This has taken quite a while to write. It's been a very busy two months or so. It was tough to get this out by Christmas. I apologize for content that's not exactly relevant to the Advent. –mem
We are in Hebrews in church, and we came upon chapter six today (ed. now a long time ago). It proved a fertile ground for questions, which is hardly surprising: it comes up in eternal security debates all the time. It's practically de rigueur for anyone opposing eternity security, and so most of the conversation about the passage seems to revolve around the subject—especially on the Internet.
If we take a bit of a step back, though, it seems that there's more here than we might usually think. Establishing any sort of detailed context is really beyond the scope of my blog, but I think we can successfully argue that the warnings here are directed primarily to Christian Jews who were tempted to return to their Judaism.
The elementary principles enumerated in chapter six really continue from the rebuke of chapter five ("For though by this time you should be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God," 5:12).
I think we can find parallels to the principles in chapter 6 in the Old Testament. So for example (non-exhaustive list):
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Three I's of Scripture
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).
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).
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?).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)