Category: Theology

Return of the King

But what is the nature of the kingdom?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

At times of international crisis people can be quick to jump to Matthew 24 (wars and rumours of wars) to shout ‘end-times’ and for some the one sure and certain thing is Jesus is coming back to reign, from Jerusalem, and a ‘millennial’ rule. One sure thing? I think not!

As I was walking (the dog) I thought, out of the blue, hang on a minute… the OT hopes and Jesus entering Jerusalem on a donkey, being proclaimed as king.

[An Aside: I do have difficulties with the theology of a millennial rule that is drawn from a book that is unapologetically symbolic. Why take things literal in a book that has dragons, beasts rising out of the sea, stars falling to the earth (a little too hot to handle I think) etc. To try to make it fit a pre-, a post-, or even an a-millennial approach seems a big stretch. Anyway, leaving on one side the apocalyptic genre of Revelation I’d like to probe a little deeper.]

There are some OT themes that sit alongside each other, themes that gave hope for the future but were not fulfilled in the history of Israel. We could pick out a few such as:

  • The Lord God will return to Zion (Isaiah 40-55 (so-called Second Isaiah) focuses on this, and given that Isaiah is quoted and the many implicit references to these texts in the NT should alert us to an understanding of fulfilment. The very name ‘Emmanuel’, being ‘God with us’ indicates a fulfilment in the life and work of Jesus).
  • Ezekiel knew the glory had departed but spoke of God returning to the Temple.
  • The Psalms have a repeated declaration that God will come to judge the world.
  • Haggai, with all the pain of the new temple being but a shadow of the old, still holds out hope of a new glorious temple.
  • Zechariah has the return in cloud and fire to defend people; and the well-known text of the feet of the returning Lord standing on the Mount of Olives.

Such ideas as Jesus coming to reign from Jerusalem at some future date seem to me to be taken from a literalistic line drawn from OT prophetic hopes without any journey through the life and times of Jesus.

Luke 19 seems to radically adjust that ‘straight line’. Here comes the Lord God, the king back to Jerusalem, back to the Temple; the One embodying the Presence of God, the glory of God, the one who does indeed place his feet on the Mount of Olives and return to Zion… as king. As king riding on a donkey (again quoting Zechariah – 9:9),

Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion!
Shout, Daughter Jerusalem!
See, your king comes to you
righteous and victorious,
lowly and riding on a donkey.

In Luke we read that the people shouted out:

Blessed is the king
who comes in the name of the Lord!
Peace in heaven,
and glory in the highest heaven! (19:38)

Jesus comes to the city saying that they were not recognising that on this day (the day of entry) shalom was coming (Luke 19:42). Here is the future fulfilment of the Lord returning to Zion, the glory has returned, I don’t think we should look any further. What a fulfilment, but greater than the fulfilment is the God who is returning that is revealed. The cross and the throne are one. And from the history we know that Pilate entered with all the pomp and military power through one gate while the king, God incarnate enters at the opposite gate on a donkey. Contrasts, and who embodies kingship? Fulfilments and a challenge to our view of how God comes, of what is the nature of that kingdom.

Where is God? If we have a ‘God of all power with whom nothing is impossible’ the question hangs in the air and we will have a hard job to find God; if we realise that God is still calling for a people who follow the Lamb wherever he goes, we will have eyes that go higher than troubles and oppression, and we will receive strength to follow.

In the current troubles it is tempting to resort to ‘we are living in the end times’, and to do so in a way that does not remind ourselves that such terminology is used biblically of all time post-Pentecost. Yes we are living in the end-times, living in the same era of time alongside the saints who have gone before us.

In Jesus all things change. The Imperial world is turned upside down; even with regard to OT hopes we are given a new set of lenses to read them through. We see this with the (mis-)quote by Paul of Isaiah 59:20. There we read (with emphasis added):

The Redeemer will come to Zion…

In Paul he feels the liberty to change it to:

The deliverer will come from Zion (Rom. 11:26).

Jesus has come, the king has arrived, the glory has returned, his feet have been on the Mount of Olives… The geography that was the focus becomes the place from which God can embrace the whole.

Maybe, there is a ‘return to Jerusalem’, not because of a set of biblical texts, but what place on earth could truly bear witness the ‘wolf lying with the lamb’. Racial harmony, human embrace, shared resources… shalom. The king who came there on the donkey is not about to come with his true identity, as the king with the chariots. He was in the ‘form of God’… so humbled himself. Past, present and future.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A little discipline

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Books on ‘discipline’, ‘how to bring up kids’. Those are the kind of books I would not have clue where to start… or books on almost anything practical. So maybe I should read what the good book says and receive some gentle instruction:

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid (Deut. 21:18-21).

Yesterday’s post on gift or title still does not make the calling of ‘city elder’ too appealing! A gift to live up to?

All designed to make sure Israel will be kept in order, everyone will ‘be afraid’. Such a tough old book to understand. I am coming to the end of Deuteronomy, Joshua will be something to look forward to though not sure what to make of all the blood in there, not to mention the lack of archaeological evidence for so much of what is claimed… Anyway I have got through some of this law stuff by also reading Psalms – though one or two tough bits there too!

I like Jesus. He told a story that is a bit of a challenge to the law about ‘discipline’ that I quoted above. He told the parable of the very outrageous father, the ‘prodigal’ father, and I don’t think it is going too far to suggest he probably intended us to understand something about God through the parable, the God who gave the Deuteronomy instruction.

The so-called prodigal son certainly qualifies for a good old stoning. It starts with his ‘I wish you were dead’ attitude and speech to his father, for to ask for one’s inheritance in that culture, something given at death, was to say just that. He went off, rebellious, disrespectful, lived a life of debauchery including being with prostitutes.

WOW… he decides to come home! Any decent father knows exactly what to do, and it has to be done otherwise law and order, society itself would be undermined.

So yet again God is going to break his own law. He runs – shock, this is not in the script. In that very act he is undermining, disrespecting the status quo. It just carries on. Party time. Party time to the extent that it offends the ‘good son’. The explanation is at the end:

But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.

The correct behaviour would have been to let the son come back then inform all that ‘this brother of yours has been put to death’; rather we read ‘he was dead and has come to life’.

Life triumphs over right and wrong. The law just does not cut it, and when applied is a strong statement that something bigger is amiss. Choose life…

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Gift not title

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The Ascended Christ gave out some titles so that everyone might know who is above them, order might be preserved… That might not be the first time I have misquoted the Holy Book.

A dispute also arose among them as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest. But he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves…” (Lk. 22:25-27).

No misquote this time, and strong words: I am one among you. The incarnation truly lived out. That has to be the foundation, modelled in the breaking of bread / the Lord’s Table, where everyone is equal, it not being the ‘table of the xxx movement’, and where we are careful not to fall into the trap of giving the person arrayed in rich apparel (or higher status) the better seat… (Those references only make sense when we consider the politically subversive nature of what the Last / Lord’s Supper (deipnon: banquet) stood for. Subversive to the Jewish world of the day, where Jesus instructed who to invite to a meal, and deeply subversive in the Graeco-Roman world where the banquet was part of the activity that held the Imperial system of everyone in there place intact.)

Even in the parable that maybe gives some indication of ‘order’ in the age to come Jesus indicated that he would do the serving! Serving is not something for this age and then we lay it down and get our position!

Jesus gave gifts, not titles. Not even ‘Apostle Paul’. But we have Paul (by the grace gift of heaven) an apostle. A title sets me in position and will commission me to do things ‘to’, and if I am a goodish sort of person release me to do things ‘for’ you. But a grace gift, releases me to be ‘with’ you, and holds me in check to be accountable to God for the gift given. Paul as an apostle had a commission to fulfil, one marked by signs and wonders with great patience, in other words he truly had to sow the subversive seeds of the Gospel in the direction of the eschatological future, that was opened when Jesus rose – that new creation direction.

If we are to see real breakthroughs in our hierarchical world, if we are to model the end of all divisions, then we really need to drop the titles. I think that would be a good move.

Jesus was one among us, but he was not simply one among us. We do not read, OK here we all are, time for the annual meeting, who do we want to appoint now as the Messiah, maybe we pass it round… how about you Peter? After all you are pretty rockish. Or, how about you Judas, you do seem to carry a clarity about this kingdom issue?

One among – the foundation. And standing in the gift that God has given, that is not given to allow for position ‘over’ but alongside to bring that gift for the sake of the release of others. Leadership / gifting is to be recognised and to do so is not a vote for hierarchy; it has to be first self-recognised. It is not contributing to hierarchy, not when there has been time spent in the wilderness and temptations have been refused (and there is a direct tie in this Scripture to that of the offer of the oikoumene to Jesus… become the one over the kings of the Gentiles – talk about order and delegated authority perfected!!).

From that foundation there is no shouting nor declaration of how great one is, but the embracing of a leadership that does not advance itself in status but increasingly disappears, increasingly empties itself, carries the ‘better I go away’ attitude, recognises that the function is ‘until’.

Leadership is not to control order, but to release exploration and then in the wake of the explosion to try and keep up!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

God votes: the word ‘with’ tops them all

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Relationships… (please remember that I like to think, but thinking is in my head, that I really both know what I write about and incarnate it…)

Incarnate. God with us, you shall call his name Immanuel: so begins Matthews Gospel; ‘I will be with you to the end of the age’: so ends Matthews Gospel, the Gospel that is self-consciously written as the fulfilment of all that has gone before. All of the before was to lead to ‘God being with us’ and it was never to end but simply to increase.

The incarnation was not something done TO us. I have tried to stay clear of that in my relationships. Maybe there is a time when we need to do something TO someone as there is no alternative, but sadly most often the TO aspect is a strong me (powerful) / they (object of my power).

The incarnation did have some element of FOR us. The cross certainly did, and the cross is part of the journey from the incarnation. Jesus, being in the form of God; Jesus because he was rich became poor for us. Yes there is a FOR us element there, and I am thankful for that.

But really the incarnation is a WITH scenario. ‘I am one among you’ so undercuts the Imperial model – that system that claims it is FOR us but really is only doing something TO us in order that we can be there FOR the Imperial system.

WITH is a challenge. I am pondering why I have many who offer friendship but I am not truly friends to anyone. I think there is something here that I am missing. WITH. I guess a WITH scenario opens up all kinds of possibilities. Maybe I should explore that… or if not I could continue to write about it.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

God votes: I would like them to learn to compromise

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

‘No, no and never will I compromise,’ I retort.

I have my ideals; I am sticking to what I know to be right.

Sure Mr. ‘Righteous’ (also known as Mr. ‘Aloof’, and probably a few other titles such as Mr. ‘Arrogant’…), but there is something bigger, better and more wonderful, the land of compromise.

I consider God is quite the compromiser. I think that cos I err on the side of immanence, God with us; not on the side of transcendence, with God sooooo different, a divide, God up there, beyond me. Of course it is an err(or) on my part but give me a break, I am not sure that there has not been a few errs as well in you dear reader!

God compromises – evidence s/he seems to come close to me. If that is not compromise… Jesus ate with ‘sinners’. God does not ride on some high-horse, but chooses the donkey and comes through the east gate while Pilate comes in with all the pomp, ceremony and power through the western gate.

What a compromiser we find in this God, and yet we need to grasp that those compromises are redemptive and therefore eschatological. That is the challenge I need to rise to, to engage with people and situations in such a way that I make a small contribution to those people and situations helping them / opening the door for them to move in a direction that is more in line with the glory of God, and whatever contribution I make or presence I bring is in the direction I want the world to go.

And it should not be too hard for me to compromise. There is no ‘transcendence / immanence’ debate around me! There is no ‘I am so beyond you…’ Even Jesus said he was ‘one among us’.

I guess that God would love us learn how to look at situations, be in / with those contexts, come out with feet dirty and as a result are not able to pat ourselves on the back but the situation was just a little different afterwards.

Mistakes and compromise… going beyond, way beyond law… mistakes – an aspect that defines humanity; compromise – a calling for those who have met the God who compromised to redeem them so that without judgement they engage, and in that engagement something redemptive and eschatological takes place.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

God votes: let’s give them a few laws

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Don’t… ‘You shall…’ A few laws. I am reading at the moment in the ‘cheeky’ book of Deuteronomy. Cheeky cos it keeps talking about the ‘Place that shall be chosen’. Really? Moses are you sure… or you Babylonian based editors, how did you get that slid in there so that we read it as if Moses had this always in mind, and if he had it in mind then so did God?

Laws to set boundaries and then we can be smacked really hard for straying outside of them, or were they always written in pencil (I know there is something in there about ‘written in tablets of stone’ but just for now let me suggest ‘pencil’) and are pretty helpful as some notes to refer to, but then one day will become unnecessary.

Laws given to Israel, Israel who represents all of us, imperfect, but supposed to set an example to all of us. Laws that are OKish but pencil writing. After all before we come to all those laws that instruct us to make sure that any murderer does not escape and go free… before we read about that… we read that God did not punish the first (the FIRST, hence quite an example here) murderer but looked to protect him – Cain. Now that really does not seem an action that pays much attention to the pencilled in writing. Carry it through and the next time that Cain and Abel come on the scene is when the two ‘sons of the father’ appear in the New Testament. One goes free, the other does not. Barabbas goes free!! [Note to self: and so do you Martin, so don’t complain.]

Laws quickly help us determine what is right and wrong. They then have to work hard when it comes to ‘mistakes’, hence the many exceptions in the OT laws, ‘you are to do this, but if this has happened then do…’

And laws are not too smart about really helping us to choose a path that leads to life.

Yes, let’s give them a few laws, but it sure would be good if they could choose the life path instead of trying to get everything right and fit within those boundaries.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

God votes: let’s create mistake-making creatures

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

A little note about these posts to anyone who drops by. I have often thought should I stop, after all blogging since the late 90s is quite a long time. Two aspects keep me going… I get an email / connection that says keep on going, and I also realise that most of it is for me. I call them ‘perspectives’ but they could well be entitled ‘personal pontifications and half baked thoughts’. They are essentially for me, they are my thoughts out in the public arena. I seldom ever re-read what I wrote, sometimes I have found someone saying to me, ‘your post this week on…’ and I have no idea what is in there. I am thankful for those who comment one way or another, and give me space.

A final comment on these posts is that a reader should not assume I am somehow ‘incarnating’ what I write about. They are thoughts, and some of the thinking is along the lines of ‘maybe when you grow up (mature) you might like to consider this, Martin’. Today’s post is like that.

One of God’s wonderful gifts to humanity is the ability to make mistakes. Yes we are in the image of God, but God is not in our image. What a creative idea – let’s make them like us, but let’s add to them this ability, which will need to become a reality for them, of making mistakes.

Getting it right is not all it’s cracked up to be. Nor is it the goal of Scripture. Even the eschaton (the end) is not the telos (end point, arrival point, like the train destination). End of ‘sin’, but maybe even not the end of ‘mistakes’.

When I was 46… Martin loves to repeat stories to endless boredom… I prayed ‘if you don’t mind I would like to live to 92, as I know I need to make a whole lot of more mistakes to learn something to be of a contribution to others’. Some people probably only need a few years and mature by the time they are mid-20s and then have a resource to give away. Others are slower learners. [Note to self re prayer: you might need to add a few more years to the request, 20 have already gone and not too much has been learnt.]

I really don’t cope well with making mistakes. I overcome that ‘not coping well’ with an unhealthy dose of denial. Hey, no comments please, it has got me thus far and I decided the other day that my closest friend is me, and Gayle overtakes that position every now and then. I think though I probably need to get on my bike and learn to make mistakes, learn a little from them and get on with life.

(If I embraced) the idea of making mistakes as a gift from heaven it would really lighten the load and open the door for an exploration. I could try stuff and then move on.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Acts 15… good decision?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Think we have got issues? Given that the fundamental nature of the Gospel is inclusion not exclusion we got a decent starting point to consider issues, but the early church had a big one. Not simply the inclusion of the Gentiles – that hope was always there – but on what basis. [An aside for the curious or more accurately an aside encouraging all readers to purchase ‘The LifeLine’ where I begin looking at the conflict between Peter and Paul, and take it further noting that Peter (!) came close to proclaiming another Gospel, and that Paul declared that pre-Damascus as a ‘blameless Jew as far as the law was concerned’ was actually a blasphemer!! Strong stuff, makes us all look a little sad when we get caught up in petty disagreements.]

I don’t think the solution in Acts 15 was to everyone’s satisfaction. I hear the grumbling that continued in the visit of Paul to Jerusalem when James asked him to get himself to the Temple with his mates and take some clear vows. Headquarters were certainly nervous when Paul was in town!

The good part of the solution is that Paul and Barnabas (later Silas) could continue with their apostolic work to the Gentiles. That aspect seems brilliant. Others (notably Peter) worked among the Jews. A clear division of work – maybe a compromise, but I think God loves to compromise, and when we do, when it is set in a redemptive / eschatological framework. The division was not absolute with some overlap in the middle; the relationships probably remained somewhat strained but they seemed to hold together, or at least make room for some interaction down the line. So good that what is recorded is not perfect… redemption is a bridge to what is here with an eye on what is eschatological – what is not yet here.

There have been those who argue that the Jerusalem Council cut the ties to the root of the plant, opening a separation between Jew and Gentile, and that the Council should in some way be reversed. Maybe though it did not go far enough? That is always the problem with compromises when they are understood as the conclusion rather than a step along the way.

The real separation (my little thought) is not at the Jerusalem Council, for I actually think it did not go far enough, but in the post-New Testament work among the Gentiles, with the adaptation of the earthy Jewish Gospel for an other-worldly Platonic gospel.

For me Acts 15 was a healthy compromise, not the finished product; post-New Testament then accelerated the divide. For those reasons I think the current perspective of Jesus as the Jewish prophet, the true Israel gives us real hope. It de-hellenises the Gospel so it is no longer about ‘going to heaven’ but about transformation of here (hence the need for a belief in the resurrection), and it pulls us back from a Zionism that looks for some restoration of the land (promised land? but Abraham was not promised the land according to Paul…) Maybe the gap can be closed, but until there will be compromises.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Let’s speculate

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Could there be double meanings, meanings that go beyond that of the author’s original intended meaning? Well possible. We have simple examples – one being ‘a virgin will be with a child’, was not originally a prophetic word about the coming of Jesus, and yet it is quoted as fulfilment in Jesus. The double meaning is more significant, and the impact of that meaning is universal in terms of time and place; the original meaning was time- and location-bound.

In Acts 1:11 the angels said to the disciples,

Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.

So the obvious level is these disciples are staring into the sky as Jesus disappears from sight and in some way will come in reverse direction at some future date. However, the ‘return’ seems to be considerably more dramatic than the departure. Seen by a few, observed to be going up until a cloud obscured him from sight. At least, the return is not simply a reversal of direction. We have angels, trumpets, the sea going up its dead. ‘In the same way’ has to be primarily focused on ‘this’ Jesus. The one to return is not different to the one who left. The one who came was the revelation of God, leaving the disciples a mandate to proclaim the ‘gospel’ universally. That gospel proclamation was not centred in on ‘universal sin, death by Jesus in our place, repent and receive your ticket’ but on the total transformation of the universe through the death of ‘this’ Jesus in an obscure province of the one-world government situation. I am not diminishing all the ‘personal’ aspects that have impacted us, simply seeking to suggest they do not occupy centre-stage in the NT.

Let’s add a few more things… the disciples are looking into (not toward) heaven. They saw, or were trying to see into heaven (is that a double meaning, beyond that of the sky?) and they saw him go – two different verbs for ‘see’ are used, the second can carry the sense of ‘with discernment’.

Interlude… we are pushing into speculation, so a little freedom!

Could there be a double meaning of the more you see Jesus into the heavens the more you will see him come in the same way? If not in this verse, I am sure there is validity in that perspective. If we see that this Jesus has Ascended, it is this Jesus that is in the heavens, the Jesus who empties himself is the one in heaven, the one who receives the right to break open the scroll of human destiny (Rev. 4); if we see this Jesus we are going to be shaped by that. If we are shaped by that then this Jesus will be manifest in us, he will come, his kingdom will come, his will done on earth… more today than yesterday.

Why do you stand looking into heaven?

If the answer is ‘we want to know where he has gone’ we need to think again. If it is we want insight into the true nature of heaven as the place from which all things are shaped, so that our mouths and lives are a request for heaven to come, then Jesus will indeed come. We need a return of Jesus! A return of ‘this’ Jesus manifest among us. The one who walked among us, moved into our neighbourhood.

Let’s lay on one side for a moment the idea of a parousia, we need a presence, that presence was mediated through the ‘comforter of the same kind’, the Holy Spirit. Salvation is through Christ alone (particularism) but presence is universal (the two hands of God that some early church fathers wrote about). Presence… the more we look INTO the heavens and see that THIS Jesus has ascended there the more the universal presence (parousia) of God will come.

I understand how some can get to the place of ‘all is past’ with regard to fulfilment in AD70, but it would have to be added to with a crazy passion for the total transformation of the world through the spirit of ‘this’ Jesus not through the domination of ‘we will tell you what to do cos we have God on our side’.

I have no idea if a non-physical-parousia has any traction, but I think we should look for great revelations / appearances of Jesus before any physical in-person appearance. To do so we will need to get on board with an appropriate apostolic vision. The ekklesia was to be an outpost in a locality (or space) that was a mirror of what was in heaven.

Let this same Jesus come in the same manner.

It will affect every aspect of society. Let’s just touch one – economy (is it a little ironic that this is from the word oikoumene? True economy is not tied to empire, to moving as many boundaries as we can so that our (market) share is increased. Trade became ‘buying and selling’, but it was at one time barter. I give you this for that which you have. At best a sharing. But push it one step further back and we have gift. The NT view of gift seems to be that which is given without strings attached to someone else, another situation, so that that person / situation can take a step toward their destiny, and without the gift they will stay at their current level or even lose that. How about we gaze into heaven and see this Jesus, the Jesus of gift, not of trade and transaction. Then make space for this same Jesus to come. We might be involved in the world of commerce. We might have our hands tied by certain rules and expectations. After all we do live in the ‘(un-)real world’. But in that world we can make space for something reflective of this Jesus.

In concluding these set of posts I am not claiming I am right, and far more important than being right is the realisation that nothing is meant to be theory or something that gives me the inside track. My beliefs are to shape me and I am not too unhappy if my beliefs were wrong at certain points, but I was shaped by heaven and helped others find a shape suitable for themselves.

I do see a future ‘return’ of Jesus, but also pull for incredible irruptions of Jesus in the here and now. That could increase, not because the Bible says it will, but because we give space for it. To do so means we will have to go beyond the boundaries that convention has set for us. What is from heaven has to find a shape on earth, look just like what is here already, but in the interactions demonstrate the humanisation (and creationisation) of all things. The incarnation past, has to connect to the incarnation present that is shaped by the revelation / appearing / presence of this same Jesus.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A Quick Q & A

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Yes very artificial – I set the questions and I give my answer. Oh to have sat exams like this in the past! I will give some real quick answers here to where I am at. Are the answers correct? Probably not all are, but they are a true representation of where I am at.

Do you believe in a personal return of Jesus?
Yes. There is a whole element of a movement from heaven to earth (New Jerusalem, heaven holding Jesus until, dead coming with Jesus etc.).

Do you believe in a millennial rule from Jerusalem?
No.

Do you believe that there will be A future antiChrist?
Maybe but I do not see that as something prophesied in Scripture.

Do you believe that everything can be transformed without the parousia… a kind of optimistic post-millennialism?
No, but I am very optimistic.

And a tribulation?
The ‘great tribulation’ was in the years 66-70AD and has been repeated in different places / times since. Tribulation is also related to our location, standing in the squeeze (literal meaning) between what is and what we long for.

Do you believe that those who die (in Christ) go to heaven?
I do, tentatively. I do not wish to emphasise that as the resurrection of the dead is the central hope, and is so strong that (almost) nothing else gets a look in.

What about eternal destinies?
It is pretty impossible to know what Jesus believed about ‘hell’, although he mentions the word numerous times, but always in a context that is different to the one that we commonly use it. I settle on ‘eternal punishment’, not eternal punishing, and a very generous inclusion of as many as possible in the age to come.

What about ‘all Israel’ being saved?
Two responses to that one. There is not a temporal clause in the verse, it is not ‘and then all Israel will be saved’ but ‘in this way all Israel will be saved’ (kai houtos). ‘All Israel’ was a rabbinic term and then they went on to say who were not included, and the ‘who’ were the Jews by race who disqualified themselves, so the term is not a term that meant anyone descended from Abraham. (In Rom. 11:31 Paul writes of Jews receiving mercy NOW, not then at some future time.) Secondly, we need to go back to re-define the term ‘saved’. It is a saved from the falling short of the glory of God (not being human) to be saved for a reason. That reason is to be a channel and means by which the presence of God can be expressed within the world. So I do not see this Scripture as something that Paul is saying will happen before or at the end. It was his hope within his lifetime.

I am sure there are a thousand other important questions, but as these are simply my responses they are probably not worth asking. They do illustrate though that I am very conservative in my approach. The next post (maybe posts) will focus on being a little more speculative, realising that with their Scriptures in hand many Jews could not see how Jesus could be the Messiah. In the light of that it is not unreasonable to suggest that any attitude that says ‘I’ve got that one nailed’ could well be wrong.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives