Open Zoom – tomorrow

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:

And to the video:

Look forward to seeing those who can make it.

Cross shaped hope

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.

Another Scripture that does not fit?

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?

Scripture and bad 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.

Eschatology: video ‘There to Here’

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

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

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

The triumph of protest

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

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

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

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

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

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

A time to protest

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

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

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

The Temple

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

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

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

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

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

With us

Christmas day – the arbitrary day that was chosen centuries ago to mark the entry of God in the most personal (and human) way possible:

[T]hey shall name him Emmanuel, which means, “God is with us.”

That whole chapter of Matthew seems to be about the end of Exile with the return of God to Zion (e.g. Isaiah 42)… the long night of Exile over and God present. That is the eschatological hope when finally it will be announced ‘God’s dwelling place is with humanity’ and there will be no break in that presence. One significantly wiser than me, used three prepositions to describe human interactiveness: ‘to’, ‘for’, ‘with’. we can do things ‘to’ people – even when not considered abusive it is colonial and based on inequality, power being the dominant element present. God does not do things ‘to’ us. ‘For’ is a move forward and probably is at times necessary. To do something ‘for’ someone else can be generous and kind, but there is a dimension beyond that: ‘with’ and ‘among’. That is the activity of God that we bear witness to in this season. He will be called ‘Emmanuel’. Or as John puts it ‘he moved into our neighbourhood’, and as Matthew closes his Gospel with ‘I will be with you always…’

The effect of being with us is that he will ‘save his people from their sins’ (Matt. 1:21). Yes, universal application, but in context to ‘his’ people, the Jews of his day who were suffering an ongoing Exile for their sins. God with us brings that to an end – end of exile at every level.

So we celebrate, and are called to witness to the irruption of God into our world at a personal level. I am deeply provoked by the challenge to ‘carry’ the presence of God in a way that is noted; not noted through manifestations, but through the testimony of others. That testimony has to be largely ‘I felt released from my sins’, not simply in the sense of forgiveness as we understand it, but the weight, the effect to be gone, witnessed to by wholeness and well-being. He was called ‘Emmanuel’, so all followers at some level, and collectively, should be known by ‘God was with us’. This is why I believe in transformation of a world caught up in exile.

Summary of ‘Long Awaited’

I haven’t yet put together a 7-10 minute video of the pdf on ‘Eschatology: Here not There’ but I thought I would just put together a very short summary here and why I consider it to be important. The article covers two areas – one a kind of rebuttal of the ‘secret rapture / Dispensationalism’ and then the second part being a positive – the direction of eschatology being focused on ‘here’ and not ‘there’.

Dispensationalism is late on the scene and the consensus of perspective is that it appears around 1830; some have suggested that J.N. Darby was influenced by a vision that Margaret MacDonald had around that time; others (myself included) see some measure of antecedent in the charismatic revelations / teachings from within Edward Irving’s movement. What is clear is that J.N. Darby developed the ‘dispensational’ scheme around that time and in the decades that followed. More latterly with the view that ‘the secret rapture’ was not found any earlier than this time frame there have been those who are committed to the ‘secret rapture’ teaching have sought to show that it was present in earlier church writings, however there is nothing that is clear, and the writings have to be interpreted through that presupposition.

Even if there are earlier references that can be found the real issue is that (for me) it flows not from Scripture but a later abandonment of the Hebraic worldview for Platonic / Hellenistic that saw the material realm as without value, the soul needing to escape the body, and this material world to be destroyed.

Beyond that the hope of the New Testament is that of the appearance / coming of the Lord Jesus (maranatha – Lord come), not of our disappearance. To change the hope changes how we then live – rather than looking for transformation we look only to see ‘souls saved’; rather than focus on life here we look to ‘life after death’ as all that is important; we tend therefore to draw the line of what is sacred and what is secular, rather than see all of life to be the place where God is present.

The Scofield Bible (and subsequent similar study Bibles) with its notes that explained the various dispensations, effectively replaced the text as the notes explained (replaced?) the meaning of the text. (Of course the same should be noted with all writings – even mine!!). Over decades there have been books written that have explained how current events fit with what we read in Scripture (my era – the writings of Hal Lindsey) who bizarrely explain the visions of Revelation with the perspective that John could not know what he was seeing as he was actually seeing realities of the 20th Century with such military equipment as attack helicopters, inter-continental missiles etc!!! Of course as his writings progress he has to revise what he wrote earlier. Add to books that ‘educate’ a set of novels and films and a very powerful understanding is planted in the sub-conscious and conscious minds of those who are exposed to this.

The danger is of an overriding desire to depart which at worst is that of an escape mentality.

That is the first part of the article, in summarising the second part I draw on numerous NT passages that show the movement is from there to here and the transformation of this creation, that any redemption of people does not stop at the human level but includes the whole of creation. Let me simply take one passage (that wrongly could be thought to underline that ‘this world is not my home’) to illustrate.

But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil. 3:20).

The article expands on what I put below but in summary one of the challenges with Scripture is that it was not written to us so we can misread some texts if we assume the Bible is in parallel to our culture. In that culture and in Philippi specifically those who were born free were not citizens of, for example, Philippi but they were citizens of Rome. The reason for this was that there was a tendency for people to move from where they were based with a desire to get to Rome which caused a problem for Rome as the infrastructure struggle with the growth. So to counteract that issue people were made citizens of Rome with the desire that they would work to make sure where they lived had as much of the culture and values of Rome in their location. So when Paul wrote to Philippi his language would have been instantly understood, not as ‘Philippi is not your home, heaven is your home’ but as you live in Philippi so your desire needs to be to work / pray for as much of heavens’ values and culture shape the future of your city. In the same way that within the culture the citizens worked for Rome’s values to be expressed, the believers were to work for a heavenly culture to be expressed; the citizens had a hope that one day the emperor would come from Rome and in the same way the believers hoped for the ‘Saviour’ (a title the emperor also had) to come from heaven.

I hope the summary helps a little to position what I have written, and this again I consider as foundational before any discussion about such topics as ‘millenium’, ‘tribulation’ or even life after death.

Long awaited!!

The above title is what is often attached to a piece of writing that we have long been anticipating but has not yet the bookshelves but we simply know it will be a block-buster and consequently sell millions. However… language is defined by usage more than by etymology… the above is the common usage of the word, but in my small world I am using it somewhat differently!

I have just completed another pdf on the theme of eschatology. It is long awaited – for me. I have been waiting, waiting, waiting and at last have finished it. And no it does not hit the bookshelves, and isn’t about to be read by millions, but here it is at last! This is the third and we are still very much in the foundational realm… no mention of millennial, tribulation or such topics.

The book is about ‘movement’. The direction of eschatology. Is it ‘heavenward’ or ‘earthward’? The first part I look at the popular movement from here to there with the secret rapture as the sharp focus on that. This is as far from my view as one can get! The second half is taking the various Scriptures that a) talk of a movement earthward (God changing postcode I might suggest) and how redemption through the cross and resurrection includes, or one might even say, centres in on a comic dimension. No ‘late great planet earth’ or ‘the earth will be burned up…’

Some time soon I will make a short video to go along with this volume and look to have an open zoom in the new year with an invite to one and all.

Perspectives