Paul’s statistical use of Israel

Paul uses ‘Israel / Israelites’ 13 times in Rom. 9-11 and 7 in the rest of the  Pauline literature (we will look at those below); he does not use the term ‘Israel’ in Romans outside of these 3 chapters, but uses the term ‘Jew’ on numerous occasions, but only once does he use the term ‘Jew’ inside those three chapters. His focus inside these chapters is on ‘Israel / all Israel / restoration of the twelve tribes’; outside the chapters he is diving into the Jew / Greek issue (the world as categorised that he is working within). Those statistics alone should get our attention.

Of the seven references outside of Romans 9-11 when Paul uses the term ‘Israel’, he is referring to historical / ethnic Israel. Only once does he use ’Israel’ to refer to a current entity, the ‘Israel of God’ (Gal. 6:16), 

As for those who will follow this rule—peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

‘And (καὶ) upon the Israel of God’ can either be indicating two groups – ‘those who follow this rule’ and ‘the Israel of God’, or the use of the καὶ can be ‘epexegetic’ and thus carrying a clarifying meaning – those who follow this rule who are the Israel of God. We can further contrast this phrase to Paul’s use of ‘Israel according to the flesh’ (1 Cor. 10:18). There ‘Israel’ is clearly a reference to ethnic Israel (τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα); in Galatians his term is τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ. The contrast – if both terms are applied to ethnic Israel simply suggests that ‘not all who are (ethnically) Israel are of God’s Israel’. The reference then is either to that portion within ethnic Israel that has responded to Messiah (the Galatian letter is about how Jew and Greek are included in the Messiah) or he is pushing his view that those who respond in faith (who follow this rule) are descendants of Abraham (whether Jew or Gentile) and thus are the ‘Israel of God’. Regardless he is not advocating two ways to salvation!

Paul never uses the terms ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’ synonymously (he maintains the distinction between the terms as other Jewish writers of the ‘second temple’ era do). Outside of Romans 9-11 his normal contrasting language is ‘Jew and Greek’ (Rom. 1:16; 2:9, 10, 17; 3:1,9; 1 Cor. 1:22, 24; 12:13; Gal. 3:28) or ‘Jew and Gentile’ (Rom. 3:29; 9:24; 1 Cor 1:23; Gal. 2:14-15).

I end this section with the important understanding when coming to Rom. 9-11 with the foundation that ‘Israel’ and ‘Jew’ are not synonymous terms. ‘All Israel’ cannot mean ‘every Jew’ and has to extend beyond those living in the land.


This is the fourth post seeking to follow what I am currently writing. I am about to get into the three chapters of Rom. 9-11, so it is likely to be a little while before there are other posts on this theme.

Israel or Jew

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


Israel or Jew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few paragraphs later Josephus writes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christmas comes- but how often?

Always this time of year it is responded to with ‘I can’t believe it is Christmas in a couple of days’. Gayle and I will look for some chicken… or maybe ostrich(?)… and a little prosecco (we are in Italy after all) today or tomorrow to celebrate. But what a deep season – God incarnate, coming into the world the same way we did, so that there might be those who go through the world the same way he did, so that there might be those who come through resurrection into the new creation. What a story.

I had a dream last night that might be more for me than anyone else. I was seated with a group of people who were focused on transforming the world. Present were numerous different ideologies / theologies and I was asked what I saw for the coming year. I began with ‘in these next two years’ but then stopped as it would at one level be rehearsing all that I ‘know’ (dangerous to assume what we know). I stopped and said ‘we will need to give up our view of the kingdom of God at each step as fresh understanding replaces what we already know’.

I then thought (in the dream and subsequent) – ok so that is also present within Scripture. Abraham is blessed and his slaves increase. We can see he is blessed – just count what (and who) he owns. Solomon impresses the Queen of Sheba. The ‘kingdom’ exceeds that of Egypt or anywhere else.

I say to Gayle ‘if we only had the Quran or simply the Hebrew Scriptures I wonder how we would interpret what it meant to follow God’. If we took the Hebrew Scriptures and followed the example of one who was dedicated to them and declared himself (even with hindsight) righteous we should express our zealousness with opposition to all who fall short of our understanding – persecution and even killing. But we have Jesus to whom the Scriptures bear faithful witness.

Matt. 20:26-27, Mk. 9:35, 10:43-44 all make it plain. The one who is / desires to be great becomes the servant of all, and if pushed to the extreme, the one who is to be first then becomes a slave (doulos).

You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them It will not be so among you, but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave, just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many (Matt. 20:25-28).

Abraham’s greatness and sign of blessing was he had many slaves. Jesus said the sign of greatness is to be the slave. One understanding has to give way to the next.

And back to the dream… some of the ideologies in the room would be happy with a (maybe modified) view of ‘if we want to see the world transformed then the evidence will be we are in a place of power and influence’. This is why there are so many examples drawn for transformation from the Hebrew Scriptures but (as I have written before) the One we follow who was in the form of God became a slave (doulos). He did not become a slave in spite of being in the form of God but being in the form of God he became a slave. Jesus is God-like… God is Jesus-like.

It is for this reason our understanding of the kingdom has to give way in an ongoing way.

And finally – why does God not stop all the evil? (And what follows is an inadequate response to ‘why does a loving God allow suffering?’)

Wrong question I think. We are asking it of God. I think God asks it of humanity – for the heavens are God’s dwelling place; the planet is ours. And one day that binary divide will find unity, until then the critical part resides with the followers of Jesus. And that raises the question – what Jesus do we follow?

The lion might be a biblical image, but we have to see the Lamb and to be ready to follow where he goes.

Christmas is here again. We remember. Can Christmas come on a regular basis day by day beyond December 25th? And God was incarnate… Past tense or ongoing present.

Emmaus encounter

The resurrection narrative that recounts how Jesus appeared to the two on the way to Emmaus has always brought me great hope (Luke 24:13-35). Two disciples that numerous historic traditions have held as being Cleopas and his wife Mary. (In Jn. 19:25 Mary is described as the wife of Clopas (Aramaic origin; Cleopas being Greek).) Let’s take it for a moment to be a married couple (my conviction, or at least Luke has written it that way to help us engage with the text).

They are not only physically walking but emotionally walking away from the place where they had been living with so much hope. They had hoped that Jesus would redeem Israel but, post-crucifixion, are now devastated. It seems that Luke is drawing on the narrative of another couple who walked devastated with what had taken place for them. Let’s jump back to that story: Adam and Eve have to walk away from the Garden. The now-unreachable promises of God bearing heavily on them, and they walk with the sentence of death on them. For Mary and Cleopas the evening hour is approaching, that hour when God would come to visit in the Garden. Cleopas and Mary are completely unaware who has come to walk with them, and I suggest that when Adam and Eve (and all those who follow generationally) left their Garden they were completely unaware that they did not walk simply as a lone couple, but a Stranger walked with them, for God did not stay in the Garden but walked also with them, sharing the ‘sentence’ of death with them. God walked it all the way to the place of the incarnation and through the cross, until Jesus becomes a ‘life-giving Spirit’. 

This Emmaus walk is one that we often take. Hopes have taken a bash or are even gone. And we don’t walk alone for we are accompanied by shame, disappointment, regret, guilt or another equally burdensome emotion. But Emmaus tells us we do not walk alone. We might use different words to ‘And it is the third day since all this happened’ to express the depth of the loss of hope. But I think heaven responds with those same words. There is a third day when he meets us on the way and invites us to take bread again from his hands.

Not Jerusalem

Jesus made a strong statement in Luke 13:

Yet today, tomorrow, and the next day I must be on my way, because it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem has to be the place where Jesus (the prophet) dies. The fall of Jerusalem takes place in the Jewish wars of 66-70, but the ‘fall’ of Jerusalem took place over centuries prior to this. It had become the place of which Jesus said,

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! 

Far from being a city set on a hill as a light to all, it has plunged into darkness. We all killed Jesus, all failure to be human (sin) killed Jesus, but it seems that religion in all forms and shapes (and pulling on imperial power) killed Jesus.

I have been reading for the final two months of this year the Spanish new testament and thus read a little slower not always being so familiar with what comes next. In Acts I have just noticed two occasions that Paul was to be killed on the way to Jerusalem / in Jerusalem.

In the morning the Jews joined in a conspiracy and bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. There were more than forty who joined in this conspiracy (Acts 23:12,13).

They appealed to him [Festus] and requested, as a favor to them against Paul, to have him transferred to Jerusalem. They were, in fact, planning an ambush to kill him along the way (Acts 25:2,3).

‘Prophet’ Paul is not going to be killed in Jerusalem for once religious power (the ‘glue’ that holds so much together) had been broken there has to be a relentless push for Rome the centre of imperial oppressive power. Religion and imperial power together are so destructive, hence we have to be on high alert when we hear the oxymoron ‘Christian country’!

Religion says who is in and who is out; imperial power promises so much to one and all, seeks to reward those who comply (you can buy and sell) but the rewards flow back to the few at the centre. Put those two together and the imperial power claims divine blessing for what is done.

And the gospel of the kingdom? A God whose arms are open wide, who embraces the depth and shame of humanity with the ‘rewards’ flowing to the uttermost parts. (John records 28 cargoes flowing to Rome – including human souls; he also records the ‘Lamb’ 28 times. The fullness (7) from (for in the case of the Lamb) the whole earth.)

Paul your destiny is Rome not Jerusalem.

There are many, small and big, ‘Romes’ in our world. Some are tough to crack, particularly those that combine religious and imperial power. But the gospel of freedom has triumphed.

Lion or Lamb?

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.

When? Or just get on with it?

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’.

Read on… and on…

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…

The Father, The Wayward Son and His Brother

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.

Yes… but

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’?

Perspectives