Category: Theology

Patriarchy – challenging to write as male

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I appreciated the feedback on Romans 13 and the requirement to ‘submit’ to the powers. One of the comments that came in was focused on another biblical requirement of submission – namely that of women to men, with a note on the current context where in different ways a renewed emphasis is being placed on patriarchy mascarading as masculinity. Defining ‘femininity’ or ‘masculinity’ can be problematic and I think so it should be.

Let’s hit a major issue head on. Jesus was male. Jesus was Jewish. We could interpret that to mean to be male and to be Jewish is to be more in the image of God than to be female and non-Jewish. To assume that leads to a challenging conclusion, particularly when there is ‘neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male and female’, so even if the above assumption is made (male and Jewish is closer to God-likeness) there is an awesome change through the resurrected Jesus. I also come at the male / Jewish aspect with an assumption. Jesus, sinless, comes in sinful flesh and ‘all have sinned’ but the sin of male and Jew is where it is focused. That is not to make either males nor Jews greater sinners, but what has been acted out since creation has been the sin of dominance by males (patriarchy), and that Jesus first dies for the nation (John 10:51) to break the ‘curse of the law’ from Israel so that the blessing of Abraham might not be blocked but might come to Gentiles (Gal.3:13). In other words, Jesus as male and as Jewish is not a sign pointing to God but a sign pointing to the plight of humanity.

In this age belong, biological sex, covenantal marriage and singleness. In the age to come there will be no more marriage (and therefore no more sex) for covenant will be a living experience between all who are redeemed. I cannot pull forward a Bible verse – and that often leads us to suggest something that agrees with our view but abrogates the biblical narrative in the process – but I strongly suggest that Jesus is no longer male (or maybe no longer exclusively male). He continues as human for the firstborn of all (new) creation is the one to pull all redeemed humanity to its destiny.

I am reading back in Leviticus (finished this morning – always a sigh of relief when that happens!) and again today noted the difference in value for redemption of the male and the female. It is (for me) not possible to get away from the patriarchial bias of many of the OT laws – reflecting the culture, and yet (thankfully) an improvement to the culture of the day. That ‘improvement’ runs through Jesus, the Easter Event and on into new creation, and that ‘improvement’ takes creation to its fulfilment, that being the reason why Paul makes the grammatical change in the Galatian 3 text of Jew / Greek, slave/free. Grammatically he could have gone on to write ‘and neither male or female’ but he breaks the expected language with ‘no longer male and female’, a quotation from the Genesis record of creation regarding humanity in the image and likeness of God. There is a fall in Genesis, but perhaps not the ‘hard’ fall of sin (guilt) but of taking a path that would never be the path to maturity… one repeated by Israel.

Submission… wives to husbands – so clear but what is the significance of the language when there is not a ‘submit’ word in that verse (Ephesians 5:22) but that in verse 21 there is the ‘submit’ word with the instruction to ‘submit to one another’ with the added phrase ‘in the fear of Christ’. No submission because of a creational aspect – biological, nor related to birth – nationality, nor cultural – social. New humanity in Christ and the inter-relatedness of one another – WOW!

Yes there are texts that call for submission in Paul… Those instructions are contingent based on the situation and into the Graeco-Roman world which was very fearful about women not being faithful to the gods of the Empire. Plutarch (b. 46AD/CE) said:

A wife ought not to make friends on her own, but to enjoy her husband’s friends in common with him. The gods are the first and most important friends. Wherefore it is becoming for a wife to worship and to know only the gods that her husband believes in, and to shut the door tight upon all queer rituals and outlandish superstitions. For with no god do stealthy and secret rites performed by a woman find any favour.

All directive texts calling for submission within the household can (and I consider should) be read as moving the culture forward without making an absolute break that would leave no bridge in place… in other words not the final word but the missiological word.

So here I go, writing as a male, with huge blind spots and shaped by my culture, but I consider that the renewed emphasis on ‘the restoration of masculinity’ will not bring us closer to new creation. This is why we have to go beyond signing up to all ‘again’ messages. The path ahead is challenging, but we have the trajectory that we can follow through the Jesus’ lens. And I suggest that there is a focused battle now (as has always been) on ending the culture of patriarchy. Should that go we will find a leverage point has been found that will accelerate the momentum of the new creation manifesting in our midst.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Submit to the powers!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Romans 13 ‘be subject to the governing authorities’ is a great text when the powers that are in place are ones that we favour! When they are not we are likely push for their removal… Surely that indicates that we do not have here a carte blanche text endorsing all authority as an extension of God. Totalitarian governments? North Korea? (And some closer to home?)

[My OT readings are in the Pentateuch for now… laws upon laws… not simply ‘spiritual’ laws (they are the minority) but social governmental laws. Societal behaviour – care for neighbour, extended by Jesus to ‘the enemy’ – lies at the heart of it… hence it is no surprise that the prophetic critique of Israel was as much at a social as a spiritual level, and no surprise that the ‘Gospel’ finds its context in the Roman world that was forever proclaiming ‘good news’ with ‘peace on earth and good will to all’.]

Here is the Romans 13 text:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval, for it is God’s agent for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the agent of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s agents, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

And why not first apply this to Jesus, who was executed as a criminal by the state / empire. Do what is good, Jesus, and you will be approved… oh no you must have been doing something bad cos we cannot see how you were approved by the authorities (God’s appointed ones) for they brought out the sword.

And what about Paul, bad rebel as he was, being imprisoned? He did not sit in prison saying ‘God put me here for those authorities are enacting the will of God’! He always found a way of cooperating with God, he was focused on doing what was right in the eyes of God, and understood where he was being punished unjustly that he was living out the cruciform life-style there.

Paul’s letters are contingent – they are into a situation and he is writing here to the Roman believers who are based in the centre of the Empire – a system of government that he was proclaiming that there was an eternal alternative in the kingdom (basileia – same word for empire) of God with Jesus as ‘Lord’. His message was not firstly understood as a private call to raise one’s hand and pray a prayer but as a political (and therefore economic) message, and an-anti Rome one at that (‘they proclaim another King’).

There is a measure of irony in the passage, for Nero, was praised as one who brought peace without the need for the sword. This was the Nero who had already expelled the Jews from the city (52CE under Claudius – see Acts 18:3), was later to blame the Christians for the fire and was responsible for the deaths of both Peter and Paul in the capital.

Paul was not averse to challenging the Roman authorities and he certainly did not give them the right to do whatever they took upon themselves to do. From the overarching challenge of the political (as well as cosmic) term that ‘Jesus is Lord’ to his deeply provocative insistence that he would not leave the prison until the Roman delegated authority came and apologised to him and Silas (Acts 16:37). He did not complement them with ‘you are such an example of the extension of God’s justice’ but required that they apologise.

[Alongside and interwoven with irony we might also have various quotes that Paul is using without a total endorsement of them. Not uncommon in the rhetoric style of the day.]

In it all, with or without irony, there are deeply practical applications into a specific setting. ‘Pay your taxes’ is deeply practical (Rom. 13:6). Rome was forever needing money, in the early years Nero lowered the taxation level but by the time Paul wrote (57CE) there was the beginning of unrest due to increased taxation. This increased in the immediate years that followed bringing about major clashes with the authorities. We have practical advice as to what battles to fight. This is common place in the NT – Jesus (who was God and therefore protected regardless!!) did not go to Judea for they ‘were seeking to kill him’ (Jn.7:1) and ‘hid himself’ for the crowd had picked up stones to throw at him (Jn. 8:59). Wisdom and an understanding of time (long term transformation) is needed and can modify our response at any given time. Jesus, and those who followed, did not simply behave in a way where their lives were taken from them but they laid their lives down – timing was the key.

We have many other instances of disobedience in Scripture – the Egyptian midwives who did not kill the sons being born… and even lied, but had God’s approval!; Jesus not being handed over as a baby to the powers; Mordecai et al. The theme with regard to earthly authorities is summed up in the apostolic statement that ‘we must obey God rather then any human authority’.

And central to our faith is the breaking of the Roman seal on the tomb of Jesus. Truly an act of God,and one that forever established that earthly authorities are temporary. The birth of the new era is marked by the relativising of all authority – the ultimate political act of disobedience. In this Roman passage we also have the relativising of authority – if they are in some way related to God then they are accountable to act in a godly way.

To use Romans 13 (7 verses) as a universal and absolute theology of ‘submit to the powers’ is to abuse the passage and to ignore the wider context – both in this letter (‘do not be conformed to the spirit of this age’) and the canonical context – try another chapter 13, such as Revelation 13… appointed by God or a ‘beast’ in opposition to God?

Christianity (a modern term) will never make a good state religion; and followers of Jesus can never put their hope in the government (why on earth… on earth being a good term to use here… did Paul use / adopt the term ekklesia for the communities within the empire that expressed faith in the resurrected Jesus?).

If I insist on ‘obedience’ to the powers when they suit my preference, but work and pray for their removal when they are not in line with my bias I am indeed simply being subject to this age (Rom.12:2 – the wider context for these verses).

By all means have political leanings. I do. Have wisdom where to resist (though not with violence against people); have a long term vision. Do not give up hope. And when we do what is right we should not be surprised that we are marginalised or punished – by the governing authorities. That is something the Pauline and biblical corpus would agree with, hence we cannot make what Paul wrote, here in Romans 13, something to be implemented at face value.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Of the increase…

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

What days we are in. The West has dominated for centuries but the writing is on the wall as to the coming to the end of its dominance. A relentless movement to the East is underway. All ‘Babels / Babylons’ (same word in Hebrew) will prove to be projects that do not complete; the promised kingdom is one that ‘never ends’ and that accords with the use of the word eschaton for the kingdom. As far as I am aware we do not have the alternative word telos used of the kingdom. Jesus is the telos (destination and end) of the law, but of the increase of the government of heaven there is no end.

I have been looking a little into the shift of Rome from Republic to Empire (Julius Caesar being the first emperor). I am probably somewhat simplistic in my analysis, but over some decades the equivalent of what we today call oligarchs worked hard to sow distrust in the style of government and sowed the ideology that the concentration in someone strong who could ‘save’ the nation for the future was needed. Those elite wealthy class were deeply put out that their money (taxes) were funding social benefit (‘free bread’) so pushed for all such benefits to come to an end. The strong leader emerged… Roman Imperialism grew.

We are at a similar stage in the West and I think oligarchic rule is temporary so there is still the possibility of a pull back and the hope for something different to Imperial rule or simply back to the confusion of supposed democracy. Given that there was a concerted effort in prayer and understanding to ‘roll up the Roman road’ across Europe over the past quarter century and more we have to have great hope.

Babylon will not last for ever, in spite of its claim to be forever with children. There comes a time when God comes down to see the tower that has been built. That time comes soon.

The Far East is not a geography that is in my focus and also is not easy to get into focus. The New Testament is focused on Jerusalem where no prophet can die outside that geography, hence the crucifixion there – in order to break the ‘God is with us’ claim. God was indeed with them but they did not recognise the day of visitation. This released Paul to spearhead an incredible movement into the politics of Empire with the kingdom of God (basileia being used of the Empire of Rome and of the kingdom of God). Wherever the Roman Empire had gone Paul took the Gospel to subvert the false good news of Rome. And no mention of the Far East. I still have not worked out how to process that, but I suspect that there is something deeply indigenous within the land and people that will in this next phase give us fresh insight into the kingdom that is without end.

Certainly (I am always so certain!!!) the emptying of power is the foundation. God-likeness as revealed in Jesus (being in the form of God emptied himself… not in spite of being in the form of God) will always be the foundation. New paradigms for healing and miracles are on the horizon (always difficult to see when something is on the horizon). Not a demonstration of the power of God, but a carrying of the presence of God; fulfilling the ‘command’ to not bear (carry) the name of the Lord in vain – but to carry the name of the Lord in truth. Healing is in the name of Jesus, and is promised to come through those who go in his name (not a formula, but following the first three commandments – allegiance to God, not image making and carrying the name faithfully).

These next years for the West will be tumultuous – for Europe if 1989 was a water shed so we will see further seismic shifts. What a day of opportunity for the clueless ones to pray – and as a result God to act. The West, the Far East, oligarchs, dictators – all way beyond me. But all will prove to be unfinished projects, they have their telos; meanwhile One proclaimed it is finished and as a result there will be no end.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Wipe them out??

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The Jesus’ stories are quite remarkable and also the way they are recorded often entice us to think beyond the story itself. The interaction with the ‘Syrophoenician’ woman is one such story (Mk. 7:24-30). In Mark she is identified (correctly) as ‘a gentile, of Syrophoenician origin’, but Matthew does a little sidestep:

Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that moment (Matt. 15:21-28).

A ‘Canannite woman’ – totally anachronistic and so we can say inaccurate. We sometimes might do something similar such as ‘a Viking from Sweden’. Anachronistic but the use of the term is to pull something of the history (or myth) and call for the person we are talking to to allow their imagination to apply something of the history to the person we are describing. The Canaanites – Matthew is pulling on the OT story where the Canaanites are not simply to be avoided but to be exterminated, and tellingly in this story, their children also!

[A]nd when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for that would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly (Deut. 7:2-4). 
Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys (Jos. 6:21).

Genocide in our language. Love the Bible for the texts as are can cause all kinds of problems, and the wriggling that is done to get round what the text says, and claims to be instruction from God is deeply problematic. Along comes Jesus… A Canaanite with a child. This is more than the redemption of a (Deuterononist) text but the ‘redemption’ of God. Already there is a shift, and a further shift comes in the narrative for one way (the best and clearest way) is to read that a change takes place in Jesus’ understanding as the woman pushes him. The interaction pushes his understanding to follow his heart, and even to go so far as to stretch what the time-line meant. For sure he was sent to the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (very clear in Matthew – ‘he will save his people from their sins’), which I think indicates a two-stage movement: first one to restore Israel (don’t make an assumption as to what I mean by that!) so that the Gentile world can be totally included… so maybe Jesus would have allowed for the hope of the healing of the daughter at a later stage, but…

She pulls by faith so that even such a time line is adjusted. Matthew writes anachronistically. Jesus acts out of time due to the woman with great faith.

The text challenges the OT ‘wipe them out’ narrative; it reveals Jesus as the great Teacher because he was the great Learner; it shows that someone on the margins can align a future time to the present.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

This is nuts

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The last Zoom that was on Eschatology: Here not There I found quite encouraging and illustrated that what we think on such supposed ‘academic’ questions really affects the practical… indeed the questions are not so academic, this one was simple ‘is it all about us going there, or is it about there coming here?’ The problem is the subject has been hijacked and we have been taught what the answer is, and by taught I suppose I mean brainwashed with no small amount of money and resources behind the onslaught on our thinking.

After the Zoom I was sent this page to look at (not from someone thinking the page was good but illustrating the ‘nuttiness’ of so much that goes on). It might be extreme and on the edge but here it is:

Rapture Ready Index

Check it out if you have time. Basically through a series of indexes (currently numbered at 45) it becomes clear how close we are to the rapture. More ‘bad things’ the higher the score, so examples are floods, drug abuse, wild weather, Satanism, globalism. As each one gets worse that score goes up and the aggregate score of the 45 indices give us a total – so as of right now we are at a score of 181 and we are informed that a score above 160 indicates we are to ‘fasten our seat belts’. The rapture was actually closer in 2016 with a score of 189. Maybe it was so secret that even the creators of the system that gives us the inside information missed the sound of the trumpet and the shout of the archangel! (Not going to be so secret then? Other than Paul is making NO reference to said event in passage quoted.)

The craziness of all this is we should actually be rejoicing when disasters, ‘natural’ or ‘moral’ take place for they are hastening the time of our escape. A perversion of eschatology and a total debilitater to prayer and action.

Thankfully there is such a move away from that kind of eschatology but I suspect there still is a ‘well it is all going to burn up in the end anyway’ leaning that remains. We will be OK – palace in the sky is where I am headed, and at the same time the oligarchs of the West figure out that they will be OK with their palace in some safe place, even if that safe place is somewhere in space where they have planted their flag (thank you Naomi Klein for making the connection). Meanwhile we do not take in the words of Scripture concerning the destruction of those who destroy the earth.

I have come across from many angles the four way relationship / reconciliation: Godward, otherward, selfward and planetward. Wherever we start we cannot end there. Simply being reconciled to self can end up with a perversion if we do not go beyond that to ‘love our neighbour as ourselves’ for example. And I cannot truly love God (I am reconciled to God) and there not to be a ‘before and an after’ on every other area. Reconciliation is a work in progress. And let me repeat… wherever we start we cannot end there – and yes that does have implication for soteriology, and has to, as the biblical examples of the use of the word cannot be reduced to one-dimension. It is all a process, and theologically all four aspects flow from the cross and resurrection. That is an eschatology that is deeply practical as it flows from you + me + ‘others’ (every tribe) with God present with ‘us’ in a creational context so that shalom is tangible – no more weeping, suffering, death.

A theology, for example, that quickly jumps to God gave the land to Israel so maybe this idea of moving the Palestinians out could just be OK… well maybe I jump quickly to the parallel exodus of the Philistines and that they need their land restored, and who might be in that today? (Thanks Amos for that insight. It’s a good book to read so I won’t simply give a one verse reference.) When can we get an eschatological vision (a true vision for the globe) such as Paul, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, advanced in the Torah beyond his peers… who simply said that Israel was not promised the land. I appreciate I am trampling on toes and giving little substance to back up what I am writing, but I am doing that to push back against ‘what a mess, but it is all prophesied and we will be OK’. And certainly pushing back against the ‘and if there is yet more mess we simply add it to the total score to tell us where we are’.

There is a book ‘I’m OK You’re OK’. There is a God who said ‘You’re not OK I’m not OK’. The God who followed us out of Eden is the God who is worthy to be followed.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Not a good guy

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Leadership is male when it comes to the predictions of the big bad antiChrist…

Some of you will join me tonight on a Zoom as we push into what (I think) is the final area of foundations – getting the direction right and losing the Hellenistic obsession with going somewhere when I die. Although I lean heavily toward I do go somewhere, the hope of Scripture is of the completion of this world – creation reaching an eschaton.

I am not sure what I will pick up next – maybe I will switch from eschatology to something else or maybe I will have a go at what do we understand about the big bad antiChrist. Anyway a few thoughts here to push in that direction.

Surprise, surprise there is so little in the Bible about antiChrist – four verses in total and all in two books that we assume are from the same pen (1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3, and 2 John 7). Verses can be added (forced to fit) that draw in other aspects – one of the beasts of Revelation for example (beasts in biblical literature and particularly in apocalyptic literature speak of powers such as nations that are untameable). I think we have to look at Revelation separately and let it be the awesome exposure of Imperial power – Rome in that context… and for us?

There is the ‘man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2, but there we have a Pauline warning about what was to come… and for me it has already come – in the Jewish Wars of 66-70. Future for the original readers, past for us.

The Johannine Scriptures then are the core.

Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not belong to us, for if they had belonged to us they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us (1 John 2:18-19).

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; everyone who confesses the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:22-23). 

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world (1 John 4:2,3).

Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist! (2 John 7).

John seems to be writing in the main about people who have been associated / around these Christian communities, those who went out from them. [A little aside… the Reformers put forward that the pope was the antiChrist… Catholics have just a little issue with that – there view is that the Reformers / Protestants went out from them, thus the likes of you and me are more likely to be suspects!!!!] Those John wrote to had heard that antiChrist was to come, and it could well be that he held that belief also, though it is possible he is correcting what they believed with ‘You have heard… but…’ And in his second letter we read that John identifies any person who denies the humanity of Jesus as the deceiver and the antiChrist.

Not so clear… so of course once I come to write on it I will make all things so clear (or not) but here for now is my conclusions.

John, in line with the rest of Scripture, pushes us away from speculation and warns us that we need to place Jesus central (anti- can carry the meaning of ‘against / opposed to’ or ‘replacing’). I do not believe the Bible predicts a final one-world ruler… could there be one? The way we are going, quite likely, but not inevitable. Eschatology is not about a series of events, this + that, but about the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. Sadly some eschatology when pushed too far pushes Jesus off the map… that is pretty much anti-Christ!

I just do not see our Scriptures as being history set out in advance so that we know future events. The centre of all of Scripture is Jesus… let’s not replace Jesus with knowledge nor with speculation,

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Open Zoom – tomorrow

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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

Tuesday 4th February, 19:30UK time.

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

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

Here is the Zoom link for the evening:

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

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

ID: 572 803 9267
Passcode: 5GkMTA

And the link to the pdf:

Eschatology_directionDownload

And to the video:

Look forward to seeing those who can make it.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Cross shaped hope

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Another Scripture that does not fit?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Scripture and bad theology?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives