That's I as in EYE, not an ell. Not one much for introduction, the three I's are Inspiration, Intent, and Interpretation.
Regardless of where you fall on the inspiration spectrum (from verbal-plenary to not-inspired-at-all), the point to be made about it is that inspiration is a quality of the text and not the author. (Otherwise, every grocery list Paul ever made would be inspired.) The concept of inspiration describes a relationship between the human and Divine authors of Scripture.
Intent is the characteristic of the author and speaks to the overall purpose of the text. The concept of inspiration plays into this, of course, but the two concepts are distinct. Depending on one's concept of inspiration, the intent of the human author and the intent of the Divine author may be different. The fact remains, however, that intent is an attribute of the author.
Interpretation is the attribute of the reader. This is what the reader does with the text itself. The goal of interpretation is to uncover, at least to some degree, the intent of the author.
When we examine the Scriptures, it's important to put these different attributes in their proper place before mucking up the water with other issues (for example, how does our perspective of inspiration affect our interpretation of the text? to what extent does God's intent in the text affect our reading? and so on).
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Impeccability and Eschatology
One of the things that's interesting about impeccability is that it's a trait that those in heaven will all share (unless you're like Origen and think that we'll be able to sin in heaven). We are told fairly clearly in Scripture that this will be the case: the consequences of sin (death, tears, pain, et c.) will be wiped away (Re 21.4).
What, then? Do we conclude from this that we are no longer really human in heaven? The Scripture is clear that we will have a glorified body (1Co 15.35ff), it is true, but it seems equally evident that this body is not entirely dissociated from our experiences and lives here on earth. Indeed, Paul explicitly calls Jesus the "man from heaven," a man with a heavenly body. Christianity is intensely corporeal and physical.
I do not think, however, that we are given leave to assume that the ability to sin is essential to the concept of humanity. We will be human in heaven, and we will not have the ability to sin. Indeed, this is what we look forward to: how awful it would be to yet fear sin! We all groan with Paul when he writes, "Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" and rejoice with him when he responds, "I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Ro 7.24,5).
If we orient this view backwards on Christ, then, we can gain a clearer appreciation of what it means to be impeccable: it means that we are truly human. It is a grave error to impute to his humanity the fallenness of my own; indeed, it's quite backwards. Just like our personhood is seen most clearly through the personhood of the Trinity, so also our humanity is seen most clearly in the humanity of Jesus Christ. Our reference point has been reseated: it is no longer Adam, but Christ, who defines what it means to be human.
Because he was impeccable, so we have the confidence that we likewise shall be, when we finally see him and are like him (1Jo 3.2), and in him there is no sin (1Jo 3.5; cp. Ez 28.15?).
What, then? Do we conclude from this that we are no longer really human in heaven? The Scripture is clear that we will have a glorified body (1Co 15.35ff), it is true, but it seems equally evident that this body is not entirely dissociated from our experiences and lives here on earth. Indeed, Paul explicitly calls Jesus the "man from heaven," a man with a heavenly body. Christianity is intensely corporeal and physical.
I do not think, however, that we are given leave to assume that the ability to sin is essential to the concept of humanity. We will be human in heaven, and we will not have the ability to sin. Indeed, this is what we look forward to: how awful it would be to yet fear sin! We all groan with Paul when he writes, "Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" and rejoice with him when he responds, "I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Ro 7.24,5).
If we orient this view backwards on Christ, then, we can gain a clearer appreciation of what it means to be impeccable: it means that we are truly human. It is a grave error to impute to his humanity the fallenness of my own; indeed, it's quite backwards. Just like our personhood is seen most clearly through the personhood of the Trinity, so also our humanity is seen most clearly in the humanity of Jesus Christ. Our reference point has been reseated: it is no longer Adam, but Christ, who defines what it means to be human.
Because he was impeccable, so we have the confidence that we likewise shall be, when we finally see him and are like him (1Jo 3.2), and in him there is no sin (1Jo 3.5; cp. Ez 28.15?).
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Indulgence is Contempt
(Or: Esteem others better than yourself.)
I've powered my way through a lot of Scripture lately, trying to make up for some lost time this year.
In reading through Psalm 17, it concludes with the phrase, "I shall be satisfied when I awake in Your likeness," contrasting the satisfaction of the Psalmist with the satisfaction of the man whose only goal in life is to leave a posterity for his children. (This was powerful for me, but it's another post.)
I think the Psalm itself is Messianic (it fits thematically with other Messianic Psalms, anyway, and it is in the middle of some of them, also), so I see in this statement the glorification of Jesus Christ.
But I think it is properly extended to us also, who are to be conformed to his likeness and image (Ro 8.28ff). That is the goal of God's work in our lives, and the promise of his elective decree. We see in other passages that Jesus humiliated himself for us, esteeming us better than himself. It is for this reason that Paul can enjoin the same of us (Philippians 2).
It struck me in thinking about this that this implies not being indulgent or paternal in the ways that we treat others. When we marginalize their fears or concerns or treat their dreams or pastimes as cute, we implicitly suggest our own superiority. This is exactly the opposite of what we read in Philippians, and exactly the opposite of how Christ acted toward us.
I've powered my way through a lot of Scripture lately, trying to make up for some lost time this year.
In reading through Psalm 17, it concludes with the phrase, "I shall be satisfied when I awake in Your likeness," contrasting the satisfaction of the Psalmist with the satisfaction of the man whose only goal in life is to leave a posterity for his children. (This was powerful for me, but it's another post.)
I think the Psalm itself is Messianic (it fits thematically with other Messianic Psalms, anyway, and it is in the middle of some of them, also), so I see in this statement the glorification of Jesus Christ.
But I think it is properly extended to us also, who are to be conformed to his likeness and image (Ro 8.28ff). That is the goal of God's work in our lives, and the promise of his elective decree. We see in other passages that Jesus humiliated himself for us, esteeming us better than himself. It is for this reason that Paul can enjoin the same of us (Philippians 2).
It struck me in thinking about this that this implies not being indulgent or paternal in the ways that we treat others. When we marginalize their fears or concerns or treat their dreams or pastimes as cute, we implicitly suggest our own superiority. This is exactly the opposite of what we read in Philippians, and exactly the opposite of how Christ acted toward us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)