The following is meant as my attempt to show what I am picturing as "thick" Christian interpretation of the Bible read as Christian Scripture. Obviously I am thinking out loud here and welcome feedback and critique.
I
Reading 2 Thessalonians as Christian Scripture is to read it with the eyes of Christian faith, the faith that understands Christ as the Word of God par excellence and that sees the unfolding of the particulars of words of God in the church's ongoing reading of the Bible throughout the centuries. 2 Thessalonians does not have any "classic" passages in the sense of passages that played key roles in Christian debates and that came to embody Christian faith on a particular topic. In that sense, Christian history does not push us toward consensus interpretations of passages in 2 Thessalonians.
Nevertheless, 2 Thessalonians does deal with central Christian issues. 2 Thessalonians 1 speaks of the righteous judgment of God and how He will repay evildoers with eternal destruction at the return of Christ. Chapter 2 discusses the kinds of events that will take place in the time just before the Lord's return. Chapter 3 deals not least with believers who do not work when they could and yet expect to be supported by the Christian community.
We find Christian consensus on some of these issues and not on others. Thus it is the consensus of Christendom that the Lord Jesus Christ will return again one day from heaven. This faith has found its way into the Apostle's and Nicene creed. At the same time, Christians have never come to consensus on the events surrounding the parousia. There is thus no "Christian" view on how to take references to the "man of lawlessness" here. 2 Thessalonians has some very unique material on the matter of Christ's return, and it would be dangerous to base fundamental theology on a single passage when the church of the ages has not.
The books of the Bible as a whole do not present us with a clear picture of the "end times," and this includes the nature of "eternal destruction." Nevertheless, it is the consensus of the church that eternal destruction will take place in hell, a place of eternal torment. The most Christian way to read 1:9 is in reference to hell as the destiny of the wicked, even though Paul himself never uses the word and may not have had this originally in view.
It is the consensus of the church that Christians must help the poor and those in need. However, I cannot think of any consensus type statement on what to do with those who could provide for themselves or could contribute to the community but choose not to. We suspect, in general, however, that Christians have generally followed the idea that those who could work but do not, do not merit participation in the work of the rest of the Christian community.
II.
When we move below the consensus of the church to points of debate or varying emphases in Christian history, we do find passages in 2 Thessalonians that have featured as key passages for certain Christian groups. Similarly, we can find "reforming debates" on some of the issues of Christian consensus that could conceivably emerge in the future as corrections to the trajectory of common Christendom.
Certainly we must mention dispensationalism as a significant movement within modern Christendom. It does not have much claim to the original meaning of Scripture below, nor does it have the weight of history behind it. But it claims a significant number of believers in the United States for the last two centuries.
Dispensationalists read 2 Thessalonians 2 in relation to an Antichrist who will appear in the days either right before or right after the "rapture" of 1 Thessalonians 4. They see 2:4 as an allusion to a coming rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple in the nation of Israel reestablished in 1948. These interpretations are far from a consensus within Christian history and they are dubious even from an original meaning perspective. But they are movements to be watched to see whether they will gain or diminish strength in the church over time.
The Puritan work ethic was expressed by way of 3:11: "He who will not work, shall not eat." Some American Christians again have taken this verse into the realm of national politics as a sentiment against any sort of welfare. Nevertheless, both the weight of Christian history and of the biblical record is toward caring for those in need.
The question of God's vengeance has occasionally given various Christians pause. The New Testament seems to emphasize God's mercy over His justice (e.g., James 2:13). The thrust of the New Testament would not seem to take an "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" attitude toward sinners. Thus the question rises. If human sin, no matter how great, is a finite amount, then how can God be just to requite it with an infinite punishment in hell?
The Calvinist answer is that failure to acknowledge God as God is an infinite sin and thus that the punishment is just. Similarly, God is seen as exacting the precise just punishment of all sinners--or at least of those who are saved--from Christ. Others, like C. S. Lewis, have suggested that a person might very well decide to serve God in hell, no matter how unlikely. Seventh Day Adventists have opted to believe in the annihilation of the wicked.
Nevertheless, the consensus of Christendom remains belief in eternal destruction in hell for the wicked. The question of those who have never heard, on the other hand, remains open for debate. Does God judge them according to the light they have (perhaps the majority opinion in Christian history) or are they simply lost the same as those who consciously reject Christ?
II
The original meaning of 2 Thessalonians involves some issues on which there is no scholarly consensus. For example, 2 Thessalonians does not give the impression of recent acquaintance that 1 Thessalonians does. It seems to reflect a stable relationship between Paul and the Thessalonians. At the same time, its teaching about the man of lawlessness is otherwise unknown in Paul's writings. A sizeable minority of New Testament scholars would consider it pseudonymous, although the majority--especially the overwhelming majority of evangelical scholars (if not the unanimous verdict)--see Paul as the author.
It is not clear whether such issues have any significance at all for reading 2 Thessalonians as Christian Scripture. In any case, we cannot speak of any scholarly consensus on the issue, so it would be hazardous to base anything on such a determination one way or the other. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 does seem to have the standing temple of Jerusalem in view, which raises some questions for the dispensationalist reading of 2 Thessalonians.
The question of "eternal destruction" is unclear in Paul's writings. He never mentions hell and is unclear about the fate of any dead other than the dead in Christ. Indeed, one could read Romans 6:7 to imply death as a sufficient punishment for sin. This is not, however, the consensus reading of New Testament scholars nor is it the Christian reading of the passage. So while these considerations might be a basis for future reformation, they are not in play within the church.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
When you speak of "Christian Scriptures", or Christian Tradition" you have already lost me. I don't believe "by faith" that we should proof-text texts OR life itself! Men have brains for a reason, and if I cannot be given a reason to believe that committing to a "proof text" of history, texts, life, and community is beneficial, then I don't want to continue to be assoiated with it. I am not asking to be indoctrinated into a religious tradition, as religious rite of passage, or enlightened by some supernatural revelational truth. I am asking for a reasoned way of approaching life...
"The most Christian way to read 1:9 is in reference to hell as the destiny of the wicked, even though Paul himself never uses the word and may not have had this originally in view."
Thanks for the pointer Ken - how I hate Xtian as an adjective. I find it practically meaningless. Interesting that Paul never uses either Greek word for 'hell' - I had not bothered to look before this. Interesting too that hades seems to be related to alef! So the first letter that declined to be the first letter of the Bible and that has a vav - connector - and two yods joining heaven and earth should be the one that evil is reduced to. This puts evil squarely on the cross. There is no 'reason' Angie - just the experience of the walk. Our reason, beautiful gift though it is, is 25 orders of magnitude too small to measure the presence of God.
It seems pretty clear that only those who identify with Christian faith will want to read the Bible as Christian Scripture. There are many ways to read a text. There are feminist readings of the Bible, African-American readings, there are even queer readings of the Bible. When I speak of a Christian reading of the Bible as Scripture, I am speaking of the kind of reading a particular group reading the Bible in relation to them as a group.
The belief that God has spoken most directly to humanity through the Christian tradition is a claim that can be accepted or rejected. But that is a fundamental Christian belief when the word is taken in anything like its normal sense. Certainly in recent days various groups have wanted to retain the word Christian while redefining its meaning, but that is not the sense the word has had for some 2000 years.
Thanks for the rebuke Ken. I deserved it. Sometimes the comments jump off the keyboard with a little humour. But - Christendom does not speak with a united voice over the last 1700 years about the meaning of the adjective 'Christian'. One might for instance see the vengeance implied in everlasting destruction as an 'unchristian' thought. At least not very nice. How does one make it 'Christian' apart from the gospel that Jesus suffered that destruction on behalf of his wider body of Christ? So we are invited to enter in to his suffering for ourselves and for others.
Bob, I was answering Angie's comment rather than yours. I think I received your comment while I was typing the response to Angie. I was not rebuking you or her, just pointing out to her that it seems legitimate to allow confessional Christians to read the biblical text in a certain way.
Sorry if either of you took it as a rebuke...
So, which form is Christian, asceticism, world changing, self-denial, life enhancing, or what...I recognize that virue is a needful characteristic especially in leadership. I'm questioning if utilitarian goals are virtuous in leadership, as in the Jews bringing "death", either socially, spiritually or morally to Christ, was just and right, and fair...is this the standard that all lives must live by? If it is not universal, then who decides who what, when, and where the "model" should be implemented? When the goals of the Church design it for the "greater good"? Appalling!
Ken,
Part of your post leaves open the multiplicity of readings that come out of 2 Thes. and, it would be my contention, that many can be Christian.
However, if we want to use Christian as an adjective, I think that is quite legitimate, especially when referring to the phenomena that most can objectively see and identify as Christianity. If there are problems as to how that gets worked among some people, that is fine. But, there is a sort of general agreement as to what "Christian" is and looks like. Again, though, there is multiplicity within what this umbrella looks like.
Now, onto the post...I like it. I think it could go a few different ways, especially if you allow for a more hermeneutic reading of the text - allowing the text to open a world in front of the reader (I know you've read Ricoeur, so that's why I invoke it). I really think this kind of thick reading, that is still in line with the text and original meaning, but going beyond it, can be quite useful. I wish more bib. scholars approached texts like this.
BTW, have you seen Ricoeur and LaCocque's Thinking Biblically. It is quite good and I think that you would be sympathetic with some of the stuff going on in there - It seems like everytime I post on here, I recommend a book for you to read...and, I know, too many books to read:)
Ricour's faith development does get to symbolization, which is what myth is and though I love a good analogy, novel, movie...I'd rather understand my life within the real world of politics, I guess, as religion gets too personal, when everything that defines a person, from identity to values, are prescribed by the leaders of a group.
Self development, conviction, and values clarification cannot happen within the confines of a fundamentalistic tradition. One is limited...
Whenever anyone else prescribes that they will train another to be "other faocused", to "not be turned inward", flee! It is a red flag that the culture is prescriptive in their assessment of what constitutes "other focusing"...meaning that perhaps, family should be set aside, as that is self focus, or being free to volunteer where and when one desires, as you might not be evaluated to have met the particulars of their "other focused" volunteer work...
Post a Comment