Category: Theology

Palestine / state of Israel… where to?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Posting any comment on the above is a challenge. The history, back through the Zionist movement, the anti-Semitism of the West and then add in the Bible, or at least what we term the Old Testament adds layers upon layers. Is there a way forward? In Jesus there is always a way forward. I do not like the term ‘the better of two evils’ as an ethical frame but I do understand what is being proposed by that term. I rather would operate with ‘the most redemptive path’. It is not easy to always advocate the right response in an absolute sense, but we can consider the most redemptive route and then look at it again later and respond with a further response. I think we see that in Scripture and that is the whole basis of a theology of sanctification – ongoing, from glory to glory.

It is not possible to look at the current scenarios in the Middle East without referring to the political powers (Imperialistic colonisers) and such agreements as the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916. A secret treaty between the United Kingdom and France, with assent from Russia and Italy, to define their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in an eventual partition of the Ottoman Empire. The land of Palestine was to be controlled by Britain, and then further lands carved out with no respect to ethnicity nor (flavour of) religion. Follow this up with the Balfour Declaration (1917) with the promise to work toward a Jewish state in Palestine (a land with people already within it, a people that were mainly Muslim but included Christians and a small Jewish community). A land with people living within it – who had lived there for centuries – this is so common with regard to colonisation. The common argument has been there were no people living there, or (maybe worse, but really the same) the people were not significant / less than human. Common… And wrong. Wrong historically and wrong ethically, and a blatant trespassing. Anglo-Saxon ‘christians’ going to church Sunday morning then hunting first-nation people (wrongly termed ‘aborigines’) post-church in Australia – such stories can be repeated over and over. (For a year Gayle and I tracked the horrific expulsion of Muslims from Spain; here in ever-so-kind Oliva the church records of Muslims being marched to church on Sunday and ‘converted’ then killed as they were marched out again with the proclamation of a two-fold outcome in that ‘we raised their souls to heaven and filled our own pockets’.)

I am sure that the Palestinians were the offering of appeasement on the altar for the anti-Semitism that had gone on with the pogroms of Europe that aligned with the bloodshed that went before and after with the holocaust.

In the two years following the state of Israel being established (1948) 400 cities and villages were destroyed with some 1 million people being driven violently from their homes (this was not an ’empty land’) with many of those people forced into Gaza. Such activity is in direct conflict to international law.

It is not an exaggeration to say that Palestinians continue to live in an apartheid context and that there is ongoing genocidal activity. (I am not making comments about Israeli citizens of Israel, but of the state of Israel, and I am certainly not condoning any violence that originates from Hamas. More below on that…)

Yesh Din, an Israeli organisation registered with the government in a report in 2020 (58 pages entitled ‘The Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and the Crime of Apartheid: Legal Opinion’) concluded,

That the Israeli regime in its entirety is an apartheid regime. That Israel is an Apartheid state.

It does so sadly and as an Israeli registered organisation.Thank God for the many Israeli Jews who see others as their equal and as human. (The report is found here.)

In response to the Hamas attack of October 2023 Israel’s defence minister said,

I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed… We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.

Such state responses and statements abound and cannot be justified under the heading of the right of self-defence. Genocide is an appropriate term. Omer Bartov, a former Israeli soldier and a professor of Holocaust and genocide studies wrote in the Guardian that he had become convinced that,

At least since the attack by the IDF [Israel Defence Forces] on Rafah on May 6, 2024, it was no longer possible to deny that Israel was engaged in systematic war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal actions .

But the Bible?

Netanyahu has positioned himself as a ‘secular Jew’ but has been willing to use Scripture as justification. The ‘Amalekites’ need to be wiped out and the land promised by God restored to those to whom God gave it. Weaponising the Bible is so common by colonising powers, what greater justification does one have but being the anointed of God?

Christian Zionists such as Tim Walberg (and many, many others could be quoted) who trained at two evangelical seminaries in a town hall meeting (he is now in politics) said that bombs should be dropped on Gaza like Nagasaki and Hiroshima to get it all over with quickly. When asked about humanitarian aid he replied with ‘we should not be spending a dime on humanitarian aid’. (When he replied with those words the UN had already warned that 70% of the population was suffering from catastrophic levels of hunger.)

Random thoughts:

  • Two peoples corporately traumatised rarely find a solution.
  • If we dig into the OT we find the lex talionis (eye for an eye) – a restrictive law on how revenge is taken, so that any response is equal to what was committed. This is not what is governing the response.
  • Jesus advocated a love response that embraced the enemy; he blessed the peacemakers. We have to read from the NT back into the OT. Any apparent change of ethical instruction does not mean that there was a different God in the OT (Marcion’s conclusion), but as followers of Jesus we insist there is no other God than a Jesus-like God. And yes for sure we have to read the OT critically – that is a huge hermeneutical task, but we cannot make God into an image that is not seen in Jesus. (In certain places it seems that Christians vote for a bully who knows how to support their agenda as their God is also a bully who forces an agenda.) ‘You have heard it say, but…’
  • Paul said ‘do good to all’ and added ‘especially to the household of faith’. Do good to all… and in Palestine, and currently in Iran where there are so many coming to faith, there are ‘many of the household of faith’ being starved, tortured and killed – with the full backing and indeed encouragement of evangelical ‘Bible-believing’ people. Something is wrong!
  • I do not read of any expectation of the land being restored to ‘Israel’ nor of some end-time opening of eyes with regard to the land in the NT. (I date most books prior to AD70 and Revelation late 90s – so neither before nor after the fall of Jerusalem do I find such an expectation.)
  • What do I make of 1948 and ‘Israel’? If a return to the land was an act of God it was to be preceded by repentance. Repentance is not what provoked a return. I am told that statistically more Jews come to Christ outside of Israel than inside. The return to the land is a Zionist persuasion – and to be anti-Zionist is NOT to be anti-Semitic. Most Palestinians are not anti-Jews (some of course are) but they are anti-Zionist. Is God at work… for sure but I see no basis to suggest the ‘return’ is something initiated by God. I have been struck by the convivencia that was present for centuries in Palestine. Those from the 3 Abrahamic faiths lived together. That term, convivencia, is a term used of Spain prior to the Reconquista by the Christians. Prior to that the three faiths lived respecting one another in the same space. We have prayed into this often.
  • God is present in every situation that we create and works ‘for good’; but the Satan is also at work. If there was one land where reconciliation would be a sign on the earth above all others it would be that piece of land in the Middle East that is in conflict. Jesus was clear that those who murder are not descended from heaven but from the devil who was a murderer from the beginning.
  • I do not have answers but do not sleep easily and I long for there to be a Jesus-aligned people who are not looking for an end that is provoked by some made-up Armageddon scenario but a beginning that is in response to an empty tomb.

Gayle has many dreams. The short version of a very long and profound dream she had prior to the current genocide is of a gathering inside a marquee. Support for Palestine becomes central; two groups find commonality – those of Christian faith and those who expressed faith for humanity (humanists)and one group exited – Zionists. Many aspects followed including the appearance of flamingos (now present in Albania) which then ended with an appeal to the banking system to get rid of the professional clothing and play with the children in the grass. We have to see a major shift in the economic realm (war enriches the few) as it is willing to sacrifice the next generation for blessing now (condemned as the sin of Moloch in the OT).

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

All Israel – all?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Romans 9-11 definitely stands as a section within the whole book but is not simply unrelated to the remainder of the book. The latter chapters address the inter-relationship of the people from the former covenant who have responded to Jesus as Messiah and those from the Graeco-Roman world who have acknowledged the God of Israel and the work of the cross (deeply practical – a people who are Torah obedient and a people of faith to whom the Torah was not given). And the earlier part of the book has all people have fallen short of the glory of God (of course we read this individualistically but Paul is writing it collectively), with the fullness of salvation available for all. Then these middle chapters are in answer to the faithfulness of God with Paul insisting that ‘It is not as though the word of God has failed’ (Rom. 9:6).

Never one that is easy to follow, but Paul having laid out his case concludes with ‘In this way all Israel will be saved‘. The chapters are dense and that sentence is somewhat dense too!

  • He is not predicting some future turning of all Jews to Jesus as Messiah. His language is ‘in this way’ not ‘and then…’ He is not seeking to give a timeline. His slow to build (though dense) argument is to present an ongoing process of a faithful God.
  • He is not saying ‘all Jews’ but ‘all Israel’. That is a vital part to note. The term ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’ are not synonymous. Outside of these chapters in the Pauline corpus his usual language is ‘Jew’; inside these chapters his language is ‘Israel’.
  • This distinction of ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’ is consistent with other authors such as Josephus or Philo. (Josephus (37-100AD), for example, wrote the Jewish Antiquites (a history of Israel) and refers to Israel/Israelites 188 times in the first 11 volumes but does not use those words outside of those 11 volumes; and conversely 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)).
  • ‘Jew’ refers to those who returned from the exile in Babylon, consisting of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; ‘Israel’ is a larger term relating to the whole 12 tribes, who did not return to the land but were scattered among the nations. Paul expresses the hope of the 12 tribes when he stands before Agrippa – the hope of Israel, and if that hope is to be fulfilled then God has to be faithful. If he has abandoned his people then he will prove to be unfaithful.
  • Thus Paul is writing of an ongoing process through which all Israel will be saved, not some ‘end-time’ event.
  • Further he has argued (as Scripture does consistently) that Israel is a faith term more than an ethnic term. Those who are not ‘of Abraham’ can become descendants of Abraham, while ‘not all (ethnically) descendants of Abraham’ are of Israel. ‘Israel’ is a term larger than ethnic Israel and at the same time smaller than ethnic Israel!
  • The global mission is the means by which all Israel will be saved. All Israel, not simply those living in the land of Israel (those whose designated term was ‘Jews’), but those from among the nations whose ethnicity is rooted in Abraham (those from the tribes who never returned); all Israel in that those who have no ethnic roots in Abraham but are adopted from among the gentiles (ta ethne – gentiles of nations as it was a term used to describe those who are not ethnically descended from Abraham).

The above is a summary of part of my reading of this ‘all Israel’ use in the context of Romans 9-11 and the fuller text is here.

In seeking to narrow down as to what Paul is arguing and thereby exclude certain other meanings I plan to jump to some perspectives on the situation in Palestine / Israel.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Christian humanism

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Some of you will have read the pdf on the theology behind Paul’s statement that ‘All Israel will be saved’ (available here via the menu under ‘Journals‘) and since then I have read Munther Isaac’s book ‘Christ in the Rubble’. He is a Palestinian Christian pastor (and much more!) living in the West Bank. Deeply informative of the history and sensitive to the issues but very clear. Two aspects remain with me constantly that the creation of the state of Israel by the colonial powers used the Palestinians as the atoning offering for the anti-Semitic history of those colonising powers and the history of the land prior to the modern state was one of convivencia.

Some years back Gayle and I took a year to research then travel throughout the whole of mainland Spain to pray into the years that culminated in the brutal expulsion of the Muslims (1609). With a measure of rose-tinted lenses and a significant measure of reality under the rule of the Muslims there was what was termed convivencia in Spain – those of the three Abrahamic faiths (Christian, Muslim and Jew) co-habited space. We see Spain as the ‘canary in the mine’ (not original to us – a recent history book wrote with this lens on Spain in the context of Europe) so do believe that Spain is key to lead a path back toward genuine convivencia – the vision of the New Jerusalem is that: every tribe… and no temple!

Maybe we are naive and yesterday we had two socially active people with us who do not express faith. I admire their stance and understand the huge measure of pessimism as without faith in the transcendent ‘Other’ how much faith can anyone have in humanity to bring about change. The pope recently called for a ‘Christian humanism’ to rise up. For too long we have seen a divide between a focus on humanity and a theology of God. This is why I wrote Humanising the Divine, though I don’t think the pope was one of the four readers of the widely acclaimed book (widely acclaimed in my head!).

I have at times alluded to what I consider is the most profound dream Gayle had which began with Palestine and the coming together of Jesus-aligned people with humanists in the context of Europe in close harmony and support, coinciding with the exit of Christian-Zionists. The end of the dream pushed for a new order economically. (There were many details in the dream that we have watched play out – including a phase of the appearance of pink flamingos with the question: ‘did you see that?’ Did you see what was happening in Albania???)

Palestine, Israel, convivencia, the Bible, genocide – huge questions. And in real life situations there are rarely ‘here is the answer’ but rather here is the first step… and if the steps can be followed bravely and without fear something redemptive unfolds. I think this is the way God / faith works – from glory to glory.

I read this morning an article: Israeli West Bank settler tells BBC attacks on Palestinians are justified as revenge (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g4djgdyk2o). I am lifting part of the dialogue below:

I think now, after they killed one Israeli, we need to kill all the people in Tal and Sarra, even Jit and Farata,” he said, naming the Palestinian villages closest to the outpost.
I put it to him that he was equating one Jewish life with hundreds or even thousands of Palestinian lives.
“No,” he said, “millions. One Jewish life, it’s 10 million [Palestinians].”
Challenged on the racism of his statement, he did not deny it.
“Yes, I know,” he replied. “But this is the truth, because God chose us [and] because of this you are jealous.”

‘God chose us’… there is the issue right in our face. And Paul quotes Deut. 32:21 that God would make Israel jealous by a nation that are not a people!

So over the coming days I want to reflect on Israel, Palestine with reference to what I wrote in the pdf. And hopefully taking it further, for the vision is of ‘neither Jew nor Greek’… maybe it begins with the original creational binary of ‘male and female’ shifting to be ‘no longer male and female’. The binaries that we so often love are no longer present relationally in Christ (Gal. 3:28; convivencia in its fullness).

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Do not ‘carry’ the Lord’s name ’emptily’

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The third commandment telling Israel not to bear the name of the Lord in vain is pretty profound. As indicated in the title of this blog I want to carry it a long way further than using the name of the Lord in a swearing context, and certainly beyond those who call out OMG.

To bear the name of the Lord is parallel to that of the high priest who bore (carried) the names of the tribe on his clothing – he carried them, he represented them before God; hence the core of this commandment is to represent God. Jesus faithfully ‘carried’ God’s name (character)

I made your name known to them, and I will make it known, so that the love with which you have loved me may be in them and I in them (Jn. 17:26).

Even AI is smarter than to reduce this commandment to swearing. Here is a summary that AI comes up with:

  • Hypocrisy & Misrepresentation: Claiming to be a follower of the Lord, but acting in ways that directly contradict His teachings.
  • False Prophecy: Saying “God told me” when He did not, or claiming divine authority for one’s own desires.
  • Covenant Breaking: Making vows or promises to God but failing to follow through.
  • Superstition or Magic: Using God’s name lightly as a charm or to cast spells.
  • Careless Speech: Using God’s name in a thoughtless, casual manner.

Too much of that takes place and my slight following of what is getting shaken at the moment is to do with where the name of the Lord has been carried emptily / hypocritically / in vain. I was somewhat impacted this morning when reading about Babylon (representative of all Imperial structures) in Isaiah. The spirit of Babylon is that of self preservation of the structure at all costs – hence people will be sacrificed

I am, and there is no one besides me; I shall not sit as a widow or know the loss of children… I am, and there is no one besides me. (Is.47:8, 10).

That is the voice of Babylon – we will survive or ever and at all costs. This is why I have advocated that something akin to a corporate exorcism is needed probably once a year, even to structures that have served well. The snake on the pole was the means of healing, and then became something that had to be destroyed. If we do not do this what served become what we serve, and back we go to deny that first commandment.

The part that impacted me this morning was the sudden demise of Babylon. Took years to become ‘eternal’ in spirit and attitude, but in a short space of time the demise comes,

But evil shall come upon you, which you cannot charm away; disaster shall fall upon you, which you will not be able to ward off, and ruin shall come on you suddenly, of which you know nothing (Is. 47:11).

We all know that sadly there are those who genuinely are put off God because of us lot (and some who use that as an excuse). We carry the name of the Lord… but how do we carry it?

One further aspect struck me this morning. We know that Jesus became of no reputation, and did so as he was ‘in the form of God’ – he was like God. The humility of God. Ever been spoken against? Be slow to defend. Yes, we have a responsibility to do what we can so that we do not (actively or passively) leave a falsehood, but it cannot be from the motivation of self-defence, of preserving any reputation. To do so would be to take the name of the Lord in vain.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Evolving theology

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I know I do cos I can make every Scripture back me up. Really?

I have always believed in God starting out because I was told so, then experientialy, but over the years I have become an ‘atheist’ concerning a certain presentation of ‘God’, aligning myself with those who say ‘I cannot believe in a God who…’ In other words my faith in who God is has evolved – with Scripture, experience and observation needing to line up in what I consider a more coherent way.

Proof texting – taking a text in one place and lining it up with a text elsewhere (and often from two different authors writing into two different contexts) – is popular in many circles. I do not mind when someone is writing a theology and then quoting verses that illustrate what they have written, but at times other blatant texts that would disagree with what has been written are ignored (I , of course, never would do such a thing).

I consider that there is an evolution of understanding we can find within Scripture – hence at the two important areas of ‘who is God?’ and ‘who is humanity?’ we have to have a Jesus-lens. He alone, in visible human form was God, and alone was ‘truly’ human (like us fully human; unlike us truly human).

On other issues there will always be room for the ‘agnostic’ to find space. I believe in a personal devil and demons, or maybe I should write I think I believe in that direction – but am really open to it being a different reality. One could suggest that the world of the New Testament was somehow naive, but we do read in Matthew a clear distinction with those who were demonised from those who suffered from seizures (Matt. 4:24). Maybe they knew better than us – where everything is demonic or nothing is demonic! (My colleague, Johnny Barr, who some thought saw demons behind every bush, worked with a psychiatrist – both recognising their distinctive giftings.)

An evolution. The serpent in the garden seems to be equated to the devil (Rev. 12:9), but in Genesis we see traces of the serpent as wisdom which was a common persepctive in the ancient world, so much so that Jesus instructed the disciples to be as ‘wise’ as serpents. The snake on the pole to be looked at also pulls on that tradition of wisdom and healing.

We read that God is attributed as the one who ‘incited David’ to count the people,

Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.” (2 Sam. 24:1)

Oh no says the later writers / editors as by then they all knew that God was not the God who tempts. They attribute the temptation elsewhere:

Satan stood up against Israel and incited David to count the people of Israel. 2 So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, “Go, number Israel, from Beer-sheba to Dan, and bring me a report, so that I may know their number.” (2 Chron. 21:1,2).

Early writers had Satan in heaven as the accuser (e.g. Job) and as part of the counsel of the sons of God. That might well be a description of ‘reality’ and maybe it changed with the devil falling from heaven when the disciples went out proclaiming the kingdom of God (or maybe when there was warfare in heaven between Michael and his angels and the devil and his angels). Maybe reality or the story-telling way of seeking to explain the reality that we all experience.

The devil led Jesus… and yet, we are told, God cannot look on sin! (In this situation I think it is the latter assertion that needs to be critiqued with a God-incarnate manifestly eating with sinners!). Scripture must challenge our beliefs as much as it shapes our beliefs.

In it all we can be tempted to put a finger into a text and then make all the others fit what we read in one place… or maybe we let them free stand and allow for an evolution of understanding.

I think the latter. Loose ends. And seeking to bring my practice into line with the practice of Scripture. If demons and the devil do not exist as personal entities we witness that Jesus responded in a way that suggests they do. I am allowed to be agnostic in belief but not so in practice.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

So what do we do with them?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Title AKA – inadequate answers.

A flat cannon?

I think it is fairly obvious that we are not asked to place all texts at an equal level. This is why to force a pre-determined doctrine of Scripture on the text will eventually lead to issues. Of course there is always the fall-back position of ‘as originally given’… but we do not have the original manuscripts from (say) Moses (or rather the ‘editors’) hands. If we hold to truth is told in the narrative to which we seek to live out under the inspiration of the Spirit in community we do not need to revert to superimposed doctrines that heavily depend on the in- words such as inerrant or infallible.

Those who insisted on being involved in the slave trade had the Bible to defend them, but from where we are today they did not have the trajectory of liberation on their side. The narrative / trajectory gave an greater authority to certain texts over others.

There is an intra-canonical debate

Not all Scripture is in agreement with all other texts. Take three wisdom books. Proverbs give us nice statements and there are any number of texts to choose from should one wish to embrace a ‘blab it and grab it’ theology. But put alongside it Job and the blabbing does not fit too easily. The righteous do suffer. Then jump along to Ecclesiastes and – with few exceptions – we have a somewhat pessimistic presentation: all is vanity and the most fortunate human is a dead one! Agreement – no. But the scene is set with the implicit invitation to enter the debate. The value of Scripture is not simply seeking to understand what does it mean, but how do I read it? What does it mean to me is key. The ‘final exam’ will not be on my biblical knowledge but somehow will relate to the measure to which I embodied what I understood. ‘All Scripture… is useful’; it is to be used / lived out.

Law – a direction (for Israel) not a terminus

There are laws in other ancient cultures that have similarities to the ones we read in our Scriptures. But virtually at every point of comparison the Torah moves the instruction further in a positive (humanitarian) direction. The slavery laws are one example; the ‘lex telionis’ (an eye for an eye…) is another example, limiting the level of response. But a) they are laws given to Israel and as such are as much a constitution for societal government as they are for their worship and b) they point in a direction but they do not arrive. The destination is Jesus, and the summary of the termination is ‘love’ which the New Testament makes clear includes love for the ‘enemy’.

Those aspects above help me enormously for they underline that it is a ‘Jesus lens’ through which we must read all Scripture, as for those who see Jesus as the express image of the invisible God he is the embodiment of the instructions of God. He is the true human one.

And then…

Archaeology is an ongoing activity.If something new is uncovered then at times previous readings of history have to be revised. At the current time not all archaeology accords with what we read in Scripture. Jericho had walls – just not at the time of the Conquest by Joshua; there was an Exodus, just probably not completely as we read. So…?

We should try and avoid putting on Scripture what we consider are the correct criteria, particularly regarding history that is written. We have a phrase that ‘history is written by the victor’ and ancient history was often written with a ‘bias’ (our perspective) to explain how things are as they are currently or to give a defence of who they were as a people. The level of genocide recorded is almost certainly exaggerated and (maybe I am now going to be controversial but it is hard to see it any other way) the words that we read that says ‘God spoke’ are at times more words put in the mouth of God than those that came from God’s mouth. God is misrepresented at times, and inadequately at others. But fully (and only) represented in Jesus, to which the Scriptures keep stretching to witness to.

 Coming to the ancient literature (the Bible) we can see even within the same book (by our criteria) that there are contradictions. Did they conquer the whole land? Early in the book of Joshua clearly they had:

So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings; he left no one remaining but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel had commanded… So Joshua took the whole land (Jos. 10:40; 11:23).

But a few chapters later we read,

Now Joshua was old and advanced in years, and the Lord said to him, “You are old and advanced in years, and very much of the land still remains to be possessed (Jos. 13:1).

Not easy to reconcile those two statements, and it would not have escaped ancient scribes (had we pointed it out) that those statements are not easily reconcilable. Uncomfortable as it is we have to sit with it that we don’t always have history as we think of it, with dates and figures.

Story telling, recounting the past, is so part of ancient culture and it does not simply follow our norms and expectations.

We are invited to read and enter into the story without being under pressure to justify nor to agree with what we read. We run with the narrative for the Scriptures point to Jesus. The cross does not change God (anger to mercy) but reveals God. Yes, I do challenge that God said ‘wipe them out’, and certainly don’t sing songs with arms raised about bashing the brains out of young children of those I have decided are my enemy (and in modern warfare that is fast becoming an ever increasing reality).

These are inadequate answers and could be challenged, corrected, improved or replaced. Whatever solutions we come up with, if we read Scripture through a Jesus-lens we will come across some tough texts but will not come under them and come out the other side as ‘I can’t believe in God’. We have to read Scripture – even those tough places in a way so that they are useful. And useful for me is to be shaped by the God who is revealed in Jesus. The goal of Scripture is not Scriptural knowledge or even understanding, but knowledge of God by the Spirit through Jesus.

A final little note. The biggest issue for the Christian faith is that of suffering. It is compounded by a pre-set of beliefs that come without adequate explanation. God is all-powerful and all-loving: there the issue is increased. A mystery – yes. But I question whether we have a presentation of God as ‘able to do anything that he (and it is a male God at this point) chooses’. Not in this world. Suffering within creation is down to us and the work of liberation is down to us who follow the Lamb. We do need to revise what is meant by ‘sovereignty’ and ‘omnipotence’.

Suffering for the Christian faith is a challenge. For the non-theistic evolutionist the big issue is that of the incredible balance and combination of factors (close to infinite) that have to come together for life to exist. The probability? Add to that all of this came from nothing (something from nothing) and the statistical probability is staggering.

For both Christian and atheist a further challenge. Both love to speak of ‘time began’ – that I consider is an oxymoron!

For the Christian we might come up with better answers than I have, but they will still remain inadequate. Thank God that even in the midst of a lack of understanding we have a God who entered into the pain and suffering of the world – not for God’s sake but for ours… but to express that the Creator God is the redeemer God.

Jesus went beyond the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament. Consider for a moment, the animals were not sacrificed on the altar, but were killed humanely outside. They did not ‘suffer’ as they had to be presented without blemish. The Old Testament points forward… but we have to journey forward. Yes there are Scriptures that ‘fall short’ of a Jesus expression.

I hope I have provoked. I have so much more to read, for,

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the person of God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Oh there are quite a few!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

There are more than an odd verse here and there that cause us as we read them to raise an eyebrow as to what they record, or go beyond recording to indicate that God approves of the behaviour described or even indicate that he commanded the action recorded.

Today I will indicate some of them – a little stark and in your face when listed like this, but maybe by doing so we might realise that this is not a minor bump on an otherwise smooth trajectory. It will also probably indicate why so many see God as a well-grumpy ancient one who is just waiting to give expression to some built up anger (spelt ‘wrath’).

Let’s start with a Scripture that is easily ‘defended’. Lot’s offer to give his two virgin daughters to the men to rape,

Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” (Gen. 19:6-8).

Easy to defend because Lot’s offer is indefensible and there is no mention of God giving such instruction or advice. There are a number of texts that are like that. They record indefensible behaviour often because of a twisted view of the God they serve.

Jephthah makes a vow and ends up sacrificing his daughter (Jud. 11:29-40). This is well screwed up and all stems from a wrong view of God, of doing a deal with God. (Thankfully this is not set in the context of Jephthah did the right thing.) Vows taken, the Torah says, can be annulled if a wife makes one and the husband says ‘null and void’, or a daughter does and the father cancels it. A sigh of relief… but ever so hierarchical and patriarchal. That is a continuing issue that comes through in the law- a cleansing offering to be given after the birth of a child, just the mother is unclean for twice the length of time if the child is female. That patriarchal bias is not removed throughout the Old Testament and some see it not removed even in the New – another post needs to be done to knock that on the head!

So many examples of the patriarchal bias (understatement!) of the laws given. Two men arguing – the problem – a wife intervenes – to solve it – and she can have her hand cut off! No mention of any punishment for the men. OUCH.

Slavery is not critiqued and not even overturned in the New. There are so many texts that can be quoted,

When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property (Exod. 21:20,21).

Slaves are ‘property’ and the text below not only refers to them as ‘property’ but allows for the obtaining of slaves from within families in the land (‘human trafficing’?).

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property (Lev. 25: 44-46).

There are numerous instructions from God that classify as advocating genocide or ethnic cleansing. Maybe the horrendous nature of it can be seen in this text from Psalms (the hymbook!):

O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
    Happy shall they be who pay you back
    what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
    and dash them against the rock! (Ps.137:8,9).

OK God did not command this, but there are those Scriptures where God commands the wiping out of whole communities, including children. And this text above to be recorded as a song to be sung! Yes we could spiritualise it, but the ‘meaning as originally intended’ was not spiritualised.

I was reading a couple of days ago about the ‘man after God’s own heart’. He lays out Moabites head to foot (easier to count) and then allows every third one to survive – killing the others; and of course as always as he grew in governance and made Jerusalem his capital he ‘then perceived that the Lord had established him king over Israel and that he had exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel’, so as God blesses him he goes out to take ‘more concubines and wives’ (2 Sam 5:13).

There are some challenging Scriptures. As I have noted some at least do not attribute to God the action described; we are left with some such as Jephthah’s vow that we have to answer as to what the right thing would have been to do. We have a bunch within the Torah that simply don’t stack up! And we have the genocidal instructions that are hard to reconcile with the God that is revealed in Jesus. At least Marcion opened a door, but the door he opened was beyond one we can simply go through.

I will return to this issue in the next post.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

When did the fall occur?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

This should be a short post – no idea?

How many falls were there? No idea.

Was there ‘a’ fall? Don’t know.

End of post!

Classically we have the creation of Adam and Eve; they choose to disobey; the result is ‘the’ fall. Could well be so, and theologically that is how we approach it all. But ‘historical’? That is to put a category on those Scriptures that (IMHO) is unfair.

In the same way as the ‘Old Testament’ acts as a backdrop to our ‘New Testament so Genesis 1-11 acts a background to Genesis 12- Malachi 4. The language, the style of writing and the various themes (not to mention the era it was written in) are such that we are not being presented with history in the sense of a researched piece of writing. Story-telling was (and remains) so vital. The important part is that those chapters present us with a backdrop to Genesis 12… God’s choice of Abraham so that the nations might be blessed. Gen. 3-11 gives us the mess we are in; but a solution is proposed – redemption through the line of Abraham.

The majority belief among Jews (second Temple and current) was not / is not that of ‘original sin’ as often is taught in Christian circles. If Paul taught that in Rom. 5 it would indicate quite a shift from his background. Neither did Judaism believe in salvation by works. I mention that as so much is pinned on Gen. 3 as ‘the fall’ in that classic sense. What remains is that creation as we find it did not move toward the goal that Gen. 1 & 2 seemed to indicate. The world and humanity are indeed fallen. I do, though, not believe I am required to accept as literal a talking snake – that might be described as ‘Satan’ in the book of Revelation but snakes were a symbol of wisdom (‘wise as serpents’) throughout much of Jewish literature; nor of ‘angels’ having sex with women; nor of a huge boat that saved the ‘two-by-two’ varied species. Those Scriptures do not offend me nor embarrass me, nor do I ‘wish’ they were not there. They accurately draw back the veil so that we can see the multi-layered mess that we are in, and also point toward what redemption might look like. (Hence the problems run much deeper than individual sin and therefore the solution deals with much more than that. I suspect if we could move away from the individualistic world view of the Western world we might be able to re-read Scripture.)

Scripture does not end with Genesis 11. A path does not begin with Abraham for God had been walking that path beforehand, but from Genesis 12 onwards Abraham joins the walk towards ‘the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.’

And in the literature that recounts the ups and downs of that journey and, unlike the literature of Gen. 1-11, there are stories that are seriously difficult to resolve. Ones that are quoted to defend the response of ‘I read the Bible and became an atheist’!

I don’t have neat answers to them. Privately I wish they were not there or at least had a serious footnote explaining why they are present. Tomorrow I will list some of the key passages. Honesty requires we do not simply erase them! And maybe as a prelude let me make one note here as I close. God does not agree with all that was written! Yes, this we also need to add to the ‘difficulty’. It is clearly recounted in the Torah that God required the death penalty for a number of violent acts, including that of murder… and yet in response to the first recorded murder in Scripture, God covers and protects the guilty one. A clear act of not submitting to the law!

Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him (Gen.4:15).

Of course we could suggest that God can do one thing (e.g. command genocide) but that it is not acceptable as human behaviour (nor compatible with ‘love your enemy’). God can act unrighteously and our reasoning is that it is a mystery (try to line that up with ‘be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect’); but I think better that we carry lightly when certain behaviour is attributed to God when it is either condemned elsewhere in Scripture or is incompatible with the Jesus we read of who was the ‘express image of the invisible God’.

No neat answers ahead.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

What is this book?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Of course I have could have entitled this post ‘what are these books?’ but regardless of choice of title we still run into issues. What books should be included? We operate with 66 books with a firm line around them so that none others can enter – but other traditions use a different set. I have always struggled with the arguments that inevitably use various in- (fallible / errant) words to defend a doctrine of Scripture. Each lecture I sat through no New Testament introduction had to prove that the authorship was ‘apostolic’. I suspect that in part fuelled the view that became reasonably popular in the more-academic charismatic circles that the Old Testament prophets spoke the very words of God and the New Testament prophets were not at that level… the New Testament apostles being the counterpart of the Old Testament prophets. I have never driven a bus but I think without any training I could drive right through that without hitting anything! It all ends up so convenient; the church is built on the foundation of the prophets (=OT) and apostles (=NT)! Built on a book or on the lives of those who provoked people to follow the ‘Lamb wherever the Lamb goes’?

Yes Houston we have a problem.

The ‘canon’ is a problem that I do not think can ever be fully bottomed out. Not too different to that the Jews faced. They had books / scrolls, but it might surprise us if we were able to find out which books Jesus read. Maybe 1 Enoch was in there – a book that definitely does not go back to Enoch, not at any level in spite of being quoted as ‘Enoch the tenth from Adam said…’ No. It seems that the Jews formed – or moved toward forming a canon pretty much to exclude other writings, probably the list to be excluded included some of what we term the ‘New Testament’. There are other ‘gospels’ out there that are not included. Some might contain authentic sayings of Jesus, but…

I am very happy with the 66 we got! I treat them as authoritative (and inspired) in a way that I don’t treat other incredibly helpful (and inspired at a level) pieces of writing. The practical issue is the interpretation of what is written.

The first incredibly helpful presentation I heard on the authority of Scripture was from a youngish-definitely-up-and-coming person who went by the name of Tom Wright. (This was 1989; he has become fairly well-known globally since – his writings are more widespread even than mine!) He suggested that the authority of Scripture lay in its narrative and suggested if a lost (and unfinished) Shakesperean play had recently been found it might be a good analogy to the book(s) we have.

The play in 5 parts with:

  • Act 1 being that of origins / creation
  • Act 2 that of the Fall / falls
  • Act 3 Abraham and the historic people of God that we read of in what we term the OT
  • Act 4 being centred on Jesus, and
  • Act 5 being the opening scenes of the New Testament and the spread of the message… then the script is clearly unfinished although within the existing texts there are ‘hints’ where the play will end.

Wright put forward that the authority of Scripture is the narrative with the centre being Jesus.

I have suggested we could have three responses to the ‘Shakesperean’ story:

  • We realise the value of the writing, store the script in a museum and organise regular lectures on the play, its historical context etc.
  • We draw together experts who could ‘write’ the missing part and through their knowledge enable us to have in our hands a completed play.
  • We bring together Shakesperean actors who immerse themselves in what we have, rent a theatre and let the play roll. When the original script runs out just let them carry on with no predetermined script nor action.

Those three options do not have to be totally exclusive one of the other, but the priority has to be the third option. The theatre – our world; the actors – well these are not professionals, but are from the ‘not many…’ group! Passionate about the story, learning to act, react, speak, listen, challenge, making mistakes, but increasingly with a passion for the narrative and wanting to move the story forward toward the hints (‘new creation’) that are within the existing script. Acting ‘under’ the story, motivated by the Spirit, and with an eye on where the narrative is headed.

It does not answer all the issues of ‘canon’ or in what way are the texts ‘inspired’, but maybe that model describes what we do have before us and how we should respond to it. All our attempts to tie up the loose ends probably only take us to places that are unhelpful. ‘All Scripture’ (and what did that mean in the context of that text???) ‘is inspired… and is useful‘. That would not make for a very long lecture if that was the extent of what we had to say on our doctrine of Scripture. But once we make statements beyond that (the ‘Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy’ (1978) for example maybe did not give us much material to enable our response to the Bible to be useful but certainly gave us material to argue with others!) we run into the favourite land that Protestants / evangelicals have inhabited: ‘I am right and you are wrong’. Now all readers of these posts know I am right(!!) but (sadly) I discovered years ago that being right did not seem to be high on God’s agenda as a goal for my life. ‘Being perfect as My Father in heaven is perfect’ was certainly nearer the goal for my life! And that perfection (in the context where Jesus made that statement) was to do with how I related to others. Inspired and useful. (Maybe useful should be translated ‘will nail you down’?)

Subsequent to reading Tom Wright’s narratival approach I discovered the Anabaptist ‘Jesus hermeneutic’. Scriptures are not at the centre, but Jesus is, therefore the Gospel accounts of Jesus are not subject to the clever theology of the letters but rather the other way round. I am not a Marcionite (see last post: the god of the Old Testament is not the God of the New) but to give a hint of where I will be headed in future posts – not everything declared about God / what the text implies are an accurate reflection of who God is.

Jesus is the express image of the invisible God.

I am not Barthian (apologies to all the current wave of Trinitarian writers) but his description of the three-fold dimension of the ‘word’ of God is helpful. Our speech (or for Barth ‘preach’) that is based on Scripture that bears witness to the revealed word of God in Jesus. If we wish to use inspired, inerrant etc. with capitals we reserve that for Jesus – although even he had to ‘learn’.

So far then my overall approach to Scripture is both that of narrative and that it has to pass through the ‘Jesus lens’ to be authoritative! For example the patriarchal parts? No they don’t pass.

I have not resolved everything but have noticed recently that there are some YouTubes and articles on ‘how reading the Bible made me an atheist’. We could certainly add to that ‘How reading the Bible made me a religious bigot / hate anyone different / afraid of the world / want Palestinians to be wiped out…’

We do have (a) difficult book(s).

I write this glad that we have the NT. One of my readings this morning was:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.

Useful. Now it requires me to align, for ‘we are NOT justified by faith alone!’

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

I struggle with…

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

A few posts about to come. And if I was the reflective type, I am sure an all-but infinite number if I were to follow through on the title, but not being too reflective (strength: I look forward; weakness: I learn next to nothing!) and I am narrowing these posts down to Scripture – so nothing close to an infinite number about to be written. For sure most of us would be more comfortable if certain parts of Scripture were simply erased. I will probably miss out huge parts I don’t get cos I will try to write as things come to mind and am not working from a list that I have kept over the years.

Scripture…one can almost get from it what one wants. The death penalty – there it is. Slavery – clearer than abolition. Male supremacy and ‘headship’. The list is endless. I often say to Gayle that of the three Abrahamic faiths I am so glad we have a ‘New Testament’. Imagine simply having what we term the Old Testament or the Quran. Take for example Paul who writes a hefty part of the NT prior to his ‘conversion’. His pinnacle of righteousness was that of persecuting the church, approving of deaths. And he has Scripture defending him, nay endorsing him – the Levites were just one of the ‘ordinary’ tribes until they rose up and slaughtered 3000 of those who deserved to die(!), once they had done that they were rewarded for their zealousness (an aside: contrast the 3000 who find salvation on the day of Pentecost, the feast when the giving of the law was celebrated, that being the context of the zealous slaughter carried out by the Levites).

Marcion of Sinope (85- 160) was always held up as a heretic because he went full-blooded with the god of the Old Testament is not the God of the New Testament. A radical solution… but if push comes to shove I would rather that approach than a case built on OT Scriptures that are used to justify violence (such as with the Crusades… and has that ‘crusade mentality’ ceased?).

I will have to have a go at how I (currently) handle those texts that I would rather be eliminated(!!), but will go a little slower over the next few posts till I get there.

Labels are a challenge. Gayle was with a very soft-hearted Sikh a couple of days ago who was part of a workshop. The person in private said ‘I can see you are spiritual, are you a Christian?’. Shorthand answer would be ‘yes’, but that kind of answer does not help because it depends on what the hearer has in mind. So we often answer obliquely with something along the lines of ‘I don’t use that term as it can mean so many different things…. but Jesus…’ And that ultimately is where it will become evident that I land. I do not understand loads of Scripture but if it is to point me to Jesus I have to centre there (the well thought through term that Norman Krauss used of ‘a Jesus hermeneutic’).

Anyway labels. In common with the evangelical world there are a minimum of two elements that are at the centre of my faith – an approach to Scripture which I claim is the authority by which I believe what I believe, and that the cross of Jesus is the pivotal point of all history through which people are reconciled to God. Others might wish to add much more than that at the centre. I was glancing at a YouTube video of someone I met years ago declaring how anyone who embraces ‘open theology’ is heretical; I might wish to suggest that anyone embracing Reformed Theology is incorrect in their approach! The person on YouTube had a few more than two points at the core… and I think he would not be happy if I were to suggest that I fit within certain ‘orthodox’ theological houses!

Ah well I am so glad I can go to sleep every night knowing that I am correct at every key point of interpretation!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives