Going too far? #4

But why an ekklesia?

Paul seems intent on seeing an ekklesia in every significant city / area within the oikoumene (‘civilised’ land – most commonly used of the territory governed by an empire). In those cities there was already an ekklesia, maybe if we gave it a modern twist, a city government, a body of people who took on the responsibility for the shape, culture and values of the city; they were focused on enabling the city to a better future.

With Paul’s language it is not surprising that the initial understanding was not that he was calling people to raise their hand and pray the sinner’s prayer but that he was presenting a political vision for the oikoumene, indeed for the kosmos. And when he bodly called those who responded ‘the ekklesia of Jesus’ in that city that political understanding would have been re-enforced. Adding to this that the word ekklesia, in the Greek translation that was in common use, translated the Hebrew word qahal – used of the people when they were called to act in response to God. Seems to me that ekklesia has a lot to do with purpose and a purpose related to the wider community setting. If the Imperially endorsed ekklesia were to take responsibity for the city, to ensure that (e.g.) Corinth was a copy of Rome (headquarters), then the Jesus’ ekklesia had a responsibility to work toward (e.g.) Corinth being modelled on heaven (headquarters). This being the understanding behind Paul saying that ‘our citizenship (passport?) is in heaven’. It has nothing to do with going to heaven when we die, but a lot to do with here and now, not a much later idea to do with there and then.

So far no issue raised but as I am suggesting ‘going too far’ – although this time I do not think it is too far.

Paul was focused on getting something in place. He wrote to the Corinthians that if only their faith would increase he would no longer need to be working with them. His apostolic work would have been complete, that of laying a foundation so that they could get on with the work, the work of enabling heaven on earth, or within that part of the oikoumene that they carried responsibility for. What did Paul have in mind once that first task – an ekklesia in every city – had been accomplished?

We can have many debates on ‘church as shaped by the New Testament’, but I think we are probably missing the point. Why an ekklesia? Maybe Paul had something in mind once ‘their faith’ had increased, something beyond church as caring community? I think so, but then again he might only have had sight of the first level of strategy, in reality it does not matter too much what he saw or didn’t. What does matter is what do we see?

Church as healing community, as all-embracing of those who are open to the embrace of the love of heaven, is a wonderful reality, and exchanging that for a purpose driven, law-demanding group of dysfunctional people on a mission would be a disaster. There must always be a place for those who have been broken by the oppression of ‘sin’. Gayle is convinced John the disciple of Jesus had special needs, and ‘The Chosen’ presents Matthew as somewhere on a spectrum that we consider is not ‘normal’! There is space for all of us who don’t fit. A place for everyone, and not a place provided we get all our issues sorted and then can become some sort of warrior. However… you knew there would be an ‘however’.

There has to be something in evidence among ‘us’ that we take responsibility for where we are located.

I consider that with respect to the Bible we have to be ‘post-Pauline’, we need to follow the trajectory that we can see in his writings.

To be ‘post-Pauline’ we will not be un-Pauline. But we will need to move beyond getting dogged down in ‘church’ debates; moving beyond drawing firmly in the dust a line of who is in and who is out. If we are willing to draw in the dust as Jesus did (with the woman caught in adultery) we will touch the dust of humanity and challenge all religious judgements while calling people to their true humanity.

Losing the small vision of getting more people on the inside of our box, but encouraging the small people so that their faith will grow. Those who are serving but have no understanding of demonic powers should not be dealing with demonic strongholds – surely that is an area of responsibility that is ours. Removing powers that have dominated and restricted forward momentum so that good people can serve – our task. Painting a vision for a future that is not based on past inadequate foundations. The sky (heaven?) is the limit.

Paul seemed to have a level of vision (and a vision for the whole of the oikoumene) that he presented daily in Ephesus that got the attention of those who held supremely endorsed Roman authority to ensure that Ephesus (and the wider Asia Minor) was mirrored on Rome.They had not submitted to the ‘Jesus as personal Saviour’ message but had been impacted by ‘Jesus as the Saviour of the world’ message. Maybe if we focus too much on the ‘Jesus as personal Saviour’ message we might find that people wander in darkness without a clue about what a new heaven and earth might look like; maybe if we focused on ‘Jesus as the Saviour of the world’ people might find their way to Jesus as personal Saviour. Maybe then (and I think is possible) that the bees might buzz with anticipation that they will survive.

Can’t believe I am open to this

I am just a tad obsessed. I believe we are called to participate in the transformation of this world and that call is not some kind of carrot before the donkey to keep us moving in that direction without ever seeing any change. I also believe that small acts are the key. The books I wrote last year, those best sellers on every book list (cough, cough, splutter), were not made available on Amazon as that company has exhibited the Imperial spirit. A choice that makes purchasing and downloading them a lot more difficult. By not making them available there I am sure the whole economics of that company is being threatened. OR NOT! However I think small choices do make a difference, nay I suggest the difference. The two coins in the temple treasury seems to have released the prophetic revelation and declaration that resulted in one of the most magnificent buildings of the New Testament era coming down.

[Sidenote confession not to be read: I of course close my eyes to the complicit nature of my behaviour and choices in keeping the system intact, and focus on the one or two things that don’t cost me, but make me feel good… Though I think amidst any hypocrisy I do seek to make conscious small choices.]

So what am I open to that shocks me? Let’s take a step back.

Animals were used to portray nations from a Jewish perspective in Scripture. Domesticated (= good / Israel) and wild animals (= bad / Gentile nations), and then by extraction Imperial powers were portrayed by animals that could not be tamed, often termed ‘beasts’. (One of the reasons I do not read Daniel into the lion’s den as literal… something stronger than facing a literal wild animal was at stake, and given that the latter part of Daniel is written in Greek it served as a very powerful stimulus to resist the Greek / beastly occupation of the land.)

Mark’s short Gospel seems to be written to get us from A to B as quickly as possible, hence the continual use of ‘and immediately’, which becomes so repetitive that the English translations tend to obscure it passing over it as such repetition does not read well. And into the breathlessness of Mark there are significant pauses when he adds detail, detail often omitted by the other writers. If detail is added it is certainly not insignificant. One such detail comes in the temptation narrative.

He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.

He was with the wild beasts. Those beasts somehow had found a place in the shalom that Jesus brought – and of course an eschatological snapshot of the future referred to in such Scriptures as ‘the wolf will lie with the lamb’. The future was taking place in Jesus, in the resistance to the devil – this is why an ‘open heaven’ is much more complex than ‘I had 12 overcoming testimonies before breakfast’.

The picture does not seem to be one of opposition… it does not appear that the wild animals were eliminated… so if beasts (Daniel’s visions, Revelation and the sea / land beasts) represent Empires what are we to make of all this?

Part of what has provoked me in these past 6 months was the understanding that COVID was to give us a hard reset, and yet statistics show that the big corporations have simply steamed ahead, with the gaps between the wealthy and the not-wealthy having increased, so I have been asking what kind of reset have we seen?

As always being a believer in the priestly call of the body the real reset that I think we were to focus on was within the body. We, the small people, become the widow with the two coins to bring about a different future. I wonder if we have submitted / experienced the reset or are simply coming out the other side to return to singing our songs, while there is something much more significant that we can engage with (a kind of side-reference to my dream in 2010 of the façades opening up). I really hope we have and are ready to go through the doors that we can choose from that are in front of us.

Part of what will indicate we have gone through the reset will be a new wave of apostolic and prophetic presence at a foundational level where there is currently no building, no building that is somewhat reflective of that New Jerusalem.

It seems cos of our abuse of nature that pandemics will become something of the future landscape, but in spite of that I think it is now time to call ‘time up’ for this particular pandemic. Sufficient has taken place for the reset to be responded to by those who can / should respond… and the wild beasts continue.

Who is going to ride on the back of the wild beasts?

Revelation gives us an image of who rides on the back of the beast, and Jesus refused the offer of the ready made structure of the Roman Empire (the offer of the kingdoms of this oikoumene). In the light of that image and the clear refusal I can hardly believe what I might be open to consider.

Could it be that we are supposed to learn how to co-habit space with the beasts, so that the shalom we live in means they are not destructive?

I probably need to click publish real soon, before either deleting this post, or completely selling my soul.

Jesus offered Caesar’s throne

The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendour; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours” (Lk. 4:5-7).

Quick acknowledgement: I picked up the consistent use of the Greek word ‘oikoumene’ as being a reference to the inhabited world of Rome in Andrew Perriman’s writings, then began to look at Luke’s use.

Skip the next part if you wish… it is simply the background as to why this word ‘oikoumene’ is not simply a synonym for ‘world’ (kosomos), but is more concrete… and in the Lukan context is referring to the Roman Empire.


All the kingdoms of the world (πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τῆς οἰκουμένης): the kingdoms of the oikoumene. This last word can be used (at times) interchangeably with the term ‘world’ (kosmos) and Matthew uses this term (kosmos) in his account of the temptations (Matthew 4:8), where Luke uses the term oikoumene.

The two terms can be used interchangeably, the kosmos term is certainly global and the term oikoumene is rooted in the verb oikeo (to dwell), and although it can carry a global sense, being simply synonymous to the word kosmos, many authors choose to use it in a more restrictive way, to refer to where people dwell, the inhabited world, the civilised world. This then opened it to something even more specific: the boundary of a specific political entity.

Luke is one of those authors, and given that he is writing his two volumes for the world of the Roman Empire it makes sense that he uses this word oikoumene in the restrictive sense of the ‘Roman world’, the ‘Roman Empire’. Before coming to Luke’s use a few other examples.

Josephus (Jewish aristocratic Jewish historian, 37AD-100AD (approx datre of death)) uses the term oikoumene to refer to the geographical extent of the Roman Empire, recording that Agrippa had said to Caius that he hoped one day Caius would be appointed ruler of the world (oikoumene), in other words that he would become Caesar over the Roman Empire.

Likewise the Old Testament uses it to describe territory within a political boundary.

  • Babylon, for her sins, will experience an armed nation coming and destroying the whole oikoumene (Is. 13:4,5,9,17,18,19). The Medes come and destroy the Babylonian empire, they destroy the whole oikoumene, not the whole world.
  • In Daniel we have Nebuchadnezzar ruling the whole oikoumene (Dan. 3:2), he is the ruler of the Babylonian Empire.

Luke seems to consistently use oikoumene to carry this meaning of territory ruled by a political entity, and that entity being Rome.

  • The whole oikoumene was to be registered (Lk. 2:1), the whole ‘world’ being the world that Caesar ruled over.
  • Agabus warns of a famine that would come on the whole oikoumene (Acts 11:8), this famine came during the reign of Claudius (Roman Emperor).
  • The Gospel proclamation turned the whole oikoumene upside down, the order of Rome (Acts 17:6-7).
  • Artemis was ‘worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the oikoumene‘ (Acts 19:27). The claim was that she was worshiped throughout the Roman province of Asia and beyond throughout the whole Roman Empire.

Luke is therefore using the term for the Graeco-Roman world, using it very concretely.

Back then to the temptations of Jesus. It is not too far a stretch to push Luke’s account of the temptations to being a concrete offer of the Roman Empire to Jesus. That fits with his consistent use. The offer of being the new Caesar: Jesus appointed as anti-Christ!

Luke 3 begins with the setting, not simply historically, but concretely and ‘spiritually’ in terms of the dominating powers:

In the fifteenth year of the reign Tiberius Caesar.

Replace Tiberius… bring about the change you want!

In Mark’s Gospel we have the intriguing extra that Jesus was in the wilderness with the ‘wild animals’. A truly eschatological scene fulfilling ‘the wolf will lie with the lamb’ (Is. 11:6 and Mk. 1:13), but perhaps given that Israel was the counterpart to Adam who is given responsibility for creation, for the animals, it was not surprising to have Israel as ‘son of man’ and all opposing kingdoms to be presented as beasts (wild animals, hence the description of political powers opposing heaven’s agenda as ‘beasts’). In Mark then there is probably also a hint of true shalom to the nations, even to the nations that opposed the direction of heaven.

He does not rule over the nations as per Rome; the Rome that brought peace through war! Jesus brought peace, but not peace as the world gives (woe to you who say ‘peace, peace’ fits this context). There is a shalom, true peace, the wild animals were with him.

Peace on earth, being the announcement from heaven (Lk. 2:14) then takes on a strong anti-imperial sense.

Perspectives