God votes: the word ‘with’ tops them all

Relationships… (please remember that I like to think, but thinking is in my head, that I really both know what I write about and incarnate it…)

Incarnate. God with us, you shall call his name Immanuel: so begins Matthews Gospel; ‘I will be with you to the end of the age’: so ends Matthews Gospel, the Gospel that is self-consciously written as the fulfilment of all that has gone before. All of the before was to lead to ‘God being with us’ and it was never to end but simply to increase.

The incarnation was not something done TO us. I have tried to stay clear of that in my relationships. Maybe there is a time when we need to do something TO someone as there is no alternative, but sadly most often the TO aspect is a strong me (powerful) / they (object of my power).

The incarnation did have some element of FOR us. The cross certainly did, and the cross is part of the journey from the incarnation. Jesus, being in the form of God; Jesus because he was rich became poor for us. Yes there is a FOR us element there, and I am thankful for that.

But really the incarnation is a WITH scenario. ‘I am one among you’ so undercuts the Imperial model – that system that claims it is FOR us but really is only doing something TO us in order that we can be there FOR the Imperial system.

WITH is a challenge. I am pondering why I have many who offer friendship but I am not truly friends to anyone. I think there is something here that I am missing. WITH. I guess a WITH scenario opens up all kinds of possibilities. Maybe I should explore that… or if not I could continue to write about it.

God votes: I would like them to learn to compromise

‘No, no and never will I compromise,’ I retort.

I have my ideals; I am sticking to what I know to be right.

Sure Mr. ‘Righteous’ (also known as Mr. ‘Aloof’, and probably a few other titles such as Mr. ‘Arrogant’…), but there is something bigger, better and more wonderful, the land of compromise.

I consider God is quite the compromiser. I think that cos I err on the side of immanence, God with us; not on the side of transcendence, with God sooooo different, a divide, God up there, beyond me. Of course it is an err(or) on my part but give me a break, I am not sure that there has not been a few errs as well in you dear reader!

God compromises – evidence s/he seems to come close to me. If that is not compromise… Jesus ate with ‘sinners’. God does not ride on some high-horse, but chooses the donkey and comes through the east gate while Pilate comes in with all the pomp, ceremony and power through the western gate.

What a compromiser we find in this God, and yet we need to grasp that those compromises are redemptive and therefore eschatological. That is the challenge I need to rise to, to engage with people and situations in such a way that I make a small contribution to those people and situations helping them / opening the door for them to move in a direction that is more in line with the glory of God, and whatever contribution I make or presence I bring is in the direction I want the world to go.

And it should not be too hard for me to compromise. There is no ‘transcendence / immanence’ debate around me! There is no ‘I am so beyond you…’ Even Jesus said he was ‘one among us’.

I guess that God would love us learn how to look at situations, be in / with those contexts, come out with feet dirty and as a result are not able to pat ourselves on the back but the situation was just a little different afterwards.

Mistakes and compromise… going beyond, way beyond law… mistakes – an aspect that defines humanity; compromise – a calling for those who have met the God who compromised to redeem them so that without judgement they engage, and in that engagement something redemptive and eschatological takes place.

God votes: let’s give them a few laws

Don’t… ‘You shall…’ A few laws. I am reading at the moment in the ‘cheeky’ book of Deuteronomy. Cheeky cos it keeps talking about the ‘Place that shall be chosen’. Really? Moses are you sure… or you Babylonian based editors, how did you get that slid in there so that we read it as if Moses had this always in mind, and if he had it in mind then so did God?

Laws to set boundaries and then we can be smacked really hard for straying outside of them, or were they always written in pencil (I know there is something in there about ‘written in tablets of stone’ but just for now let me suggest ‘pencil’) and are pretty helpful as some notes to refer to, but then one day will become unnecessary.

Laws given to Israel, Israel who represents all of us, imperfect, but supposed to set an example to all of us. Laws that are OKish but pencil writing. After all before we come to all those laws that instruct us to make sure that any murderer does not escape and go free… before we read about that… we read that God did not punish the first (the FIRST, hence quite an example here) murderer but looked to protect him – Cain. Now that really does not seem an action that pays much attention to the pencilled in writing. Carry it through and the next time that Cain and Abel come on the scene is when the two ‘sons of the father’ appear in the New Testament. One goes free, the other does not. Barabbas goes free!! [Note to self: and so do you Martin, so don’t complain.]

Laws quickly help us determine what is right and wrong. They then have to work hard when it comes to ‘mistakes’, hence the many exceptions in the OT laws, ‘you are to do this, but if this has happened then do…’

And laws are not too smart about really helping us to choose a path that leads to life.

Yes, let’s give them a few laws, but it sure would be good if they could choose the life path instead of trying to get everything right and fit within those boundaries.

God votes: let’s create mistake-making creatures

A little note about these posts to anyone who drops by. I have often thought should I stop, after all blogging since the late 90s is quite a long time. Two aspects keep me going… I get an email / connection that says keep on going, and I also realise that most of it is for me. I call them ‘perspectives’ but they could well be entitled ‘personal pontifications and half baked thoughts’. They are essentially for me, they are my thoughts out in the public arena. I seldom ever re-read what I wrote, sometimes I have found someone saying to me, ‘your post this week on…’ and I have no idea what is in there. I am thankful for those who comment one way or another, and give me space.

A final comment on these posts is that a reader should not assume I am somehow ‘incarnating’ what I write about. They are thoughts, and some of the thinking is along the lines of ‘maybe when you grow up (mature) you might like to consider this, Martin’. Today’s post is like that.

One of God’s wonderful gifts to humanity is the ability to make mistakes. Yes we are in the image of God, but God is not in our image. What a creative idea – let’s make them like us, but let’s add to them this ability, which will need to become a reality for them, of making mistakes.

Getting it right is not all it’s cracked up to be. Nor is it the goal of Scripture. Even the eschaton (the end) is not the telos (end point, arrival point, like the train destination). End of ‘sin’, but maybe even not the end of ‘mistakes’.

When I was 46… Martin loves to repeat stories to endless boredom… I prayed ‘if you don’t mind I would like to live to 92, as I know I need to make a whole lot of more mistakes to learn something to be of a contribution to others’. Some people probably only need a few years and mature by the time they are mid-20s and then have a resource to give away. Others are slower learners. [Note to self re prayer: you might need to add a few more years to the request, 20 have already gone and not too much has been learnt.]

I really don’t cope well with making mistakes. I overcome that ‘not coping well’ with an unhealthy dose of denial. Hey, no comments please, it has got me thus far and I decided the other day that my closest friend is me, and Gayle overtakes that position every now and then. I think though I probably need to get on my bike and learn to make mistakes, learn a little from them and get on with life.

(If I embraced) the idea of making mistakes as a gift from heaven it would really lighten the load and open the door for an exploration. I could try stuff and then move on.

Acts 15… good decision?

Think we have got issues? Given that the fundamental nature of the Gospel is inclusion not exclusion we got a decent starting point to consider issues, but the early church had a big one. Not simply the inclusion of the Gentiles – that hope was always there – but on what basis. [An aside for the curious or more accurately an aside encouraging all readers to purchase ‘The LifeLine’ where I begin looking at the conflict between Peter and Paul, and take it further noting that Peter (!) came close to proclaiming another Gospel, and that Paul declared that pre-Damascus as a ‘blameless Jew as far as the law was concerned’ was actually a blasphemer!! Strong stuff, makes us all look a little sad when we get caught up in petty disagreements.]

I don’t think the solution in Acts 15 was to everyone’s satisfaction. I hear the grumbling that continued in the visit of Paul to Jerusalem when James asked him to get himself to the Temple with his mates and take some clear vows. Headquarters were certainly nervous when Paul was in town!

The good part of the solution is that Paul and Barnabas (later Silas) could continue with their apostolic work to the Gentiles. That aspect seems brilliant. Others (notably Peter) worked among the Jews. A clear division of work – maybe a compromise, but I think God loves to compromise, and when we do, when it is set in a redemptive / eschatological framework. The division was not absolute with some overlap in the middle; the relationships probably remained somewhat strained but they seemed to hold together, or at least make room for some interaction down the line. So good that what is recorded is not perfect… redemption is a bridge to what is here with an eye on what is eschatological – what is not yet here.

There have been those who argue that the Jerusalem Council cut the ties to the root of the plant, opening a separation between Jew and Gentile, and that the Council should in some way be reversed. Maybe though it did not go far enough? That is always the problem with compromises when they are understood as the conclusion rather than a step along the way.

The real separation (my little thought) is not at the Jerusalem Council, for I actually think it did not go far enough, but in the post-New Testament work among the Gentiles, with the adaptation of the earthy Jewish Gospel for an other-worldly Platonic gospel.

For me Acts 15 was a healthy compromise, not the finished product; post-New Testament then accelerated the divide. For those reasons I think the current perspective of Jesus as the Jewish prophet, the true Israel gives us real hope. It de-hellenises the Gospel so it is no longer about ‘going to heaven’ but about transformation of here (hence the need for a belief in the resurrection), and it pulls us back from a Zionism that looks for some restoration of the land (promised land? but Abraham was not promised the land according to Paul…) Maybe the gap can be closed, but until there will be compromises.

Let’s speculate

Could there be double meanings, meanings that go beyond that of the author’s original intended meaning? Well possible. We have simple examples – one being ‘a virgin will be with a child’, was not originally a prophetic word about the coming of Jesus, and yet it is quoted as fulfilment in Jesus. The double meaning is more significant, and the impact of that meaning is universal in terms of time and place; the original meaning was time- and location-bound.

In Acts 1:11 the angels said to the disciples,

Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.

So the obvious level is these disciples are staring into the sky as Jesus disappears from sight and in some way will come in reverse direction at some future date. However, the ‘return’ seems to be considerably more dramatic than the departure. Seen by a few, observed to be going up until a cloud obscured him from sight. At least, the return is not simply a reversal of direction. We have angels, trumpets, the sea going up its dead. ‘In the same way’ has to be primarily focused on ‘this’ Jesus. The one to return is not different to the one who left. The one who came was the revelation of God, leaving the disciples a mandate to proclaim the ‘gospel’ universally. That gospel proclamation was not centred in on ‘universal sin, death by Jesus in our place, repent and receive your ticket’ but on the total transformation of the universe through the death of ‘this’ Jesus in an obscure province of the one-world government situation. I am not diminishing all the ‘personal’ aspects that have impacted us, simply seeking to suggest they do not occupy centre-stage in the NT.

Let’s add a few more things… the disciples are looking into (not toward) heaven. They saw, or were trying to see into heaven (is that a double meaning, beyond that of the sky?) and they saw him go – two different verbs for ‘see’ are used, the second can carry the sense of ‘with discernment’.

Interlude… we are pushing into speculation, so a little freedom!

Could there be a double meaning of the more you see Jesus into the heavens the more you will see him come in the same way? If not in this verse, I am sure there is validity in that perspective. If we see that this Jesus has Ascended, it is this Jesus that is in the heavens, the Jesus who empties himself is the one in heaven, the one who receives the right to break open the scroll of human destiny (Rev. 4); if we see this Jesus we are going to be shaped by that. If we are shaped by that then this Jesus will be manifest in us, he will come, his kingdom will come, his will done on earth… more today than yesterday.

Why do you stand looking into heaven?

If the answer is ‘we want to know where he has gone’ we need to think again. If it is we want insight into the true nature of heaven as the place from which all things are shaped, so that our mouths and lives are a request for heaven to come, then Jesus will indeed come. We need a return of Jesus! A return of ‘this’ Jesus manifest among us. The one who walked among us, moved into our neighbourhood.

Let’s lay on one side for a moment the idea of a parousia, we need a presence, that presence was mediated through the ‘comforter of the same kind’, the Holy Spirit. Salvation is through Christ alone (particularism) but presence is universal (the two hands of God that some early church fathers wrote about). Presence… the more we look INTO the heavens and see that THIS Jesus has ascended there the more the universal presence (parousia) of God will come.

I understand how some can get to the place of ‘all is past’ with regard to fulfilment in AD70, but it would have to be added to with a crazy passion for the total transformation of the world through the spirit of ‘this’ Jesus not through the domination of ‘we will tell you what to do cos we have God on our side’.

I have no idea if a non-physical-parousia has any traction, but I think we should look for great revelations / appearances of Jesus before any physical in-person appearance. To do so we will need to get on board with an appropriate apostolic vision. The ekklesia was to be an outpost in a locality (or space) that was a mirror of what was in heaven.

Let this same Jesus come in the same manner.

It will affect every aspect of society. Let’s just touch one – economy (is it a little ironic that this is from the word oikoumene? True economy is not tied to empire, to moving as many boundaries as we can so that our (market) share is increased. Trade became ‘buying and selling’, but it was at one time barter. I give you this for that which you have. At best a sharing. But push it one step further back and we have gift. The NT view of gift seems to be that which is given without strings attached to someone else, another situation, so that that person / situation can take a step toward their destiny, and without the gift they will stay at their current level or even lose that. How about we gaze into heaven and see this Jesus, the Jesus of gift, not of trade and transaction. Then make space for this same Jesus to come. We might be involved in the world of commerce. We might have our hands tied by certain rules and expectations. After all we do live in the ‘(un-)real world’. But in that world we can make space for something reflective of this Jesus.


In concluding these set of posts I am not claiming I am right, and far more important than being right is the realisation that nothing is meant to be theory or something that gives me the inside track. My beliefs are to shape me and I am not too unhappy if my beliefs were wrong at certain points, but I was shaped by heaven and helped others find a shape suitable for themselves.

I do see a future ‘return’ of Jesus, but also pull for incredible irruptions of Jesus in the here and now. That could increase, not because the Bible says it will, but because we give space for it. To do so means we will have to go beyond the boundaries that convention has set for us. What is from heaven has to find a shape on earth, look just like what is here already, but in the interactions demonstrate the humanisation (and creationisation) of all things. The incarnation past, has to connect to the incarnation present that is shaped by the revelation / appearing / presence of this same Jesus.

A Quick Q & A

Yes very artificial – I set the questions and I give my answer. Oh to have sat exams like this in the past! I will give some real quick answers here to where I am at. Are the answers correct? Probably not all are, but they are a true representation of where I am at.

Do you believe in a personal return of Jesus?
Yes. There is a whole element of a movement from heaven to earth (New Jerusalem, heaven holding Jesus until, dead coming with Jesus etc.).

Do you believe in a millennial rule from Jerusalem?
No.

Do you believe that there will be A future antiChrist?
Maybe but I do not see that as something prophesied in Scripture.

Do you believe that everything can be transformed without the parousia… a kind of optimistic post-millennialism?
No, but I am very optimistic.

And a tribulation?
The ‘great tribulation’ was in the years 66-70AD and has been repeated in different places / times since. Tribulation is also related to our location, standing in the squeeze (literal meaning) between what is and what we long for.

Do you believe that those who die (in Christ) go to heaven?
I do, tentatively. I do not wish to emphasise that as the resurrection of the dead is the central hope, and is so strong that (almost) nothing else gets a look in.

What about eternal destinies?
It is pretty impossible to know what Jesus believed about ‘hell’, although he mentions the word numerous times, but always in a context that is different to the one that we commonly use it. I settle on ‘eternal punishment’, not eternal punishing, and a very generous inclusion of as many as possible in the age to come.

What about ‘all Israel’ being saved?
Two responses to that one. There is not a temporal clause in the verse, it is not ‘and then all Israel will be saved’ but ‘in this way all Israel will be saved’ (kai houtos). ‘All Israel’ was a rabbinic term and then they went on to say who were not included, and the ‘who’ were the Jews by race who disqualified themselves, so the term is not a term that meant anyone descended from Abraham. (In Rom. 11:31 Paul writes of Jews receiving mercy NOW, not then at some future time.) Secondly, we need to go back to re-define the term ‘saved’. It is a saved from the falling short of the glory of God (not being human) to be saved for a reason. That reason is to be a channel and means by which the presence of God can be expressed within the world. So I do not see this Scripture as something that Paul is saying will happen before or at the end. It was his hope within his lifetime.

I am sure there are a thousand other important questions, but as these are simply my responses they are probably not worth asking. They do illustrate though that I am very conservative in my approach. The next post (maybe posts) will focus on being a little more speculative, realising that with their Scriptures in hand many Jews could not see how Jesus could be the Messiah. In the light of that it is not unreasonable to suggest that any attitude that says ‘I’ve got that one nailed’ could well be wrong.

The centre for eschatology

The anchor point for me for eschatology is the resurrection of Jesus. Broadly speaking those Jews who believed in resurrection (probably the majority, the Sadducees having a lot of influence at Sanhedrin level, did not have the same sway with the general population) expected two signs that would mark the end: the resurrection of the dead and the outpouring of God’s Spirit.

If the tomb was truly empty and Peter’s claim that ‘this was that’ was true then there was only one possible conclusion, that time had radically changed. ‘What must we do?’ was a very pertinent question. In response they were told to repent (more than a religious word, Josephus uses it for a change of mind / direction over how to respond to the Roman occupation, there is a political element within the word and the NT context) and be baptised into the name of Jesus and you will receive the eschatological gift of the outpoured Spirit.

The allusions to forming a new people is so strong, even the record of ‘about’ 3000 crossing over to the life side is in contrast to a defining moment in the wilderness when 3000 perished in the Golden calf incident (Exod. 32:38). Then the people of faith lost 3000 to continue on their way; at Pentecost the record says that 3000 are added to the people of faith who continue on their way. (‘About’: Luke uses that phrase when the number is to be noted, covering his back… a prime example is the disciples in Ephesus, ‘about twelve’. Even if one cannot exactly count 3000, one can count if there were 11, 12, or 13!) Baptised into Jesus – we might think this is radical for us Gentile believers some 2000 years on, for Jews who were baptised into the Jordan to enter their inheritance (hence John the Baptist locating himself by the Jordan) being told that now they were to be baptised into the name of Jesus had to include the sense of ‘no other dependency of being in the covenant’. As we read through Acts there was a sell by date when the offer would run out – the sell by date was within ‘this generation’ (for example, ‘save yourselves from this crooked generation’ – Acts 2:40 / Deut. 32:5). ‘This generation’ being reminiscent of Jesus’ teaching and also of the reality that between Egypt to the promised inheritance was a generation.

Did the early church expect a ‘return’ in a generation? It seems they at least expected an ‘end’ within a generation – same as the proclamation of Jesus. Did they anticipate a return as we usually refer to within a generation – for me the jury is out on that.

Jesus, through the resurrection, became the first born of many and the first born of all creation. A new humanity came out of the tomb, one marked not by class, gender nor faith. Potentially a universal humanity, being conformed to the image of Jesus.

So back to my conservative approach to eschatology. I expect a ‘return’ in the sense of a personal return of Jesus, a return that is more than something that is secret but something that brings the whole of creation to a fullness, cleansing it where the presence of God is universally experienced. The resurrection is the guarantee of this. I am not looking for signs along the way that can be ticked off, prophecies yet to be fulfilled, one-world government to arise (already and always has been present – that is what we are saved from!).

When that day comes the dead in Christ will be raised. The hope of going to heaven when I die is hardly, if at all, present in Scripture (and I hesitate to say I believe it as in acknowledging it I am in danger of weakening the centre, the hope of resurrection). Resurrection was always the theological solution to God rewarding the faithful. If people had lived faithfully, but had died and there was no resurrection of the body then those people would not be rewarded – same question in the ‘rapture’ (NOT!!) passage in Thessalonians: ‘what about those who have died?’ The renewal / rebirth would take place (future) and if those who had died were not raised they would miss out. Paul, following in the path of his mentors the Pharisees insisted that the dead in Christ will rise first. We who are live will be transformed. Bodily resurrection, embodied existence was the hope. Nowhere is the answer to ‘what about those who have died?’ being they are in heaven. That might be a ‘correct’ answer but it is not the central biblical answer – not by a long way.

If then there is a personal return why the delay? We could probably ask the same question about the cross. Why not a crucifixion (or equivalent) right back in the beginning? Paul seems to answer that one with it needed to take place at the ‘fullness of times’ for there to be a total cleansing, total deliverance. I, therefore, assume that there is more to be made manifest yet before the return of Jesus. Peter answers (apologetics in view, 2 Peter 3:3-12) with three reasons:

  • don’t think of time as we do, a thousand years for us is as a day to the Lord.
  • the delay in time means more can come to salvation – that in itself is a challenge, for to many the delay means more that ‘hell will be populated!’ Not Peter’s perspective.
  • we, through the way we live, can hasten (bring forward) that date. I appreciate that the Greek can be translated as simply ‘longing for’ but if the ‘delay’ is in part due to not longing for it, it seems justifiable to translate the verb (speudo) as hurrying along, the most common meaning.

I think we can also add a theological reason to the three that Peter suggests. The New Jerusalem (built by God, coming from the throne of God and from heaven) consists of many precious stones. That New Jerusalem is at the same time a Temple (actually a Holy of Holies, no outer courts), a redeemed people, and a renewed creation. It represents the future, what we could truly call the fulfilment of the restoration of all things. The original tabernacle / temple was constructed according to the pattern shown in heaven, BUT the materials, the precious stones, were provided for by the people. Paul in 1 Cor. 3 warns that there is a fire coming that will show the nature of the material used in building. Wood, hay or straw will be consumed; but if the material used was gold, silver or precious stones that material will survive the eschatological fire. I suggest in the light of this that the material for the future is what we provide, God does not provide it, but only God can use the material to create the future. The building is of God, the material provided by us. I surmise that the ‘fullness of material’ has not yet accumulated.

And who do we expect?

Coming king, coming to rule. Words carry meaning and we can change the meaning of words by our preconceptions. I referred in a previous post to the teaching of Reconstructionism (Theonomy) that we might be turning another cheek now, but then – and they are post-millennialists with the kingdom of God coming, being expressed in the world before the ‘coming’ of Jesus through the exercise of law – we will not be turning the other cheek for the Old Testament law lays out in no uncertain manner how those who do not go God’s way are to be treated!

Every knee will bow… and we have understood that to be (excuse the clumsy language) an imposition of God’s good will whether people really want it or not. Language!

The language used for the parousia is full of imperial imagery as is the entire ‘good news’ proclamation in the NT (even the word parousia was imperial after all). The mistake I think though we can make is to make the way that Caesar ruled as the lens through which we see the future reign of Jesus (the language being parallel is a contributing factor, though I suspect it is really fuelled by how we understand the rule of God, who comes to crush all his enemies). The NT point, though, is that Caesar and Jesus are not parallels, but they are contrasting opposites. Caesar ruled by the sword (hence Paul’s rather tongue in cheek ‘submit to the governing authorities’ instruction), Caesar took life to maintain peace; Jesus refused to take up the sword or even to defend his own life, his ‘rulership’ is released through the laying down his life, peace being established through his death.

I have referred to Phil 2: 6,7 in previous posts and want to go there again, quoting the NRSV (I wonder what the translators will do when the Updated Version comes out this year). I quote it below with unjustifiable word in bold:

Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself…

There is no ‘though’ in the Greek. It could write:

Lionel Messi, being one of the best footballers ever was inducted into the hall of fame… but if I changed that to:

Lionel Messi, who, though being one of the best footballers ever was inducted into the hall of fame…’

My change is anything but subtle and furthermore makes no sense at all! The added ‘though’ in the translators for Phil. 2 only makes sense if we are inferring Jesus is acting in a way that is counter to how God acts. And I think that is often how we see it. His incarnation is not a revelation of God, it is not really ‘God’ with us, but a god in disguise who is with us with the parousia then truly revealing this God, for then Jesus will not be the one laying down his life but the one who (like Caesar) will crush all before him.

I hope you are not disappointed in this. Why follow Jesus? Not in order to avoid hell-fire, but to become God-like, to be freed to lay down our lives. That is why the going to heaven / going to hell divide is not even close to the centre (for me of the Gospel). Salvation is not a saved from (other than ‘from our sins’ our many failures to be human, to be God-like in insisting we will create our own destiny) but a salvation for, the for being as per the one we follow, for the world.

In Acts 1:11 those seeing Jesus ascend were told that he will come in like manner as to how they saw him go. Maybe that was a simple reference to ‘you were looking up into the sky and he ascended, so one day you will look up into the sky and he will descend’, but any future parousia is so different to how he left. Seen by a few, then to be seen by all; they are left, he is gone; but in the parousia all those who have died returning, total transformation and all to happen in a moment – no time for gazing into the sky when that happens!

In the same way – tropos – often carries with it the sense of ‘way of life’. The Jesus who came as human, came truly representing God; the Jesus who lived is the one who is to come, the same revelation of God will be present, he will come in the same way, the same Jesus, the same life-motivated Person will be seen and welcomed. Truly peace on earth and good-will to all, regardless of location.

The return of Jesus is not in order that we can self-justify ourselves with ‘see we picked the right side and now you will see who is powerful’, it is not ‘so he came as Saviour, now he comes as judge’. First time round he came as judge, and brought all things to a place of judgement; second time he will come as Saviour… or better whenever he comes he comes as Saviour and judge. The same Jesus.

More of my conventional approach in the next post.

The end… past?

And then the end will come! That is pretty definitive, and on the lips of Jesus. It will come after ‘this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations’ (Matt. 24:14). And it seems the ‘then’ did not envisage a protracted period of time. This will happen and then the end.

Lifting material from a previous post I think Paul considers that (at least) part of the task was already completed. Here is the extraction from that post:


Paul seems to have thought that in his lifetime Matt. 24:14 (‘to all the nations’) was already fulfilled (and of course Jesus said all these things in a generation). Here are four examples of this perspective:

But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for
“Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world” (Rom. 10:16-18).

At the end of Romans 10 Paul jumps between addressing the Jewish and the Gentile situation; here he is addressing the Gentile situation. The message has (not will eventually) gone throughout the whole earth and to the extremity of the oikoumene. That final word was a very common way the civilised world of Rome was described. The oikoumene was the Roman world, and here he adds the ‘extremities’ of it, suggesting that this was indeed the whole earth.

There is a second text in Romans (16:25-26, though it is not in every manuscript I include it here, for it accords with Paul’s perspective, and even if it was added it represents an early perspective):

Now to God who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles.

To ‘all the Gentiles’ (ta ethne: same word as in Matthew 24:14). Indeed rather than refer to ethic groups it was the most common way that those who were not Jews were described. The Gentile world was the ‘ta ethne’ world.

Then there are two in Colossians.

You have heard of this hope before in the word of the truth, the gospel that has come to you. Just as it is bearing fruit and growing in the whole world, so it has been bearing fruit among yourselves from the day you heard it and truly comprehended the grace of God (Col. 1:5-6).

The ‘whole world’, and in a book that is fairly ‘cosmic’ the use of the word kosmos is quite fitting here.

[P]rovided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven (Col. 1:23).

Which has been proclaimed to every creature (literally ‘all creation’); same as in the disputed passage of Mark 16:15 where we read on the lips of Jesus:

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation.”

So Paul uses ‘the whole earth’, ‘the extremities of the oikoumene‘, ‘all the ethne‘, ‘the whole kosmos‘, ‘all creation’. That is a fairly strong perspective and I don’t think we can really push Jesus’ words in a different direction. We might wish to use them as a missiological imperative, but it does not seem to be what Jesus meant in that context.


Might not fit with our ideas but we have to come to see that in some way ‘the end’ is past; or some kind of end has already taken place. An age has ended, could this be what Jesus is referring to when he addressed his first disciples:

And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

In Jesus’ teaching about the ‘end’ there is a continual focus on ‘this generation’, and we have to see the years of 66-70AD (the Jewish Wars) as being so critical. I find it hard to believe that they are not central to any understanding of Jesus’ teaching about the ‘end’. Something definitively ended in those years of great crises. (As per the original Exodus the entry to the land 40 years later started something for the nation, so in this situation 40 years after Jesus’ exodus something truly came to an end.) The ‘coming of the son of Man’ (or maybe better ‘the sign of the coming of the Son of Man’ fit into that context. The original vision in Daniel 7 is of one ‘like a son of man’ coming to the Ancient of Days and that to the Son of Man was given

dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed (Dan 7:14).

In Matthew 24 (and parallels) the sign of the Son of Man having received this kingdom would take place immediately after the suffering of those days, with the Son of Man coming (not to earth) but in the cloud – the same as in Daniel 7. Jesus received all authority (past tense) not will receive all authority. Those references are past tense, hence Jesus could say to the assembled Jewish authorities that

“You have said so. But I tell you,
From now on you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of Power
and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matt. 26:64).

Something of an end has taken place, and I understand why there are those who suggest every aspect of the end has already taken place. I still look to a future ‘end’, in that way I am very conservative, and have written in the previous posts about what I do not see (future antiChrist, millennium etc.) as I do not see those as being very conservative! No offence intended should you passionately see them in Scripture, I don’t. And I do not see them as very important. The end has always been about a Person not a series of events. By insisting on certain things will take place, a kind of ‘signs of the times’ we can be in danger of looking for the signs and missing the activity and presence (after all parousia means presence) of the one who is the ‘End’, the first and the last.

I think understanding the nature of the Person has to greatly shape us with regard to how we see the end. I say that because the misunderstanding of what God would come to do seemed to be why the many Jews of Jesus’ time missed the opportunity of seeing him as their Messiah.

Perspectives