Category: Theology

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:

Rapture Ready Index

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

Open Zoom – tomorrow

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Of course if you are reading this tomorrow then it becomes today… so to be clear:

Tuesday 4th February, 19:30UK time.

If you plan to join us either please read the pdf (around 10,000 words) or watch the short video. Much of ‘popular’ eschatology is summed up in the words of the song (that was sung in an oppressive context): ‘This world is not my home I am just a passing through’. I am proposing that the movement that we pray for is for heaven to enter our sphere i.e. here not there as the fulfilment.

All theology is practical and so I hope we can throw around what difference we think should / could come about with an understanding that ‘we are not looking to go to heaven’ but ‘for heaven to manifest here’.

Here is the Zoom link for the evening:

NB I had to change the link for the evening the one below is the correct one

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/5728039267?pwd=NEozVVM0Z1NJSDFKKzNwdG9KUDc5dz09

ID: 572 803 9267
Passcode: 5GkMTA

And the link to the pdf:

Eschatology_directionDownload

And to the video:

Look forward to seeing those who can make it.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Cross shaped hope

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The hope that is within you. What is that hope? We read of it in the context of suffering the verses prior and after, here an extract of that passage:

Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect. Maintain a good conscience so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if suffering should be God’s will, than to suffer for doing evil (1 Pet 3:15-17). 

It is certainly bigger than the hope of ‘not going to hell’! There are warnings about the wrath of God to come but the majority of those texts are following the biblical trajectory of earthly judgement of powers in this age. (My objection is that such language as above is in the negative and reduces salvation to being ‘safe’… and there could be other objections brought in too.)

It is not ‘I will go to heaven’. Hard to find a clear Scripture that suggests that beyond pulling out a few isolated texts.

Somehow it has to tie with ‘the way the world is now is not the future’. Our hope is that Jesus died and as the resurrected one is the firstborn of all creation.

Now hope that is seen is not hope, for who hopes for what one already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience (Rom. 8:24,25).

That hope not yet seen Paul sets in the context of freedom, a freedom that will liberate the whole of creation.

Back to Peter he sets the instruction to ‘be ready to give a defence’ in the context of suffering and particularly of suffering unjustly. That makes the hope more stark and all the more likely to provoke the question ‘why the hope (optimism on speed)?’ If one is suffering unjustly and one sings ‘this world is not my home’ one could be singing as a means of escapism from the harsh realities that are present, but if one is singing with the meaning that this world, as we experience it now, is not my home we have a different expression all together.

Suffering… not to be deified or idealised but when it is ‘in Christ’, ‘with Christ’ is redemptive, it is participating in the sufferings of the one who has walked this path before and is sowing into the future. No one looks for suffering but when affliction comes our way our response can ‘hasten the day of the Lord’.

Give an answer. What answer? Well maybe the BIG story of ‘God created, we messed up, God has always entered our mess and has swallowed up the mess in Jesus so that the way things are will be totally transformed… God living with us… no more death etc…’ But probably not the big story. But we find a way of telling of our hope because of who God is – the God who is just like Jesus. If I have seen Jesus I will have hope. If I tell the Jesus story others might understand why I have hope, they might find some hope. We need that more now than ever. One before me used the phrase ‘I have a dream’ and one before him used a similar phrase: Καὶ εἶδον οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινήν.

Whatever the words we first must find the hope that Scripture bears witness to that is Jesus-centred.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Another Scripture that does not fit?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I recently was reading about Apollos and the part I have emboldened stood out:

Now there came to Ephesus a Jew named Apollos from Alexandria. He was an eloquent man, well-versed in the scriptures. He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord, and he spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately. And when he wished to cross over to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. On his arrival he greatly helped those who through grace had become believers, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus (Acts 18:24-28).

The phrase ‘with burning enthusiasm’ is translated differently in other versions and it seems the reason is that we have a phrase that only comes twice in the New Testament. The other occasion is when Paul writes to the believers in Rome to ‘be ardent in spirit’. In this phrase in Romans it is assumed that the reference is to the Holy Spirit, something beyond ‘enthusiasm’. Translating the same phrase when related to Apollos – as per NRSV above – ‘enthusiasm’ is somehow I think a little attempt to get round things theologically – it cannot be ‘Spirit’ as capitalised so it is reduced to something related to human emotion (with burning enthusiasm, rather than ‘burning of the Spirit’). I don’t think that is justifiable as to reduce pneuma (spirit) in that way is not typical of Luke (I can’t think of any such occurrence) and further it says that Apollos spoke boldly in the synagogue, a verb that Luke associates with the Spirit’s anointing. So why the title concerning a Scripture that does not fit? Because Apollos, at this stage, is in a strange situation:

  • well versed in Scripture
  • instructed in the way of the Lord
  • teaching accurately about Jesus
  • but only knowing the baptism of John
  • needing to be instructed more accurately in the way of the Lord.

Yet he has the Spirit (Priscilla and Aquila do not pray for him to receive the Spirit but they instruct him more fully) and he does not have the Spirit simply in some ‘theological’ dimension but with the clear evidence (spoke boldly, speech being one of the marks in Luke of ‘receiving’ the Spirit) of being anointed. He does not fit the pattern of those to whom the Spirit is promised. It is for this reason the passage does not fit.

Just annoying to us who tie this Scripture with that and then have everything water-tight.

And it raises a much bigger question… are there other anomalies?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Scripture and bad theology?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I have never been a big fan of some of the OT though the stories are certainly interesting. I have just finished Genesis and the opening chapters of Job. So what is that about ‘the council of the gods’ complete with ‘the satan’ (the accuser / adversary) present and in dialogue with God. OK I know some people make that fit into their theology, but I think I will give that one a miss. We do read the internal conflict that seems to be present as their theology is developed; compare these two texts on the same incident:

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

and the later reflection acquits God of this action and applies it directly to Satan:

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

Maybe we can say that the later reflection is that Satan simply fulfils the will of God; all neat and tied up! Doesn’t cut it for me.

And in Genesis and again in Job we get some way dodgy theology. The brothers sold Joseph to Egypt and obviously are a tad worried once they later meet up and Joseph is the one who is second in command to the mighty Pharaoh. They fear he will take revenge, but he assures them that

Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today (Gen. 50:20).
So it was not you who sent me here but God (Gen. 45:8).

Joseph sees the hand of God throughout, but I think he does rather overstate it! Jumping forward to Job we get some well known verses that Job utters after he loses everything, including his own offspring:

[T]he Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord (Job 1:21).

Yes we can take hold of such verses that help us understand that we won’t understand certain events / tragedies that take place… but the Lord taking away in that way? I don’t think so.

To simply endorse the above as ‘good theology’ as opposed to ‘good responses’ presents us with a God who does good and exercises evil as and when. That goes far beyond ‘I don’t have an answer’. The ‘sovereignty of God’ when stretched to that extent seems to badly portray God. Submission in the light of a lack of total sight is one thing, but to attribute activities such as that to God is something else.

It does help that Job seems to be a story that is set up to force a dialogue in the wisdom tradition – with Proverbs ‘do this and good happens, do that and bad happens’; Job with ‘a good geezer but bad things happened’; and Ecclesiastes with ‘the most fortunate human is a dead one for all is vanity’. That dialogue is still ongoing and those three books set it out for us.

We cannot simply lift a text here and there and then have our theology… the story of Scripture that points to the revelation of God in Jesus is the guiding narrative. Jesus might give us a different take on some OT events, for when he encountered the story of ‘judgement from God on a people’ he seemed to more put it down to ‘one of those things that happen’!

At that very time there were some present who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. He asked them, “Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans? No, I tell you, but unless you repent you will all perish as they did. Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them—do you think that they were worse offenders than all the other people living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you, but unless you repent you will all perish just as they did.” (Luke 13:1-5).

There is judgement against wrongdoing recorded in both testaments, but Jesus seemed to emphasise that for our own good we should dismount the high horse of knowing it all. In so doing we might end up also with some dodgy theology – maybe simply different to the dodgy beliefs that can be espoused when on the horse, but hopefully with more humility and without the need to resort to the strange ‘God is sovereign’ response. For sure when we pray ‘let your kingdom come’ it might come through a strange path but probably not as a result of an active plan worked out between God and the Satan with us trying to work out ‘did God do this’ or ‘it was the work of Satan’.

Still great to read the Old Testament… but so glad we got Jesus the image of God.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Eschatology: video ‘There to Here’

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

This video is around 12 minutes long and it sits alongside the pdf I wrote little while back. The link to that article is found at:

https://3generations.eu/PeediePress/media/documents/Eschatology_direction.pdf

I cover in that pdf some of the history of ‘the secret rapture’ and Dispensationalism with the main focus on the ‘restoration of all things’, the renewal of creation. The video simply summarises this aspect of movement from heaven to earth. I will set a Zoom meeting with an open invitation and in that session I will summarise the content, respond to feedback, and I hope we can explore the practical implications for all eschatology begs the question: ‘in the light of this how do we live?’ If you plan / hope to come to the Zoom session please either read the pdf or watch the video.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

The triumph of protest

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The ‘protest of all protests’ follow on from the triumphal entry to Jerusalem which was in fulfilment of Zechariah 9:9 as Jesus rode in on a donkey. There is the very graphic contrast to Pilate’s entry with great pomp and military presence coming in through the gate at the opposite side of the city, as he did annually. The might of Rome on display; time for all to honour the ‘peace’ and order the Empire brings. At the same time, at the opposite side of the city comes a humble miracle-working carpenter from the margins riding on a donkey. In fulfilment of Zechariah he comes as ‘king’! The contrast was great. Here is the wider text from Zechariah (vv. 8-17) with a few highlighted areas:

Then I will encamp at my house as a guard,
so that no one shall march to and fro;
no oppressor shall again overrun them,
for now I have seen with my own eyes.
Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion!
Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!
See, your king comes to you;
triumphant and victorious is he,
humble and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
and the war horse from Jerusalem;
and the battle bow shall be cut off,
and he shall command peace to the nations;
his dominion shall be from sea to sea
and from the River to the ends of the earth.
As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you,
I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit.
Return to your stronghold, O prisoners of hope;
today I declare that I will restore to you double.
For I have bent Judah as my bow;
I have made Ephraim its arrow.
I will arouse your sons, O Zion,
against your sons, O Greece,
and wield you like a warrior’s sword.
Then the Lord will appear over them,
and his arrow go forth like lightning;
the Lord God will sound the trumpet
and march forth in the whirlwinds of the south.
The Lord of hosts will protect them,
and they shall consume and conquer the slingers;
they shall drink their blood like wine
and be full like a bowl,
drenched like the corners of the altar.
On that day the Lord their God will save them,
for they are the flock of his people,
for like the jewels of a crown
they shall shine on his land.
For what goodness and beauty are his!
Grain shall make the young men flourish,
and new wine the young women.

Humble and riding on a donkey – the ‘king’ would come on a war horse when coming to conquer, but on a donkey when they came in peace. The people welcome Jesus, the prince of peace, at that gate crying out ‘Hosannah’ which literally means ‘save us’. Save us? We should not reduce this through a narrow evangelical lens, it is the cry for Messiah to come and for the true shalom to be in the land… as Zechariah says, protection, peace and a wonderful extent of shalom from ‘sea to sea’. Little wonder that those who were oppressed were the ones gathered at the gate crying out for salvation; a salvation that was not primarily about internal transformation but about societal and institutional change.

That entry could only lead to the Temple. Compromised and aligned to political and economic structures that promised well being to all who complied; Jesus made a whip and disturbed in no uncertain terms (turning the tables over was graphically disturbing) and told those who ‘sold doves’ that the system they were supporting and propagating had to end.

The den of robbers (and the prophets equated oppression of the poor to the taking of life / murder) was to fall; there had to be a house of prayer (God save us) for all nations (us = all).

Jesus did this all those years ago. Is he the same yesterday, today and forever?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A time to protest

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The ‘cleansing of the Temple’ maybe should be termed the ‘protest of protests’, being a major protest against the twin powers of religion and mammon, or perhaps the three-fold cord that is not easily broken of religion, mammon and politics.

A few things probably need to be clarified as we look at the passage(s).

  • The temple: not a big ‘church’ or ‘cathedral’ but something much more than that. If we do not grasp what the temple was then we might think Jesus was simply seeking to maintain some sacred space where prayer could be made and commercial trade was kept separate. A certain level of money exchanging took place to enable the sacrifices and Temple tax to be maintained so the exchange of money per se was not Jesus’ focus.
  • Jesus did not create a whip to attack anyone, indeed only one Gospel (John) says he created a whip and that (almost certainly) was used to drive the animals out of the temple. The driving out was far more than an explosion of anger against people – he was pushing against something far deeper.
  • [An incidental third aspect is that John puts the cleansing right at the outset of Jesus’ ministry leading some to suggest that there were two cleansings, however it is far easier to suggest that John puts it early on, immediately following the water to wine miracle for theological reasons. The one cleansing follows Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem and that context is important.]

The Temple

The temple and the buildings that were associated with it (‘in my Father’s house are many rooms’, storehouses etc.) occupied something like 20-25% of the area of the city. Jerusalem was not a city with a large ‘cathedral’ in it, rather the Temple was more or less the city. The high priestly family were one of the richest families in town, the temple was an economic institution as much as it was a religious one. It governed much of the politics, with a mutually beneficial relationship between the Roman powers and the Jewish powers (the Sanhedrin met in the Temple).

The economic power of the Temple meant that they could offer loans to those who farmed the land, thus keeping the poor oppressed; this coupled with the taxation system imposed from Rome meant there were many who lived at a subsistence level. (‘Blessed are the poor’; the despising of the ‘tax-collectors’ make a lot of sense in that culture.)

There is one aspect that is highlighted in three of the Gospels – ‘those who were selling doves’ (Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15; John 2:16). Only John mentions other animals (cattle and sheep) but he focuses on those who were selling doves. Matthew and Mark do not specify other animals and only mention ‘those who sold doves’; Luke does not specify what was being sold. The economic system as a whole is the broad focus while the sharp focus was on those who sold doves. Why? Doves were allowed for sacrifice for those who could not afford something bigger, it was the sacrifice made by the poor of the land (and one that Jesus’ family made after his birth, the stipulated ‘sin offering'(!!) after the birth of a child – thus indicating their economic status and also that the translation ‘sin offering’ is not appropriate – another subject, another time).

The system in place was essentially one that not only maintained the status quo but actively perpetuated inequalities, and all in the name of ‘God’. Little wonder John puts the cleansing right after the water into wine miracle; the water jars for ritual cleansing become the containers for celebration, indeed the text is somewhat offensive for when it says that the guests were already intoxicated (μεθύω John 2:10) when Jesus turned the water into wine. The contrast of the old religion and what was on offer from Jesus is very stark. It is then, in John, we read of the cleansing of the Temple and the identification of Jesus as the eschatological Temple.

The protest is not about ‘sacred space’ but goes much further into societal restoration. Given that the historical context is that of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matthew, Mark and Luke give us this context) I will in the next post tun my attention to that context.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives