Category: Theology

‘Ekklesiastical’ perspective

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Yes a little odd the spelling above but to make a point as I consider a few reflections on the gentleman named Paul (a ‘gentle’ man???).

There is always a section on ecclesiology in the books that seem to try and systematise everything; Thomas Finger said that of all areas of theology it is the least innovative, and suggests that money, reputation and sustaining what gives careers are the driving factors in this. Paul is a pragmatist – more to come on that in a later post – who is willing to compromise today with a view to compromising redemptively, with the plan that tomorrow will be better than today. On that basis I also try to be pragmatic, but it is helpful to push into what might lie at a more foundational level so that we continually push forward. I also suggest that as I hold to the conviction that in the context (particularly) of Europe we are at the end of a long cycle and can imagine a different tomorrow.

Ekklesia – not a word made up by Paul (and on the lips of Jesus twice in Matthew), but a common word understood within the Graeco-Roman world. (Acts 19:39 in response to the riot in Ephesus the town clerk said that if there was any ongoing complaint that it would have to be settled in the ekklesia – not the ‘church’ but the legal body, maybe we would term local council.) Each of the major Roman cities had an ekklesia, made up from the competent males who were responsible for the framework of the city and to plan for its future. Their goal was to make sure the city was shaped according to Roman principles and vision, in short they were to ensure that the city was as close to resembling Rome as possible.

Paul uses that term (ekklesia) to describe those who had found faith in Jesus and were aligned to heaven’s agenda. He could write, for example, to the ekklesia in Corinth, only the ekklesia he was writing to was the ekklesia in Christ. (This post is too short to go into the use of the term ekklesia in the OT Scriptures – but in short it was applied to the people of Israel when they were actively responding to the voice of God: Stephen uses it that way in Acts 7 also concerning the ekklesia in the wilderness.)

We have become accustomed to adding the word ‘local’ to ekklesia and in doing so have weakened what is in the mind of Paul. He was convinced that every locality needed a group of competent people (females definitely included at all levels) who would take responsibility for the locality and seek for that place to be as close to heaven’s reality as possible. A BIG task! And a big task for a small group of people – maybe less than 100 in cities of 200,000+ people. A big task and big faith.

Of course there are other aspects to ekklesia – particularly that of inner care and nurturing one another, but the overall purpose was a group who prayed and acted so there might be some measure of ‘on earth as in heaven’. (Maybe we fall short as we often represent ‘in ekklesia as in the world’???)

Back to Finger who said all that is written is so predictable and lacks innovation. If we moved away from ‘pure church’ and toward ‘here to change the context / locality’ we might be astounded what things might look like. I put the word ‘context’ in there as we are no longer defined simply by localities.

The ekklesia that Paul helped established did have a significant inward activity – with a focus of when they came together they ‘ate’. Inevitable as the Master they followed was an ‘eater’ and part of his offence was to eat with the wrong people. Also eating was a strong prophetic act in both the Jewish and Graeco-Roman cultures. In those cultures – particularly the ones more aligned to the Imperial rule – who came to meals was a major re-enforcement of hierarchy. Where they were seated was all part of that, and the invitations were sent to those who would reciprocate. So subversive the teachings and practices of Jesus… and Paul.

  • Do not invite those who can invite you back.
  • Do not give the seat of honour to the wealthy.
  • Honour the least honourable.

Those commands can be multiplied for the ekklesia of Jesus was ‘upside-down’. That meal – and Jesus had meals at multiple levels – was to a) remember Jesus, b) proclaim his death and c) until he comes.

It has been reduced to something less than a meal and to focus on his death. Remember him – outrageous, disturbing him! Proclaim his death – a new era is here; the powers are defeated and they (earthly and heavenly) do not have the final word; they are but temporary; a new era is here and one day will be consummated. Maybe that is more in line with the ekklesia in Jesus Christ?

Let the meals – at whatever level – be outrageous!

Vincent Brannick (A Roman Catholic! – exclamation mark in the light of what he says from that background) wrote in response to the council of Laodicea (365AD)

The prohibition of Laodicea completes a critical cycle. The Lord’s Supper had changed from evening meal to stylized (sic) ritual. The assembly had moved from dining room to sacred hall. Leadership had shifted from family members to special clergy. Now the orginal form of church was declared illegal.

The original form of ekklesia declared illegal. I might substitute the word ‘purpose’?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Paul, Jesus crucified, raised

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The importance of the cross cannot be overemphasised for Paul.

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God…  but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:18, 23, 24).
I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2).
May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me and I to the world (Gal. 6:14).

The life of Jesus was vital for Paul for his life was in contrast to ours (Adam’s); his being one of obedience, of humility and that obedience being even to death, death being death on the cross (Rom. 5:19; Phil 2: 7,8). A call to imitate Paul was a call to imitate Paul as he imitated Christ. ‘Justification by faith’ was not justification by faith alone – we should not simply subsume James under Paul to erase the supposed divide between them. James said we are not justified by faith alone! And I am sure Paul would have agreed. Neither Paul nor James are suggesting ‘salvation by works’ any more than their roots (‘Judaism’) did. Judaism talked of the ‘works of the law’ – behaviour as outlined in the law in response to God’s grace and acceptance; if Israel was ‘saved’ it was by grace; Paul might well have been happy with the term ‘works of faith’ (‘the only thing that counts is faith working through love’ – Gal. 5:6); certainly works (but not to earn salvation) by the Spirit, his helpful term being ‘fruit’. The contrast for Paul between the former way of life and the new way was that of ‘law v. Spirit’. Led by the law as a guardian (his former expression of faith) gave way to being led by the Spirit (Gal. 4:1-6; Rom. 8:14).

The brutal death on the cross. The cross was a political statement to mark those who rebelled against Rome’s rule; the death of Jesus on the Roman cross was fuelled by religious jealousy. He was charged with being a blasphemer and the sentence was carried out by the Imperial powers of the day – that in itself would be tragic and make Jesus a martyr and a hero, but Paul was convinced that something much more was going on. Jesus was a martyr but more; martyrs inspire but Jesus saves. Probably no ‘theory’ of the atonement will suffice though (no surprise) the populist theory of ‘penal substitution’ in order to display God’s righteousness and satisfy his wrath simply does not resonate for there is no divide in the Trinity. The angry God (Father) and loving Jesus is not Pauline, for God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. It is the ‘powers’ feature highly in Paul. Demonic as in spiritual beings? Earthly powers / systems? Demonic as in ‘beings’ that come into ‘existence’ as a result of corporate power entities? Take your pick! He disarmed all powers:

He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it.

Any theory that does not take in this aspect I think falls short of being Pauline. The transfer from one realm to another necessitates the defeat of powers hostile to humanity; the captivity has to be broken.

Paul’s gospel is not just the cross, but the cross and the resurrection. The crucified one is the resurrected one, and he insists if Jesus had not been raised then we are still in our sins. The resurrection is the affirmation that a former age has been ended, or perhaps it might be better put that a new age / era has begun as the two ages now run in parallel.

Freedom, deliverance, and a very real experience is what takes place. Paul’s gospel goes beyond a ‘faith’ response to a reception of the Spirit and that is appealed to in experiential terms.

The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you experience so much for nothing?—if it really was for nothing. Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law or by your believing what you heard? (Gal. 3:2-5).

‘Did you experience so much’ could be understood as ‘suffer’ as being something external and unpleasant but given that he goes on with present tense verbs as to the ‘supply of the Spirit’ and working miracles among he makes an experiential appeal. Faith resulted in the receiving of a tangible animating presence, the reception of a life-source that resulted in God-activity.

The cross does much more than show us a way (‘moral influence’ theory of Abelard and in part René Girard’s presentation of the scapegoating narrative that he uses). The cross stands at the end of a doomed pathway; the resurrection stands with the stone rolled away and an invitation to a new path. The possibilities are endless and this is why I like to talk about transformation,

[A]nd through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross (Col. 1:20).

I am agnostic (and I think that is the best faith position!) on what transformation will look like because once touched by the Spirit it is the imagination that is ignited to ‘see a new creation’. Paul might have thought there would be an imminent return (in his lifetime) of the Lord (‘we who are alive at his coming’) but he continually worked for the future. That has to be our framework. Agnosticism regarding the future is the framework, but focusing in the present so as to invite the future to manifest.

Once we move away from the narrow framework of ‘saved from hell’ (ticket to heaven) to a Pauline vision for the world (his world and now ours) we do not negate personal salvation but understand it to be a salvation from captivity to the realm of sin and death to participating in the liberation movement of reconciliation. To quote another movement that understands that salvation is to be measured by the extent to which we are liberated and become liberators. (‘[Jesus] who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age’.)

Paul is silent as to what happens between the two events of crucifixion and resurrection. I am also somewhat curious on that time. Do we choose the rather ‘mythical'(??) descent into hades (harrowing of hell: 1 Peter 4) or do we go for the cleansing of the heavenly tabernacle (Hebrews…and what would that indicate)? Or is there truth in both without either needing to be pressed literally?

The cross ends a domination that had erased all true hope (not erased the possibility of ‘individual’ salvation); the resurrection opened entry to the realm of Spirit inspired imagination. Truly, the era of ‘I have a dream’.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A centre for Paul

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Given the title above I have set myself a challenge! What is the centre of Paul’s gospel? Fundamentally it has to be focused on ‘Jesus Christ and him crucified’. He has a conviction that the hoped for Messiah – deliverer of Israel, God’s agent, had come and was to be identified with Jesus of Nazareth, and that he had been crucified; that the death as a criminal (political enemy of Rome?) that he had undergone was the means by which not simply Israel was to be delivered but that the world would be transformed.

His vision was bigger than that of ‘personal sins’ forgiven; it was bigger than a focus on the land known as Palestine; it was bigger than a freedom from an earthly power (Rome); it was bigger than a freedom for an ethnic people who were descended from Abraham. The power of sin (and death) could no longer rule; the power over nations (τὰ στοιχεῖα) could no longer shape (and he seems to suggest that the law functioned in that way for those of Israel – Gal. 4:3, 9); the God of Israel was the God of the cosmos; Israel’s Messiah was the Saviour of the world. Bigger… bigger than a specific people; bigger than a piece of land; bigger than personal. A cosmic vision – a new creation persepctive.

New Creation

Twice Paul uses that phrase – 2 Cor.5:17 and Gal. 6:15.

So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; look, new things have come into being! (2 Cor. 5:17).

There is an outside chance at translating it as ‘they are a new creature’ but the abruptness of Paul suggests otherwise… if anyone is in Christ, new creation (καινὴ κτίσις)… old things have passed away, new things are (he uses the neuter adjectives for ‘old’ and ‘new’). The context is of sight / perception (2 Cor. 5:16). The transformation is future but for those in Christ it is present now! Already we have been (Gal. 1:3) delivered from one age to another and the result is that we can no longer use human categories with regard to others. There is a major challenge, but this gospel is not tame and is beyond ‘me and my life’.

In Galatians he uses the term again:

For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation is everything!

Ethnicity (Jew / Gentile = non-Jew) nor adherence to the Torah has value! That is a bold statement from one who was (and continued to be) a Jew… In Christ that fundamental way of dividing the world was gone.It belonged to a former era. He finishes his ‘neither… nor..’ with (again) an abrupt phrase, ‘but new creation’ (ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις)… the ‘but’ being strong.

The cross is central – the central part for Paul – though we must not dislocate it from the resurrection, but the effect of the cross is a major irruption into this world to such a level that there is new creation.

This brings me to a text that goes to the heart of the outworking. Gal. 3:28.

(But now that faith has come…) There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Ethnicity / ‘chosen nation’ has gone; economic / class divide is no longer legitimate… and as translated above Paul changes the structure in the third part of the verse from no…nor to no… and… (οὐκ ἔνι  Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ  Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ). He does this to quote Genesis, God creating them, ‘male and female‘, but there is something very deep going on here. Creation is ‘good’ but creation had within it dualisms (not ethically) but binaries such as ‘heaven’ and ‘earth’ and the very fundamental human one of ‘male’ and ‘female’. Binaries that defined the spectrum but the ‘spectrum’ in the new creation is one. No longer ‘male and female’. The most fundamental divide in our world has gone. The implications are enormous.

Paul’s gospel pushes into how we inter-relate. It is not primarily about a community who are more holy than others (if we define ‘holiness’ by we don’t do x,y and z) but a community who relate differently to others because their conviction (and experience) is that a new creation exists now. I added the word ‘experience’ in the previous sentence because we are not there yet. Maybe we can accept the word ‘conviction’ but I think Paul pushes for ‘experience’ far more than we are comfortable.

The cross ends the domination by powers hostile to humanity; it ends binaries that categorise so that hierarchies continue.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Wesley… his quadrilateral – is there more?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Mr. Wesley (the John variety) was quite a practical person but also somewhat of a theologian. Although he did not himself use the ‘quadrilateral’ language he has been analysed as using four bases as a foundation for his (practical) theology. The four are: Scripture, reason, experience and tradition. Scripture was always taken as primary with the other three enabling an understanding and a practical application of the Scripture.

I like that enormously – gives Scripture precedence but does not simply quote texts in a way that seeks to apply them in a wooden way as if there are no other factors involved. Sola Scriptura has been badly used and applied – though I suspect never done consistently. Reason – oh yes. What we consider is our reason of course is not infallible, but God is not unreasonable. Reason is a God-gift to us. I remember pushing a ‘Reformed’ professor to the point where he had to admit that he accepted that God wishes something (all to be saved) but chose something different (only the elect). At that point there was a contradiction that does not rationally stand up. We might not know how to resolve it but at least it should shout ‘caution’. Experience – not infallible but even within Scripture we see how texts are re-interpreted as a fresh experience comes along. (I am currently working on ‘Israel, Jew, Gentile’ mix – seems some fresh interpretations when we come to Rom. 9-11… another day). Tradition – OK I might be the weakest on this aspect as it is not my centre, but recognise that how things have been wrestled with in the past can help us process such issues in our day.

But… but… how about we add one more element to brother John’s approach. We might be able to slide it under one of the previous four, but given that it is central to Scripture I think I can legitimately add it:

Eschatological

How things will be… that has to shape our theology. We move from two points – as it was in the beginning… and how things will culminate. Marriage and gender are two interesting aspects when we go from both points. Dualism at the beginning (although if we take it as a merism we have a spectrum, and not a binary) to the end of dualism / binary in the eschaton. Such an approach has to impact also the atonement (why Jesus does not embody the binaries of Jew and Gentile / male and female) – and as an aside why does the Hebrew writer suggest something, not present in Paul, that the heavens needed cleansing?(!!)

I think at every point we cannot simply read the Scriptures as a flat book – challenging if we do and we get to Ecclesiastes with the best human basically being a dead one!!! – not to mention the old chestnuts of slavery and ethnic cleansing. But beyond not reading as a flat book we have to move beyond a narrative-historical approach into the future. We have to both read forward – the onward movement of the narrative and also we have to read back – from the end into the text.

The resurrection brought about two time-zones. Sometimes we have to ask when thinking about a call that crosses time zones, ‘what time is it in xxxxx?’. ‘What time is it?’ is a question we have to ask concerning how we are to respond to issues theological… and then practically how we bridge the ‘time zones’ is important. In the eschaton / new creation this is the time… now we live in ‘this age / time zone’ so how do we apply that time zone into this one so that we can communicate.

In a very real sense Scripture takes precedence but has to be scrutinised by reason, tradition, experience and the eschatological state of things. Sin coming into this world distorted so much and strangely the eschaton entering our time zone also distorts for a clash takes place. If we can increasingly adjust our time to heaven’s we might feel out of sync…

OK the above was intended as a ‘what on earth would that mean then’ kinda post, and the next post I need to get back to an update on Sicily – here in our fourth month and back in the place where the one called Paul stayed for three days – Siracusa.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

And the children

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Some 18 months ago Gayle had a very long and impactful dream that ended with her addressing ‘Mr. Banks’ pleading that he take off his banking clothes, his shoes and go play with the children in the grass. ‘If you can do this everything will follow.’

Everything will follow!

That is quite a statement. Navigating this world is not an easy task. We live in but not ‘of’ this world. The kingdom of Jesus is not of this world otherwise the methodology of this world would be employed. Living in the world requires compromise for it is how do we engage with an imperfect world. But compromise has to be that of redemptive compromise – taking less than perfect action as it at least stops the bigger picture sliding further backwards or at best leaves a better ‘after’ picture than the ‘before’ one.

God or mammon? The two that Jesus put in opposition to each other. Money is not mammon, but so much of the financial world has been colonised by mammon, and mammon is a source from which society can live. The voice of the Old Testament prophets can be reduced to challenging Israel over two issues: is God your Protector and is God your Provider. They rebuked Israel repeatedly over those two issues.

Child sacrifice was an abomination that was never to be part of the life of Israel. Understandably so. But what lay behind child sacrifice. The foundational belief was that of appeasement of the gods (why with certain views of the atonement NT Wright has described them as pagan). One sacrificed to get the gods to bless, and to get the gods to bless the harvest today, in this season, there was no greater sacrifice than to sacrifice the future. The next generation offered to the gods guaranteed blessing today.

Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “The word of the Lord that you have spoken is good.” For he thought, “There will be peace and security in my days.”

Isaiah rebuked Hezekiah for his naive behaviour and said that he had messed things up for the next generation; Hezekiah’s response is that he was happy because things would go well in his lifetime. Happy… but the future sacrificed.

Great parts of money and the economic system has been colonised by this same spirit. And I would go as far as to suggest that a continual pattern of borrowing from the future for blessing today is of the same spirit as Hezekiah embodied, and is on the spectrum heading into Moloch (child sacrifice) territory. Whole financial structures are based on money as debt. Remove debt and the current financial world would collapse! Imagine running one’s own finances on that basis (leveraging).

I think this relates to Gayle’s dream. Play with the children in the grass. Get the dew of creation on your toes; be committed to the next generation on their terms. Play – their terms; their world.

Compromise… but redemptive compromise. Disengaging from the world and living the life of the hermit might be the call for some, but the call for the majority is to be present within; the call on all who follow Jesus is not to be ‘of’.

Compromise but moving toward, making signs of, a fresh economy that might or might not affect ‘money’ but has to break the alignment to mammon and refuse to sacrifice tomorrow for the desire for blessing today.

From:

  • buying and selling to giving and receiving.
  • reversing the ‘harvest before sowing’ to ‘seedtime and (then) harvest’.
  • refusing to set ‘profit’ as the bottom line.
  • refusing to maximise what can be earned / harvested.

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease but did not aid the poor and needy.

‘Your sister Sodom’. The family DNA, hence in Revelation the city where the Lord was crucified was termed ‘Sodom’ and ‘Egypt’. The Reformers gave us justification by faith and for that we should be (and will be!) eternally grateful, however adding the word ‘alone’ (justification by faith alone) has not helped us and flies in the face of the one Scripture that explicitly uses that phrase: ‘You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone‘ (Jas. 2:24)!

A child will lead them (Isaiah 11):

The wolf shall live with the lamb;
    the leopard shall lie down with the kid;
the calf and the lion will feed together,
    and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze;
    their young shall lie down together;
    and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp,
    and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s den.
They will not hurt or destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

And he set a child in the midst:

He called a child, whom he put among them, and said, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me (Matt. 18:2-5).

But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the amazing things that he did and heard the children crying out in the temple and saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became angry and said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read,
‘Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies
you have prepared praise for yourself’?” (Matt. 21:15,16).
Out of the mouths of babes and infants
you have founded a bulwark because of your foes,
    to silence the enemy and the avenger (Ps-. 8:2).

Take off your uniform / shoes and go play

In a world that calls us to conform find the crack where some redemptive seed can be sown… and make sure that it is about a better tomorrow than today. Do something to restore seedtime and harvest… even if ever so small. A movement where everything will follow.

Desiring blessing today at the cost of tomorrow finds its ultimate expression demonstrated at the cross. Judas is there with his money to be gained; the religious system makes it plain that the only way to keep the ‘blessing’ of Imperial favour was to sacrifice Jesus (‘ If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation… You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed’ – John 11:48,50).

At the cross was the breaking of the power of mammon for even Judas threw back the money into the temple system; the ‘place’ and the ‘nation’ were destroyed, but a new way of life was released, with an invitation to follow.

Amidst crisis in the charismatic world where will the children be found? They will lead and ‘all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.’

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Ethnic or faith

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Israel is both bigger than we might suppose ‘Israel’ to be and also smaller! The name Israel is used for the covenant people because of the patriarch ‘Jacob’ whose name was changed to ‘Israel’. [Israel has three applications: the land of Israel; the whole 12 tribes; and the northern ‘10 tribes’ sometimes also called ‘Ephraim’. Jews, as we will see, are part of Israel, but are not ‘Israel’. They are those who are of the tribe of Judah (and Benjamin is included, along with some of Levi who were originally distributed throughout the land).] They are the covenant people who come from the line of ‘Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’. The twelve tribes we might assume are descended from the 12 sons of Jacob / Israel but that is only approximately true. Joseph’s two sons (Ephraim and Manasseh) are described either as two tribes or as half-tribes with the two together making up the tribe of Joseph. The bigger point though is one of ethnicity. The sons of Joseph are born in Egypt to the daughter of the priest of On; Asenath, Joseph’s Egyptian wife, gave birth to two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. They are not only included but give identity as tribes so much so that in later history ‘Ephraim’ can be given as an umbrella name for the 10 northern kingdom tribes. Ethnicity is not in view! 

[There are various lists of the tribes; for example ‘Joseph’ is included in the blessing of Jacob over his sons prior to his death (Gen. 49: 3-27); in the census of the tribes (Num. 1:20-43) Ephraim and Manasseh are included (Joseph nor Levi are listed); and in Revelation 7:5-8 the list includes Manasseh, Levi and Joseph but drops Dan and Ephraim.]

At the time of the Exodus we read that not only those descended from Jacob’s immediate family exit the land but that an ‘alien’ who joined themselves to those of ‘Israel’ were to be considered as ‘natives of the land’ and as a result a ‘mixed multitude’ left Egypt (Exod. 12: 36-38). Those who enter the land are not all descended from Abraham. They are considered to be part of Israel though they are not ethnically descended from the patriarchs.

As they enter the land we read of Rahab and her household being added to the covenant people and later of Ruth (a Moabite) who becomes an ancestor of David. In the Rahab story Achan and his household (Israelites) are cut off from the people while she and her household are incorporated. Matthew in his Gospel that is very ‘Jewish’ lists both those women as part of the genealogy of Jesus.

Caleb (a great hero) was a Kennizite as was Othniel, the judge. The Kennizites were either a tribe in Canaan or descended from Kenaz, a grandson of Esau.At that level ‘Israel’ is not confined to those whose genealogies are ethnically off ‘Israel’, but includes a larger group whose allegiance is to the God of Israel,

[Y]our people shall be my people and your God my God (Ruth 1:16).

We can further add the challenges from the New Testament, such as John the Baptist’s statement that confronted the claim to ethnicity as the marker,

We have Abraham as our ancestor,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham (Matt. 3:8).

Or Paul’s pushback on ‘external’ factors as defining who is a ‘Jew’,

For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not the written code. Such a person receives praise not from humans (Rom. 2:28,29).

In those passages we have both a widening of those who are of Israel and also a narrowing. Either way faith seems to take precedence over ethnicity.

‘Israel’ being smaller than ‘Israel’ is summed up in Paul’s words,

It is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all those descended from Israel are Israelites, and not all of Abraham’s children are his descendants (Rom. 9:6,7).

This was not unique to Paul, for within Judaism (Judaisms?) this ‘narrowing’ view is what fuelled the diverse sects. The stricter the sect the more they saw themselves as truly Israel and others as not being faithful to the ways of God. The ‘sinners’ we read about in the Gospels were those considered not to be part of the covenant people, even though ethnically they might have been pure. 

‘Being cut off from this people’ meant in spite of ethnicity a failure to keep the covenant required those people to be excluded (Lev. 7:27, 18:29, 23:29); Peter uses the same understanding (now provocatively as he centres everything in on Jesus) with his entreaty to his audience to,

Save yourselves from this corrupt generation. (Acts 2:40)

Ethnicity is further challenged by Jesus in Matthew 21:43,

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces its fruits.

The complexity of Israel being both larger and smaller than ‘Israel’ means we cannot simply draw (for example) a straight line from the Israel of the Bible to the state of Israel today.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

And (all) Israel?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I am reading, not just some history, but material around the terms ‘Israel’ and ‘Jew’, hopefully ending up with around 10,000 words that I can put out as a pdf and then when I get back to Spain will look to host an open Zoom around the material. I thought in the process of writing as I get some material ready I will post it here and also hope that any comments will provoke me further. The final pdf might not follow the posts exactly…

All Israel will be saved (Ro. 11:26)

The verse is toward the end of Paul’s discourse that had begun in Ro. 9 and is a fitting conclusion to his statement in 9:6

It is not as though the word of God has failed.

In these chapters he is concerned to show his understanding of how God has been faithful to his promises to Israel, ending then with the fuller statement ‘And in this way all Israel will be saved’. He is focused primarily on how (‘this way’) not on a time-table (translating or reading καὶ οὕτως (kai houtōs) wrongly as ‘and then’).

In eschatology there is often a focus on the land of ‘Israel’ and events that can indicate what the time is on ‘God’s clock’. There are accusations of ‘replacement theology’ (church has replaced Israel) on the one side and of ‘Christian Zionism’ on the other, with the extreme being of two ways of ‘salvation’. This paper will suggest that we need to distinguish between two central descriptions, that of ‘Israel’ and of ‘Jews’. The central verse of Romans 11:26 (‘and all Israel will be saved’) has been taken as a statement about the future and understood to mean that in the ‘end-times’ or at the parousia there will be a wholesale turning to Jesus as Messiah. There are many difficulties with such a reading:

  • It does not use a temporal clause, such as ‘and then’ or ‘after this’.
  • It does not say ‘all Jews’ but ‘all Israel’.
  • With such a reading that proposes a future event, what about all those from Israel or all Jews who had lived prior to this future event – would this Scripture be limited to those alive at this future event? If it extends beyond this we would expect somehow that anyone ethnically of Abraham’s seed would have been ‘saved’ all along – something hard to align with the preaching in Acts (calling the audience to a response and at first the audience is only a Jewish one) or to the ‘conversion’ of Paul.

We will explore this Pauline statement, but for now I note that there is no temporal statement in this verse and to translate it as a ‘and then’ clause is simply in error. ‘In this way’ is the only valid way to translate καὶ οὕτως (kai houtōs) as it is not a temporal clause, but indicates an outcome or a result.

A second factor to consider is how the term ‘all Israel’ was used here by Paul. He has already stated that,

For not all those descended from Israel are Israelites, and not all of Abraham’s children are his descendants, but “it is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” (Rom. 9:6,7).

We thus enter an interesting scenario: not all those descended from Abraham are considered to be ‘Israel’, and as we will explore, ‘Israel’ is bigger than those who are called ‘Jews’! (Smaller and larger!)

One final Scripture to add in this introduction is that of Paul’s statement before Agrippa,

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 (Acts 26:6,7).

I get ahead of myself, but simply wanted to flag up one key direction that I will be taking, and that is the difference between the term ‘Jew’ and the bigger definition of Israel, or as Paul uses here the ‘twelve tribes’.

There are a number of aspects we need to keep in focus as we progress.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Jew to Gentile to Gentile to Israel

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

OK still working on all of this (Rom. 9-11) and why Paul uses the term ‘Jew’ in most of his writings but then seldom uses ‘Jew’ (but uses Israel) in those chapters in Romans… leaning heavily on Jason Staples’ writings and hopefully will get a pdf out before we leave Sicily. In popular understanding ‘Jew ‘ and ‘Israel’ are synonymous and used simply for variation… however it does seem to stack up in ‘second temple’ writings nor in the NT. (This is my little break in the days from concentrating on the land here…) A lot to cover yet but before I get too deep into it all two Scriptures are with me ‘Are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel‘ (not to us Jews) and then one of my ‘central’ verses from the Pauline writings,

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (Gal 3: 12,14).

I think Paul does not go to penal substitution at any point in his writings and also we have to work with a Jew / Gentile progression (so common in Romans ‘to the Jew first then the Greeks). In these verses in Gal. 3 he presents the cross as the answer to a Jewish problem (and I use ‘Jew’ here not ‘Israel’ as his language in the previous chapter has been Jew / Gentile and then he follows in this chapter with ‘neither Jew nor Greek’. This is not to suggest that the cross is not universal in scope – it certainly is and has also to be coupled to the resurrection. Greek / Gentile I do think are more or less synonymous – the Graeco-Roman empire. Outside of the Roman world are the Barbarians, Scythians and the like!).

The curse is the curse of the law so Paul is tightly focused on the Jewish problem – he became a curse for us (usually in his tight arguments ‘us’ is us ‘Jews’. The redeeming nation is under a curse. Far from being blessed as Abraham’s seed and hence a blessing to the nations, thus they are unable to fulfil being who they were called to be for the ‘world’ / nations. Hence no hope for the world until deliverance is brought to the ‘chosen’ nation. Jesus is Israel’s Messiah. Hence it follows if ‘in Messiah’ they are the descendants of Abraham. ‘All’ who are in Messiah! Jews are not alone at being descendants of Abraham – we have to think ‘Israel’ (12 tribes, not 1), hence the change of language in Rom. 9-11.

‘Redeemed us’ so that Abraham’s blessings might not be locked up but flow to the gentiles (language ‘us’ and ‘gentiles / nations’). And then comes something that I have missed in the past as it seems to be even more tightly put… so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit (through faith). The ‘we’ language is used again. I understood that to be an inclusive ‘we’ (= ‘all’) but am being pushed to understand that Paul has in mind the promised Holy Spirit who will write the torah on the heart (OT hope particularly in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, with new covenant language applied to both the house of Israel and the house of Judah). This is for all the ‘us’ – wider than Jews but defined by who are descendants of Israel. indeed to ‘us’ (those of the house of Israel). I think this is what is expanded in Rom. 9-11.

Galatians ch. 4 (written to Gentiles, or if not exclusively to them, for them) is where Paul pulls together who are the children / descendants of Abraham. Beginning with the last verse of ch. 3: And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise. He then continues in ch. 4,

And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Gal. 4:6).
Now you, my brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, like Isaac (Gal.4:28).

Remove the curse, the blessings can flow beyond any former boundary, for within that flow the promise to Israel can be fulfilled. There is a sequence: death in Jerusalem to unlock / break the curse open resulting in (Abrahamic) blessings to the nations and within that flow Israel also receives all that was promised – not because of ethnicity, but through faith. Far from there being some ‘end-time’ timetable, the cross is the end and the beginning, and thus (to jump to where I will eventually get to when I write) in that way all Israel will be saved. A process has been under way since that first Easter as the invitation has gone out to respond in faith to Messiah. For there is no other name under heaven by which salvation comes. No patriarch, no other god – covering both ‘to the Jew first, also to the Greek’.

I appreciate this has been a little tight with a lot of ‘what on earth do you mean by / what about this Scripture etc’… I am in process but wanted to get some of this perspective in this form ere too long.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Ethics

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Well that is a title! An ethics course all sorted in one short post – thus proving that miracles are for today. Cessationism has ceased as of now (had to look up how to spell that word… I always have difficulty with such words… also Calvinism or Reformed – just don’t know why).

How we should behave. That is important as our faith runs much deeper than what we believe and although the books like to separate justification from sanctification that is bit like dissecting the frog to see how it functions, but afterwards the frog just does not work.

The ethics of the NT are relational, eschatological, and redemptive. Or so I think.

Relational:

[S]o we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another (Rom. 12:5).
[Gifts] for the common good (1 Cor. 12).
So then, putting away falsehood, let each of you speak the truth with your neighbor, for we are members of one another (Ephes. 4:25).

Strong words indeed. And the wording goes beyond ‘you are members of a body’ but ‘of one another’. This is not being added to an organisation and even goes beyond being added to a living fellowship where we have something in common. We are – whether we like it or not – intrinsically part of each other, and Paul suggests that we are Christ (clumsy language by the aforementioned apostle?). Well he is not at any level of confusion, no more than the one who spoke from heaven saying that Paul was persecuting him (he does not say why are you persecuting my followers). There is Jesus the resurrected Messiah but those who have responded are so ‘in Messiah’ that they are intrinsically connected to each other. This depth of relational bond is deep and seems to shape Paul’s ‘household code’ instructions. He does not resort to hierarchy (submit to the one above) but to mutual submission to one another ‘in the fear of Christ’ – a voluntary and reciprocal relationship to one another.

The ethics are eschatological: not based simply on a future event when we will be assessed but acknowledging that ‘new creation’ is here. It affects our sight of everyone, all former (‘fallen’ creation) categories are irrelevant and gone (2 Cor. 5:16). And the ‘new creation’ is one of openness, thus it is not a case of ‘not lying’ but of not leaving a falsehood (Eph. 4:25, as far as is possible, we cannot take responsibility for what a person hears but we can go a long way so as they receive a true picture).

The ethics of the kingdom do not bring things back to ‘neutral’ but go from the negative to the positive,

Those who steal must give up stealing; rather, let them labor, doing good work with their own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy (Ephes. 4:25).

To steal is to take what is not ours (the negative) and the response is to stop stealing (the neutral position) so as to give (giving what is theirs… thus a complete shift beyond the ‘stopping’ of an action.

Redemptive. There are times that ‘the lesser of two evils’ is used thus acknowledging that we live in a challenging world. I understand what that phrase means but I think we should reshape it to be ‘make the most redemptive choice possible’. I think God does this continually. When eggs are scrambled it is not possible to put them back in their shells and life can be like that. Messed up and no way to go ‘back’ to the pre-mess state. God is the God of the future… so where to from here. Redemptive choices are of that order. We find ourselves here, what can be done to move to a better place, acknowledging it is not going to be perfect place.

So there you have it my very inadequate ethics class!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A veritable company of saints

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I saw a video clip yesterday of an apologist being asked about Matt. 27:51-53. ‘Do you believe that is literal?’ was the question.

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.

He replied ‘maybe apocalyptic language, maybe literal – I don’t know’. He was then a bit on the back foot and was critiqued for having made an exhaustive enquiry and defence for the literal resurrection of Jesus, but claimed not to know what Matthew intended with these verses and the ‘resurrection’ of these saints. No problem with being agnostic over biblical texts – there are so many that I have not got a clue about!

The problem with the apocalyptic language answer is the context is not apocalyptic but the culmination of prophetic Scripture, with the list of ‘and… and…and’. If apocalyptic then maybe the crucifixion (not to mention the later resurrection) might also not be literal but simply a way of describing the impact of the life Jesus of Nazareth. So Matthew gives us a description of what literally took place – even though strange.

Back tracking for a moment. Between life as we experience it ending (living in the land of the dying) and the parousia the Scriptures can be read in different ways as to the ‘existence’ of those who have passed away. The consistent hope in Scripture is not that of ‘going to heaven when I die’ (very Platonic) but that at the ultimate great reversal those who have been judged righteous will be resurrected. Scripture does not answer our questions as it comes with a different world view. Belief in the resurrection of the dead becomes the prominent Jewish belief (not so for the Sadduccees) as it is the answer to the question about God’s faithfulness. If the renewal of all things is ‘here’ then those alive at that time would be rewarded… but a question remained: what about those not ‘here’ for they have died before that time? Answer – God will raise them up, and then the NT makes clear that those of us who are alive will not enter that time simply as we are but our bodies will be transformed. Resurrection and transformation then were the belief that answered the ‘problem’ of those who have died.

[It is hard to make out what is believed about the ‘interim state’ – Scriptures such as Paul’s ‘I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better’ could simply be that or pulling on a Jewish tradition of the reward for the martyrs (comes through also in Revelation 20 and the resurrection of the martyrs). Bottom line is that those who die in Christ are in Christ and I strongly lean to a non-resurrected, but conscious existence with Christ’].

One aspect that is often overlooked in the strange (and unique) passage in Matthew is that of verse 53: ‘after his resurrection’. They are not resurrected prior to Jesus – their tombs are opened at the hour of crucifixion (presumably the effect of the earthquake) – but the resurrection is after Jesus comes forth. Not metaphorical, nor apocalyptic for we then have the same historical language used of Jesus – they appeared to many.

Resurrection ‘ahead’ of the time-line! The resurrection of Jesus is intensely physical; it is not only far beyond ‘he is alive’ to ‘you cannot find his body’… but the effects of the resurrection are physical to such a level that this creation will be renewed and it has left an impress on time so that there can be inbreakings of ‘end-time / eschatological’ events out of expected time sequence. This aligns post resurrection-time (the time we live in) with incarnational time – now there is a thought!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives