Category: Biblical Observations

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

Wolves and lambs

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

Not exactly friends together… an invitation to partake in a picnic given to both of these animals would probably leave the lamb a little nervous – certainly if the lamb asked ‘who else is invited?’. Yet… Jesus said to his followers:

The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest. Go on your way; I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves (Lk. 10:2,3).

Quite an instruction!!! I wonder if the two animals that Jesus chose was based on his meditations in Isaiah:

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together (Is. 65:25)

The context of Isaiah is of a vision of the Messianic / eschatological age when shalom will be the environment that pervades, all things brought to a place of relational wholeness, which will include all of creation. Jesus is certainly highlighting the age-old prophetic critique of not trusting God for protection (hence why are you relying on Egypt etc. OT type critique) but perhaps he is also pushing those he sends out to be consciously living out the reality of the coming Messianic age – I think that when he goes on to speak about eating together (‘eating and drinking whatever they provide’) further suggests this is in Jesus’ mind when he gives the instructions. Those sent out are not hoping for a new age, they are living in it, an age when lambs and wolves do picnic together!

Maybe the ‘other’ remains a wolf, but our vision changes. We can eat with them and as we go in carrying shalom that shalom will rest on them:

And if a person of peace is there, your peace will rest on that person, but if not, it will return to you.

We have experienced shalom, that has to be what we carry self-consciously, we can meet those who are (perhaps) not as far along the journey but are already people of peace / shalom – they are ready to welcome a new environment, a new reality. We (lambs) eat with those who could turn out to be wolves, but as we find those who long for a new reality of extensive shalom the context of eating together (initiative taken by the lambs, the risk of vulnerability being their challenge, the provision for the picnic coming from the wolves…) the signs that the kingdom has indeed come near is manifest with ‘and cure the sick who are there’.

The instruction to those sent out has far reaching effects socially. It has to, for essentially we have all been formerly wolves, the mark of which is we ‘devour one another’ to satisfy our own appetites.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

An interesting place – but why?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

An amazing miracle in Joppa with Dorcas raised from the dead and ‘This became known throughout Joppa, and many believed in the Lord’ (Acts 9:42).

Peter stays on in Joppa (modern day Tel Aviv) and Luke repeatedly tells us it is with ‘a certain Simon, a tanner’. It is here he has his vision of the sheet full of unclean animals coming down which eventually propels him (semi-reluctantly?) to make his journey to Cornelius’ house, where he makes his introduction with:

You yourselves know that it is improper for a Jew to associate with or to visit an outsider, but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.

A radical conversion for sure… but a) he has been in Joppa, the very place that Jonah left from so that he might not go to the ‘other’, the Ninevites, so Peter would have that narrative in mind, Joppa the place where in obedience to God we go to those we once thought were unclean; b) he is staying with Simon a Gentile (possibly a Jew, but handling dead animal carcases?), so is already visiting ‘associating and visiting an outsider’; c) as a tanner Simon is working with dead animals so Peter is staying with someone ‘profane and unclean’.

The vision comes and Peter interprets it as a test and holds firm to his tradition / convictions, with a strong ‘never have I…’

All seems strange to me, but illustrates that we are out of the box in Joppa, staying with an unclean Gentile, thinking we are doing so well, but there is further to go… Three people knocking on the door for us to respond to, waiting for us to come down from our place of revelation to connect.

Scripture is full of annoying narratives that don’t help us work out how we are to respond.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A positive – and challenging – translation

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

An old translation of Rom. 8:28 goes like this:

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

This can indicate a kind of fatalism and acceptance of ‘all things’ as being a positive and therefore to be a welcomed experience to passively submit to. A much better translation (such as NIV) indicates that God works all things, that the all things are not initiated by God but that as we experience all things, God is deeply involved with us, God being the redemptive God. So in the NIV we get:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

It is not simply a better translation theologically but also linguistically. God gets in the all things with us, and refuses to accept a setback as simply coming with an inevitable negative outcome. There is no sugar-coating of the setback but there is a personal commitment (God becoming the subject of the verb ‘work together’) so that at the very least the presence of the Living God is with us.

However, recently I have come across a further push with regard to the verse. This takes it further than simply at a personal level, but into the cosmic level of bringing the whole of creation to a fitting conclusion, to the liberty experienced by those who have been set free from the powers of this world. (A little technical) it is all to do with how the ‘dative’ cases of ‘those who love God’ and ‘those called according to God’s purpose’. It can be as we have it ‘for those…’, in other words for us. Or it can be translated as ‘with those…’ If the latter, and it is the context that suggests this as the actual words used could indicate either translation. So using the ‘with’ (known as the instrumental dative) translation we have:

Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσι τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν, τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν.

Literally: We know that with those who love God all things s/he works into good, with those being called according to purpose. (So maybe something like:)

And we know that God works with those who love God toward what is good (for the whole of creation), [working with] those who have been called according to his purpose.

Maybe a little clumsy but the idea is that there is a partnership in the – wait for the big word – eschatological activity in the earth. Backing up in Romans, creation is in bondage in the same way that Israel was in bondage to the Pharoah of the day until they were set free. The ‘sons/daughters of God’ have found freedom, crying out with inarticulate sounds as the expression of freedom… but set free in order to be agents of freedom for creation. Christ as firstfruits of all creation releasing those who have responded to the freedom that comes through the resurrection to join with the groaning of creation, to engage the ‘all things’ that so often work to bring a yet further bondage… In partnership with God, and there is no hope without God, but in partnership with God, those who love God who are called according to God’s purpose line up alongside God… and even in the midst of all things something good is manifest. The future is not hopeless, creation is not doomed, humanity is not sentenced to nothing but bondage… freedom calls, and that freedom calls for partnership.

I think the shift of emphasis makes better sense of the chapter and remains as a challenge for us, but places redeemed humanity as the stewards of creation, as those who see the new creation and in seeing that come into partnership with heaven.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

No regret

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

A small reflection on what a word might indicate.

As regards the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their ancestors, for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

‘Irrevocable’… carries such a sense of permanence. I have yet to come to ‘Israel’ and eschatology in my video series, and that will probably be way down the line maybe by the end of next year, but Paul seems to walk a challenging path of centring everything in Jesus, hence only has been one olive tree (not two ‘peoples’) but drops in some encouragement that although there is neither Jew nor Greek / Gentile (eschatological perspective) that there is a big ‘thank you’ from heaven because of the doorway opened for salvation of the world that came through the patriarchs. That is deeply encouraging beyond the Israel scenario – children are so blessed if there can be found a doorway from heaven to earth back somewhere in a generational line. God has wonderful soft-heart… Paul pushes this situation with children and an unbelieving spouse in 1 Cor. 7:

For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

God can find a way for inclusion that goes beyond personal faith – personal faith is so important, but we are not the final arbitrators regarding any in/out line!! No way. And Paul with regard to the Rom. 11 passage above is indicating a wonderful extension of grace that covers generations. Once we remove the need to determine ‘who is God’s people?’ we can live with ambiguity and keep the centre as Jesus.

And the word ‘irrevocable’ is somewhat intriguing. It only occurs here in Rom. 11 and again in 2 Cor. 7:

For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death.

‘No regret’ (ἀμεταμέλητος ametamelētos – translated as ‘irrevocable’ in Rom. 11)… now that might give us a little different approach to the ‘gifts and calling’ on Israel. Maybe Paul is indicating that God has ‘no regret’ in choosing Israel. I kinda think so… and maybe we should take a similar approach to things that have not worked out as they could have. What ‘could / should / might have been’ and did not come through as we thought… no regret. I would do it differently now – for sure!!! – but I am where I am because of all of that journey and into that God is committed to ‘work all things together for good’ – not the author of the failure of Israel, nor my failures / disappointments, but if we stick in there there is much more to come.

Not irrevocable… but definitely not wallowing in ‘what should have happenned’, the future with a ‘no regret’ sign posted on any looking back!! I guess that goes with a God who promises the day to come when there will be not a tear in sight. Gets my vote.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

… and women

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

There are often a few words that appear in a text that makes one wonder. This morning I thought about Paul (Saul) and his persecution of believers in Jerusalem (Acts 8) immediately following the death of Stephen. The motivation was that fellow-Jews who had joined the ‘blasphemous’ sect that later became known as ‘Christian’ were endangering the nation as a whole. Israel was already under the judgement of God, evidenced by the control of the land being in the hands of the Romans and their puppet leaders. This was being compounded by Jews who claimed that a crucified person was none other than the promised Messiah. If this movement was not stopped in its tracks the punishment from heaven would be even greater. Hence he understood that to be zealous for God would mean he would need to stop the movement at all costs. If he did so then he would be assured that he was righteous. He was eradicating evil from among his people, and there was a strong model for this in the golden calf incident (Exod. 32) with the sons of Levi demonstrating their ‘zeal’ in slaughtering 3000 of their fellow-citizens of Israel. As a result the Levites become the priestly tribe. (Wow… there are just a few challenges in reading the OT are there not? And thankfully Pentecost changes the optic some with 3000 coming to life…)

Saul demonstrates his zeal and ‘righteousness’,

as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless (Phil. 3:6).

As zealous as the Levites who were ‘rewarded’ by God!

He does not worry about Gentiles who could claim whatever they wished about Jesus. They were condemned already – his concern was to cleanse Israel. So to do so he ‘entered house after house’. Allegiance to Christ was on a household basis, hence enter a house, and if they were following Jesus he would seek to eradicate that house.

That day a severe persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria. Devout men buried Stephen and made loud lamentation over him. But Saul was ravaging the church by entering house after house; dragging off both men and women, he committed them to prison (Acts 8:1-3).

The spread of Jesus-aligned houses is remarkable, and the spread of the gospel likewise is remarkable, hence his request to go to Damascus to the Jewish community there to eradicate this blasphemous heresy.

And one very startling element in that final verse. He dragged off ‘men’ – that would have been enough in that culture. They were the ‘head’ of the household. Remove the head and problem dealt with. But this ‘heresy’ was different! Dragging of the supposed head would not be enough. The gospel liberated women, not simply through personal salvation, but liberated them culturally and socially. Paul had no option if this heresy was to be cleansed from Israel – the women had to be removed also.

‘Salvation’ was a total turn around socially as well as ‘spiritually’.

We are seeing this rise again in this era. Hence the digging in of some ‘Christian’ quarters to re-establish the hierarchy of so-called ‘Judeo-Christian’ values. Maybe we could use the term ‘Judeo’ values but I think the earliest evidence within the ‘Christian’ expression means we cannot really add the second adjective to the values.

Supporting Christian values so that there might be an establishment of them – now that is a challenge!

[Oh yes Paul writes about ‘head’ and all that within the so-called ‘household codes’… beyond this post, but against the background of the Graeco-Roman world he uses the common formula of his day that was used by philosophical and religious groups to show they were not overtly seeking to overthrow Rome. Not overtly, but subversively, Paul used the formula apologetically, but in them he sows something beyond hierarchy… Christian values.]

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives