An unnamed friend and I are having an ongoing conversation about eternal judgment. Right now we're discussing the possibility of a post-mortem opportunity for repentance & saving faith.
I think others will be interested in reading some of what I'm saying here (I'm an arrogant little SOB like that, as you know). :)
However, as I don't have permission (I haven't asked), I'm not posting any of the other half of the conversation, except to say that my friend raised points from the following passages from Hebrews.
--------
Re: Hebrews 9:27
I'm really not sure what this verse means. And I'm not just saying that because what it seems to mean on the surface is something I don't like or seems confusing. I really just don't know what it might seem to mean on the surface. The context isn't terribly helpful. Prisca-or-whoever :) is talking about the atonment work of Christ by comparison to the Day of Atonement in ancient Israelite religion. Christ's atonement is superior to Aaron's atonement. Then there's this analogy at the end of the chapter: "Just as human beings are appointed to die once, and after this - judgment, so also, after Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many [cf. Isa 53:12], He will appear a second time to those who eagerly await Him: not to bear sin, but to bring salvation [lit. "without sin, but for salvation"]." (9:27-28, cf. ESV & NET). I guess there's a parallel between human beings' dying once and Christ's having been offered once (in sacrificial death). I suppose that parallel is that they both die only once--so Christ won't be offered a second time, anymore than human beings die a second time. (Aside: John's concept of "the second death" isn't in play here--I wouldn't claim that this is a denial of that notion.) This plays well into the overall context: whereas the high priest must perform the Atonement sacrifice annually at Yom Kippur, Christ's atonement sacrifice is once-for-all-time. Now what can the parallel be between judgment after death for human beings and Christ's returning to bring salvation after His sacrifice? I guess they're related at least in that Christ's return is connected to the judgment. The context into which Christ brings salvation (to whom? to those who eagerly await Him) is the judgment of human beings who have died. I'm not sure that these insights fully capture the thrust of the analogy, though.
A couple observations & suggestions: "human beings" is plural here (anthropois), in "it's appointed for human beings to die once and after this - judgment". So (I think) the author is thinking about judgment on the scope of a universal judgment -- on the last day, coinciding with the return of Christ -- rather than individual judgments. The popular (I'm not sure it's biblical) picture that when an individual dies they immediately meet Christ and are judged and sorted into Heaven/Hell, or Paradise/Hades. (Reformed Protestant Orthodoxy has it, as you might remember from Historic Xian Belief that the righteous/unrighteous are sorted into Paradise/Hades as intermediate states prior to the general resurrection and final judgment which decides who is part of the New Heavens/New Earth/New Jerusalem and who is cast into the lake of fire). Further, in the context of this passage, the point of the analogy (as far as I can make it out) is that human beings don't die a second time; I don't see that it teaches any clear doctrine regarding what may or may not happen in between death and judgment (i.e., whether or not there is any further opportunity for repentance). If you like, it is implied/assumed by the author(ess) here that judgment comes after (not before) death. But I don't think we can force on this verse support of the doctrine that judgment comes *immediately* after death.
So in conclusion, this is not a very clear verse to start with, and what it does seem to say isn't in the context of answering the question whether or not there is a post-mortem opportunity for repentance prior to final judgment. Using it to support the denial that there is such an opportunity is poor proof-texting, in my opinion.
---------
Re: Hebrews 3
vv. 1 - 6 -- Comparison of Jesus & Moses. Jesus superior to Moses.
vv. 7 - 19 -- Exposition of Psalm 95 (7b-11)
Here we have a warning to Christians, based on a warning to the Israelite community at the time of the Psalmist, with a comparison to the story of the rebellion of the first generation of Israelites in the wilderness. The warning is that just as the rebellion, disobeidence, and lack of faith (that God would keep His promise to give Israel the land if they'd just walk into it) of the ancient Israelites provoked God to deny them entrance into the Promised Land ("God's rest"), so too rebellion, disobedience, and lack of faith on the part of members of the church community (in the first century and by extension in the twenty-first century) may/will provoke God to deny them entrance into "God's rest". What is rebellion, disobedience, and lack of faith in the first-century context? "Forsaking the living God" (by turning to some form of idolatry? perhaps: legalism, angel-worship, paganism, or submission to the emperor cult?) in connection with forsaking an initial confidence/faith in Christ's sufficiency. The author of Hebrews exhorts the first-century Christians to persevere to the end in their reliance on Christ for salvation, and not to seek security from some other source (some form of idolatry on the side). The Christians are warned that giving up on their faith/reliance on Christ alone for salvation would mean that they would not be able to enter "God's rest". (A theology of Hebrews is needed to explicate the local concept of "God's rest" in this book--my memory isn't good enough to give an exposition on the concept here. Eternal salvation/life with God after death/judgment is probably a part of the concept here, but I suspect there is some realized eschatology--really some now/not yet or double-fulfillment eschatology--at work in this concept as well.)
What does this passage have to say for our purposes in the present discussion? Well, there is a very real warning of the possibility of not entering God's rest (if you like, of "losing one's salvation"). And there is a historical reminder that some (a generation of unfaithful Israelites) in the past have actually forfeited God's rest. So can we conclude that this passage teaches that some will definitely not enter God's rest? My answer: a tentative maybe/I'm not so sure. There is definitately a warning that such a fate is possible, but the possibility doesn't logically necessitate the actuality for anyone. Now, one might argue that the passage teaches a condition: "If you do not persevere in faith to the end, you will not enter God's rest", and that we have independent knowledge that some have not persevered to the end; hence, we can deduce that some will not enter God's rest. I'd buy that--although we might have to examine further what it would mean that some have not persevered to the end, and also to examine further how absolutely certain we really are that this is a true premise. The best textual argument in this passage for accepting this premise is true is the example of the ancient Israelites who provoked God and did not enter the Promised Land. But I would argue that the Promised Land--"God's rest" in their context--and "God's rest" in the first-century context of the writer of Hebrews are non-identical. Indeed, it is conceivable that some ancient Hebrews who lived in Moses' generation and forfeited "God's rest" in their lifetime might enjoy some other form of rest in an eternal, post-mortem, or post-resurrection context. I am open to argument that this conceivability is not an actual possibility for other reasons (grounded in scriptural exegesis of other passages).
------------
Re: Hebrews 4
The warning & comparison to Moses' generation continues.
v.1 - the promise of entering God's rest still stands. (For whom? For those of us yet living? For those who lived before Christ also? The clear intent of the author's claim here is that the promise stands for "you", the living audience of the epistle. No claim is made regarding the eternal fate or post-mortem options of dead Israelites)
v.2 - in order for the message (euangelion) to benefit, one must listen with faith
vv.3&4 - Those who have believed enter God's rest. God's rest is established from the foundation of the world, in connection with the Sabbath rest of God in Genesis 1.
vv.5-7 -- The offer of God's rest stands: "today", even while some have already failed to enter it (the author of Hebrews on the face of it is more ready to equate the rest forfeited by Moses' generation with the rest offered to the first-century Christians)
vv.8-10 -- Entering the land with Joshua was *not* the true rest of Israel; for God speaks (through the psalmist) of entering rest later on (perhaps even to Israelites in the land in David's time?); the true Sabbath rest for the people of God is participation in God's 7th-day rest from all His works. I take this to mean that it is an eternal rest, at the end of time, when all God's plans for creation of the heavens and earth have come to completion, and the Body of Christ has finished its work of representing the Son of God until He returns. (I theologize rather than straightforwardly exegete here; but then I take it the author of Hebrews does likewise! This is certainly not a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.)
vv.11-13 -- Exhortation: strive to enter God's rest; hold fast, do not fall into the disobedience of unfaith. God knows the truth of every person's heart/mind/intentions/thoughts, and all are thus accountable to God. We cannot hide our faith or lack thereof from Him.
vv.14-16 -- We don't walk alone in our striving & perseverence in faith. Rather, Jesus has walked before us, and represents us in the heavenly tabernacle as our high priest even now, so that we have grace as needed--for resisting temptation to unfaith and (I hope) for restoration from unfaith, with repentance.
As you say there is some sense of urgency in Chs. 3-4. But on the other hand the force of the "Today" in 4:7 is to remind the readers of the epistle that the offer still stands today, and did not expire between Joshua and David. The force does not seem, at least primarily, to be "you have today to choose faith because tomorrow you might have to face judgment". In preaching from this passage I would probably emphasize the ongoing extension of grace & opportunity from God and God-in-Christ to humanity; not an immanent threat that this extension of grace & opportunity will be cut off. In this passage at least, I do not see that doctrine being taught. This is not to say that faith or unfaith do not matter -- not at all! Rather, that God is gracious to those who struggle in faith, and (I believe) God is gracious even to those who have fallen into unfaith, so that they may yet be restored. Is such restoration possible only before, or also after death? Is it possible only before, or also after the descent of the New Jerusalem and the destruction of death? These are significant questions to which I don't want to claim to have biblical answers--not yet, at any rate.
----------
----------
You say: "I find it hard to believe that God in laying out the message of salvation would leave out the important detail of a choice after this life."
I respond: I can sympathize with your reasoning. But this is still an argument from silence. That doesn't mean your wrong. Or that such reasoning is bad theology. But it is going beyond simple exegesis and proclamation of the Word of God written.
Such reasoning indeed makes me hesitant, if not skeptical, to affirm as doctrine that there is a post-mortem opportunity for repentance. But I wouldn't want to rule it out or condemn such a belief as heresy, either.
---
Another question (I put this into my interlocutor's mouth): "If God can or will save some people after death, why would God, or why should God's servants, even bother with extending an offer of salvation to living people? Especially as it might seem that after death many would be more inclined to accept such an offer, as they are no longer being tempted by all the things that now attract them away from a righteous relationship to God (i.e. 'Sex, Drugs, & Rock&Roll')?"
Response: Because God & the members of Christ's body love the world and the people of the world, and yearn for the restoration of right relationships between human beings, between human beings and God, and between human beings and the ecosystem. God is, and Christians ought to be, interested in more than just someone's "eternal destiny" in the sense of "Heaven or Hell". Not that deathbed conversions are impossible or of no value. But God actually cares about the world and about our lives and relationships and the health of all of the above right now, during our lifetime. God has sent us into the world to do some of the work of restoration here and now, as a foretaste of the grand and complete restoration at the End. God's Kingdom is already here in the Church. At least, it's supposed to be.
---
Further points:
Of course we are responsible as servants of Christ and members of His Body to continue the work He started on earth, and that is first and foremost proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Everyone is responsible for their own response to the message. And the Holy Spirit is doing His own thing in concert with our efforts, and perhaps sometimes apart from our efforts. It is not our responsibility to make others love God or choose repentance. Each individual is responsible for his/her own choices.
But that doesn't mean that some form of restorationism is not true. It does mean (and I suppose this is your point) that the truth of restorationism is irrelevant to our responsibility to preach the Gospel, and to each individual's own responsibility to hear & respond to it. (And we should not confuse these two domains of responsibility.)
-
Eternal separation from God is preached by Jesus and elsewhere in the scriptures as a possibility. A real possibility. I don't know that that--by itself--must prevent bible-believing Christians from hoping that Hell will be empty. Again, if we have good reason to think that some people have failed to meet certain conditions, and if we have good reason further to think that meeting certain conditions is necessary for avoiding Hell as an eternal and permanent destiny, then we have good reason to think Hell will not be empty. But we both agree that we are not responsible to discern the eternal destiny of any concrete individuals. The reality of Hell--regarldess of the number of its occupants--is certainly one impetus to us to preach the Gospel.
---
---
---
I think there's lots of significant agreement between us here; I also think there's room for more fruitful discussion. Feel free please to bring up more relevant passages.
Or if you want to take a hiatus from this conversation for a while, that's OK. :) It doesn't have to be constant and unceasing to be ongoing.
And here is the rest of it.
------
"Make me a channel of Your Peace."
-St. Francis
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Hebrews 9, 3, & 4 -- ongoing conversation about eternal judgment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
I will now become named, instead of unnamed. I am Michael. I certainly was not making any attempts at proof with the provided passages. They are more circumstantial or implicit arguments. I would not set it up as a doctrine that there is no choice after death. My point was merely that in the view of silence either way, are there any hints that can be added up to cause one to lean in a direction.
In Hebrew 9:27, I agree that there is no mention of what happens between death and judgement, perhaps because nothing does happen between those to events. I do not know. It would seems a great place for information of that nature to be placed. Which I know proves nothing, but as I said it does hint me in a direction. Much like the fact that a green light for me hints a red light for the cross traffic. That is probably some kind of logical fallacy or error, in which case, I would love the correction and opportunity to learn more philosophy and logic. I have always wanted to study Philosophy, but never chose to yet. Sorry, tangent. As far as your thought that because human being is plural that judgement has some kind of universal idea, I question whether a distinction can be made. At the judgement (universal) of mankind will there not be individual judgements? Also, perhaps the verse had said the it is appointed for men to be born once and then die. Would we presume that death is a group effect? I think the author is thinking about the fact that you get one life to live, then you die, and then you are judged on that life.
I think you err when analyzing the "rest" in chapter 3. I agree that the old testament account's context argues for a "rest" in terms of the promised land, but by the author of Hebrews pulling that quote out of the old testament he attaches a new understanding to it, namely the eternal rest. The old interpretation was a shadow to the actuality of the new meaning. The writer of Hebrews does not leave us the option of interpreting those words from the perspective of the israelites. As in other places the new testament authors, through the Holy Spirit, bring a new meaning to the old. The old is forever transformed. Another example of this would be Paul's use of the Abraham story, in particular, the promise of a seed. Israel may have interpreted that as Issac, but Paul eliminates that from our options by naming the seed, Christ.
In answering my question about why God attempts to restore people before death, you state that it is because God and Christ's body longs for this restoration. I totally agree. I would argue though that He longs for restoration because He longs for eternal unity, and that He insists on bringing people to Himself while they are alive because this is the proving ground and either there will be no other opportunity or the outcome of that opportunity will be unchanged after death.
I wonder, if God did provide this opportunity of choice following death and everyone was brought into heaven as a consequence, would that make God's direct message irrefutable or irresistible and eliminate the need for faith?
Clearly Hell will not be empty. Jesus says, "The [the king] will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" Matt 25:41 As well, "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but threw them into hell and committed them to chains of deepest darkness to be kept for judgment; ...." II Peter 2:4 Hell will at the very least be occupied by fallen angels and the devil. Jesus tells Peter that the forces of hell will not overpower "this rock." Someone or something is in Hell. What about Judas? Christ says it would have been better if He had not been born. If Judas was able to choose God after he died, then conceivably he is in heaven with God enjoying his eternal rest. How could it be better to not exist then to spend eternity with God? Judas is or will be in Hell.
Adam and Eve provide another implicit argument for the finality of death and judgement. Even in a perfect state with a genuine experience of intimacy with God, they were able to choose themselves. I am of the impression that nothing will change for us between death and the judgement. If I am unable to find God and Christ in this life, I will not find him in the next one either.
Again I am not proving anything here. I am merely producing a preponderance of evidence. I plan on suing God in a civil court if he starts giving people a chance after death. (That was a joke, comic relief in a serious discussion. Seriously, I was joking. Put down that rock!) I cannot believe that there is both a second chance and not a second chance. So I either have to live in with the decision in suspense or I have to go with the leading of what I hope is the Holy Spirit, knowing that if I am wrong, I am protected by the blood of Christ. I think the idea that there is no second chance encourages me to be a more devout follower of Christ. I have a lot a work to do. Believing in a second chance certainly wouldn't negate my responsibilities, but somehow I get the sense that if I believed that, I would have no sense of urgency for either myself or anyone else.
I apologize for typos and poor logical constructs. I did not do a lot of proofing before submitting. I am finishing this at 0230 and I am tired of typing and looking at this screen.
I am making a bold step here, intruding into a conversation that is way over my head. But I would like to suggest another possibility.
The "appointment to death" referred to was at the fall of Adam, and since that time man has lived under judgement (the effect of sin), so Christ was offered to bring life (abolish death) and to those who believe (look for Him) He "appears" (as if a "second time" - as opposed to His incarnation), now saving them from the curse of that judgement.
This takes the whole of the text out of the future and brings it into our everyday lives, something that I believe better fits the context of the whole scripture.
I could say more, but that will suffice to give you an idea of where I'm coming from.
Re: Dad M.
I appreciate your suggestions here.
The notion that the author of Hebrews is thinking of Adam's death in 9:27 is an intriguing interpretive possibility at the very least. Heb 9:27-28 would then be a close parallel to Rom 5:12-21.
I'm in no great hurry to discount or eliminate that possibility, but without the immediate context of Romans 5 in Hebrews 9 it isn't clear. Offhand (without much time spent scrutinizing the texts this afternoon) it seems like the concept of death here jumps out of nowhere. Why couldn't the writer have given us more context here? argh. :)
My instincts more immediately call for dismissal of the non-eschatological interpretation of Christ's second appearanece in v.28; but of course there's a significant theological tradition that would agree with you here. (My instincts might well be wrong!).
I would however more strongly disagree with your statement that a non-eschatological reading "better fits the context of the whole scripture". I read in the NT, on the whole, a very clearly anticipation of a literal and visible second coming of Christ. But, again, I am aware that this is a controversial issue, and I don't want to take it up right now. Even if I advanced all the arguments I could muster given a day or two it wouldn't by itself resolve the issue beyond further debate. :)
The tenses are all wrong for that interpretation. "men are appointed to die once ... Christ was sacrificed..." I tend to think that, unless given a good exegetical reason, we should interpret scripture plainly. Nowhere is Adam's fall mentioned, and even though "to those who believe Christ has saved them from the cure", we still die. A physical death followed by a spiritual judgement seems the most plausible interpretation.
One clarification: The context to which I as referring had to do with the interweaving theme of the conscience (Heb. 9:9, 9:14, 10:42), each referring to the benefit derived by Christ's offering for sin. Thus these, having seen Him by faith, have obtained a pure conscience or, as he puts it in verse 28, salvation.
When Christ enter into heaven with His offering (in the figure of high priest), He did not stay there. That may seem a minor point, but I think it has significance.
When He appeared to Mary outside of the tomb, He told her not to touch Him, because He had not yet ascended. But later, when He appeared to His other disciples, He expressed no such reservation. Obviously something was different.
As high priest, He was sanctified for the offering He was about to make, and so Mary could not touch Him. Having made that offering, He appeared to His disciples much as Peter describes in I Pet. 1:3 ... "[God] caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."
The appearances of Christ have been, I believe, impossible to number. They are as varied and personal as the people He has blessed with the experience.
What is being described here is the deeper experience of seeing Christ, not only as sin bearer, but as seeing Him WITHOUT sin, thus completing the restoration of our fellowship with the Godhead.
Those gathered around Him at the cross might have seen Him as sin bearer, if they had know what was happening. But to see Him without sin is to understand the full acceptance by God of the work of Christ.
What a glorious blessing, to see Him without sin! When I see Him that way, I can see myself as the same, without sin. And so I am "transformed into the same image."
Now I'm done. Thanks for letting me prattle.
I don't really have anything substantial to add to the exegesis, but I do have a couple methodological points to make, as one Michael to another:
1) You say that "we should interpret scripture plainly." However, the problem comes up that sometimes, our plain readings of Scripture come from our own interpretations, and sometimes they come from our prejudices (Conservative Catholics take a literal reading of Jesus statements concerning his flesh as food and blood as wine to be the plain reading, no matter how misguided you may think they are). Scott seems to me to be trying to shake us out of our over-familiarity with the text, to open up space for possible interpretations which we miss because we think that we already know the meaning.
2) "Nowhere is Adam's fall mentioned[.]" However, that is a risky argument to use in a book like Hebrews, known for its implicit OT allusions. We have to think from the standpoint of an educated Jewish Christian intimately acquainted with the Old Testament, who would hear allusions where we hear none. For example, we can banter with our friends and quote movies and songs, and immediately the others recognize what we are getting at, even though there was no explicit mention.
In response to m. anderson, I would say that our own particular biases, prejudices and preconceived notions is exactly the reason for an attempt at plain interpretation. Your example of the RCC's interpretation of the literal body and blood of Christ is not a question of plain reading, but of contextual inaccuracies. Christ clarifies His spiritual meaning in the same passage. A plain reading without the aid of historical authority would bring you an accurate understanding. It is much harder to insert errors produced by preconceptions if you stick plainly to the text and texts. I certainly understand Scott's intent to approach the text freshly, but I think more importantly, he is attempting to accurately interpret scripture so that he can live in that interpretation, hence all thought is practical.
As far as your second point, I still contest that we should not insert Adam into a place that he is not specifically mentioned unless we have good reason or supportive passages elsewhere. The writer of Hebrews is fairly transparent, explicit rather than implicit, with his allusions elsewhere in the book, we should not assume that he is being mysterious here.
I also think that the allusions and references to the OT are not the domain of Jewish Christians. I am not a Jewish Christian. I understand the allusion quite well. I think any Christian who takes his/her faith seriously will be somewhat familiar with the OT.
Finely, I find it inconsistent that you would warn me of the dangers inherent in interpreting scriptures plainly, and then use your prejudice or preconception of the implicit allusions of Hebrews to interpret it in a way that is less plain.
Michael F.: Thanks as always for your clear and thoughtful comments and sincere opinions. :)
I think I agree with Michael A. on this one. When Christians talk about a "plain reading", or a "literal reading", I always want to know what they mean. In any interpretive context, biblical or otherwise, we as interpreters always bring our concepts and presuppositions to bear in engaging with a text. What is "plain" and "literal" to one person might not be the same as what is "plain" and "literal" to another. One general rule of biblical interpretation that I try to follow is to try to get as close as I can to the concepts and presuppositions of the original human author and his/her original 1st century audience. So I disagree with your claim that "A plain reading without the aid of historical authority would bring you an accurate understanding." That's assuming that by "historical authority" you mean not "the way the Church has traditionally, historically interpreted this text" but rather "information about the historical context of the writing and reading/hearing of the text in question, and/or of the setting of the narrative (when appropriate)". I may have misunderstood you, though. Regarding the place of traditional readings of the text in interpretation, I guess I'm still very Protestant--while I think traditional readings should be heard and given serious weight, at the end of the day they need to be judged (alongside other readings) in light of considerations of context--both biblical context and historical/socio-cultural context.
To take the particular case of Jesus' statements regarding the bread and wine at the Last Supper, I myself don't see how the immediate textual context supports a Luther or Reformed position vs. a Catholic position (or vice versa) on the presence of Christ in the elements of the Eucharist. Can you clarify this for me?
What the text says Jesus says is (from Matthew 26, ESV): "Take, eat; this is my body", and "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."
Jesus doesn't say much at all about the bread/body here--it seems "plain" enough to take the "is" here as supporting the Catholic view, although it might also be "plain" enough to take the passage to support a Reformed or Lutheran view.
He says more about the wine/blood. He calls it "my blood of the covenant" which is "poured out" "for many for the forgiveness of sins", and then he talks about "drinking again of this fruit of the vine". Now, greater biblical & historical context will tell us more about the significance of "blood of the covenant", but he does say "my blood". Maybe we can argue that "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" *must* refer to the literal pouring out of His blood at the cross--but then a typical Reformed interpreter (I think) would probably say that this should *not* be taken literally, but rather as figurative for Jesus' voluntary offering of His own life, i.e. His sacrificial death, in vicarious substitutionary atonement for sins. Importing a Calvinist notion of penal substitution into this text would probably not be a "plain" reading. But in any case a classic RCC view of the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice in which Christ's blood is literally poured out at the performance of the rite by the priest as a sacrifice for sin can have just as much support from this text's immediate context, it seems to me, as the Calvinist view (or probably any other respectable view of atonement).
Maybe a more significant point is that Jesus talks about "drinking again of this fruit of the vine". Would you argue, Michael, that this word of Jesus supports a "spiritual presence" vs. transubstantiation view of the Eucharist, because Jesus talks about the wine as wine, rather than as blood, here? I can see some plausibility in such an argument. However, I would hesitate to make too much of that: it's *too* literal. I think the historical theological context of the Passover Meal is much more important in understanding Jesus here: and that isn't something you can get from reading the text without knowing something about Jewish rituals. (And the Seder meal isn't even described in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, I don't think.) To someone who knows something about the Seder meal, it is "plain" that Jesus is breaking with the traditional Seder meal and abstaining from the final cup of wine: the cup of judgment. This supports a Culmannian "already-not-yet" eschatology. How's that for a "plain" reading? :)
Regarding Adam in Hebrews, I don't know what to think. I am hesitant to rule out an implicit Adamic reference absolutely. But I am far from reading to give this suggestion much weight in my interpretation of this passage. (Although I might be brought around by argument to change my mind.)
And Michael A.'s point about "thinking from the standpoint of an educated Jewish Christian intimately acquainted with the Old Testament, who would hear allusions where we hear none" is not that you have to be a Jewish Christian in order to understand the Old Testament, but rather that we need to try to hear the text as the original hearers would have been meant to hear it by the original author in the original context. The author and audience of Hebrews are first-century Jewish Christians. Not only are they intimately familiar with the Old Testament (as we have it now), they are probably familiar with Midrashic rabbinical traditions associated with the Old Testament texts the author of Hebrews cites throughout the book. And this is something else we can't get from inside the covers of our English Bibles (or our modern critical Hebrew & Greek texts).
For example, the argument made by the author of Hebrews at the beginning of this book about the superiority of Jesus to angels and to Moses (Chs 1-3) should probably be understood in the context of the Jewish Midrashic tradition about the role of angels in the giving of the Torah through Moses to Israel in Exodus. To use a second example from a completely different part of the NT, Paul's interesting passage about spiritual gifts in Ephesians 4:1-12 probably needs to be understood in the context of the Jewish Midrashic tradition which interprets Psalm 68 in light of Moses' ascending Mt. Sinai to receive the Torah and then descending to give it to the people.
In conclusion, I would be very hesitant to make claims about what readings of scripture are more or less "plain", especially based on familiarity or unfamiliarity with historical Jewish religious contexts.
Scott, thank you for this forum and venue where we can sharpen each other "as iron sharpens iron." I agree that the idea of plain or literal interpretation can be difficult to define and even more difficult to implement. I would debate that the main ideas of the Bible, what some might call the "Essentials of Christianity" are rather plain. (In terms of plain, I am referring more to the what of the Bible, rather than the how or why. For example, I think the Bible is rather clear or plain about the idea that there is a God. Who he is, why he does what he does, and how he does it are more complicated.) And those things that have a plain meaning are often the main ideas. Take the statement, "The cat is running." I think it would be plain and clear to interpret this statement as the cat is running. I may not be able to assess the actual speed of the cat, but I can know provided the author is not trying to be poetic that the pace of the cat is faster than walking and slower than a full sprint. I do not know these things for sure but I am at least being reasonable, and let's face it if I am not going to make a reasonable interpretation, what was the purpose of reading the statement in the first place. The danger comes in when I try to over analyze the statement. I try to use my knowledge of cats and other things. I can arrive at all kinds of plausible but possibly inaccurate interpretations. For example, cats run when they are frightened, therefore the cat must have something chasing it. When considering the Bible, it is wonderful to have a deep understanding of history and culture, but sometimes our understanding and knowledge are the reason we see things as more unclear and complicated when God has opened the eyes of the unlearned and unwise.
When I wrote historical authority, I meant more in terms of the position that the RCC takes on the subject of interpretive authority. As a follower of Jesus, I believe that the Bible is the authoritative, special revelation of God. The official Catholic stance, as I understand it, is that historical authors and interpretations of scriptures hold as much authority and clout.
I agree that information about "the historical context of the writing and reading/hearing of the text in question, and/or of the setting of the narrative" can be extremely helpful. I also think, though, that it enhances our prideful notions that we can discover God through our own efforts. Historic understandings can often cause us to limit the ability of God to use words and, more importantly, His Spirit to transcend time, space, and culture to bring meaning and understanding to all audiences. It may be that the author of Hebrews thought he was writing to a early Jewish Christian community, while God was writing to an African Atheist community, as well as others.
I assumed m. anderson was referring to the passage in John 6. Please forgive me for the confusion. Here the Christ petitions the people to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, and then after some grumbling from His audience, He clears the issue up with a statement of the spiritual nature of His comments. I do not see a need to have any understanding of the historical theological context of the Passover to read this passage and remember it when considering the Passover and the crucifixion. I am not saying a deeper understanding is not valuable, but that it is not necessary in many circumstances for the understanding that Jesus intends for His followers.
I find the RCC position flawed on several levels. One that Christ explains his references to the body and blood as spiritual and not physical. Two that the extremely dangerous view of repeatedly sacrificing Christ in the offering of the Mass directly contradicts Hebrews 9: 25-26.
In conclusion, I would argue that a "plain" interpretation of scriptures, even though it will be interpreted differently by different people, will lead you to less variance and radical variance than a more complicated, historic/socio/economic interpretation. Please don't misunderstand. By plain I am not suggesting a straight literal reading of small sections of scripture, but a broad literal interpretation of scripture as a whole. I guess I see Biblical interpretation as a pyramid where "plain/main" interpretations, that most can agree on, at the bottom. At the top would be very speculative, difficult, and unclear interpretations. (An example being I Peter 3:19. Many wild interpretations have been made, and since there is little to cross-reference, I would hesitate to make a strong doctrine out of any interpretation.) I hope this make sense. I am probably not communicating my thoughts very well. I would appreciate any corrections.
Post a Comment