Category: Theology

Reconciliation at last (or eschatological reconciliation)

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I have acknowledged that using a single lens through which the fall (I prefer the term ‘falls’: what we read taking place is of successive falls from the ‘good’ in Genesis 3-11) and through redemption will always have a weakness, nevertheless I think that ‘alienation’ and (the converse) ‘reconciliation’ is the central way of viewing those two aspects… thus with the classic ‘creation, fall, redemption (and culmination)’ I am suggesting ‘creation, alienation, reconciliation, new creation’ as injecting content into that helpful framework.

By drawing on alienation and reconciliation I am placing relationship at the centre, not some legal framework. Relational terms are foundational – the term ‘to know’ both in Hebrew and Greek are relational terms. However placing relationships at the centre might be prove challenging so I post here what might prove to be so:

  • An emphasis on ‘salvation’ as being heavily weighted toward salvation for a purpose – to be part of the movement (of small people) committed to act and behave in the light of new creation, rather than salvation from (e.g.) ‘hell’.
  • That those who participate in the age to come (‘new creation’) will be determined by God. Personally, I am not a universalist, but believe in a wideness in the mercy of God, based upon the character of the God revealed in Jesus. The cross is universally cosmic in effect but calls for a response.
  • That the cross is not presented as the means by which God can forgive (‘the wrath of God was satisfied’) but the means by which God can bring in a new era that is not subject to death nor sin (both described as powers in Paul). The resurrection then is vital as if Jesus is not raised from the dead there is no legitimate claim that the new age has been inaugurated – we would still be, as Paul says, ‘ in our sins’. (Jesus has poured out this Spirit from on high – an eschatological Isaiahanic promise.)
  • Old Testament sacrifice is within the context of those who are already within the covenant, not presented as a means to enter the covenant – this is an aspect that should be recognised when coming to the Easter story, and seems often to be forgotten.
  • That Scripture presents us with the governing story line, but we need to be aware of two aspects – so much of what we read is contingent on a given situation and that the end parts of the story are not pre-written. Contingent in that so much of OT law is focused on Israel as a people, the Gospels as a record of a renewal movement among Israel (or maybe better Judeans – that requires another post to draw out the distinction between ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’); the Pauline letters being the application of the Gospel into the Gentile (those who are not of Israel) world. And the guideline is present where those who claim a God-inbreathed authority for the Scriptures need to stay within the story frame but have to also develop the God-unfolding story into their situation.

Each of the above needs considerable expansion, so I only flag them up here to alert some of the deeply held presuppositions that have been brought centre-stage through the Reformation.

We enter the world of tensions when we engage with things theological and in presenting the four aspects of alienation (and the four aspects therefore of reconciliation) the first tension that we come to is that of reconciliation to God. One of four aspects and the ultimate ground for the reconciliation in the other three areas. God is the source, the ‘space’ within which reconciliation takes place, thus more than one aspect among four. Stating reconciliation to God as an aspect is therefore somewhat limiting. Likewise when we begin ‘from below’ we can marginalise the transcendent. However…

I place humanity at the centre of this discussion, not because we are the centre of the universe but the problems are centred on and came through humanity. I consider such theories of the cross as described in ‘penal substitution’ contain a major flaw as they can present a God who needs to be reconciled. The ‘problems’ are not on the God-side, but on the human and cosmic power side. Reconciliation has never been an issue to God, thus the story of Adam and Eve leaving the Garden (‘temple’) is the story of two parties leaving – the human and the divine. God also leaves the Garden to carry the consequences of what took place there, thus the Psalmist writes ‘where can I go… even if I make my bed in Sheol you are there’. God was in Christ, not separate to Christ, but in Christ reconciling the world to himself.

Alienation from / reconciliation to God

There is alienation from God expressed in multiple ways, but shame, exalted ego, and an inability to ‘see’ God are certainly some of the symptoms. The prototypical humans’ eyes were open and saw they were naked, whereas it takes the revelation of God in Jesus to enable us to see God; in that passage that is the reversal of that first recorded fall involving the couple (the story of Emmaus read as the ‘incarnated new Adam and Eve’) who were on the road is that their eyes were open… open not to see their nakedness but to see Jesus.

The promise of Jesus is that he is the way to the Father, not that he is a way to God, and not even that he is the way to God, but in using a relational term the reconciliation is familiar – the way to the Father. Thus ‘brother, sister, mother’ becomes a term for all those who are aligned to the will of God.

One of the great dangers – one which we do not totally avoid – is that of the extent to which my relationship with God is ‘make believe’! By that I do not simply mean fantasy but I / we all relate to the God of my / our creation, and it is not until he comes that we will be like him, for then we will see him as he is:

What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is (1 John 3:2).

That first letter of John hits hard. If I claim to be in relationship with God but do not walk in the light or hate a fellow-believer then I am deceived:

All who hate a brother or sister are murderers, and you know that murderers do not have eternal life abiding in them. We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers and sisters. How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help? (1 John 3:14-17).

Here is a foundational principle. Reconciliation to God is not based on a law court decision but is deeply practical (hence I think we err if we insist on orthodoxy as being the measure or heresy, we at least have to add orthopraxy). Perhaps we have a ‘hierarchy’ of reconciliation – to God and then to those who carry genuine faith in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Perhaps a hierarchy, perhaps better thought of as concentric circles going out, and perhaps this is why Jesus said the law was summed up in the two commands to love God and to love the neighbour.

Alienation from / reconciliation to ‘others’

There has to be a reconciliation to ‘the other’, and ultimately the ‘neighbour’ is widened to include all. ‘Who is my neighbour?’ and ‘am I my brother’s keeper?’ are questions that receive elevated answers. Eve was the other to Adam and also the same as Adam being ‘bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’. All others are distinct from me, but I have to see them with the same eyes as I see myself, or even stronger to ‘no longer see them after the flesh’ (all categories relating to this age).

Reconciliation to others, reconciliation within community to the level that ultimately all competition (such as trade wars), aggression and conflict (all and every level of war) disappear. Political decisions are not easy but we cannot rejoice when language and activity is used that is so opposing the eschatological hope of Scripture. We could add terms such as ‘scapegoating’ and ‘suspicion’…. and every other aspect that we engage with that pushes us away from others. Perhaps a big one for those of us who carry faith is that of objectivising others or of relativising the contribution of those who do not share our faith.

Alienation from / reconciliation to self

I was not sure what order to bring in the aspect of ‘others’ or ‘self’. We are told to love others as we love ourselves and we could push that toward understanding that if we do not come to terms with who we are that we will not be able to extend that same understanding to how we see others. If the centrality of sin is to fail to discover the reason for which I am alive (‘to fall short of the glory of God’) then true self-discovery is a vital part of our growth toward becoming truly human.

Selfish pursuit with a self-centred focus on self-achievement is fraught with danger but to become the ‘best’ version of who we are so that we can become the best resource to others is important. It is said of Jesus that he became mature (through what he suffered / experienced) so that the result was he became ‘the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him’ (Heb. 5:9).

In reconciliation to oneself issues of shame, guilt, self-forgiveness, and of developing a right perspective so that we become a life source.

I presume it now becomes clear that the ripples go in all directions. If reconciliation with God is at the centre and that is the starting point the ripples should flow from there in every direction though sadly the ripples can stop. Once they stop religion replaces something genuine (relational) with something false.

Alienation from / reconciliation to creation

And the final area of reconciliation is with the wider material world that we are intrinsically part of. ‘Mother earth’ as a term carries the danger of either we are nothing more than material or that all is divine, and yet there is a sense in which Genesis pushes us in that direction for the witness is that humanity is made of the dust of the earth. The relationship of people and land is so explicit in Scripture (if we read Scripture with no pre-knowledge of the book and then was asked to give the connecting word to ‘heaven’ we would reply with ‘and earth’, not ‘and hell’). With over 1200 references to land in Scripture it is not a small theme, and in the record of the ‘falls’ we have that ‘the earth will be cursed because of you’. Alienation results, with the only way for fruit now to come is through the sweat of the brow and engaging with the thorns and thistles.

There is an eschatological hope for the liberation of creation, not its destruction – and there is even a judgement in Revelation on those who destroy the earth:

the time [has come]… for destroying those who destroy the earth (Rev. 11:18).

[A slightly aside note:
There is also a judgement in Paul on those who destroy the ‘Temple’ of God, the people within whom God has placed the Spirit. We have in 1 Cor. 3: 17 ‘If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple’; I highlight the Greek verb in use here in Paul: εἴ τις τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φθείρει, φθερεῖ τοῦτον ὁ θεός… (ftheiro); in Revelation we have the same verb with an augment added (diaftheiro) – augments are often added to make the verb stronger! καὶ διαφθεῖραι τοὺς διαφθείροντας τὴν γῆν (Rev 11:18).]

In Romans 8 where Paul writes about the groan of creation it seems that he is drawing from the experience of bondage in Egypt under Pharaoh. Then Israel cried out; now creation cries out in bondage; now we are the new Pharaoh, humanity being a hard taskmaster ever commanding for more resources to be brought for what we are building.

The four areas above deserve much more development, and one day I might do that, but for now a few observations / challenges.

Observations

  • The four above areas are not necessarily on the same level but they are deeply interrelated.
  • Wholistic reconciliation would be evidenced by a development in all four directions and certainly where there is no development beyond ‘reconciliation with God’ there is ever the potential and danger to draw us into deception or even to living a lie. There is a line that can be crossed from relational reconciliation to religious entrenchment.
  • The ‘best’ is when there is a continual back and forth of ripples of reconciliation that flow between all four aspects.
  • We should affirm wherever we encounter works of reconciliation that take place in any of the above four areas – and writing as one with faith in ‘God’ – wherever we encounter any such works, including where it is expressed by someone who does not carry faith, and might even be in opposition to faith. We have to get beyond the fear of ‘salvation by works’ and let such critical verses be set in their context: that of religious activity!
  • And pushing it further, there is a wideness in the mercy of God, we do not need to claim that someone is ‘saved’ provided they are working for (e.g.) an ecologically-healthy future, but neither do we need to write them off in the here and now nor in the ultimate future (none of our business… that is a God-task!). Some might come to faith who begin in one of the other aspects of reconciliation; some might not. Our task is not to narrowly evangelise but to widely evangelise – to spread ‘good news’ for the hope that is in us at every level, which includes our hope for this world’s future. (Beyond, and in contrast to what we have reduced evangelism to, ‘witness’ is the requirement on us… life-style, words, and in the light of this post, how we work toward reconciliation in every area. Maybe even to borrow a concept from elsewhere – we are as reconciled to the extent that we are promoting reconciliation.)
  • I am not happy with terms (sorry to get technical) with regard to pre-, post-, or even a-, millennialism. I am agnostic as to what we will experience this side of the parousia but I am clear we are to work, pray and relate so that our contribution is pulling toward ‘new creation’ realities.
SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A few interim points first

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

My last post was on ‘alienation’ being the plight for humanity and that it is expressed in four directions:

  • alienation from God
  • alienation from one another
  • alienation from oneself
  • alienation from creation

I will post on the antidote that comes to humanity through the work of Messiah inn order to effect reconciliation but prior to that a few preliminary points here and in that laying out my presuppositions.

Our approach to the Bible is a key element. I am in process of reading through in a year and recently the NT aspect took me to Acts. It is no secret that I am not of a Calvinist / Reformed position and I come across Acts 13:48,

When the gentiles heard this, they were glad and praised the word of the Lord, and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers.

A golden proof text for the Calvinist… though they have to read a little into it and subconsciously read ‘predestined for eternal life’ with the idea that these were elect prior to the foundation of the world and that regeneration precedes faith. It doesn’t say that. I come at the text and I baulk a little and want it to make fit my views and think it is not too difficult to do – maybe I will do a post one day on it. However both the Calvinist and the Open theologian have presuppostions – the text must mean, or it can’t mean. I am no exception to that… as is everyone else.

Probably if Luke knew the debate that ensued in history he would have been a little more careful (though the context is VERY helpful to the likes of me!) and would have put in brackets with an author’s note: ‘please note I did not write predestined from all eternity; where on earth did you get that idea from?’ And probably it shows that they are not too concerned about the issues we are concerned about.

This leads me to the obsession we have with ‘salvation’ or maybe better put that we are ever so clear who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’. Assuming there is an in and an out that will be revealed on that future day that is God’s business not ours. Our task is to witness. Beyond that I consider that our salvation is far more for something than from something. That view will affect my approach to reconciliation.

I was told last night that there is a reckoning that among Gen Z they are 5x more likely to believe in God / the Transcendent than their parents. Amazing!! Hold that thought… I am reading with a small group ‘Lamb of the Free’ – if you wish to have a challenging read that can give you serious brain ache then that is the one. It is essentially a look at the OT sacrificial system from within and he comes out STRONGLY that there is no element of substitution involved in it (animals are not being sacrificed so that God forgives; they are not being substituted for us). Entering into that OT world is a challenge. It is a totally different world to the one we inhabit so getting one’s head around what is going on with the rituals is quite something. The next chapters will be on the NT in the light of what he has been establishing thus far. What hit me last night was the OT sacrificial system was not put in place to bring people into covenant with God… a cursory reading of the NT and it is through (let me call it) the sacrificial system that is witnessed to in the cross that we Gentiles are brought near and enter the covenant. I presume that is why Paul does not labour on about the OT sacrificial system when preaching to the Gentiles (we look to the book of Hebrews for that). I do have a point here!! And the point is the eternal Gospel cannot be changed, but what is presented does change dependent on culture…

Western Europe / world has been christianised; the Reformation came into that context; the revivals were in that context. Wales and 1904 is highly idealised, but it is instructive to visit Wales and check the dates on many of the chapels. Many date from, or were enlarged in the 1890’s. The people were already in church and a few years later something connected them to living faith; the Hebrides / Lewis were similar with a strong Calvinist belief that included no-one can respond to God until they are regenerated (born again), so until the time came when the conviction of God came on them they were not responding to God in what we consider is a dynamic way… then in a short season…

We do not change the Gospel, but what we express of the eternal Gospel is also in measure contextual. If the Gen Z aspect continues we are looking at the bridges that could be utilised to communicate the ‘good news’ of heaven’s pleasure to this context that is increasingly a reality in the Western world.

Back to the Bible. I read Scripture as narrative, not merely as salvation history, to borrow a phrase, but as a trajectory from creation all the way to new creation. The story is set in motion and we cannot deviate from the direction but there will be new (yet faithful) ways of living out and telling the story that we do not find a biblical text for. I appreciate that the likes of me can get accused over this, but give me a break… robes, titles, ordination, pulpits – even church buildings that some call sanctuaries. Not exactly an abundance of texts on that! We all go beyond Scripture… I think I do OK where I go.

So as I come to look at ‘reconciliation’ into the four areas of God, others, self and creation I might push the boat a little way out from shore but given my presuppositions I don’t think I am deviating from the eternal Gospel. Perspectives abound! The next post will come one day soon.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Reconcilation… wholistically

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Single lens approaches to themes can be helpful but also limiting. The classic is that of the ‘atonement’ with a particular theory being made the explanation of what took place – and this includes the popular ‘scapegoat’ approach – popular among progressives. I write the previous words to acknowledge that I am about to write about a single lens approach to creation, fall and redemption; I am also going to push the boat out, maybe away from the shore too much for some, as this blog is entitled ‘perspectives’ – though I am getting close to being ready to put my weight on the concept I will present and I think it will not give way! The next post will be the one where the exploration is expressed.

The single lens is that of alienation and reconciliation. (Single lens – not that of guilt and forgiveness / justification as per the Reformation.) I do not read Genesis as perfection and fall but as humanity created for relationship with God and created where that relationship can grow (all is good, not perfect as in the sense of mature), so not a hard fall but a departure from the path that leads ever closer to God, but a fall that is a historic statement on humanity so that ‘all have sinned (missed the purpose of what it is to be humanity) and thus have fallen short of (not attained) the glory of God (as would have been revealed if humanity had grown – as revealed by the one who came and having suffered grew into true humanity)’…. (Hope Paul is happy with my parenthesis!)

The result of not taking the path of eating from the tree of life but from the tree of (independent) knowledge of good and evil, of taking the independent path of becoming like God is relational alienation. Shame enters the world of humanity and there comes an inability to see God. The hiding from God is somewhat ironic for what it meant was not that humanity was able to hide but that the result was that they could not see God – it was if God became the hidden God! The ‘devil’ works off the back of this to blind the eyes so that sight becomes impossible.

The relation with each other – the one who is both like us ‘bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh’ and also different ‘male and female s/he made them’ is distorted with the other in the wrong (hence ‘scapegoating’ is not an irrelevant aspect) thus the inter-human-relationships are deeply affected, spilling over as we read beyond the Genesis 3 ‘fall’ of familial murder and then into wider warfare, written about both implicitly and explicitly in the expanding narrative concerning nations and city building.

We also have the rather strange passage about the outside-of-appointed-boundaries sexual relations between ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of women’. Myth but truly representing the distortion of rightly-ordered respectful relationships – affecting not simply our habitat but the entire cosmic order.

And we add to this the tension on the physical world around us – ‘cursed because of you’.

So my summarised single lens is that of ‘alienation’ that outworks in at least four ways:

  • Alienation in the relationship to God – not on God’s side, but the invisible God becomes the hidden God
  • Alienation from the other
  • Alienation from creation
  • Alienation from oneself

If we then jump beyond Genesis 1-11 we come to the opening lines about God appearing to Abraham in the land of Mesopotamia and called him to walk a (literal and spiritual) different path we begin on the redemptive narrative. A relational path away from the centre. The laws that then follow are given to a redeemed people so that in turn they can be part of the redemptive activity of God. The laws concern the alienation ‘problems’ – addressing at the centre the first two areas, with a focus on (as Jesus said) what the entire law and the prophets are based: love for God and for the neighbour. I wrote in The LifeLine (yes go and order it!) that the cross is essentially to do with cleansing so that there can be a meeting point for anyone to meet with the holy God, or in Paul’s words that ‘God was in Christ (Messiah, representative Israel / humanity) reconciling the world (all humanity) to him/herself’. Once Jesus dies there can be no sanctuary per se; the temple curtain must divide not only as a sign but to reveal that when the full truth is revealed what is hidden can be shown not to be present. Emmanuel, God with us, is not in a sanctuary, but ‘with us’ to the end of whatever age we choose to measure things by.

Reconciliation. And reconciliation in four directions:

  • Reconciled to God
  • Reconciled to the other
  • Reconciled to creation
  • Reconciled to one self

The issues have always been relational – the solution has to be relational. The centre is not legal to be settled in a cosmic lawcourt before a Judge, but the familial setting is central – we call no one ‘father’ but the God whose eyes have always seen us (read the Hagar story) resulting in a re-establishing of familial relationships, as described by Jesus:

Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matt. 12:49-50)

My single lens – alienation and reconciliation. In the next post I will seek to explore the four areas of reconciliation.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Mammon, The Market & The Commodification of Life

Posted on
by Adrian Lowe
Posted in Theology

This post is a republication with permission of Adrian Lowe’s second article exploring how our existence is shaped either by God or Mammon. The original was published at Substack:

https://adrianslowedown.substack.com/p/mammon-the-market-and-the-commodification

The universe is composed of subjects to be communed with, not objects to be exploited

Wendel Berry

The free market is one of the most influential ideologies in the developed world, and it has become a cornerstone of Western civilization. The promise of a free, fair system of trade – untethered from government control, allowing for private ownership and opportunity for “all” – has a utopian ring to it. Economists and politicians often speak of its virtues in terms that seem to attribute salvific power to it. However, if we’re honest, we all know this ideology may be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. In the shadow of what appears to be one of the West’s greatest strengths lies an even bigger weakness. Beneath the neatly shorn sheep guiding its every move is a gargantuan and greedy machine called Mammon. None of us can escape its power; it has become an intrinsic part of the architecture of our collective existence. Our “living, moving, and being” (Acts 17:28) are subject to the automaticity of Mammon.

At a macro level, I suggest the Mammonic Machine is influencing the proponents of globalization, an economic order that is relationally disruptive, in that its aim is to connect the world through trade and migration (labour movement). This results in cultural dislocation as borders are erased and a sense of place and locality are degraded, all of which, according to the Genesis creation narrative, are the foundation for individual and collective meaning and are a core requirement for humankind to flourish. At a micro level, individuals have an insatiable appetite for more, newer, bigger, and better, fuelling our acquisitive lifestyle. Our fear of scarcity and our idolatrous affection for comfort and security feed our tendency towards limitless consumption and accumulation.

The Pressure of Mammon

So it is that the Mammonic Machine exerts pressure on the marketplace, demanding obsolescence to be built into design, as we have come to obsess about all things ‘new.’ It dictates that we have a system of mass production to sustain our collective desire for ‘more for less.’ Disposability thus comes to lie at the core of our throwaway culture, resulting in the devaluation and de-sacralization of belongings as their identity is reconfigured from being the gifts of a good God into commodities.

The Power of Mammon

Of course, the power exerted by Mammon is not limited solely to the marketplace. It is Mammon that is the unseen power behind the commodification of life in its entirety. In truth, Mammon and its economic value system have become the lens through which we perceive reality. This commercialisation of life results in human existence—including individuals, their bodies, labour, and natural resources—being treated as commodities, objects of economic value to be bought, sold, or exploited. In this process, life itself is reduced to something that can be exchanged in the marketplace, with its value determined not by inherent dignity or purpose, but by its economic worth or utility. This often involves turning human beings, relationships, or natural resources into objects of profit, stripping them of their endowed sacred or intrinsic value and viewing them primarily through the lens of commercialism or consumerism.

‘Silver and Gold’

The Bible has much to say about Mammon’s deceptive and dehumanising ideology, its accompanying narrative around the controlling power of ‘silver and gold’ and its idolatrous status—idolatry being an Old Testament metaphor for the commodification, commercialisation, and “financialisation” of human existence, another way of saying Mammon!

The Exodus narrative speaks extensively about the domineering and enslaving economic, social, and spiritual power of ‘silver and gold’ that held God’s people captive for 400 years, and, of course, of how Yahweh defeated them and liberated Israel from their internment. ‘Silver and gold’ were the currency of Egypt and symbolised the commodification of life under Pharaoh. This was a world of coercion (the drive to perform better and produce more) and competitive advantage. Pharaoh’s insatiable appetite for the accrual of wealth and power became the engineering that formed the reality of life in Egypt. Driven by anxiety (an absence of peace), fear (of loss), and restlessness (an inability to stop), Pharaoh turned to ‘silver and gold’ for his salvation, constructing for himself gods of ‘silver and gold.’ Later, Yahweh will expressly warn against the idolization of the commodity market. Pharaoh’s surrender to the gods of ‘silver and gold’ governed the architectural framework for life in Egypt.

The Exodus narrative exposes the results of a commodity-driven market economy in terms of its impact on people. The intrinsic sacred value of human life and labour is degraded and demeaned; it is no longer determined by inherent dignity and purpose but by its economic worth and utility in the marketplace. The sons and daughters of God lose their true identity as they become slaves for the monolithic machine called Mammon.

It must come as no surprise that following Israel’s liberation from a life codified by the gods of ‘silver and gold,’ Yahweh gives clear instructions on how to remain free from its stranglehold. Moses receives a mandate for the way in which Yahweh will reconstitute and reengineer what being the community of God looks like.

“I am the LORD your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt, the place of your slavery.
“You must not have any other god but me.
“You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea. You must not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for any other gods. (Exodus 20:2-5)

First, Yahweh reminds them of their rescue from the Egyptian Leviathan, the powers of sin that had enslaved them. This exhortation is repeated numerous times, for example:

“…be careful that you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” (Deuteronomy 6:12)

In effect, God is saying, ‘don’t forget that you were once slaves!’ His instructions are clear: the idolatrous social, economic, and spiritual model of Egypt is over. Miriam makes this clear in her celebratory prophetic song where she declares that the ‘horse and the rider have been thrown into the sea.’ This is the metaphor used for God’s redemption of His people. The horse and the rider symbolize Pharaonic power. Judgment is executed on the systems of power that held God’s people captive.

Rabbinic thought suggests that the horse was the symbol of the culture of Egypt. When the Israelites sang of the downfall of both ‘horse and rider,’ they were expressing their appreciation of the fact that not only were Pharaoh and his slave masters being removed from the scene, but so, too, the oppressive culture of Egypt coming to an end. Throughout the Bible, the culture of Egypt is identified with the horse, which is a symbol of militarism and the ideology that ‘might makes right.’ The horse is also a symbol of arrogance and pride. When God brought down Pharaoh and his cohorts, He also removed from the world stage a belief system that justified crushing and enslaving other human beings. The removal not only of the dictator but of his doctrine, and not only of the tyrant but of his theology, is part of the pattern of history from a Jewish perspective.

Later in the text, Yahweh provides greater clarity in instructing Israel:

“…..do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.” (Exodus 20:23)

One of the hallmarks of this new community, liberated from their slavery, is revealed in God’s command to Israel that they do not make idols of ‘silver and gold.’ This is an invitation to live together in a counterintuitive way to that of the Pharaonic, Mammonic love of money. He also foresees their temptation to a life of dualism (‘You shall not make gods of silver to be with me’ Exodus 20:23)—the attempt to serve two masters, as Jesus puts it. God knows Mammon is enslaving; its mantra calls for our enhanced performance. It demands we work harder and longer in order to meet the desire it places in our hearts for ‘more.’ This love of money exercises coercive economic power. It also divides people as it stratifies society by creating ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots,’ rich and poor. In effect, what Yaheweh gives are guidelines for staying out of slavery by living a life free from the commodification and productization of existence. It’s a lesson on how to be and to remain fully human, protecting the Imago Dei and thus revealing Yahweh as the Creator who loves His creation.

AMOS – What Happens When Commodity Becomes King?

I am part of my church family’s preaching team. Recently, we decided to speak on the minor prophets, and without thinking too much, I volunteered to speak on the book of Amos. I hadn’t read it for a while, but I committed to doing it. When I re-read the book, I began to wish I hadn’t! However, as I laboured through the collection of seemingly disjointed poems and declarations, I began to see how history can repeat itself, how not heeding Yahweh’s plea to ‘remember’ but instead forgetting, results in a return to captivity—slavery to the gods of ‘silver and gold,’ and the consequential spiritual, social, and economic decay that follows in its wake.

In summary, the narrative tells us that Israel was enjoying unparalleled economic prosperity under the rule of King Uzziah of Judah and King Jeroboam II. However, this success led to a market ideology assuming an idolatrous status. As all idols do, they demanded devotion, surrender, and obedience—the Mammonic Machine would accept no less. God plucks Amos, a nobody, a shepherd and fig grower, out of obscurity to confront the idolatry of the rich and powerful. Their totemisation of economic success resulted in them forgetting God and His ways. To quote Walter Brueggemann, “Prosperity breeds amnesia.” The people had forgotten God’s deliverance from the corrupt, oppressive, and corrosive socio-economic system of Egypt that held their forebears captive for over 400 years. They had become captivated by the same Pharaonic, Mammonistic system that had dehumanized a previous generation.

Amos is uncompromising in speaking the truth and identifies how Israel’s growing affection for ‘silver and gold’ is contemporizing and re-engineering their individual and collective life.

‘You can’t wait for the Sabbath day to be over and the religious festivals to end so you can get back to cheating the helpless. You measure out grain with dishonest measures and cheat the buyer with dishonest scales. And you mix the grain you sell with chaff swept from the floor.’ (Amos 8:5-6)

The prophet challenges a worldview shaped by personal gain and private profit that had resulted in the re-codification of their values and behaviours and confronts a form of worship that has become disconnected from the way they live, work, and do business. Socio-economic injustice was rife, as the gods of commodity exerted their power and malformed reality. Amos articulates the many ways in which these gods were disfiguring and dehumanizing Yahweh’s people. Let me mention just three.

1: The productization of people and relationships

At the heart of Christian ethics is the belief that human beings are made in the imago Dei, or the image of God. This concept, rooted in Genesis 1:26-27, holds that all humans possess intrinsic dignity and worth because they reflect God’s nature. Unlike other aspects of creation, human beings are endowed with rationality, free will, and the capacity for moral decision-making. They are not objects to be used for personal gain, nor are they products to be bought and sold. However, in a world, ancient or modern, where the Free Market is idolized and venerated, lives are commodified, people become products to be traded, and relationships are de-sacralised.

‘…because they sell righteousness for money and the needy for a pair of sandals’. (Amos 2:6)

When God is forgotten and economic success (‘silver and gold’) becomes our god, the intrinsic God-given human value of individuals is swallowed up in a market ideology. People become products in the market and a means to satisfy the personal desires and needs of others. Modern capitalism and consumerism reduce human beings to mere economic units, depriving them of their inherent worth as created, image-bearing beings.

This process of commodification could be described as relocating relational goods from the humanistic sphere and placing them in the commodity sphere. Mary Harrington, writer and contributing editor of UnHerd, says, ‘Commodification takes something out of the context of relationship, isolates it, and gives it a market value other than that which relationship bestows’. . She cites the porn industry as a powerful example of this and makes the point that ‘whilst the industry might say that this is about self-expression and empowerment, the truth is that this is a cold-blooded, merciless commercial machine that hacks human pleasure centres for profit’. Sex is made homeless; it is extracted from the context of relationship and bought and sold as a commodity.

2: The primacy of personal gain and private profit

A radical individualism has been at work on both the political right and left over many decades, and this too has contributed to the commodification of the human being and to technocratic tendencies, both of which are dehumanizing and undermine our ability to build the common good together.

One of the roots of the commodification of life is the consumer culture that dominates much of the modern world. This culture encourages individuals to define their worth and happiness in terms of material possessions and measures of economic success. Advertising, media in all its forms, and the marketplace constantly reinforce the idea that life’s meaning is found in pursuing an acquisitive lifestyle regardless of the cost to others.

‘You trample on the poor and extract taxes from him, you have built houses hewn of stone’ (Amos 5:11)

From a Christian perspective, this consumerist mindset is deeply problematic because it distracts people from the true purpose of life: to love God and neighbour (Matthew 22:37-40).

Mammon and his commodification of life foster a culture of individualism and greed, which is antithetical to the Christian virtues of humility, generosity, and community. It leads people to view relationships, experiences, and even themselves through the lens of consumerism. This is particularly evident in the rise of social media, where personal experiences, bodies, and even personalities are commodified for likes, followers, and brand endorsements.

And when we see life through a commercial lens, where trading has invaded, conquered, and then codified collective behaviours, our common socio-economic life becomes fractured as it centres around ‘my (individual) prosperity’ at the expense of my neighbour.

Brueggemann captures this so well in his commentary on Psalm 73 where he describes the “two ways” before which the faithful stand: a way of self-enhancing commodity and a way of relational communion. He describes these as the choice that is before our own society, and before every society. ‘Our society in its dominant forms is now committed to the rat race of self-sufficiency and self-enhancement, the pace of which is set by greed, celebrity, and violence that contradicts the depth of human life. In that lethal rat race, the refocus of faith is the (re)discovery that such a set of priorities has no staying power. What lasts is a life of communion in obedience that is preoccupied, not with the love of self, but with the love of God and the love of neighbour.’ (From Whom No Secrets are Hid – Introducing the Psalms, Walter Brueggemann)

3: Truth has only a commercial value

Amos points to the depths to which the god of the markets, the god of commodity, Mammon, will go in that ultimately it makes even truth a commodity to be traded for commercial gain.

Listen to this, you who trample the needy
and do away with the destitute in the land.
You say, “When will the new moon festival be over, so we can sell grain?
When will the Sabbath end, so we can open up the grain bins?
We’re eager to sell less for a higher price,
and to cheat the buyer with rigged scales!”

As the prophet points out, when we forget God and become worshippers of the god of economic success, this idol, as all idols do, demands our absolute devotion. Not only that, but all idols also require sacrifice. Mammon – ‘silver and gold’—has its own accompanying sacrificial system. In a world where this god is revered, loving neighbourliness is reconfigured by a market economy and, in doing so, people and relationships are commercialized and productized for personal gain and private profit. Eventually, honesty, integrity, and righteousness will find themselves as an offering on its altar. Truth can become whatever it needs to be to ensure the continuation of success and is corrupted for the sake of maintaining the momentum and progress of the Mammonic machine.

Final thoughts

That all sounds a little bleak! As I have already mentioned in my first essay on the subject of Mammon I am going to point to the hope that the Gospel offers and in doing so suggest some countercultural, counterintuitive ways of thinking and living. In my next essay, I will explore the concept of Repair as a form of resistance against the forces that seek to commodify every aspect of our existence. This will not only be a philosophical reflection but also a call to practical action—ways in which we can tangibly embody this hope.

Before I sign off, I want to leave you with a couple of lines from John’s Gospel where he quotes Jesus Himself.

‘“I no longer call you slave, because the master doesn’t confide in his slaves. Now you are my friends, since I have told you everything the Father told me”’ Jesus Christ (John 15:15)

Isn’t this simply beautiful! In just a few words, Jesus dismantles one worldview and ushers in another. He shifts his hearers from a paradigm of servitude to one of freedom, replacing hierarchical, transactional relationships with the radical intimacy of friendship.

Jesus doesn’t see human beings as instruments of profit, stripped of their endowed sacred value through the lens of commercialism and consumerism – slaves. His words don’t just challenge economic paradigms; they upend the entire value system that measures human worth by productivity and profit. Instead of being trapped in a transactional existence, He calls people into a relational, dignified existence—one of friendship, trust, and intrinsic worth. He sees them through the lens of the Father’s love, an emancipatory love that restores what has been degraded and reclaims the Imago Dei in each person.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Patriarchy – challenging to write as male

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I appreciated the feedback on Romans 13 and the requirement to ‘submit’ to the powers. One of the comments that came in was focused on another biblical requirement of submission – namely that of women to men, with a note on the current context where in different ways a renewed emphasis is being placed on patriarchy mascarading as masculinity. Defining ‘femininity’ or ‘masculinity’ can be problematic and I think so it should be.

Let’s hit a major issue head on. Jesus was male. Jesus was Jewish. We could interpret that to mean to be male and to be Jewish is to be more in the image of God than to be female and non-Jewish. To assume that leads to a challenging conclusion, particularly when there is ‘neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male and female’, so even if the above assumption is made (male and Jewish is closer to God-likeness) there is an awesome change through the resurrected Jesus. I also come at the male / Jewish aspect with an assumption. Jesus, sinless, comes in sinful flesh and ‘all have sinned’ but the sin of male and Jew is where it is focused. That is not to make either males nor Jews greater sinners, but what has been acted out since creation has been the sin of dominance by males (patriarchy), and that Jesus first dies for the nation (John 10:51) to break the ‘curse of the law’ from Israel so that the blessing of Abraham might not be blocked but might come to Gentiles (Gal.3:13). In other words, Jesus as male and as Jewish is not a sign pointing to God but a sign pointing to the plight of humanity.

In this age belong, biological sex, covenantal marriage and singleness. In the age to come there will be no more marriage (and therefore no more sex) for covenant will be a living experience between all who are redeemed. I cannot pull forward a Bible verse – and that often leads us to suggest something that agrees with our view but abrogates the biblical narrative in the process – but I strongly suggest that Jesus is no longer male (or maybe no longer exclusively male). He continues as human for the firstborn of all (new) creation is the one to pull all redeemed humanity to its destiny.

I am reading back in Leviticus (finished this morning – always a sigh of relief when that happens!) and again today noted the difference in value for redemption of the male and the female. It is (for me) not possible to get away from the patriarchial bias of many of the OT laws – reflecting the culture, and yet (thankfully) an improvement to the culture of the day. That ‘improvement’ runs through Jesus, the Easter Event and on into new creation, and that ‘improvement’ takes creation to its fulfilment, that being the reason why Paul makes the grammatical change in the Galatian 3 text of Jew / Greek, slave/free. Grammatically he could have gone on to write ‘and neither male or female’ but he breaks the expected language with ‘no longer male and female’, a quotation from the Genesis record of creation regarding humanity in the image and likeness of God. There is a fall in Genesis, but perhaps not the ‘hard’ fall of sin (guilt) but of taking a path that would never be the path to maturity… one repeated by Israel.

Submission… wives to husbands – so clear but what is the significance of the language when there is not a ‘submit’ word in that verse (Ephesians 5:22) but that in verse 21 there is the ‘submit’ word with the instruction to ‘submit to one another’ with the added phrase ‘in the fear of Christ’. No submission because of a creational aspect – biological, nor related to birth – nationality, nor cultural – social. New humanity in Christ and the inter-relatedness of one another – WOW!

Yes there are texts that call for submission in Paul… Those instructions are contingent based on the situation and into the Graeco-Roman world which was very fearful about women not being faithful to the gods of the Empire. Plutarch (b. 46AD/CE) said:

A wife ought not to make friends on her own, but to enjoy her husband’s friends in common with him. The gods are the first and most important friends. Wherefore it is becoming for a wife to worship and to know only the gods that her husband believes in, and to shut the door tight upon all queer rituals and outlandish superstitions. For with no god do stealthy and secret rites performed by a woman find any favour.

All directive texts calling for submission within the household can (and I consider should) be read as moving the culture forward without making an absolute break that would leave no bridge in place… in other words not the final word but the missiological word.

So here I go, writing as a male, with huge blind spots and shaped by my culture, but I consider that the renewed emphasis on ‘the restoration of masculinity’ will not bring us closer to new creation. This is why we have to go beyond signing up to all ‘again’ messages. The path ahead is challenging, but we have the trajectory that we can follow through the Jesus’ lens. And I suggest that there is a focused battle now (as has always been) on ending the culture of patriarchy. Should that go we will find a leverage point has been found that will accelerate the momentum of the new creation manifesting in our midst.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Submit to the powers!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Romans 13 ‘be subject to the governing authorities’ is a great text when the powers that are in place are ones that we favour! When they are not we are likely push for their removal… Surely that indicates that we do not have here a carte blanche text endorsing all authority as an extension of God. Totalitarian governments? North Korea? (And some closer to home?)

[My OT readings are in the Pentateuch for now… laws upon laws… not simply ‘spiritual’ laws (they are the minority) but social governmental laws. Societal behaviour – care for neighbour, extended by Jesus to ‘the enemy’ – lies at the heart of it… hence it is no surprise that the prophetic critique of Israel was as much at a social as a spiritual level, and no surprise that the ‘Gospel’ finds its context in the Roman world that was forever proclaiming ‘good news’ with ‘peace on earth and good will to all’.]

Here is the Romans 13 text:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval, for it is God’s agent for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the agent of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s agents, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

And why not first apply this to Jesus, who was executed as a criminal by the state / empire. Do what is good, Jesus, and you will be approved… oh no you must have been doing something bad cos we cannot see how you were approved by the authorities (God’s appointed ones) for they brought out the sword.

And what about Paul, bad rebel as he was, being imprisoned? He did not sit in prison saying ‘God put me here for those authorities are enacting the will of God’! He always found a way of cooperating with God, he was focused on doing what was right in the eyes of God, and understood where he was being punished unjustly that he was living out the cruciform life-style there.

Paul’s letters are contingent – they are into a situation and he is writing here to the Roman believers who are based in the centre of the Empire – a system of government that he was proclaiming that there was an eternal alternative in the kingdom (basileia – same word for empire) of God with Jesus as ‘Lord’. His message was not firstly understood as a private call to raise one’s hand and pray a prayer but as a political (and therefore economic) message, and an-anti Rome one at that (‘they proclaim another King’).

There is a measure of irony in the passage, for Nero, was praised as one who brought peace without the need for the sword. This was the Nero who had already expelled the Jews from the city (52CE under Claudius – see Acts 18:3), was later to blame the Christians for the fire and was responsible for the deaths of both Peter and Paul in the capital.

Paul was not averse to challenging the Roman authorities and he certainly did not give them the right to do whatever they took upon themselves to do. From the overarching challenge of the political (as well as cosmic) term that ‘Jesus is Lord’ to his deeply provocative insistence that he would not leave the prison until the Roman delegated authority came and apologised to him and Silas (Acts 16:37). He did not complement them with ‘you are such an example of the extension of God’s justice’ but required that they apologise.

[Alongside and interwoven with irony we might also have various quotes that Paul is using without a total endorsement of them. Not uncommon in the rhetoric style of the day.]

In it all, with or without irony, there are deeply practical applications into a specific setting. ‘Pay your taxes’ is deeply practical (Rom. 13:6). Rome was forever needing money, in the early years Nero lowered the taxation level but by the time Paul wrote (57CE) there was the beginning of unrest due to increased taxation. This increased in the immediate years that followed bringing about major clashes with the authorities. We have practical advice as to what battles to fight. This is common place in the NT – Jesus (who was God and therefore protected regardless!!) did not go to Judea for they ‘were seeking to kill him’ (Jn.7:1) and ‘hid himself’ for the crowd had picked up stones to throw at him (Jn. 8:59). Wisdom and an understanding of time (long term transformation) is needed and can modify our response at any given time. Jesus, and those who followed, did not simply behave in a way where their lives were taken from them but they laid their lives down – timing was the key.

We have many other instances of disobedience in Scripture – the Egyptian midwives who did not kill the sons being born… and even lied, but had God’s approval!; Jesus not being handed over as a baby to the powers; Mordecai et al. The theme with regard to earthly authorities is summed up in the apostolic statement that ‘we must obey God rather then any human authority’.

And central to our faith is the breaking of the Roman seal on the tomb of Jesus. Truly an act of God,and one that forever established that earthly authorities are temporary. The birth of the new era is marked by the relativising of all authority – the ultimate political act of disobedience. In this Roman passage we also have the relativising of authority – if they are in some way related to God then they are accountable to act in a godly way.

To use Romans 13 (7 verses) as a universal and absolute theology of ‘submit to the powers’ is to abuse the passage and to ignore the wider context – both in this letter (‘do not be conformed to the spirit of this age’) and the canonical context – try another chapter 13, such as Revelation 13… appointed by God or a ‘beast’ in opposition to God?

Christianity (a modern term) will never make a good state religion; and followers of Jesus can never put their hope in the government (why on earth… on earth being a good term to use here… did Paul use / adopt the term ekklesia for the communities within the empire that expressed faith in the resurrected Jesus?).

If I insist on ‘obedience’ to the powers when they suit my preference, but work and pray for their removal when they are not in line with my bias I am indeed simply being subject to this age (Rom.12:2 – the wider context for these verses).

By all means have political leanings. I do. Have wisdom where to resist (though not with violence against people); have a long term vision. Do not give up hope. And when we do what is right we should not be surprised that we are marginalised or punished – by the governing authorities. That is something the Pauline and biblical corpus would agree with, hence we cannot make what Paul wrote, here in Romans 13, something to be implemented at face value.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Of the increase…

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

What days we are in. The West has dominated for centuries but the writing is on the wall as to the coming to the end of its dominance. A relentless movement to the East is underway. All ‘Babels / Babylons’ (same word in Hebrew) will prove to be projects that do not complete; the promised kingdom is one that ‘never ends’ and that accords with the use of the word eschaton for the kingdom. As far as I am aware we do not have the alternative word telos used of the kingdom. Jesus is the telos (destination and end) of the law, but of the increase of the government of heaven there is no end.

I have been looking a little into the shift of Rome from Republic to Empire (Julius Caesar being the first emperor). I am probably somewhat simplistic in my analysis, but over some decades the equivalent of what we today call oligarchs worked hard to sow distrust in the style of government and sowed the ideology that the concentration in someone strong who could ‘save’ the nation for the future was needed. Those elite wealthy class were deeply put out that their money (taxes) were funding social benefit (‘free bread’) so pushed for all such benefits to come to an end. The strong leader emerged… Roman Imperialism grew.

We are at a similar stage in the West and I think oligarchic rule is temporary so there is still the possibility of a pull back and the hope for something different to Imperial rule or simply back to the confusion of supposed democracy. Given that there was a concerted effort in prayer and understanding to ‘roll up the Roman road’ across Europe over the past quarter century and more we have to have great hope.

Babylon will not last for ever, in spite of its claim to be forever with children. There comes a time when God comes down to see the tower that has been built. That time comes soon.

The Far East is not a geography that is in my focus and also is not easy to get into focus. The New Testament is focused on Jerusalem where no prophet can die outside that geography, hence the crucifixion there – in order to break the ‘God is with us’ claim. God was indeed with them but they did not recognise the day of visitation. This released Paul to spearhead an incredible movement into the politics of Empire with the kingdom of God (basileia being used of the Empire of Rome and of the kingdom of God). Wherever the Roman Empire had gone Paul took the Gospel to subvert the false good news of Rome. And no mention of the Far East. I still have not worked out how to process that, but I suspect that there is something deeply indigenous within the land and people that will in this next phase give us fresh insight into the kingdom that is without end.

Certainly (I am always so certain!!!) the emptying of power is the foundation. God-likeness as revealed in Jesus (being in the form of God emptied himself… not in spite of being in the form of God) will always be the foundation. New paradigms for healing and miracles are on the horizon (always difficult to see when something is on the horizon). Not a demonstration of the power of God, but a carrying of the presence of God; fulfilling the ‘command’ to not bear (carry) the name of the Lord in vain – but to carry the name of the Lord in truth. Healing is in the name of Jesus, and is promised to come through those who go in his name (not a formula, but following the first three commandments – allegiance to God, not image making and carrying the name faithfully).

These next years for the West will be tumultuous – for Europe if 1989 was a water shed so we will see further seismic shifts. What a day of opportunity for the clueless ones to pray – and as a result God to act. The West, the Far East, oligarchs, dictators – all way beyond me. But all will prove to be unfinished projects, they have their telos; meanwhile One proclaimed it is finished and as a result there will be no end.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Wipe them out??

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The Jesus’ stories are quite remarkable and also the way they are recorded often entice us to think beyond the story itself. The interaction with the ‘Syrophoenician’ woman is one such story (Mk. 7:24-30). In Mark she is identified (correctly) as ‘a gentile, of Syrophoenician origin’, but Matthew does a little sidestep:

Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that moment (Matt. 15:21-28).

A ‘Canannite woman’ – totally anachronistic and so we can say inaccurate. We sometimes might do something similar such as ‘a Viking from Sweden’. Anachronistic but the use of the term is to pull something of the history (or myth) and call for the person we are talking to to allow their imagination to apply something of the history to the person we are describing. The Canaanites – Matthew is pulling on the OT story where the Canaanites are not simply to be avoided but to be exterminated, and tellingly in this story, their children also!

[A]nd when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for that would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly (Deut. 7:2-4). 
Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys (Jos. 6:21).

Genocide in our language. Love the Bible for the texts as are can cause all kinds of problems, and the wriggling that is done to get round what the text says, and claims to be instruction from God is deeply problematic. Along comes Jesus… A Canaanite with a child. This is more than the redemption of a (Deuterononist) text but the ‘redemption’ of God. Already there is a shift, and a further shift comes in the narrative for one way (the best and clearest way) is to read that a change takes place in Jesus’ understanding as the woman pushes him. The interaction pushes his understanding to follow his heart, and even to go so far as to stretch what the time-line meant. For sure he was sent to the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (very clear in Matthew – ‘he will save his people from their sins’), which I think indicates a two-stage movement: first one to restore Israel (don’t make an assumption as to what I mean by that!) so that the Gentile world can be totally included… so maybe Jesus would have allowed for the hope of the healing of the daughter at a later stage, but…

She pulls by faith so that even such a time line is adjusted. Matthew writes anachronistically. Jesus acts out of time due to the woman with great faith.

The text challenges the OT ‘wipe them out’ narrative; it reveals Jesus as the great Teacher because he was the great Learner; it shows that someone on the margins can align a future time to the present.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

This is nuts

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The last Zoom that was on Eschatology: Here not There I found quite encouraging and illustrated that what we think on such supposed ‘academic’ questions really affects the practical… indeed the questions are not so academic, this one was simple ‘is it all about us going there, or is it about there coming here?’ The problem is the subject has been hijacked and we have been taught what the answer is, and by taught I suppose I mean brainwashed with no small amount of money and resources behind the onslaught on our thinking.

After the Zoom I was sent this page to look at (not from someone thinking the page was good but illustrating the ‘nuttiness’ of so much that goes on). It might be extreme and on the edge but here it is:

Check it out if you have time. Basically through a series of indexes (currently numbered at 45) it becomes clear how close we are to the rapture. More ‘bad things’ the higher the score, so examples are floods, drug abuse, wild weather, Satanism, globalism. As each one gets worse that score goes up and the aggregate score of the 45 indices give us a total – so as of right now we are at a score of 181 and we are informed that a score above 160 indicates we are to ‘fasten our seat belts’. The rapture was actually closer in 2016 with a score of 189. Maybe it was so secret that even the creators of the system that gives us the inside information missed the sound of the trumpet and the shout of the archangel! (Not going to be so secret then? Other than Paul is making NO reference to said event in passage quoted.)

The craziness of all this is we should actually be rejoicing when disasters, ‘natural’ or ‘moral’ take place for they are hastening the time of our escape. A perversion of eschatology and a total debilitater to prayer and action.

Thankfully there is such a move away from that kind of eschatology but I suspect there still is a ‘well it is all going to burn up in the end anyway’ leaning that remains. We will be OK – palace in the sky is where I am headed, and at the same time the oligarchs of the West figure out that they will be OK with their palace in some safe place, even if that safe place is somewhere in space where they have planted their flag (thank you Naomi Klein for making the connection). Meanwhile we do not take in the words of Scripture concerning the destruction of those who destroy the earth.

I have come across from many angles the four way relationship / reconciliation: Godward, otherward, selfward and planetward. Wherever we start we cannot end there. Simply being reconciled to self can end up with a perversion if we do not go beyond that to ‘love our neighbour as ourselves’ for example. And I cannot truly love God (I am reconciled to God) and there not to be a ‘before and an after’ on every other area. Reconciliation is a work in progress. And let me repeat… wherever we start we cannot end there – and yes that does have implication for soteriology, and has to, as the biblical examples of the use of the word cannot be reduced to one-dimension. It is all a process, and theologically all four aspects flow from the cross and resurrection. That is an eschatology that is deeply practical as it flows from you + me + ‘others’ (every tribe) with God present with ‘us’ in a creational context so that shalom is tangible – no more weeping, suffering, death.

A theology, for example, that quickly jumps to God gave the land to Israel so maybe this idea of moving the Palestinians out could just be OK… well maybe I jump quickly to the parallel exodus of the Philistines and that they need their land restored, and who might be in that today? (Thanks Amos for that insight. It’s a good book to read so I won’t simply give a one verse reference.) When can we get an eschatological vision (a true vision for the globe) such as Paul, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, advanced in the Torah beyond his peers… who simply said that Israel was not promised the land. I appreciate I am trampling on toes and giving little substance to back up what I am writing, but I am doing that to push back against ‘what a mess, but it is all prophesied and we will be OK’. And certainly pushing back against the ‘and if there is yet more mess we simply add it to the total score to tell us where we are’.

There is a book ‘I’m OK You’re OK’. There is a God who said ‘You’re not OK I’m not OK’. The God who followed us out of Eden is the God who is worthy to be followed.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Not a good guy

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Leadership is male when it comes to the predictions of the big bad antiChrist…

Some of you will join me tonight on a Zoom as we push into what (I think) is the final area of foundations – getting the direction right and losing the Hellenistic obsession with going somewhere when I die. Although I lean heavily toward I do go somewhere, the hope of Scripture is of the completion of this world – creation reaching an eschaton.

I am not sure what I will pick up next – maybe I will switch from eschatology to something else or maybe I will have a go at what do we understand about the big bad antiChrist. Anyway a few thoughts here to push in that direction.

Surprise, surprise there is so little in the Bible about antiChrist – four verses in total and all in two books that we assume are from the same pen (1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3, and 2 John 7). Verses can be added (forced to fit) that draw in other aspects – one of the beasts of Revelation for example (beasts in biblical literature and particularly in apocalyptic literature speak of powers such as nations that are untameable). I think we have to look at Revelation separately and let it be the awesome exposure of Imperial power – Rome in that context… and for us?

There is the ‘man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2, but there we have a Pauline warning about what was to come… and for me it has already come – in the Jewish Wars of 66-70. Future for the original readers, past for us.

The Johannine Scriptures then are the core.

Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not belong to us, for if they had belonged to us they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us (1 John 2:18-19).

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; everyone who confesses the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:22-23). 

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world (1 John 4:2,3).

Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist! (2 John 7).

John seems to be writing in the main about people who have been associated / around these Christian communities, those who went out from them. [A little aside… the Reformers put forward that the pope was the antiChrist… Catholics have just a little issue with that – there view is that the Reformers / Protestants went out from them, thus the likes of you and me are more likely to be suspects!!!!] Those John wrote to had heard that antiChrist was to come, and it could well be that he held that belief also, though it is possible he is correcting what they believed with ‘You have heard… but…’ And in his second letter we read that John identifies any person who denies the humanity of Jesus as the deceiver and the antiChrist.

Not so clear… so of course once I come to write on it I will make all things so clear (or not) but here for now is my conclusions.

John, in line with the rest of Scripture, pushes us away from speculation and warns us that we need to place Jesus central (anti- can carry the meaning of ‘against / opposed to’ or ‘replacing’). I do not believe the Bible predicts a final one-world ruler… could there be one? The way we are going, quite likely, but not inevitable. Eschatology is not about a series of events, this + that, but about the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. Sadly some eschatology when pushed too far pushes Jesus off the map… that is pretty much anti-Christ!

I just do not see our Scriptures as being history set out in advance so that we know future events. The centre of all of Scripture is Jesus… let’s not replace Jesus with knowledge nor with speculation,

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives