I had the privilege of attending the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) in Boston over the last 5 days. What a phenomenal opportunity; but what an intimidating set of choices and company! There were at least 120 seminars each day, a book display with a gazillion books, and more geeks per square inch than any other place on earth. In other words- wonderful. (My only regret is that the SBL no longer regularly meets with the American Academy of Religion or AAR. Grrr!!!! EVERYONE there hated that decision. Everyone. If I had any notion at all that the leadership of SBL or AAR actually read blogs- or condescended to read this one- I'd go on and on about how EVERYONE there hated the separation. But they don't, so I won't.)
Among the seminars that I attended was one on Apocalyptic literature, with Barbara Rossing as one of the presenters. Barbara Rossing is the author of The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation. (In fact, you'd be much better off reading her book than my blog, but I refuse to say that aloud). Rossing is a fascinating reader of texts, both biblical and social. What I means is that she can speak well on the book of Revelation as well as on end time views of Jerry Falwell. So, today, I want to bring one piece of wisdom from Barbara Rossing to you, as long as you recognize that I am filtering her thought through my own poor comprehension, so please don't hold her accountable!
Here's the most memorable thing Rossing said: II Peter 3 is an anomaly.
The context: The seminar was focused on environmentalism and apocalyptic ("revelatory") texts. II Peter 3 is often cited as the rationale for not being concerned about the environment. You may recall how James Watt, the director of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Reagan, once famously said that people who read the Bible do not need to get concerned about environmental catastrophes because we are going to be raptured and God is going to create a new heaven and a new earth. Or, more recently, Ann Coulter has said that the earth is our to use, abuse, and rape all we want- suggesting that the biblical narrative from Genesis to Revelation invests no special meaning or significance to the earth other than as a set of resources for our pleasure and will.
II Peter 3 is the most often-cited justification for a biblical argument against preserving the earth. And here are, specifically, the verses most often cited:
5They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, 6through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. 7But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless.
8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. 9The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. 10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.
Phew! I think this writer has some serious anger issues! And, since I do not know the specific situation that he was facing, they might be warranted. The issue that the writer is addressing is the familiar 1st century church issue: the delay of the Parousia (the 2nd Coming). Apparently, some folks were using that delay as an opportunity to cast doubt on the promise of the 2nd coming at all. And, they were using that doubt to undo all of the hard-earned work that had been done in the name of the gospel. Those doubters are the "They" that the writer is addressing in v.5.
But, more importantly for now, the cosmology (view of the world) of the writer is disclosed with his use of the word "fact." The doubters "deliberately ignore this fact" that the earth was created and then destroyed by the flood "by the word of God." And that same word of God is awaiting a total destruction of the earth and heaven (and the godless) by fire. The writer then implores the audience not to ignore this fact: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years (that's the reason why the delay of the parousia is not evidence that God's word is untrue) and ... this world as we know it is toast. THAT'S the cosmology of the writer of II Peter.
No wonder folks like Ann Coulter and James Watt invest no interest in preserving the world or stemming our ongoing acts of violation against the earth. Their reading of II Peter is that the earth has no intrinsic value and is ultimately doomed anyway.
Here are two possible reactions:
1. The very last phrase that I cited from II Peter, "and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed" may indicate that what is envisioned here is not a total annihilation, but a total disclosure, a judgment that strips away everything of appearance in order to disclose truth. So, if you're living under the thumb of a Roman empire; and everywhere you look Roman authority seems to be ruling the earth; and the topography has been restructured so that all roads go to Rome; and vast buildings are built or destroyed insofar as it serves Rome; and Roman dieties are displayed everywhere so that the heavens themselves seem to be in cahoots with the empire; and "all the earth"- rivers and trees and hills and valleys- seem to witness to the incomparable power of Rome... then a total disruption of the present order of things would be necessary to disclose the arrogant lie that is the Roman Empire.
In other words, in this reading, a "total annihilation" may be symbolic of the totality of Rome's influence- all of which has to be torn away to disclose the truth that by God's word the earth and everything in it was made. We get an indication that this might be a valid interpretation by the writer's reference to Noah's flood. He speaks of "the world at that time" and distinguishes it from "the present heavens and earth." If he were speaking literally, wouldn't there need to be a completely new creation story somewhere in between Genesis 5-10 and II Peter 3?
In this first option, one could say that the writer of II Peter may have a literal catastrophe in mind- like the flood, so the fire- but its overall effect is to cleanse the world of its present arrangement in order to renew it.
2. Second option: The writer of II Peter thinks the world as we know it is literally going down.
This second option seems to be the way Ann Coulter and James Watt read the Bible. It leads them to give the earth no value in itself, but only utilitarian value- the earth has value only insofar as it serves our purposes. Other than that, have at it. And if the earth suffers for our sake, so be it.
What Barbara Rossing said was that she, too, thinks II Peter is anticipating a total and literal meltdown of the entire earth (and heavens!). BUT, what Rossing said is that if that is what II Peter truly says, then it is an anomaly in the New Testament and it ought to be treated as such. No where else does the New Testament say that the entire world will be destroyed. The language everywhere else is the language of the prophets: When it speaks of a "new heaven and new earth", it is using renewal language more than 'destroy and start over' language.
That's what I heard Rossing say. I admired that she was honest enough to say that option 2 above seemed to be what II Peter intends. (I'm not so sure that I agree with her on this point, but I do think that too many people quickly jump into option 1 and assume that the writer of II Peter is speaking non-literally, because they themselves do not want to read this text non-literally.) And yet, Rossing was also honest enough to say that II Peter is alone in this absolute scorched earth view and no other New Testament writer holds this view.
More about that next time...
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Who is this Masked Man? No, really who is he?
Over the last 2 notes, we've encountered this person called "the lawless one" in II Thessalonians 2:3. That is the way that the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible translates the a-nomos. The King James Version of the Bible refers to him as "that man of sin" and describes him as "the son of perdition." Later, it translates the same Greek word as "that Wicked." I suppose they capitalize "Wicked" to reflect how the Greek word has taken an adjective and made it into a substantive noun (in the male gender, by the way.) The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible is more consistent, calling him "the lawless one" each time. You may recall that the Greek word is transliterated a-nomos. The word 'nomos' is very common and means 'law.' Sometimes it is used to refer to the "law of Moses," which would be what we call the Ten Commandments as well as a number of related laws in the Hebrew Bible. Or, sometimes it just refers to law in general.
In my last note, I said that the immediate context of II Thessalonians does not help us much. Both of these letters to the Thessalonians are short and- unlike the Gospels or Major Prophets, etc.- do not always address a topic more than once, so we don't really see a pattern of how Paul is using a-nomos like we do with, for example, how Mark uses the phrase "the Son of Man" repeatedly. We also noted that a-nomos is not mentioned in I Thessalonians at all.
To be 'lawless' in general can mean several things in the Scriptures. Paul uses the word in II Corinthians to refer to Gentiles; those who do not have the law of Moses. At other times there is a more sinister use of the word: A general condition of lawlessness which means anarchy, each person doing whatever s/he wants, random acts of will, etc. At other times it means an individual who is self-willed and acts out of self-centered motives.
My point is that I can't see a specific pattern or use of this term as something that seems generally agreed upon among the New Testament writers or churches. It seems not to be such a common term that its use is self-evident. So, when Paul makes reference to having already spoken to the church of Thessalonica about this matter-a conversation that is not available to us- he probably was talking about our best context for understanding who this masked man is. And we missed it. Unless one of you was there. I know that would make you rather old, but if one of you was there could you speak up and explain this word to us? We won't tell anyone your age; we'll just benefit from knowing. Thanks.
Here's what we can do, since the context and the use of the word in the New Testament is not terribly helpful. Let's look at the kind of language and description that Paul is using regarding this mysterious lawless man in II Thessalonians 2 and see if any of it looks familiar. The complete text was in yesterday's post, so I'm going to be more selective today and just lift up those parts that we'll look at more closely:
"As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ ... Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God. ..so that he may be revealed when his time comes. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, ... And then the lawless one will be revealed, ... The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, ... "
The idea that one is coming who will be ‘revealed,’ who sets himself up in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God, whose time is ‘coming’, who is shrouded in a mystery to which Paul is privy—all of that language seems indicate that this “Lawless One” is like Christ in many ways, but entirely unlike Christ in others. Whereas Christ IS, in fact, the one whom God has raised as Lord, this Lawless One is a fraud when he takes that position. Whereas Christ is the one sent from God, this Lawless One is working alongside of Satan. So, while he has the appearance of a salvific figure, and indeed pretends to be one, this Lawless One is a deception.
Now, who could Paul be talking about? He does not seem to be predicting the distant future, since the Lawless One is already at work in Paul’s own time and place. Hmm… who could it be? Maybe … Caesar? The one whose own inscriptions declare him to be the Son of God, whose coins call him “Lord,” whose golden eagle is perched above the entrance to the temple in Jerusalem (and on American flags too, but we’ll talk about that some other time)?
YES! Caesar! That’s my guess and I’m sticking to it! With the necessary kind of delicacy involved when writing an open letter critical of Rome, Paul is giving his opinion about the one whose empire gets customary validity from places all over the world, who is called the provider of all good things for those who need Caesar’s continued handouts, and whose path of peace—the so-called Pax Romana—is a peace that is built through violence. The world calls him a man of peace, a man of the gods, a man who provides abundance for all. But Paul calls him a fraud, a pretender, whose pretense will one day be revealed, but whose league with Satan is already evident to Paul.
That’s what I’m suggesting. What say you?
In my last note, I said that the immediate context of II Thessalonians does not help us much. Both of these letters to the Thessalonians are short and- unlike the Gospels or Major Prophets, etc.- do not always address a topic more than once, so we don't really see a pattern of how Paul is using a-nomos like we do with, for example, how Mark uses the phrase "the Son of Man" repeatedly. We also noted that a-nomos is not mentioned in I Thessalonians at all.
To be 'lawless' in general can mean several things in the Scriptures. Paul uses the word in II Corinthians to refer to Gentiles; those who do not have the law of Moses. At other times there is a more sinister use of the word: A general condition of lawlessness which means anarchy, each person doing whatever s/he wants, random acts of will, etc. At other times it means an individual who is self-willed and acts out of self-centered motives.
My point is that I can't see a specific pattern or use of this term as something that seems generally agreed upon among the New Testament writers or churches. It seems not to be such a common term that its use is self-evident. So, when Paul makes reference to having already spoken to the church of Thessalonica about this matter-a conversation that is not available to us- he probably was talking about our best context for understanding who this masked man is. And we missed it. Unless one of you was there. I know that would make you rather old, but if one of you was there could you speak up and explain this word to us? We won't tell anyone your age; we'll just benefit from knowing. Thanks.
Here's what we can do, since the context and the use of the word in the New Testament is not terribly helpful. Let's look at the kind of language and description that Paul is using regarding this mysterious lawless man in II Thessalonians 2 and see if any of it looks familiar. The complete text was in yesterday's post, so I'm going to be more selective today and just lift up those parts that we'll look at more closely:
"As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ ... Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God. ..so that he may be revealed when his time comes. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, ... And then the lawless one will be revealed, ... The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, ... "
The idea that one is coming who will be ‘revealed,’ who sets himself up in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God, whose time is ‘coming’, who is shrouded in a mystery to which Paul is privy—all of that language seems indicate that this “Lawless One” is like Christ in many ways, but entirely unlike Christ in others. Whereas Christ IS, in fact, the one whom God has raised as Lord, this Lawless One is a fraud when he takes that position. Whereas Christ is the one sent from God, this Lawless One is working alongside of Satan. So, while he has the appearance of a salvific figure, and indeed pretends to be one, this Lawless One is a deception.
Now, who could Paul be talking about? He does not seem to be predicting the distant future, since the Lawless One is already at work in Paul’s own time and place. Hmm… who could it be? Maybe … Caesar? The one whose own inscriptions declare him to be the Son of God, whose coins call him “Lord,” whose golden eagle is perched above the entrance to the temple in Jerusalem (and on American flags too, but we’ll talk about that some other time)?
YES! Caesar! That’s my guess and I’m sticking to it! With the necessary kind of delicacy involved when writing an open letter critical of Rome, Paul is giving his opinion about the one whose empire gets customary validity from places all over the world, who is called the provider of all good things for those who need Caesar’s continued handouts, and whose path of peace—the so-called Pax Romana—is a peace that is built through violence. The world calls him a man of peace, a man of the gods, a man who provides abundance for all. But Paul calls him a fraud, a pretender, whose pretense will one day be revealed, but whose league with Satan is already evident to Paul.
That’s what I’m suggesting. What say you?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Lawless One: Who is this masked man?
Yesterday we looked at the tension between the metaphor of a "Thief in the Night" (I Thessalonians 5:2) and an unfolding scenario, where a 'Lawless one' is revealed first (II Thessalonians 2:3). In both letters, Paul makes passing reference to things that the church in Thessalonica had heard from him already, but we- who were not there while Paul was living among that church- do not know what those things were, exactly. This is an instance when we are left to 'guess' a bit, knowing that we could be way off base however faithfully we might approach this task. In my mind, knowing that there are things that we don't know (from reading this letter); and knowing that what we guess may be wrong; does not mean that we know nothing or that there is nothing to know. It simply means that we need a measure of humility in how we approach this ancient letter, one-half of a correspondence, which relies on conversations to which we were not privy. And yet- despite boldy acknowledging that which we don't know- we read these letters because they are written by our brother-in-Christ, who was inspired in his proclamation of the gospel, and they are addressed to a group of our brothers and sisters who were suffering persecution, in order to encourage them.
Here's what we are not reading:
What we are not reading are intentionally cryptic letters that are written to satisfy someone curiosity about what comes first, the rapture or the tribulation. We are not reading letters that were intended to be overlaid on top of the book of Revelation, so that various references in these letters could be placed on a 'timeline' that we have to figure out. And, we are not reading letters that were written as pieces of a literary puzzle, all of which fit together tightly into a single vision of the end time, along with the rest of the Bible.
I and II Thessalonians are letters from a specific person to a specific community and some of their references are a little beyond us. For example ... who is this lawless one to which II Thessalonians 2 refers?
The word for 'lawless' is literally a-nomos in the Greek, meaning no-law and would typically mean someone, like a Gentile, who does not have the law of Moses. But, instead of being used as an adjective it is used as a substantive noun in II Thessalonians, with a definite article, making it a personal reference, 'the lawless one'.
Here is the text where Paul talks about this lawless feller (II Thessalonians 2:1-12):
As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God. Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you? And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed when his time comes. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned.
The temptation, of course, it to find any number of references that speak of bad persons who are in cahoots with Satan and to suppose that this lawless one is that bad person. Someone might say, for example, that this is the 'antichrist,' the 'beast' or the 'fasle prophet' from the book of Revelation. But, before we start taking one obscure reference and glue it to another obscure reference, let's take a more disciplined approach to this "lawless one."
1. We begin by looking at the immediate context of the letter itself- in this case II Thessalonians. The section above is the only reference to 'the lawless one' in this letter, so there is no 'cross-reference' for us to consult.
2. The occasion for writing about 'the lawless one' is a problem that Paul is addressing. Apparently, the rumor has arisen that Paul has declared that Jesus is already here. "Yikes!" Paul says, "No way!" So, this chapter begins with Paul denying that he has said any such thing, either in his first letter or in any other letter or even in person when he was among the church. It is within this denial and assurance that the Thessalonians had not missed out on the coming of the Lord that Paul says- for the first time- that Jesus will not come until 'the lawless one' is revealed.
3. If we broaden our scope a bit to include both of the letters to the Thessalonians, we discover that there is no reference to 'the lawless one' in I Thessalonians. Not only does that mean that we get no clarification of who this person is from I Thessalonians, it also raises the question of why Paul didn't mention this part of the scenario in his first letter. Some biblical scholars suggest that someone other than Paul actually wrote this second letter, and part of their rationale is that this talk about 'the lawless one' who must be revealed is a different way of viewing the end times than the "Thief in the night" of the first letter. I'm not ready to go there, but I do see the point and it is indeed arguable.
4. The best context for understanding this phrase, 'the lawless one', is indicated above when Paul asks, "Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you?" (Paul sounds a little miffed, if you ask me.) In other words, the best context for understanding this phrase is a conversation that Paul had with the Thessalonians that is lost to us forever. So, we are left to do our best with this unexplained reference.
We'll keep looking at this phrase in the next post. See you then...
Here's what we are not reading:
What we are not reading are intentionally cryptic letters that are written to satisfy someone curiosity about what comes first, the rapture or the tribulation. We are not reading letters that were intended to be overlaid on top of the book of Revelation, so that various references in these letters could be placed on a 'timeline' that we have to figure out. And, we are not reading letters that were written as pieces of a literary puzzle, all of which fit together tightly into a single vision of the end time, along with the rest of the Bible.
I and II Thessalonians are letters from a specific person to a specific community and some of their references are a little beyond us. For example ... who is this lawless one to which II Thessalonians 2 refers?
The word for 'lawless' is literally a-nomos in the Greek, meaning no-law and would typically mean someone, like a Gentile, who does not have the law of Moses. But, instead of being used as an adjective it is used as a substantive noun in II Thessalonians, with a definite article, making it a personal reference, 'the lawless one'.
Here is the text where Paul talks about this lawless feller (II Thessalonians 2:1-12):
As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God. Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you? And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed when his time comes. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned.
The temptation, of course, it to find any number of references that speak of bad persons who are in cahoots with Satan and to suppose that this lawless one is that bad person. Someone might say, for example, that this is the 'antichrist,' the 'beast' or the 'fasle prophet' from the book of Revelation. But, before we start taking one obscure reference and glue it to another obscure reference, let's take a more disciplined approach to this "lawless one."
1. We begin by looking at the immediate context of the letter itself- in this case II Thessalonians. The section above is the only reference to 'the lawless one' in this letter, so there is no 'cross-reference' for us to consult.
2. The occasion for writing about 'the lawless one' is a problem that Paul is addressing. Apparently, the rumor has arisen that Paul has declared that Jesus is already here. "Yikes!" Paul says, "No way!" So, this chapter begins with Paul denying that he has said any such thing, either in his first letter or in any other letter or even in person when he was among the church. It is within this denial and assurance that the Thessalonians had not missed out on the coming of the Lord that Paul says- for the first time- that Jesus will not come until 'the lawless one' is revealed.
3. If we broaden our scope a bit to include both of the letters to the Thessalonians, we discover that there is no reference to 'the lawless one' in I Thessalonians. Not only does that mean that we get no clarification of who this person is from I Thessalonians, it also raises the question of why Paul didn't mention this part of the scenario in his first letter. Some biblical scholars suggest that someone other than Paul actually wrote this second letter, and part of their rationale is that this talk about 'the lawless one' who must be revealed is a different way of viewing the end times than the "Thief in the night" of the first letter. I'm not ready to go there, but I do see the point and it is indeed arguable.
4. The best context for understanding this phrase, 'the lawless one', is indicated above when Paul asks, "Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you?" (Paul sounds a little miffed, if you ask me.) In other words, the best context for understanding this phrase is a conversation that Paul had with the Thessalonians that is lost to us forever. So, we are left to do our best with this unexplained reference.
We'll keep looking at this phrase in the next post. See you then...
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Second Coming: Openness vs. Secrecy
So, when was the last time you read a police report of a thief that called a home and asked them to disable their alarm because he was going to be breaking in later that night when he got off of work?
What? Never? Yes, same here.* It is simply not the nature of 'theft' for one to call ahead and make arrangements. What makes the thief effective is the unexpectancy: That "Just when you least expect it..." sort of feeling.
So, why would Paul refer to the second coming at one time as a thief in the night and at another time as an event that has is preceded by evident signs? I'm thinking particularly of Paul's first letter to the church in Thessalonica, I Thessalonians 5:1-11, which contains "For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night." And I'm thinking of the second letter, specifically II Thessalonians 2:1-11, which contains "Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction." What I am suggesting is that there is some tension between the metaphor of the thief in the night in the first letter and the scenario where a rebellion happens and a lawless one is revealed in the second letter. Both letters, in fact, refer to what Paul had originally taught the Thessalonians when he was with them personally, so there is some 'back story' assumed in both of these letters to which we are not privy.
What do we do with this change in emphasis from the suddenness of a sneak-thief to the emergence of an unfolding scenario? I think the question becomes even more acute for those of us who are almost 2,000 years removed from this letter. On the one hand, the "It's gonna happen any second now!" language loses its mojo over 2,000 years. On the other hand, that's just the kind of admission that tortures us- we feel like unless we keep that edge sharp and keep expecting 'any second now' then we are exactly the kind of people who are going to be "caught unawares" and not "ready" when this whole thing goes down.
The result tends to be people who can't really live as if this is going to happen any second now, but who feel terminally guilty because of it.
Quick story: I remember well in 1977 how an evangelist came to our church and told us that Jesus would be coming that year, when all of the planets lined up for the first time in I-forget-how-many-years. Oh, he said, even a NASA scientist had verified that when this celestial ordering took place the effects on the earth would be exactly the kind of cosmic destruction that the prophet Joel had predicted, yada, yada. Well, of course, 1977 turned into 1978 without the aforetold coming of Christ or cataclysmic effects.
Now, do you think it was an open discussion in that church to talk about how the evangelist had been wrong? No! We couldn't go there because then we would be sowing doubt in our hearts about the coming rapture. We could, perhaps, say that the evangelist's specific timing was wrong, but, I was told, that's because we cannot know the times or the seasons of the second coming- only that it's going to happen soon.
However, the next time an evangelist came along and started making specific predictions, do you think anyone stood up and said, "But, sir, we can't know the specific time so perhaps you ought to be a bit more humble in making your predictions"? Heck no! That too would have been sowing seeds of doubt about the coming rapture.
Do you see? Do you see how maddening this whole framework is?
Somehow or another we have to pry Paul's words open a bit more and consider them a little differently than the typical end-time preachers consider them. Why? Because if nothing else we know that Paul thought he was writing 'encouraging' words, not words that were made to scare the bejezers out of us or to hang the burden of believing every predicitive word that comes along for fear that we might not be prepared if we don't. Twice in the first letter, Paul says, "Encourage one another with these words." I can't remember any point at which he say, "Boo!"
So, here's my first general rule: Unless the theology and preaching that we derive from Paul's words are truly 'encouraging,' then we ought to be highly suspicious and keep trying.
We'll pick it up there next time...
* I know there is a "reality" t.v. show that has some professional thieves breaking into people's houses and violating their space in order to show how deficient their alarm systems are. But, like with most reality shows, I'm a little suspicious of this whole thing, so we'll just leave that show aside for now and deal with real reality, okay?
What? Never? Yes, same here.* It is simply not the nature of 'theft' for one to call ahead and make arrangements. What makes the thief effective is the unexpectancy: That "Just when you least expect it..." sort of feeling.
So, why would Paul refer to the second coming at one time as a thief in the night and at another time as an event that has is preceded by evident signs? I'm thinking particularly of Paul's first letter to the church in Thessalonica, I Thessalonians 5:1-11, which contains "For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night." And I'm thinking of the second letter, specifically II Thessalonians 2:1-11, which contains "Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction." What I am suggesting is that there is some tension between the metaphor of the thief in the night in the first letter and the scenario where a rebellion happens and a lawless one is revealed in the second letter. Both letters, in fact, refer to what Paul had originally taught the Thessalonians when he was with them personally, so there is some 'back story' assumed in both of these letters to which we are not privy.
What do we do with this change in emphasis from the suddenness of a sneak-thief to the emergence of an unfolding scenario? I think the question becomes even more acute for those of us who are almost 2,000 years removed from this letter. On the one hand, the "It's gonna happen any second now!" language loses its mojo over 2,000 years. On the other hand, that's just the kind of admission that tortures us- we feel like unless we keep that edge sharp and keep expecting 'any second now' then we are exactly the kind of people who are going to be "caught unawares" and not "ready" when this whole thing goes down.
The result tends to be people who can't really live as if this is going to happen any second now, but who feel terminally guilty because of it.
Quick story: I remember well in 1977 how an evangelist came to our church and told us that Jesus would be coming that year, when all of the planets lined up for the first time in I-forget-how-many-years. Oh, he said, even a NASA scientist had verified that when this celestial ordering took place the effects on the earth would be exactly the kind of cosmic destruction that the prophet Joel had predicted, yada, yada. Well, of course, 1977 turned into 1978 without the aforetold coming of Christ or cataclysmic effects.
Now, do you think it was an open discussion in that church to talk about how the evangelist had been wrong? No! We couldn't go there because then we would be sowing doubt in our hearts about the coming rapture. We could, perhaps, say that the evangelist's specific timing was wrong, but, I was told, that's because we cannot know the times or the seasons of the second coming- only that it's going to happen soon.
However, the next time an evangelist came along and started making specific predictions, do you think anyone stood up and said, "But, sir, we can't know the specific time so perhaps you ought to be a bit more humble in making your predictions"? Heck no! That too would have been sowing seeds of doubt about the coming rapture.
Do you see? Do you see how maddening this whole framework is?
Somehow or another we have to pry Paul's words open a bit more and consider them a little differently than the typical end-time preachers consider them. Why? Because if nothing else we know that Paul thought he was writing 'encouraging' words, not words that were made to scare the bejezers out of us or to hang the burden of believing every predicitive word that comes along for fear that we might not be prepared if we don't. Twice in the first letter, Paul says, "Encourage one another with these words." I can't remember any point at which he say, "Boo!"
So, here's my first general rule: Unless the theology and preaching that we derive from Paul's words are truly 'encouraging,' then we ought to be highly suspicious and keep trying.
We'll pick it up there next time...
* I know there is a "reality" t.v. show that has some professional thieves breaking into people's houses and violating their space in order to show how deficient their alarm systems are. But, like with most reality shows, I'm a little suspicious of this whole thing, so we'll just leave that show aside for now and deal with real reality, okay?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Issues behind, and in front of, a Letter
Biblical scholars- particularly when talking among themselves- often speak of 'the world behind the text,' as well as 'the world in front of the text' when reading biblical texts. I'm not always sure what, exactly, people are intending by those phrases, but on occasion I feel like I'm coming close to understanding a little bit of that stuff. And so, today, I'm going to adopt that language in order to talk about this letter from Paul to the church in Thessalonica. However, I'll try to stipulate what I mean by 'in front of' and 'behind' the text, because I cannot guarantee that I'm using that language the same way that people who are actually smart and informed use it.
When I think of issues that lie 'in front of' Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, I am referring to the specific issues that Paul is addressing. Typically he will name the issue and speak of it for a few paragraphs, then move on. At other times, he may string a list of issues one after another, such as in the 5th chapter when he encourages virtuous activity: "And we urge you, beloved, to admonish the idlers, encourage the faint-hearted, help the weak, be patient with all of them. See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all. Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil." That's a whole lotta good stuff coming in rapid-fire fashion, which indicates that Paul assumes the meaning is clear enough to mention and move on. A very different kind of issue, but still an issue 'in front of' the text, would be how Paul spend 3 chapters in Romans (9-11) specifically addressing God's covenant with Israel and what that means from a Christian point of view.
When I think of issues that lie 'behind' the letter, I think of what is going on that provokes Paul to write on this or that specific topic. In my mind, when Paul explains what the issue is that he's addressing, it is 'in front of' the text. However, there are times when the specific issues are not explained or obvious. And sometimes there seems to be more to the issue than what is explained- perhaps the question that gets us there is not "What is he talking about?" but "So what?" When we have to tease issues or the importance of issues out, I think we are looking at issue 'behind' the text. And of the big 'behind the text' issues is one that I think is particularly important: Where does Paul see history going? That is, how does this issue (being address in front of the text) fit into the larger picture (that lies behind the text)? Scholars will sometimes refer to this as the 'meta-narrative' that lies behind the specific story.
Here's a made up example of a Paul letter and how I see the various parts:
Paul writes in II Spartanians 3:1, "You must strictly stay away from idols."
In front of the text: Idols are images that are intended to be objects of worship, or at least images that represent gods. The God of Israel forbade images of godself, which was a revered distinctive trait among the Hebrews. Paul continues this strain of forbidding both the creation and worship of idols. Sparta is full of idols and the pressure to 'go with the flow' sometimes is a temptation for the church there. etc.
Behind the text: Spartan idols are often phallic or militaristic in nature, so revering them does not mean that someone is actually worshipping, say, "Mars, the god of war," as much as it means that someone is accepting warfare as a way of life or the path toward blessedness. A constant diet of Mars worship means that weapons and aggression and so forth (including the kinds of misogyny that typically accompany that way of life) are one's view of 'the good life.'
The Meta-Narrative behind the text: Life is a violent mess; the gods are malicious or locked in constant warfare among themselves; humans are destined to the eternal circle of struggling against nature, and one another, for survival; etc.
In this made-up illustration, the simple injunction for the Spartans to refrain from idols is not just a 'rule' that says "If you worship an idol, you're sinning and going to hell." That's what I call "the radio preacher approach": simple, and simply missing the whole point.
So, I think reading 'behind the text' is quite important for someone who aspires to be a faithful disciple of the God who is made known to us through our Scriptures. And that is what I want to do with Paul's letter to the church in Thessalonica.
Issues in front of the Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians:
Paul's desire to visit the church again; the reports that Timothy brought to Paul, which made him glad; the death of some of the church folk and what implications that death has for the second coming; the ethical manner in which the church ought to conduct itself; etc. Most of the issues 'in front of' the text show up in subtitles written by helpful Bible translators and editors ("Excellent helps," I say).
Issues behind Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians:
The imminent expectation of Christ's return; the early struggles of what it means when another day/week/month/year goes by and return hasn't happened yet (even to call it the 'delay' of the parousia is to make a statement about this issue); Paul's reputation among the church; Paul's critics among the church; the reliability of Paul's message if the coming of Christ keeps not happening; etc.
Meta-Narrative Behind Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians:
Paul sees history 'going somewhere,' but, unlike the predominant view of the world at that time, he did not see it going the way of all empires. The monuments and inscriptions of that time show an 'imperial' worldview that subjugates genders, peoples, nations, etc. based on militaristic prowess and justifies all of that with a religious narrative that the gods intend the world to operate this way. When Paul says, "See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all" there is a 'world of meaning' behind these words. The sheer predominance of the Roman empire everywhere you look argues that repaying evil for evil is exactly how the world ought to function; but here is Paul offering a counter-vision of what is good, how things ought to be, and how to participate in the reign of God.
I hope this little lesson in reading texts is helpful. Tomorrow we want to look at a conflict between the openness and the secrecy of Christ's second coming in Paul's letters to the church in Thessalonica.
When I think of issues that lie 'in front of' Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, I am referring to the specific issues that Paul is addressing. Typically he will name the issue and speak of it for a few paragraphs, then move on. At other times, he may string a list of issues one after another, such as in the 5th chapter when he encourages virtuous activity: "And we urge you, beloved, to admonish the idlers, encourage the faint-hearted, help the weak, be patient with all of them. See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all. Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil." That's a whole lotta good stuff coming in rapid-fire fashion, which indicates that Paul assumes the meaning is clear enough to mention and move on. A very different kind of issue, but still an issue 'in front of' the text, would be how Paul spend 3 chapters in Romans (9-11) specifically addressing God's covenant with Israel and what that means from a Christian point of view.
When I think of issues that lie 'behind' the letter, I think of what is going on that provokes Paul to write on this or that specific topic. In my mind, when Paul explains what the issue is that he's addressing, it is 'in front of' the text. However, there are times when the specific issues are not explained or obvious. And sometimes there seems to be more to the issue than what is explained- perhaps the question that gets us there is not "What is he talking about?" but "So what?" When we have to tease issues or the importance of issues out, I think we are looking at issue 'behind' the text. And of the big 'behind the text' issues is one that I think is particularly important: Where does Paul see history going? That is, how does this issue (being address in front of the text) fit into the larger picture (that lies behind the text)? Scholars will sometimes refer to this as the 'meta-narrative' that lies behind the specific story.
Here's a made up example of a Paul letter and how I see the various parts:
Paul writes in II Spartanians 3:1, "You must strictly stay away from idols."
In front of the text: Idols are images that are intended to be objects of worship, or at least images that represent gods. The God of Israel forbade images of godself, which was a revered distinctive trait among the Hebrews. Paul continues this strain of forbidding both the creation and worship of idols. Sparta is full of idols and the pressure to 'go with the flow' sometimes is a temptation for the church there. etc.
Behind the text: Spartan idols are often phallic or militaristic in nature, so revering them does not mean that someone is actually worshipping, say, "Mars, the god of war," as much as it means that someone is accepting warfare as a way of life or the path toward blessedness. A constant diet of Mars worship means that weapons and aggression and so forth (including the kinds of misogyny that typically accompany that way of life) are one's view of 'the good life.'
The Meta-Narrative behind the text: Life is a violent mess; the gods are malicious or locked in constant warfare among themselves; humans are destined to the eternal circle of struggling against nature, and one another, for survival; etc.
In this made-up illustration, the simple injunction for the Spartans to refrain from idols is not just a 'rule' that says "If you worship an idol, you're sinning and going to hell." That's what I call "the radio preacher approach": simple, and simply missing the whole point.
So, I think reading 'behind the text' is quite important for someone who aspires to be a faithful disciple of the God who is made known to us through our Scriptures. And that is what I want to do with Paul's letter to the church in Thessalonica.
Issues in front of the Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians:
Paul's desire to visit the church again; the reports that Timothy brought to Paul, which made him glad; the death of some of the church folk and what implications that death has for the second coming; the ethical manner in which the church ought to conduct itself; etc. Most of the issues 'in front of' the text show up in subtitles written by helpful Bible translators and editors ("Excellent helps," I say).
Issues behind Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians:
The imminent expectation of Christ's return; the early struggles of what it means when another day/week/month/year goes by and return hasn't happened yet (even to call it the 'delay' of the parousia is to make a statement about this issue); Paul's reputation among the church; Paul's critics among the church; the reliability of Paul's message if the coming of Christ keeps not happening; etc.
Meta-Narrative Behind Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians:
Paul sees history 'going somewhere,' but, unlike the predominant view of the world at that time, he did not see it going the way of all empires. The monuments and inscriptions of that time show an 'imperial' worldview that subjugates genders, peoples, nations, etc. based on militaristic prowess and justifies all of that with a religious narrative that the gods intend the world to operate this way. When Paul says, "See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all" there is a 'world of meaning' behind these words. The sheer predominance of the Roman empire everywhere you look argues that repaying evil for evil is exactly how the world ought to function; but here is Paul offering a counter-vision of what is good, how things ought to be, and how to participate in the reign of God.
I hope this little lesson in reading texts is helpful. Tomorrow we want to look at a conflict between the openness and the secrecy of Christ's second coming in Paul's letters to the church in Thessalonica.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Delay of the Parousia in the Early Church
I've said repeatedly that one of the primary issues for the church in Thessalonica- and for the early church generally- is the delay of the parousia, that is, the fact that Jesus had not returned as quickly as they had expected. (Parousia is a transliteration of the Greek word which is translated 'coming,' 'advent,' etc. and is often used in the NT to speak of Jesus' second coming.) Let's spend today just trying to grasp how important of an issue this was for the early church. By the end of the week we'll try to say what that issue might mean for us today. Today, let's focus on what I think is the starkest example of this problem, which is not from Paul's letter to the Thessalonians.
In I Peter 4:7, we find this: "The end of all things is near; therefore be serious and discipline yourselves for the sake of your prayers."
There's the common assumption throughout the New Testament: The end is near. It gets expressed in many ways, but generally for Christians it was a word of coming salvation/rescue as well as coming judgment for their oppressors. As you can see from its use in this verse, it was also the root of Christian Ethics- 'act this way because the coming of the Lord is near.' In troubled times, that means something like, "don't return evil for evil (a very oft-repeated sentiment in the NT among a variety of writers), because God will judge our persecutors soon and righteously." You can see how it might be a word of encouragement for those who are suffering or anxious, a word of caution for those who might be tempted to join a revolution against Rome or to retaliate against local authorities or temple leaders, and so forth. Some biblical scholars even say that the New Testament generally espouses an "eschatalogical ethic," a way of speaking about right and wrong that is primarily grounded in the expectation of Jesus' soon return.
But, then, look at II Peter. In the first chapter, the writer says that Christians have already received everything they need for life and godliness from Christ's divine power (v.3). In other words, their ethical life is based, not on hanging in there because Christ is returning soon to set everything right, but on the power that Christ had already endowed on them. Also in that first chapter, the writer says that he is reminding them about things they already know because the Lord Jesus had made clear to him that he was going to die soon and he wanted them to remain faithful after he was gone. This is not the language of the first letter; not by any means.
Then, in the 3rd chapter, the writer says that 'scoffers' will come, saying ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’ In other words, the delay in the parousia was becoming a point of deep contention among the church. Some people felt that history was just 'one damned thing after another' (as someone famous put it- Mark Twain perhaps?), so there was no great moment of awakening or judgment ahead. And, some people were using that delay to question the need for Christians to act ethically at all.
The writer's response is to point to how reliable God's word has been throughout the ages and then he says, "But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance." To be sure, the writer continues to expect the Lord's return, but is conceding that it has not happened with quite the swiftness that he had anticipated in his earlier letter (or, he adds at the end of the 3rd chapter, as quickly as Paul anticipates in his letters!)
I don't know a lot about I and II Peter, but this is a very insightful glimpse into the problem of the delay of the parousia for the early church. It is more than simply a calendrical guessing game, with the various people saying, "Oh, I don't know ... when do you think Jesus is coming back?" to one another. It was a question about their orientation for living. If you base your entire ethical system- especially the ethic of non-retaliation against enemies- on the expectation of Christ's soon return, then the delay of Christ's return means ... what?
Here's my reading of I and then II Peter. The writer was clearly backing away from his earlier language about how soon the second coming was going to be, as well as how the anticipation of that soon-ness was the ground of their ethics. But, he still anticipated the second coming because it was grounded in God's steadfast love, which endures forever. "The Lord is not slow about his promise," means that what is reliable here is not the timing but God's faithfulness. The timing issue- on which the writer had been clearly wrong when writing his first letter- was a human problem because we see days as 24 hour segments and he had been forgetting that God is the author of time, therefore God is not bound by any specific calendar of events.
In I and II Peter we see at least one person's attempt to reckon with the delay of the parousia. More importantly, we see that it was not simply a matter of 'eschatology,' a separated and perhaps minor issue of the end times. It was the major issue of ethics, hope, and faith. Most importantly, the writer ultimately turns to God's faithfulness as that which is reliable, more than our ability to guess some hidden timeline of events.
Tomorrow we get back to I Thessalonians to see how Paul dealt with this same issue.
In I Peter 4:7, we find this: "The end of all things is near; therefore be serious and discipline yourselves for the sake of your prayers."
There's the common assumption throughout the New Testament: The end is near. It gets expressed in many ways, but generally for Christians it was a word of coming salvation/rescue as well as coming judgment for their oppressors. As you can see from its use in this verse, it was also the root of Christian Ethics- 'act this way because the coming of the Lord is near.' In troubled times, that means something like, "don't return evil for evil (a very oft-repeated sentiment in the NT among a variety of writers), because God will judge our persecutors soon and righteously." You can see how it might be a word of encouragement for those who are suffering or anxious, a word of caution for those who might be tempted to join a revolution against Rome or to retaliate against local authorities or temple leaders, and so forth. Some biblical scholars even say that the New Testament generally espouses an "eschatalogical ethic," a way of speaking about right and wrong that is primarily grounded in the expectation of Jesus' soon return.
But, then, look at II Peter. In the first chapter, the writer says that Christians have already received everything they need for life and godliness from Christ's divine power (v.3). In other words, their ethical life is based, not on hanging in there because Christ is returning soon to set everything right, but on the power that Christ had already endowed on them. Also in that first chapter, the writer says that he is reminding them about things they already know because the Lord Jesus had made clear to him that he was going to die soon and he wanted them to remain faithful after he was gone. This is not the language of the first letter; not by any means.
Then, in the 3rd chapter, the writer says that 'scoffers' will come, saying ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’ In other words, the delay in the parousia was becoming a point of deep contention among the church. Some people felt that history was just 'one damned thing after another' (as someone famous put it- Mark Twain perhaps?), so there was no great moment of awakening or judgment ahead. And, some people were using that delay to question the need for Christians to act ethically at all.
The writer's response is to point to how reliable God's word has been throughout the ages and then he says, "But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance." To be sure, the writer continues to expect the Lord's return, but is conceding that it has not happened with quite the swiftness that he had anticipated in his earlier letter (or, he adds at the end of the 3rd chapter, as quickly as Paul anticipates in his letters!)
I don't know a lot about I and II Peter, but this is a very insightful glimpse into the problem of the delay of the parousia for the early church. It is more than simply a calendrical guessing game, with the various people saying, "Oh, I don't know ... when do you think Jesus is coming back?" to one another. It was a question about their orientation for living. If you base your entire ethical system- especially the ethic of non-retaliation against enemies- on the expectation of Christ's soon return, then the delay of Christ's return means ... what?
Here's my reading of I and then II Peter. The writer was clearly backing away from his earlier language about how soon the second coming was going to be, as well as how the anticipation of that soon-ness was the ground of their ethics. But, he still anticipated the second coming because it was grounded in God's steadfast love, which endures forever. "The Lord is not slow about his promise," means that what is reliable here is not the timing but God's faithfulness. The timing issue- on which the writer had been clearly wrong when writing his first letter- was a human problem because we see days as 24 hour segments and he had been forgetting that God is the author of time, therefore God is not bound by any specific calendar of events.
In I and II Peter we see at least one person's attempt to reckon with the delay of the parousia. More importantly, we see that it was not simply a matter of 'eschatology,' a separated and perhaps minor issue of the end times. It was the major issue of ethics, hope, and faith. Most importantly, the writer ultimately turns to God's faithfulness as that which is reliable, more than our ability to guess some hidden timeline of events.
Tomorrow we get back to I Thessalonians to see how Paul dealt with this same issue.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Mail Call
An astute reader has written me lately and asked a very good question about my critique of Left Behind Theology. She also included a note pleading with me not to reveal her identity because "I don't want anyone to know that I actually read this blog." So, thank you, Carol Mahasky, and don't worry, Carol Mahasky, your dirty little secret is safe with me.
Dear Reverend Know-it-all,
After reading your blog, I'm wondering if you even believe in prophecy. Do you consider what we call prophecy to be nothing but history?
CM
Dear CM,
Is Bible 'prophecy' history? That is actually a very good question.
Here's my take: For me, prophetic texts are as historical yet timeless as the rest of Scripture.
The prophets themselves were not intending to talk about history by any means; they were speaking the right word at the right time. However, here we are thousands of years later, reading texts from way back when. And sometimes we get the sense that a phrase like "Jesus is coming soon" becomes "Jesus is coming soon ... er or later" simply because of the sheer amount of time that has elapsed. Then, if you throw in a few well-intended, but wrong-headed folk who speak with certainty that the turning of the 19th to the 20th century is going to mark the end of the world as we know it, or, the turning of the 20th to the 21st century, or maybe 9/11, or maybe that giant earthquake, or this or that... then you see why the relevance of a prophet's message thousands of years ago to our own time today requires careful consideration.
I think we read the prophets most profitably (so to speak) as 'forth-tellers' rather than 'fore-tellers.' That is to say, they spoke the truth, rather than told the future.
If you read about the prophets, they were in constant danger of being imprisoned, thrown into a pit, banished, or even put to death. (Remember Jesus' words, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets and puts to death those who are sent to you.") Now, honestly, who would put a prophet to death for prophesying something that might happen thousands of years from now? Why would I get all murderously angry about somthing that happens long after my grandchildren's grandchildren are passed? As Robert Heilbronner once famously asked, "What has posterity ever done for me?" Prophets that speak about the way, way, way future elicit rolling eyes and snickers, not punishment, threats or death.
We have a common perception that prophets were intentionally predictive. I do not think the prophets meant to be that way, certainly not with regard to what may happen a thousand years from now. If they said something about what was yet to come, they were speaking about the near future, the trajectory of where their people's current faithfulness or unfaithfulness was taking them. That might be 'predictive,' but only in the sense of having the boldness to say "If we stay on this road, here's what will happen."
So, the question arises: "If we don't read the prophets as predicting the future, how do we read the prophets?"
First, we should read them historically. I am not saying that we read them strictly historically. I do think that is the first way that we should read them in order to comprehend them. Isaiah was a court prophet, speaking at a certain time under certain circumstances that we shouldn't ignore when reading Isaiah. The historical Daniel was an exile during one crisis, and the book of Daniel was written during a later crisis, thus speaking to a very different time under very different circumstances. 200 years later, Mark read Daniel very helpfully to speak to his community at the time of his own crisis, the temple's destruction. A few decades later, the writer of Revelation was speaking to his commuity about their own persecution. Isaiah, Daniel, Mark, and John were speaking about God's activity in the world- in their real world, under their real circumstances. And yet, they were speaking with the assumption that God acts in human history. So their words continue to be instructive for us today to discern how we ought to live with faith in our times.
If we begin by reading prophetic texts historically, we can see that they don't all say the same things. But, we don't just read them historically, because each of them is speaking the Word of the same God, whose steadfast love endures forever... and ever... and ever. From the time of Isaiah's advise to a confused king to the historical Daniel's catastrophe to the literary Daniel's catastrophe to Mark's catastrophe to the persecution of the church when the book of Revelation was written to our own day- God's steadfast love endures forever. So, the second way that we read prophetic texts is that, even though they were spoken or written in history, they continue to speak meaningfully to us today, because they disclose how God acts in history and how God's people maintain faithfulness, especially in trying times.
So, is Bible prophecy history? Yes, they are historical, but timelessly true.
Dear Reverend Know-it-all,
After reading your blog, I'm wondering if you even believe in prophecy. Do you consider what we call prophecy to be nothing but history?
CM
Dear CM,
Is Bible 'prophecy' history? That is actually a very good question.
Here's my take: For me, prophetic texts are as historical yet timeless as the rest of Scripture.
The prophets themselves were not intending to talk about history by any means; they were speaking the right word at the right time. However, here we are thousands of years later, reading texts from way back when. And sometimes we get the sense that a phrase like "Jesus is coming soon" becomes "Jesus is coming soon ... er or later" simply because of the sheer amount of time that has elapsed. Then, if you throw in a few well-intended, but wrong-headed folk who speak with certainty that the turning of the 19th to the 20th century is going to mark the end of the world as we know it, or, the turning of the 20th to the 21st century, or maybe 9/11, or maybe that giant earthquake, or this or that... then you see why the relevance of a prophet's message thousands of years ago to our own time today requires careful consideration.
I think we read the prophets most profitably (so to speak) as 'forth-tellers' rather than 'fore-tellers.' That is to say, they spoke the truth, rather than told the future.
If you read about the prophets, they were in constant danger of being imprisoned, thrown into a pit, banished, or even put to death. (Remember Jesus' words, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets and puts to death those who are sent to you.") Now, honestly, who would put a prophet to death for prophesying something that might happen thousands of years from now? Why would I get all murderously angry about somthing that happens long after my grandchildren's grandchildren are passed? As Robert Heilbronner once famously asked, "What has posterity ever done for me?" Prophets that speak about the way, way, way future elicit rolling eyes and snickers, not punishment, threats or death.
We have a common perception that prophets were intentionally predictive. I do not think the prophets meant to be that way, certainly not with regard to what may happen a thousand years from now. If they said something about what was yet to come, they were speaking about the near future, the trajectory of where their people's current faithfulness or unfaithfulness was taking them. That might be 'predictive,' but only in the sense of having the boldness to say "If we stay on this road, here's what will happen."
So, the question arises: "If we don't read the prophets as predicting the future, how do we read the prophets?"
First, we should read them historically. I am not saying that we read them strictly historically. I do think that is the first way that we should read them in order to comprehend them. Isaiah was a court prophet, speaking at a certain time under certain circumstances that we shouldn't ignore when reading Isaiah. The historical Daniel was an exile during one crisis, and the book of Daniel was written during a later crisis, thus speaking to a very different time under very different circumstances. 200 years later, Mark read Daniel very helpfully to speak to his community at the time of his own crisis, the temple's destruction. A few decades later, the writer of Revelation was speaking to his commuity about their own persecution. Isaiah, Daniel, Mark, and John were speaking about God's activity in the world- in their real world, under their real circumstances. And yet, they were speaking with the assumption that God acts in human history. So their words continue to be instructive for us today to discern how we ought to live with faith in our times.
If we begin by reading prophetic texts historically, we can see that they don't all say the same things. But, we don't just read them historically, because each of them is speaking the Word of the same God, whose steadfast love endures forever... and ever... and ever. From the time of Isaiah's advise to a confused king to the historical Daniel's catastrophe to the literary Daniel's catastrophe to Mark's catastrophe to the persecution of the church when the book of Revelation was written to our own day- God's steadfast love endures forever. So, the second way that we read prophetic texts is that, even though they were spoken or written in history, they continue to speak meaningfully to us today, because they disclose how God acts in history and how God's people maintain faithfulness, especially in trying times.
So, is Bible prophecy history? Yes, they are historical, but timelessly true.
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Wrath That Is To Come
On Friday, we looked at what might be reflective of a very early Christian confession in I Thessalonians 1:9,10. Those verses literally say:
For the people of those regions report about us what kind of welcome we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming.
I fashioned those verses as a doctrinal statement to read something like this:
We, the members of the church in Thessalonica, believe and live these doctrines:
- Radical solidarity with those who labor by proclaiming the Word of God;
- Turning away from idols to the true and living God;
- Waiting for the Son of God to return from heaven;
- Jesus, whom God raised from the dead, is the one who will rescue us from the wrath to come.
What we noticed at the end of Friday's post is that word "wrath" and the assumption that there is wrath that is coming. What Paul does not say is what this wrath is, or, even better, whose this wrath is. I'm guessing that there are two serious possibilities:
1. God's wrath is coming against a world that rejected Jesus and continues to resist the gospel.
2. Rome's wrath is coming against Jews first, then spreading its way against Christians (who, from a Roman point of view, were a weirdo sect of Jews).
I suppose that we typically read the word 'wrath' as a God thing. The Greek word in the accusative case is pronounced 'organ.' Think of that the next time you are subject to some bad organ music ("So this is what 'wrath' means.") The meaning, according to the excellent online resource at http://www.greekbible.com/index.php is: "1)anger, the natural disposition, temper, character 2) movement or agitation of the soul, impulse, desire, any violent emotion, but esp. anger 3) anger, wrath, indignation 4) anger exhibited in punishment, hence used for punishment itself 4a) of punishments inflicted by magistrates."
As you can see, the word itself is not necessarily a God thing. We have years and years of 'hellfire and brimstone' preaching that has pretty well convinced us that it is God's favorite emotion. But, in an attempt to read this letter freshly (naively is the going term among biblical scholars), we can set aside centuries of preachers getting their willies by proclaiming God's damnation against all of their pet peeves and acknowledge that we cannot be sure whose wrath this is, let alone what wrath it is.
Here are the uses of the word 'wrath' in this letter:
1:10 "and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming."
2:16b (speaking about the Jews specifically) "Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last."
5:9 "For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ"
As you can see the first use does not mention whose wrath we're talking about; the second explicitly does- it's God's and its happening already; and the third implies that God could destine someone for wrath, but has not done so for those who have obtained salvation through Christ.
So, we might ask, if God's wrath had already overtaken the Jews, what did it look like? We do not know of any natural or supernatural catastrophe that struck only Jews, or even just Jerusalem during the 50's, which is when this letter is typically dated. And, Paul has more than Jerusalem Jews in mind in this letter- He is speaking of the Jews in Philippi and Thessalonica and other places where they tried to prevent him from preaching to Gentiles. So, we can rule out lightning, fire from heaven, earthquakes, etc. as being the way that God's wrath was overtaking Jews in the 50's. None of that happened and certainly none of it happened with the kind of surgical strikes that would annihilate the bad Jews in Jerusalem, and Philippi, and other choice cities along the way.
IF this letter is quite a bit later, like 66-70, then we might think Paul is talking about the butt-kicking that the Romans gave the Jews during the Jewish revolts; but most people think Paul was dead by that time and it's really hard to write letters when you're dead.
However, there were constant reminders among Jews that Rome was in charge, like when some zealous Jews sawed off the golden eagle overlooking the temple and the Romans responded by crucifying thousands of Jews as a lesson. That kind of wrath was always a possibility and there could have been just such an event during the 50's that the church in Thessalonica (some of whom were Jewish) knew too well.
So, here's where my mind is about wrath in this letter from Paul:
- It does not seem to refer to natural disasters that strike a given vicinity
- It does not seem to refer to supernatural disasters that strike more surgically
- It may be that Rome's sword can express God's wrath (but that doesn't make Rome good)
- It may be that God's wrath is expressed, not through disaster and catastrophe, but through people's spiritual blindness and hard-heartedness. From Paul's perspective, that we quite evident among some of the Jews of his day, who- in their zeal- were rabidly opposing God's own salvation.
I need to tell you that I'm leaning toward this latter possibility, that when Paul talks about wrath- at least in the 2nd chapter of this letter- it is something that is expressed not in great killing demonstration, but in people's own receptivity or rejection of the best news that Paul had ever heard- in Christ, we have new life.
For those of you reading this blog on blackberries, I know these long notes are responsible for your sore thumbs and I'll try to keep them more succinct in the future.
For the people of those regions report about us what kind of welcome we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming.
I fashioned those verses as a doctrinal statement to read something like this:
We, the members of the church in Thessalonica, believe and live these doctrines:
- Radical solidarity with those who labor by proclaiming the Word of God;
- Turning away from idols to the true and living God;
- Waiting for the Son of God to return from heaven;
- Jesus, whom God raised from the dead, is the one who will rescue us from the wrath to come.
What we noticed at the end of Friday's post is that word "wrath" and the assumption that there is wrath that is coming. What Paul does not say is what this wrath is, or, even better, whose this wrath is. I'm guessing that there are two serious possibilities:
1. God's wrath is coming against a world that rejected Jesus and continues to resist the gospel.
2. Rome's wrath is coming against Jews first, then spreading its way against Christians (who, from a Roman point of view, were a weirdo sect of Jews).
I suppose that we typically read the word 'wrath' as a God thing. The Greek word in the accusative case is pronounced 'organ.' Think of that the next time you are subject to some bad organ music ("So this is what 'wrath' means.") The meaning, according to the excellent online resource at http://www.greekbible.com/index.php is: "1)anger, the natural disposition, temper, character 2) movement or agitation of the soul, impulse, desire, any violent emotion, but esp. anger 3) anger, wrath, indignation 4) anger exhibited in punishment, hence used for punishment itself 4a) of punishments inflicted by magistrates."
As you can see, the word itself is not necessarily a God thing. We have years and years of 'hellfire and brimstone' preaching that has pretty well convinced us that it is God's favorite emotion. But, in an attempt to read this letter freshly (naively is the going term among biblical scholars), we can set aside centuries of preachers getting their willies by proclaiming God's damnation against all of their pet peeves and acknowledge that we cannot be sure whose wrath this is, let alone what wrath it is.
Here are the uses of the word 'wrath' in this letter:
1:10 "and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming."
2:16b (speaking about the Jews specifically) "Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last."
5:9 "For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ"
As you can see the first use does not mention whose wrath we're talking about; the second explicitly does- it's God's and its happening already; and the third implies that God could destine someone for wrath, but has not done so for those who have obtained salvation through Christ.
So, we might ask, if God's wrath had already overtaken the Jews, what did it look like? We do not know of any natural or supernatural catastrophe that struck only Jews, or even just Jerusalem during the 50's, which is when this letter is typically dated. And, Paul has more than Jerusalem Jews in mind in this letter- He is speaking of the Jews in Philippi and Thessalonica and other places where they tried to prevent him from preaching to Gentiles. So, we can rule out lightning, fire from heaven, earthquakes, etc. as being the way that God's wrath was overtaking Jews in the 50's. None of that happened and certainly none of it happened with the kind of surgical strikes that would annihilate the bad Jews in Jerusalem, and Philippi, and other choice cities along the way.
IF this letter is quite a bit later, like 66-70, then we might think Paul is talking about the butt-kicking that the Romans gave the Jews during the Jewish revolts; but most people think Paul was dead by that time and it's really hard to write letters when you're dead.
However, there were constant reminders among Jews that Rome was in charge, like when some zealous Jews sawed off the golden eagle overlooking the temple and the Romans responded by crucifying thousands of Jews as a lesson. That kind of wrath was always a possibility and there could have been just such an event during the 50's that the church in Thessalonica (some of whom were Jewish) knew too well.
So, here's where my mind is about wrath in this letter from Paul:
- It does not seem to refer to natural disasters that strike a given vicinity
- It does not seem to refer to supernatural disasters that strike more surgically
- It may be that Rome's sword can express God's wrath (but that doesn't make Rome good)
- It may be that God's wrath is expressed, not through disaster and catastrophe, but through people's spiritual blindness and hard-heartedness. From Paul's perspective, that we quite evident among some of the Jews of his day, who- in their zeal- were rabidly opposing God's own salvation.
I need to tell you that I'm leaning toward this latter possibility, that when Paul talks about wrath- at least in the 2nd chapter of this letter- it is something that is expressed not in great killing demonstration, but in people's own receptivity or rejection of the best news that Paul had ever heard- in Christ, we have new life.
For those of you reading this blog on blackberries, I know these long notes are responsible for your sore thumbs and I'll try to keep them more succinct in the future.
Friday, November 7, 2008
A Wonderful, Enigmatic Letter
So, we've looked at the letter that we now call I Thessalonians from the outside- noting the history in Acts 17 of the founding of the church, some principles at work when we read letters in the New Testament, and marveling that when we read I Thessalonians we are reading the first thing written in the New Testament. Now we can look at some specifics, but always trying to keep that "Golly, gee, gosh darn" attitude that we are reading something fresh and new to us.
It is probably time well spent for you to sit down and give yourself five minutes just to read this letter through- from beginning to end- just like you would a letter from someone you know and love. If you can, find a way to read it without chapter and verse markings (I can show you how to do this online, if you wish). The original Greek did not have chapter and verse numbers interrupting its flow. (But, it probably also did not have paragraphs or indentations and other such helpful ways of reading sensibly. My recommendation is to keep them, just to make it more readable.) All of those kinds of things were added later by scribes, copyists, and translation committees, so that the raw text would be easier for us to read (thanks to all the dead people who offered us this help!) Of course, that means that any text of I Thessalonians that we read has been passed down by a lot of people and filtered through a lot of people. By and large, these are folk who have been faithfully trying to preserve the gospel; but they also have inevitably made some judgments along the way as well- some of which might be right, some not. In the main, we can trust that most translations are both competent and well-intended, and that most differences between them are minor and not essential to the faith. Read on, friend, with confidence.
A couple of things that I noticed when reading this letter:
- First, Paul feels really good about this congregation. There is not the constant attention to problems within that we find when reading, say, Paul's letters to the church in Corinth. These Thessalonians have it going on, gospel-wise, and Paul celebrates that repeatedly.
- Second, there is a lot of integrative, holistic expression in this letter. By that, I mean that Paul puts enormous emphasis on the fact that the believers in Thessalonica live as well as they believe- their faith is a matter of knowing and doing, not just believing in the right set of propositions. Another way that Paul writes integratively is his emphasis on the body as well as the soul or spirit. Another is his emphasis on working hard and yet being gentle while encouraging 'idlers.' I guess what I'm seeing is that Paul would be hard to pigeonhole into any extreme categories by reading this letter.
- Third, when it comes to dating this letter, it seems to me that we have to assume some generous lapse of time between when Paul was in Thessalonica and when he wrote this letter. I know that some folks a lot smarter than I feel that this letter was written very soon after Paul left Thessalonica, but I think we need to leave room for the reputation of the believers in Thessalonica to spread. Unless Paul is just being really, really nice (almost to the point of ridiculous), which I doubt, the reputation of the folks in Thessalonica had spread enormously by the time he wrote this letter. Don't forget, Thessalonica was on the main thoroughfare called the Egnatian Way, which means that correspondence traveled very efficiently in and out. Other churches heard admirable things about the church in Thessalonica: their hospitality toward Paul, their hard work, their resolve in the face of persecution, their 'imitation' of Paul, etc. and admired them for it.
[Personal Note: I serve a wonderful church with a good reputation for its worship and service. Let me tell you, I feel like a minority when I conference with other pastors and have loads of good things to share instead of moaning about squabbles, nobody wanting to do anything different, etc. I say a wonderful church is more precious than silver! Yeah Thessalonica! Yeah Philippi! Boooooooooo Corinth- c'mon people!]
And here is a really fascinating thing about this letter: It contains what might be the earliest indicator of a Christian profession of faith in the first chapter, verses 9-10. [I am indebted to William Ramsey for noting this, but his great book is in my office, so I'll offer him an appropriate shout out some other time.] I'll put Paul's words into a more formal doctrinal form:
We, the members of the church in Thessalonica, believe and live these doctrines:
- Radical solidarity with those who labor by proclaiming the Word of God;
- Turning away from idols to the true and living God;
- Waiting for the Son of God to return from heaven;
- Jesus, whom God raised from the dead, is the one who will rescue us from the wrath to come.
Wait, you say, ... "the wrath to come"? What wrath to come? That's a great question. Let's take it up on Monday...
It is probably time well spent for you to sit down and give yourself five minutes just to read this letter through- from beginning to end- just like you would a letter from someone you know and love. If you can, find a way to read it without chapter and verse markings (I can show you how to do this online, if you wish). The original Greek did not have chapter and verse numbers interrupting its flow. (But, it probably also did not have paragraphs or indentations and other such helpful ways of reading sensibly. My recommendation is to keep them, just to make it more readable.) All of those kinds of things were added later by scribes, copyists, and translation committees, so that the raw text would be easier for us to read (thanks to all the dead people who offered us this help!) Of course, that means that any text of I Thessalonians that we read has been passed down by a lot of people and filtered through a lot of people. By and large, these are folk who have been faithfully trying to preserve the gospel; but they also have inevitably made some judgments along the way as well- some of which might be right, some not. In the main, we can trust that most translations are both competent and well-intended, and that most differences between them are minor and not essential to the faith. Read on, friend, with confidence.
A couple of things that I noticed when reading this letter:
- First, Paul feels really good about this congregation. There is not the constant attention to problems within that we find when reading, say, Paul's letters to the church in Corinth. These Thessalonians have it going on, gospel-wise, and Paul celebrates that repeatedly.
- Second, there is a lot of integrative, holistic expression in this letter. By that, I mean that Paul puts enormous emphasis on the fact that the believers in Thessalonica live as well as they believe- their faith is a matter of knowing and doing, not just believing in the right set of propositions. Another way that Paul writes integratively is his emphasis on the body as well as the soul or spirit. Another is his emphasis on working hard and yet being gentle while encouraging 'idlers.' I guess what I'm seeing is that Paul would be hard to pigeonhole into any extreme categories by reading this letter.
- Third, when it comes to dating this letter, it seems to me that we have to assume some generous lapse of time between when Paul was in Thessalonica and when he wrote this letter. I know that some folks a lot smarter than I feel that this letter was written very soon after Paul left Thessalonica, but I think we need to leave room for the reputation of the believers in Thessalonica to spread. Unless Paul is just being really, really nice (almost to the point of ridiculous), which I doubt, the reputation of the folks in Thessalonica had spread enormously by the time he wrote this letter. Don't forget, Thessalonica was on the main thoroughfare called the Egnatian Way, which means that correspondence traveled very efficiently in and out. Other churches heard admirable things about the church in Thessalonica: their hospitality toward Paul, their hard work, their resolve in the face of persecution, their 'imitation' of Paul, etc. and admired them for it.
[Personal Note: I serve a wonderful church with a good reputation for its worship and service. Let me tell you, I feel like a minority when I conference with other pastors and have loads of good things to share instead of moaning about squabbles, nobody wanting to do anything different, etc. I say a wonderful church is more precious than silver! Yeah Thessalonica! Yeah Philippi! Boooooooooo Corinth- c'mon people!]
And here is a really fascinating thing about this letter: It contains what might be the earliest indicator of a Christian profession of faith in the first chapter, verses 9-10. [I am indebted to William Ramsey for noting this, but his great book is in my office, so I'll offer him an appropriate shout out some other time.] I'll put Paul's words into a more formal doctrinal form:
We, the members of the church in Thessalonica, believe and live these doctrines:
- Radical solidarity with those who labor by proclaiming the Word of God;
- Turning away from idols to the true and living God;
- Waiting for the Son of God to return from heaven;
- Jesus, whom God raised from the dead, is the one who will rescue us from the wrath to come.
Wait, you say, ... "the wrath to come"? What wrath to come? That's a great question. Let's take it up on Monday...
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Visiting a New Church
As we step into the church in Thessalonica, let's look at what we know, what we don't know, and maybe make a few assumptions about things we might be able to guess.
What we know from the book of Acts.*
- The church lives among Jews, what Luke calls God-fearers and Pagans.
- The church is in fact comprised of people who came from these communities.
- Paul was with the church personally (unlike the church in Rome), but left earlier than intended.
- Paul had communication with the church via Timothy and perhaps other messengers.
- The church, like the early church in most places, had a strong sense of the imminent return of Jesus.
- The early church generally had it rough from every direction. They were hated by some people among Jews, Romans, idol-industries, clairvoyance marketeers, magicians, etc.
What we don't know:
- What, exactly, the Thessalonian church thought about the afterlife.
- What, exactly, the Thessalonian church thought about the second coming.
What we might reasonable guess:
- The church didn't want their family or friends to die any more than any of us do.
- The church had a variety of understandings about the afterlife. (After all, there were varieties of understandings about the afterlife within Judaism and Paganism. Some Jews, like the Saducces, didn't believe in a resurrection. They were the fundamentalists of their day because that was a rather novel belief in Judaism and probably was influenced by Greek philosophy.)
- The church wanted some assurance and certainty, like any of us do.
So, when Paul writes his letter to the Thessalonians, he is writing to a church that had his belief system generally, but perhaps needed some clarification on particulars. They were also experiencing a crisis of a sort- some of the believers among them had died. (We don't know if these were natural deaths- aging and so forth- or persecuted deaths (although the language about the persecution of the church in Thessalonica does not explicitly mention death), or just death in general. Whatever the occasion, the theological question was this: Did the dearly departed just miss out on the second coming of Christ because s/he died before it happened?
That's the question that Paul is addressing in I Thessalonians and it is HUGE question for the early church. Again, because we cannot assume that there is a carefully worked out and agreed upon set of teachings about the afterlife that have been drilled into everyone's heads since childbirth, we probably can assume that there were varieties of expectation about what happens beyond the grace (including some who might have answered, "Well, nothing.").
I gotta go. Tomorrow we'll see what Paul says, but today we've taken the important steps of establishing some context and sympathy for the question that Paul is addressing in I Thessalonians. See you tomorrow.
*I realize that Jon Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed make a case- in In Search of Paul- that Luke's story in Acts is not very dependable on several points. I do not find Crossan's and Reed's case to be very persuasive in that book for a number of reasons and I felt that the reliability issue with Luke was something they felt they needed to do to make their own argument even when Luke stands in contrast to them. I continue to find Luke's account both reliable and generally in keeping with what we find in Paul's letters. (So there.)
What we know from the book of Acts.*
- The church lives among Jews, what Luke calls God-fearers and Pagans.
- The church is in fact comprised of people who came from these communities.
- Paul was with the church personally (unlike the church in Rome), but left earlier than intended.
- Paul had communication with the church via Timothy and perhaps other messengers.
- The church, like the early church in most places, had a strong sense of the imminent return of Jesus.
- The early church generally had it rough from every direction. They were hated by some people among Jews, Romans, idol-industries, clairvoyance marketeers, magicians, etc.
What we don't know:
- What, exactly, the Thessalonian church thought about the afterlife.
- What, exactly, the Thessalonian church thought about the second coming.
What we might reasonable guess:
- The church didn't want their family or friends to die any more than any of us do.
- The church had a variety of understandings about the afterlife. (After all, there were varieties of understandings about the afterlife within Judaism and Paganism. Some Jews, like the Saducces, didn't believe in a resurrection. They were the fundamentalists of their day because that was a rather novel belief in Judaism and probably was influenced by Greek philosophy.)
- The church wanted some assurance and certainty, like any of us do.
So, when Paul writes his letter to the Thessalonians, he is writing to a church that had his belief system generally, but perhaps needed some clarification on particulars. They were also experiencing a crisis of a sort- some of the believers among them had died. (We don't know if these were natural deaths- aging and so forth- or persecuted deaths (although the language about the persecution of the church in Thessalonica does not explicitly mention death), or just death in general. Whatever the occasion, the theological question was this: Did the dearly departed just miss out on the second coming of Christ because s/he died before it happened?
That's the question that Paul is addressing in I Thessalonians and it is HUGE question for the early church. Again, because we cannot assume that there is a carefully worked out and agreed upon set of teachings about the afterlife that have been drilled into everyone's heads since childbirth, we probably can assume that there were varieties of expectation about what happens beyond the grace (including some who might have answered, "Well, nothing.").
I gotta go. Tomorrow we'll see what Paul says, but today we've taken the important steps of establishing some context and sympathy for the question that Paul is addressing in I Thessalonians. See you tomorrow.
*I realize that Jon Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed make a case- in In Search of Paul- that Luke's story in Acts is not very dependable on several points. I do not find Crossan's and Reed's case to be very persuasive in that book for a number of reasons and I felt that the reliability issue with Luke was something they felt they needed to do to make their own argument even when Luke stands in contrast to them. I continue to find Luke's account both reliable and generally in keeping with what we find in Paul's letters. (So there.)
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Sleeping In a Bit
I believe the Brits call it a 'lie in'- at least that is a phrase I seem to remember from the Harry Potter books. I call it "stayed up past midnight listening to excellent concession and acceptance speeches and didn't even think about getting up at the usual hour this morning." So, slept in until 6, feel great, but time to get all of the little tax deductions up and off to school. Tune in tomorrow...
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Oooh, It's Nice Inside!
Okay, continuing my sad analogy from yesterday: Like viewing a car for sale, we've looked at Paul's letter to the church in Thessalonica yesterday from the outside- just a brief history of the founding of that church from Acts 17 (one of my favorite chapters of the Bible, by the way) and some well-founded guesses by scholars marking I Thessalonians as the earliest book of the New Testament. She looks mighty fine from the outside. Now, lets open the door and see what's inside.
It's always a good idea to keep the following things in mind when reading one of the letters in the New Testament:
- We're reading someone else's mail.
- That doesn't make us voyeurs. It's just the way it is.
- Therefore, we only get one half of a conversation.
- Therefore, we may need to assume the other part of the conversation at times.
- Q: If a letter is answering a question, and we don't know the question, can we understand the answer? A: Sure, to some extent. THANK GOD, I say, Thank God that the biblical writers did not send text messages instead of real, authentic letters. Can you imagine trying to live as a faithful disciple while reading: hey, 'sup? nm,jc. OMG! dw,bh-Jcs. ttyl, PtA
(Rough Translation: Paul the Apostle to the church in Athens, Grace and Peace. We thank God for your faithfulness as we continue the work of sharing the gospel. Timothy has told us of your travails. Be strong in the Lord, for God is faithful and our Lord is coming soon. We hope to see you again, Paul the Apostle.)
- We can't assume that the letter writers were intentionally 'writing the Bible.'
- When one letter says, "Hey, would someone fetch my jacket from Troas?" (II Timothy 4:13), we can safely say that it is a personal note, and PLEASE don't try preaching a sermon from it! If you pastor preaches a sermon on coat-fetching, you are hereby commissioned to say, "Geez, whassammater for you?" A dope-slap is permitted as well.
- While some letters were clearly intended to be 'open letters,' read by more than one church, we STILL can't assume that the letter writers were intentionally 'writing the Bible.'
- It was a long and arduous process by which the early church deemed some of the many letters out there were Scripture-worthy and some were not. That is partly why Willi Marxen referred to the Bible as "the church's book."
- The personal nature of the letters, their highly individualized (or regionalized) context, the 'behind the scene' questions and issues that evoked them, and all of that other stuff makes the letters intensely interesting to me. (Okay, perhaps this doesn't qualify as a 'general rule' but it is something that I need to say. None of these general rules casts any negative light on the joyous work of reading these letters profitably.)
So, with all of that in view, we look at a letter that Paul wrote to a fledgling church that lived among Jews and idol-worshipping Gentiles and we look for what the Thessalonians were experiencing, what Paul was addressing, what they believed/understood/proclaimed in common, and what Paul felt he needed to tell them. The last part could be an explanation of things that they discussed before, it could be a fresh insight based on things they were experiencing now. It all depends.
Here is one thing that Paul held in common with the Thessalonians, that is assumed throughout this letter, as well as II Thessalonians: Jesus will return soon. That is, as we have noted in previous posts, a very common assumption throughout the New Testament.
Take a verse like Mark 9:1 for example: "And [Jesus] said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.’"
In this verse, Jesus says that some people standing right there will see "that the kingdom of God has come with power." Now, if this phrase means the same as another phrase Mark uses (c.13) that people will "see the Son of Man coming in the clouds", and if this phrase refers to the 2nd coming of Jesus, then we have a problem here. Mark, we recall, is telling this story around 70ish CE. The people standing there are dead. And no matter how we slice it, the second coming did not happen before any of those folks died. We'll have to focus on this text some other time, because it deserves a longer and more complex hearing in itself. My point, however, is that many of the New Testament churches and writer expected a soon and decisive second coming of Jesus.
One of the primary questions that many New Testament letters address (as well as the gospels as you could see from my earlier comparisons of Mark 13, Matthew 24-25, and Luke 21) is what scholars call "the delay of the parousia," and the rest of us call "Jesus still hasn't come!" For the church in Thessalonica, this problem was especially acute because some of the saints there had died. And for a church so heavily invested in the immediate return of Jesus, this was a problem: "What about Uncle Matthias? Is he going to miss out on this great event because he got pleurisy and died? Does death prevent us from participating in the great event? Shall we, then, view death as an enemy?" Those are real questions.
Tomorrow, we'll look at how Paul answers that question in this first letter ... and beyond.
It's always a good idea to keep the following things in mind when reading one of the letters in the New Testament:
- We're reading someone else's mail.
- That doesn't make us voyeurs. It's just the way it is.
- Therefore, we only get one half of a conversation.
- Therefore, we may need to assume the other part of the conversation at times.
- Q: If a letter is answering a question, and we don't know the question, can we understand the answer? A: Sure, to some extent. THANK GOD, I say, Thank God that the biblical writers did not send text messages instead of real, authentic letters. Can you imagine trying to live as a faithful disciple while reading: hey, 'sup? nm,jc. OMG! dw,bh-Jcs. ttyl, PtA
(Rough Translation: Paul the Apostle to the church in Athens, Grace and Peace. We thank God for your faithfulness as we continue the work of sharing the gospel. Timothy has told us of your travails. Be strong in the Lord, for God is faithful and our Lord is coming soon. We hope to see you again, Paul the Apostle.)
- We can't assume that the letter writers were intentionally 'writing the Bible.'
- When one letter says, "Hey, would someone fetch my jacket from Troas?" (II Timothy 4:13), we can safely say that it is a personal note, and PLEASE don't try preaching a sermon from it! If you pastor preaches a sermon on coat-fetching, you are hereby commissioned to say, "Geez, whassammater for you?" A dope-slap is permitted as well.
- While some letters were clearly intended to be 'open letters,' read by more than one church, we STILL can't assume that the letter writers were intentionally 'writing the Bible.'
- It was a long and arduous process by which the early church deemed some of the many letters out there were Scripture-worthy and some were not. That is partly why Willi Marxen referred to the Bible as "the church's book."
- The personal nature of the letters, their highly individualized (or regionalized) context, the 'behind the scene' questions and issues that evoked them, and all of that other stuff makes the letters intensely interesting to me. (Okay, perhaps this doesn't qualify as a 'general rule' but it is something that I need to say. None of these general rules casts any negative light on the joyous work of reading these letters profitably.)
So, with all of that in view, we look at a letter that Paul wrote to a fledgling church that lived among Jews and idol-worshipping Gentiles and we look for what the Thessalonians were experiencing, what Paul was addressing, what they believed/understood/proclaimed in common, and what Paul felt he needed to tell them. The last part could be an explanation of things that they discussed before, it could be a fresh insight based on things they were experiencing now. It all depends.
Here is one thing that Paul held in common with the Thessalonians, that is assumed throughout this letter, as well as II Thessalonians: Jesus will return soon. That is, as we have noted in previous posts, a very common assumption throughout the New Testament.
Take a verse like Mark 9:1 for example: "And [Jesus] said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.’"
In this verse, Jesus says that some people standing right there will see "that the kingdom of God has come with power." Now, if this phrase means the same as another phrase Mark uses (c.13) that people will "see the Son of Man coming in the clouds", and if this phrase refers to the 2nd coming of Jesus, then we have a problem here. Mark, we recall, is telling this story around 70ish CE. The people standing there are dead. And no matter how we slice it, the second coming did not happen before any of those folks died. We'll have to focus on this text some other time, because it deserves a longer and more complex hearing in itself. My point, however, is that many of the New Testament churches and writer expected a soon and decisive second coming of Jesus.
One of the primary questions that many New Testament letters address (as well as the gospels as you could see from my earlier comparisons of Mark 13, Matthew 24-25, and Luke 21) is what scholars call "the delay of the parousia," and the rest of us call "Jesus still hasn't come!" For the church in Thessalonica, this problem was especially acute because some of the saints there had died. And for a church so heavily invested in the immediate return of Jesus, this was a problem: "What about Uncle Matthias? Is he going to miss out on this great event because he got pleurisy and died? Does death prevent us from participating in the great event? Shall we, then, view death as an enemy?" Those are real questions.
Tomorrow, we'll look at how Paul answers that question in this first letter ... and beyond.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Oh Boy, we get to read someone else's mail!
This week, I invite you to join me in looking closely at I Thessalonians. This is an important chapter for proponents of Left Behind Theology, but it is an important book of the Bible for many other reasons. I'd like for you to imagine for a sec that you and I are looking at a car that is for sale, before the sales guy walks up and tries to strike up a conversation with us. I don't know what you do in moments like that, but I kind of walk around the outside a bit first, just checking it out in general; then I look at the sticker if it is a dealer car, especially the price (initial cost) and mpg (ongoing costs). Then, if the doors are unlocked, I stick my head inside to see if all of my youngun's can fit or not. Then I'll sit in the driver's seat to check out the feel, the look, the bling, the accoutrement, etc. I even get out to look under the hood sometimes, just so it might seem like I know that I'm looking at. ("Yup, that an engine alright.") If I'm favorably inclined, then I'll check out the Consumer Report and other expert opinions. I'm a cautious shopper when it comes to spending large amounts of money.
That's the approach I want to take with I Thessalonians this week. Let's just check it out a bit before we start saying, "Now this verse here shows that, when Jesus comes, left-handed people are going to be in deeeeeep trouble!" or anything like that. And feel free to chime in along the way, because you may see something that I've missed entirely. And let's approach this letter as an encouraging letter of consolation, which- we will see- was the spirit in which it was written.
That's the approach I want to take with I Thessalonians this week. Let's just check it out a bit before we start saying, "Now this verse here shows that, when Jesus comes, left-handed people are going to be in deeeeeep trouble!" or anything like that. And feel free to chime in along the way, because you may see something that I've missed entirely. And let's approach this letter as an encouraging letter of consolation, which- we will see- was the spirit in which it was written.
Let's start with this neat tidbit: I Thessalonians is probably the first thing ever written in the New Testament. How cool is that?
In Acts 17 there is the story of Paul's stay in the city of Thessalonica, which resulted in a church being formed of Jews and especially many Gentiles who had turned previously from idols to the God of the Hebrew Bible, who were persuaded by Paul's message that Jesus is the Christ of promise. We do not know how long Paul, Silas (or Silvanus), and Timothy were in Thessalonica, but their work there was interrupted and they had to leave quickly. Some scholars suggest a stay as short as three weeks, since the Acts 17 narrative seems to indicate three sabbaths, but others suggest much longer, like three to eight months. However long it was, Paul's time there was quite effectively spent, since he is able, in his letter, to remind the Thessalonians of quite a few things that they had heard before and it seems that there was a lot of movement away from a lifetime of worshipping idols to a new life of following Christ going on.
Since Thessalonica was located on the "Egnatian Way," it was a stop along a well-traveled hightway. It seems that Timothy, and perhaps others, carried some verbal messages between Paul and the church- or at least were able to report various developments within the church to Paul. Some of the news caused Paul much joy, some of it caused some anxiety- especially the news of some rumors that people were spreading about Paul and his teachings. Hence, Paul and friends wrote a letter to the church to clarify their position and to encourage the believers. As William Ramsey says, with this decision to write a letter, an entirely new genre was introduced into what we now call the New Testament.
Most scholars put the writing of I Thessalonians around 50 BCE, which would make it roughly 20 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. It seems that Paul wrote the letter from Corinth, where he stayed for some time during what we call his 'first missionary journey.' There are lots of 'firsts' going on here, aren't there? It seems that Timothy made the journey back to Thessalonica to check on the fledgling church and then returned to Paul just before the letter was written. Nothing like some first-hand information to occasion a letter, right?
So, now, we've walked around the outside of this car a little bit. Whaddya say we open the door and get inside tomorrow?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
