Does not the bible say that the wrath of God is being revealed against the world through the process of God having handed us over to indulge in the behaviour of our own choosing (Romans Ch 1)?  Therefore are not the lives we are living, that which we know and see and hear, what we touch, taste and feel, is this existence of ours, is it not our punishment?  Could it be that every morning we wake to a day that proclaims the justice of God; every day we are witnesses of his glory, of his patience, of his forgiveness; not by our many or few good deeds, but by the evil in our hearts.  Are not all the horrible stories we hear on the news merely testimonies to God’s greatness?  God handed us over to this world not as victims or because he is cruel, but because the opposite is true.  We are cruel and he has a kinder heart than we can imagine.  So far saying this seems to go against the grain, and is NOT what I experience.  After all “what kind of God would let children starve?”

The message of Jesus when properly understood opens a chasm before us, into which we find ourselves falling, yet never free of the edge.  We are told of heaven a place free of pain, and simultaneously asked to surrender our lives in service to perpetrators of violence.  We are given knowledge of the only real love that exists, of the God who surrounds us with kindness and forgiveness, of freedom from our guilt, and then we are told to hope, to wait, to endure, to maintain our focus, to not lose sight of these grand epiphanies.  The bible writers were writing letters to train Christians in steadfastness.  The temptation is to choose one way or the other: to believe that this world is our calling and destiny and that God’s intention is to help us live in this world; the other road to hell is to hate this world, to despise our punishment.  God would have us follow the example of his Son Jesus, who neither had a home on earth, nor harbored anger towards his perpetrators; he was neither an instrument of peace on earth, nor destruction.  Jesus was aware of the temporary nature of all he could see and touch and feel.

Is there a tension?  What do you reckon?

What of the 70 other people who die every minute are they any less welcome to hope for Jesus?  What of the other 180 babies born every minute, because they don’t know about Jesus are they not welcome?  Are the 30 and the 70 or the 70 and the 180 really so different?  I don’t think they are.  There is 250 born every minute and 100 die every minute and every minute may mean the appearance of Jesus and the final birth and the final death.  The statistics will change to 0 born and 0 die… Who will greet Jesus as a brother… as the family they have longed for… anyone may.  Can we tell who those will be that will greet Jesus that way?  I think it is those who long for him now… who hope for his return this minute!  “Please come now Jesus, please come now!”  “Call an end to the statistics… stop the blood flowing… cease the pain… end the grief”  “Take me to my new home Jesus, forever you are my brother”  “This minute I need you, this minute your love is all I desire.” “Take us all home Jesus, take home your family”  “Pluck us from where we are this minute, pull us away from this endless cycle we have created for ourselves” “Save us, and rescue us, we are surrounded by what we have done to ourselves” Be our saviour, hold us because we can’t help ourselves”  “Please come this minute Jesus, we long for you.”

When capitalism first entered Europe, there was no going back… it was a force no one comprehended.  Could it be stopped then? History says no: since it has only grown bigger, stronger, more dominant and more ferocious than ever.  It spread through Europe, North America, and wherever it was not embraced by people, it became death to those people.  It led to invasion, colonization, conquering.  The capitalism beast was single minded… steal, kill, subdue, all in the service of profit, which was in the service of our insatiable lust for consumption.

Therefore, any culture of people in all shades of skin colour, that find themselves in the death grip of the wild beast of capitalism, may not hope to destroy it.  By embracing it at the cost of one’s own non-capitalist principles, one may co-exist with the beast, even learning to exert influence over it, and receive benefits from it.  There are cultural characteristics that capitalism is not interested in such as language, dances, stories etc… since its key interests are land and all that is under and on top of it (i.e. water and minerals).  A person may surrender land and time and effort to the beast, and then practice their remaining culture in their spare time (though it be mournful and severely limited by the loss of land).  In this way people have trained to ride the beast of capitalism in order to escape death and even receive a little wealth.

Modern day aboriginal land rights are not about restoration of land but compensation for comrades (i.e. restoration of humanity).  Capitalism cannot encompass restoration of resources… to take land, cultivate and alter it and then abandon it to itself is not within the scope of capitalism… capitalism is only interested in further cultivation and exploitation to produce further growth.  In terms of compensation, riders of the beast may share from their piece of wealth, and in this way coax the fallen soldiers who made the mistake of thinking they could destroy the beast altogether, into a position of reconciliation.  Such reconciliation with capitalism is not negotiation, since capitalism does not negotiate.  Can we, whether aborigine, english, chinese or whatever descent or possessing whichever physical features recognise this defining feature of this beast, that is untamed, wild, reckless, and without an equal, and hitched a ride on the hulls of the English colonial ships, and so was unleashed on this land we call Australia?

Can we ride the beast of capitalism and survive and benefit, or will we hold on to the ancient land, and die?  Perhaps, compensation for indigenous Australians should be more forthcoming, since we need all the help we can get, we need any that will pick up arms with us, as we seek, in the new language of sustainability to tame the beast, control it, limit it (though these goals be opposite to the core drive of capitalism itself).  Perhaps we should further honour the bravery of those in the past who fought the beast of capitalism as it invaded their lives, since their bravery is our war cry as we join together, indigenous, english, asian, all as one family and now fight to tame, that which was always our common enemy… capitalism.

We are brothers and comrades in this mission to rid ourselves of the disease of capitalism.  Such a disease rotted our land, and corrupted our people.  Such a disease tore us apart from the dreamtime, from our ancestors.  It has mixed the blood of all those before us, with the despairing cry of the land as it moaned under the burden, oppression, affliction, and wickedness of the beast that ripped it to pieces.  Capitalism is now stronger than ever, and its muscles bulge by the ignorance of us all, and its teeth are sharpened on our in-fighting, our lack of bravery, our weakness by which we blame each other rather than unite against our common foe.  Capitalism must be tamed or else our planet will fall victim to this beast as did our indigenous brothers and sisters so many times before.

He is the One who silently does as he wishes without my permission, though I use his name to give words to my desires. I use his name without his permission. I use what I know of him to get what I want… like trying to get into a nightclub by saying that you are friends with a certain celebrity. I am always in danger of making Him my slave; while simultaneously he remains the master. Yet he is unaltered by my abuse of our friendship. His forgiveness, though I take it and use it further to accomplish my own goals, is unstoppable. His tolerance of me I ignore. Like a friend who only ever rings up because they want something from you; they have no concept that friendship must be mutual.

Even now, talking this way: I make His love about me; His plans as subordinate to mine; His intentions as equal with mine… I make him MY God… what a conundrum: since the words MY and God are completely incompatible; and the words MY and Friend are an impossibility. How can we believe in such a God? One who does not fit into the box we have carefully constructed (over our lives) JUST for him. How can a one-way friendship continue? When your friend only ever calls or visits on the assumption that your life entirely exists for them; that your time belongs to them; that all priorities in your life are less important than theirs.

However, unlike us who subtly or directly let the friendship slide (glad to be rid of the burden) God holds on to us! His tolerance is one way; His love is persistent over millennia; His compassion is felt towards those who take him for granted; he takes the calls not begrudgingly but deeply enthusiastically; he does more than open the door to those one-way friendships as He goes to our homes and invites us to visit him… God’s love is completely unlike the various forms of love we know. In fact we often dismiss or pass-over his welcome because we are looking for someone who fits into OUR box. We are looking for a God that makes sense to us… who loves us according to the way we understand love. We want a God who will encourage us, “I know it was hard, but you made the right decision not to continue that friendship.”

God is more generous than we can believe; more kind; more positive; more loving; more giving; more forgiving… he is MORE than us… he is GOD!

If you’ve ever seen a documentary on space; the stars, galaxies and the ever expanding universe… you will begin to feel very small. For example, if there was a ribbon of flat land all the way around the earth on the equator, and you were to one day start out walking around the earth. If you did this without the aid of technology and with sufficient food and water, by my calculations, walking at a reasonably fast pace of 6km/hr for 10 hours a day with breaks (i.e. a sustainable pace) it would take you almost 2 years.

If it were possible, the same journey around the sun would take you about 200 years, while again if it were possible to walk around the largest star we are aware of (Canis Majoris), it would take you more than 36,000 years. To then leave that star and travel at walking pace to the nearest star would take One Thousand, Five Hundred Million years (1,500,000,000). The distance to travel from one galaxy to the next is far greater again. I’m sure we are getting the picture. In our world, physically, we are so infinitely small to seem almost non-existent. Yet we do exist; but we are tiny. In its context I think faith is also like this.

There are millions of human actions, words and ideas that we can bring before God, such as the following: religion; visions; nature; wisdom; logic; science; thoughts; feelings; hope; faith; action; humility; ceremony; tradition; history; prayer; faithfulness; loyalty; love; reflection; revelation; worship; study; friendship; peace; kindness; good deeds; morality; sacrifice; heroism etc. etc. etc. The list could be almost endless. Yet in this multitude there is one that stands alone, and that is faith. To bring faith before God is to bring nothing else. Faith before God is the recognition that all things visible and known are less important. Faith is the acknowledgment that only what we can’t see really matters.

The following are excerpts from a conversation between atheists and agnostics:

“What you really mean to distinguish, I think, is the difference between ‘fictitious’ and ‘factual’. How do we distinguish between the two? Let us take a fictitious entity, a fairy for example. In order to place this entity in the correct state of affairs (ie – fictitious or factual), we imagine a world in which fairies exist, and compare it with our experience of the world in which we live. We make ‘predictions’ as to what we would observe if fairies existed in a factual state of affairs. And this is another way of asking – “What would our universe look like if fairies were factual entities?” Similarly, I always ask the same question of the theist and the atheist concerning God. The answers from both sides are always unsatisfactory, as they choose to define ‘God’ in ways that I feel are completely innappropriate; and ‘defining God’ is really what we are doing when we ‘name God’.” (Jan Sobieski, Oct 2010 bold mine)

AND

“To put it another way – as a Scientific hypothesis, if my hypothesis is that the Universe was created and is sustained by a powerful, intelligent ‘personal’ being who was intimately involved in sustaining the Universe and whose nature was to be creative and to promote life, but who was in no way dependant on that created Universe, what evidence would I expect to see? What would you expect to see?” (Don, Sep 2010 bold mine).

These are questions relevant to us who admit to know God. Were we to answer these skeptics with an appeal to anything other than faith our answers would be inadequate. Faith is a miniscule thread by which we hang. It says “God is good in Jesus.” There can be no additions to this; “proof that it is true” or “logic that makes sense of it”; these will only fall short. When all is stripped away from us (as it is), what will remain? Only this: the thread of faith; the confession that God is good in Jesus.

This is a true confession, for it is from God; holding to this truth, we will die, whether sooner or later; and holding to this confession we will be resurrected and clothed with a new body, never to die again. Do we speak about the confession? Yes. Do we live in a way to honour the confession? Yes. If our speaking and honouring is causing dishonor to the name of the one we confess do we let go of our speaking and our honouring? Yes. We do not let go of the confession; but everything else can change.

This truth about Jesus that we cling to, can be expressed in millions of words, concepts and languages; even translated into actions, ceremonies, beliefs and love. Yet, like our size in respect to the universe, faith amidst its expression is still a miniscule thread. And it always will be so, until the time of our new bodies, and then the thread will become an infinite confession of the goodness of God in Jesus. Faith… will become bigger.

“Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.” 1 Cor 13:12a

I have recently learnt that God’s righteousness came to men as an unwanted gift. People did not contribute to the plans of God in any way but to hinder him by their rebellion. Yet God prevailed, and his Son arrived on time; born an orphan in the world of men, rejected and despised for loving them. In a community of violence love was made known, in the midst of hatred God who is love, stepped. A seed was planted in unfertile soil. The message of Jesus; the love for men was told, hardly audible over the cries for it to be shut down. In silence the message began. In surrender. As a man God put down his arms, as men without mercy mowed him down, ceaseless in their rage against him. Love came to men, and showed them the truth. The truth about men is that we are loveless. We cannot love. We can only sin.

Love was planted by death. Surrender was salvation. Resurrection showed God’s wisdom, as men who can only sin were stripped of their weapons. As Jesus returned from death, as he lived following surrender, he proved the uselessness of our hatred. He did not need to say anything. His very life forced every man to his knees. Without a word the world surrendered to love. The seed was planted and grew. Stripped of our weapons, anger, hatred, fear, rejection of love, we are possessed by God. Our stupidity, to think that we could rival God, was proven to be nothing more than stupidity; foolish stubborn Homo sapiens fantasizing. We were always small, God was always God; One God, billions of people; One Father, billions of children.

Men speak as they are carried along by the Holy Spirit. Do I think that I have something special to say about God? Is my ‘theology’ so interesting and insightful? Perhaps what I desire to speak about God is my notion of him. In silence God spoke. In silence before God men are relinquished of their notions of him. In silence love is among us. In silence love is received. In silence love is known. Maybe, God has a plan for me. Listen to him. Meet his Son. Understand the silence. It is love.

At first glance one might see a connection between the above 3 characters!
 
Peter Parker was an ordinary human – though a gifted student – who, when bitten by a spider developed extraordinary strength, agility and ‘spider-sense’ to become NYC’s favorite super hero!
 
Heracles was a demi-god, blessed with incredible strength. He was a favorite among the Greek populace for his numerous heroics. In death his father made him a god.
 
Jesus was also human, though people are divided over the basic framework of his life. Some consider Jesus to be a good person who was a self-appointed rabbi to a small group of followers. His revolutionary attitude sparked confrontation leading to his violent death.  Others believe that Jesus was born of a virgin – thus seeded by God. His life consisted of many miracles. He led a pure and spotless life, and his death redeemed humanity.  Raised to life, Jesus resides in Heaven with his original Divinity restored.

An essay, or even a sermon, could be created linking these 3 characters together, and then showing how Christ differs from them . . . that would certainly be the way I would have done it a few years ago!
 
Today, these 3 represent something else – the concept that is the basis for understanding Biblical Historicity - Retroactive Continuity.
 
Retroactive Continuity was originally a 1970’s theological term related to Pannenberg’s theology. In the 80’s, Retroactive Continuity was adopted by the Comic Book community. Often shortened to Retcon, this secular term is used to define the evolution of a comic book character: while the broad basis of the story remains true to the original, there is the freedom to renovate the story: to add details to the characters story, or alter the character’s history, and even to change significant details about the character. Since ‘retconed’ or ‘retconing’ sounds more like something akin to being hoodwinked, I have used poetic licence to coin my own term for the process: Retconovation -  a splice between ‘retcon’ and ‘renovation’, which seems to more adequately speak of the way that stories are changed with the basic structure remaining intact!

Retconovation in the Contemporary World
Stan Lee’s Spider-Man is a good example how Retroactive Continuity can affect a character. Throughout the years differing ideas have impacted the story of Peter Parker – some adding in details in previously blank areas, others changing some of the original parts of the story. For more info about this, check out the following links:

http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/spider_man.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man

The first Retcon cinematic version of Spider-Man also added an important radical change – unlike the original in which Peter Parker created his own web formula and attached the device to his wrists – the movie version had the spider bite alter Peter Parker’s genetics so that his body could physically create and shoot the web!
 
Spider-Man is just one of many examples of comic book characters (Superman, Hulk, X-men, Ironman, etc) that have undergone further Retcon  transformations within the realm of Cinema. Yet the silver screen does not limit Retconovations to comic book characters. Indeed, Hollywood has frequently retconovated historical stories, novels, and other films! Even films depicting real life stories or biographies add in the words “based on a true story”, to allow the script writer, director and producer the artistic freedom to ‘play’ with the story and add in other elements or change various scenarios to make the film more entertaining!

Retconovation in the Ancient World
Although Retroactive Continuity is a relatively recent term, it is actually an ancient practice. This is true of Heracles – differing stories surround Heracles, but not all the stories agreed about the details. Various storytellers brought out new aspects, or even reworked other details . . . Heracles also got a ‘makeover’ when he was Romanised. For more info about this click:

http://www.mythindex.com/greek-mythology/H/Heracles.html

Thus Retconovation was present in the Greek classical world of literature and art.

Yet it could be argued that even in the pre-script era, most oral traditions would have been affected by the process of Retconovation. In the Ancient world perhaps the earliest example of Retconovation are the creation myths of the Egyptians. In a simplified explanation, the basics of the Egyptian creation myths were the primeval waters from which the mound arose from. As the earlier gods fell from favour and other gods gained in popularity, the creation myths were retconovated with an emphasis on the role of the more popular god! 
 
This is true also of the Canaanite religions: In the Abrahonic era El was the chief god.  Yet by the time of the Israelite influx El had diminished in significance and other gods and goddesses within the El pantheon had come to prominence: Ba’al, Asherath, Dagon, Yahveh, etc.  The stories of these deities were retconovated in order to make each specific Deity more significant; given a greater role and power than in the previous El-controlled pantheon.
 
Not only were myths retconovated, but so was literal history. Nations, when recording their histories and recounts of warfare, retconovated the actual events often exaggerating them, and also adding in theological references offering praise to their god for victories!

Retconovation in the Biblical Old Testament
In terms of the Old Testament – the Hebrew Tan’ch – there are many examples of retconovation, but perhaps the clearest comparison is that of Kings and Chronicles. It is widely accepted that both Kings and Chronicles were written in differing eras and to communicate differing ideas: The Book of Kings (1 and 2) were written within the Babylonian captivity, and one of their clear purposes was to show that Judah’s unfaithfulness was the cause of Judah’s exile from the Promised land.  The Book of Chronicles (1 and 2) were written after the restoration of Judea during the early part of the 2^nd Temple period. Amongst its purposes was the desire to communicate the idea that God had not deserted his people, and that the blessing of God was still upon Judah!
 
Although these are clearly accepted ideas, some try to reconcile both accounts – to look for harmony within both narratives. Yet there are a number of stories that are too problematic. For instance:
In 1 Kings ch. 1 & 2 King David is bedridden, his health failing and needs a virgin to sleep beside him to provide him with body warmth. David is unaware of the trouble between his sons and has to be persuaded by Nathan and Bathsheba to announce his heir.  David’s final words are given privately to Solomon.
In 1 Chronicles ch. 28 & 29 there is no mention of an illness, and King David is strong and clearly in control of his kingdom. David is shown with strength and awareness in making his own decisions, and his last words being communicated to large assemblies.
These two different versions cannot be reconciled – perhaps up to 100 yrs separated the writing of each piece.

 
The above is just one of many inconsistencies between the historical accounts of Kings and Chronicles. It is naive to suggest that these stories can be interwoven together to create a fuller account.  Instead, this is simply an example of Retroactive Continuity at work! The framework of the reigns are the basis to both accounts, but in each the stories are reworked – retconovated – to say something different to the new generation and audience that they were directed towards!
 
Unfortunately – for us – much of the text of the OT was often reworked so unlike the books of Chronicles and Kings we don’t have an earlier work to compare narratives with.  However, often a text does give a clue that it has been retconovated. 
 
One such example is that of Moses. The text, in various places, neatly divides Moses life into 3 parts of 40 years each.  The text says that Moses died at the age of 120 and was still strong and of good sight. The problem with this text is the extra biblical evidence which shows that around the era when a Mosaic character may have existed, a typical man was regarded as ‘old’ by the age of 40.  An exception (there are always exceptions, lol) was the Pharaoh Ramesses II who lived an unusually long time reaching the ripe old age of around 90 – he outlived many of his sons and grandsons – but was very frail and arthritic at his death.  Additionally, scholars also acknowledge that the numbers 3 and 40 are both important symbolic numbers within both the Tan’ch and the NT.  The symbolism of the numerical figures and the testimony of outside texts would inform the astute person that whatever the original looked like, this is evidence that the text has been reworked! Thus it seems clear that the narrative concerning Moses’ age is a retconovation.
 
Another retconovated text is that concerning Noah’s ark and the flood. Many ancient cultures had stories about large floods, and Israel was no exception.  But the story within Genesis is not a plain “this is how it happened” type narrative, but utilised the style of the chiasm. Chiasms are tools by which a story is told in mirror fashion – the first line (A) equals the last line (A1), the 2^nd line (B) is comparative to the 2^nd last line (B1), and so forth and so forth until the middle line of text reveals the central idea to the story. Chiasms were a favourite narrative style within Hebrew culture, and Gordon Wenham revealed a wonderful chiasm in the story of Noah’s Ark  (Genesis 6.10 to 9.19):

http://www.examiner.com/methodist-in-national/bible-interpretation-101-what-is-a-chiasm
And the middle section of the Chiasm? – “And God remembered Noah”.  So very clearly the story of the Noah and the flood was reworked – retconovated – to bring an important message to the audience.
 
The previous 3 examples – Kings vs Chronicles, Moses’ age, and The Flood story – are important, because they illustrate that the ‘historical’ writings within the Ancient Near East were not ‘history’ in the contemporary sense of the word.

Retconovation by Ancient Historians
If, today, one was to write an historical account of an event, it would be expected that the writer would concentrate on the facts – when this or that happened, taking care to put the events in their correct order.
 
But the ancients did not express history in this way – much of ancient history had a religious intent.  And this is certainly what the OT was about – history written with a theological purpose.
 
It could be argued that the ancients would have approved of the saying “don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story”. The ancients were, after all, trained in the art of storytelling.  Yes, the bare bones of facts would exist, but the aim for pure historical accuracy was never the overriding consideration in ancient writing or oral narratives.
 
Perhaps my favourite example of this is Herodotus (5^th century B.C.E) who was a Greek historian, and considered to be the Father of History:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/index.htm

In his historical accounts of Cyrus the Great, Herodotus could not work out why the larger, stronger and more experienced Medean army would join forces with Cyrus’ roughly assembled Persian army, making Cyrus the effective ruler of a joint Mede/Persian Empire.  Rather than just stick to the facts as he understood it (which would have been quite short), Herodotus created a long and intriguing narrative which is very briefly outlined below:

• Astyages had a dream that Cyrus would take his throne
• Religious advisers suggested that Cyrus must be disposed of, so Astyages ordered Harpagus to kill Cyrus
• Harpagus had compassion and gave Cyrus to a shepherd whose own child had died
• 10 years later Astyages heard a commotion about a pauper acting regally and discovered that Cyrus was alive
• Religious advisers suggesed that all was now fine and the throne was not at stake
• Astyages cooked Harpagus’ son – made him eat his own son. In the king’s presence Harpagus had to sit on a seat covered with his own son’s skin
• Cyrus inherited the leadership of his tribe (fact)
• Cyrus united all the Persian tribes under his leadership (fact)
• Cyrus and Persian Army met the Medes in battle (fact)
• Harpagus gave his allegiance to Cyrus and together they march on Astyages’ Capital

 
A fairly elaborate story, and often spoken of as fact, yet it was a pure invention by Herodotus to explain an event that seemed illogical – Herodotus retconovated history.
 
In the 1^st Century (C.E.) the Jewish Historian Josephus also attempted to write various histories.  Certainly, like the account of Kings, Chronicles, and the stories by Herodotus, there were kernels of facts within Josephus’ work.  Yet his work is often considered as simply apologetics, and included a vast array of exaggerations, that it should not be considered today as a pure history. Josephus retconovated history – he used the facts as he knew them and inserted his own views, ideas, and other sources with liberal amounts of hyperbole:

http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/josephus/josephus.htm

Certainly all ancient/classical histories would not be considered ‘pure’ history in the 21^st Century.

Retconovation in the Biblical New Testament
Just as the OT historical writings were influenced by the retconovation that was prevalent throughout the Ancient Near East, so too did the NT writers use the same process that was used by their forebears and also used by the Greco-Roman writers of their day. Furthermore, the Rabbis also used retconovation liberally within their stories!
 
Although some Christians may be willing to accept the process of retconovation within the OT historical books, many are fairly protective regarding the literalness of the gospels.  The gospels are seen as sacred scripture and many attempts are made to utilise all the gospel accounts to view a more complete idea of the life and ministry of Christ.  These attempts at harmonisation clearly show that the gospels are viewed as literal memories.
 
Naturally there may be some who may have a “knee-jerk reaction” and simply reject any consideration of retconovation within the gospels/NT
 
Therefore, let me begin gently to reveal just a couple of the many instances where retconovation is used.
 
In the New Testament there are 4 forms of Retroactive Continuity:
A). NT text as a Retconovation of an OT text.
B). NT text as a Retconovation of another NT text.
C). OT prophecy Retconovated into a NT fulfilment.
D). NT text as a Retconovation of an historical situation.
 
A). NT text as a Retconovation of an OT text
1. Perhaps my favourite example of retconovation within the NT is the Speech of Stephen found in Acts (regarded as the second volume to the Lukan Gospel). In Stephen’s long speech Acts 7:2 – 53 the history of Israel was revisited from Abraham to David. Most of the history followed tradition, including the years of Moses! But the one exception was in regard to the temple – Kings states that when the temple was consecrated, the Shekinah Glory of God descended upon the temple and existed within the Holy of Holies – Stephen claimed that God never moved in, also a clear poke at the 2^nd Temple as well!
 
2. The second example I want to use comes not from a gospel but from one of the Epistles dealing with an OT story. It comes from Paul in 1 Cor 10.4 where Paul retconovates the story of the Exodus incorporating Jesus:
“They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink: for they drank from the same spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ”.
 
B). NT text as a Retconovation of another NT text
1. The Beatitudes are a wonderful example!  There are two versions: Matt. 5:1-12 and Luke 6:17-23
In the Matthew version Jesus went up the mountainside, in the Lukan version Jesus went down to a plain! But the real differences are in the text: Matthew’s version is a real spiritual text – “Blessed are the poor in spirit”, while Luke’s gospel is very physical – “Blessed are you who are poor”.  The poor and rejected were one of the foci of the Lukan gospel, but to alter the beatitudes in this way changes the text entirely.  Thus the Lukan account does something interesting – it changes Jesus’ ‘original’ words.
 
2. A very interesting example is that of the parable of the wineskins.  In this part of the gospel narrative Jesus was asked why his disciples did not fast. Jesus replied “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them . . .” (Mk 2:19). This is followed up by two parables about what one does not do: one did not sew a new piece of unshrunk cloth on an old coat, and one did not put new wine in an old wineskin.
 
This passage is also repeated in Matt. 9:14-17 and in Luke 5:33-39
 
Mark’s version occurs after the calling of Levi, but the question about fasting is asked of Jesus by other people because both John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting.
 
In Matthew, the fasting question occurs after the calling of Matthew, and it is asked by John’s disciples!
 
The Lukan account reverts to the Markan version with the incident occurring after the calling of Levi. However in this version the incident occurs at a meal that Levi is hosting; at the meal the Pharisees (co-guests) ask Jesus about the fasting issue.
 
These 3 examples show the very different ways that the NT writers could retconovate the same story. It is quite clear that any attempt to reconcile these 3 versions is futile.
 
But there are deeper differences.
The end of the Markan text says: “No, he pours new wine into new wineskins”.
Matthew added to Mark’s version by saying, “. . . and both are preserved”.
Luke extended this further with: “And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’”
 
In Mark’s gospel Jesus simply presents one metaphor and two illustrations as to why the disciples do not fast:

• Guests do not mourn at weddings
• New cloths are not sew on old clothes
• New wine is not poured into old wineskins

All of the above 3 practices are examples of things not done in society, and therefore it is also inappropriate for Jesus’ disciples to fast!
 
But the addition of Luke’s words into Jesus’ mouth have changed the meaning of the text itself, with 90% of scholars believing that the text is symbolic for the differences between Judaism and Christianity or between Christianity and the old way of life!
 
Thus a retconovated text – Jesus’ words reworked – can have an enormous effect on the understanding of a particular text.
 
C). OT prophecy Retconovated into a NT fulfilment
Before examining OT prophecy and its fulfilment in the NT, it would be instructive to understand Judaism.  Judaism has always understood that a scripture can have multiple and differing meanings; in Judaism there has never been only ‘one’ way to understand or interpret the Torah. Rabbincal Judaism also followed this practice and so did Paul! Paul often used OT scripture to ‘prove’ an idea, often taking an OT line or phrase totally out of its original context.
Consider Eph 4.7-8:
“But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.  This is why it says:
‘When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men’,
 
The text then goes on to connect the quote (from Psalms 68.18) with Christ’s birth, resurrection, ascension  (descended and ascended) and connects the ‘gifts’ to the appointment of apostleship.
 
Yet the Psalm passage did not, in any way at all, mean to speak of Christ’s humanity and exaltation, nor about apostleship . . . but the Rabbi in Paul could take a small part of the Psalm and retconovate it to suit his own purposes.
 
Let me suggest that this retconovation of OT texts to support one’s theology in the NT is the same process that is used by the NT writers when speaking of ‘fulfilment’ prophecies. 
Of course not everyone will appreciate this position.  Most Christian conservatives will suggest that OT prophesy has a two-pronged focus: the OT situation that it is directed toward, and an over-arching future dimension directed towards to Christ.
See:

http://www.wayhome.org/PropheciesRegardingChrist.html

and for a slightly different perspective:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9226667/Tabernacle-and-Temple-as-Metaphor-or-Figurative-Language-INDICATING-a-Spiritual-Fulfillment

 
One problem with these views is that there is a nagging issue over whether those doing the OT ‘prophesying’ viewed their own ‘prophecies’ as having two separate meanings. Consider the following:
 
1.   The gospels suggest that Christ’s virgin birth is the fulfilment of an Isaiah passage (Is. 7:14). “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call his name Immanuel.” The problem is that in this passage the word translated as “virgin” is more literally “young woman.” and has to do with the coming Assyrian invasion.  For ‘some’ reason, the NT does not refer to the rest of the passage: “He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste”.

It’s one thing to suggest that the passage has a direct prophecy to Jesus’ birth . . . but what does one do with the rest of the passage?
 
2.   Genesis 3.15, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
This text was retconovated in Roman 16.20 as the struggle between God and Satan.  Again most study Bibles view this Genesis text as a Christological prophesy. Christianity often sets up the spiritual world as a big battle between God and his holy angels and Lucifer and his fallen angels – almost as if Satan is the evil equivalent of God. Yet for much of Judaism’s history Satan was never seen as the arch enemy of God. Indeed, Satan was simply viewed as a being that God used to tempt humans in order to give them opportunity to be righteous.  This idea of Satan is expressed as a “lying spirit” in the narrative concerning Ahab’s death (1 Kings 22.19-22), but the classic story of Satan in his god-given role of deceiver is Job (see Job 1.6-12).  It was only in the latter part of the Second-Temple period that the shift in Satan’s ‘role’ towards a more menacing persona started gaining in momentum. 
By the 2nd Century C.E. the Early Church Fathers did not view the creation and Eden accounts of Genesis as literal, but symbolic, including the serpent as a symbol of Satan. Although, from a Jewish perspective, the role of deceiver does appear to fit the serpent in Eden quite nicely, Judaistic writings seem to suggest that the snake was never thought of as Satan! 
It is interesting that conservative Christianity can view the Genesis creation/Eden texts as both literal and symbolic!
 
It must be said that both the writer of Isaiah and Genesis would have had no expectations that their words would be intended for prophecies about Jesus so far into the future. One could argue for a ‘god-inspired prophetic intention’ that the writers were unaware of. Yet it is interesting that this form of ‘take and twist’ was very rabbinical in style, while retconovation of an older text was quite common in both the Ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman World! Of course there are many, many cases throughout the NT where the writers have selected specific OT lines or passages and given them a ‘fulfilment’ spin – but the question lingers – is it god-inspired or simply great retconovation?
 
D). NT text as a Retconovation of an historical situation
The previous section on OT prophecy and fulfilment is closely linked to this section. The various details regarding Jesus’ life and death are often considered as literal and also often deemed as fulfilment of OT texts.  A popular slogan is “If the Bible said it, then I believe it!” Yet such perspectives rarely take the time to properly evaluate the text.
 
Rather look at all the different aspects of Jesus’ life, the following will just concentrate on his early years:
 
1.   The first of the gospel’s retconovation of history is actually the genealogical account of Matthew. Here the list of Jesus’ ancestors were clearly reworked to make 3 sets of 14 ancestors in each. Clearly this was impossible, showing that the NT writers were rarely concerned with the absolute facts. Luke has a different genealogical list (more forefathers added in), and prefaces the list by saying “he was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph . . .” The big problem is that part of the list is so different that some believe that it is actually Mary’s genealogy which, if this is the case, meant that Luke retconovated Joseph’s line!
 
2.   Many theological books about the gospels give an outline of the early life of Christ by interweaving all the different gospel accounts.  It is interesting that NIV gives the 2 paragraphs at the end of Matthew chapter 2 the title “The Return to Nazareth”.  This is because ‘timelines’ put Mary and Joseph as living in Nazareth prior to the journey to Bethlehem for Jesus’ birth.  Yet Matthew actually implies that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem: there is no journey to Bethlehem, and after the return from Egypt the small family – about to go back to Judea – are warned in a dream, and decide to settle in Nazareth, Galilee, far North from the threat! In the Lukan account Joseph and his family return to Nazareth after Jesus’ 8th day circumcision and the fulfilment of all their religious obligations.
 
 
3.  With all the OT warnings about astrology and witchcraft it is a little confusing that the Magi – a group of Zoroastrian astrologers from Persia – were placed into the Matthew text.  Many have studied cosmological history to try and find which constellations could have matched the time of Christ’s birth.  There are also conjectures regarding whether it was a star/constellation or a comet that mysteriously broke all the laws of physics!  This is another example of a story was added in – a retconovation – a nice little touch to speak of Jesus’ universality and kingship – but no basis in reality.

4.   The escape to Egypt is again a creative piece put into the story – it is about the symbolism of Jesus ‘re-enacting’ the exodus story – not real historicity.
 
5. Mark does not speak of the Nativity – this gospel starts with an intro to John the Baptist and moving straight to Jesus’ baptism.  This gospel is different in that it is also a “chiasm.” For a view on this see:

http://www.preachingpeace.org/2010/04/06/mark_chiasm/

The Gospel of Mark  is not an historical account as contemporary society would perceive history, for the chiasm is proof that the account has been created with a theological purpose.
 
The basic idea of Retroactive Continuity is that the central framework remains constant, but any other details can be changed or altered.  This is true of the Gospel stories. As has been repeated throughout this piece, the Ancient historians  never, ever, created purely historical accounts.  History was always mixed with myth, exaggeration and personal opinions – ancient historians were storytellers and the Gospel writers were no different – they abided by the rules and writing conventions of their day.  For these writers, it was not wrong to add words into someone’s mouth, or to change the particulars of a situation. It was not considered lying or ‘non-truth’, instead it was simply considered good written skills to be able to write creatively to effectively communicate something to the audience.
 
If the writers of the Bible were willing to retconovate OT texts to give them a new meaning; if they were willing to add words into Jesus’ mouth; if they were comfortable in changing the context of events in Jesus’ life . . . would they also retconovate Jesus himself? 
 
Certainly most would agree that the Gospels were written with a theological intent.  They did not need to prove that Jesus was human – everybody knew that! According to the Gospels, Jesus’ humanness was part of the reason that he was rejected. So the Gospels were attempts to prove the deity of Christ.
 
This leads, of course, to the ‘search for the historical Jesus’. You can see some of the developments here: 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcse_his.htm

This is not actually the full history, for the debates over Jesus’ humanity and deity are millennia old, and such questions have caused dissensions and splits within the church long before the modern age.
 
So the questions I offer today:
“How much did the gospel writers retconovate the story of Jesus?”

“Are you brave enough to re-evaluate the gospel stories in the light of 1^st Century historiographical practices?”

Peace

Tony Kemp
 
(As this article is the basis for a new book that is being written, I would be most appreciative of any comments, thoughts, and reflections!)

I think that in Australia we tend to plan our lives on probabilities: There is a high probability that we will continue to live into the future and not die anytime soon, and based on this our plans to store up financial security is likely to come to fruition.  Even the elderly might think this way.  We may be driven by the concern that if we do live beyond today and don’t prepare for it then we will be filled with regret.  We fear that we are going to end up sick or needy or be in some difficult situation and have no financial security to fall back on.  Jesus said that God knows our needs (v30) and that he will give them to us if we only give ourselves to him (v31).

Perhaps we are mistaken in planning our lives based on probability.  The example of the man who had a good crop reveals that even those who plan according to a positive outlook on the future are likely mistaken… Death is the principle of uncertainty that Jesus advises us to take seriously.

Jesus makes at least two more points in regard to this topic: that worry can be avoided if you devote all your energy to serving God; and service to God is actually a better form of storing up riches for the future.  He uses the example of weak and fragile life on earth in the form of ravens (v24) and lilies (v27) to explain that though insignificant, ravens are able to find food each day because God makes it possible and lilies are beautiful as they grow in the field, since they are clothed by God (v28).  He says that people are even more valuable to God than ravens and lilies, and so he will take care of them, if they only let him.  To let God look after you is to devote your life to his service (v31), rather than to financial security.  The second point is that riches are located somewhere that is invisible to our eyes, that we will only be able to access after our life on this earth, and this means that we need to get our priorities right.  Do we chase after money to give us security now or do we serve God now which will bring us rewards later on after death?

Finally Jesus tells us that what we spend our life working for is an indication of what we truly desire, when he concludes by stating that “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (v34).  If your heart yearns for the security of owning a number of properties, and having a reasonable size bank account balance then that is what you will spend your life chasing (v30).  However, if you intend to serve God, and have a passion to be a part of his kingdom then Jesus is suggesting that you let go of worries about financial security and entrust the care of yourself to God.  I find this a mind-blowing concept that personally challenges the way I live my life!

A Prayer: “God you really are able to take care of me (and my family) and  I desire to be part of your kingdom, and count it a wondrous privilege.   You truly are a loving God, who cares deeply for the people on this earth, a fact your Son has made clear to me… Yes”

Nowadays we see time as an asset… we have 24 hours in a day, 365 days in a year, 45 years in our working life.  And we must make the most of that finite time we have, by working to accomplish, achieve, and build.  We also in Australia have a fair amount of control over what we want to build or accomplish with our time.  Most people will likely devote those hours to making money, partly because money makes your life comfortable, but also because money will be the family that takes care of you when you retire, or are sick and unable to take care of yourself.  Money is used to sustain us and is then accumulated to serve as a backup just in case our friends or family are not around when we need them; then we can coax a stranger to fill their position using money as the lure.  Money sustains us and assures us that in the future we will continue to be sustained.

On this basis, if I have just entered the workforce at age 20, I might need say $50 a day (hypothetically) to sustain me (without depending on other people, while providing food for the day and one set of clothes, and $25 towards the house where I live), and I can hope to live to the national life expectancy of around 80 years, then I will need to earn over my working life 1 million and ninety five thousand dollars.  If I earn the current average wage in Australia of $1200 a week minus work expenses bringing it down to about $1000 a week then I will have enough money after working 18 years.  Then I can live satisfied that my needs will be met, and spend the remaining 60% of my working life (and the 15 years after retirement) in obedience to God (as Paul puts it).   I could join groups who seek to show love.  I could be active in visiting people and communicating love to people.  I could join with my Christian family regularly to encourage and be encouraged.  Meanwhile my million dollars would be sitting in the bank as I used $350 a week to satisfy my needs.

Is this amount enough to cover our bills?  Is it enough to pay for entertainment?  Does it cover medical expenses?  Will it pay for that $20,000 heart surgery that enables me to continue living 20 years beyond the previous prediction?  More money means longer life in many cases.  Ok then, so I guess we could work an extra two years to cover unexpected medical costs.  But what of the entertainment and high electricity bills… can I not be content without all the extra technologies?  The problem in this area is advertising.  When I see it I want it… add to that all the subtle lighting changes, camera angles, and association of objects with things I already want that advertisements use… add to that the work colleagues who already have these things… and you have an irresistible urge to buy buy buy.

So this new life of obedience would also require the advice Paul gave to “flee” or “avoid” or “stay away” from not only plans to get rich, but also influences that might lure you back into the game of excess.  In addition to earning our million, and then working to communicate love, we would need to spend more time with like-minded Christians in order to remain strong when tempted to spend.  Paul did point out the obvious traps we fall into when influenced strongly by our secular culture, and which many churches continue to be stuck in.  It is difficult to get out of the cycle of earn, desire and spend, but the first step is to see an alternative and go for it.  Perhaps Christians need to be working on an alternative to consumerism so rich Christians finally have somewhere to go to escape themselves.

A Prayer:  “Oh Lord, lead us to a refuge… a safe place… focused on you Jesus… a place where we are protected from the desire to have more money”