Category: Theology

Alternative society?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I wrote a few days ago about ‘no kings’ and ‘no temples’ and thought I would give a bit of a follow up on that post. First my background. I was shaped from around 20 years old (50 years ago!!) by what was termed the ‘House Church Movement’ in the UK; its roots go back to very early explorations (1950’s) of ‘church’ and its NT form. Many of the early participants were from a Plymouth Brethren background so already came in with an anti-clerical perspective; they also came with a background in ‘Dispensationalism’! The thrust of those very early conferences was that of ‘the restoration of the church’ and inevitably there was a clash between that hope and belief and the pessimistic outlook of the eschatology (I had a copy of some early notes and in the margin someone had written ‘what about Laodicea?’, indicating the clash. In such movements (and I observed this in my years of travelling to the USA teaching on eschatology goes on the back-burner for a while… until the conviction is strong enough on ‘the restoration of the church’.)

Texts such as Acts 3: 20,21 were fairly central:

Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration [restoration of all things] that God announced long ago through his holy prophets.

That was to be understood as the return of Christ would not take place until (‘until’ being a key word) there was the restoration of the church (something that had begun in earnest with the Reformation – apologies to all prophetic voices such as the gentleman in Rome). Add to that Ephesians 4 with the foundation being the apostles and prophets so that the body might grow up (mature) until it was presented to the Lord without ‘spot or wrinkle’.

Dating the house church movement is not an exact science, but there was distinct growth from the late 1960s and the magazines of the two distinct streams (though there were other less defined streams) Fulness and Restoration had a major influence in the UK and beyond. (Even yesterday I was on a zoom with a representative of a significant stream in Brazil that drew from those magazines from those early days.)

Gradual restoration? Maybe I am still influenced by that perspective, but more below. (In 1997 I completed a thesis on the Eschatology of the New Church movement with some interesting (and fair) examiners. Partly to push back on them I had a section in there that suggested that the idea of ‘restoration’ was not novel to some ‘apostles and prophets’ but that theologians were so convinced they had made advance that they now knew more about what Paul meant than he did! True/false? Simply the fruit of good scholarship / the fruit of the Enlightenment?)

Before coming to ‘and the truth that I believe today’ section (whole truth and nothing but the truth of course) I am coming back to the former post. God works everywhere – as evidenced by the king being anointed and the Temple filled with God’s presence… those manifestations being rooted in a rejection of God! Yet God is always ‘looking’ for something and where does s/he look for it? Among those who have taken on the name of Jesus. I see a very big principle in the words of Jesus when he said, ‘you have heard it said… but I say to you…’ If we want to see a shift in ‘murder’ there has to a shift at a ‘seed’ level etc. The Christian faith is not here to give us a ticket to heaven (a Hellenistic reading into the text) but to enable us to be seed within society. Seed and harvest with a time gap between the two, hence long-term vision is required. The phrase made popular in the Civil Rights movement that originated during the abolitionist period remains so apt for us:

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

God is always at work… and at work means working toward an eschaton. BUT… and here comes the but! But does not work independently, but with those who at some level are aligned to that work. I can see it no other way but the Pauline mission was not a big evangelistic tent crusade but a proclamation that ‘new creation’ had broken in and the right response was that of repentance toward God, faith in Jesus, receive the Holy Spirit and to carry the message of reconciliation (of all things) throughout their world. In it all was the transformation of the world.

Back in the day it was that of ‘get the church right and all will want to come join’. Let the body of Christ manifest an alternative society. Some part of that still seems right! But the centre is not the ‘church’ but the world with (as those of ancient times wrote) the body of Christ as the soul / life source to the world in the same way the ‘soul’ is to the body.

I am not a millennialist – it is understandable that some (only some) within that original Restorationist perspective of the House Church Movement were post-millennial (Jesus in heaven until) – I am not post-, pre- (not even in its historic, pre-rapture form), nor a-millennialist. Maybe I am apocalyptically-milennially? Beasts with heads, allowed to run riot for 42 months etc… Put away the calendar and the time lines, and I suggest we do the same with the millennium. Let Revelation and the throne room of heaven stand as the true and every other throne with 24 elders around it be seen as counterfeit. Why do I mention ‘millennial’ at this point? Because it is often shaped by, and shapes, our expectations. Dispensationalism with God will get us out of here is shaped by a view of an antagonistic world, and further shapes and fuels all kinds of conspiracy theories; triumphalism looks within the four walls and a full stadium and proclaims the kingdom has arrived.

The pessimist looks at the glass and it is half empty; the optimist and proclaims it is half full; I suggest the one touched by heaven says what can I contribute to raise the level in the glass? There might be a leak, but even if there is here I am to contribute. Judging the level of the glass contents is not to make a contribution!

I am so ignorant on so many topics and totally agnostic (and I do claim to have read the relevant Scriptures many times) on such issues as an antiChrist, a millennium, a great persecution and the like. Start with a system and one can work it all out (or start with a Bible with notes… read the text, don’t understand it, read the notes now I understand it – or the notes have become my Bible. The ‘brilliance’ of the Scoffield Bible). But ditch the system then just be free to make a small contribution that might make this world a tiny more like heaven (as the ‘citizens’ in Philippi were encouraged to do).

And on the corporate level the kings and temples (temple-mentality) really needs to be shelved.

I get briefly discouraged when there are ‘church’ exposures but then think ‘well that has to go if something more authentic is to come’… and then I think if there is something more authentic then there is hope that the long arc of history is bending in a good and righteous direction.

I have no idea what is to occur before the return of Christ and honestly do not believe that the Bible comes up with predictions, but it sure does come up with instruction in the meantime. In a heavily apocalyptic set of verses discussing the delay of the Lord’s coming Peter provokes us as to:

what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

No kings… and no temple

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

‘I have a dream’ said the man in August 1963; ‘I saw a new heaven and a new earth… I saw no temple in the city’ so said the Seer some 65 years after his Master had died (well not 100% sure of the date). We await the fulfilment of the dream and of the sight that was declared. When will they be fulfilled? Not a clue, and I don’t need a clue, for both are to provoke us in the present. I am reading in 1 Samuel at the moment and of course in there is the painful dialogue of ‘give us a king’. Samuel gets upset but God points out the rejection is not of Samuel but of God. They were never supposed to have a king… and how they loved to recount in later generations how amazing David was as king and that one day a king from that royal line will come and rule over them.

Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them (1 Sam. 8:7).

Yet God anoints the king… God’s blessing does not indicate God’s ‘approval’ of our choices.

Later the people realise they have gone in a wrong direction (1 Sam. 10) but Samuel responds with a perspective that further indicates God will work with whatever we present:

See, here is the king whom you have chosen, for whom you have asked; see, the Lord has set a king over you. If you will fear the Lord and serve him and heed his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God, it will be well (1 Sam. 12:13, 14)

The temple – centralised, controlled worship – once a path is entered on there is a direction that is hard to reverse. Did God want a temple?

You shall not build me a house to live in. For I have not lived in a house since the day I brought out Israel to this very day, but I have lived in a tent and a tabernacle. Wherever I have moved about among all Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people, saying, ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’ (1 Chron. 17:4-6).

The tabernacle – a tent, not so impressive as the grandiose temples of the surrounding nations. We so want people to be impressed by God we know we are the ones born to help God out. When Jesus appeared and ‘moved into the neighbourhood’ John uses the verb ‘tabernacled’ among us. Moving here and there, never giving undeniable proof, but to those of humble heart his glory (truth within the grace container) was there to be seen.

And then John who had many times made the journey to Jerusalem, that temple that had a city around it (20% of the land was temple and temple buildings). It was way beyond being a city with a temple (like Canterbury – a city with a cathedral) – it was a temple-city; the astounding vision he has is the city had no temple when describing the new Jerusalem. The contrast is enormous.

A tent!

Put it up, put it down. Move it from here to there. Mobility.

Never get discouraged when something comes that is the most amazing manifestation of God’s presence… and then it goes. Mobility. There will always be a ‘God is here’ shout. Meanwhile it is necessary to continue to hold a dream. ‘I saw no impressive people who were ‘head and shoulders’ above the rest of us; but I saw unimpressive people and God was moving here and there among them and through them’.

I am NOT post-millennialist (mainly because I am not millennialist) and have no idea of what will be. But I continue with a dream. And while on such subjects as the ‘end-times’ the way we are headed there will be an antiChrist (or many more to join the ones already here… but not because the Bible says so (I don’t think it makes such a prediction!)… there will be because that is the outcome of where we are pushing. God’s people hold the key and the more we continue to believe in ‘we need a king’ and promote platforms the more we are sowing into the realisation of an anitChrist. Look at the trajectory from 1 Sam. 8 to the crucifixion – the inevitable outcome is ‘we have no king other than Caesar’!!!

I would rather be off the wall with my (lack of) end-time beliefs and hold on to a dream of ‘one day no king and no temple’ than have a set of beliefs that stop the dream.

Many others have carried a dream – but again I give thanks for MLK and that Seer on Patmos.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A summary of ‘all Israel’

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

From time to time I write an ‘extended article’ where it is to explore a theological topic. As part of the ever-so-slow to write on various aspects of eschatology but also as feeding into issues surrounding soteriology (salvation – what does that entail) this latest piece on Israel seemed to be what came next. The full article can be read /downloaded:

All Israel will be saved

It is a bit of a read so now that it is completed here is a summary of the key points.

‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’ are not used synonymously

Consistently from the Exile (597BC) and even from the Assyrian conquest (722BC) the term ‘Israel’ and the term ‘Jew’ were not used synonymously. Jew being the term for the people of the southern kingdom (of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin); Israel never returning to the land (northern 10 tribes) – though Samaritans claimed to be Israelites. This Samaritan claim was debated but never was it debated that they were Jews. Consistently in what is termed Second Temple Judaism the term ‘Israel’ was only applied to the whole nation (or the ‘lost’ tribes), to the people when referring to them in history past, or when expressing a hope in the future of their restoration (hence the question to Jesus by the disciples).

  • All Israel will be saved is not referring to the Jews of Paul’s day, but is expressing the hope that has been carried for centuries, such as is expressed in the New Covenant promise of Jer. 31 – a covenant made with both houses (north and south) thus with ‘Israel’.

Paul does not use a temporal phrase such as ‘and then’

The phrase he uses is ‘and in this way’ all Israel will be saved. This is the normal way the phrase is used and the consistent way he uses the phrase in his writings. He could / would have used a totally different phrase should he have wished to convey something that will suddenly occur at the eschaton.

He has been arguing from the opening Romans 9 concerning how God has been and continues to be faithful to his/her promises. He is not outlining a timetable nor even seeking to explain why so many Jews had not welcomed their Messiah.

  • God is faithful and Paul argues that there is a process going on that will lead to all Israel being saved. That process is already taking place – and the process involves the Gospel going to the nations (the Gentiles – ta ethne).
  • Israel (as in the northern tribes) are among the nations (Josephus goes to great lengths to explain this) so for them to come in the Gospel has to go to them, even though the majority of them have been ‘Gentilised’, such is the faithfulness of God.

Those Gentiles who respond to Jesus are incorporated into Israel

Converted Gentiles do not become Jews but the terms used of Israel are applied to them. Israel’s ancestors are their ancestors; Paul describes converts as ‘when you were Gentiles’ and as ‘chiidren of Abraham’.

  • Thus a second strand of ‘all Israel’ is that of Gentiles being incorporated in – or as described in Rom. 11 – grated into the (one) Olive tree.

‘All Israel’ never meant ‘all Jews’ and it also never meant all physical descendants of Abraham, for not all ‘children / offspring of Abraham’ were the ‘seed of Abraham’. Faith meant that those who were of Abraham was (both) smaller than those who were physically descended from Abraham and also that it was bigger than those who were physically descended from Abraham.

  • Salvation then is a process that is ongoing as the good news of Jesus comes to the whole world, and in this way the promises will be fulfilled by the faithful God.

Of course there is much more in what I have written in the article and I acknowledge the recent research and writings of Jason Staples (such as ‘Paul and the Resurrection of Israel’).

A return to the land was always predicated on repentance; nowhere in the New Testament is there indicated that there are two paths to salvation (an using that word we should not reduce it to the binary understanding of ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’).

I do suggest in the article that there is a particular focus on the land we call Israel as a place where reconciliation of differences should be manifested; I do not look to the land as somehow carrying a ‘promise’ in the way that Christian Zionism does – I think Paul gives that hope to the world (kosmos).

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

All Israel will be saved

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I am setting an ‘open zoom’ date for two weeks’ time:

Thursday April 16th 19:30 (UK time).

Two resources – a shortish video that will raise the poignant points in headline form:

I love the ‘in the moment’ thumbnail (I deliberately don’t change them!). Either I am making a point that no one can dispute or I am practising my kangaroo imitation – you decide.

In headline form:

  • ‘Israel’ is more a faith than an ethnic term.
  • Jew and Israel are not synonymous terms – so Paul is seeking to deal with the issue of God being faithful to his promises to Israel – his discussion is not about the future nor about the people in the land in his day.
  • He argues that God has not forsaken the people ‘Israel’… that not all ‘of Israel’ are ‘Israel’ – the term ‘Israel’ is smaller than the ethnic term Israel. That Israel is bigger than ‘Jews’… and that the Gentile mission is among the nations (where Israel is to be found) and there those of the 10 tribes are found and (God always works bigger) Gentiles also come in…
  • So in this way all Israel will be saved.

The above headlines are what I touch on in the video; the pdf that goes with this open zoom expands on all the above – and if you want to push in to the substance of my direction you will need to read that also.

When coming on the evening it is not about agreeing with me nor is it about forcefully presenting an opposing position. It is about listening and seeing where this might take us.

I will post a link to the Zoom nearer the time.

The pdf is found here: All Israel will be saved

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

All Israel will be saved

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I have just completed my piece of writing seeking to engage with the understanding of ‘Israel’ as distinct from ‘Jew’ in second temple Judaism and Paul’s use lining up with that (a big acknowledgement to the work of Jason Staples on that aspect). I will in a short while put up a video of this (much shorter than the pdf, which is 60 pages long… but not big pages!) and hopefully get an Open Zoom where you can nod in agreement / push back in a suitable open discussion format! I will put notice to both of those here.

For now if you wish to download / read – maybe with a coffee in hand and an open Bible when it gets to Romans 9-11. Something in it for everyone I hope!!

All Israel will be saved

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Romans 9-11 A quick run through

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

This is the final post here on ‘Jew, Israel and Gentile’. I am in a final edit of my extended article and will include what is below and then expand on Romans 9-11 in a deeper way. By the end of next week all will be revealed!

Paul’s arguments are somewhat dense at times and his use of phrases and words mean we need to go slowly!

In these chapters Paul is concerned to show that God has been faithful to his promises to people he describes as being his own flesh and blood (Israelites – an ethnic term). He insists that God has not abandoned his promises. He draws from history that not all who are physically descended from Abraham are ‘Israel’, even though they are ‘of Israel’. Drawing on Scripture he uses the illustration of Ishmael and Isaac: they were both ethnically descended from Abraham but the ‘seed’ is through Isaac. Then he uses the story of Esau and Jacob with Jacob being chosen, and the choice not on the basis of works. In using those two illustrations he is effectively saying that neither ethnic descent nor even living by the works (of Torah) are sufficient. These were the two foundational understandings by which ‘Israel’ could lay claim to being the true ‘seed’ of Abraham.

God has not rejected his people – evidence Paul himself has found faith and history informs us that those who were the people of covenant were always a remnant (a part of the whole). He references Elijah and the 7000 faithful people to illustrate this point.

Israel has always been likened to an Olive Tree and consistent with history unfaithful branches have been cut off, the remaining branches are drawing from the root, and at the same time ‘wild branches’ have been grafted in. He instructs those wild branches not to be arrogant and he holds out hope for branches that have currently been cut off to be regrafted – conditional on their repentance, not something that will simply occur automatically. Those wild branches are from the Gentiles / nations… among those ‘other nations’ the northern kingdom of ‘Israel / Ephraim’ has been sown. So as the ‘Gentile branches’ are grafted in two aspects take place: northern tribes are coming in (for they were scattered among the nations) and the Gentiles are incorporated into Israel. The tree that is pruned and has had the wild branches grafted in is Israel, thus Paul concludes ‘in this way all Israel will be saved’. All Israel is the olive tree. Not all those of Israel are Israel, but Israel is the olive tree – smaller than all ethnic Israelites; but beyond a remnant of Jews; and bigger than ethnic Israel.

In the pdf I will expand considerably on the above. The key points to note are that Paul is seeking to show how God has been faithful throughout and continues to be faithful to the covenants in spite of many ‘of Israel’ rejecting the gospel and at the same time Gentiles coming to faith. His conclusion then is that God’s working is the process by which ‘all Israel’ (not every Israelite nor every Jew) but all Israel (all 12 tribes) will find salvation. More to come… I will put the link here when I finally complete.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

The Acts 1:6 question

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Here is part 7… I am almost finished (tomorrow??? though mañana is rather vague word – a little more vague than ‘maybe’ or ‘possibly’! ).

A flip in this section back to the question in Acts 1:6… More to it than a ‘yes’, ‘no’ answer

Did the disciples completely miss the mark with their question concerning the ‘restoration of the kingdom’? And perhaps more importantly how should we understand Jesus’ reply. Is it an affirmation that there is work to be done first and then the kingdom will be restored to Israel, or is his answer a redirection?

Their question is understandable as it aligns with the hope that had been consistently expressed. In the vision of the dry bones coming back to life we read,

Thus says the Lord God: I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone and will gather them from every quarter and bring them to their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king over them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms. They shall never again defile themselves with their idols and their detestable things or with any of their transgressions. I will save them from all the apostasies into which they have fallen and will cleanse them. Then they shall be my people, and I will be their God (Ezek37:19-23).

The restoration vision was of those who had been scattered (the northern tribes / Israel / Ephraim) being gathered from where they had been scattered, being re-united with the southern kingdom (Judah and the smaller tribe of Benjamin) under one king. In Isaiah we read that the land would be desolate until ‘a spirit from on high is poured out’ (Is. 32:15) and Peter says this had indeed taken place,

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you see and hear (Acts 2:33).

A new era of fulfilment was here. The big vision for restoration was therefore within sight; the Messiah had been raised from the dead so we can understand the disciples’ question,

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?”

In response Jesus clearly pushes the disciples away from a focus on time but engages them in a process. In doing so he uses a framework from Isaiah relating to the servant (Israel, Isaiah, Messiah, and now disciples) as ‘witness’.

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

Reflecting on the Isaianic passages we can see they carry the theme of the restoration of Israel. Here are some Isaianic passages that undergird Jesus’ response and we should in particular take note of the final one:

Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
    my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my spirit upon him;
    he will bring forth justice to the nations (Is. 42:1).

You are my witnesses, says the Lord,
    and my servant whom I have chosen (Is. 43:10)

Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
    my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my spirit upon him;
    he will bring forth justice to the nations (Is. 44:26).

And now the Lord says,
    who formed me in the womb to be his servant,
to bring Jacob back to him,
    and that Israel might be gathered to him,
for I am honored in the sight of the Lord,
    and my God has become my strength—
he says,
“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
    to raise up the tribes of Jacob
    and to restore the survivors of Israel;
I will give you as a light to the nations,
    that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (is. 49 5,6).

From Jerusalem and Judea (the Jewish world) to the Samaritans (are they ‘of Israel’ or are they not? – but they are a sign pointing toward the restoration of Israel)… and then ‘to the ends of the earth’. Leaning on Isaiah 49 the reaching out to the ends of the earth is the gathering of the ‘tribes of Jacob / Israel’. Hence we should understand Jesus response (in summary) as being:

  • Don’t focus on timing.
  • Focus on process.
  • And the process affects the timing, for in the process the restoration of the kingdom to Israel is taking place.

This latter point I understand to mean that as the mission extends to the ends of the earth the ingathering of the tribes of Jacob takes place simultaneously with the ‘conversion’ of Gentiles.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Hebrew Scriptures and the trajectory of the bigger circle

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Here is the sixth part on ‘Jew, Israel and Gentile’. Eventually / soon all the parts will be published as a pdf, but if you wish to follow along as I write…

A core Scripture giving Israel an identity was that of Exodus 19:5,6,

Now, therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation.

Peter utilises that Scripture in 1 Peter 2:9,10 (and goes on to quote Hosea concerning the casting away of Israel and the drawing back),

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the excellence of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
Once you were not a people,
    but now you are God’s people;
once you had not received mercy,
    but now you have received mercy.

Unless Peter is addressing an exclusive group of Jews who follow Jesus, he is clearly giving to these Jesus-followers descriptive terms that were used for Israel. Israel’s regathering into a relationship with God is fulfilled through those (Gentiles) responding to Jesus.

Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:16-18 pulls together a number of Old Testament passages as he warns the gentile Christians:

What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God, as God said,
“I will live in them and walk among them,
    and I will be their God,
    and they shall be my people.
Therefore come out from them,
    and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch nothing unclean;
    then I will welcome you,
and I will be your father,
    and you shall be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.”

He boldly quotes and alludes to a host of Old Testament texts here – among them are Leviticus 26, Ezekiel 37, Isaiah 52, Ezekiel 20, and 2 Samuel 7.Those Old Testament texts refer to Israel, with the latter allusion being to David! Paul cites texts that were Israel-centric and applies them to a (predominant / exclusive?) group of Gentiles converts. He follows the quotes and allusions with the provocative statement, ‘Since we have these promises’ (2 Cor.7:1). He does not write ‘since they have these promises’ but ‘since we’. He (and he is a Jew) aligns these converts with Israel!

He aligns converts, regardless of their ethnicity, with the ‘ancestors’ of Israel. Those ancestors are our ancestors:

I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea (1 Cor. 10:1).

Although the Corinthians are not ethnically part of Israel, Paul says they are incorporated into Israel. This seems to be something that is very consistent in Paul and when we come to the chapters in Romans (9-11) it will become very evident in his view that wild-olive shoots have been grafted into the one olive tree.

A longer passage is in Ephesians 2,

So then, remember that at one time you gentiles by birth, called “the uncircumcision” by those who are called “the circumcision”—a circumcision made in the flesh by human hands— remember that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us, abolishing the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near, for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then, you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone; in him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God (Ephes. 2:11-22, emphases added).

The passage needs almost no comment but I note that ‘gentiles / the uncircumcision’ who previously had a status as those who were once ‘outside the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenant’ had been brought near so that the divide between the two groups had ended; the Gentiles had now become citizens with the saints and members of God’s household. To be ‘brought near’ was the language to describe what had taken place when Gentiles converted to Judaism. (Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost records that the promise was for those immediately present, the subsequent generations and for ‘those afar off’. The OT expectation that post-restoration Gentiles would come in, the mystery that has been revealed to Paul is that this was not some future event, but a current one and it was happening without the Gentiles submitting to the Torah as had been the requirement for those converting to Judaism.)

What is described is not ‘replacement’ but incorporation and the foundation being based on that of ‘apostles and prophets’. (In this context it is feasible to understand this to be the proclaimers of God’s will from what we can term (looking back) the Old Testament and the New Testament.)

In the chapter that follows Paul unfolds that what was not understood prior to the resurrection had now been revealed. That mystery is that the Gentiles had become sharers in the promise of God which could only mean that they were incorporated into Israel. The mystery revealed alters any expected time sequence – this is not something taking place after the restoration of Israel (as certain OT Scriptures seem to indicate) but taking place simultaneously, and it was taking place without the Gentiles submitting to the Torah.

In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that is, the gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel (Ephesians 3:5,6).

In these passages all those who are in Christ are now partakers as Abraham’s descendants, and so can be said to be incorporated into Israel (the Israel of God?). If we pull on Paul’s words in Galatians where he insists that the ‘seed’ of Abraham is singular and that singular seed is Messiah then it follows that all who are in Christ are therefore descendants of Abraham. (Neither in English nor in Greek is Paul on firm ground linguistically, but his point is theological.)

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

The people ‘in’ Messiah and Israel

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I am almost finished writing on ‘Jew, Israel and Gentile’ where I seek to work through those key chapters, Romans 9-11. Maybe by the end of the week I will finish and then some editing the week that follows. I have in four previous posts included the first parts of the writing (if you missed them just enter ‘Israel’ into the search box and they should show up. I will publish them all as a pdf when I finalise the writing. Here is the fifth part for those who wish to follow along.

The coming of Messiah in order to fulfil the promises to Abraham (Genesis 12 onwards) and to heal the sickness that creation endures (as outlined specifically in Genesis 1-11) is not simply a situation of the past progressing. We read the Scriptures historically and we read them with Jesus being their fulfillment; he fulfills what has been previously written. And yet there is something more that takes place. The resurrection of Jesus changes ‘time’. Not a change to the physical time, but one that changes expectations. An event (the resurrection) that was hoped would occur at the fullness of time had now occurred in time, we could say ahead of schedule. Death and resurrection might be separated by three days but they were part of one event, with the resurrection ushering in a new era, even what is termed ‘new creation’. Something of the future arrived with the resurrection of Jesus. The end is not something we wait for, but the end (in the Person of Jesus) is something we welcome. Hence when we turn to the New Testament there are surprises and twists with regard to fulfilment(s).

Paul sums it up with his words in 2 Corinthians 1:20,

For in him every one of God’s promises is a “Yes.” For this reason it is through him that we say the “Amen,” to the glory of God.

All promises that God has made are guaranteed and fulfilled in Christ. Centring everything on Christ means the fulfilment at times might look different (the fulfillment is ‘beyond’ what was expected. Progressive revelation is from the lesser to the greater, never the other way round) to what was expected and we have to take care about simply taking an Old Testament promise and seeking to project forward. The eschatological fulfilment is more vital, and this seems to be why Paul says that Abraham was promised the ‘world’ (kosmos) not the ‘land’ (ge). (We have to do the same with the various laws. We neither abrogate them all except for the ones that are affirmed in the NT, nor do we hold them all except for the ones that have explicitly been cancelled! The tendency is to take one or the other approach. Continuity and discontinuity is involved and all Scripture has to pass through the Jesus filter.)

The church replaces Israel?

There is a theology termed supersessionism where the church is said to supersede / replace Israel. This can be expressed in a very simple way or nuanced better with Jesus faithfully fulfilling Israel’s calling and that those who are in Christ are where the purposes of God are centred. The contrary perspective is that which Dispensationalism expresses – that there are two different paths to salvation: one for Israel and one for those who have come to faith in Jesus. I once heard a Messianic Jew say, ‘In the New Testament the early believers were clear that Jews needed Jesus, they were just not sure about the Gentiles. Now two millennia later we have reversed that approach where we are sure that Gentiles need saving but we are not sure about the Jews!’ This is certainly true of those who hold to two paths for salvation.

We can look at the tussle that occurred in the early chapters of Acts. They are clear that there was ‘no other name’ by which people could be saved (Acts 4:12). Peter’s audience were Jews in Jerusalem and he said that they could not appeal to the patriarchs (‘other names’) as being their guarantee of salvation; then when Gentiles began to respond to Jesus the question was how were they to relate to the law. Gentiles who converted to Judaism took on board the Torah and its instructions – so what response was required of Gentiles who expressed faith in Jesus, the Messiah of Israel? Part of the offence in the new Messianic movement was that Gentiles were given full inclusion without submitting to the law.

(And we must not think of Judaism as being a religion of works; the law acted as a boundary marker and was viewed as God’s gracious gift to the people. Conversely we must not consider that the entry for the Gentiles was one of cheap grace (Torah-free is not lawlessness). Paul was committed to bring about ‘the obedience of faith among all the gentiles for the sake of his name’ (Rom. 1:5).)

The second of the two proposals that I wrote about in the previous paragraph (of two separate paths) is something I reject and the former view I wish to nuance somewhat.

The heading I have given as a question (‘The church replaces Israel’) in itself raises some questions. Always the danger of using the word ‘church’ is that almost inevitably we have injected into the word a predetermined meaning or concept. If, however, we transliterate the Greek underlying word (ekklesia) we can see that the question is indeed a strange one. Israel was termed the ekklesia! (The common word used in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures when describing Israel as the community in response to God, hence Moses was said to be with the ekklesia in the wilderness (Acts 7:38).) It is bizarre to ask the question ‘does the ekklesia replace the ekklesia’!

We have to dig deeper. So let’s try and expand this some. As discussed earlier in this paper, fundamental to Israel’s identity was that of faith – faith triumphed over ethnicity. Israel was always smaller than the ethnic boundary and yet always bigger than that ethnic boundary as faith drew a bigger circumference.

If Gentiles became Torah-obedient they were included as part of Israel; this emphasis continued among certain Jewish followers of Jesus, hence the disagreements within the early Jesus-movement. The controversy that ensued was settled when it was decided that Gentile followers of Jesus were not required to be obedient to Torah.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

‘Ekklesiastical’ perspective

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Yes a little odd the spelling above but to make a point as I consider a few reflections on the gentleman named Paul (a ‘gentle’ man???).

There is always a section on ecclesiology in the books that seem to try and systematise everything; Thomas Finger said that of all areas of theology it is the least innovative, and suggests that money, reputation and sustaining what gives careers are the driving factors in this. Paul is a pragmatist – more to come on that in a later post – who is willing to compromise today with a view to compromising redemptively, with the plan that tomorrow will be better than today. On that basis I also try to be pragmatic, but it is helpful to push into what might lie at a more foundational level so that we continually push forward. I also suggest that as I hold to the conviction that in the context (particularly) of Europe we are at the end of a long cycle and can imagine a different tomorrow.

Ekklesia – not a word made up by Paul (and on the lips of Jesus twice in Matthew), but a common word understood within the Graeco-Roman world. (Acts 19:39 in response to the riot in Ephesus the town clerk said that if there was any ongoing complaint that it would have to be settled in the ekklesia – not the ‘church’ but the legal body, maybe we would term local council.) Each of the major Roman cities had an ekklesia, made up from the competent males who were responsible for the framework of the city and to plan for its future. Their goal was to make sure the city was shaped according to Roman principles and vision, in short they were to ensure that the city was as close to resembling Rome as possible.

Paul uses that term (ekklesia) to describe those who had found faith in Jesus and were aligned to heaven’s agenda. He could write, for example, to the ekklesia in Corinth, only the ekklesia he was writing to was the ekklesia in Christ. (This post is too short to go into the use of the term ekklesia in the OT Scriptures – but in short it was applied to the people of Israel when they were actively responding to the voice of God: Stephen uses it that way in Acts 7 also concerning the ekklesia in the wilderness.)

We have become accustomed to adding the word ‘local’ to ekklesia and in doing so have weakened what is in the mind of Paul. He was convinced that every locality needed a group of competent people (females definitely included at all levels) who would take responsibility for the locality and seek for that place to be as close to heaven’s reality as possible. A BIG task! And a big task for a small group of people – maybe less than 100 in cities of 200,000+ people. A big task and big faith.

Of course there are other aspects to ekklesia – particularly that of inner care and nurturing one another, but the overall purpose was a group who prayed and acted so there might be some measure of ‘on earth as in heaven’. (Maybe we fall short as we often represent ‘in ekklesia as in the world’???)

Back to Finger who said all that is written is so predictable and lacks innovation. If we moved away from ‘pure church’ and toward ‘here to change the context / locality’ we might be astounded what things might look like. I put the word ‘context’ in there as we are no longer defined simply by localities.

The ekklesia that Paul helped established did have a significant inward activity – with a focus of when they came together they ‘ate’. Inevitable as the Master they followed was an ‘eater’ and part of his offence was to eat with the wrong people. Also eating was a strong prophetic act in both the Jewish and Graeco-Roman cultures. In those cultures – particularly the ones more aligned to the Imperial rule – who came to meals was a major re-enforcement of hierarchy. Where they were seated was all part of that, and the invitations were sent to those who would reciprocate. So subversive the teachings and practices of Jesus… and Paul.

  • Do not invite those who can invite you back.
  • Do not give the seat of honour to the wealthy.
  • Honour the least honourable.

Those commands can be multiplied for the ekklesia of Jesus was ‘upside-down’. That meal – and Jesus had meals at multiple levels – was to a) remember Jesus, b) proclaim his death and c) until he comes.

It has been reduced to something less than a meal and to focus on his death. Remember him – outrageous, disturbing him! Proclaim his death – a new era is here; the powers are defeated and they (earthly and heavenly) do not have the final word; they are but temporary; a new era is here and one day will be consummated. Maybe that is more in line with the ekklesia in Jesus Christ?

Let the meals – at whatever level – be outrageous!

Vincent Brannick (A Roman Catholic! – exclamation mark in the light of what he says from that background) wrote in response to the council of Laodicea (365AD)

The prohibition of Laodicea completes a critical cycle. The Lord’s Supper had changed from evening meal to stylized (sic) ritual. The assembly had moved from dining room to sacred hall. Leadership had shifted from family members to special clergy. Now the orginal form of church was declared illegal.

The original form of ekklesia declared illegal. I might substitute the word ‘purpose’?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives