place of many springs’ and is the highest capital city in Europe. I don’t write the above to point anywhere other than God is remarkable and that is the way we have been led / others will have a different story.
We have had many wonderful days in Madrid – what a city. There we have joined protests on the street, but particularly focused on praying for the government and for the judiciary. When looking for an apartment there we were always short of finance and into that mix a German prophet (Michael Schiffmann) said to us that ‘the place you are looking for is bigger than you think’. Well, if short by x amount we thought we will look for something bigger. If we are short we are short! Nothing connected.
We then spent sometime praying over the area we felt where we should land (we had been visiting Madrid for some 9 years by this stage) and one day we were there with Roger and Sue Mitchell. Roger announced that we are just about to come to a marker, a sanctuary (might be good or bad). We rounded a corner and there was San Lorenzo church – we walked in and the first thing on the wall was his date of matyrdom: 10th August 258 at the instruction of the Emperor. My DOB! We like San Lorenzo, and had painted on our last van ‘furgo de San Lorenzo’ – other than I put ‘el furgo’ when it should have been la furgo (furgo short for furgoneta, feminine; the abbreviation threw me!).
[San Lorenzo did not appease the emperor, and his preaching rather annoyed him Eventually the emperor summoned him and gave him a date on which he was to bring the riches of the church with him. He duly did this bringing the disenfranchised, the blind, beggars, widows et al. He announced that this was where the riches of God was manifest. Surprisingly this did not connect with the emperor who ordered him to be burnt at the stake!.]
Then one day we walked into, shall we say, a little challenged apartment in Madrid that no-one seemed to want to buy, and as we walked in we both saw something… we can get the entire government and judiciary in here. The problem was not the size of apartment; the problem was our thinking -‘ bigger than you think‘.
I go back to Madrid next week with one last act before leaving for Sicily. I want to walk the circumference of the city to make sure the government and judiciary do not escape!!! (Like I can really do that… ah well at least I can sow in that direction.) Madrid has been our place for Spain… some while back Gayle asked me about any desire I might have to accompany her on a far eastern trip – the question was helpful for it made me realise my focus is Europe; the old ‘lady’ will and must receive new life. So after walking and then making our way to Sicily? No idea.
Currently clueless of Oliva, soon to be clueless in Sicily.
I will follow up with a little more of this journey of ours with the hope that it will do more than inform but encourage anyone who reads with respect to their unique adventure in life.
I closed yesterday’s post with a comment on the flotilla en route to Gaza; this morning I read that, ‘The Israeli navy has intercepted boats carrying aid to Gaza and detained the activists aboard, including Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg.’
Not all ‘prophetic acts’ have a ‘successful’ outcome. Jesus’ key protest act in the Temple when he turned over the tables did not end in a permanent table-free Temple, but the effects are ongoing – an eternal protest whenever God’s house is turned into a money-making venture that in particular exploits the vulnerable (see my post https://3generations.eu/posts/2024/12/a-time-to-protest/ where I highlight the focus on the ‘dove sellers’).
Back to Israel… their land promised for ever. So complex: promised the land for ever,
And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding, and I will be their God.” (Gen. 17:8).
´Olam translated here as ‘a perpetual holding’ has the meaning of a long or indefinite time. Achish (Philistine king) believed David would always (´olam) serve him in other words during his lifetime. It could mean during the entire life-time of all descendants of Abraham, but I think Paul (again! he does have so many perspectives, that man) throws a curve ball when he says that Abraham was promised that he would inherit the ‘world’ (kosmos; Rom.4:13).
That curve ball rather changes (for me) the trajectory we look for. The re-gathering of Israel (a bigger term than ‘Jews’… gather all Jews would not gather all Israel) as a result of Pentecost (Acts 1:8; Rom. 11:28) is because the Gospel is gathering all peoples across the planet into the one olive tree, and so as that happens ‘in this way all Israel will be saved’.
Anyway all of the above is probably going to fuel my next longer article.
Back to flotillas, Israel of today (and I don’t think there is a straight line from OT Israel to the modern state), Palestine and Gaza. By any standards what is taking place today is genocide and the deep issue is we have two peoples who are reacting from trauma and peoples who are being exploited by those who claim to represent them.
Maybe an aside – maybe more than an aside – the route to the Middle East (Israel if you like) is through the Islamic world. The three Abrahamic faiths (allow me to suggest, one that was not able to make the step into the era initiated through the death and resurrection of their Messiah, the truly human One; another that has taken the Abrahamic story in a different direction; and one that sees fulfilment through the Son of Man) are, I think, central to where we are. A key principle if ever we need help to see where God is at work we can look to where the devil is at work – and vice versa. Look at the conflicts and the rhetoric that is in the public space to fuel suspicion, fear and hatred.
I hold that God is motivated by love that seeks to reconcile all. The choice of Abraham was not to damn the world (wrong view of salvation); Israel in her land was never to blanket exclude all others based on ethnicity (Rahab, Ruth, two half-Egyptian sons of Joseph et al); and post-the-resurrection a whole new creation was brought into being.
So here is my take. Political solutions go so far. The healing of historic trauma is needed, but if there is one place on the planet that should be open to being a land for all peoples it is the place where the cross demonstrated that God’s arms are outstretched to all. Breaking the curse of the law from ‘us’ (Jews) so that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles (Gal. 3:13,14). A two-state solution might indeed be a step toward. A step. Prayer and protest can establish steps.
I recently heard someone I have known for a long time declare that ‘so and so loved Jesus’ in spite of the reality that the person they referred to often spoke hate of others. I am not able to make a judgement on this person’s life or another’s as the ‘judgement seat of Christ’ will not be vacated on that day for me to sit there. Such statements as ‘she / he loved Jesus’ is deeply complex as we can be in relationship with a Jesus of our own making – a Jesus in our image.
In the OT within the ten words we are warned against making an image of God and for sure we can continue to make many diverse images of God. I recently read of a book that explained the political vote for someone by Christians as being that they were the most God-like character – and by saying that they did not mean ‘the most loving’ nor ‘the most holy’ but the candidate was the best equipped to crush his opponents. Just like God????
The claim of the NT that is consistently expressed is that Jesus reveals who God is (the Jesus’ path is not a path to lead us to ‘god’, but to lead us to know the true God and who s/he is). ‘To the Father’ was the promise of those who travelled the Jesus’ path. Jesus is the express image of God. Most theologies start with ‘the doctrine of God’ and this assumes we know who this God is, from there Christology, Pneumatology etc is defined. I think Jesus turned that upside down – start with Jesus and you can get to God from him. The witness of the Gospels is to testify of Jesus. This is why they are so vital.
Paul captures this ongoing journey to know Jesus with the words uttered close to the end of his life ‘that I might know him’. No tick box, but an ongoing adventure… and ultimately the future experience for us is that ‘we will see him as he is’.
I love the Jesus I have read about; I love the Jesus that I have created from what I have read. Is my Jesus close to the one that is witnessed to by the Gospels? I love the Jesus I have encountered, but even there I am not ‘safe’. Jesus meets me where I am at. My mistake can be that therefore I assume that every encounter meets full approval. Israel asks for a king – Samuel has the inside take on this with the knowledge that they were not rejecting him but they were rejecting God. The people though saw God anoint the king – I wonder if they assumed the move to appoint a king was a good one, one approved of by God. Likewise with the building of the Temple.
I am not appointed to be judge and jury and for sure any inclusion is based on mercy and grace. Although I see no reason to believe in a future ‘antiChrist’ as John says there are many who embody that spirit (‘anti’ can mean ‘against / in opposition to’ or ‘alternative to / replacing’); I can certainly act in an antiChrist way, and perhaps others who totally claim to love Christ and to be ‘saved’ can do so too.
Even if it is deemed that I love Jesus there is no guarantee that all my actions and words are therefore covered by that. We do need to call out ‘hate speech’ and the like when it manifests among us.
From the first commandment to have no other God we come to the command not to make an image of God, and from there to not to bear (carry / display) the name of God in vain. Loving God, not creating an image of God and not reflecting a false image of God. All pretty central and why we need Jesus as the lens for Scripture, for humanity and for God. Otherwise we will not see clearly – even when we quote Scripture to defend ourselves.
The flotilla on the way to Gaza… if I put the Jesus lens there do I see God? I think I do. The true human went to Jerusalem to die for humanity, at some level the flotilla is on the same path. A mixed bunch of people on board for sure. Why this final paragraph on the flotilla? To see God we have to see Jesus, and to see Jesus we sometimes have to look to events in our world, some of which disturbs the status quo of what we consider we know from our Christian world. A living parable in our day.
Definitely something different – from my perspective / objective truth (we all have the objective truth that can never be challenged, do we not?).
As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work (Jn. 9:1-4).
Maybe what I write today is a little technical and of course is a push back against the Calvinist / Reformed view of ‘sovereignty’ (just amazed that I could spell the word ‘Calvinist’). I do think that what I propose is totally defensible and on the right track, but maybe the final sentence is what it is all about.
The disciples reflect a common view of the day. Serious infirmity such as the man born blind indicated someone had sinned. The man himself (but born blind, so when did he sin?!!!) or the parents, that is the option. Their view then is concerning ’cause’ – what caused this situation?
Jesus apparently responds with a ‘no’ to cause but seems to says it was for a reason… or so many of our translators and those of a certain theological perspective would have us understand (born blind so that God can heal). Blindness so that God’s works might be revealed. (One day I need to get into Rom. 9-11 where we can read Pharaoh is raised up in a certain way without choice – maybe if we took a trip as Jeremiah was instructed to do to go to the pottery we might read that a little differently.) From my perspective if ‘so that’ is what Jesus said I am not sure it is great step forward in understanding – this happened so that God’s work might be revealed (the reason why the man is blind). If one is a fan of trumpeting ‘sovereignty’ and hiding behind ‘mystery’ maybe it works – but I consider that this is an extreme view of hands-on sovereignty and all-but making life something we can never understand.
So is there an alternative?
In virtually all translations we have a variation of the above option as I quoted at the beginning of this post; the Message (an interpretive paraphrase) does give a much softer alternative:
You’re asking the wrong question. You’re looking for someone to blame. There is no such cause-effect here. Look instead for what God can do. We need to be energetically at work for the One who sent me here, working while the sun shines.
The Contemporary English version likewise is much softer:
But because of his blindness, you will see God work a miracle for him.
I want though to go further than the ‘softer’ interpretations. So a little Greek…
ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθῇ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ (this is Jesus response with the first word being alla = a strong ‘but’ (reduced to all here as the next word is a vowel), and the first two words being ‘all hina’).
There is an acknowledgement that there are three uses of the word hina – as a cause or as an outcome; such as: ‘I worked so hard in order to pass my exam’ (purpose) or ‘I worked so hard and so passed my exam’ (result). This happened to the man (born blind) so that God might display his works is purpose, and the way many translations go; softer translations go along the lines of result – born blind, but the result is he is healed by God. I have mentioned two of the three uses – the third in a minority of cases is what is termed the ‘imperatival hina’ use – being used as a command. Still with me? Just read on we will get somewhere.
I lack a library here but as far as I can work out there are four other references to the two words (all hina) coming together in a clause in the NT: Mk.14:49; Jn. 13:18; Jn. 15:25 and 1 Jn. 2:19. (I use The Step Bible as the Greek text there and corresponding dictionary is very up-to-date.)
Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let (ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα) the scriptures be fulfilled (Mk.14:49). The translators have chosen the imperative use here (well done says Martin to the translators) – thus going beyond the idea that the Scriptures have predestined this to happen. (This is the interpretation that I will be pushing for in the text about the blind man.)
I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But it is to (ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα) fulfill the scripture, ‘The one who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me’ (Jn. 13:18). Same phrase as Mark above but this time the translation is along the line of purpose. I would suggest this is better understood as an imperative so ‘but let the Scripture be fulfilled‘. Judas fulfilled the Scripture but not as if the Scripture was a prophecy – he and others have fulfilled that Scripture!
It was to fulfill (ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα) the word that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without a cause’ (Jn. 15:25). Again I think better understood as ‘but let the word that is written in their law be fulfilled…
They went out from us, but they did not belong to us, for if they had belonged to us they would have remained with us. But by going out (ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα) they made it plain that none of them belongs to us (1 Jn. 2:19). Here translated as a result, but if it was an imperative we would read something along the lines of ‘but let them be revealed as not belonging to us’.
All the above personal research and I alone have understood this? No… if ever I had an original idea it would have died of loneliness within 5 minutes… I first came across this in the research of W.G. Morrice’s Greek grammar and the various responses to that; the nature of the clause is not simply that it is the normal ‘hina’ clause but it is preceded by ‘but’ – there is a big pushback to what has gone before.
Morrice says:
In his reply, Jesus indicated that this was a question that should never have been asked. It was neither the man’s sin nor his parents’ that had caused his blindness. The concern of the disciples should be to try and cure him. “Let God’s power be displayed in curing him!” Jesus proceeded to do exactly that. “The hypothesis of the imperatival iva, therefore, releases the text from the fatalism which had obsessed it, and dissolves the picture which had become familiar through all our English versions, a man destined from birth to suffer for the sole purpose of glorifying God when he was healed
(For anyone interested here is an article that is based on Morrice’s work.)
So back to the verse we started with, now with my translation:
As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; but let the works of God be revealed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.
Any discussion on who is to blame is knocked on the head and Jesus not only pushes past that or any related discussion to the responsibility of taking action for the intervention of God. I do think this is a consistent way to translate the phrase when we meet it in the NT and illustrative that philosophical / theological discussions are irrelevant – we have to work while it is day. Quit the discussion, get on with the redemptive work of heaven.
So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” He replied, “It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. While he was going and they were gazing up toward heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them. They said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (emphases added).
Such a disputed passage with regard to interpretation… the restoration of Israel or the replacement of Israel by the church… or something in between? And of course on this blog we only deal with the one and only valid perspective – mine! Anyway been thinking about these verses so here is a take on them.
(I am aware that what I am writing here in a post is shorthand for what should really be part of a fuller article so feel free to skim the contents… or read and fill in the gaps in what I write.)
Jesus spends many days with the disciples talking about the kingdom of God so I think we can assume they are not totally ignorant – though like us all they have not grasped everything. The central theme though, based on their Scriptures, has been the kingdom of God.
The disciples’ question is a straightforward time question – is this the time (chronos).
Jesus resists the time answer (and does not respond simply with chronos but with chronos and kairos). Then he picks up with clear allusions to Isaianic passages / Isaianic theme:
In response to the question Jesus highlights that the outpouring of the Spirit is necessary and as a result this small representation of Israel (12 disciples / sons of the true ‘Israel’) will be witnesses to the ends of the earth so that the tribes of Jacob will be restored. [In what follows I will quote the core Isaianic passages but it is the overarching themes from Isaiah that are important, and I also am distinguishing ‘Israel / tribes of Jacob’ from the term ‘Jew’ – this needs a separate post to follow that theme.]
The Isaianic passages
[Desolation]… until a spirit from on high is poured out on us (Is. 32:15, and other references to the outpoured Spirit bringing about restoration and a new day).
You are my witnesses, says the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me (Is. 43:10, in reference to Israel / a remnant as ‘servant’.)
It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth (Is. 49:6).
So the time question is sidelined but the calling is centralised. Time is not relevant – an eschatological perspective, for the task is central; it is the task that determines the timing… and in a strange (to us) way the task seems to answer the ‘restore to Israel’ question. That last Isaianic quote where salvation reaches the end(s) of the earth does two things – it restores the ‘tribes / survivors of Israel’ (not ‘Jews’, nor those ‘of Israel who live in the land’) and light is finally displayed in the nations. OK, hang on…
In Romans 11:28 we read ‘And in this way all Israel will be saved’ (not a time phrase but a phrase indicating a process), and follows this up with a quote from Isaiah,
And he will come to Zion as Redeemer, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the Lord (Is. 59:20).
A quote other than Paul changes it to
Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob’ (Rom. 11:29).
Will God restore the kingdom to Israel? Yes. In Jerusalem now? No. How – from Zion a redeemer will go to the ends of the earth gathering all up who respond, and in this way all Israel will be saved (‘all’ never meant each and every person for when the salvation of Israel was discussed in Rabbinic literature, there were always those who were by ethnicity ‘Israel’ but were excluded / cut off from Israel (‘this people’) – such as ‘not all Israel are Israel’).
The kingdom is restored to Israel, but not as excluding Gentiles for there is only one ‘olive tree’. Indeed by including Gentiles Israel is included! (Formerly the purpose was to include the seed of Abraham (Israel) so that ultimately Gentiles (all the families of the earth) could be included. Now if Gentiles are not included Israel will be excluded!) There is nothing exclusive in salvation; It is not about a great awesome future in the Middle East but an awesome future in and for the entire planet. Not only is there a change in direction (from ‘to Zion’ to ‘from Zion’) but the time is dependent on the job to be done, the witnessing to the entire world (and witness is much bigger term than the reductive term that has been colonised, the term ‘evangelising’). It is not an event in Jerusalem, it is a global vision. It is not about salvation in Israel but the promises of God that Paul contends for in his letter to the Romans is that God has to be faithful to his promises to Israel – including all the dispersed throughout the earth of the ’10 lost tribes’… as he says to King Aggripa:
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. Emphases added – twelve tribes are bigger than the term ‘Jews’).
Where are those 12 tribes? Throughout the earth… Dispersed. Two tribes were in the land (Judah and Benjamin), but the majority of the others were not. It is not about the kingdom being restored in a place (which we call Israel) nor to a subset of Israel (Jews) but to the entire world (which includes Israel). In this way so we had better get on board with ‘this way’ rather than ask ‘when’.
So my take?
Time is not a relevant question.
Methodology through fulfilling purpose is central.
And the methodology that focuses on the global will be the means by which ‘all Israel’ (the fullness, pleroma: Rom.11:12) and the fullness (pleroma: Rom. 11:25) of the Gentiles come in, thus the kingdom will be restored to our world (and therefore in this way to Israel).
God’s calling has always been universal… and Acts sets this out – with the final word ‘unhindered’ (akōlutōs)… from Jerusalem to Samaria (with Philip) to the Ethiopian eunuch who asked what now ‘hinders’ (kōluō) him from being baptised… to Paul in Rome to Martin (and a bunch of similar ‘leaners’ who ask our irrelevant questions) in…
So Jesus’ reply is a both ‘yes’ and ‘not as you think’ answer.
Thus endeth the only authentic take on the passage in Acts.
Postscript: the Ethiopian eunuch is probably more central to Luke than might appear. He is reading from the prophet Isaiah and the catalyst ‘chapter’ is Is. 53… but keep reading (as I am sure Philip and the Ethiopian did) and then we might understand the question ‘what hinders me being baptised’ for he has been in Jerusalem but excluded from Israel’s core temple worship on two counts: a foreigner and a eunuch. Here is more of Isaiah:
Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people,” and do not let the eunuch say, “I am just a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants… (Is. 56:3-6).
Samaria to one foreigner and a eunuch. Something has broken with the next chapter in Acts being the calling of the ‘apostle to the Gentiles’.
A short while ago I wrote a paper exploring Alienation and Reconciliation as a suitable (the best?) way to summarise the ‘problem’ and the work of God to deal with the problem. I suggested that as it is a relational framework, not a legal one.
I am proposing an Zoom discussion on the evening of Wednesday October 22nd, 7:30pm UK time. The Zoom link will be: Zoom Link for evening.
[If you wish to find other pdf’s and the one that precedes this volume go to: Extended Articles]
Here is a short video (17 minutes) seeking to summarise what I wrote and opening up the possibility that perhaps there is scope for someone who is not reconciled to God, but is journeying along the path of reconciliation to others, to our world and to self, that in some way they are being reconciled to the God of Creation / the God of redemption. To suggest so is to go ‘beyond’ Scripture but is it to go beyond the trajectory set out for us. I plan to host an open zoom evening on this and I guess that might be the part where there could be push back and also exploration. A date to follow! If and when I host that evening please read the paper / watch the video prior.
No I am not about to write a few more chapters to correct(!!!!) Paul’s theology of the gospel. Rather I am going to make a few comments on the first two Scriptures that I was taught to use in ‘witnessing’ – Romans 3:23 and Romans 6:23
For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Everyone has sinned… so tell me you have never done anything wrong? Tick box. The result is you will die (= eternal punishing), however there is a way out of that situation. Tick box. With a few nuances we might be able to run with that, but as always we are reducing this to something individualistic. Paul has been working with a ‘Jew first, then Greek’ framework (makes some sense of chs. 9-11 and the Israel / Gentile material there and the final instructions how to relate together when there could be divides over food issues and ‘one day above another’ approaches). ‘All’ have sinned in this context is not as simple as ‘you + me + every other individual’ but all in the contextual sense of whether you are part of the covenant people or the non-covenant people – ‘all / both groups have sinned’. Paul has made that clear a few verses earlier:
Both Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin (Rom 3:9).
After the typical Jewish way of collating a set of verses (almost proof-texting!!) he concludes with 3:23 and defines sin as ‘falling short of the glory of God’. Coming from the guilt-heavy background of Western Christendom sin has been defined in relation to law / doing wrong, but Paul lifts it to a new level and with his opening chapter of Romans where he says that ‘they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles’. He roots sin with language that is deeply set in creation – where humanity is in the ‘image’ of God and was given stewardship with regard to creation – now the exchange is incredible, it is to fall from human identity and calling, hence to fall short of the glory of God. This is why I went with sin as a failure to be human when I wrote ‘Humanising the Divine’. (For an excellent article on sin, iniquity and transgression try https://bibleproject.com/articles/sin-iniquity-and-transgression-in-the-bible/)
A failure to be human surely puts into context the many community laws in the Old Testament. The Torah being a guide as to how to live, how to be the social beings that we were created to be. It is much more than a set of laws that are standards that we break… and when we come to the NT we have an elevation of expectation – we move beyond (e.g.) not lying to ‘not leaving a falsehood’ with everything set in the context for ‘we are members of one another’. Community; ‘in Christ’; ‘body’…
The result / outcome of sin is ‘death’ (far more the outcome than the punishment… the inevitable result / wages). When we (corporate ‘we’) fall short of being (truly) human the result is death. We can make that personal, but I think Paul is focused on the transformation of the world so we should not lose sight of death at every level, including that of society and creation. By contrast to be in Christ is to receive life of another age (eternal) as a gift (charisma).
The gospel is responded to individually but the framework is corporate; a humanity who has fallen from who they were created to be into ‘one new humanity’, a new humanity where ‘both have been reconciled to God’ (Ephes. 2:15, 16 – where the words ‘create… humanity’ are used).
The invitation of the gospel to one and all is to receive eternal life, to be created anew, to live within this world as if there is an eternal world in the midst of this temporary world (and this does not mean a ‘world set for being burnt up’!)… to enter the path of being truly human. Reconciliation to God, to others, to creation and to self.
Adrian Lowe published this on Substack and with permission I reproduce it here. For those who are regular readers they will note that it continues a set of essays regarding ‘mammon’.
But old clothes are beastly, continued the untiring whisper. We always throw away old clothes. Ending is better than mending, ending is better than mending, ending is better… — Aldous Huxley.
My proposition in this collection of essays, that we are all in some way or other subject to the power, control and influence of Mammon, is one thing; offering a proposition of how we could live free from the domination of the Mammonic narrative is something quite different. It requires what the late Walter Brueggemann calls ‘prophetic imagination’—a God-given vision of an alternate reality to that which we see unfolding in the prevailing culture. He was right! However, the truth is that, at best, we are spellbound by the rewards Mammon promises, and at worst, we are slavishly labouring on Mammon’s treadmill. And so, it does indeed require divine imagination to begin to conceive of a life liberated from its stranglehold.
The good news is that the gospel inspires prophetic imagining and vision. It makes a way for us all to break free from the power of the ‘machine’, the god called Mammon. The declaration of Christ at the cross that “It is finished” lies at the heart of the gospel. The dehumanising and predatory powers of sin, along with the accompanying forces of darkness that enslave you, me, and the whole of creation, were defeated by the holy, self-sacrificing love of Christ at Calvary. We now, as the apostle Paul says, need to reckon ourselves dead to the ‘machine’, dead to those predatory powers that seek to enslave us again, and alive to Christ. Emancipated from the tyranny of consumerism’s liturgy, individualism’s mastery, and secularism’s unbelief, we seek the peace and prosperity of our neighbourhoods, cities, and nation.
So, what does this look like in practice? This is an important question! James, in his letter, tells us that, ‘Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.’ (James 2:17). He alludes to a new form of labour (work) inspired and reimagined by the very faith we have in the labour (work) of the crucified Christ. What I hope to do in between my articles on Mammon is suggest that there are some practices and rhythms that enable us to take a stand and resist the powerful tide of Mammon and its plundering nature.
Modern life depends on the habit of discarding things
So, ‘What is the picture of the loo seat doing at the start of this article, and what has it got to do with resisting Mammon?’ you may ask. There’s a story attached to it! We’ve had this toilet seat for a number of years. Recently, I noticed that the varnish had started to flake on the top of the seat. Often, in circumstances like this, my normal reaction would be to say that it has served us well, I’ll throw it out and get a new one. That’s not unreasonable—or is it? As you may observe from the photograph, I decided to take this oak toilet seat apart, sand off the varnish, re-varnish the seat, and put it right back from where I’d taken it. I made a deliberate choice for repair rather than replace.
This was not simply about saving money but a very small act in which I was not just resisting our ‘throwaway culture’, standing in opposition to it, and resisting the powerful tide of Mammon. In some small way, it was also answering the call of God to steward the material world. Sound bizarre or even pious? Stay with me!
The history of a ‘throwaway culture’
Discarding the old and buying the new, along with built-in obsolescence of consumer goods, has been a cornerstone of developed economies for over a century. In his book Made to Break, the American historian Giles Slade suggests that 1923 was the year when manufacturers began to create a cycle of obsolescence and replacement as the mainstay of their growth strategy. Companies’ success in the previous century had been sought by building a reputation to produce durable and repairable products. Many manufacturers’ designs tended to reflect an ethic of stewardship. It was this ethic that guided Henry Ford in the development of his famous car, the Model T. He aimed to build a car affordable to the masses, engineered for years of use and easy to fix. His idea caught the imagination of Americans everywhere. By 1920, 55% of families owned a Tin Lizzie. Later, he was reported to have said his aim was to build a car that was ‘so strong and well-made that no one ought ever to have to buy a second one.’ Oh, how things have changed!
His competitor Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors had different ideas; he saw an opening in the market and took inspiration from the world of fashion. He trialled bringing out new car models each year, often just changing the shape or colour, so that the fashion-conscious could acquire their newest model of Chevrolet. His associate Harley J. Earl was frank and open about their intention: ‘Our big job is to hasten obsolescence’. In 1934, the average car ownership span was 5 years; now [1955] it is 2 years. ‘When it is 1 year, we will have the perfect score.’ It worked! GM became the world’s largest car manufacturer. Slade suggests that ‘Deliberate obsolescence in all its forms—technological, psychological, or planned—is a uniquely American invention.’
Soon, psychological obsolescence became the primary means of growing businesses. As the development of branding, packaging, and marketing became more sophisticated, this fuelled the growing throwaway culture as consumers increasingly made choices based more on trend than technical reliability. Slade remarks: ‘In manufacturing terms, psychological obsolescence was superior to technical obsolescence, because it was cheaper to create and could be produced on demand.’ Over the last century, the principle of designing in obsolescence in all its forms and speeding up the replacement cycle has become an immutable part of the manufacture and sale of goods around the globe.
Mammon and the material world
We’ve all fallen under the spell of the Mammonic Machine to a greater or lesser extent. Our collective ambitions for new, bigger, better, and ‘more for less’ come at a cost. The environmental impact of vast quantities of waste, some of it toxic, that are the result of our acceptance of obsolescence and disposal in favour of acquisition and consumption, are staring us in the face. These, according to the late Pope Francis’s 2015 Encyclical Laudato si’, are the symptoms of a ‘throwaway culture’—and he doesn’t mince his words! He writes: ‘The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth’. He addressed the many ways the ‘throwaway culture’, a by-product of an industrialised technological society, impacts the environment. More than this, he used the term as a metaphor for our broken relationships, including that of the natural world itself— ‘our common home’—and it as a symbol of the disposability of people, those he called ‘excluded’.
I believe that the architecture of both our individual and common life is profoundly misshapen in the hands of an alternative potter—Mammon. As the grip of commodification, commercialisation, and financialisation becomes even tighter, our four primary human relationships take on a different form and nature. Pope Francis makes this point too (although he talks of three relationships rather than four) when he writes:
[H]uman life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour and with earth itself. According to the Bible, these three vital relationships have been broken, both outwardly and inwardly.
Mammon’s powers to commodify, commercialise, and financialise radically change our relationship with the material world. In the process, we have exchanged communion—right relationship with the material world—that could be described as stewarding and guarding, for commodity—a wrong relationship with the material world—resulting in exploitation and profiteering.
God and the material world
I grew up as a new believer in the late 70s when evangelicalism had been intoxicated by an escapist eschatology popularised by books and novels like Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth (The Left Behind series written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins trod a similar path from the mid-90s). Most of us young believers lived in fear of The Day of the Lord. We were told stars were literally going to fall from the sky, the evil and corrupted earth would be consigned to some kind of cosmic dustbin, eventually to be replaced by a new one—a better model! Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors would like the sound of this eschatology! The gospel’s power was ring-fenced to the repair and renewal of a single relationship—that of ‘mine’ with God.
As I have written before, I now believe this to be a highly individualised and extremely narrow lens through which to comprehend the work and ways of Christ. Jesus’ death and resurrection signify not just His triumph over ‘my’ ‘sin’ but much, much more. He wins the battle over the powers of darkness and ultimately the power of death, both of which are at work in creation as a whole. This is captured in the famous ‘Gospel verse’ in John’s gospel: ‘For God so loved the world (Greek word: cosmos) that he gave His own Son…’ (John 3:16). Of course, it’s good news for every one of us that believes, but the significance of this world-loving act is registered cosmically. Jesus labours to make a way for the repair and renewal of all things.
A new relationship—with creation.
Tom Wright suggests in his epic book Surprised by Hope that the scene set out in Revelation chapters 21 and 22 presents the greatest images of cosmic renewal in the whole Bible. This is imagery that uses the relational metaphor of marriage. The new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven adorned like a bride for her husband. It plainly reverses the trajectory I was taught in my early years as a Christian—of a disembodied ascent to heaven to await with fear and trembling a type of judgement that also included the disposal of the once-good creation. Wright points out: ‘This [Revelation 21 & 22] is the ultimate rejection of all types of Gnosticism, of every worldview that sees the final goal as the separation of the world from God, of the physical from the spiritual, of earth from heaven’.
‘Behold, I am making all things new…’ (Revelation 21:5)
This promise offers hope and a vision of a restored and renewed creation—not a redundant old creation that requires replacement. It signifies a future where all things will be made new and free from the old, imperfect order. God will abolish death and decay forever. Heaven and earth are not poles apart needing to be separated—no, they are made for each other. It speaks of the restoration, renewal, and repair of all things.
Saying no to a ‘throwaway’ culture
So, back to my earlier question: what does this look like in practice? If the ultimate climax of the Gospel is not the destruction of the material world but its repair, then we are called to live in the light of this message. Perhaps we can resist Mammon and its accompanying throwaway culture by embodying a culture of stewardship through developing the new habits of repair and re-use.
We might not have a dedicated space, the tools, or the skills to repair our own stuff! There is, however, a growing network of grassroots organisations that are fostering a repair and re-use culture. Here are just two:
iFixit is both an online resource for those wanting to repair rather than replace or recycle consumer goods. They also have a growing network of repair shops. This grassroots initiative’s manifesto, among other things, suggests that repair connects people with things and makes consumers into contributors.
Repair Cafés have over 3,500 sites all over Europe, including the UK. They are free meeting places, and they’re all about repairing things (together). In the place where a Repair Café is located, they offer tools and materials to help you make any repairs you need for clothes, furniture, electrical appliances, bicycles, crockery, toys, etc. You’ll often also find expert volunteers with repair skills in all kinds of fields.
We may not all be able to fix a toaster or sew a torn sleeve, but we can all choose to value what we have, honour the work of others, and resist the tide of waste. In doing so, we not only care for creation—we reclaim our humanity. The culture of repair is not just about things; it’s about people, relationships, and the world we long to see healed.
In a world shaped by disposability and driven by Mammon, choosing repair over replacement is a quiet act of resistance—and a bold act of hope. Each time we mend what is broken, we participate in the divine work of renewal. Let us be people who imagine differently, live prophetically, and steward faithfully. The culture of repair begins with us.
On one side or on the other? Some years back Gayle and I were advised (strongly advised = all but commanded) to get guns. The one who told us was a house-hold name in the Christian world. We waited for the punch line as obviously this was a joke. No punch line came, but an explanation for the advice. Apparently as we lived in Spain we were in mortal danger of Islam entering the land and bringing our lives to an end, hence the nation (and us) needed defending and we should be prepared to do this apparently as our Christian duty. I replied with that if this was connected to the ‘success’ of the gospel and this terrible vision of the future unfolded then no guns should be found in our hands and it is we who might have to lay down our lives. Not satisfied with this response the person with considerable exasperation in their voice said that if we would not enter into the fray that if they were any way close at the time they would undertake to do the necessary killings.
OOOOOFFFFF!
Defend the faith at all counts. Yet…
Jesus said, “My kingdom does not belong to this world; if my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. No, my kingdom does not belong here!”
My followers would fight… if.
There is a desperate battle currently not for the preservation of the Christian faith but for the preservation of Christendom (and the oxymoric term ‘Christian nation); Christendom which is centred on the use of power for ‘good’. I am not a reader of Lord of the Rings but in that story there is a very poignant character ‘Boromir’ who wants to use the ring’s power but only for good.
So deceptive. Imagine if we had the ear of the key politicians; imagine what we could do if we had an endless source of finances… or imagine if Jesus could have used the efficiency and reach of the Roman Empire of his day? [And that is one of the explanations used for Jesus coming at ‘the fullness of times’ – a reason that only a pro-Christendom reading could come up with a being the core understanding of that phrase!]
And…?
It is exactly that offer that Jesus turned down. The devil showed him the kingdoms of the oikoumene and was told that those could be his to use for eternal ‘good’. (For the use of oikoumene for Roman Empire see an earlier post.) Or in Tolkien language – take the ring and use it for good.
I do believe we are facing global crises; the hegemony of the West is coming to a close… but the biggest crisis of all is with regard to our faith. The path ahead is not an easy one but the biggest crisis now is whether the ring being taken for good dictates the future of our faith. The ring has to be rejected if we are to be the truly redeeming agent in the world. Challenged but also optimistic that we stand at the entry door to an amazing future – the end of an era or the beginning of a new one. Brave (and probably marginalised) vision for the future. Poets, artists lead the way.