Over the first two months of this Daywatch initiative we
have been praying into the mindset change that a kenotic understanding of God’s
rule brings. The whole purpose of this is to help us in the intercessory
challenge of being repositioned as God’s people in the world. Each month we
have been encouraged to apply the apostolic teaching of the gospels to our
every day working lives and to the political and economic situations of our
contemporary world.
The current situation in Israel-Palestine provides a
crucial example for the application of the kenotic, not sovereign, power of the
kingdom of God. This is the power of love expressed
in the statements “love your enemies”, “lay down his life”, “Christ
died for us”, and “humbled
himself to the point of death”. This immediately gives us the only advice that
can help either side in the conflict. Instead of insisting on their own
sovereign rights to land, freedom or peace backed up by violence and war, God’s
way is for Palestinian and Israeli to stop pursuing their own interests and put
the interests of the other first. To love one another, lay down their lives for
each other, and humbly die for one another, trusting God for a resurrection of
hope and peace in the situation whether or not they experience it for
themselves. This is of course easier said than done, but it does give us a
strategy for prayer and dialogue.
This
is not of course the main voice that is coming from the body of Christ, or even
the prayer movement at this time. It is important for the sake of intercessory
mindset change to say something about that. The issue is the assumption that
somehow these apostolic words of the Lord and his disciples cannot be applied
to the situation because of Old Testament prophecies suggesting that the land
of Israel must be kept for the Jews and the idea that to remain in the blessing
of God Christians must always support Israel. Those who take a different line
are often accused of being into replacement theology. What has been described
as replacement theology is the idea that the church has replaced Israel as the
people of God and that there is no longer any role for them. This cannot be
right any more than the idea that all the other nations that God promised Israel
would be a blessing to are irrelevant now that the church or new nation is in
existence. No, the church exists for the blessing of the nations, not for their
replacement. This is why Jesus told the disciples that repentance
for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations (Lk
24:47). It is also why Paul makes it so clear that there
is a future in Christ for Israel.
Nevertheless it is an even worse kind of
replacement theology to suggest that Israel
replaces the kingdom
of God. Neither the church
nor Israel
must ever be used to do that. And the kingdom of God
is the kingdom of love that Jesus embodied and taught in these kenotic phrases
and yes it fulfils the Old Testament, all of it. That is the whole thrust of
Jesus’ words in Matthew 5: 43-44 "You have heard that it was said, 'you
shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your
enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” The Old Testament, both the Law
and the Prophets is completed in Jesus. The whole of the Old Testament and the
rest of the New Testament should be read and interpreted in the light of him.
He is the word made flesh, our interpreter, or to use the technical word, our
hermeneutic, the lens through which we read the scriptures and through the scriptures
the rest of life and the universe. Every prophecy, including those referring to
Israel, Jerusalem and the land must now be submitted
to Christ and his kingdom as we encounter him in the gospels. On these terms, if
the return of Israel
to the land in 1948 means anything, it must mean that God intends every people
group to have a land of their own that they are prepared to share in love with
their enemies even if they are killed by them. The kingdom of God
comes this way.
To finish, just a few words to pray into about
nation states, war and bombs. While Jesus encourages us to pray for the nations
and preach forgiveness to them, the word used is the Greek word ‘ethnos’ from
which we get ethnic and it means nations in the sense of people groups. Nation
states came much later, only about five hundred years ago, and they are built
on the exercise of sovereign power, and can never be a manifestation of the kingdom of God. It is because they are built on the
domination of the many by the few that they have to be maintained by force, and
they defend themselves from one another by military might and preserve their
power by armies and bombs. They are variations of empire like in Daniel Chapter
2 and 8 that the kingdom
of God is bringing down
by kenotic power! This is why it can never be the work of the kingdom of God
to defend any nation, Israel
or Palestine,
by the exercise of power by war and bombs.
Let’s pray for an immediate cease fire in the Middle East and for much kenotic love for both
Palestinians and Israelis at this time.
Then
PLEASE INTERACT, either by emailing a response to the daywatch team at admin@passion.org.uk or better still by
helping to form an online interactive community by signing in and interacting
together through the daywatch blog www.daywatch.eu where you will
find this material posted.
May
the Lord help us all to be his gift of love in 2009
<strong>Comments on the ‘Daywatch’ material to date</strong>
These comments are based on the ‘Daywatch’ material dated: <strong>Fri Nov 14th</strong> and <strong>Fri Dec 19th 2008</strong> together with <strong>Fri Jan 16th 2009</strong>.
I am not a scholar, have not been to theological college, but consider myself to be reasonably well read in the context of the Christian faith and so write from that perspective. I do not believe that it is my job to convince anyone about spiritual truths, and I am certainly not attempting to do that herein. I am clear that The Truth is a person and His name is Jesus Christ and that it is the role of the Spirit of Truth to point to Jesus. From the outset, though, I wish to say that I am really encouraged by the content of the first three postings and I deeply appreciate what it would appear is being attempted via the ‘Daywatch’ blog. However I think, unfortunately, that quite possibly some folk who might wish to join the ‘Daywatch’ journey of adventure at a later time may encounter some problems if they do so.
<strong>Firstly</strong>, there may well be some folk who, because of previous encounters with terms such as:<em> ‘Kenosis’, ‘Kenotics’ ‘Kenoticists’</em> and <em>‘Kenotic Theology’</em>, may be discouraged from joining this forum when they see the terms <em>‘Kenotic’ </em>and <em>‘Kenotics’ </em>used in postings. I am sure that folk would agree that such terms have been the focus of considerable debate in Church History. <em>‘Kenotic Christology’ </em>has featured prominently in the answers of some theologians attempting to answer, in detail, Jesus’s question [of us], namely: ‘Who do you say that I am?’ [cf Matt 16:13-16; Mark 8:27-29; Luke 9:18-20]. <strong>Others</strong> will perhaps ‘Google’ such terms and may be unsettled by what they read in articles highlighted by the search engine and thus be reluctant to join in the discussion. Nevertheless, I am confident that use of the term <em>‘Kenotic’ </em>was prayerfully considered before publicly using it in the way that it has been on the blog. Probably because a better term could not be found to concisely describe the nature of Christ’s rule this term was settled upon. However, I have a suggestion to make here which I will develop in outline below …
When I was pondering the use of the term <em>‘kenotics’ </em>in the second paragraph of the first posting the first words that came to mind were from that great hymn by Charles Wesley ‘And can it be?’ and which, in the third verse, has the words <em>‘… Emptied Himself of all but love, …’</em>. Interestingly the ‘Evangelical Dictionary of Theology’[EDT] edited by Walter A Elwell, alludes to that same hymn. [(see the summary portion of the article entitled: <em>‘Kenosis, Kenotic Theology’ </em>by S M Smith on p602 in EDT having ISBN: 0-85364-689-9). Though I note in passing that the influential theologian Wayne Grudem in his book ‘Systematic Theology’ [ST] expresses surprise at S M Smith’s endorsement of Kenotic Theology as a valid form of orthodox, biblical faith (see p550 of ST having ISBN 0-85110-652-8) ]. However, partly as a consequence of this blog and these two books, I have recently realised afresh that there can be a variety of meanings and strengths in the use of words like <em>‘Kenotic’</em> and <em>‘Kenotics’</em>.
This realisation has led me to suggest making a glossary of terms available (somewhere on the ‘Daywatch’ website) to facilitate the understanding - by folk embarked on, or who later join this journey - of the particular way that these terms are being used. [Perhaps I have misunderstood what has been written, but it seems to me that, for instance the term <em>‘Kenotics’</em> is being used as a neologism.] A benefit of, say, a glossary would be that in subsequent postings links to the glossary, or failing that references to footnotes, could then be made. This would still enable one to be succinct in the main body of text, but would also allow <strong>careful definition</strong> of such terms as these in this series of postings - without the postings becoming too academic in their style and presentation. I personally think that some understanding of exactly how the terms are being used is very important to facilitate participation. My reason for saying this is as follows.
As I understand it theologians in general accept the <em>‘Kenosis Theory’</em> that Christ did empty Himself in the incarnation, but there is much misunderstanding concerning the theory in the Body of Christ. The debate seems to have been about seeking answers to the following: ‘In what way did Christ empty himself?’; ‘What did the self-emptying consist of?’ and ‘in becoming man did Christ cease being fully Divine?’
There appears to be one main premise that <strong>most</strong> folk who hold, wittingly or unwittingly, to <em>‘Kenotic doctrine’</em> build upon. <strong>These people traditionally called ‘Kenotics’ (or sometimes ‘Kenoticists’)</strong> hold that Jesus Christ was God before the incarnation and after His ascension, but just prior to the incarnation He ‘emptied’ Himself of certain divine properties (sometimes called essential or external attributes and in particular His: omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence). Consequently they believe that during his 33 years on earth He was only a man and not, simultaneously, fully God. This is because these <em>‘traditional Kenotics’</em> distinguish between ‘divine properties’ and ‘divine character attributes’ (sometimes called moral or internal attributes: such as holiness, righteousness, love and faithfulness) and hold that it is the essential attributes alone that constitute the divine nature and then draw some, in my view, erroneous conclusions from that position.
Let me say at this point I am not a ‘heresy hunter’ and that I imagine that most folk who would contribute to this site would hold to the position that Jesus was fully man and fully God during his 33 years on earth. I suspect, but do not wish to put words into anyone’s mouth, that other contributors would believe something along the following lines. That during the incarnation the fully divine Jesus, of equal status with the other members of the Godhead, in humility allowed Himself to be clothed in humanity and have His glory veiled so that when He grew up He looked like an ordinary guy. I reckon that Philippians 2 clearly indicates that Jesus Christ emptied himself of his: rank, authority, rights and importance as the Sovereign Supreme Being and took on the role of a subordinate, a servant, who was obedient to the Father even to the point of death, but who was then afterwards exalted to the highest place … Hence if I understand the previous postings correctly, it would seem to me that what we are doing in using the word <em>‘Kenotic’ </em>, if we use it in the way that it has been used in this blog so far, is using the word in its original Scriptural manner and thus by implication describing what it means to be a <em>‘truly kenotic people’</em> and so on. This is akin to <strong>restoring</strong> the true meaning of the word, but as I said before it does seem to me that the word is a neologism. Thus I bless those who wish to use this word in this manner and in their endeavours to proclaim this part of the wonderful message we have to proclaim! Let me move on for I do not wish to be an offender over a word …
<strong>Secondly</strong>, what about the Arminian/Calvinist positions as potential for polarisation? It seems to me that there are many paradoxes in God’s nature and also even in the doctrines that sometimes we as His children squabble over, while people are lost and others die not knowing Jesus. Accordingly I have, from time to time, pondered how as followers of Jesus, others and myself, might move towards a deeper unity, in diversity, in the Spirit - through the bond of peace – and one that bears the hallmark of humility and displays the fruit of the Spirit. So how do we proceed, for instance, when one believer says I am an Arminian and another says I am a Calvinist - yet both own the name Christian? It would seem to me that the Calvinist position is at one end of a line segment, or a spectrum, depicting propositional truth and that the Arminian’s position is at the opposite end. This situation seems to me to depict a paradox. The existence of these differing views is fine in one way providing the issues of disagreement do not erect dividing walls between believers. However, the visible divisions in the Church do seem to undermine to a certain extent both our message and the stewardship of a ministry of reconciliation in the world.
It appears to me that Jesus’s ultimate aim is always to bring about reconciliation and restoration. However, it also seems to me that the nature of a paradox, in terms of the spectrum analogy that I alluded to earlier, is that the <u>truth</u> is <strong>not </strong>at one end, or indeed at the other end, of the spectrum. Rather the truth of such a paradox is simultaneously at both ends of the spectrum! I certainly believe that there is truth in both the position of Calvinists and Arminians. Surely though this is a position that ultimately can only find reconciliation in the heart of the Father and also in the heart of His Son which are of course as one.
As someone who is a Christian and also has some scientific knowledge I am intrigued that scripture says that God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all [1 John 1:5]. It is interesting therefore to reflect on the fact that visible light is recognised as comprising light having a range of wavelengths [from 400 nanometres at the violet end of the visible spectrum to 700 nanometres at the red end] but is itself actually contained within the much larger so-called electromagnetic spectrum. Thus there are certain essentials that determine whether electromagnetic radiation is light or not.
Curiously, though, there is still diversity within the unity that we describe as white light. As is fairly well known, a beam of pure white light passed through a glass prism can be shown to consist of all the wavelengths present in the visible spectrum. However, what is less well known is that whilst a wave model accounts for many of the properties of electromagnetic radiation it cannot explain some other aspects of its behaviour! A different model is needed to explain the other aspects. Sometimes I wonder whether there is a principle in epistemology that is being illustrated here yet again. I am drawn to think again of: the names of God in Scripture, the Symbols of Holy Spirit, the Levitical sacrifices and so on.
Clearly Jesus, the Son, is The Truth and if I am in Christ and Christ indwells me by His Spirit then I am in The Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Truth is in me. Surely then, because Jesus is The Truth this is why Jesus and His work must be [at the centre of] our hermeneutic. However, as was highlighted in one of the postings, Jesus is full of grace and truth [John 1:14] and I think that even the order is significant – grace before truth, but both!
This, I believe, is a key to the resolution of many of the adversarial positions over doctrine that believers have historically taken up – they can only be resolved by abiding in the Son, not by establishing some lowest common denominator of belief.
There are a couple of points in this Daywatch post that I believe reveal some discussion/prayer points that are worth wrestling with. I see them in two specific groupings:
1. Nation-ethnos vs. Nation-state and the statement that they "...can never be a manifestation of the kingdom of God."
2. Israel and the understanding of Israel's eschatalogical significance
First Nation-states: I'm no historian, but I'm thinking that the idea of the "state" came from Plato and thus I wonder about the statement that nation-states are only about 500 years old. Also, is there some distinction between nations (ethnos) and nation-states among the family of nations that we know today? I think some clarification is needed here. Is the basic point being made that any given nation cannot be THE manifestation of the Kingdom of God (one of the reasons being the reality of nation-states vs. ethnic groups), and therefore stop treating Israel (or the USA for that matter) specially as if that nation itself could do no wrong because of its unique role as the/a manifestation of the Kingdom of God? If so, I'm in agreement.
That brings up the 2nd aspect, Israel. I'm anxious to further the discussion of Israel because the confusion surround Israel will NOT stop in the Church, it seems. I, myself, don't know what to believe because I've NEVER heard a teaching, read a book, followed a discussion which covered all the issues and developed a theology which answered the questions. Though I've heard plenty of people profess to have it straight in THEIR mind, I've never heard a theology that got it straight in my mind (aye, there's the problem, no doubt!).
I think one place to start would be to answer the question:
* Do you believe that Israel (word chosen specifically) has a specific eschatological role to play?
Then:
* If not why not and if so, what IS that role(s)?
Then finally:
* Does Israel mean: ethnic Jews and/or Jesus and/or the physical territory and/or the governmental entity?
