Tag: Gospel

No denial – he was human

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Often evangelicals will fight the battle over the divinity of Christ. And too many times pulling on material that is not as strong as it might at first appear. ‘Son of God’, for example does not necessarily mean divinity, as this was a term applied to Israel. Divine qualities do not necessarily imply an identity of deity. The early followers came at things from the other end. This Jesus was human… and came to terms with ‘what kind of person is this that even the winds and waves obey him?’ Human but at another level all together. This extraordinary human then is seen as the Messiah, the Promised deliverer. But I suggest they did not see him as ‘divine’ and certainly not as ‘the second Person of the Trinity’. They had a journey from knowing that he was (truly) human to in what sense was he ‘God’.

The journey of the evangelical is often the other way. He is ‘God’, but in what sense is he human? The early followers seemed to make their journey, I am not convinced that all evangelicals make their journey.

It is interesting that John in his letters strongly argues for the humanity of Jesus as an acid test:

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world (1 John 4:2,3).

If there is a denial of his humanity (come in the flesh) that is a manifestation of the spirit of antichrist. Not if there is a denial of his divinity! Of course John is pushing back strongly against the Docetist heresy, but nevertheless the emphasis is incredible.

The humanity of Jesus is so key. God affirms humanity at every point. The resurrection, where the rebirth of the Universe is initiated, with the refusal to leave the physical body in the tomb is the greatest ever affirmation of humanity’s value to heaven.

His humanity means…

  • that any maturity I will reach is through the path of becoming yet more human. Of moving from humanity being created in my image to being shaped by his image, the only truly human one.
  • I need to sacrilise all of life that enables humanity to live life.
  • I need to demonise anything that dehumanises.
  • I need to see people, no longer after the flesh.
  • I honour all who work for humanity’s future, as expressed in this life, for it is this-life expression that will determine that-life expression (see my last post).
  • I do not see my identity along the lines of any elitism, be that ethnicity, class or gender.

This aspect of the humanity of Jesus is what has caused us to understand that if someone can truly see the value of people, they are ever so close to seeing God. They might be a professed atheist – and on that we have to ask what is the ‘God’ they do not believe in – but they might have more sight on God than the person who ticks all the ‘Jesus is God’ boxes but can only see others as objects. Maybe to see, and truly see, humanity is to see God… to see Jesus is to see who this God truly is. ‘If you have seen me you have seen the Father’.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

No, not an advocate of Christendom!!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Had a few responses to the post ‘Toward the vacuum’ and also Steve Lowton re-posted it on his facebook page soliciting a few more comments. In the post I was both reflecting back on the dream from years back on the opening up of the façades, the response of a number of believers in the public sphere and the danger of the ‘familiar’ being our default response. In the post – now some 8 years on from the dream – I suppose there were a few paradigms that crept through that I am becoming increasingly aware of. So I thought I would outline what I think they might be below.

Surprisingly (!!) I am not an advocate of Christendom. I have been too heavily influenced by anabaptism, the new church movement and the like to be in that camp. I see Christendom as an aberration of the apostolic faith, not as some sort of fulfilment of eschatological hope. And given the nature of God (another paradigm here) this does not mean that God did not use Christendom… he works in all things for a purpose. His work ‘in’ does not mean his approval ‘of’.

Paradigm 1: the church is here for society

The primary role of the church is not to evangelise society (keep reading…), but to, as witness to God, create / fashion / hold a shape where something redemptive can fill it. It is our responsibility as royal priesthood to stand to mediate the presence of God to the world and to allow the world to grow up into a healthy space. This is not a) withdrawal to a spiritual realm (sorry to one stand of anabaptism there) nor b) to impose some kind of theonomy on the world (sorry to that strand of Calvinism, Reconstructionism, Kuyperism, 7 mountains etc.). The latter is ultra-Christendom. Not all come to faith, but there are those who will grasp the Jesus’ values and fill space in a Jesus-like way, even if some of those were to be atheists. (I see this in the reference to the Asiarchs in Acts, for example.) The former (a withdrawal) is to deny the intensely political nature of the Gospel. Not political in the sense of party politics, but carrying an all encompassing vision for society. The kind of vision we have been trying to capture with the word ‘convivencia’.

(Now don’t read ‘don’t evangelise’ into the above but do read ‘some evangelism is not a witness’.)

Paradigm 2: the world is not the church

My background of course left me very clear on that… however, the two realms are related. One has been redeemed, the other, not being evil but fallen, is there to be redeemed. The church that resorts to the familiar and does not connect with the era in which it is placed and participate with God’s redemption of the world might not be able to fully own the term ‘church’. Church is political (the ekklesia of Christ in every geography was a provocative term when the cities of the empire already had their ekklesia shaping the city and future). We have to somehow engage with the tension that not everything is in Christ but everything is in God. In him we move, live and have our being…

In Jeremiah 22: 16 Josiah is honoured because

He judged the cause of the poor and the needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? says the Lord.

The chapter begins with a call to:

Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.

Jeremiah did not say that Josiah’s behaviour was indicative of someone on the way to knowing God, nor that someone who knows God will seek to behave in this way. His words are too strong for that. Someone behaving in that way is showing the evidence that they know God! (And Jesus promise was not that people who followed him would know God… but that they would know who this God was.)

Paradigm 3: God is not in control

A little strong maybe? But what on earth do we mean by ‘in control’. Love and partnership have to be the ways in which we understand God at work in the earth, not omnipotence. Love means he is at work. It means he will work in and through whatever he is given. But he does not act in isolation – we are partners with heaven.

In all the above I am not an advocate of Christendom, I do see a distinction between the church and the world. I am not looking to Christianise society, but to heavenify it. That kingdom that comes from heaven does mean that convivencia has to manifest. Space for those who are not believers in Jesus to express their gifts for the sake of others. It means any wall that is built is a sign of failure, that any bridgebuilding will mean we are trampled on from both sides.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Convivencia

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

We watched the unfolding of the Catalan (non?) referendum yesterday appalled at the violence with over 800 injuries some serious. Glad to see that those who resisted did so (in the main) non-violently. It is never easy to be a law enforcement person in those situations, but the way the Catalan police behaved was very moving indeed confronting unnecessary force by police from outside Cataluña. The intransigent stances of central government and the separatist movement in Cataluña and the resulting clashes was at a level beyond what would be expected in any Western country. The video below will give some indication of the level of tension on the day:

No one is the victor after such a day. It was Wellington who was credited with the statement that the only thing sadder than a battle won is a battle lost. Yesterday highlights the deep wounds in the land, and (being optimistic!!) those wounds have to be exposed for there to be healing. We anticipate a few years of unrest and tension. Into that has to come the good news of Jesus that is intensely political. Not political in the sense of party politics, but in the sense of how we live together.

‘Convivencia’ was a term used to describe the era when there was majority Muslim rule in Spain and those of the three faiths: Islam, Judaism and Christianity, were living together. Whenever we look back we can often romanticise about a past era, and I am sure it was not perfect, but there was something taking place that was good. The repair of the damage caused to the land and the corporate memory of the (re-)conquering of Spain for the Christian faith and the subsequent expulsion of both Jews and Muslims is what Gayle and I have given ourselves to this year. If there has been any shift in that then what is beneath the surface will become very evident. As we travelled we became convinced that the Pauline Gospel has a message for society that is well summed by the word convivencia.

Words have some measure of intrinsic meaning but they essentially carry the meaning that is injected into them. In that way a word can change meaning over time, or be used in different ways by different people. We want to use the word ‘convivencia’ to express that the Gospel gives space to one and all to live together, with their differences honoured, and with a specific watchful eye to make sure that those who are marginalised have space to live. I would not consider that Paul was looking to ‘christianise’ but that he understood the church as royal priesthood for the wider world.

So we have been using the word as a shorthand way of expressing our desires for society. Maybe the word has always been in the vocabulary of the politicians in Spain, but over the past days, and yesterday in particular I don’t think a politician has talked into the Cataluñan / Spanish situation and not used the word. In the few speeches we listened to yesterday it must have been mentioned 50 times. Maybe we are now hearing it and it was always there, but I have my suspicions…

The word is now in the spiritual realm to re-shape hopes and release substance. At that stage the next element that happens is a strong attempt to colonise a word. In colonisation something is owned, redefined and rendered as a result powerless. It seems that when the word was used yesterday convivencia was fought over to mean, you have to live the way we say and that is convivencia!! Control and conformity, and certainly any confrontation or opposition has to be resisted otherwise convivencia will be broken.

Convivencia can never be shaped that way. It is something given away; it will result in messiness, difference, tension, conflicting ideas… but in listening and dialogue. It is a Gospel gift, for it is in God that we all move and have our being.

One huge aspect that first placed Spain on the map for me was in 2001 when in response to a question I made a totally non-pre-meditated response that Spain has no need for a revival history and that it was the only nation that on biblical authority could claim that there were first century apostolic unanswered prayers in the land.

If convivencia is a useful word, and if it is the outworking at a societal (political) level of the Pauline Gospel then we should anticipate a battle both over the word and the reality these coming years. And if there are a handful of believers who will see their faith as calling them to seek the true welfare of the city (polis / political space) these next years might just yield some very interesting results that could just smell a little like heaven. Not a Christian country (where did that myth come from!!??) but an environment where all can dwell – where the gates are never shut.

Yesterday was a catalytic day. Maybe this week Cataloña could declare independence. The narratives spun by central Madrid and by Barcelona will continue to gain traction. But there is another narrative, and we expect that narrative also to be spoken. It is not down to the church to speak it but to take responsibility for it to be spoken. The word is now in the the spiritual realm ready to re-shape hopes and also release substance.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Animals together

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

Jesus might have had a little twinkle in his eye when he sent out the disciples imparting an identity to them:

I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. So be as wise as snakes and as harmless as doves.

Apparently on the ‘wolf restaurant’ there are all varieties of dishes with lamb as the star of each dish: roast lamb, boiled lamb, barbecued lamb, lamb in salsa… They seem to just love eating lamb! Just a tad vulnerable I think.

It struck me the other day that if Isaiah has a value as a backdrop to so much of the New Testament we have two passages there that tie in: Isaiah 11:1-9, and the shorter passage Isaiah 66: 25

Wolves and lambs will eat together.
Lions will eat straw like oxen.
Serpents will not bite anyone.
They will eat nothing but dust.
None of those animals will harm or destroy
anything or anyone on my holy mountain of Zion.

For those who have followed our journey through the ReConquista we have come to understand that Paul’s Gospel had at its heart ‘convivencia’, and that the body of Christ as royal priesthood carries a catalytic responsibility for the society where it is located so that the society might be a place where at a real level convivencia is manifest. This is indeed a tall challenge when we look at the state of the world as we have it, but we would also contend that society has been hampered from experiencing anything approaching convivencia by the invasion of empire into the church. Imperialism draws on (supposed) external authority to legitimise its behaviour as the ‘good’ manifestation of power so as they can at least give benefits to those who comply if not punish those who do not comply. In Christendom terms it means we can name some nations as ‘sheep’ nations and expect increasingly for some kind of Christianised laws to be applied, allowing us to purify the land through increased border controls.

This is why we are convinced that there is a revolution (a turning around) that is at hand. 500 years after the Reformation there is a rooting out of imperialism. For empires to really shift there has to be a shift in the church. The breaking free from the paradigm of ‘the few at the centre who shape the future, promising benefits to those who comply, while in reality the benefits make their way back to the centre.’ At the last supper Jesus set the pattern of breaking the centre. He gave himself away, including to Judas, thus any former centre had been dissipated. Pentecost follows the same pattern – on all flesh, and with an emphasis on the margins. The margins became the new focus – hence not a hope of a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem!

In these days something has to be pioneered, and maybe the place where this could take place is in ‘secularised’ Europe. I consider it is certainly easier to see such a shift in a place where the church is already marginalised. Easier never to dream of being a centre when without power, than of having a key place at the table of power (early church vs. post-Constantine). All that has to be dealt with is ‘fear’ and all that needs to be increased is faith.

Lambs among wolves – that is a fear inspiring identity, and requires a faith increase.

Convivencia – the lamb and the wolf lying down together, eating together. The vision of the kingdom, a vision of convivencia. Sadly, as we have seen in the ReConquista, the wolf identity was too often taken by those who claimed to follow Jesus. At best we end up with wolf against wolf (war) and at worst the followers of Christ place on the table their ‘enemy’ to eat: a complete reversal of the Jesus’ paradigm.

This next phase will require faith at a new level, and with it many changes of paradigm. It will require mission being understood as relocation. Sent among. It will require witness more than evangelism. Or maybe evangelism will not be something done but something proclaimed – a new order of being and relationship, and that will have to be witnessed to. It will require an understanding that we are not here to get as many out of the world into the church, but as much of heaven into the world.

There are many ways this can be expressed. Of late the understanding of Israel and then the church as royal priesthood has been illuminating. The pursuit of the path toward nationhood by Israel marked her failure, and the alignment of church with Imperial power so that there was a mutual endorsement of each other likewise marked her failure. But if we can recover the vision of this being God’s world, and that there is a redeemed people so that the presence of heaven might be beyond that redeemed people (‘the two hands of God’ as per the early church fathers) we will see a profound shift and progress. Maybe if we can embrace new paradigms more opens up than is closed down. Of course we will lose something – our specialness in the wrong sense; an understanding of grace as salvation as opposed to a gift-calling to serve and to lay down one’s life; a shift from power to love; from the taking of life to the giving of life.

Royal priesthood as calling, or maybe we can suggest it will manifest as a true convivencia. Space opened up where all can live together, where hospitality reigns, where it is not dependent on age, gender, race nor religion. Holding that space in humility with the clarity that Jesus alone is the way to the Father is a challenge. He exhibited what it was to create convivencia. Those who set themselves against that were the religious exclusivists, those who would not give hospitality would find that their future would be harsher than that of Sodom. The way of Jesus is not one way among many, but it is the way for the many to live together.

Challenging days ahead. But as lambs we have to be.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Mojacar

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Strategic Prayer

Leaving Cartagena behind we moved on to Mojacar on the south coast. We had visited Mojacar in 2010 so knew it a little. It was really intended as a sleeping point for us as we prepared for the major drive through the Alpujarras, but…

Mojacar

A quaint, beautiful place with narrow streets so well preserved:

Mojacar Streets

Before getting in to Mojácar and what we did there we look back on our first trip across the south of mainland Spain in 2010 with deep appreciation. We did this from Mallorca, renting a car and taking a tent, but now looking back it was so foundational to our understanding of Spain, and it was what eventually took us to Cádiz. It was at the end of our southern trip, we were in the city for just over an hour and then basically prayed for it for the next 2 years on an all-but daily basis. An accidental connection but a shift for us. Now living, more or less at the point of entry for that first trip, we reflect how what seems accidental can turn out to be so full of God.

Mojacar FountainSo off we went to Mojácar. Gayle says – so why are we here? To that point of time we had not read too much about how Mojácar fitted into the historic scene we were looking at. Not too much later we were reading one perspective that what took place in Mojácar was the root of what sparked the rebellions of the Alpujarras. We would not place such weight on it as that but the key event that we prayed into and were very moved by was the story surrounding the Muslim mayor (Al Avez) of Mojácar in 1488, in the immediate era when the Christian forces were closing in on Granada.

On June 10, 1488, the leaders of the region agreed to submit to the Christian forces, although Mojácar’s alcaide refused to attend, considering his town to be already Spanish. When his non-attendance was followed up he responded with (as on the plaque above the fountain):

Yo soy tan español como vos, cuando llevamos los de mi raza más de setecientos años de vivir en España nos decís que nos marchemos. Yo no hice nunca armas contra los cristianos, creo justo pues que se nos trate como hermanos, no como enemigos y se nos permita seguir labrando nuestra tierra, y añadió: Yo antes de entregarme como un cobarde, sabré morir como un español.

I am as Spanish as you, when we came (those of my race) more than seven hundred years to live in Spain, and now you are telling us to leave. I have never taken arms against Christians, I believe we should be treated like brothers, not like enemies and we should be allowed to continue to work our land, and I add: Before I surrender like a coward, I will die like a Spaniard.

This is the story line that we have found again and again. Different faith, but Spanish. They loved the land, this was their home. This follow up meeting resolved things… and then a second story line that comes up so often, within a few short years the Christians broke their treaty, moved all Muslims out of Mojacar (their town) and moved Christians in. The story lines repeat as is so often the case.

We have also noticed over years there is a pattern of betrayal leads to destruction / murder… and maybe some measure of crossing borders precedes betrayal. This is the same pattern as we first encountered in Mallorca: piracy to betrayal to murder.

We went back to the meeting place in Mojacar to the fountain where it took place. The place where regardless of faith everyone had shared together (and still do to this day) dependent on the same source.

To drink from the same fountain where speeches had been made, where people no different to us had drunk for centuries was an easy and necessary place to pray.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Cartagena

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Strategic Prayer

Our first stop these past two weeks where we spent some hours to see, smell, taste and pray was in Cartagena. A port city and naval base in the Murcia region of southeast Spain. Founded by the Carthaginians around 228 BC, named after Carthage it was designed as the entry point for the conquest of Spain. The Romans captured it some years later and the city boomed during the Roman period. Among its many Roman ruins a theatre from 1st-century BC.

It was a prominent city during the Islamic period and was also one of the ports that Muslims were expelled through. In visiting these places, not as a tourist, but with a focus on prayer it is always surprising what kicks in. Slavery through the port was one aspect we prayed into, but the bigger situation was regarding the Pauline gospel. I do not believe Paul made it to Spain – of course there is no proof either way. Part of my convictions goes back to 2001 when in response to a question in Hanover about what wells to re-dig in Spain, I heard myself say that ‘You do not need wells of revival in Spain to re-dig. What other nation on the planet can we say with biblical authority that has unanswered first century apostolic prayer in the soil?’

Gayle believed very strongly that though Paul probably did not get there, she could ‘feel’ the weight of the presence of Gospel there from an associate of Paul. We called again for what had been released of that original message to permeate once more through the city, and for those who are believers there to again be confident in their proclamation.

Our focus on the expulsions was less strong here than we expected, but later in our journey we sense that we have picked up fresh understanding about the Pauline Gospel. As I indicated yesterday the impact personally when seeking to pray into historical issues is normally very deep.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

I have been silent but…

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Strategic Prayer

Gayle and I have been on the road for 2 weeks and in the next few posts I will try to pick up on the broad headlines of where we have been and what we have done. Some 2.5k kms (1.5k miles) later across the south of Spain and into the mountainous area just below the Sierra Nevadas called the Alpujarras (we were up as high as 4000ft / 1200mtrs). Mosquito bites, one night no where to park up other than a car park, a birthday while on the road (I have had a few before), but above all amazing to connect with history.

South of Spain

Our journey took us to Cartagena, through the mountainous area of Las Alpujarras (and windy roads), Granada, Las Navas de Tolosa, Cordoba and down to Tarifa and finally on to the amazing town of Frigiliana (nr. Malaga). Frigiliana has been voted Spain’s most beautiful village and it would be hard to argue with that. We have been motivated for this, and the previous trips this year, by the expulsion of the Muslims from Spain. Toward the end of last year the Lord put this on our hearts, not knowing too much about it, but are more convinced now than then that this has to be done.

Over the next few days I will try and blog about some of the key parts of these past two weeks and will put a few reflections in this post to set the scene. Over many years I have found that in prayer the bigger changes take place internally. It is probably impossible to get involved in repentant prayer for history without being changed oneself. In a recent trip a good Spanish person expressed that only in prayer had she realised that there was hatred in her ‘blood’ toward Muslims. We have no criticism of that. We all think we are OK until we confront the kenotic love of God who gives his life not for his friends but for his enemies.

Here are a few ways in which we are being deeply impacted:

  • It does matter whether one is a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew (the three religions that have impacted Spain, and I use the terms to apply whether the person is nominal or a ‘believer’) and the outworking is one of oppression over the other – they are all in opposition, to one level or another, to Jesus.
  • Our spiritual ancestors are those of the Jewish faith who were called to be priests for the nations. Like them we have failed, wanting to be as the others, determining who is in and who is out, rather than seeking to be servants for all.
  • Those called in that way when become guilty of oppressing others are extremely guilty because of using the name of Jesus, and they sow what is reaped elsewhere. Sharia law… seed is in the ‘Christian’ nation; Dayesh / Al Qaeda… look to the crusades, expulsions in Spain, Sykes-Picot agreement (French / British)… and ultimately to Christendom / Constantinianism. Sadly those elements are not part of history past but are often being beefed up among many charismatic movements today.
  • Those evicted were of the land. They were either converts who had been in the land for (all-but) forever, or were descendants of those who came some 700 years prior. The persecutions and war was civil war. Many were genuinely, as they understood it in their era, converts to Christianity, and as a result were kicked out only to be rejected and often killed when sent back to where their ancestors came from. (Imagine an immigration policy that evicted all those who had been in a land less than 700 years!!)
  • Never perfect, but there was a general ‘convivencia’ (living together) in the land for Jews, Christians and Muslims under Muslim rule. Part of Paul’s apostolic Gospel would be to restore that… without ever losing sight of the uniqueness of Jesus. Paul was clear on both. ‘We are all his offspring’. And he himself as a pious Jew needed Jesus otherwise he would remain as the ‘chief of sinners’. It seems we have strayed so far from the Pauline Gospel, so that election for Jews means there are two ways for justification, and we have the right to demonise all Muslims.

This journey is changing us. We sow our prayers for a change in the nation, Europe, and for a restoration of the Pauline gospel.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Provocative or what?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

We have recently begun some research on the overthrow of the Islamic (Moorish) rule of Spain, a rule that lasted some 700 years. Yesterday we were put in touch with an extended article in the Guardian on this very thing and last night ordered the book, the reviews of which suggest it will be invaluable to our research. Again and again when the timing is right the information needed just seems to surface. Pursuing a repentant journey on this will be necessary and might cause just a few questions, as there are not a few who see the Crusades and the defence (e.g.) of Malta as truly ‘Christian’. Constantine and subsequent Christendom not being an aberration for a number of them.

The other extreme can be to spiritualise the message of Jesus in a way that makes it non-political. This is something that we cannot see as possible from the NT. The message, indeed the very terms, such as ‘gospel’, ‘son of God’, ‘ekklesia’, ‘kingdom’ and even ‘repentance’ are deeply embedded in a first century political culture. We would need to make the actions and words of Jesus non-culturally applicable and somehow ‘timeless’. We know we are not supposed to take a text out of context, but what is more important is not to take a (the) life out of context.

The entry into Jerusalem was certainly very provocative. Many scholars suggest that there were two entries into Jerusalem on that spring day. From the east came Jesus into the city, cheered on with the cries of ‘Hosanna’. Most of his followers were not the elite and powerful. On the west side of the city entered another, Rome’s representative, Pilate. One proclaimed the kingdom of God, the other the kingdom, power and glory of Rome. The entry of the Roman governors of Judea had become standard practice for Jewish festivals. As Jerusalem swelled with the huge influx of people, so Rome, probably both for practical reasons (increased security) and political reasons (an opportune time to flex muscle) always increased their mighty presence.

So on the west side a visible demonstration of power. Cavalry, foot soldiers, leather armour, shields, banners, golden eagles as standards, the beating of drums. A visible display of power and might. A timely reminder that peace, Roman style, is in the land. Peace enforced through force, and displayed visibly for all to see when necessary through the brutal practice of crucifixion. An open display of power – that was the cross. Another aspect involving a political statement then is Paul’s words in Col. 2:14,15

He took away the weapons of the powers and authorities. He made a public show of them. He won the battle over them by dying on the cross.

A faith statement in the extreme, and an extremely pointed political statement. The cross displayed the ultimate Imperial power, so went the narrative of the Empire. The gospel narrative absolutely negated that Imperial narrative.

From the west came the power of Rome into the city. From the east side Jesus entered on a donkey manifestly fulfilling the entry of a prophesied future king to Jerusalem ‘riding on a donkey’ (Zech. 9:9). This king will not parade weapons of war but rather banish war from the land:

I will take the chariots away from Ephraim. I will remove the war horses from Jerusalem. I will break the bows that are used in battle.
Your king will announce peace to the nations. He will rule from ocean to ocean. His kingdom will reach from the Euphrates River to the ends of the earth.
I will set your prisoners free from where their enemies are keeping them. I will do it because of the blood that put my covenant with you into effect.
Return to your place of safety, you prisoners who still have hope. Even now I announce that I will give you back much more than you had before. (Zech. 9:10-12).

Rome’s path to peace was through conquest and war (the first rider on the white horse in Revelation). Jesus’ path to peace is through the shedding of his own blood (the rider on the second white horse in Revelation).

Political and deeply provocative. There is a build up over those days. A coin is shown to Jesus when he is asked about paying taxes to Rome. The image on the coin is of Caesar, the divine Caesar, the son of god. His reply is not a ‘there are two realms and never do they mix’. Rather echoing the final words of Mattathias to his sons who had called them to gather the people and avenge the wrong that had been done to Israel, saying

Pay back the Gentiles in full, and obey the commands of the law.

Judas (his son) then subsequently led the Maccabean revolt, cleansing the Temple and refortifying Jerusalem, establishing a new royal dynasty. That indeed was paying back the Gentiles.

Now it is no longer Greece but Rome that is the overlord. Give to Caesar what is his due! Those words could have been taken at the same level as those of Mattathias. An armed rebellion could have been sparked by those words, and I think that was exactly how Judas Iscariot (did he want to live up to that name?) understood them.

Yet it remains that if Jesus kingdom was of this world that his followers would have taken up the sword. His kingdom comes from another source all-together. Deeply political, but the entry to the city was of a different order then, and needs to be so again today.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Did you hear (of) him?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

Romans 10:13 is a great promise regardless of being a Jew or a Gentile:

For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

And then Paul goes into his faith comes from hearing argument and working back from that he gives a significant role to the ‘one who preaches’, which was one of the works of the apostle – I suggest that contextually we should not think pulpit and neither should we limit the ‘preaching’ to three points but should include the political (small ‘p’ but a very real ‘p’) aspect of the gospel, particularly when the Isaiah beautiful feet passage he quotes is of the deliverance from the imperial powers.

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Rom. 10:14-17.)

A justification for ‘telling’ people is Paul’s words ‘and how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard’. The most important aspect then is to get the facts (the gospel truth) across. We have then discharged our responsibility, and those who hear are then fully accountable. Of course the last statement has presented a dilemma for some: would they be less guilty if they had not heard, thereby being judged by the light they have, rather than by the gospel? (An aside: I think this springs from a negative view of salvation as if it is primarily salvation from hell, thus reducing salvation to a non-NT understanding of being safe, rather than the predominantly positive perspective of being saved.)

And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?

I think there is a major adjustment we have to make in our thinking on this aspect of discharging our responsibility, or that our responsibility is discharged once we have ‘told them the gospel’. The Greek language when using the verb ‘to hear’ uses the normal object when referring to something that is heard. For example ‘I heard a sound’ would take the object (known as the accusative case). But if we were to hear a person speak this would not take the accusative but would switch to the genitive (possessive case ‘of’). We have here the genitive case which I strongly suggest should not be translated as ‘hear of / about him’ but should be translated ‘hear him’ in the sense of ‘hear his living voice’. This is what we would expect as I believe it is the voice of the person that is being referred to, not facts about the person. This then makes sense of the closing part: faith comes from hearing and hearing through the word of Christ. It is not hearing about Christ it is hearing Jesus that brings about faith, to hear his voice makes all the difference.

The goal is not somehow to communicate facts, to get people through the door where they will hear truth, nor even to get them on a course, it is to be faithful to Jesus so that those we live among hear, through words and lifestyle, the very voice of Jesus. Those who truly hear can begin a journey of faith. Those who speak need to speak in such a way that Jesus is heard and not simply a set of facts (even if those facts were correct). If our words are purely ‘spiritual’ perhaps we are not being communicators of Jesus. If only our words communicate maybe we need to think again.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Perspectives