Revelation 21:6-8

Then he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water as a gift from the spring of the water of life. Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God, and they will be my children. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the sexually immoral, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

What a great way to start verse 6: ‘It is done’. A completion… what began with ‘in the beginning’ has a ‘in the end’ conclusion. The idea that God began meticulously dealing with the chaos, through a process of shapes and filling them, to commission humanity to continue the work, and then at the end it all burns up is both crazy and so against the story of Scripture. The seven day creation account is parallel to the 7 days of preparation for the final coming of God into the OT Temple… here in this chapter we read of the coming of God into his/her Temple – what began as a possibility in Genesis is a definite in Revelation; a God coming to a couple in the evening into a piece of creation now comes to (redeemed) humanity permanently in the whole of creation. ‘It is done’, followed by the two ways of tying the start to the finish – alpha and omega, beginning and end. Such a way of presenting it underlines that we are dealing with one story from Genesis to Revelation, and once we deviate from the story, simply taking verses out of their place in the story we will end up with some major deviations. Hence, we have to develop some form of narratival understanding of Scripture rather than textual adherence.

The goal for humanity is termed the eschaton, from which we get our word eschatology; there is another word for ‘end’ – telos; this is not used for our destiny, only God is (in verse 6) the telos. A little speculation but maybe the eschaton is not the telos, is not the final, final, final state. The creative God might just continue to create? Speculative, for sure.

The translation I am using says that those who overcome (a consistent theme in the book) will be ‘my children’; the text actually has ‘my son’. I think here is surely an echo to Jesus as ‘my beloved Son’, and before that to Israel as ‘my son’. ‘In Christ’ is so important in the NT; I consider it gets us round (actually I consider it straightens us up!) common concepts of ‘election’. Jesus is the elect one… if we are in Christ we are elect in him and hence from the foundation of the world. This is not arbitrary election of some (and damnation of others). Jesus is the elect one and the location for our election. If I am in him I am elect.

There is a second death in Revelation, prepared for the devil and his angels, and here we do not have a Universalist hope – a sidenote there are enough ambiguities in Scripture that prevent us being the one who sits on the throne and draws a line of ‘in / out’. Assuming this is speaking of a future for some it seems to me that the future is not one of eternal punishing (something ongoing) but of eternal punishment (a judgement passed after which there is no more life). I hold that conditional immortality – only God has immortality (‘It is he alone who has immortality’ 1 Tim. 6:16) and that immortality is given to those that he gives it to, as the immortality of the soul is not found in Scripture; post-Eden there is a barrier to the tree of life ‘so that they may not live forever’, etc… – is what fits best here. The fire and sulphur is a reference to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. All that went in the fire was destroyed, the end was final, this was a second death after which there is no more life.

That then is my take on it… As for God’s take on it?

Revelation 21:2-5

And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying,
“See, the home of God is among mortals.
He will dwell with them;
they will be his peoples,
and God himself will be with them and be their God;
he will wipe every tear from their eyes.
Death will be no more;
mourning and crying and pain will be no more,
for the first things have passed away.”
And the one who was seated on the throne said, “See, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

After the sight of the new creation John records that he saw the New Jerusalem, again he uses kainos to describe it, though when he describes it this is not an earthly Jerusalem that is renewed. It comes down from the throne of God and occupies space beyond any earthly city (and as later we will note unlike the earthly Jerusalem there is no temple within it). This New Jerusalem is the bride ready for her husband – Jesus. Later we will look at the identity of that bride.

Then comes the outworking of all persistent movement in Scripture… to put it in our language, God changes post-code. The dwelling place (tabernacling verb) is with humanity. The language used is of movement from heaven to earth, whereas so much of evangelical faith has been of a movement in the other direction and the hope being expressed of the so-called ‘rapture’. So opposite of Scripture and would be so unknown among the Jewish faith expressed throughout the Old Testament and during the time of Jesus.

There is a little quaint aspect with ‘God being their God and they will be God’s peoples’; peoples (plural:  λαοὶ) might simply be a way of saying ‘people’ (as translated in many English versions) but maybe there is a little insight here into what is somewhat mysterious – are there different people groups that God identifies with? Does the in / out division ultimately fail us?

The list of what is no more also gives sight to what is here now but then those aspects will have gone. The first things, the things we are acquainted with will be something of the past… when God makes all things new… and even the tense used indicates how God acts; he is making all things new. This is God by nature, the God we partner with. And it is not making new things as if there was no value on the experiences of a former era, but God is continually renewing all things, and in the vision there will be such a transformation that what taints experiences will be no more.

A future vision… but a present focus.

A run through Revelation 21

Been thinking a bit about Revelation 21 (actually also been thinking would love a tattoo with:

Καὶ εἶδον οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινήν (I saw a new heaven and a new earth) combined with:
‘I have a dream’).

Anyway, tattoos or not, the words have been spoken out by John and MLK has echoed them, and they are eternal words with power. Of course we can suggest Revelation is future but only in the sense that in critiquing political / Babylonish power structures we are still longing for the full outworking of what John saw. The book is prophetic not predictive.

I am of the camp that we await a very specific appearing of the age to come through the Person of Jesus, and in that sense I am very conservative, but I am also very cautious in that ‘who knows’ and are we going to be more right in our expectation than the Jews of the first Century were? And whether conservative or cautious the one thing that seems clear (I hope it is clear!!) is that we are to pray for the kingdom to come, the will of God be done on earth as in heaven. So maybe this is to be the future , it certainly has to be the way we pray – hence I have no time for ‘AntiChrist will come with a one world government’. I have no time for it primarily because to make that idea work one has to combine all kinds of scriptures one with the other, and it is certainly not clear that they are all speaking of the same thing.

If the above is unclear let me try one more time… I expect the fullness of the ‘new creation’ to only be manifest when we have what we term ‘the return of Christ’… but given that we are to pray ‘let your kingdom come’ maybe we have misunderstood the return of Jesus, and that the return of Jesus is the restoration of all things. Either way we pray, long for and work for a transformation of this world… not through domination but through going wherever the Lamb travels.

[And a little ‘footnote’ I don’t think this has anything to do with replacing those in power with some good little Christians so that they take over and make all things nice (meaning crush nasty people and dictate that only things God likes will prevail and be implemented! As well as being as un-kenotic as it comes such an approach also assumes too much that the shape is OK and all we need what fills it to be different. There are three steps in creation – CHAOS, shape and fullness. We have shapes – shaped from Babylon, and we pretty much have fullness of those shapes. A future must first go back to CHAOS, so that we can find some shapes that are worthy to be filled, that can be viewed by the God who hopefully will then say ‘that is good’.]

The first verse of Rev. 21:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 

‘Heaven and earth’ here and in Gen. 1 is a merism for ‘all creation’. It takes the two end points with an inclusion of everything in between: ‘I searched high and low’ does not mean I did not search anything in between! So John saw a new (kainos) creation. Jesus is the firstborn through the resurrection of creation; creation has a hope because of Jesus; indeed part of material creation has gone ahead, for his body (material physicality) is not to be found in the grave. The resurrection is the hope for us all… and the hope for all of creation. This was a central theme in Paul (and something he insisted was a present and not simply a future reality)… the only thing that counted was ‘new creation’, and this changed everything. To hold on to old ways of being holy simply meant that the person was now a transgressor(!) and that our sight of everyone (not simply those who were ‘in Christ’) was transformed; and that all old categories were abolished.

John uses the kainos word for new, not neos. Kainos newness is not ‘I destroyed the old thing… look here is something totally new’, but rather carries the sense of ‘re-newed’, or we might use the term ‘transformed’. The transformation of the whole of creation – a vision beyond one that we carry, for sure, but one that includes everything we hope for.

And in this newness he did not see any sea, for it was ‘no more’. In the original creation we have three elements: heavens, earth and the middle element of ‘waters’. Waters above and waters below. Everything from heaven could only come to earth through the element of the waters. The waters / sea were symbolic of resistance, of everything that was not controllable. The disciples were amazed at one who could control the waves (‘what kind of human is this?’); Jesus walked on the water… The beast that arises out of the earth follows the beast that arises out of the sea in Revelation; the sea was the means by which trade took place in Babylon / Rome; the trade being unjust and also involved trading in ‘human souls’.

For us now there is a sea… there is a resistance… we pray for heaven to come but we have to deal with the unruly for it come… Maybe even we can read in this verse the need for and a vision of the transformation of all trade. It is for this reason we need to take note of ‘they will not be allowed to trade (buy and sell)’ with caution about all we are involved in economically but also to realise that there is another interchange in Scripture, that of giving and receiving. It is more blessed to give than to receive, so the shift has to be into ‘what I have I give to you’, rather than how can I earn money (and using such an approach we have to radically redefine how Scripture uses the term ‘work’)… and in that we discover that God gives an increase to the giver, hence of the increase of his government there will be no end. The giver receives and there are no losers!!

A new creation – where ultimately all who have passed away and are in Christ will be resurrected (hope was always in Scripture for the receiving of the blessings of God here… not there) is what we pray for. We live in the light of it, so our actions are to be a witness to the hope that is in us; it is not here yet… maybe we await for the parousia, maybe the parousia awaits this to happen… either way we need our vision corrected on a daily basis (what do we see?) and we pray ‘let your kingdom… the fullness of creation come… on earth as in heaven’.

So what?

I posted a video of some sight for 2023 with the major focus being on currency changes, but preceded that by a few ‘so what?’ comments. This was provoked by clicking on a link about a major scandal that is still unfolding within the EU parliament. It resonated with something I had said about what was to come in 2022 (I had said it would relate to a company scandal and affect multiple nations with resignations… to date there is no mention of a ‘company’ involved – but there is more to come on this, and of course it affects 27 nations within the EU.)

I came through to speak with Gayle and to reflect with her on this. I also reflected on a number of other situations, both from 2022 and from other situations, some of which are really hard to reconcile, but most leave one with a ‘so what?’ kind of response. Assuming that there is genuine revelation involved, there remains the ‘and what good does the revelation do?’.

If we are interested in ‘knowing something someone else does not know’ then we have the answer to the ‘so what’ question, however, information for the sake of information is not what God trades in. Transformation is the work of heaven, not the dispensing of information. That is the huge difference between occult foretelling and any element of foretelling within prophecy. One releases a measure of bondage and ‘fate’ the other the wonderful flexible destiny of a God who works in all things for the good of those who love God and are called according to that divine purpose.

So we have to rule out ‘giving of inside knowledge’ as part of the ‘so what’ answer. Sadly I think this is often part of the deal when people give their ‘what I see for the coming year’ proclamations. Long term (maybe short term) this can only release problems. Other problems arise when (often because of political or theological reasons) we connect the dots too quickly, or as unbiased as we think we are that our bias gives us the interpretation.

Any foretelling will be a focus for prayer, though one of the challenges here is that when something is foretold the expectation is often different to that of the outworking. (I have a colleague who prophesied in Madrid prior to the election in 2004 that there would be ‘an explosion in the city that will turn the expected outcome of the election’. Within a few days the Madrid train bombing took place and the election result was the opposite of what was anticipated. She told me ‘never once did I think that this would be a literal explosion’. So of course one can say, information fuels prayer… but when we are on the wrong track already it might not make a lot of difference.

Signs. Now we get closer I think. Signs in Scripture are semi-sacramental, and of course the ‘sign’ of the elements (for Protestants) is indeed fully ‘sacramental’ for others. Signs point. They are sign posts to help us set direction, set direction for our sight. ‘When you see these things happen…’ lift your eyes. We look higher than the sign, we look beyond the sign. So if I am correct to place ‘currency’ as a main focus this coming year what would be beyond that – ‘economy’ not in the sense of the GDP of a nation, nor simply at how do I look after my money. The sign might necessitate what we consider doing with money, but it is pointing beyond money.

Signs. Even when we do not understand what is beyond the sign to look for, signs also pull what they point at to the physicality. They draw the spiritual reality / value into the physical. Hence with the ‘currency’ issue we will see that somehow economy / economies will feel the affect greatly of what is taking place. And when we consider that money / perceived wealth is at the centre of what is shaken when there is a significant spiritual shift (consider Ephesus in Acts 19 where it seems all the signs come together, and if Ephesus is a first city, then we expect to see there the clarity that is often hidden elsewhere) we should be anticipating something accelerating.

[Acceleration seems to be where we are at… when Liz Truss was established as PM of England I know that a number saw her as a ‘re-incarnation’ of Margaret Thatcher. Some of my connections of course saw this as a restoration of something good… I, however, said if she goes quickly it will be a sign that elements of the past are being emptied out quickly. I might have my bias but I think I was motivated by we are not looking to re-establish the past – not the past with Churchill nor with Mrs. T. This has been, for me, what COVID has highlighted. We are not to return to a ‘back to normal’. That which we thought was normal was largely un-normal, and un-natural. We are not looking to go back but moving on into land we have not been in.]

Whatever we see in the sense of ‘God is removing’, ‘this will be shaken’ has to be expecting that there will be something that comes through the shaking, or comes up from the buried place into visibility that cannot be shaken (Heb. 13 helpfully give us elements that have to come through).

We are to expect space to be occupied that is cleared, often, though, with chaos being the first state. God creates out of chaos. Other creation stories might have ‘god’ defeating the chaos monster, and our story is both far removed from that version and also not so far away from it. God creates out of chaos. So we might not expect something to instantly replace what has been shaken out of its place. A too-quick replacement might see something substituted but carrying the same spirit – that is my concern with so much of the ‘Chrstendom under a new label’ approach. We replace what has been dominating with a Christian presence that… dominates!

Maybe we have to live with chaos first, then comes boundaries, then comes ‘this is good’ to fill it.

A ‘so what’ for 2023? Sow our two coins (and coins can be representative of time – a better economy) where we want the world to go.

We are rapidly coming to the time when the body of Christ will be central to the purposes of God by not centring itself on itself. The survival of the ‘church’ is not the goal, but the presence of God in and through all things. ‘I saw a new heaven and a new earth’ (a whole new creation) but within the ‘new Jerusalem’ John says that he ‘saw no temple in the city’.

What will take place in these (now) next 17/18 years? When we look back we might realise that we had no clue about the ‘so what’, but I suspect if we can free ourselves from desiring knowledge that we will be amazed at what is new.

A footnote: ecological renewal… now that involves a new economy.

Post for 2023

I have made a video looking forward to this year. I reflect back on ‘predictions / prophetic insights’ for 2022, and rather than simply tick boxes, we have to ask a ‘so what’ about what had been said. We are undoubtedly at a time of crises – COVID marked a before and an after but has not gone away.

At a global level I see 2023 marked by currency crises, new currencies prototyped, currency wars, and re-alignments particularly for the African and South American continents. At a personal level a re-alignment away from independence in the first months, and away from overt inordinate dependence in the latter months (thus even I will not escape!).

Vulnerability gone crazy

Guess what? Gayle said in a certain situation today that we were both involved in that my vulnerability came through. I was left asking – is she so unobservant on every other occasion. Then came through a link to a blog. This (professional) person had been reading a book by Viktor Frankl and for each Enneagram number she put out a quote for each one.

I will put two of them up here. One was for Gayle and one for me. When I read mine I simply laughed, loved the quote and then thought – and still do think – and why on earth would one want to do that? Of course the whole direction the quote is pushing in is (and even I admit that) correct. But why do it that way? Hey I am but 67 years of age, how could anyone that young ever take time to slow down and reflect – I thought that was something one might begin to attempt in the second half of life. Gayle, meanwhile reads and responds with a little frown on her face and a more ‘yes that’s so true, I had better adjust’. Just a thought when she is as old as me surely she too will simply laugh and go ‘haven’t changed since I was 12 so not going to happen now’.

Here are the quotes… no clues which one for who?

Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.

Ironically enough, in the same way that fear brings to pass what one is afraid of, likewise a forced intention makes impossible what one forcibly wishes… Pleasure is, and must remain, a side-effect or by-product, and is destroyed and spoiled to the degree to which it is made a goal in itself.

Here’s a link to the article:

https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/2022/12/20/the-viktor-frankl-quote-you-need-to-hear-based-on-your-enneagram-type/

Galatians – winding down

Final chapter:

My brothers and sisters, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. For if those who are nothing think they are something, they deceive themselves. All must test their own work; then that work, rather than their neighbor’s work, will become a cause for pride. For all must carry their own loads.
Those who are taught the word must share in all good things with their teacher.
Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow. If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh, but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit. So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up. So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all and especially for those of the family of faith.
See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand! It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who try to compel you to be circumcised—only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Even the circumcised do not themselves obey the law, but they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me and I to the world. For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation is everything! As for those who will follow this rule—peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
From now on, let no one make trouble for me, for I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body.
May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers and sisters. Amen (Gal. 6:1-18).

Ever so practical (after the rant… the necessary rant, so we will call it ‘after the clarity to establish reality’). Bear one another’s burdens, and we must carry our own loads. Then he picks up the pen himself (v. 11 and following) and brings things back to what I consider is his view on the world, so much so that circumcision, that central sign of Israel’s covenant is not an issue (so can never become an issue, and by implication, neither can the law as a whole be made into an issue), only NEW CREATION counts; the change of era is here, that is the ONLY issue. Nothing is the same NOW. Everything else is viewed through the new reality of new creation, new creation that has been brought into being through the cross.

And a comment on ‘the Israel of God’. One can argue that Paul always uses the term ‘Israel’ to apply to ethnic Israel, and that could be true. However here he is using the term and writing of God’s Israel in a book where he has stressed who are Abraham’s descendants – those of faith where there is no Jew / Gentile divide, hence I favour that he is using the term (and remember he is a Jew) of those of faith, regardless of ethnicity. The sentence that contains this phrase immediately follows that of ‘circumcision not counting’ and only ‘new creation’ having value. If he is (and I am not convinced that he is) using the phrase to have an exclusive ethnic content it would be following the discussion with Judaism as to who is Israel, as ‘not all Israel is Israel’. Either way, he using the term primarily, or exclusively, as a faith term. And ending the letter with ‘brothers and sisters, so let it be’ might be a normal way to close off but in the context of this letter it was totally appropriate. He a Jew by ethnicity and they Gentiles are one family.

Freedom with a view

Another chapter – a big bite but sits together.

For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that, if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. You who want to be reckoned as righteous by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.
You were running well; who prevented you from obeying the truth? Such persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough. I am confident about you in the Lord that you will not think otherwise. But whoever it is that is confusing you will pay the penalty. But my brothers and sisters, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!
For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters, only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become enslaved to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. And those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another (Gal. 5:1-26).

Seems Paul thinks he has nailed the issue – ‘stand free, do not come under a yoke of slavery’. Now he puts in a little ‘balance’ (Paul balanced?). ‘Only do not use your freedom for…’

Love, live by the Spirit, be led by the Spirit… the freedom is not as a result of telling people where to go, we live in the context of others, we are not islands apart, hence as always a relational dynamic comes into Paul’s ethics. [I consider that his ethics are eschatological – a new era is our context – and relational. It is never law-based as to ‘right / wrong’ independent of those two elements. He raises the stakes higher, so for example, he does not pull on an ethic such as ‘do not lie’, but calls us not to leave a falsehood, something that can be done without ever lying.]

There is the strong contrast of ‘works of the flesh’ and ‘fruit of the Spirit’. Paul is a little cheeky using the term ‘works’ and ‘flesh’ as there has to be more than a passing undercurrent of ‘works of the law’ and ‘circumcision’.

Fruit of the Spirit. Does not mean no discipline, no effort, but the contrast to ‘works’ is marked. It starts with the connection to Jesus, standing in that context to such an extent that any other relationship is secondary, and certainly resisting to come under any aspect of control; then seeing others so that we are positioned for them and indeed ‘enslaved to one another’. Freedom has to come first. It is, for me, as per Jesus who laid down his life for the world, but FIRST said no-one can take my life from me.

The battle then is ‘flesh’ and ‘S/spirit’. Lean in to the Spirit… make mistakes… but lean again… and the fruit begins to grow. Freedom to lay our lives down, but never to be enslaved by someone else.

Enslavement – whether Jewish or Gentile

I did say this would be a run through the book, not in detail, so a whole chapter this time round.

My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than those who are enslaved, though they are the owners of all the property, but they remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir through God.
Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods. Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental principles? How can you want to be enslaved to them again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted.
Brothers and sisters, I beg you: become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You have done me no wrong. You know that it was because of a physical infirmity that I first announced the gospel to you; though my condition put you to the test, you did not scorn or despise me but welcomed me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. What has become of the goodwill you felt? For I testify that, had it been possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? They make much of you but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you may make much of them. It is good to be made much of for a good purpose at all times and not only when I am present with you. My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, I wish I were present with you now and could change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.
Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by an enslaved woman and the other by a free woman. One, the child of the enslaved woman, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,
“Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children,
burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs,
for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous
than the children of the one who is married.”
Now you, my brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, like Isaac. But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. But what does the scripture say? “Drive out the enslaved woman and her child, for the child of the enslaved woman will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman.” So then, brothers and sisters, we are children, not of an enslaved woman but of the free woman.

Again a few arguments in here that don’t cut it logically for us. The section on Hagar and Sarah for example. Who decides that Hagar corresponds to ‘the present Jerusalem’? This is not self-evident. We have to allow the argument of the first century to be just that, and as we do not know all the backstory we are also coming at this a little in the dark. It is possible that the Judaizers were using that very story in the opposite direction that Paul uses it and he is ‘forced’ into giving the opposite interpretation to theirs. What remains is his beef is over the issue of freedom, and his sight is from the future. The current era is no longer his framework, Christ has come and everything else is re-calibrated or annulled.

Here are a few pull-out parts for me.

The Jew / Gentile element of the cross is highlighted. He is born under the law (Jewish) as well as being born of a woman (human) in order to redeem those who were under the law (Jews). Paul is no moderate, to be under the law was to be under ‘elemental spirits’. He comes as close as one can to suggesting that the law (defining Israel) was to Israel what the ‘elemental spirits’ that defined and held Gentile nations in bondage was to them. Certainly it is through the coming of the Spirit that they cross over and become children of God. Although Jews were those who were going to inherit (as physical descendants of Abraham, so different to Gentiles) until the date set (the fullness of times) they were no better than those who were enslaved (Gentiles).

For Paul Jesus is everything, and he writes this as a Jew. The turning of the ages changed everything for him.

Jesus comes at the ‘fullness of times’. He comes, not immediately post the ‘fall’, though the Tri-une God journeys with ‘Adam, Eve’ and all their offspring down the centuries as they leave Eden, carrying the effects of the Fall with them. He does not come immediately post the exile when there is a major dislocation at numerous levels from the promises. He comes at the fullness of times. When the world is under an all-but one world government, when Caesar is in Rome making blasphemous claims (exact counter claims to the ‘gospel’, using the very same term euangelion of the wonderful good news that went from Rome to one and all). Demons are visible and present, even within the synagogue; the one nation that was to be free and lead others to freedom openly confesses that they too had no other king than Caesar. The fullness of times, when there was no hope for the world because the one hope (Israel) was under bondage. Not even the Temple as a house of prayer for all nations (Gentiles) had a semblance of redemptive presence, thus Jesus announced that not one stone of the Temple would remain on another.

Jesus does not come before time, but comes to destroy all bondage when the enslavement was complete. Jew and Gentile, both, all under the rulership of the dark powers, the prince of this world.

And a very practical statement:

They make much of you but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you may make much of them.

Hard-hitting but ever so perceptive. They focus on you, but not to promote you… so that the result is that they are the ‘big people’. Gas-lighting; narcissism.

Freedom is through Jesus; nothing added.

No longer… a new era

Brothers and sisters, I give an example from daily life: once a person’s will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, “And to offsprings,” as of many, but it says, “And to your offspring,” that is, to one person, who is Christ. My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise, but God granted it to Abraham through the promise.
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made, and it was ordained through angels by a mediator. Now a mediator involves more than one party, but God is one.
Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be reckoned as righteous by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:11-29).

Logic and argument in the first Century world does not always accord with what we might consider a reasoned argument. Paul pulls on the singular ‘offspring’, and as per English the word could be singular or ‘seed’ as in referring to many actual individual seeds. Even if we say that the logic seems a little thin we remember that for Paul it is the radical inbreaking of a new era that means he can now put (for him) the definitive reading on the promise. The promise was to Abraham and to his one seed – Jesus. The argument is beyond the use of the singular word, it is the self-evident reality that the many ‘seeds’ of Abraham did not bring in the promised era.

The law then is added later, but Paul presents it as temporary, coming 430 years after the promise, and only in place until Christ came… and only for the Jews (note again the ‘we’ word: ‘our disciplinarian’). The law is not opposed to the promises of God, because it is not an alternative – salvation by Jesus or salvation by law would never have been something that Paul would have considered! And at one level, the law as law, simply makes plain that the Jews too are imprisoned under sin. The singular use of the word ‘sin’ indicates that Paul sees it as a power, not as the collection of all the bad things we have done.

And at the end of this section we have the ‘in Christ there is neither… nor’ central statement (Gal. 3:28). The NRSV updated edition adds a little bit ‘no longer’, but the addition is following the thrust. It is all about the coming of a new era, thus I think the ‘no longer’ is justified. Everything before is placed in a temporary setting, the law having distinguished Jew from Gentile – then. But in Christ the law has gone (covenant is fulfilled) so the the old divides of ‘Jew and Greek’ do not work; the division of ‘slave and free’ is also deeply significant, for the culture within the Graeco-Roman world was all about maintaining class culture. Meals were highly structured, with who sat where, and how one reciprocated being vital. Given that the ekklesia gathered around the meal that class structure disappeared. (Consider the meal in Corinth where Paul said ‘I can give you no credit’ for what you are doing for they were perpetuating the rich / poor divide, thus it was no longer the Lord’s table they were gathering around but the table of culture; the instruction in James concerning a rich person coming in and being given the best seat, the seat being at the meal table; Jesus instruction not to invvite those who can reciprocate.)

The in / out divide has gone that religion created – and always creates; the political outworking of the very undergirding of Imperial culture was ended; and the careful change of grammar from ‘or’ to ‘male and female’ indicates a major eschatological element. The quote is from Genesis – how it was in the beginning. Here is the eschatological frame for in the age to come there will be no more marriage. There will be no more that the only covenantal relationship will be in marriage, we will be one, all of us. Sex will disappear but the level of intimacy and knowing one another will be what marriage presses in for. Male and female will not mark us out.

The closing verse then sums it up:

if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise

Not if you are Jewish you are a descendant, but if, and therefore only if one is in Christ, for the inheritance does not come through the law (something temporary that never produced the promised blessings of Abraham to the world, and never could).

As Paul lays out his case one can understand why he was willing to oppose people to their face. The coming of Christ has ended something, has ended division, so eat together, and do not make anyone into a ‘less than’ person.

The ekklesia that I maintain was not about how many people can we get in here through the door so that our numbers grow (maybe important if the view is ‘they need a ticket to be secure’, but more often simply to confirm how great we are!) but was about the total transformation of the oikoumene, the nicely ordered world that was simply part of the system that imprisoned people (sin). The ekklesia had to model a new way of being, that was a sign that the old era was no longer dictating the future. Theology and social outworking went together; heaven and incarnation were necessary for ‘glory’ to come, and if the glory of God was to fill the whole earth, maybe we can understand the ‘bolshiness’ of Paul.

Perspectives