Category: Theology

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

Paul, Jesus crucified, raised

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The importance of the cross cannot be overemphasised for Paul.

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God…  but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:18, 23, 24).
I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2).
May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me and I to the world (Gal. 6:14).

The life of Jesus was vital for Paul for his life was in contrast to ours (Adam’s); his being one of obedience, of humility and that obedience being even to death, death being death on the cross (Rom. 5:19; Phil 2: 7,8). A call to imitate Paul was a call to imitate Paul as he imitated Christ. ‘Justification by faith’ was not justification by faith alone – we should not simply subsume James under Paul to erase the supposed divide between them. James said we are not justified by faith alone! And I am sure Paul would have agreed. Neither Paul nor James are suggesting ‘salvation by works’ any more than their roots (‘Judaism’) did. Judaism talked of the ‘works of the law’ – behaviour as outlined in the law in response to God’s grace and acceptance; if Israel was ‘saved’ it was by grace; Paul might well have been happy with the term ‘works of faith’ (‘the only thing that counts is faith working through love’ – Gal. 5:6); certainly works (but not to earn salvation) by the Spirit, his helpful term being ‘fruit’. The contrast for Paul between the former way of life and the new way was that of ‘law v. Spirit’. Led by the law as a guardian (his former expression of faith) gave way to being led by the Spirit (Gal. 4:1-6; Rom. 8:14).

The brutal death on the cross. The cross was a political statement to mark those who rebelled against Rome’s rule; the death of Jesus on the Roman cross was fuelled by religious jealousy. He was charged with being a blasphemer and the sentence was carried out by the Imperial powers of the day – that in itself would be tragic and make Jesus a martyr and a hero, but Paul was convinced that something much more was going on. Jesus was a martyr but more; martyrs inspire but Jesus saves. Probably no ‘theory’ of the atonement will suffice though (no surprise) the populist theory of ‘penal substitution’ in order to display God’s righteousness and satisfy his wrath simply does not resonate for there is no divide in the Trinity. The angry God (Father) and loving Jesus is not Pauline, for God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. It is the ‘powers’ feature highly in Paul. Demonic as in spiritual beings? Earthly powers / systems? Demonic as in ‘beings’ that come into ‘existence’ as a result of corporate power entities? Take your pick! He disarmed all powers:

He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it.

Any theory that does not take in this aspect I think falls short of being Pauline. The transfer from one realm to another necessitates the defeat of powers hostile to humanity; the captivity has to be broken.

Paul’s gospel is not just the cross, but the cross and the resurrection. The crucified one is the resurrected one, and he insists if Jesus had not been raised then we are still in our sins. The resurrection is the affirmation that a former age has been ended, or perhaps it might be better put that a new age / era has begun as the two ages now run in parallel.

Freedom, deliverance, and a very real experience is what takes place. Paul’s gospel goes beyond a ‘faith’ response to a reception of the Spirit and that is appealed to in experiential terms.

The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you experience so much for nothing?—if it really was for nothing. Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law or by your believing what you heard? (Gal. 3:2-5).

‘Did you experience so much’ could be understood as ‘suffer’ as being something external and unpleasant but given that he goes on with present tense verbs as to the ‘supply of the Spirit’ and working miracles among he makes an experiential appeal. Faith resulted in the receiving of a tangible animating presence, the reception of a life-source that resulted in God-activity.

The cross does much more than show us a way (‘moral influence’ theory of Abelard and in part René Girard’s presentation of the scapegoating narrative that he uses). The cross stands at the end of a doomed pathway; the resurrection stands with the stone rolled away and an invitation to a new path. The possibilities are endless and this is why I like to talk about transformation,

[A]nd through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross (Col. 1:20).

I am agnostic (and I think that is the best faith position!) on what transformation will look like because once touched by the Spirit it is the imagination that is ignited to ‘see a new creation’. Paul might have thought there would be an imminent return (in his lifetime) of the Lord (‘we who are alive at his coming’) but he continually worked for the future. That has to be our framework. Agnosticism regarding the future is the framework, but focusing in the present so as to invite the future to manifest.

Once we move away from the narrow framework of ‘saved from hell’ (ticket to heaven) to a Pauline vision for the world (his world and now ours) we do not negate personal salvation but understand it to be a salvation from captivity to the realm of sin and death to participating in the liberation movement of reconciliation. To quote another movement that understands that salvation is to be measured by the extent to which we are liberated and become liberators. (‘[Jesus] who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age’.)

Paul is silent as to what happens between the two events of crucifixion and resurrection. I am also somewhat curious on that time. Do we choose the rather ‘mythical'(??) descent into hades (harrowing of hell: 1 Peter 4) or do we go for the cleansing of the heavenly tabernacle (Hebrews…and what would that indicate)? Or is there truth in both without either needing to be pressed literally?

The cross ends a domination that had erased all true hope (not erased the possibility of ‘individual’ salvation); the resurrection opened entry to the realm of Spirit inspired imagination. Truly, the era of ‘I have a dream’.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A centre for Paul

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Given the title above I have set myself a challenge! What is the centre of Paul’s gospel? Fundamentally it has to be focused on ‘Jesus Christ and him crucified’. He has a conviction that the hoped for Messiah – deliverer of Israel, God’s agent, had come and was to be identified with Jesus of Nazareth, and that he had been crucified; that the death as a criminal (political enemy of Rome?) that he had undergone was the means by which not simply Israel was to be delivered but that the world would be transformed.

His vision was bigger than that of ‘personal sins’ forgiven; it was bigger than a focus on the land known as Palestine; it was bigger than a freedom from an earthly power (Rome); it was bigger than a freedom for an ethnic people who were descended from Abraham. The power of sin (and death) could no longer rule; the power over nations (τὰ στοιχεῖα) could no longer shape (and he seems to suggest that the law functioned in that way for those of Israel – Gal. 4:3, 9); the God of Israel was the God of the cosmos; Israel’s Messiah was the Saviour of the world. Bigger… bigger than a specific people; bigger than a piece of land; bigger than personal. A cosmic vision – a new creation persepctive.

New Creation

Twice Paul uses that phrase – 2 Cor.5:17 and Gal. 6:15.

So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; look, new things have come into being! (2 Cor. 5:17).

There is an outside chance at translating it as ‘they are a new creature’ but the abruptness of Paul suggests otherwise… if anyone is in Christ, new creation (καινὴ κτίσις)… old things have passed away, new things are (he uses the neuter adjectives for ‘old’ and ‘new’). The context is of sight / perception (2 Cor. 5:16). The transformation is future but for those in Christ it is present now! Already we have been (Gal. 1:3) delivered from one age to another and the result is that we can no longer use human categories with regard to others. There is a major challenge, but this gospel is not tame and is beyond ‘me and my life’.

In Galatians he uses the term again:

For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation is everything!

Ethnicity (Jew / Gentile = non-Jew) nor adherence to the Torah has value! That is a bold statement from one who was (and continued to be) a Jew… In Christ that fundamental way of dividing the world was gone.It belonged to a former era. He finishes his ‘neither… nor..’ with (again) an abrupt phrase, ‘but new creation’ (ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις)… the ‘but’ being strong.

The cross is central – the central part for Paul – though we must not dislocate it from the resurrection, but the effect of the cross is a major irruption into this world to such a level that there is new creation.

This brings me to a text that goes to the heart of the outworking. Gal. 3:28.

(But now that faith has come…) There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Ethnicity / ‘chosen nation’ has gone; economic / class divide is no longer legitimate… and as translated above Paul changes the structure in the third part of the verse from no…nor to no… and… (οὐκ ἔνι  Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ  Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ). He does this to quote Genesis, God creating them, ‘male and female‘, but there is something very deep going on here. Creation is ‘good’ but creation had within it dualisms (not ethically) but binaries such as ‘heaven’ and ‘earth’ and the very fundamental human one of ‘male’ and ‘female’. Binaries that defined the spectrum but the ‘spectrum’ in the new creation is one. No longer ‘male and female’. The most fundamental divide in our world has gone. The implications are enormous.

Paul’s gospel pushes into how we inter-relate. It is not primarily about a community who are more holy than others (if we define ‘holiness’ by we don’t do x,y and z) but a community who relate differently to others because their conviction (and experience) is that a new creation exists now. I added the word ‘experience’ in the previous sentence because we are not there yet. Maybe we can accept the word ‘conviction’ but I think Paul pushes for ‘experience’ far more than we are comfortable.

The cross ends the domination by powers hostile to humanity; it ends binaries that categorise so that hierarchies continue.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Wesley… his quadrilateral – is there more?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Mr. Wesley (the John variety) was quite a practical person but also somewhat of a theologian. Although he did not himself use the ‘quadrilateral’ language he has been analysed as using four bases as a foundation for his (practical) theology. The four are: Scripture, reason, experience and tradition. Scripture was always taken as primary with the other three enabling an understanding and a practical application of the Scripture.

I like that enormously – gives Scripture precedence but does not simply quote texts in a way that seeks to apply them in a wooden way as if there are no other factors involved. Sola Scriptura has been badly used and applied – though I suspect never done consistently. Reason – oh yes. What we consider is our reason of course is not infallible, but God is not unreasonable. Reason is a God-gift to us. I remember pushing a ‘Reformed’ professor to the point where he had to admit that he accepted that God wishes something (all to be saved) but chose something different (only the elect). At that point there was a contradiction that does not rationally stand up. We might not know how to resolve it but at least it should shout ‘caution’. Experience – not infallible but even within Scripture we see how texts are re-interpreted as a fresh experience comes along. (I am currently working on ‘Israel, Jew, Gentile’ mix – seems some fresh interpretations when we come to Rom. 9-11… another day). Tradition – OK I might be the weakest on this aspect as it is not my centre, but recognise that how things have been wrestled with in the past can help us process such issues in our day.

But… but… how about we add one more element to brother John’s approach. We might be able to slide it under one of the previous four, but given that it is central to Scripture I think I can legitimately add it:

Eschatological

How things will be… that has to shape our theology. We move from two points – as it was in the beginning… and how things will culminate. Marriage and gender are two interesting aspects when we go from both points. Dualism at the beginning (although if we take it as a merism we have a spectrum, and not a binary) to the end of dualism / binary in the eschaton. Such an approach has to impact also the atonement (why Jesus does not embody the binaries of Jew and Gentile / male and female) – and as an aside why does the Hebrew writer suggest something, not present in Paul, that the heavens needed cleansing?(!!)

I think at every point we cannot simply read the Scriptures as a flat book – challenging if we do and we get to Ecclesiastes with the best human basically being a dead one!!! – not to mention the old chestnuts of slavery and ethnic cleansing. But beyond not reading as a flat book we have to move beyond a narrative-historical approach into the future. We have to both read forward – the onward movement of the narrative and also we have to read back – from the end into the text.

The resurrection brought about two time-zones. Sometimes we have to ask when thinking about a call that crosses time zones, ‘what time is it in xxxxx?’. ‘What time is it?’ is a question we have to ask concerning how we are to respond to issues theological… and then practically how we bridge the ‘time zones’ is important. In the eschaton / new creation this is the time… now we live in ‘this age / time zone’ so how do we apply that time zone into this one so that we can communicate.

In a very real sense Scripture takes precedence but has to be scrutinised by reason, tradition, experience and the eschatological state of things. Sin coming into this world distorted so much and strangely the eschaton entering our time zone also distorts for a clash takes place. If we can increasingly adjust our time to heaven’s we might feel out of sync…

OK the above was intended as a ‘what on earth would that mean then’ kinda post, and the next post I need to get back to an update on Sicily – here in our fourth month and back in the place where the one called Paul stayed for three days – Siracusa.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

And the children

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Some 18 months ago Gayle had a very long and impactful dream that ended with her addressing ‘Mr. Banks’ pleading that he take off his banking clothes, his shoes and go play with the children in the grass. ‘If you can do this everything will follow.’

Everything will follow!

That is quite a statement. Navigating this world is not an easy task. We live in but not ‘of’ this world. The kingdom of Jesus is not of this world otherwise the methodology of this world would be employed. Living in the world requires compromise for it is how do we engage with an imperfect world. But compromise has to be that of redemptive compromise – taking less than perfect action as it at least stops the bigger picture sliding further backwards or at best leaves a better ‘after’ picture than the ‘before’ one.

God or mammon? The two that Jesus put in opposition to each other. Money is not mammon, but so much of the financial world has been colonised by mammon, and mammon is a source from which society can live. The voice of the Old Testament prophets can be reduced to challenging Israel over two issues: is God your Protector and is God your Provider. They rebuked Israel repeatedly over those two issues.

Child sacrifice was an abomination that was never to be part of the life of Israel. Understandably so. But what lay behind child sacrifice. The foundational belief was that of appeasement of the gods (why with certain views of the atonement NT Wright has described them as pagan). One sacrificed to get the gods to bless, and to get the gods to bless the harvest today, in this season, there was no greater sacrifice than to sacrifice the future. The next generation offered to the gods guaranteed blessing today.

Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “The word of the Lord that you have spoken is good.” For he thought, “There will be peace and security in my days.”

Isaiah rebuked Hezekiah for his naive behaviour and said that he had messed things up for the next generation; Hezekiah’s response is that he was happy because things would go well in his lifetime. Happy… but the future sacrificed.

Great parts of money and the economic system has been colonised by this same spirit. And I would go as far as to suggest that a continual pattern of borrowing from the future for blessing today is of the same spirit as Hezekiah embodied, and is on the spectrum heading into Moloch (child sacrifice) territory. Whole financial structures are based on money as debt. Remove debt and the current financial world would collapse! Imagine running one’s own finances on that basis (leveraging).

I think this relates to Gayle’s dream. Play with the children in the grass. Get the dew of creation on your toes; be committed to the next generation on their terms. Play – their terms; their world.

Compromise… but redemptive compromise. Disengaging from the world and living the life of the hermit might be the call for some, but the call for the majority is to be present within; the call on all who follow Jesus is not to be ‘of’.

Compromise but moving toward, making signs of, a fresh economy that might or might not affect ‘money’ but has to break the alignment to mammon and refuse to sacrifice tomorrow for the desire for blessing today.

From:

  • buying and selling to giving and receiving.
  • reversing the ‘harvest before sowing’ to ‘seedtime and (then) harvest’.
  • refusing to set ‘profit’ as the bottom line.
  • refusing to maximise what can be earned / harvested.

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease but did not aid the poor and needy.

‘Your sister Sodom’. The family DNA, hence in Revelation the city where the Lord was crucified was termed ‘Sodom’ and ‘Egypt’. The Reformers gave us justification by faith and for that we should be (and will be!) eternally grateful, however adding the word ‘alone’ (justification by faith alone) has not helped us and flies in the face of the one Scripture that explicitly uses that phrase: ‘You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone‘ (Jas. 2:24)!

A child will lead them (Isaiah 11):

The wolf shall live with the lamb;
    the leopard shall lie down with the kid;
the calf and the lion will feed together,
    and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze;
    their young shall lie down together;
    and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp,
    and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s den.
They will not hurt or destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

And he set a child in the midst:

He called a child, whom he put among them, and said, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me (Matt. 18:2-5).

But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the amazing things that he did and heard the children crying out in the temple and saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became angry and said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read,
‘Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies
you have prepared praise for yourself’?” (Matt. 21:15,16).
Out of the mouths of babes and infants
you have founded a bulwark because of your foes,
    to silence the enemy and the avenger (Ps-. 8:2).

Take off your uniform / shoes and go play

In a world that calls us to conform find the crack where some redemptive seed can be sown… and make sure that it is about a better tomorrow than today. Do something to restore seedtime and harvest… even if ever so small. A movement where everything will follow.

Desiring blessing today at the cost of tomorrow finds its ultimate expression demonstrated at the cross. Judas is there with his money to be gained; the religious system makes it plain that the only way to keep the ‘blessing’ of Imperial favour was to sacrifice Jesus (‘ If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation… You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed’ – John 11:48,50).

At the cross was the breaking of the power of mammon for even Judas threw back the money into the temple system; the ‘place’ and the ‘nation’ were destroyed, but a new way of life was released, with an invitation to follow.

Amidst crisis in the charismatic world where will the children be found? They will lead and ‘all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.’

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Ethnic or faith

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Israel is both bigger than we might suppose ‘Israel’ to be and also smaller! The name Israel is used for the covenant people because of the patriarch ‘Jacob’ whose name was changed to ‘Israel’. [Israel has three applications: the land of Israel; the whole 12 tribes; and the northern ‘10 tribes’ sometimes also called ‘Ephraim’. Jews, as we will see, are part of Israel, but are not ‘Israel’. They are those who are of the tribe of Judah (and Benjamin is included, along with some of Levi who were originally distributed throughout the land).] They are the covenant people who come from the line of ‘Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’. The twelve tribes we might assume are descended from the 12 sons of Jacob / Israel but that is only approximately true. Joseph’s two sons (Ephraim and Manasseh) are described either as two tribes or as half-tribes with the two together making up the tribe of Joseph. The bigger point though is one of ethnicity. The sons of Joseph are born in Egypt to the daughter of the priest of On; Asenath, Joseph’s Egyptian wife, gave birth to two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. They are not only included but give identity as tribes so much so that in later history ‘Ephraim’ can be given as an umbrella name for the 10 northern kingdom tribes. Ethnicity is not in view! 

[There are various lists of the tribes; for example ‘Joseph’ is included in the blessing of Jacob over his sons prior to his death (Gen. 49: 3-27); in the census of the tribes (Num. 1:20-43) Ephraim and Manasseh are included (Joseph nor Levi are listed); and in Revelation 7:5-8 the list includes Manasseh, Levi and Joseph but drops Dan and Ephraim.]

At the time of the Exodus we read that not only those descended from Jacob’s immediate family exit the land but that an ‘alien’ who joined themselves to those of ‘Israel’ were to be considered as ‘natives of the land’ and as a result a ‘mixed multitude’ left Egypt (Exod. 12: 36-38). Those who enter the land are not all descended from Abraham. They are considered to be part of Israel though they are not ethnically descended from the patriarchs.

As they enter the land we read of Rahab and her household being added to the covenant people and later of Ruth (a Moabite) who becomes an ancestor of David. In the Rahab story Achan and his household (Israelites) are cut off from the people while she and her household are incorporated. Matthew in his Gospel that is very ‘Jewish’ lists both those women as part of the genealogy of Jesus.

Caleb (a great hero) was a Kennizite as was Othniel, the judge. The Kennizites were either a tribe in Canaan or descended from Kenaz, a grandson of Esau.At that level ‘Israel’ is not confined to those whose genealogies are ethnically off ‘Israel’, but includes a larger group whose allegiance is to the God of Israel,

[Y]our people shall be my people and your God my God (Ruth 1:16).

We can further add the challenges from the New Testament, such as John the Baptist’s statement that confronted the claim to ethnicity as the marker,

We have Abraham as our ancestor,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham (Matt. 3:8).

Or Paul’s pushback on ‘external’ factors as defining who is a ‘Jew’,

For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not the written code. Such a person receives praise not from humans (Rom. 2:28,29).

In those passages we have both a widening of those who are of Israel and also a narrowing. Either way faith seems to take precedence over ethnicity.

‘Israel’ being smaller than ‘Israel’ is summed up in Paul’s words,

It is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all those descended from Israel are Israelites, and not all of Abraham’s children are his descendants (Rom. 9:6,7).

This was not unique to Paul, for within Judaism (Judaisms?) this ‘narrowing’ view is what fuelled the diverse sects. The stricter the sect the more they saw themselves as truly Israel and others as not being faithful to the ways of God. The ‘sinners’ we read about in the Gospels were those considered not to be part of the covenant people, even though ethnically they might have been pure. 

‘Being cut off from this people’ meant in spite of ethnicity a failure to keep the covenant required those people to be excluded (Lev. 7:27, 18:29, 23:29); Peter uses the same understanding (now provocatively as he centres everything in on Jesus) with his entreaty to his audience to,

Save yourselves from this corrupt generation. (Acts 2:40)

Ethnicity is further challenged by Jesus in Matthew 21:43,

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces its fruits.

The complexity of Israel being both larger and smaller than ‘Israel’ means we cannot simply draw (for example) a straight line from the Israel of the Bible to the state of Israel today.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives