What is this book?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Of course I have could have entitled this post ‘what are these books?’ but regardless of choice of title we still run into issues. What books should be included? We operate with 66 books with a firm line around them so that none others can enter – but other traditions use a different set. I have always struggled with the arguments that inevitably use various in- (fallible / errant) words to defend a doctrine of Scripture. Each lecture I sat through no New Testament introduction had to prove that the authorship was ‘apostolic’. I suspect that in part fuelled the view that became reasonably popular in the more-academic charismatic circles that the Old Testament prophets spoke the very words of God and the New Testament prophets were not at that level… the New Testament apostles being the counterpart of the Old Testament prophets. I have never driven a bus but I think without any training I could drive right through that without hitting anything! It all ends up so convenient; the church is built on the foundation of the prophets (=OT) and apostles (=NT)! Built on a book or on the lives of those who provoked people to follow the ‘Lamb wherever the Lamb goes’?

Yes Houston we have a problem.

The ‘canon’ is a problem that I do not think can ever be fully bottomed out. Not too different to that the Jews faced. They had books / scrolls, but it might surprise us if we were able to find out which books Jesus read. Maybe 1 Enoch was in there – a book that definitely does not go back to Enoch, not at any level in spite of being quoted as ‘Enoch the tenth from Adam said…’ No. It seems that the Jews formed – or moved toward forming a canon pretty much to exclude other writings, probably the list to be excluded included some of what we term the ‘New Testament’. There are other ‘gospels’ out there that are not included. Some might contain authentic sayings of Jesus, but…

I am very happy with the 66 we got! I treat them as authoritative (and inspired) in a way that I don’t treat other incredibly helpful (and inspired at a level) pieces of writing. The practical issue is the interpretation of what is written.

The first incredibly helpful presentation I heard on the authority of Scripture was from a youngish-definitely-up-and-coming person who went by the name of Tom Wright. (This was 1989; he has become fairly well-known globally since – his writings are more widespread even than mine!) He suggested that the authority of Scripture lay in its narrative and suggested if a lost (and unfinished) Shakesperean play had recently been found it might be a good analogy to the book(s) we have.

The play in 5 parts with:

  • Act 1 being that of origins / creation
  • Act 2 that of the Fall / falls
  • Act 3 Abraham and the historic people of God that we read of in what we term the OT
  • Act 4 being centred on Jesus, and
  • Act 5 being the opening scenes of the New Testament and the spread of the message… then the script is clearly unfinished although within the existing texts there are ‘hints’ where the play will end.

Wright put forward that the authority of Scripture is the narrative with the centre being Jesus.

I have suggested we could have three responses to the ‘Shakesperean’ story:

  • We realise the value of the writing, store the script in a museum and organise regular lectures on the play, its historical context etc.
  • We draw together experts who could ‘write’ the missing part and through their knowledge enable us to have in our hands a completed play.
  • We bring together Shakesperean actors who immerse themselves in what we have, rent a theatre and let the play roll. When the original script runs out just let them carry on with no predetermined script nor action.

Those three options do not have to be totally exclusive one of the other, but the priority has to be the third option. The theatre – our world; the actors – well these are not professionals, but are from the ‘not many…’ group! Passionate about the story, learning to act, react, speak, listen, challenge, making mistakes, but increasingly with a passion for the narrative and wanting to move the story forward toward the hints (‘new creation’) that are within the existing script. Acting ‘under’ the story, motivated by the Spirit, and with an eye on where the narrative is headed.

It does not answer all the issues of ‘canon’ or in what way are the texts ‘inspired’, but maybe that model describes what we do have before us and how we should respond to it. All our attempts to tie up the loose ends probably only take us to places that are unhelpful. ‘All Scripture’ (and what did that mean in the context of that text???) ‘is inspired… and is useful‘. That would not make for a very long lecture if that was the extent of what we had to say on our doctrine of Scripture. But once we make statements beyond that (the ‘Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy’ (1978) for example maybe did not give us much material to enable our response to the Bible to be useful but certainly gave us material to argue with others!) we run into the favourite land that Protestants / evangelicals have inhabited: ‘I am right and you are wrong’. Now all readers of these posts know I am right(!!) but (sadly) I discovered years ago that being right did not seem to be high on God’s agenda as a goal for my life. ‘Being perfect as My Father in heaven is perfect’ was certainly nearer the goal for my life! And that perfection (in the context where Jesus made that statement) was to do with how I related to others. Inspired and useful. (Maybe useful should be translated ‘will nail you down’?)

Subsequent to reading Tom Wright’s narratival approach I discovered the Anabaptist ‘Jesus hermeneutic’. Scriptures are not at the centre, but Jesus is, therefore the Gospel accounts of Jesus are not subject to the clever theology of the letters but rather the other way round. I am not a Marcionite (see last post: the god of the Old Testament is not the God of the New) but to give a hint of where I will be headed in future posts – not everything declared about God / what the text implies are an accurate reflection of who God is.

Jesus is the express image of the invisible God.

I am not Barthian (apologies to all the current wave of Trinitarian writers) but his description of the three-fold dimension of the ‘word’ of God is helpful. Our speech (or for Barth ‘preach’) that is based on Scripture that bears witness to the revealed word of God in Jesus. If we wish to use inspired, inerrant etc. with capitals we reserve that for Jesus – although even he had to ‘learn’.

So far then my overall approach to Scripture is both that of narrative and that it has to pass through the ‘Jesus lens’ to be authoritative! For example the patriarchal parts? No they don’t pass.

I have not resolved everything but have noticed recently that there are some YouTubes and articles on ‘how reading the Bible made me an atheist’. We could certainly add to that ‘How reading the Bible made me a religious bigot / hate anyone different / afraid of the world / want Palestinians to be wiped out…’

We do have (a) difficult book(s).

I write this glad that we have the NT. One of my readings this morning was:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.

Useful. Now it requires me to align, for ‘we are NOT justified by faith alone!’

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

I struggle with…

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

A few posts about to come. And if I was the reflective type, I am sure an all-but infinite number if I were to follow through on the title, but not being too reflective (strength: I look forward; weakness: I learn next to nothing!) and I am narrowing these posts down to Scripture – so nothing close to an infinite number about to be written. For sure most of us would be more comfortable if certain parts of Scripture were simply erased. I will probably miss out huge parts I don’t get cos I will try to write as things come to mind and am not working from a list that I have kept over the years.

Scripture…one can almost get from it what one wants. The death penalty – there it is. Slavery – clearer than abolition. Male supremacy and ‘headship’. The list is endless. I often say to Gayle that of the three Abrahamic faiths I am so glad we have a ‘New Testament’. Imagine simply having what we term the Old Testament or the Quran. Take for example Paul who writes a hefty part of the NT prior to his ‘conversion’. His pinnacle of righteousness was that of persecuting the church, approving of deaths. And he has Scripture defending him, nay endorsing him – the Levites were just one of the ‘ordinary’ tribes until they rose up and slaughtered 3000 of those who deserved to die(!), once they had done that they were rewarded for their zealousness (an aside: contrast the 3000 who find salvation on the day of Pentecost, the feast when the giving of the law was celebrated, that being the context of the zealous slaughter carried out by the Levites).

Marcion of Sinope (85- 160) was always held up as a heretic because he went full-blooded with the god of the Old Testament is not the God of the New Testament. A radical solution… but if push comes to shove I would rather that approach than a case built on OT Scriptures that are used to justify violence (such as with the Crusades… and has that ‘crusade mentality’ ceased?).

I will have to have a go at how I (currently) handle those texts that I would rather be eliminated(!!), but will go a little slower over the next few posts till I get there.

Labels are a challenge. Gayle was with a very soft-hearted Sikh a couple of days ago who was part of a workshop. The person in private said ‘I can see you are spiritual, are you a Christian?’. Shorthand answer would be ‘yes’, but that kind of answer does not help because it depends on what the hearer has in mind. So we often answer obliquely with something along the lines of ‘I don’t use that term as it can mean so many different things…. but Jesus…’ And that ultimately is where it will become evident that I land. I do not understand loads of Scripture but if it is to point me to Jesus I have to centre there (the well thought through term that Norman Krauss used of ‘a Jesus hermeneutic’).

Anyway labels. In common with the evangelical world there are a minimum of two elements that are at the centre of my faith – an approach to Scripture which I claim is the authority by which I believe what I believe, and that the cross of Jesus is the pivotal point of all history through which people are reconciled to God. Others might wish to add much more than that at the centre. I was glancing at a YouTube video of someone I met years ago declaring how anyone who embraces ‘open theology’ is heretical; I might wish to suggest that anyone embracing Reformed Theology is incorrect in their approach! The person on YouTube had a few more than two points at the core… and I think he would not be happy if I were to suggest that I fit within certain ‘orthodox’ theological houses!

Ah well I am so glad I can go to sleep every night knowing that I am correct at every key point of interpretation!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Alternative society?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I wrote a few days ago about ‘no kings’ and ‘no temples’ and thought I would give a bit of a follow up on that post. First my background. I was shaped from around 20 years old (50 years ago!!) by what was termed the ‘House Church Movement’ in the UK; its roots go back to very early explorations (1950’s) of ‘church’ and its NT form. Many of the early participants were from a Plymouth Brethren background so already came in with an anti-clerical perspective; they also came with a background in ‘Dispensationalism’! The thrust of those very early conferences was that of ‘the restoration of the church’ and inevitably there was a clash between that hope and belief and the pessimistic outlook of the eschatology (I had a copy of some early notes and in the margin someone had written ‘what about Laodicea?’, indicating the clash. In such movements (and I observed this in my years of travelling to the USA teaching on eschatology goes on the back-burner for a while… until the conviction is strong enough on ‘the restoration of the church’.)

Texts such as Acts 3: 20,21 were fairly central:

Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration [restoration of all things] that God announced long ago through his holy prophets.

That was to be understood as the return of Christ would not take place until (‘until’ being a key word) there was the restoration of the church (something that had begun in earnest with the Reformation – apologies to all prophetic voices such as the gentleman in Rome). Add to that Ephesians 4 with the foundation being the apostles and prophets so that the body might grow up (mature) until it was presented to the Lord without ‘spot or wrinkle’.

Dating the house church movement is not an exact science, but there was distinct growth from the late 1960s and the magazines of the two distinct streams (though there were other less defined streams) Fulness and Restoration had a major influence in the UK and beyond. (Even yesterday I was on a zoom with a representative of a significant stream in Brazil that drew from those magazines from those early days.)

Gradual restoration? Maybe I am still influenced by that perspective, but more below. (In 1997 I completed a thesis on the Eschatology of the New Church movement with some interesting (and fair) examiners. Partly to push back on them I had a section in there that suggested that the idea of ‘restoration’ was not novel to some ‘apostles and prophets’ but that theologians were so convinced they had made advance that they now knew more about what Paul meant than he did! True/false? Simply the fruit of good scholarship / the fruit of the Enlightenment?)

Before coming to ‘and the truth that I believe today’ section (whole truth and nothing but the truth of course) I am coming back to the former post. God works everywhere – as evidenced by the king being anointed and the Temple filled with God’s presence… those manifestations being rooted in a rejection of God! Yet God is always ‘looking’ for something and where does s/he look for it? Among those who have taken on the name of Jesus. I see a very big principle in the words of Jesus when he said, ‘you have heard it said… but I say to you…’ If we want to see a shift in ‘murder’ there has to a shift at a ‘seed’ level etc. The Christian faith is not here to give us a ticket to heaven (a Hellenistic reading into the text) but to enable us to be seed within society. Seed and harvest with a time gap between the two, hence long-term vision is required. The phrase made popular in the Civil Rights movement that originated during the abolitionist period remains so apt for us:

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

God is always at work… and at work means working toward an eschaton. BUT… and here comes the but! But does not work independently, but with those who at some level are aligned to that work. I can see it no other way but the Pauline mission was not a big evangelistic tent crusade but a proclamation that ‘new creation’ had broken in and the right response was that of repentance toward God, faith in Jesus, receive the Holy Spirit and to carry the message of reconciliation (of all things) throughout their world. In it all was the transformation of the world.

Back in the day it was that of ‘get the church right and all will want to come join’. Let the body of Christ manifest an alternative society. Some part of that still seems right! But the centre is not the ‘church’ but the world with (as those of ancient times wrote) the body of Christ as the soul / life source to the world in the same way the ‘soul’ is to the body.

I am not a millennialist – it is understandable that some (only some) within that original Restorationist perspective of the House Church Movement were post-millennial (Jesus in heaven until) – I am not post-, pre- (not even in its historic, pre-rapture form), nor a-millennialist. Maybe I am apocalyptically-milennially? Beasts with heads, allowed to run riot for 42 months etc… Put away the calendar and the time lines, and I suggest we do the same with the millennium. Let Revelation and the throne room of heaven stand as the true and every other throne with 24 elders around it be seen as counterfeit. Why do I mention ‘millennial’ at this point? Because it is often shaped by, and shapes, our expectations. Dispensationalism with God will get us out of here is shaped by a view of an antagonistic world, and further shapes and fuels all kinds of conspiracy theories; triumphalism looks within the four walls and a full stadium and proclaims the kingdom has arrived.

The pessimist looks at the glass and it is half empty; the optimist and proclaims it is half full; I suggest the one touched by heaven says what can I contribute to raise the level in the glass? There might be a leak, but even if there is here I am to contribute. Judging the level of the glass contents is not to make a contribution!

I am so ignorant on so many topics and totally agnostic (and I do claim to have read the relevant Scriptures many times) on such issues as an antiChrist, a millennium, a great persecution and the like. Start with a system and one can work it all out (or start with a Bible with notes… read the text, don’t understand it, read the notes now I understand it – or the notes have become my Bible. The ‘brilliance’ of the Scoffield Bible). But ditch the system then just be free to make a small contribution that might make this world a tiny more like heaven (as the ‘citizens’ in Philippi were encouraged to do).

And on the corporate level the kings and temples (temple-mentality) really needs to be shelved.

I get briefly discouraged when there are ‘church’ exposures but then think ‘well that has to go if something more authentic is to come’… and then I think if there is something more authentic then there is hope that the long arc of history is bending in a good and righteous direction.

I have no idea what is to occur before the return of Christ and honestly do not believe that the Bible comes up with predictions, but it sure does come up with instruction in the meantime. In a heavily apocalyptic set of verses discussing the delay of the Lord’s coming Peter provokes us as to:

what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

No kings… and no temple

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

‘I have a dream’ said the man in August 1963; ‘I saw a new heaven and a new earth… I saw no temple in the city’ so said the Seer some 65 years after his Master had died (well not 100% sure of the date). We await the fulfilment of the dream and of the sight that was declared. When will they be fulfilled? Not a clue, and I don’t need a clue, for both are to provoke us in the present. I am reading in 1 Samuel at the moment and of course in there is the painful dialogue of ‘give us a king’. Samuel gets upset but God points out the rejection is not of Samuel but of God. They were never supposed to have a king… and how they loved to recount in later generations how amazing David was as king and that one day a king from that royal line will come and rule over them.

Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them (1 Sam. 8:7).

Yet God anoints the king… God’s blessing does not indicate God’s ‘approval’ of our choices.

Later the people realise they have gone in a wrong direction (1 Sam. 10) but Samuel responds with a perspective that further indicates God will work with whatever we present:

See, here is the king whom you have chosen, for whom you have asked; see, the Lord has set a king over you. If you will fear the Lord and serve him and heed his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God, it will be well (1 Sam. 12:13, 14)

The temple – centralised, controlled worship – once a path is entered on there is a direction that is hard to reverse. Did God want a temple?

You shall not build me a house to live in. For I have not lived in a house since the day I brought out Israel to this very day, but I have lived in a tent and a tabernacle. Wherever I have moved about among all Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people, saying, ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’ (1 Chron. 17:4-6).

The tabernacle – a tent, not so impressive as the grandiose temples of the surrounding nations. We so want people to be impressed by God we know we are the ones born to help God out. When Jesus appeared and ‘moved into the neighbourhood’ John uses the verb ‘tabernacled’ among us. Moving here and there, never giving undeniable proof, but to those of humble heart his glory (truth within the grace container) was there to be seen.

And then John who had many times made the journey to Jerusalem, that temple that had a city around it (20% of the land was temple and temple buildings). It was way beyond being a city with a temple (like Canterbury – a city with a cathedral) – it was a temple-city; the astounding vision he has is the city had no temple when describing the new Jerusalem. The contrast is enormous.

A tent!

Put it up, put it down. Move it from here to there. Mobility.

Never get discouraged when something comes that is the most amazing manifestation of God’s presence… and then it goes. Mobility. There will always be a ‘God is here’ shout. Meanwhile it is necessary to continue to hold a dream. ‘I saw no impressive people who were ‘head and shoulders’ above the rest of us; but I saw unimpressive people and God was moving here and there among them and through them’.

I am NOT post-millennialist (mainly because I am not millennialist) and have no idea of what will be. But I continue with a dream. And while on such subjects as the ‘end-times’ the way we are headed there will be an antiChrist (or many more to join the ones already here… but not because the Bible says so (I don’t think it makes such a prediction!)… there will be because that is the outcome of where we are pushing. God’s people hold the key and the more we continue to believe in ‘we need a king’ and promote platforms the more we are sowing into the realisation of an anitChrist. Look at the trajectory from 1 Sam. 8 to the crucifixion – the inevitable outcome is ‘we have no king other than Caesar’!!!

I would rather be off the wall with my (lack of) end-time beliefs and hold on to a dream of ‘one day no king and no temple’ than have a set of beliefs that stop the dream.

Many others have carried a dream – but again I give thanks for MLK and that Seer on Patmos.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A summary of ‘all Israel’

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

From time to time I write an ‘extended article’ where it is to explore a theological topic. As part of the ever-so-slow to write on various aspects of eschatology but also as feeding into issues surrounding soteriology (salvation – what does that entail) this latest piece on Israel seemed to be what came next. The full article can be read /downloaded:

All Israel will be saved

It is a bit of a read so now that it is completed here is a summary of the key points.

‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’ are not used synonymously

Consistently from the Exile (597BC) and even from the Assyrian conquest (722BC) the term ‘Israel’ and the term ‘Jew’ were not used synonymously. Jew being the term for the people of the southern kingdom (of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin); Israel never returning to the land (northern 10 tribes) – though Samaritans claimed to be Israelites. This Samaritan claim was debated but never was it debated that they were Jews. Consistently in what is termed Second Temple Judaism the term ‘Israel’ was only applied to the whole nation (or the ‘lost’ tribes), to the people when referring to them in history past, or when expressing a hope in the future of their restoration (hence the question to Jesus by the disciples).

  • All Israel will be saved is not referring to the Jews of Paul’s day, but is expressing the hope that has been carried for centuries, such as is expressed in the New Covenant promise of Jer. 31 – a covenant made with both houses (north and south) thus with ‘Israel’.

Paul does not use a temporal phrase such as ‘and then’

The phrase he uses is ‘and in this way’ all Israel will be saved. This is the normal way the phrase is used and the consistent way he uses the phrase in his writings. He could / would have used a totally different phrase should he have wished to convey something that will suddenly occur at the eschaton.

He has been arguing from the opening Romans 9 concerning how God has been and continues to be faithful to his/her promises. He is not outlining a timetable nor even seeking to explain why so many Jews had not welcomed their Messiah.

  • God is faithful and Paul argues that there is a process going on that will lead to all Israel being saved. That process is already taking place – and the process involves the Gospel going to the nations (the Gentiles – ta ethne).
  • Israel (as in the northern tribes) are among the nations (Josephus goes to great lengths to explain this) so for them to come in the Gospel has to go to them, even though the majority of them have been ‘Gentilised’, such is the faithfulness of God.

Those Gentiles who respond to Jesus are incorporated into Israel

Converted Gentiles do not become Jews but the terms used of Israel are applied to them. Israel’s ancestors are their ancestors; Paul describes converts as ‘when you were Gentiles’ and as ‘chiidren of Abraham’.

  • Thus a second strand of ‘all Israel’ is that of Gentiles being incorporated in – or as described in Rom. 11 – grated into the (one) Olive tree.

‘All Israel’ never meant ‘all Jews’ and it also never meant all physical descendants of Abraham, for not all ‘children / offspring of Abraham’ were the ‘seed of Abraham’. Faith meant that those who were of Abraham was (both) smaller than those who were physically descended from Abraham and also that it was bigger than those who were physically descended from Abraham.

  • Salvation then is a process that is ongoing as the good news of Jesus comes to the whole world, and in this way the promises will be fulfilled by the faithful God.

Of course there is much more in what I have written in the article and I acknowledge the recent research and writings of Jason Staples (such as ‘Paul and the Resurrection of Israel’).

A return to the land was always predicated on repentance; nowhere in the New Testament is there indicated that there are two paths to salvation (an using that word we should not reduce it to the binary understanding of ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’).

I do suggest in the article that there is a particular focus on the land we call Israel as a place where reconciliation of differences should be manifested; I do not look to the land as somehow carrying a ‘promise’ in the way that Christian Zionism does – I think Paul gives that hope to the world (kosmos).

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Istanbul – May

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Updates

We have tickets booked for Istanbul for a few days toward the end of May. Istanbul with a history back into antiquity, and Istanbul that came into focus during our days in Sicily (seems a long time ago!). So here comes a rambling post.

I am amazed with the diversity of what people give themselves to in life, and as far as having a focus for the advancement of the gospel is concerned I am very uncritical of whatever people give themselves to – other than being very cautious where people are motivated by ego, or to help God out! Those aspects can be ever so subtle. I have vested interest in being uncritical as it then becomes easier to justify whatever I feel to give myself to!

Rambling post about to begin! Global issues are huge and not about to become less complex anytime soon and the expression of the gospel is very diverse in different parts of the world. My focus is Europe and (broad sweep) it was the cradle of the gospel within a short period of time after the initial apostolic era with a huge part of the NT focused on the expansion of the locale where the good news of Jesus was proclaimed. Challenges – and changes – took place slowly over that period. A Hellenisation of the message began, I am sure in great measure to connect culturally, but that Hellenisation brought a shift over centuries from a very earthy message (how could it not be earthy when the resurrection of a body was central?) to a ‘going to heaven’ and ‘avoiding hell’ becoming central and when those two become central there is a short path to drawing very firm lines of ‘in / out’ and of exercising huge control over people. Add to this the Constantinian move of ‘by this sign you will conquer’ and there is quite a shift from the original message. How big a shift? Well Jesus invited / instructed followers to carry a cross (figuratively), not to crucify others but it certainly made it easier for others to crucify them – the instrument was already available. [Gayle and I were once with a well-known couple whose books are on many book shelves and we were instructed to get ourselves guns as at that time there were various threats on Spain from certain Islamic quarters… I thought this was a joke and waited for the punch line. There was no punch line.] I am not to judge whether Constantine had a conversion but certainly cannot endorse the message that we conquer by the cross on our swords.

Subtly, and maybe not so slowly, a message has gone from that cradle of the gospel (Europe) to many parts of the earth. Honourable people have taken it and the power of the gospel is evident with the changes that have taken place, but at some level the ‘clothing’ for the gospel has been one of colonisation of cultures and progress is measured by the christianisation of a nation.The gospel does bring about a cultural change but must never dominate at any level of control: the kingdom of God is not the ‘control’ of God but the invitation to be transformed and as a result to be part of a transforming movement – a movement that is focused relationally through a message of reconciliation and with a central focus on the marginalised.

So Istanbul… or Constantinople as was. Founded in 330AD as the ‘new Rome’ it was a major ‘Christian’ hub with a mega push through the construction of the Hagia Sophia (not quite the ‘holy’ or ‘wisdom’ that we find in the NT!!). Fast forward and… OK here come personal perspectives.

Today there are three monotheistic faiths that all claim Abraham as their father. Those three take diverse shapes. But at the extreme end all three have an expression of militancy over others with a divine mandate to use force to control (and even justifing genocide). Is there a difference between the three or are the extreme version of each simply a version of one another? I suggest the latter is the case, and that the ‘god’ they claim to be in subservience to is the same ‘god’. A three-fold cord is not easily broken.

[This is where I see the unique significance of Jerusalem / land of Israel. In conflict and perpetuating conflict it excels, but if there is one place on the earth that potentially can reveal reconciliation that is the place… We can discover what God is doing by seeing the perversion of it – God works in the opposite.]

So off we will head to Istanbul. A small group who are far from being smart and knowing what to do.But with a focus on the now-mosque (Hagia Sophia) for historically there was an increase of the spread pf Islam once they were able to inhabit the previous house (originally an impressive cathedral) that manifested Christendom. Maybe we can help cut the tie between Islam/ Sharia law and the ‘Christian’ expression of it as manifested through christendom? I have long maintained that whatever followers of Christ exhibit is what can change (for better for worse) the wider society, along the lines of ‘you have heard it said… but I say to you…’

Christendom and Europe. Europe is essentially post-christendom. Seen as a demise of values by some (and there are some ‘losses’) but I consider it totally necessary and with a leverage to see the possibility of a more earthy-related faith in Jesus prosper – the sort of faith that was exhibited in the oikoumene of the Roman Empire. And ever so telling that it was that oikoumene (ready made shape and structure) that was offered to Jesus in the wilderness… and turned down.

Beyond the focus on christendom there is an east/west gateway in Istanbul. At this time there is an ongoing shift from west to east. So prayer for something so indigenous and expressing a gospel without the encumbrances of the clothing that has for centuries shaped our understanding of the gospel.

So tickets booked… and if we make a little contribution to the future that will be wonderful. Little acts and prayers – all we ever have to offer.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Hardened… but look!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

I have been in Rom. 9-11 for a little while (I am currently in Hebrews with its distinct theology of atonement that does not seem to finish at the cross – but that is for another day!) and I have been taken with the hardening that had come on part of Israel with the result that salvation came to the Gentiles. [The hardening uses a different verb to the hardening of Pharaoh… that hardening is perhaps likened to the effect of the sun on material – softening butter but hardening clay; on part of Israel the hardening is a ‘I don’t get that’ a kind of hardening – a statement of fact.]

I wonder if at the current time we could consider that ‘a hardening / I just don’t get it has come on part of the church’ and then we have to look at what is happening alongside / in spite of that? The ultra-nationalism of parts of the church maybe is not too different to the ethnic pride that ensnared a large part of Israel. ‘God is with us’ is always a challenging statement to make – exhibited in the parable of the ‘good’ Samaritan! There was no ‘good’ Samaritan for the Jew. Yet Jesus makes the point; priests, Levites walk the other way – justified in doing so as they have to keep themselves ‘clean'(????), the Samaritan is not restricted by any such conviction and proves to be a neighbour – the path to perfection that Jesus says we have to exhibit (Sermon on Mount where divine perfection is based on treating all others as human, something all forms of religion cannot do).

I think our question should be ‘in the light of some not getting it, we should not be surprised, but should look to what is happening by way of contrast’. How about for us protestants to look no further than the Vatican and listen to a pope who occupies a seat that should not exist? How about us prophesying charismatics take time to look at the comedians who can prophetically quote Jesus so that a wide audience can hear the difference between the voice of Jesus and the voice of politicians who lean on what they think is the support of Scripture?

I am seeking not to be disappointed in the support of Christians for a particular political line; and not to be disappointed by the abuse of the prophetic that is being exposed… and I am seeking to look for where maybe there is something happening where it ‘should’ not be happening. That is the way with God. I like God to work in my space… I suspect s/he would encourage me to look to other spaces.

Days of surprises. They are here!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A link to Jason Staples

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Updates

Thanks to the big crowd who came last night for ‘All Israel will be saved’. I decided not to run with 3 breakout rooms – for obvious reasons!!! – as although I do talk to myself putting my three guests into breakout rooms might have provoked them to the same practice!!! Of course for all of you who did not make it I simply wonder how will you ever get up to speed with what God is doing in the earth today? I ponder…

As I put in the pdf I am indebted to the fresh approach in the work of Jason Staples and the book(s) are readable but have to be read! An easier way in (and cheaper) would be to look up YouTube and find an interview with him. I think I pulled the salient points (and statistics) from what he wrote but an interview is a good way to get a grasp of what he has researched. Here is an example with James Tabor (a more than interesting character in his own right!!!).

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

April 16th: ‘All Israel…’

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Updates

Thursday night: for those joining here is the Zoom link for the evening (19:30 UK time):

Open Zoom Link

ID: 572 803 9267
Passcode: 5GkMTA

Prior to coming please either read (and probably make notes) from the ‘extended article’ on ‘All Israel will be saved’. It is found here: All Israel will be saved. If you prefer there is a shortish video that gives more of a summary:

I plan that we will have 90 minutes together (sufficient time to decipher everything Paul ever wrote or thought!!!???).

  • I will begin with a summary of the key points in the article I wrote.
  • This will be followed by questions for clarification.
  • Then will be time for push back or ‘not satisfied with’ / alternative views responses etc. (Either formed in the main session or in breakout rooms if there are too many of us to handle it in the main session… if in groups then there will be feedback when we are all together.)
  • And finally some open discussion on what would constitute a healthy response to ‘Israel’ of today.

I am aware this is a highly controversial / debated subject, so a quick reminder – do not come on board assuming I have now settled all discussions and am ‘right’… and neither come to the Zoom assuming that you are right!! we are not seeking to make a point but as the title to the series makes plain these are ‘explorations in theology and practice’. I do not anticipate that we will all be agreed at the end of the evening!

As I wrote in earlier posts the part that is ‘new’ follows the work of Jason Staples who has gone to great lengths to show that ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’ are not synonymous terms (others have hinted at that – eg James Dunn – but it has not been developed as far as I know prior to Staples). An article by Staples that can be easily accessed is here.

To read the details of Staples’ approach the book ‘Paul and the Resurrection of Israel’ is set to become a classic.

    I look forward to seeing you soon.

    SHARE ON:
    Post PermaLink

    Not the smartest

    Posted on
    by Martin Scott
    Posted in Prophetic Perspectives

    The title is reflective of my understanding of global events… though seems to be an appropriate strap-line for many of us and for many of those in the political scene. Have they not read anything on how empires collapse. I’ve read a little but have also read the book that either they have not read or they think helps them ‘hasten the day of the Lord’s coming’ through initiating Armageddon (a place that does not even exist!). Read it politically and it does not take long to realise that there are contrasts of enormous proportions: the lion (such a favourite image for us Christian lot) is actually a lamb (and actually a diminutive – a ‘little lamb’: no more mentions of ‘lion’ in that book for the ‘lion’ we have heard about was always a lamb slain from the foundation of the world); beasts full of visible power… Life poured out or centralised power that takes life (Rev. 18:13 – last of the 28 ‘cargoes’ (7×4 = fullness of the world) is that of human lives). Imperial power – the few at the centre promising benefits to all who comply but the benefits flow back to the few at the top… and when looking for increased authority will claim (or be attributed) to act with divine authority. At that stage the writing is on the wall for all to read.

    Last night a huge night in Hungary… and so a huge night in Europe. Last night quite big here too. Dreaming with discussions with regard to Orban, meeting (probably) the strongest theologian in Europe currently – a first for me. It kind of put last night’s elections into a theological space.

    People choose right or left (or supposed centre) for many reasons but Scripture puts humanity at the centre – not economy, nor even foreign policy. I am in Deuteronomy at the moment and have just read a couple of days ago Deut. 15 that commands the relief of poverty as a major priority (the passage that Jesus quotes ‘the poor you will always have with you’ – it is a rebuke NOT an endorsement of the system…). This is why the economy is a top political aspect – if we pray ‘let your kingdom come’ – though not as put forth by the majority of politicians!

    Immigration that knows no boundaries is indeed an issue, but the dehumanisation and demonising of the ‘stranger’ is a kingdom issue.

    Some two years back Gayle had the most significant dream of her life (I reckon she has 3-4 every month that are clearly and specifically from God). In it the weight of responsibility came on Europe and how Europe responded to Palestine would prove vital. In the dream ultra-Zionist Christians went in one direction and believers (not anti-Semitic but anti-genocide) and humanists came together. At the same time one of the people cleanest with regard to power.abuse / hierarchy was present with a mushroom on his nose (culture that we are blind to in spite of being as obvious as the nose on our face). We ALL have blind areas – there is so much more of the emptying out of power to come.

    If Europe could find a new way forward then the next element would be that of the economic system (and all we need do is read the current stats if we need convincing – one of the supposed strongest economies is so in debt that if spread out among the entire population would mean each individual owes over 100,000 (and add here whatever currency you wish: £, €, $). Unsustainable.

    Deuteronomy 15.

    Time will tell if the election result in Hungary is a move forward, but one aspect I have noticed in almost every area is when change comes there is often a rocking back and forth until something gives way.

    Christendom – the claim to have God’s authority to vindicate our actions that are anti-humanitarian and in the process to centralise our (in our image) form of Christianity is over… however these past days I have been focused on an instructive verse in Revelation:

    One of its [the beast rising out of the sea] heads seemed to have received a death blow, but its fatal wound had been healed. In amazement the whole earth followed the beast (Rev. 13:3).

    Every beast that receives a mortal wound looks for a resurrection, a resurrection that prolongs the life. This is what we are seeing currently with regard to Christendom. But the wound is mortal, so it is time to state that in the key places… the key of all places of course as always is one’s own heart.

    If we can do that, then the final part of the dream Gayle had can begin. Let the economy play with the children in the grass. Currently economies (primarily Western) sacrifice the future or present blessing – and see how that is biblicaly critiqued.

    I consider that last night was big… big in the sense of a small step within Europe. Not at the level of a party that has demonised others as losing power they held for 16 years, but at the theological level of humanising:

    Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.’

    ‘And who is my neighbour?’

    SHARE ON:
    Post PermaLink
    Perspectives