Tag: eschatology

No, not future, and yet of course maybe

There could be one, but!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I do not believe the Bible prophesies that there will be a future antiChrist. Interestingly, for example, Hal Lindsey has a chapter on the antiChrist in his book ‘Late Great Planet Earth’, but nowhere does he quote the verses (all in 1 John) that actually use the term ‘antiChrist’ in that chapter! The teaching of a future antiChrist has to put together ‘man of lalwlessness’ and ‘false prophet’ alongside each other and then suggest somehow that is what John was referring to.

In John the use of the term is of a spirit that ‘denies the Father and the Son’. If there was some early expectation of ‘an antiChrist’ we also have the very real issue that anything future in the NT we would have to show is still future for us – cf. the man of lawlessness was future for Paul’s readers in Thessalonians, one of his early letters, but is fulfilled in the entry to the Temple in Jerusalem in AD70… the sacrilege that brings desolation (from Daniel referring to Antiochus Epiphanes, and to AD70 that Luke helps decipher the biblical language with ‘armies surrounding Jerusalem).

Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and you know that no lie comes from the truth. Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; everyone who confesses the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:18-23).
And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world (1 John 4:3).

Could there be a future ‘one-world-ruler’? Yes, there could. Could we quote many Scriptures to show what kind of person that was, once he (and more likely to be a ‘he’ than a ‘she’) was visible? Yes indeed… in the same way that Judas Iscariot was a example of a friend who betrayed and the OT Scripture was quoted to show what was going, an OT Scripture that did not prophesy Judas’ existence.

A one-world-government. OH yes. That is / and was always the conflict we are caught up in. The do-not-eat of that tree set up the conflict; it set powers in place that have always been pushing for a full manifestation of such a scenario. The tower of Babel is another wonderful story that illustrates so much that gives us hope – God had to come down to see this big tower that was reaching into heaven (the irony is not to be missed) and the unimpressive project remained unfinished. Add to that the day of Pentecost and the reversal of the God-set boundary and we should really not have too much to be worried about. Pentecost was to release the imagination of a new world, one shaped from heaven and manifesting on the earth… seems we have been keen to reverse that with the fear of a big ever-getting-badder world with our only hope to escape. (Now what was that prayer of Jesus? The prayer connected to glory? I think it might be something like ‘I pray you do not take them out of the world’?)

Loads to imagine and yet! We as body of Christ have not really got hold of living counter-culture to the world. Where there is active persecution (thankfully) the church has sought to be true in their allegiance and suffered enormously. None of that goes unnoticed and is certainly ‘adding to the afflictions of Christ’; but in the more comfortable West we have so often retreated to ‘we’ve lost our privileges (Christendom) and want them back so we can rule (have our way)’. That does not add to the afflictions of Christ, but rather inflicts suffering on those we are here to bless… Christ-like or antiChrist-like? To deny the Father and the Son probably has some element of not acknowledging their true core identity: not surprising as the ‘fall’ was a desire to be like the god they imagined, not living out their true humanity, that is truly God-like.

We really should have a critical eye open to the mark of the beast, not as some implant or tattoo but as an ever-present reality. I guess if we could have transported someone from the first Century to our day and explained to them how our economic system works they would freak out with thoughts of 666 flashing in neon lights through their heads. Part of the freak might be simply the inability to come to terms with the huge change in the past 2 millennia, but part of the freak I suspect might be justifiable biblically. Just as Babylon is always present, and is always incomplete, we should not totally freak out ourselves, but we do need our eyes open. Following Jesus does not start with a set of private beliefs with no impact on our lives; indeed for a certain rich young ruler it was to begin with a change to his bank account!

Conscience, yours is not mine; convictions, yours are not mine; honest assessment, honest over where I am compromising, and then honestly asking if it is in order to move today closer to tomorrow (redemptive) or is my compromise submitting tomorrow to that one-world-government reality.

I am so glad that (as I see it) AD70 sets such a wonderful ceiling to the vast majority of the NT, saving me from speculation, fearfully trying to avoid the world to stay clean, but anchoring me in the questions of ‘OK Martin so how are you going to live then’ – much more relevant that a future antiChrist, are the questions of whether I am more Christ-like or antiChrist-like. I am not called to avoid antiChrst as a person; I think I am instructed to avoid imbibing of antiChrist at all levels.

Maybe I should add I do see one book that goes beyond the AD70 scene; the ‘cartoon’ book of Revelation, probably the best critique of power that has ever been, after all it is an unveiling, taking away the facade, the mask. Written to minority groups within the huge matrix system of the day, the only time a Babylon has been manifest to that level, truly one that was the machine that enabled that era to be labelled as ‘the fullness of times’ giving all the oikoumene (inhabited, civilised world) into the hands of the ‘devil’. Thank God that in Jesus the offer of taking that over was refused. His kingdom is not of this world(-system / -order). Never was, never is, and never will be – the will be bit is a challenge to a lot of eschatology. Years ago I read the Reconstructionist writings. Turn the other cheek was explained as simply a response that was necessary now, but then… there will be another response. That teaching (by non-charismatics) influenced so much of charismatic theology in the decades post-80s. Jesus, ‘the Coming King’, but not king as you know it.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

And the end comes

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I had an encouraging and provocative email a few days ago with some comments in it that I took as a stimulus to push on with something I had thought about doing for some time. I’ll probably try and spin out a few posts over a number of days. Here is the outline I will try and follow in three progressions.

1) I am pretty conservative with regard to the parousia (commonly called ‘second coming’) of Jesus, but just to be clear there are aspects that I cannot buy into that sadly have been thought to be ‘conservative’!

2) Given I am conservative I will write about where I am settled and why.

3) Understanding that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem was not exactly as expected (and not to mention his death!) what if we are going to be also surprised. We might be pretty settled in our viewpoints (my point 2 above) but what if our expectations are going to be pointing us in a wrong direction. So the third aspect I will try to write on will be open to perspectives that might be surprise.

Conservative… I take Scripture as authoritative, hence I am conservative; the interpretation and understanding of the texts are where the challenge comes in. If we have always read texts a certain way then it is very difficult to read them another way. I realised this recently when I was reading about how to handle when a wealthy person showed up at a NT gathering. James instructs his readers (Jas. 2:1-4) not to give them the best seat, not to move someone from a lower social class out of the way to accommodate them. Although I know that the early church did not gather in a church building I still somehow kind of transport the text into a culture I know… with a kind of ‘come sit at the front’ response being critiqued. The context though, as was the case in the early church, was a meal. Meals, ever so important in the Jewish and the Graeco-Roman culture, and not only meals but banquets (deipnon). The gathering was around a meal, a deipnon, specifically the deipnon of / honouring the Lord. In contrast to the meals of the Imperial world where class was everything, dictating who was invited, where people were seated as it was a major key to maintain the social structures, the Lord’s deipnon, subverted social norms. (The references not only to seating but to ‘stand over here’, ‘sit at my feet’ etc. only fit the description of the meal table, with people reclining there.)

We, as I reference above, so often read back from where we are and in so doing we impose what we know / have experienced back into the text. Secondly, we can easily miss the references to culture and history, particularly in terms of the Lordship of Jesus the very specific Imperial language used; and thirdly, I suspect could well be meanings intended by the Holy Spirit that were not the author’s expected (‘intended meaning’?) interpretation.

In this first post a quick push back against an idea that I have no time for. The idea of a ‘secret rapture’. No time for it (and this is only a quick response) because it

a) is a fairly new invention (1831 with J.N. Darby / 1829-30 if one wants to see it within Margaret MacDonald’s vision that probably fuelled Darby’s belief). There are no advocates for this in the history preceding this time.

b) It gives the wrong direction to biblical movement. Movement in Scripture is from heaven to earth, even creation (Genesis 1) itself is that way directed. Heaven is not the goal, a renewed creation is the final horizon in view.

c) It results in a nonsense answer to the question Paul is being asked in 1 Thessalonians 4, that question being ‘what about those who have died’. According to the rapture theory the answer is we will be raptured, so be encouraged! Such an answer is great for us, but for those who have died. The question is the common Jewish question that brought about the answer ‘resurrection’, for the expectation was of the kingdom to come here, and for the righteous to be rewarded here; those who had died… resurrected… HERE.

d) In that passage (and the other Pauline passages) it is to miss the strong Imperial language and imagery. The very words, parousia – the arrival of the figure of honour such as the emperor, apantesis (1 Thess. 4:17) the meeting, used of meeting the emperor as one of the invited ones who went out of the city in order to come back into the city as part of the honoured group. The movement is toward the location not away from it.

e) The one taken, the other left… If we push that into some future event I think we fail to consider what Jesus was addressing, the events that would take place to the generation following his words. We have to consider AD66-70 as the time of major trauma for Jews (tribulation in the extreme, with up to 500 a day being crucified by the walls of the city) and not only trauma for the Jews but for the world system that had brought peace, for the year (68AD) proved to be the year of the four emperors, with the whole of the civilised world (the oikoumene) being threatened to fall apart, caught up in plot, counter-plot and civil war. The chaos helped raise beliefs in Jerusalem that God was about to deliver the city! Sadly for those inside that belief proved to only fuel a false hope. Meanwhile those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah left the city, in line with his instructions (in Luke’s Gospel even one we would understand) to flee when they ‘saw the city surrounded by armies’.

The success of the ‘rapture’ teaching was given a great boost when the Billy Graham of his day, Dwight Moody, embraced it, then came the publication of the Scofield Bible, the development of Dallas Theological Seminary and the Moody Bible Institute, and the embracing of the theology by the Pentecostal Movement post-Azusa Street. Hence in many parts of the world it would seem that the only teaching about eschatology is centred in on the secret rapture – after all there are around 300 million classical Pentecostals worldwide.

I consider that a smart move is to put notes in a Bible. The effect is to read the text, realise I don’t quite get that, look at the notes, now I get it, with the result that the text becomes the Bible! If we add to that the writing of novels (they are advertised as only novels) but once read they become the guide to interpretation.

What about an antiChrist, a tribulation or a millennium… or Jesus coming to ‘reign’ from Jerusalem? This post is long enough so I will get to those soon!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

And then the ‘end’

But what ended?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Certainly not the end of the world… I consider the resurrection of the physical body is the ultimate evidence of God’s commitment to terra firma. [The only Scriptures that can be pulled out to suggest a great burning up are seriously apocalyptic, where ‘end of the world’ language is used to convey ‘end of world as you knew it’. 2 Peter 3 which does – in some translations! – talk about the destruction of the earth, also says that the world was already destroyed through the flood. So a big final burnup doesn’t get my vote… a new – and the word is not new as in not seen before, but new as in ‘re-newed’, regenerated – heavens and new earth, where in some way heaven is on earth, does get my vote.]

Matthew 24:14 says (NRSV):

And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come.

This verse has been used to urge a mission-mindedness that the end waits for all the ethnic groups to have heard (all nations: ta ethne)… however. Certainly a great motivation, but is this what Jesus meant? Backing up the prophetic responses of Jesus were provoked by the question the disciples asked when they heard Jesus inform them that a great destruction was coming to the city and the temple:

When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matt. 24:3).

I used to think this was probably two questions (R.T. France was an advocate of this): when will these things happen (Temple destroyed), what will be the sign of your parousia (as per Daniel 7, the son of man coming in the clouds, and then what will be the end of the age – that final parousia.

If it was two questions, it still seems contextually that Jesus answered it as one question. He did not say this, but the answer is ‘AD70 guys… not long away’, or to quote Jesus:

Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place (Matt. 24:34).

Now to a short interlude…

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.

[An aside: why the delay in the parousia… I think God wants to give us time to produce the blocks that will give us the best possible new creation.]

End of interlude!

Jesus’ single answer is that something huge would end in AD70. The end, not of the world, but of ‘the age’. We live the other side of that, and in the light of the teachings of Jesus the burden to bring the good news of the kingdom (and here we have to think of the ‘good news of the kingdom of Rome’ that was being proclaimed throughout the whole kosmos, when we try to work out what our good news is) to all ethnic groups is totally valid.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Speculation all the way

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

OK so this post will have a little speculation thrown in (unlike all my other posts?), and it might well be pure speculation, but what better kind than ‘pure’ can there be?

Let’s start with we are in trouble… the planet and our future. At a personal level we have lived where we are 8 summers, and even in that time it is noticeable that the temperatures are rising. Ask those who have lived here 70 years and they will say it was never like this in the old days. At current levels of increase some parts of Spain will not be habitable in the next 30 or so years. The sea level is rising, it is more acidic than ever… We read of heat waves in different parts of the world. I am not a scientist, so of course am aware that there are scientists who would argue against me… however, a few years back I met a creditable climate scientist and asked him if there were genuinely creditable scientists (i.e. not simply ones who had PhD’s in science but whose specialist was climate issues) who deny climate change. He said there was one above all others, who was a believer, and who through a theophany claimed he was commissioned to rebutt the science that believes in climate change. So my proviso is… I am no expert, but as the title is ‘speculation all the way’.

To round this part off here is a quote from an article I read a few days ago:

One of the hardest parts of writing about the history of the climate crisis was stumbling across warnings from the 1950s, 60s and 70s, musing about how things might get bad sometime after the year 2000 if no one did anything about fossil fuels. They still had hope back then. Reading that hope today hurts.
We are now living our ancestors’ nightmares, and it didn’t have to be this way. If we are looking to apportion blame, it is those who deliberately peddled doubt that should be first in line.

Jumping from climate issues to another area where I lack expertise (and when I look at the experts and how they disagree with one another in most fields it makes one wonder if there truly are experts!!). So here we jump to the world of theology and ‘end of world’ scenarios, or better put ‘parousia scenarios’ (return of Christ, in popular language).

Cards on table… no I don’t believe that a future antiChrist is prophesied… It is possible to put some Scriptures that are not addressing the same thing and end up with a future antiChrist. I think though it takes the same kind of hermeneutic that is used to have Nostradamus accurately predicting the future! (Think I am wrong… just read Hal Lindsay’s books as they progress over the decades… same hermeneutic at play but the predictions progress, fitting with real time not biblical text!!!!!!) There might, of course, be a future antiChrist, for in a biblical sense there always has been a one-world government – that which opposes the kingdom of God (i.e. the pejorative use of ‘world’ in for example John’s Gospel). If one were to arise they would certainly fulfil what we read in Scripture – but if so that does NOT make a case at all for the Bible told us there would be one. (We can compare this to the Scriptures quoted concerning Judas Iscariot – no prediction in sight but he fulfilled a whole set of texts…) The only time the world has been under a one-world government is the world of the New Testament, and in line with the tower of Babel / Babylon it was not the finished, complete, absolute example. Babel / Babylon shows us that will not exist.

I see the years of 66-70, with the year of the four emperors right in the midst of the Jewish Wars as the sign of the Son of Man coming with the clouds. Why? Because that seems to me be in line with Daniel’s reference to ‘one coming as a son of man to the Ancient of Days’ – the coming is by the Son of Man to God, not a parousia to the earth; understanding it this way it also reconciles all the times Jesus promised that those alive while he was on earth would see that event. Jesus was not mistaken!! But proved to be very accurate indeed. The sign was visible, the end of an era and the sign that new creation, and only new creation counted from the death of Jesus onwards.

In other words, I see almost nothing in the Bible beyond the horizon of the fall of Jerusalem (AD70). Revelation, book of, I date later and find it to be the most devastating and relevant critique of Imperial power.

Anyway enough of my lack of expertise… back to speculation.

We could be a generation, or two away from the end of either the human race, or the way the human race has developed, the end of a phase of human existence. If so I am so optimistic that:

either,

  • we could see a generation reached with the presence of God in ways beyond our imagination (and it will have to go beyond our imagination – what we can see);

or,

  • we could see a generation reached who turn this whole thing around and there is a major reversal to the direction of humanity that has been governed by ‘we will be like God’ (and who have consequently have ‘moved every boundary marker’ to achieve and demonstrate this).

The end of the human race but the presence (parousia? for that is the core meaning of the word) of God / Jesus saturating that people. A final generation. Or a generation that marks the finality to the pursuit of godlessness, and opening the way for generations beyond them to embrace the transcendent presence of heaven – a new heavens and a new earth?

So beyond the speculation comes the optimism. If either of the two possibilities of a ‘final’ generation, in the sense of there can be no more, or a final one in the sense of ‘enough of this madness’, I am looking for something that goes beyond our imagination. Beyond what we can see, for God is able to do above and beyond what we ask or imagine… according to the power at work among us… perhaps we could translate that as in proportion to the power that is at work among us, in proportion… but way beyond.

I actually think we are at the beginning of a stage where the Spirit is touching those who are afar off, touching them where they are. If we do not connect we will never know. It does not make the church redundant, but certainly shoots a warning across the bow of those who claim that they are doing church as the Bible teaches. They might be trying to do church as they think Paul was doing it (I doubt that – unless they are as crazy as he was with his ekklesia language)… and even if we were truly doing it as he was doing it, we would not be doing it as he would be doing it today!!

The Spirit’s presence… and there has to be, as always, a recognition that the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Jesus. That was an issue for the Jewish world. Laying on one side the challenging doctrine of the Trinity, the Jews accepted that the divine Spirit was indeed present (in theory) among them; the Christian gospel was that ‘from on high’ Jesus had poured out the Spirit… the Spirit was none other than the Spirit of Jesus. There lies our challenge. Converting people to come join us? No, first being converted to join them, so that what is happening in their midst they can discover is nothing less than the Spirit of Jesus, the firstborn of all creation.

Climate change, global crisis, the earth crying out… the scene is set. I speculate, but optimism rises.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

This time – it is the end

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

COVID-19; no-deal Brexit a real possibility; recount the election AGAIN; Jewish group not happy with arms deal to UAE; Santa on strike and no Christmas pudding in the shops. Any combination of the above of course can be read as signs of the times that the end is here within view.

There could be an end in view of course with democracy being repeatedly challenged, or the possible economic outcome of a non-deal for the UK, or if the virus is only the first of a number to whack us this century. End of the world? No, but the end of certain states of play as we have them. That has always been the case and societal endings are often amidst crisis, something giving way for something else to rise in its place, either something better or worse.

I have completed four books – two waiting publication – and am just hanging around a little before finding the right direction for the final three. I intend them to be on our future hope, but with a flashy title of course. Not sure what to write as on many of the classic themes (Middle Eastern conflict; Armageddon; great persecution; rapture; millennium; antiChrist) I think the Bible is either silent or quite eloquent as to why we really should not go there. If I go down the silence of Scripture route not a lot of material for a series of three books – simply a page in large print with the words from the parenthesis above and then a dash and the word NOT following it.

So while hanging around, a short little explanation here. There are ‘horizons’ in view in Scripture. (Back in the day writers such as George Ladd gave a helpful way of describing the Jews with one horizon, a future that marked the two epochs of ‘this age’ and the ‘age to come’, which the NT separated the division yet further with the kingdom being ‘already but not yet’. Helpful but over-simplified. Reading the Scriptures even more consistently as historic-narrative N.T. Wright, and even more radically Andrew Perrimann, opens up a slightly more complex view – one horizon becomes further divided.)

Although it is not totally accurate to say ‘the Jews believed…’ as there were diverse beliefs among Jews, but ignoring that caveat the Jews believed in a future horizon, when Messiah would appear and there would be a total re-ordering of the world (NB: not much ‘going off to heaven’ going on here; we have the Greeks to thank for that angle.) Simplistically we could suggest they had a horizon in view; a one-horizon view.

Along comes the Incarnation and for those who believed he was the Messiah, certainly post-the-cross the one-future-horizon was inadequate. Looking back from the resurrection they understood that what took place over that period of time from the first Christmas to the first Easter was a horizon. It was a dramatic intervention of God in the world, into the Jewish context, and at a very specific time, when there was an all but one-world government that was opposed to the values of God, that oppressed all. Peace established through war, so much so that the temple to ‘Peace’ (goddess) was on Mars Hill (Mars being the god of war!). [Netflix have a great series on the Roman Empire that gives some good insights into it.]

That intervention marked something incredible for there was the revelation of who the God who created all things really was. The cross being one of the places where that glory was revealed, hence the self-emptying of Jesus (Phil. 2) can only be understood as a revelation of the eternal nature of God, not something taken on for a short season. (If not yet read I think that Thomas J. Oord, Uncontrolling Love, is so worth a read.)

That first horizon had enormous implications for the world. But first, huge implications for the Jewish world. Into that world came the proclamation of no other name under heaven by which people can be saved (Acts 4:12); not the name of Abraham, the patriarchs, David the idealised king. None of them can do it… this is picked up in Revelation 5 in what I reverently term cartoon form. When we read the New Testament in its historic context, with the majority certainly written before the calamitous era of 66-70AD, we necessarily read the pages somewhat differently. It is not about our day, nor about our future… but is deeply significant for our day and our future.

Leads us to that second horizon that now comes in view. Jesus spoke of a future that would happen within a generation, that the events would be climactic and therefore when it came to fleeing to pray the flight might not be in winter or on the Sabbath – all of which are speaking into a specific geography and a specific time of history. No reason to push it to our future, but to understand it as the foreseeable future of those hearers, and that was the horizon that the early followers of Jesus had understood him to be speaking of. The horizon that culminates a generation after that first Easter. In the final days of that time when, as predicted, ‘the armies shall surround Jerusalem’ the Romans were crucifying up to 500 Jews on a daily basis by the city walls so as those inside knew that their days were numbered. The upside was that this was the sign of the Son of Man coming (Daniel 7), but that upside was an upside in marking the end of an era in terms of the intervention of history, the actual era of history was indeed very painful for the ‘elect’ those who were part of the chosen nation, but had not aligned with the truly elect one.

Given that our writings are pre-70AD whenever we come to future references such as Paul in 2 Thessalonians (maybe 52AD) concerning the ‘man of sin’ there is again no reason to push something beyond the lifetime of the readers, to something that had no reference to their time and setting. I still see such events as past for us, future for them and sitting in that same period of time before the second horizon came fully into view.

A third horizon though does seem to persist through all the writings, and I think it is the horizon that inspires the hope that comes through in Revelation. The book might well have had an initial write in the mid-60s but I stick with a late date (maybe 96AD) for the book as we have it. After the Jewish wars. The focus has switched, the Temple has gone, not one stone upon another left… but the beast has continued, indeed survived against all odds on numerous occasions but particularly in that ‘year of the four emperors’ that took place in the midst of the tumultuous era of the Jewish Wars. Mortal wounds to the head, but continues – that was the story and continues to be the story.

So time to bring this post to its appointed end. ‘Do I believe in a future antiChrist?’ Perhaps and probably as history witnesses to many antiChrists (past) in both limited and all-but universal situations. There is always a tendency to ‘make a name for ourselves’ towers to be raised, along with the witness of Scripture that they will never reach heaven and be permanent. ‘Do I think the Bible predicts a future antiChrist?’ No. No more than it predicted Judas Iscariot, but when the time came it easily said that he fulfilled the Scripture.

Well that would be some of the content to appear somewhere in books 5-7, along with references to the books of Scripture that show how there were clear predictions and also a recording of the history related to the predictions, yet the predictions were not fulfilled. A shocker? Or a nice indicator that prediction like that is not the area that Scripture deals with – rather the category of ‘promise’. Now there’s a thought – fulfilments of Scripture that look nothing like they were predicted. Might just get on with writing those books.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A 72% perspective I have

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

This site is headed as ‘perspectives’. I just held back from calling it ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ but then just mentioned to resist. I am now involved in these zoom groups and believe it or not there is not just a simple agreement that what I have written there is the finished article. I am shocked! So I thought I would scribble here a few thoughts that are maybe along the lines of a perspective that is firming up. Don’t take it as the truth (unlike everything else I write….)

I am still wrestling a little with how I write vol. 5 which I plan to be an introduction to our hope. First what I don’t go for – no millennium (just too many symbolic numbers in the book to try to make this one literal); no Armageddon (the place does not exist, indicating that surely it cannot be literal); no rapture (an invention from 1831); no signs of the times (a little more controversial and take a little longer to explain why); etc. So not along the lines of what many think of as conventional eschatology. My question is whose conventions?

Basically for me very simple. We provide the building blocks (hence Paul’s warning to apostles not to mess around in 1 Cor. 3) and God builds it. We do not build it; God does not provide the material. Then Jesus has not yet returned as not enough material.

Can be a little depressing as it would be nice for God just to wind it all up and all the injustices sorted. So, if we are waiting, a lot seems to be down to us… But here is a thought.

What if there is already (and has been for some time) enough material to wind it all up and to bring in the age to come. But the age to come could be even better yet and for this reason God would like to hold back a little longer so that it can be even better still?

Crazy thought? Well it is only a perspective and one that I am only 72% endorsing. I do wonder though if the word ‘eschatos’ pushes us beyond the 72% conviction? ‘Telos’ is the other word for ‘end’ in NT Greek, used for example of Jesus being the end of the law, the terminus and termination. Maybe eschatos (‘eschatology’) indicates it is the end but not the final. What if the eschaton is to be the beginning of something incredible, and God is holding back to give us the best beginning that we can help bring about?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Get up

Maybe it will be a very short book

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I found an interesting set of quotes the other day regarding Martin Luther. Although never dogmatic, and apparently not always easy to work out what he believed, he seemed to lean heavily toward ‘soul-sleep’ for those who have died.

Lutheran scholar Kantonen (The Christian Hope) quotes Luther as writing:

For just as one who falls asleep and reaches morning unexpectedly when he awakes, without knowing what has happened to him, so we shall suddenly rise on the last day without knowing how we have come into death and through death… We shall sleep, until He comes and knocks on the little grave and says, Doctor Martin, get up! Then I shall rise in a moment and be happy with Him forever.

Not sure Jesus will actually call him ‘Doctor’ Martin but aside from that very cute indeed!

I have always vacillated between the two positions of ‘soul-sleep’ (though don’t like the word ‘soul’ in that context) and an interim bodiless existence post death in ‘heaven’. Why vacillate? Because one view might just have the vote biblically, the other I think wins it theologically. That kind of dilemma illustrates why it is not always easy to be certain. On this issue it does not matter too much – we will all find out one day! It does not greatly affect the here and now. Gender issues (male / female relationships… not to mention the complications that arise when we consider the gender spectrum) would be something that cuts a lot deeper with respect to the here and now; our view of the planet, the economy etc., now those are critical issues.

As above on Luther’s view a theology that enables us to interpret texts will be essential; and that theology has to be nuanced through listening to the voices of science for such studies are not intrinsically anti-Scripture, far from it! And we cannot just adopt a theology that ignores the texts.

So I continue to vacillate on the post-death issue that I started with, and probably on more issues than I care to admit. On post-death there seems to be a big empty space in Scripture, for the texts are predominantly shaped by a focus on quality of life here and now, and on life in the age to come – life post-post-death, post the parousia of Jesus, what I describe as the ‘here and then’. For this reason it is probably best to be agnostic and focus on life here (being human, truly human) and on life then – when we will be truly embodied humanity.

I am partly interested in this as I am wrestling with how to write volume 5 of my short series. I wanted it to be an introduction to our hope, but was going too quickly down the line of bashing through a bunch of texts, instead (a heads up coming) I am thinking of just a broad sweep suggesting the reasons why I don’t believe in an antiChrist, a millennium, a great tribulation, a rapture, eternal punishing (note the last three letters, happy to replace with four others), a rebuilt temple, blah blah blah. I would certainly include prophetic writings where in the same book of the Bible that contains the prophecies the outcome is mentioned, and the outcome is vastly different to the prophetic word (that messes with one’s head for sure, and I think is a lack in the works that suggest the apostles are the equivalent of the prophets of the Old Testament… a view not sustainable by Scripture, but one I suspect is motivated to endorse a view of inspiration). I might write about ‘there could be a future antiChrist that matches the description in the Bible, but even if so I don’t consider the Bible taught us to believe that there will be one, it did not predict it.’

And I will probably write a chapter on the only concern we have, and the only delay in Jesus’ appearing is that we have not supplied enough building material yet for the new creation.

Or I might just say ‘deeply agnostic on all the above but consider that what we do here and now is shaped by what we believe will be here and then, and what we do now will shape here and then.’

If I choose the latter and no more that truly is a booklet. Maybe this post is the fifth book(let).

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Luke 21 – the pestilence

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Perhaps I should not have been surprised but I saw a number of articles on the web tying together Jesus’ words in Luke 21: 11 concerning pestilence and the coronavirus. But NO!!!

It would be such a stretch to get to the idea that Jesus was prophesying the virus and thus indicating that we are in the ‘end times’. I even saw one post that said these they had expected these events to be in the first 31/2 years of the 7 year period of tribulation, but were happening now. WOW… (Where do these people get the time from to think all of that… read a little, and only a little history to see where these ideas come from.)

Before having a quick look at Luke 21 here is what I consider is the framework we have to be looking at. The Jewish ‘one-horizon’ view shifts to multiple horizons in the New Testament. The Jewish one horizon view was simply that God will through the Messiah intervene, subduing all his (and therefore Israel’s enemies) causing the great reversal to take place. (Some views had two Messiahs, others saw the intervention without a Messiah – the ‘Jewish’ view is really the Jewish views.)

There were inevitable unforeseen events by those who shared that view. We see that reflected in the road to Emmaus discourse. ‘Did you not understand that first the Son of Man must suffer…?’ being Jesus rhetorical question to the married couple. Fresh horizons had appeared and others were yet to appear. The one horizon was proving inaccurate, multiple horizons needed to be seen.

We might separate out the immediate horizons of the Cross, Burial, Resurrection and Pentecost or we can put them together. Together they effectively make the first horizon. Jesus inaugurated a new day post-his forty days in the wilderness, opening up his earthly ministry, and post-cross another 40 day period of transition to the post-Pentecost ministry of the body of Christ. So the first unseen horizon was that of Easter / Pentecost. Not surprising as a common Jewish view was that when the great reversal took place it would be marked by the resurrection of the dead and an outpouring of the Spirit.

(A sidenote the 40 day periods and the 40 year period from Jesus predictions in Luke 21 to the fall of Jerusalem are tied to the Exodus period to the entry to the land. Jesus beginning his 40 days with his baptism, his death being an ‘exodus’ and all paving the way for the entry to the land / lands.)

The second horizon was that of the fall of Jerusalem within a generation, and Jesus clearly prophesied that. (I also consider that Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 is referring to this event.) Such a dramatic and traumatic end of an era. The religious centre, the hope for the nations destroyed, and it marks a major cutting off between Jewish believers in Jesus and Jewish non-believers in Jesus. The followers of Christ abandoned Jerusalem understanding that was exactly what Jesus instructed them to do, leaving behind many residents to the brutal reprisals of Rome, which included many punished with crucifixion.

The third horizon I consider lies future. The parousia of Jesus, the time of the resurrection, final judgement and such events. For me only the book of Revelation is written post-the Fall of Jerusalem (AD70), and it is not obsessed with prophesying events to come but with unveiling the reality of our warfare, of what we are asking to change every time we pray ‘let your kingdom (basileia) come’. The book and that ongoing disciples’ prayer is set in the context of the Empire (basileia) of Rome.

So to Jesus and his words in Luke 21. The immediate context is of the Temple that Jesus said would be utterly destroyed resulting in the question of ‘when will these things take place?’ (21:7). The time frame was future for them, but past for us. Into that time frame – the next 40 years from the time of speaking – Jesus spoke of great traumas and of famines and pestilences. The decades that followed culminating in the brutal assault of Jerusalem (66-70AD) with mass crucifixions, cannibalism inside the city, the appearance of false Messiahs etc., were horrendous. Horrendous within Israel and with a sharp focus on Jerusalem but also deeply traumatic in the wider Imperial world. 68AD saw the year of the four emperors, as civil war broke out, and there seems to be some allusion to that in Revelation with the mortal wound to the head of the beast, but the wonder from the people that the beast survived. (Babylon’s cry, and the tell-tell sign that any institution is embracing Babylon’s values, are that ‘we will survive’ and at any cost, that ‘we will always have children’ but in the process eats the life of the children.)

In Luke 21 Jesus speaks to ‘you‘, speaks of being brought before synagogues, and decisively about Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, and that they will need to flee from the city and from Judea, and that the wrath will come on ‘these people’. Everything is geo-, ethnic- and temporal related. Josephus and other contemporary writers bear out the horrendous nature of those years.

In that context the sign will be visible that the Son of Man will come in the clouds – words spoken by Jesus already to the High Priest that he would personally see that event. This is not some far off future reference, but takes up the Daniel 7 imagery of one like a son of Man coming to the ancient of Days. The kingdom of God is in his hands. The hope for the future is not in a holy place, nor a holy land but in the hands of Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified one, is the resurrected vindicated One. To believe that is the continual challenge for us at all times as we now live in the period of time between the second and third horizon, and for us, as for every post-AD70 generation the Revelation 4, 5 challenge remain central, where Jesus came to the One seated on the throne as only the Lamb of God was able to open the seals (human destiny).

So I guess it is no surprise given the above approach that I do not see any reference to the coronavirus in Scripture. Scripture is ever so helpful in not giving us the future, but in giving us a future hope that cannot be shaken.

Is the coronavirus a sign of the end times? For sure. It is a sign that we have been in the end times ever since Jesus poured out from on high the Spirit, that this whole world is groaning waiting for liberation from its bondage to decay. So it is a sign in a very general sense, but not in a specific way. God might well speak through the current events, and I am sure he is. What is he saying? Our God is always speaking, we might hear different things but they must all focus on his love for us and for the world, that he has not abandoned us… and therefore the call is there to love and not to abandon others. Let your kingdom come.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Opposing the inevitable?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

Whenever I think there are people who are not consistent I quickly make sure I do not check myself in the mirror. I, of course, would never be inconsistent.

Anyone reading between the lines of the posts I write will probably pick up that I voted ‘remain’ as far as the UK and the EU is concerned. Not because the EU is perfect, nor that it is a chosen vehicle to bring in the kingdom of heaven. There are many reasons, I am sure, to vote ‘leave’. To add into the remain / leave vote our Christian convictions about the future unfolding of prophecy just complicates it all.

An observation I have carried for a number of years is how difficult it must be if one holds to certain view of the future. Some of the Christian negative response to such issues as the European Union is to do with a view on prophecy relating to the end times. A revived Roman empire (of sorts) with space for the rise of a prospective world leader (antiChrist) is a view.

Now comes the complication! If I assume for a moment that was a valid view the question then becomes very challenging indeed. Do I oppose that happening… and set myself against what has been prophesied? Does not seem a good way to go… but if I go along with it all as that would align with prophecy… then I could find myself supporting an antiChrist shape? Of course with the EU vote I could take the view that the UK was not to be part of that revived shape (or at least north of Hadrian’s wall… oops, another politically divisive possibility) and so then I would have a win / win situation. The win / win would be that the UK (or at least Scotland) does not submit to the rising shape of antChrist, and I leave the rest of Europe to be the fulfilment of prophecy. Sorry – a win / lose scenario.

Just glad I have a simple approach.

  • I do not see the future laid out in Scripture… other than Jesus is coming and we live in the light of that and seek to align ourselves, and everything we can influence, to heaven’s values. So I have no need to wrestle with such thoughts as an antiChrist and a revived Roman Empire. Phew!
  • Powers are present, they are fallen, but can be influenced. The inevitable does not have to manifest provided we are involved.
  • Self fulfilling prophecies are easy to spot. ‘Don’t be involved it is evil.’ I respond obediently and do not get involved, then watch as it gets worse. Seems a connection – we remove the salt and there is no limitation placed on what was there.
  • Prayer content seems simple. Let your kingdom come.

I like the simple approach. I don’t need to wrestle with the conflict of seeking to oppose what I believe God has ordained.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

OK, but when?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Evidently not May 21, nor October 21, 2011!! So many miscalculations so now it is my turn… I am soliciting a little help from 2 Peter 3 and his three-fold reason as to why the parousia was still future for him, and as it turns out for us too. (Before looking at his perspective, it is worth noting, as an aside, that although he uses language that could be pressed, if taken literally, to mean the destruction of creation this is not likely his meaning. Two reasons – he uses typical apocalyptic language (strong metaphorical and physical language to describe the significance of an event, not to describe the literal result); and the second reason for not taking it as literal is he has already stated that the flood had ‘destroyed’ the world of that time. It did not physically and literally destroy that world.)

Peter seems to list three reasons in response to those who mocked about his ‘coming’ (2 Peter 3: 3, 4; parousia, the common word related to his coming, and carries the meaning of ‘presence’). The three factors are laid out in verses 8-12.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.

  • A perspective of time – what seems to be forever to us is not viewed the same way by God.
  • Any ‘delay’ means more people can be rescued. This is a very interesting perspective and challenges the pessimistic view that ‘only a few will be saved’. The longer the delay the more that will perish is the result of the pessimistic view. (A much longer discussion needed here, but I suggest we need to reverse ‘only those who receive Jesus will be saved’ to ‘only those who reject Jesus will be lost’. Maybe one day I will post on that… maybe…)
  • It is the third reason that pushes me again to underline the unfinished work of Christ. How we live, what we look forward to speeds (brings it closer in time) the parousia. There is a work for us to do. There is a future and we align our lives in the light of that, we focus on the future, that vision burns of a new just world and as a result the future will take place sooner rather than later. I take that literally, and as I have written in the past, the work we are involved in is in the preparation of the material that God requires for the New Jerusalem. We cannot build it – an unfinished Babylon is all we can achieve, but a finished New Jerusalem is what comes down from heaven, from the throne of God. Only God can do this; the perfect cannot rise up; it has to come down to transform what is here.

But the jewels, the gold, the precious stones? They originate here. Wood, straw and the like are not part of the materials God will use, and Paul acknowledges (in the context of ‘temple’ construction) that there are apostles whose works are simply that. How they work will not survive the fire, it will be considered of no eternal value. In that light he provokes us all to consider what our works consist of. God will and is building with the material that we supply that passes the fire test.

When will he come? When the work of Christ is finished… the aspect of his work that he is now doing through the body. Jesus explained to his disciples that his food was to do the will of God who sent him and to ‘finish the work’ he was given to do. And in like manner so he sent us… to finish the work.

It is time to get an eye that sees the world that is to come, the world that is the other side of the fire that destroys all unrighteousness. What world do we see? If we are to hasten that day then we need to align our lives with the values of that world, not this; we must sow seed now that is the seed for that harvest. Small acts now, but vital ones. The mockers mock, but the seers work.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives