Category: Theology

The house is burning?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

When I come to the chapter on Cornelius in our book zooms we look at the obvious, is it about Cornelius’ one off conversion to Jesus, or is it about yet another conversion of Peter (us)? Seems to be about both. In that chapter, of course, is also raised the question of ‘salvation’. A challenging word for we have reduced it to mean ‘getting our ticket’, whereas in Scripture it is very concrete. ‘You have saved me from my enemies’ did not have anything to do with ‘eternity’ but everything to do with the here and now. ‘Save yourself from this perverse generation’ is in line with this. Certainly there is not a great emphasis on ‘saved from (future) fire’ though one could pull a few texts that way, with a big twist and pull. The emphasis is from ‘powers’ that enslave and for ‘purpose’ that restores.

The chapter sits before the one on ‘witness’ which I contrast with what is often labelled evangelism. A big question how we approach all this I liken to our consideration of the situation that people find themselves in. If they are all (analogy following) sitting inside a building feeling safe but we know that the building is on fire and they are existentially in grave danger then an appropriate response will be to run in the building and shout at them, provoke them, warn them to get out, informing them that there is a fire exit that they have to run to. The fire exit of course being the cross of Jesus, and due to the urgency there is no value in developing relationships, nor wasting our time with those who really do not believe our good news story. Leave them, get the next person out. Persuade them even if they struggle to believe you, cos they’ll thank you later.

The burning building scenario.

Maybe the building is not now burning but will catch fire at any moment, there is an imminent fire. Maybe then we can operate a little slower, nevertheless the scenario is pretty much the same.

I do not believe such an approach merits the name ‘evangelism’ and I seriously question whether it comes close to what Paul was up to in the Imperial context, or what he hoped the various ekklesiai would get up to.

What if the ‘burning building’ scene is more something we have created than a reality, and that our job in faithful witnessing is to introduce people to Jesus (through what they observe in us and through our conversations) thus giving them an opportunity to meet the bridge between the Father and humanity. What a privilege and how much good news is located in that connection. Not presenting a set of facts, but a Person not so that they can then meet God (as if Jesus was the way to God) but so that they might come to rest in the intimacy of love. That love that was already present. And in that encounter discovering that whatever gap (and it is a huge one!) there is between the divine and the human that there is both an inspiration and an empowerment to become who I was meant to be because the joining of human and divine in Jesus closed those gaps.

Beliefs. So essential as they shape us. The world is indeed condemned, but the people?

In spite of a sneaky suspicion that God might just turn out to be a Universalist, I am not. But the burning building just does not stack up.

I wonder if Jesus prayer to the Father was answered? ‘Forgive them…’ Maybe he should have prayed as we do, ‘lead them to repentance, so that you can forgive them’. Just a thought.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Economic, religious and political rule

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

There are many ways in which the temptations of Jesus can be viewed. We can certainly learn from them at a personal level, but the temptations are the temptations that the agent of the kingdom had to face. Although ordered slightly differently in Matthew and Luke the same three are recorded.

  • Turn the stones into bread.
  • Throw yourself down from the Temple.
  • Bow and you have all these kingdoms (and Luke specifically the ready-made Imperial system).

The response to the ‘stones into bread temptation’ was that Jesus was called to a deeper source of sustenance – to every word that came from heaven; the response to the ‘throw yourself down’ was not to put the Lord to the test; and the response to the ‘offer of the kingdoms’ was to worship and serve God’.

I suggest we can look at the first temptation as an economic one, to gain sustenance and resource through an abuse of miraculous power; the second as a religious temptation with God serving the pre-set agenda with protection; and the final one as a political rule temptation with the marrying into the system to exercise a ‘godly’ agenda.

What a trio, and a trio that are intertwined, a three-fold cord that is not easily broken. A trio that one could argue could have served the ‘kingdom’ agenda and enabled the message to be spread quickly and efficiently.

I have heard too many times ‘that is just the way it is in business / economics’. Yes, I guess it often is, but if to that statement is brought the ‘every word’ that comes from God we really do need to see an adjustment. From the exposure of (all varieties of) ‘consumerism’ in Gen. 3: ‘I saw, I desired and I consumed’; to the prohibitions not to maximise profits; to the command to care for the ‘widow, alien and orphan’; to the appointment of Judas to look after the money bag. Every word seems consistent, and Jesus certainly hit that big one on the head.

The religious agenda is where we have a vision and God will back it up. And back it up he often does, with the very clear example of the anointing of the king for Israel so that they might be like the other nations. He backs it up cos he goes where we go (after all he also walked out of Eden with them), and then there comes a time when he does not back it up and we end up perplexed. When he does not we are to open our eyes to where we have served religion and the ever so polished up religious agenda.

Of course, politics and what I have written on the political nature of the Gospel is so key, and I consider that Jesus broke the economic power structures so that he could then clearly observe the economic exploitative system that ‘robs widows of their houses’ was being undone when it sought to swallow also the last coins of a widow, leading him to prophesy the end of an era that had deteriorated into religion and exclusivity (rather than faith and inclusivity) so that the likes of Paul ‘apostle to the nations’ could spend the last days in Rome. From economics through religion (that had swallowed the economic exploitative system) to the ungodly marriage of religion and politics being pulled apart… so that there might be the hope of ‘the kingdom of this world becoming the kingdom of our Lord and Messiah’.

In Ukraine all three of these powers are manifest. A re-ordering of the world of economics is at hand, with the big ‘winner’ being the Imperial power of China who has no need to enter the current conflict at a military level, but is winning the war economically. Sanctions are a response, but we as body of Christ, have to pull deeper, drop down lower. Economic sanctions imposed by a Western ideology that has bowed at the feet of ‘the invisible hand of the market’. I am pro-sanctions (but what do I know?) but as always I consider there are keys within the body of Christ, and those keys are closer to home than we might realise.There is a battle religiously, with views of Christendom being at the forefront, and of course that of political rule.

We need great help from heaven. Angels coming. Angels holding back advancing forces; causing confusion, opening prison doors. (Thanks to this understanding through a conversation with Elly Lloyd.) Unashamedly ask the Lord to send angels, for Jesus was attended to by angels in that wilderness battle.

We are in global shifts. We have to lift our eyes as well as express the pain. And as we lift our eyes we will see body of Christ shifts. Not pushed to the margins. Nor seated at the centre. But both hidden and visible within the place that has sought to displace God with economic, religious and political rule.

The big questions of Ukraine and what are we to do are beyond me. The personal questions are present as always.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

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
Perspectives