Category: Theology

Ephesus – powers and money

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Spiritual powers – what are they? are they territorial? how to address / not address them? And the answers come back across a great spectrum. They are personal, highly organised and hierarchical… to they don’t exist or they are simply the inner nature of exterior structures. I try and hold some kind of composite view concerning the powers and because I see a strong connection of what has / is repeated in history as shaping the spiritual nature of a geography, whether the terminology could be better or not, I subscribe to the reality of the powers expressing themselves territorially. Experience also seems to suggest this, with specific expression of issues being present in one geography that are not present in another. The above might be theoretical, but the issues we face are practical. Theory gets us so far, and our theories might be wrong, and at one level I am less concerned about the theory, and much more concerned about what we do practically to get a shift.

For example there are theories about ‘ley-lines’. When we first moved to Spain we lived in a somewhat challenging apartment. We moved in on Jan. 1, 2009. Jan 2nd, at 8.00am a knock came to the door. It was the agent through whom we had rented the apartment. ‘I cannot leave you here. I have not slept well and I will find you another place.’ We though were convinced that it was the right place, so re-assured him that we were happy. It was not too long before we recognised a straight line of some 8 obvious troublesome symbols or places that crossed right through our apartment. I am happy to call that a ‘ley-line’. The language is not so important, getting a shift is important. Within 6 months the first (to our knowledge) in Spain of a monument honouring Francoist assassins was removed. It was on that line and about 800 metres from our apartment. It was quickly followed by the removal of Francoist symbols from the next monument (500 metres from the apartment). We had some sleepless nights, but for sure it was the right place.

What did we do to get a shift? I am sure that research, prayer and all of that made a difference. Maybe, and always there is a ‘of course’, it would have happened anyway. And a big help was another statue right on the same line, a statue of an upside-down church building, which the sculptor had named as ‘the device to root out evil’. As far as we understand it the sculptor was neither making a positive nor negative statement about faith, but chose the church as the symbol in society as a powerful in your face image of how society has to be upturned to shift history from repeating itself and toward releasing a new future. For us it was incredibly symbolic. Let God embed the church in the ground for the world, let a worldly way of structuring things be turned on its head and then let’s see how much shifts in society.

Anyway back to Ephesus. There are territorial parallels there. Artemis worshipped across Asia Minor (Acts 19:27); the word of the Lord being heard by all in the same territory (Acts 19:10). I suggest that in some way Artemis had been bound across that region thus releasing to the same region the message of the Gospel. (By ‘bind’ I consider that the biblical understanding is along the lines of restriction, not of elimination.) The resistance had been broken and a release came as a result. So what did Paul and his merry band of ‘about 12’ plus others do? One of the genius elements of Scripture is its silence. It is not a book of instruction on what to do, otherwise we would likely do what it says and completely miss what it was saying. Instruction has to come from heaven in accord with Scripture rather than simply from words on a page. In short we don’t know what Paul did! Maybe he found the highest point in Ephesus and addressed the power directly. Maybe he taught for days on how such an approach only leads to casualties and this was entering into forbidden / unwise territory. Point is – we have to work out what we do and when…

Something though shifted. Maybe we have made claims of something shifting when nothing really has changed, but in the case in Ephesus something had shifted. Miracles, hearing, burning of occult literature – all those suggest something had shifted. But for me the biggest evidence was the turmoil over economics. I consider the biggest shift is when there is a shift to the economy. IT IS THE ECONOMY, STUPID, might be a political shorthand phrase to indicate how and why people vote, but it is also a phrase indicating that there has been a shift spiritually.

A ‘prospering’ economy is not a sign of the advance of the kingdom, but an economy where there is a flow of resources to where it needs to go is a sign of righteousness. Ranging from the 8th century prophets who used such phrases as ‘cows of Bashan’ to critique the inequalities that had developed in Israel over the previous 200 years, to the awesome critique in Revelation of the one-directional flow of wealth to the elite, seems to be the constant beat of Scripture.

Acts 19 and Ephesus is a strong paradigm for anywhere, and yet almost totally absent of a ’10 steps to success’ program to be followed. I simply suggest that we seek to follow what the Lord shows us (or our discernment of it) without too much concern that we get it right. That we will find something close to home that is the ‘leverage point’ to shift something much bigger. Interestingly as we seek to move the politics of Spain (and again do not think ‘political party’ when the word politics is used) and gain an entrance to Madrid, it will be important where we locate and the size of the place… As we seek this entry a word we have been given is ‘I see you both and you are climbing up a sewage pipe into Madrid, against the flow of the sewage… sorry messy but has to be done.’ Guess what happens soon after? The sewage pipe in our block of apartments has gone, and we are out of our apartment as we have no water, no toilets, no showers… Coincidence? Maybe, but this so often happens where a sign of what needs to change occurs close to home. That is the leverage point needed. Temporarily not in ‘our’ home (and what does ‘our’ mean?), and the sewage, and smell of it has to be shifted out of the apartment / society. God bless the upside down sculptures.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Ephesus – disciples

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Finding twelve… will that be enough?

In Ephesus Paul encounters these great, but not yet-complete, believers. They had grasped the story line up to John the Baptist’s proclamation and had submitted to his baptism, but had not realised that what John spoke of as the future was now the past. So Paul’s task was to update them, their response shows they were already on a very serious trajectory, and God responded from heaven with the Holy Spirit. These were either Jews (most likely) or a least Jewish converts, for John’s baptism was a baptism for a new entry to the land, to restore and prepare the people. It was divisive in the sense that so much of Judaism was divisive, as witnessed in the prophetic and sectarian streams within the faith. Not all those born of Abraham (race) qualified to be considered as his descendants (faith).

From that initial meeting he takes them to the synagogue for three months. What is he doing? I am convinced it is due to his understanding of Israel’s call. They are called to be aligned uniquely to God for the nations. Since the Exile and the response of the synagogue based rhythm (that was developed in Babylon) there was an inevitable greater measure of Jews looking inward as survival became more the focus. Paul (then Saul) had himself moved from being focused on the purity of Israel, through his Damascus road encounter to seeing that race did not count before God, that the only identity marker was to be in Christ, and therefore part of the new creation reality of being there for the world. I am sure that the message that he debated in the synagogue was exactly that, and at two levels: the call of Israel and the pathway to the future for Israel as being through Jesus, the one true Israelite (and the only true human). At both levels he did not have success. He persevered for three months then called it a day, taking with him those who were committed to his teaching. He sets up in Tyrannus hall and is publicly teaching there for 2 years.

The proclamation of the Gospel was not a simple, Admit you have sinned, Believe he died for you, Confess your sin… Not that that is invalid, but to reduce the narrative of Scripture, nor the narrative of the world, to that does not do justice to Paul’s gospel. The salvation of the world, the preparation for the new heavens and new earth was a proclamation for the public space, it was certainly a political proclamation. Deeply societal, deeply human and confirmed with dramatic heavenly interventions.

Discipleship is a challenge, deeply stretching not just to the mind, but to lifestyle. Witnessing is not completed once we have told someone they have sinned and here is the escape route; but is something that is continual, which words can explain but can never become the substitute for. I sometimes wonder if we have even started on the pathway. Thank God for the word ‘radical’ but to stick it on as a label probably isn’t the best thing to do.

Paul is not setting up a new political party (as if!) but seeking to train people to see the world through a narrative of the world being God’s world, that all humans are of one family, that Jesus death somehow was the means by which all, whether Jew or Gentile, could be reconciled to God and be incorporated into Messiah. I don’t think he was looking for the perfect activist group who were spotless, but that somehow together with all their issues they would be a visible sign of a different way to live, pointers to, and of, hope for society.

This was very akin to what Jesus, in the Jewish culture, had given as his response to John when he wanted to know if ‘he was the one’. Tell John that there is something happening at two levels, was his response – the inbreaking of God with miracles… and the poor have good news being proclaimed. The endless flow of resources in one direction is coming to an end. Those on the thrones are being dethroned, a new society is being born. Despite the obvious signs that ‘God was with this man’ Jesus said the way ahead was narrow and few would find it. And as sure as his word was that was the fulfilment, with a few finding salvation. The same thing is happening in Ephesus, but now in the Graeco-Roman world, a message of hope for society that was for the total re-ordering of the world with incredible inbreakings of the miraculous.

Those twelve that Paul initially met committed themselves right into that trajectory. God is found in all sub-versions of the good news (including my version) but I am also sure that he is continually lighting up the pathway to provoke us to embrace the (shorthand) Pauline gospel that those initial twelve committed themselves to. (And I am sure there is a strong symbolism here in this event in Ephesus starting with ‘about twelve’. The pattern that Jesus began in Israel had a strong bearing on what is beginning here. The two are deeply connected. Jesus with twelve to restore Israel for the world, and here a mere twelve removed from the Jewish culture and for the world.)

Amidst a secularised society that is open to all kinds of spirituality, one of the greatest challenges is how to be deeply embedded in society with the ‘Jesus’ part of the message intact. The Pauline Gospel is deeply political, but it is not based on a clever political manifesto, it is based on God’s activity in Christ. Holding this all ogether is not easy, but Paul somehow managed that, for Jewish excorcists used the name of Jesus, knowing that this was the name by which Paul was acting.

Following Christ is not a hobby; it is not fulfilled when we copy the synagogue pattern and show up week by week; it is not fulfilled when we gain some successful converts; it is not fulfilled when we get older and can retire. It is a life-long lifestyle trajectory of looking forward with the ‘Maranatha’ cry, realising that for most of us that will be fulfilled beyond our departure, but also knowing that we have an incredible opportunity to contribute to that event.

What unfolds in Ephesus surely was founded on the issue of discipleship. Paul’s single focus on the implication of the death and resurrection of Christ for the world, and a group of those who grasped what he had seen during his days of blindness and subsequent time in the desert, post Damascus. Costly but ever so valuable.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Faith in who… not what

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

A couple of Scriptures in Romans suggest to me that we should not be thinking ‘only those who have received Jesus personally are saved, all others lost’, but rather we should be reversing that with ‘only those who have rejected Jesus are lost’. This has been the approach I have taken for many decades, using the (for me) helpful complementary statements of:

  • all who receive Christ are saved
  • all who reject Christ are lost.

This opens up a number of questions:

  • the above statements do not seem to yield two water tight categories that we can neatly divide humanity into. What about those who have neither received nor rejected Christ?
  • and what does it mean for a person to either receive or reject Jesus? Surely it means something different for those who have never heard about Jesus and those who have.
  • and what does even hearing about Jesus mean? (More on that later.) If I present (even with all the facts intact) ‘my’ Jesus but he is really not the true Jesus has that person truly heard about Jesus?

For all those above questions I think it is not too wise to take the hard-line of only a few will be saved. I am not a Universalist, just too many ‘if’ Scriptures, such as Col. 1:23, where Paul states that we were reconciled through death ‘provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heard.’

Faith does not seem to be simply a ‘I believe x, y and z’ but to involve that of a commitment, an allegiance to a person. By this I do not suggest there can never be any wavering but if that core allegiance disappears we are instructed to view such people as those outside the family of God. The whole approach is messy, but for those who have been truly exposed to the Presence of God much is required.

On the one hand I suggest that the Scriptures raise a high bar for those of us who acknowledge Jesus at a personal level. Our behaviour is anticipated to be marked, as a true exposure to the living God does more than give us a forensic verdict in the law court. There is a deep interaction that leaves us different after the encounter.

On the other hand I am optimistic about those who do not see themselves as within the family of God in the way that we are accustomed to think. A high standard for those who have truly encountered Jesus, and an incredible generosity to those who have not encountered him in a deep personal way. I don’t think it is easy to reconcile those two ‘hands’. So to my two Scriptures.

The first of the two Scriptures, Romans 4: 24

It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.

This Scripture is about Abraham who believed God’s promise that he would inherit the world (to focus on the Land as the promise is very sub-New Testament!!), and by implication that this would be for him and his descendants. His faith was so strong, in spite of all the hard facts he faced up to. Using Abraham as the example Paul says we too will be reckoned righteous by believing in him who raised Jesus from the dead. Although he is not addressing the issue of those who are not ‘believers’ his language is intriguing. He does not state that we who believe Jesus was raised form the dead, but believe in the God who raised him. Paul passionately believed and proclaimed that Jesus had been raised from the dead, the whole eschatological future depending on that event; but his language here is not about believing that event but is focused on the identity of the one who did that, the God who did this.

This opens up a window for me. At one level maybe we all have sub-faith, by which I mean faith (even strong faith/ believism) in a sub-Jesus-like-God is sub-faith. It is possible to be a Christian and have sub, very sub-faith. Who knows the final destiny of those who went out to conquer the world (and Jerusalem) for God through the many Crusades that took place, but I cannot see that their actions reflect faith in the Jesus-like God. We can judge their actions, though we cannot simply judge them. With their knowledge at that time, maybe we too would have responded in that way. Then moving on, those who do not have a ‘Christian’ faith might exhibit a faith in the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Even for some of those who have been burnt by religion and its twin of control, who might even profess to be atheists, we might find out that they so believed in humanity that their belief was nothing less than also a belief in the God who so believed in humanity that he raised the human Jesus from the grave on behalf of humanity. A wild thought but one that I am more than open to. After all if presented with a God who controls, who enjoys punishing, the only faithful response would be that of ‘atheism’ to that God!

The second Scripture Romans 10: 11-17 (emphasis added)

The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” But not all have obeyed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

  • Jew and Greek alike have to call on the Lord.
  • Isaiah connects obedience and faith (as does Paul in this letter). Faith is not simply a hand up in a meeting, but is a relational and therefore a transformational term.
  • Then working back we have a) those sent b ) to proclaim, c) so that there can be a hearing, d) and from the hearing comes faith, e) and the faith produces a call for salvation.

Sent from heaven is the sense that Paul lived with, sent to represent heaven, to represent God, and with that sending came the responsibility to proclaim, and this is the important point, so that people could literally hear the voice of Jesus. Faith comes by hearing the word (rhema) of Christ (v. 17). I put in bold the NRSV translation which follows most others, and could be understood as the need to hear a set of facts (to hear ‘of’, in the sense of ‘about’ Jesus). As in a number of languages, Greek will use a different case with certain verbs when they are referring to a person in contrast to when the verb is used with respect to a thing. The verb ‘to hear’ is one of those verbs. To hear a sound (a thing) the case used is the normal objective case (I hear a sound), but if it is used of hearing a person the genitive (possessive) case is used (I hear a person – and a person’s voice is ever so personal). The genitive is translated ‘of / belonging to’ but it should not be translated that way when with the verb to hear. Hence my emphasis, that Paul is not suggesting faith comes by hearing about / of Jesus, but by hearing him speak, hearing his voice, and the later repetition with ‘faith comes… through the word of Christ’ underlines this.

This then is where I am headed. For faith to come people have to hear Jesus. Proclaiming facts might or might not enable people to hear Jesus. Proclaiming facts about Jesus, in a way that distorts who he is, or with an attitude that does not accord with Jesus, and it might even hinder the person hearing Jesus. They might reject the Jesus that was presented to them, they might reject the facts presented, they might never believe that Jesus was raised from the dead… but they might not have rejected Jesus. It always has be about a ‘who’ not a ‘what’, true for all of us, whatever stage of faith we are at.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Betrayal leads to the cross

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The cross is a complex issue. Years ago I heard Tom Wright say he was teaching Sunday School to children and he asked them to come up with the reasons for the crucifixion. Eventually the varied answers from the group came back. Some picked up on those (bad) Romans, others on the jealousy and opposition of the Jews, others went for forgiveness by God through the cross. Perhaps overstating things he suggested that between those kids they held together what theologians had been unable to. The reasons for the cross were manifold.

Sin of course meant the cross. Some interpret that as the wrath of God had to be appeased as he cannot look on sin… I am suggesting though that sin at every level meant the cross took place. The sin of Empire, for Jesus suffered the death of the rebel against Rome, the sin of the alignment of religion and money / compromise (better one die than they come and take away our freedoms and this place), the sin of wrong valuations – 30 pieces of silver is what this is worth (how many ways are there to kill people through unjust trade deals?). One more I have been thinking about is betrayal. The betrayal opened the door for the high priests and Sanhedrin to hand Jesus over to the powers. I don’t know if betrayal was necessary for the cross, but what is sure is Jesus drank the cup of betrayal to its finish.

Betrayal, let down, shafted, stitched… in whatever form or shape it comes it is part of what shapes humanity and its sorry state. Stemming from a devaluation of others (hence the irony of valuing the transaction at 30 pieces of silver).

What a potent combination – money, religion, compromise, false alignments, and the anticipated punishment of the Jewish state by Rome. They are all there as part of the cross. But seemingly unlocked by betrayal. Far from the idea that Judas was predestined to betray is the thought that betrayal opens the door, the deepest of which comes from those on ‘the inside’, and Jesus knew from the beginning who it was that would betray him.

If we safeguard ourselves against betrayal (not possible!!) we will be forever putting limitations on the effects of the cross.

Thus endeth my pleasant thought for the day!

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Elect… in Him

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

This will be a quick blog to suggest the easiest way to understand election. By easiest of course I mean the biblical my way. From as far back as I can remember I had always struggled to understand election as some chosen and others not. The Armininian position of elect according to foreknowledge was at least a softer option. In that approach God did not influence the choice but simply knows beforehand who would respond (normally also the Greek view of timelessness was also part of the package, so God knowing everything without being the cause of the knowledge). The Calvinist position was effectively the reverse of that – so that foreknowledge was based on pre-determination simply never sat easy for me. It seems the Calvinist position reversed this because ‘the sovereign will’ of God has to be preserved. His power and will being pre-eminent.

It seems unlikely that Scripture suggests a literal understanding of Adam and Eve as the first human pair but rather to understand them as either simply representatives of humanity or probably better as some sort of prototypical analogy to Israel as the chosen nation. They stand in unique relationship to God, as God’s representative (image) on the earth. As such they have a responsibility. Chosenness comes with a task responsibility. The task was to flow out of a relational understanding, for the task was to be carried out as representatives of God. God appears in the garden as the Gardener (an insight from Ray Mayhew). Hence the beautiful phrase from Mary to the unrecognised risen Jesus ‘I thought you were the gardener’! How God appears in the original creation and how he appears in the New Creation. God does not appear in the garden as the despot, dictator nor even as king. He walks in the garden as the gardener. The task is not to rule but it is to rule in a certain way. By getting hands dirty, serving, cultivating, nurturing. Hence, with the choice of the disciples Scripture says Jesus first chose them to ‘be with him’. If there is no ‘being with’ the manner in which the task is performed will not be understood. Jesus explained that in a very strong way when he said miracles will even be done in his name but his confession will be he never knew the person performing the miracle.

Election is to task, but it is vital to understand how the task is to be carried out.

This election to task I understand is at the heart of Israel’s reason for being. Israel (and then the body of Christ) is called as the royal priesthood. That which comes to serve the nations, to represent God to them and them to God, to enable them to become the best (most redemptive) version of what they can be, where in mutual co-operation and partnership something of heaven appears within creation. This is a vision not of transformation with the church triumphant, but of transformation with the body of Christ present as salt (throughout) and as light (not to be looked at but to enable others to have clearer sight). The church is vital, and triumphant but not over others but triumphant in completing the task.

Election is in him

‘Chosen in him before the foundation of the world.‘ The language is precise. This is not an expression of arbitrary election but of election that is in him. I parallel this with the confession of a Jew. A Jew was chosen in Abraham and a date can be attached to this before the birth of that Jew, say 1800BC. The individual Jew is not the primary chosen one. Abraham is the chosen one, he is the elect one. The Jew is chosen in him. Because the Jew is in Abraham the Jew is chosen. And the Jew can date that… way back in time. Likewise the believer is chosen in Christ. Jesus is the chosen one, the believer is chosen in him. When… way back in time!! Even before the foundation of the earth for Jesus is the eternal chosen one. The moment a person is in Christ they are chosen. When did that choice take place? Before the foundation of the earth. Whoever is in Christ is chosen. The predetermination is not over some choice to save some and not others, but that those who are chosen (those who are in Christ) will be conformed to the image of Jesus. Jesus is the chosen one, those in him are pre-destined, they are caught up in his destiny, and therefore will be conformed to his image.

I have used the above parallel between Jew and believer, but we should really push this a little beyond that. The focus of Scripture is not primarily on individuals, but on a corporate people. It is a ‘we’ not an ‘I’. ‘We’, the nation of Israel, ‘we’ the ekklesia are chosen, elect. The corporate reading of Scripture opens new vistas. So, in reading Romans, Daniel Kirk suggests the sense of ‘all have sinned and come short of the glory of God’ is not a statement of the evil-ness of humanity, but if we read it as ‘both (Jew and Gentile = the entire world) have sinned…’ that we will better get Paul’s argument, ‘to the Jew first, then to the Gentiles’.

Summary: election is

  • coporate not individual
  • to fulfil a task
  • in him, he being the chosen one.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Does not remain the same

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Resurrection: continuity and discontinuity. Jesus, rises, not someone else. His body can be touched, he can eat. He is recognised. Clearly there is continuity. But there are changes. He appears and disappears from sight. He eats not to stay alive, maybe indicating that eating is always about more than satisfying hunger, but each time we take food we are ‘guests at his table’. Continuity and discontinuity at a personal level. And also at a corporate level.

The Hosea Scripture, ‘on the third day he will raise us up’, indicates that his resurrection was the resurrection of Israel. And because it was the resurrection of Israel there is continuity and there is discontinuity as far as corporate identity is concerned. The second sign of the arrival of the kingdom (resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit) was promised to those who repented, for the promise was for ‘them’, for all those who saved themselves from that corrupt generation (Acts 2:39,40). The crisis had truly come as far as the apostolic preachers were concerned: refuse to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and the fate will be to be ‘utterly rooted out of this people’ (Acts 3:23), clearly indicating that those who refused the Messiah will no longer be viewed as part of ‘the people’ (Lev. 20:3, 5, 6).

A strong perspective to say the least. But the strength of it is in proportion to the intervention of heaven through the life of Christ. ‘Born of a woman, born under the law’, coming to his own who do not receive him, punished by the twinning together of Imperial and religious powers, but vindicated by heaven.

The very title ‘son of God’ is not a title indicating divinity. Israel was God’s son, called out of Egypt, and Jesus is declared ‘son’ by the resurrection (Rom. 1:4). He is raised as the one true Israel, the one and only truly human one.

The ‘people’ called to be a sign of the age to come, to image themselves (imagine) not on the Imperial powers of the day but on the radical horizontal outworking of a devotion to a God who is not in the image of any Pharaoh nor Caesar, that son had failed. The Son comes and overcomes, even death cannot hold the Author of life.

Such life is so strong that everything has to be redefined. There is continuity – the call continues; there is discontinuity – those in Christ are the children of promise, the descendants of Abraham. It took a while for there to be an outworking of where the Gentiles fitted in the scheme. It seems the early days were spent in seeking to provoke as many (Jews) from the broad way that would only lead to destruction and on to the narrow path that would lead to life. Those early days were spent in persuading Jews. They knew they could be part of the ‘people’, but only if they came through the door of life.

This is not ‘replacement theology’ but Christocentric theology. Christ at the centre of all of God’s purposes redefines everything. Those in Christ have to pick up that calling to be imaged by God for the sake of the world, to be signs that both point to that reality and as signs bring that reality ever closer. Salvation from… is important, but salvation for… is what defines the ‘people’. A Christocentric definition does not necessarily condemn all Jews (and Paul wrestled with that one), nor does it condemn all those outside of Christ. A judgement to come will decide on those issues! It does not condemn, but it calls from that tomb for all who through their obedience to Christ, can humbly line up to be counted among the ‘people’.

Israel, today, cannot be whitewashed for treatment of those who are their neighbours. Any such, unthinking response cannot stand the test of any biblical prophet, and one can only applaud the recent comments by Pope Francis for his public rebuke.

The tasks that lie ahead are enormous; the energy flowing from the tomb though is more than necessary for the fulfilment of the task. The early call was to the Jew; now we understand the call is to one and all for there is no Jew nor Greek, but ‘all’ are in Christ.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

The third day

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

He was raised on the third day, ‘according to the Scriptures’, so goes the early confession of the believers which we can read in 1 Cor. 15:4. The Scripture has to be Hosea 6:2

After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.

That Scripture, relating to the resurrection has enormous ramifications for who are the ‘chosen’ people, and one that I will get to in the coming days. Alongside that Scripture the other central text given as a ‘sign’ is that of Jonah (Matt. 12: 39,40).

No sign will be given.. except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was for three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.

I like the NRSV translation above – not whale but ‘sea monster’. I am really not sure that Jonah literally existed and there are certainly some ’embellishments’ in the Jonah text (3 days to cross Ninevah!!), and we certainly have no need to defend the historicity of the story to get its significance. Mission, was the significance and mission to the nations, even to the ’empire’ of the day that stood (as all empires do) against God’s outpoured, ridiculously generous, love.

The sea monster (the one who re-appears in Revelation maybe?) vomited Jonah up and out. He vomited him up and out not back into the place of comfort and certainly not of escape but into the launching pad for the nation(s). The sea monster could not hold him.

Neither could death hold Jesus. God raised him, and maybe death spewed him out in reaction to that impartation of divine life. Life entering the place of death meant there was a holy reaction.

Resurrection re-configures Israel (Hosea) and restores why there was a chosen people. God’s huge ‘yes’ to humanity is testified to in the resurrection. Those ‘in Christ’ are commissioned not to be separate from those not yet in Christ, but are ‘spewed up’ out of the belly of the sea monster ready to go to Ninevah. Ninevah might not be as big as we think, but to cross it will truly take three days. The journey across takes three days, the time in the belly of the sea monster, it will take the entire history of our bondage, and our death to that system to travel across our Ninevah.

For Paul his Ninevah was the entire Imperial lands of Rome. He likewise was blind for 3 days (Acts 9:9) in that transition out of his religious bondage and deception until he could truly see light.

We all have our ‘three days’, and often experience repetitive cycles of three days, but on the third day without short-circuiting it, we are ready. Spewed up as always by the system. On the dry land, the place God separated from the waters for humanity to care for: dry land that has been polluted, Ninevahs that have been built on it. But the ‘Jonahs’ are coming!! Jonah sought to get to the ends of the Empire (Tarshish / Cádiz) to escape. Paul sought to get to the ends of the earth (Spain). He did not aim for the religious centre. That was truly ended at the cross. The Temple curtain ripped. That was the end. The third day, post-vomit is the beginning.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

A ‘YES’ from heaven

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

What a day to look forward to… the hope, because of the faithfulness of God, that the righteous will rise to participate in the age to come, to be with God when he comes to put all things right. Then right in the midst of the place that was to keep that hope alive, Jerusalem / Israel, probably as the day dawned, Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead. That he died was not disputed, that his body could not be found in the grave was not disputed, but the implications for Israel and for the world? Those implications were just too much for many. Deny he had risen – the disciples had stolen the body – otherwise they had a major issue to face.

There would have been no controversy worth arguing about if the disciples claimed that Jesus was alive beyond death. Life after death was not a focus nor that controversial, but resurrection was both the hope and the controversial element that raised enormous questions. Crucified by the Romans, the death penalty for sedition and rebellion against the state, seen through Jewish eyes as confirmation that he was a blasphemer, cursed of God being all those who ‘hang on a tree’. For the early Christians to state that this Jesus had been raised by God as an affirmation of his faithful life was an affront. Within a short while Saul of Tarsus was pursuing all deviant Jews who had come to believe this about Jesus. At one level it would not have concerned him what the pagans thought, but for Jews to believe such a thing would only bring yet more judgement on Israel, therefore in line with his passion for holiness he set about imprisoning and even sentencing to death such believers.

The resurrection, human life in bodily form, was God’s huge affirmation of Jesus: he declared him to be the son of God in power through the resurrection, but it is more than an affirmation of Jesus, the resurrection is the hugest affirmation of humanity. For humanity to be in the image of God and set in creation was a strong affirmation, but to raise Jesus bodily is an affirmation of the fitness of humanity to participate in the age to come, and goes beyond even that creational identity. The ‘yes’ echoes around the walls of the empty tomb. God is for humanity… God wants to spend time, for ever, with humanity.

Because of the resurrection:

  • We must have a high theology of and for humanity.
  • We have a firm assurance that what we see around us is not all going to burn up. Through the fire, yes, but through the fire.
  • We recognise a new world has appeared for those who can see it. That new world is calling now for those to inhabit it with the values of the age to come. That original great Easter morning opens the door to the great new world that is coming, and is here.
  • We see all of life that affirms dignity, well-being and relational health as resonating with values that heaven responded to that morning. We cannot elevate the ‘spiritual’ above the ‘mundane’. The strength of heaven is so invasive that God is found wherever we travel.

What a day… what a hope… what a provocation to LIVE now, to sown now for then.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

The Right Time… as always

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I like the rawness and speed of Galatians. There is no real messing about, and some of the arguments seem to be as non-watertight as many of mine! Take this one:

Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

Just a few little leaps there that evade the Western mind as to how on earth Paul got from Hagar → to Sinai → to the Jerusalem of his day. He is certainly moving beyond a careful examination of the original context, author’s intended meaning, blah, blah!!

At the beginning of that chapter he hits something right on the head regarding the coming of Christ. He holds out that the timing was so specific, ‘the fullness of times’:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God (Gal. 4: 4-7).

This is much more than it was a time of good communication, such as language, structure, transport etc., even if from a strategic point of view that might be the case. It seems to me that Jesus came when there was no hope. No hope now for the Gentiles because there was no hope for the Jews. So bad that we might as well draw a straight line from Hagar through Sinai to Jerusalem!! Jesus came as a human (born of a woman) to rescue humanity, and this is why a truly humanitarian approach has to also understood as a godly approach. Yet his rescue of humanity is as a Jew (born under the law), not because they were the chosen race, in the sense of chosen and others condemned, but because they were the failed chosen race. They were under bondage, their bondage being under the (good) law, and Paul can compare their bondage to the Gentiles under bondage to the elemental spirits. The coming of Christ then is for the Jew, his death is as a Jew under Roman execution, so that ‘we’ (normally when Paul uses this in these contexts he is indicating ‘we – Jews’) might be adopted as children! Hagar and child had been thrown out, hence his ease at being able to use such an analogy for Israel. Those adopted as children had received the Spirit – those whether Jew or Gentile.

Jesus came at the crux of history. The time of no hope. The chosen people were focused on how they were chosen but not fulfilling their call (their reason for being chosen) to be there for everyone.

This is not God acting in Christ outside of the rules, but entering into the rules of engagement. He is not a God-in-the-flesh untouched but victorious. The miracle of the Incarnation is not simply he becomes one of us, but the depth of the pit he enters. That pit is described as the ‘fullness of times’. The time of no hope. He does not arrive in the flesh to walk with Adam and Eve, nor appear at the time of the prophets, nor at any other hopeful moment. Present, of course, throughout, but only present in that intense way when there was no hope. Jew and Gentile alike under deep bondage. Coming to free those under the curse of the law, and those who were not chosen.

We enter the Easter season. It always speaks of personal hope. Yet for huge numbers Easter and every other day is just another day in the calendar as they struggle under the bondage of oppression through war, displacement, slavery and a host of other evils. There is no easy word to give to those multitudes. I believe God has not, nor never will, forget them. There is some kind of connection to that personal arrival (the parousia) when what is wrong is righted and the contribution to that ‘fullness of times’ that is to be pioneered by those who have received the Spirit. Easter gives personal hope and provokes an understanding of chosenness that we are to make a contribution to filling up the time. Not with universal bondage and no hope as the sign of its arrival, but of the abundance of gold, silver and precious stones, that had been stored up throughout human history, even some stones that came through when there was apparently ‘no hope’.

Jesus came at the right time. Not simply the most strategic time to communicate. In that coming he finished what the Father gave him to do. That work, the work of Christ is the finished work. He will return when we have finished what we were called to do. Easter says he values our (tiny) contribution. Maybe we can even say he needs our contribution. He certainly needs it to complete what he has always desired: to make his dwelling with us.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Judas to the rescue

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I have been rescuing a few posts from years before, and thought that I had done enough when I remembered that I had blogged on Judas Iscariot, so went looking for those posts. I think they are worth rescuing. They were originally posted in March 2009, here they are in slightly modified form.

Why Judas?

WWJD – what would Jesus do? WDJDWD – not quite as catchy, and not likely to take off as a trend, yet I think an important question: why did Judas do what he did?

The conventional reading is of Judas as thoroughly evil, the betrayer from the beginning. And if one is of a Calvinist bent, one predestined to betray Jesus (and implications in that for choice / accountability?). There are always some tough Scriptures that clash against any and all viewpoints, but I suggest that there is another reading of the Judas narratives that fits better. I have long been provoked by the similarities between Peter and Judas. One denied Jesus – and not once but three times; the other betrayed him. One was heartbroken at his own failure – oh, yes, so was the other one and took his own life as a result. One lived to be restored – the other…

Is there really a great difference between the two?

Could it have been different? I think it could have been very different. It is that that gives me hope. Hope because there is a bit of Judas in us all – and dare I say it a little more than a bit. Perhaps also that same Judas ‘spirit’ has infiltrated so much of what we have done as church and our proclamation of the Gospel.

It was my good friend Johnny Barr who was the first one to speak about the connection of Judas’ weakness and the task Jesus gave him. The task: look after the money. The weakness: love of money, to the extent that he was called a thief!

A love of money and looking after the money bag. Great choice for a church treasurer!

Why the choice of treasurer?

What is taking place? I am sure there is a depth to this choice that we do not fully understand but there are at least three key elements:

  • Jesus is showing that he trusts his Father as his supply and that he was not relying even on ‘good stewardship’ for his provision.
  • Jesus is demonstrating that people are always valued higher than money. He is showing that people cannot be valued in monetary terms.
  • Jesus is discipling Judas. His discipleship is not through confronting his weakness, but enabling Judas to look at his weakness in the eye.

There is enough in those three points to bring about significant correction to my approach to life. Prophetic critiques of Israel were centred around two issues: you are not trusting God a) as your Provider nor b) as your Protector. Nothing has shifted at the level of prophetic critique that comes to God’s people.

The actions of Jesus are challenging for anyone professing to be a Christian and involved in earning money. The bottom line for a ‘kingdom’ business can never be that of money. Indeed maximising profits cannot be justified, not even justified by ‘we will have so much more to give’. The means cannot cleanse the final product. Perhaps a key element in business is a strategic plan where and how to lose money. Seems Jesus had that plan. Money is neutral, but the spirit that operates in that realm is not neutral and a radical response is what Jesus showed to that spirit. Of course he had first dealt with it in the wilderness when offered the ‘kingdoms of this world’.

If money is the bottom line, then people will fall by the way, they will become dispensable. If people are the focus money will find its place.

Jesus’ discipling I think reversed so much of what we do. We tend to confront weakness and cover sin. Jesus covered weakness and exposed sin through the person gaining self-perception.

Self-discovery

I have lived my life many times at a level of hiddenness. By that I don’t mean deep hidden sin, but at the level of not facing up to my reactions, such as fears, anxieties, anger or arrogance. Those reaciton that reveal what resides within. Discipleship, following Jesus, allowing him to shape us seems to begin with a healthy dose of self-discovery.

I suggest that there is never a breakthrough to a new level without self-discovery

So back to Judas and money.

Jesus deliberately gave him the money bag. I am sure that Jesus knew exactly about Judas’ weakness. In giving him the finances to look after he was provoking Judas to come to a place of self-discovery, and to go beyond that self-discovery to the place of honesty. He had the opportunity to come to Jesus privately, and say something along the lines of ‘I would rather not look after the money’ (but in Greek or Aramaic of course!). I am sure that Jesus would have been very happy to work with Judas in his weakness, making arrangements for Andrew (for example) to look after the money. Weaknesses, such as Judas had are not an issue to Jesus. They are simply an issue to us, and if not faced up to, that issue will have serious repercussions.

Here then is a root. The weakness is not the problem. Denying the weakness is the problem. Honesty is where it all begins. In the parable of the seed and the four soils, one Gospel writer describes the soil as good and honest soil.

I see the same principle in the thought behind the phrase in the Lord’s prayer: lead us not into temptation. Scripture says God does not tempt, but here we come close to the opposite of that belief. I read the phrase in the prayer as a cry for self-discovery and a level of honesty to what we discover. ‘I am weak, I am liable to go wrong, so I ask that you protect me so that my weaknesses are not exposed so that they are exploited. I humble myself…’

Honesty concerning our weaknesses and the clothing of humility is the path for the disciple. The path way of ‘never would that happen to me’ is not the way for the disciple to travel.

Judas and Peter might be similar in many ways. Maybe they essentially began on the same path but but at the level of honesty there was a divergence right there. We can have a weakness and seek to cover it, or we uncover it / let it be uncovered and find that there is a protection from heaven.

Judas carried with him an unresolved personal weakness. Maybe that weakness was a love of money, but the more serious issue was his inability to be honest about himsel. Self-justification becomes a major hurdle for him and for us.

A vision for the kingdom

Judas (and we, of course) know better. We have a kingdom vision.

Judas has an unresolved inner issue. That is serious but when this unresolved issue connects to a vision of the kingdom, then the problems multiply. Here then is the reading of Judas life that becomes so vital for us. Judas has a vision for the kingdom, for a different world, he connects to Jesus, believes in this Messiah. So far so good, but as time goes on can see things Jesus cannot see. He can clearly see the pathway of peace, of non-violent resistance will never bring in the kingdom, but rather it will crushed. Power, and the exercise of it is important. Getting to the place of influence is obviously the way to go. Judas can see that Jesus’ method and pathway is the pathway to captivity or even to martyrdom (and a futile martyrdom at that). It is not the pathway to confront the evil powers and put the world aright. So…

A plan is hatched. A plan that necessitates Jesus first receiving a gentle but rude awakening. Jesus will have to realise that to succeed he has to step it up a level and exercise his authority where and how it matters. After all, Judas believes in this Messiah. Judas, I suggest, believes he has a strong element of righteous care for the Messiah.

So he arranges for a group of captors to come and he knows how Jesus will respond. He has been with Jesus who has raised the dead, walked unharmed through hostile crowds. This will be the moment, and what a moment it will be. Right there in Jerusalem (God’s centre) with an exposure of God’s enemy (Rome). A climactic moment for the kingdom, for the moving forward of Jesus’ mission. Bring out the soldiers and Jesus will assert himself. Then truly the movement will move into the next phase, the kingdom will advance. Success, rather than failure, will result.

Jesus will take his place, visibly as the promised one. Of course the disciples will also have a place. Maybe even Judas will gain a key place for his catalytic role in bringing about the next phase. Israel will rally round, and on the movement will go from Jerusalem to Samaria, and on to the ends of the earth! Truly Judas to the rescue.

A likely scenario? I think what I present is a lot more plausible and makes more sense of the texts than the simple ‘Judas was evil and wanted to betray Jesus’ interpretation.

Yes, he betrayed Jesus. But maybe so much of what has been done in the name of Jesus, and done to help him, because we know better how the kingdom should come, has also betrayed him. Do we not hear again and again: Jesus, yes; but the church, no.

The kingdom comes, but how it comes is often a mystery. It comes in weakness. It comes when we feel we have been misunderstood, marginalised, and history records, even when we have been martyred. The first resurrection (John in Revelation), the better resurrection (Priscilla in Hebrews) was reserved in Jewish thought for the martyrs. [OK we are not quite sure if Priscilla wrote Hebrews, but then we don’t also know for sure if John, one of the 12, wrote Revelation either!!]

Judas is shocked. He cannot believe that Jesus is captured. Personal weakness and his vision of the kingdom, his ability to know what will help the cause, brings him to the point of despair. However this is not too unlike Peter, who cuts off the ear of the servant, and then goes on to deny Jesus, and to do it three times.

Another opportunity

Peter is given a fresh commission, in spite of his own mistakes and weakness. Three times he is asked if he loves Jesus, three times he is commissioned to look after the sheep. Judas is given no second chance, but had he stayed around? We’ll never know what might have been for him. He simply did not stay around long enough to be freshly commissioned.

His journey began with an unresolved personal weakness.It ended in suicide, but…

Before he commits suicide he is delivered of his personal weakness. Money no longer holds him as he throws it back to the religious powers. The death of Jesus is a delivering death, and even Judas is an evidence of this.

He throws it back in the Temple. The place that stood, no longer as a house of prayer for the nations, but as a ‘den of robbers’, a place that stood as a sign of the compromising union of religion and money. What an uneasy truce was there. Religion offered support to the Imperial power, and the Imperial power gave them freedom. The money crashes back in there. A statement of Judas’ new inner freedom, and a prophetic sign that true faith will be freed from the domination of Mammon.

Inner freedom. Don’t be too quick to act Judas, you are free, free, free at last. You were not alone in betraying Jesus. I was there too. But…

He moves quickly, the regret and grief is too strong for him to handle, and takes his own life.

What would have happened if he had hung on another day or two? Maybe he could have been like the husband and wife on the way to Emmaus:

we thought he would restore the kingdom, and he has been crucified, and now it is the third day (my paraphrase).

What would a third day have done for Judas?

Judas never have lived to experience the third day, but he died experiencing the love of Jesus and the delivering power of Jesus. And yes… I do expect to see him in the age to come.

I am too like Judas – maybe this is why he is one of the 12. Maybe too much of Christianity has modelled itself on Judas. Hidden personal weaknesses, after all can we really be expected to be vulnerable? We accumulate knowledge that will help establish the kingdom; and if we do well, if we are those who believe for greatness then we can expect to gain a significant position as we help Jesus out.

But there is always a fresh opportunity.

Good-bye Judas… yet hoping one day I will say ‘Hello, and glad to meet you – I learnt a lot from you.’

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Perspectives