Category: Biblical Observations

Lion or Lamb?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

Revelation – still stands head and shoulders above other literature as a critique of Imperial political power (not talking party politics but politics in the sense of dictating the life and culture of the polis). Mark of the beast etc… is a critique of economic unjust transactional trade (and a push away from buying and selling to giving and receiving as the economic culture)… All relevant then and deeply relevant now.

Revelation 4 and 5 are the pivotal chapters. Chapter 4 would have left John’s hearers somewhat in a daze for when Caesar came to town his throne was the centre and the elders (by Domitian, numbering 24) were around the throne. From there the future shape was determined, but John describes another throne, a heavenly one. But this is no simple vision of ‘just sing God is in control and all things will fall into place’, for he describes a major issue. He sees a book totally sealed that no-one can open so there is no alternative future but the one that Caesar (and the many would-be-Caesars that arise) determines. But there is hope – and the hope is rooted in Scripture:

Judah is a lion’s whelp;
from the prey, my son, you have gone up.
He crouches down, he stretches out like a lion,
like a lioness—who dares rouse him up?
The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,
until tribute comes to him,
and the obedience of the peoples is his (Gen. 49:9-10).

The (Jewish) hope that the Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah and sort everything out, hence one of the elders declares:

Do not weep. See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.

The book can be opened, human destiny, the purposes of God for humanity will be outworked. John stops weeping and turns to see the Lion who has overcome. He sees a Lamb bearing all the marks of having been slain. He hears of a lion, but he sees a lamb. As happens in Revelation the sight gives deep meaning and insight to the hearing. And Jesus is the revelation of God.

I have had a look and I cannot find another reference to the ‘lion’ after that first one. References to the lamb – yes, but none to Jesus as the lion. And I read of the call to follow the lamb wherever he goes.

The unlocking of human destiny is through the slain Lamb and the followers. The Lamb unlocks the scroll, but those that John represents have to eat the scroll (described as a ‘little scroll’ (Rev. 10) so probably indicating that it is not the whole scroll’s content but that there is still work to be done).

The rulership (kingdom) of God is not top down, but working from within; engaging at a level that embraced that which was top down: sin and death, those twin powers.

Paul’s gospel was one of transformation of what was offered to Jesus (the kingdoms of this world)… Jesus, Paul and John in a book full of violent imagery all agree. There is a path for us to follow.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

When? Or just get on with it?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

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’.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Read on… and on…

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

OK so into Numbers as far as my OT reading takes me this morning (with a splash of Psalms and Proverbs that help the medicine go down!). Here is a sample this morning – feel free to read:

On the twelfth day Ahira son of Enan, the leader of the Naphtalites: his offering was one silver plate weighing one hundred thirty shekels, one silver basin weighing seventy shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of choice flour mixed with oil for a grain offering; one golden dish weighing ten shekels, full of incense;  one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering;  one male goat for a purification offering;  and for the sacrifice of well-being, two oxen, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Ahira son of Enan (can be found in Numbers 7).

The previous verses are a list of who did the same thing on days 1 – 11. They all gave the same offering, then at the end the offerings are totalled… I could well do without reading all of that, and if it were voted out of our Bible I would not be found mourning. Made me think.

It is partly ‘boring’ cos it has nothing to do with my history and we can easily get bored with something that has nothing to do with our personal history; it also makes no connection to my world – all that ritual is a world away. But I also realise that I have been brought up to find a verse (two verses of course make it even more convincing) that defend my views, in other words my reading has been shaped by ‘proving me to be right’. It is said that the people who read most reviews of (and view most adverts for) a product are those who have just bought it – they want to be convinced they have made the right choice. I think sometimes Bible reading can be like that. I read until I find what I agree with, or rather what agrees with me.

We are quite removed from reading the Bible as narrative but I am convinced we need to get back to that. Having said that I am not sure I will ever do a jig around the apartment when reading Numbers chapter 7 in the future… but might be more comfortable with what I don’t know. Maybe…

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

The Father, The Wayward Son and His Brother

Posted on
by Simon Swift
Posted in Biblical Observations

Simon Swift’s latest guest post, using  the ‘prodigal son’ parable to talk about what inheritance means for us.

Jesus was very good at using stories to point to spiritual truths. He was able to pack many layers of wisdom into his stories. Like Gold miners we can dig and dig into these parables and keep revealing more truth each time. Of course we have to have a good idea about how the original hearers understood the stories least we miss what he was trying to say to us. None the less because they are stories we can still find rich seams of truth in our own times. One such story is the Prodigal Son and in particular the strange case of the complaining elder brother and how the father makes a remarkable reply.

First we have to make a note of what we mean by inheritance. We are not here, taking about inheriting a large amount of money from some distant aunt and then spending it on a world cruise or something. We are talking about passing on a legacy from one generation to the next. It’s about family, and land that will pass from one generation to the other, each building on previous forefathers work. We tend to think of it as having to wait until our parents die before we can enter into the inheritance. That is why we see the impatient younger son ask for his inheritance now; today please. Surprisingly, the father gives him his inheritance and off he goes to squander it. Just maybe the later conversation with the eldest son gives us a clue as to why he so readily agrees.

Most of us know the story well; if you don’t you’ll find it in the gospel by Luke chapter 15:11. When the younger son after running out of money, returns and makes a plea to his father to allow him back home as a hired hand, he is humbled by his experience and understands he does not deserve anything more. His father has a completely different perspective, seeing him as lost even dead. With the return of his son he is eager to restore him fully to son-ship and therefor inheritance, celebrating because he has been found and is alive. The fattened calf is to be prepared, slaughtered for a celebratory feast; but the story does not end there.

Almost seeming like an add on, the eldest brother makes his appearance for the first time. He is not happy, complaining about how his father is reacting to the return of younger, no good brother. It would seem he has a point and to us today we would be forgiven for wondering why this part was added on to the story, was it even needed?

Lets look at it from the older brothers perspective. His resentment and refusal to join in the celebrations shows us something about his attitude towards his place in the family. First he complains that he is working like a slave then points out he has never disobeyed his father and even moans that he has never been given a young goat for feasting with his friends. He sees his position as not much better than his wayward brother does. Looking for a reward in the future he is obedient to the father. In other words he is playing the role of a hired hand, a slave.

It is a remarkable answer that his father gives him: That all is his. His inheritance is in the now, in partnering with his father; not in working for him as a hired hand; not so he to could squander it partying away; but to grow the estate and be part of the blessing that would come with it, saying, “Every thing I have belongs to you.”*

There is a wonderful connection between ourselves and God. It is a relationship of father and son. Not only do we become part of his inheritance, we also share in the inheritance as God’s children. Rather then see Jesus as the second Adam We should see him as the first in the new age. The first Adam in the new heaven and earth and we too, get to inherit this new earth. Perhaps we must be like the prodigal son and return home, or maybe we are like the eldest and need to realise we are not a hired hand, waiting for a reward.

The earth, the whole of creation is made and realised by God’s word. Manifested out of his desire that pours out from his great power of love. If we are children of God then we are heirs, co-heirs with Jesus, and we can enter into that inheritance today. Partnering with the spirit to build the estate, manifesting the new heaven and earth.

Yet we have sold our inheritance for the desire for material objects on the one hand and for our need to control on the other. Like the younger son in the parable, we chose to cash in our inheritance and go party. We squander the riches of the earth. We turn to consumerism to fill the empty spaces in our lives that should be filled with eternal life. Or like the eldest we fail to see passed his own nose. We build standards that no one can reach and drink in energy from judging other when they don’t. We lose out on the blessings of compassion and instead build power bases of control. In our desire to become gods we starve ourselves of light.

The new age, the new heaven and earth are to be brought into our lives now. Each day whether prodigal son or older brother, we can enjoy the new age by simply having a father-son relationship with our creator. Whether we are out in the fields working or celebrating a returning son or daughter, we are actively inheriting the new age. That means we have to live the new age, the kingdom of heaven life today.

*Quotes of the story from Tom Wright’s translation: The New Testament for Everyone.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Yes… but

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

I am back to Genesis again in my readings as I have set up a plan how to read through the Bible in a year. Some parts later I will struggle with – all the ‘begats’ and the intricacies of the sacrifices and I am sure my mind will wander and I will not have ready every word. Today I was reading of Mr. Abraham and how it just drops in as normative comments about him and his brother that they have children ‘also to their concubine…’ Women come close to being owned, and there seems an absence of romance and commitment to the ‘one and only’. All who take the Bible seriously of course want to insist on following the trajectory of Scripture with a ‘yes that is there, but continue to read and see where this takes us’. In the case of marriage it takes us to a situation of exclusive committed relationships. Trajectory, follow the story.

Determining the trajectory is a challenge, such as we see in the history of the church. Slavery was one such challenge as it is not confronted head-on in the pages of Scripture. It seems that Bishop Lightfoot was one of the first scholars to posit that the gospel message itself refuted slavery even though there was not a specific text that did so. Thankfully no one seriously suggests that slavery should continue, though of course ‘modern slavery’ continues disguised and until consumerism (‘I saw, I took, I ate) is overturned there will always be a tendency to enslave others.

This concept of a trajectory is embraced by all – it is simply that we differ as to what issues are included. And as with the slavery debate when one adds a trajectory that goes beyond the pages of Scripture that the challenge grows. (In using the phrase ‘beyond the pages of Scripture’ I do not mean beyond the ‘story’ that unfolds, a story that culminates in a ‘new heaven and a new earth’ – i.e. a whole new, fulfilled, order.)

Pages / texts and story / trajectory – how do we determine our approach? Consider how Christians differ:

  • Violence and war… plenty of that within the pages.
  • Despotic / sovereign rulers who are endorsed by God.
  • Same-sex committed relationships.
  • Nationalism that protects borders.
  • and… and…

Thankfully at the same time as reading Genesis I am also reading the Gospels. There is a trajectory, and Jesus distorts many previously held norms; Paul then seems to suggest that we live within a fallen oppressive world system, but are not to live by the mythical story of empire, but by the story from the empty tomb that tells us there is One who is the first-born of all creation.

Probably the differences within the Christian community as to how we approach various issues can be used to provoke progression in understanding, rather than division. Anyway all goes to say, I am interested to see what fixed point I will see differently at the end of the year when I finish up in Revelation… will I see ‘a new heaven and a new earth’?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Condemning?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

While Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and, making her stand before all of them, they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.” (John 8:1-11).

The mount of Olives… the place that was split in two. In the final week during the Passover it was where many Jews camped out as the city was full, and in this story one can see how it became a place where Jesus lays out a path that inevitably would call people to decide. Decisions on how we see people and therefore of course how we make judgements.

Jesus is challenged along the lines of faithfulness to the law with a woman caught in adultery being brought to him. The question that many have raised is of course blindingly obvious – and the man? Patriarchy… the woman is to blame and needs to be judged – interesting that Jesus reversed patriarchy in the Sermon on the Mount with responsibility laid firmly at the foot of the man – ‘if a man looks at a woman lustfully’. So right at the start of this story is a clash with patriarchy – and therefore misogyny.

In responding Jesus bought time. He bent down and put his finger in the dust, writing something there. I do honestly think he bought time, Jesus being the great teacher because he was the great learner. I suggest though something more than buying time is going on, his finger in the dust calls to remembrance that humanity is alive because of God’s great finger in the dust. Jesus gets in contact with the very essence of our being. If we do not get in touch with God and also with humanity it is unlikely we will be good learners no make good responses.

Humility – we are all of the same stuff, and not here lording it over one another.

Then we come to the final Jesus’ comment…. ‘Neither do I condemn you’. Not ‘I don’t condemn you provided you get your act together’. Would he have condemned the man?

I think he saw the woman, the real woman, her core and as he came not to condemn humanity, neither does he condemn her. And at the same time releases an impartation, an energy for the future.

Wow… what a radical approach, and we wonder why there is no impartation with our (oft) default approach.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Try this for an approach

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

I entitle this web site ‘Perspectives’ as we often develop when we see something from a different angle. I recently read an article from Keith Giles (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/) with the opening paragraphs as below. And thought – need to read those a few times more. A perspective…

The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden is a metaphor. I don’t believe it actually happened, but I do believe it gives us way of understanding how and why we sometimes struggle with this simple truth of Oneness and Connection with God and one another.
Here’s what I mean: The first people – Adam and Eve – were created in an original innocence where they experienced absolute Oneness with God and each other. Eve was even pulled out of Adam, which suggests that the two of them were once both inhabiting the same body before experiencing that separation process.
The ultimate separation for them came when they ate of the Tree of Good and Evil. This is a metaphor of duality. Once they eat from it they experience a form of spiritual death where they can only see and reason from a place of good/bad, right/wrong, us/them, etc. This is what shatters their ability to see and experience their original Oneness with God and each other.
This story is the perfect metaphor for our own personal experience as human beings. We are born with an original awareness of our Oneness with God and humanity. But, at some point early on in our development, we begin to observe how the world around us operates on this system of good and evil, right and wrong, us and them; the illusion of separation seeps into our consciousness and we are suddenly cast out from the Garden when we lose that original awareness of connection with all things.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Keep the Gospel pure

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

Paul comes across as somewhat arrogant (I don’t think that is the reality) in Galatians with his ‘I got this revelation from no-one, but it came direct from heaven’, then does say he eventually went up to Jerusalem to make sure he was not ‘running in vain’. There he met those who had status(!) and one could certainly perceive that there were significant differences between them (maybe James in particular) and himself in their understanding of the Gospel, or at least in terms of the application of the Gospel. One was a ‘no law involved here’ and the other ‘obedience to the law’. It must have resulted in some interesting debates and discussions – maybe making the Old Perspective / New Perspective / Beyond the old and new perspectives look a little tamer than what was present in those earlier years of developing an understanding of the core elements of the Good News!

They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do (Gal. 2:10).

ONLY ONE THING… of all the things that could have been said… hence there is something so core here in keeping the Gospel pure. Referring back to the second dream I had on AI and my ‘opportunity’ (read ‘nightmare’!) of the debate at Oxford University on opposing the supposition that the new, and improved, humanity will be through following the path to singularity (basically chips implanted to increase the access to knowledge and wisdom into some key people). As I meditate on the dream I knew my defence had to be that the new humanity is only modelled in Jesus who was incarnated in Galilee of the Gentiles, the new humanity has to exhibit greater humility and be incarnated among the ‘poor’, disenfranchised and marginalised.

Defining the ‘poor’ is not so easy – even the two versions of the Beatitudes have ‘poor’ or ‘poor in spirit’, but there is a constant contrast between the ‘rich’ and the ‘poor’ in Scripture. The difference between 10C prophets and the 8C prophets (BC/BCE) is marked – the rebuke to the rich (‘cows of Bashan’!!) comes through so strongly. And archaeology tells us the contrast in housing over those 200 years is very marked – signifying the increase of the divide between the wealthy and those who were on the margins; in Israel leading to the critique of those who were ‘at ease in Zion’.

The true fast, the essence of the Torah at the social level was to care for the homeless, the widow and orphan. I had a challenging Zoom call this morning with a good friend and we were ruminating on the above issue of ‘do not forget the poor’. Carl responded with there has been a shift in so many evangelicals, from being a blessing to the poor to being those who unconditionally support and bless Israel. The supply of weapons has so far accounted for the killing of 3% of the Christian population of Gaza… sobering, and if ever there was a manifestation of the poor Gaza is one such place.

Refusing to give unconditional support for the right of Israel is not to be anti-Semitic (and I have some Jewish blood in me according to my DNA test!) but is to ask what would a biblical prophet say at this time to the nation of Israel!

Hold on to your hat… these posts are perspectives. Part of the great unravelling that I see is the result of the shift (if ever we were centred there, so maybe not a shift involved at all) from ‘remember the poor’ to ‘those who bless Israel will be blessed’ – with a very narrow meaning applied to what blessing Israel entails.

In what we see unravel in many situations we will also be able to ‘follow the money’. Money does not mean blessing – Jesus hit that one on the head, provoking the disciples in the dialogue that we read in Matthew 19

“Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, “Then who can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”

Contrary to popular teaching there is NO evidence for a small gate in Jerusalem at the time called the ‘eye of the needle’ gate. So Jesus is using a pretty strong illustration in what he says. The disciples respond from the perspective of – if the rich (those blessed by God) are not saved there is no hope for anyone else! Two world views… Jesus did not forget the poor.

Ah well, a perspective I am ruminating over!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

April 1… what is this day called?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

So here we are with another of those dates that come round once a year. Some are global changing, even if we have the dates wrong – the ‘big’ dates: Easter, Pentecost, Christmas. Then there are the personal dates – birthdays etc… They seem to mean something if there is some kind of link to the growing number we experience and the development of who we are in becoming who we are. Then there are artificial dates, and this one is perhaps one of the better ones – April fool’s day.

Once a year it seems appropriate to have a day that reminds us how foolish we can be. Paul tied two aspects together within a sentence of each other. He was a fool and he was an apostle:

I have been a fool! You forced me to it… The signs of an apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, signs and wonders and mighty works (2 Corinthians 12:11,12).

He was a fool, forced into it by the people who were not up for rating him, so he boasted in his transcendent experience of being properly in the third heaven. Should he have done that? I think even for Paul the jury was out whether he did the right thing or not. There are clear transcendent experiences, angelic visitations and other experiences that are very difficult to really work out what ‘happened’ – and that probably is not the question we should be asking as it makes what we understand, can touch, feel as being the only reality. Can we process the realities that are beyond that?

Even if Paul was OK in the ‘boasting’ that he puts out there, it is probably a sensible conclusion that he only mentions one of his experiences, thus it probably means we should be very careful in what we share, for the effect is that of exalting ourselves in the eyes of others – not really the ‘kingdom’ way to go! Paul indicates the way to go is to boast in our weaknesses: not the material that sells books!

Then off he goes to what he is sure about, his apostolic call, in spite of his weaknesses. That long term vision that manifests in the immediate. The immediate of the miraculous and the long term vision that accompanies ‘utmost patience’.

If we are open to being a ‘fool’, of recognising (at least once a year) that our maturity does not accord to our age, perhaps it might open up for us getting connected to our purpose and embracing that our contribution today is for the long-term future.

[Perhaps an aside: I am currently focused that perhaps we have been wrong to focus on ‘power’ and attribute to God ‘power’… Maybe it is presence not power that is the major attribute – did creation spring forth as a result of God’s creative power, or his creative presence – yes has implications for the ‘how old is creation’ question and a whole bunch of others. But if this is not an aside – Paul is present and the miraculous takes place… I know if this has any legs I have a lot of ‘power’ Scriptures to work through, but hey ho! Aside or not – April fools day maybe tells me to be present – warts and all – or maybe in Paul’s language – as a fool and as someone appointed within God’s order, even if that appointment is undefined or small.]

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Well out of order person (to come?)

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

I am currently seeking to slowly (and I mean way slow) put together material on eschatology, a) insisting that a) no one agrees with me, b) stating that I am agnostic on certain aspects, c) holding to a considerable amount is past (both in terms of the first Easter Events and also the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD), and d) that all eschatology is deeply practical asking us to respond to the question ‘in the light of this how am I to live?’.

An area where I am agnostic is over a future ‘one-world-leader’ known as ‘the antichrist’. I observed something quite amusing the other day while perusing what is on YouTube that might interest me – videos on a certain former president of the USA as being ordained and anointed from on high (God looking down in 1946 and seeing this child as the one of destiny to save the nation) and videos presenting evidence why he is the antichrist that has been prophesied!! To save time I will give you my discernment – neither of the above. The fascination with the antichrist is of course something that has been around for a long period of time, with so many people put forward as ‘definitely the one – we need not look for another’.

To get to a fixed view on the antichrist one has to fit together Scriptures that are then claimed to speak of the same person although they use different language. In this post I am simply going to pick up on Paul’s language in 2 Thessalonians concerning the ‘man of lawlessness’. I cover this with some extra detail in an extended pdf article: Second Horizon.pdf.

I will simply pick up on what I consider is a translation error in this post, the part related to the text that I have emboldened below – see what you think.

Let no one deceive you in any way, for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction.  He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God. Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you? And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed when his time comes. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned (2 Thess. 2:3-12).

First the reference is future – future for the readers, but now past for us. Future for the readers – into the ‘second horizon’ of the fall of Jerusalem and what Jesus termed the ‘abomination that causes desolation’, something that the ‘pagan’ Romans effected with their pollution of the Temple.

As for the translation bit – virtually every version has two ‘comings’ (parousia – often referring to the ‘second coming’ of Jesus, the word meaning presence or arrival and in the Roman context of the arrival of the emperor or imperial presence). By making it two ‘parousias’ it pushes the event to the future – our future.

A little bit of Greek in vv. 8,9, jump over and refer back:

ὃν ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἀνελεῖ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ καὶ καταργήσει τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, οὗ ἐστιν ἡ παρουσία κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Σατανᾶ ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει καὶ σημείοις καὶ τέρασιν ψεύδους

Parousia occurs twice (παρουσία), the first one is often translated as being the parousia of Jesus who destroys ‘antichrist’ with the manifestation of his (Jesus’) coming, and the second one translated concerning the ‘coming’ (παρουσία) of antichrist who comes with the work of Satan….

However, and there is a HUGE however, the second parousia if translated ‘normally’ qualifies and describes the first parousia (supposedly the coming of Jesus…!!!!) so we would read the manifestation of his coming (τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ), which is the coming according to the works of Satan (οὗ ἐστιν ἡ παρουσία κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Σατανᾶ)!! Hardly a reference to the coming of Jesus. No, no and no! The manifestation of the ‘man of lawlessness’ is that which comes according to the working of Satan

What we have is one coming – the coming of ‘the man of lawlessness’ who Jesus will destroy in the time or context of the manifestation of his parousia in the temple, that parousia that was in accordance to the working of Satan.

All the above a little technical, but I am pretty convinced about this being the only valid way to translate this section, and the change being only made because of a prevailing concept that this is future for us. Another example of assuming Scripture is somehow written to us. It was written in early 50s and fulfilled in their lifetime.

Whatever we make of a future one-world-ruler I do not believe at any level this passage can be pulled in to defend that view. Paul lived in the time of ‘the one world ruler’, Caesar in Rome who claimed to be ‘king of kings’… that rule manifested in 70AD with the desolation brought to the Temple. All indicating Caesar’s conquest according to what was visible, indeed a decade after the conquest an arch is erected in Rome to mark the deification of Titus (who conquered Jerusalem) and to mark the conquest over the Temple. The end of an era… and for those with eyes to see the breath of Jesus marked the end of that era and the continuance of another era, the one who is the ‘king of kings’.

I find so much eschatology twists Scripture to fit a system, but that is not my main objection (for I could be guilty of the same) but that it leaves us with speculation always looking to the immediate future with it always remaining future. I think – even if I am wrong with this passage – better that we seek to align with the breath of Jesus in a way that my breath also seeks to annul everything that opposes God and exalts itself. Otherwise I too might be deluded – even if I can prove I know the truth!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives