A Little Leaven

Although as I begin to write this it strikes me once again that it is a commonplace, a piece of Christian writing I happened upon this week indicates that it is easily forgotten: to impose laws or teachings upon God’s people, even for righteousness’ sake, that God himself does not impose or teach, is a great evil which contains many others within itself. 

The principal one, in my view, is that when it is discovered, as it frequently is when those imposed upon “come of age,” that God does not require what his representatives said he did, it casts heavy doubt upon the evangelical verities they have also taught. If the faithful have in fact been lied to about one thing, how can they be confident that the whole mass of Christian teaching received from their teachers wasn’t a fabrication of clericalism and prudential mendacity? If—to extract some blunt examples—it is discovered that God does not actually require (that is, the Bible does not in fact teach) teetotalism, or forbid dancing, or may not regard you with diminished satisfaction if you eat meat on Friday, then why should we think he is as firmly interested in modesty or temperance or the necessity of believing in Christ’s resurrection? Or that he exists? When we kick over the traces that deserve the kicking, we find that others attached to them also tremble.

The book I was reading tells of a pastor who, upon being forced by his conscience to confront and admit to himself a number of the errors of his sect, thought himself not only obliged to leave its pastorate—which would have been honest and perhaps inevitable—but had his faith shaken to the core by the discovery. Because so much of the complex of putative “Bible” teaching and cultural presumption that had formed it was brought into question by an intelligent friend working on doubts brought to the surface by unhappiness, he found himself angry and frustrated to the point of despair. The most ironic thing about this was that the pastor was a member of a religious group that almost certainly lionized C. S. Lewis, who would have taught him and his church, had they actually been listening instead of lionizing, all the things he was now discovering and admitting to himself, yet done it in the context of a strong and unapologetically orthodox Christianity. 

This, however, the pastor did not detect, at least to a sufficient degree to assure him that he could remain, if not in his pastorate, at least in a robustly traditional faith. The inner man was deeply shaken because what he believed as truth was too intimately tied to what he was coming to understand as error. This was the product of a tradition in which, for many prudential reasons, reasons intended mostly to guard and strengthen the faith, it was laden with teachings and rules discovered in the Bible by the founders and propagators of the sect, set in stone by the doctrine of inerrancy, and inscribed on the tablets of the heart by the love which binds a man to his people. 

Comments

[Robert Buechler]

This is precisely the problem I have with some evangelical pastors who insist upon teaching their parishoners that the rapture is orthodox biblical teaching.

I am a Lutheran pastor, and orthodox (not easy in an ELCA setting). I have any number of problems with my own denomination's rejection of biblical authority. I in fact reject much of the ELCA's teaching precisely because of its unbiblical, postmodern spin.

Yet I find that whle on the one hand I am combating revisionism of the postmodern kind, I also find myself teaching and preaching against what many evangelical Christians insist is orthodox, namely the rapture. Yet I reject it for the same reason I reject revisionism. Not part of the biblical witness.

If we don't speak more about the real nature of the teaching of "the rapture" we run the risk of people finding out later that the bible truly doesn't mention the rapture. Then those we are called to lead will wonder what else pastors are saying are "biblical" but are not. People tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, and I fear this will happen if we are too "tolerant" of rapture theology in our churches. It is actually more dangerous than revisionism, because it truly tries to masquarade as orthodoxy.

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweather,ND

[Bill R]

There is something to be said for coming into your tradition in adulthood, instead of being raised therein: you actually think (often long and hard) about what you will “own” in your faith. I was 22 when I became an evangelical and I examined it fairly carefully before “stepping in.” Coming from mainstream Protestantism I had no cultural markers such as many of my fellow evangelicals had who were raised in evangelical churches—I enjoyed (and still enjoy) beer and wine, and it never occurred to me to question whether (most) dancing was licit. There were the occasional disapproving glances in my direction, but I could smile and say: “Where’s that in Scripture?” The irony is that my daughter, raised in the evangelical church, is far more aware of (and affected by) these markers than I am.

I note that Mere Comments seems to have a lot of participants who have come into their traditions from either no faith or another tradition. I suspect we aren’t subject to the same disorientation you described, Dr. Hutchens, when we encounter very diverse Christian outlooks from other believers who take their faith every bit as seriously as we do. On the other hand, I would also claim that anyone who follows Mere Comments and does not have his or her tradition challenged by such diversity really isn’t paying attention to what the other contributors are saying. These challenges, however, go far deeper than drinking alcohol or eating fish: they go to how and what one views as authority or authoritative for the faith, and how one handles the deeper issues of Scriptural interpretation, external authority, and doctrine. It’s not unfair to say that “orthodox ecumenism” of the Touchstone variety requires a fair amount of Christian maturity to appreciate.

[DGP]

Yet another avenue of thought here is the question of how to communicate those local or ancillary rules without suggesting they're matters of divine law. Some examples: The Bible does not specifically require women to cover their breasts in public, but the divine law concerning modesty still requires this as a matter of local implementation. For Catholics of an earlier generation, Friday abstinence from meat was merely a "precept of the Church," not a divine law, yet it was important to communal solidarity -- perhaps too important, as it often slipped over into sectarianism.

Nevertheless, it is easy for people to assume that what they were taught was God's law, not merely man's, however much man's law must also be obeyed. It is also a grave temptation to "take God's Name in vain" by attributing their own judgments to divine authority. So how should church authorities apply the necessary rod and staff without implying that every application must be construed as God's will?

[David Gray]

>I think of the Pharisees who awaited their Messiah, hoping he would return in a blaze of glory

How do you think Christ will return?

[Gene Godbold]

David,
Well sure, but they were wrong the *first* time, no? :-)

[David Gray]

>Well sure, but they were wrong the *first* time, no? :-)

Yep.

[Wolf N. Paul]

I second the request for a link to that book.

[Stuart Koehl]

Which book, please?

[GL]

Although as I begin to write this it strikes me once again that it is a commonplace, a piece of Christian writing I happened upon this week indicates that it is easily forgotten: to impose laws or teachings upon God’s people, even for righteousness’ sake, that God himself does not impose or teach, is a great evil which contains many others within itself.

"Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers." Luke 11:46b (ESV)

[Donald Johnson]

You know, I don't think the Rapture is unorthodox Bible teaching. 1 Th 4 says we will rise to meet the Lord in the air. That would be what is called the Rapture (from Latin rapturo: to seize, snatch, carry away. see this link: http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookit.pl?latin=rapturo )

What is at issue is when and how the rapture occurs. I think there are strong biblical reasons for a particular position.

But I hardly think that is what S. M. Hutchens was talking about in this post!

I also don't happen to agree with Hutchens on what I think his major premise is: i.e., that it is an evil to teach "teetotalism, or forbid dancing" etc. On the contrary, I think that is Bible based (not mandated) wisdom.

Yes, some make the teachings of wisdom to be the same as pleasing God. Humans can make idols out of anything.

But that doesn't make such teachings any less wise, or any less necessary.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Brian John Schuettler]

For those of you who wish to explore the history of "Rapture Theology" (which only developed in the nineteenth century) I suggest an excellent book by Carl Olson, who comes from an Evangelical backgroud and is now a Catholic. He approaches the subject in a non-polemical way and the book is therefore excellent for pastor led group study. You will discover from a reading of the texts in con-text that there is no basis for rapture teaching in the writings of Paul or anywhere elso in the Bible. This will answers all your questions in an intelligent and systematical way

http://www.amazon.com/Will-Catholics-Left-Behind-Apologetics/dp/0898709504/sr=1-1/qid=1164992409/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-2679986-0822865?ie=UTF8&s=books

[GL]

I have read Olson's book, along with several others on the subject and believe he does an excellent job on exploring the problems with premillennial dispensationalism. However, I believe he was somewhat polemical in on respect, being unnecessarily harsh on LaHaye and Lindsey. I'm not a fan of either man, but Olson should have limited his arguments to the merits or demerits of their eschatology and refrained from highlighting their personal flaws. I thought that this was the only weakness in Olson's book and that he might have a more receptive audience among some readers had he refrained from this. I suspect he did this because of the anti-Catholic biases in some of the words of LaHaye and Lindsey. Admittedly, his unkind words for these two take up little space and, if ignored, leave an otherwise excellent analysis.

With that caveat, I second Brian's recommendation.

[Paidagogos]

S.M. Hutchens posted:
"The most ironic thing about this was that the pastor was a member of a religious group that almost certainly lionized C. S. Lewis, who would have taught him and his church, had they actually been listening instead of lionizing, all the things he was now discovering and admitting to himself, yet done it in the context of a strong and unapologetically orthodox Christianity."

I hardly think that C. S. Lewis, who doubted the virgin birth, denied the plenary-verbal inspiration of Scripture and was fuzzy on justification, could be called orthodox. The problem is that evangelicals claim and lionize Clives because he was traditional and poignantly expressed some of the things they wanted to hear. Furthermore, they think that he gives Christianity an aura of intellectual respectibility even at the expense of doctrine.

[Gene Godbold]

Much as I know we'd all like to relive the more, ah...energetic periods of the 1600s and rehash the denominational distinctives of each of our sects (neglecting those of us, of course, who worship in the One True Church of God), it might be best if we kept them implicit on this, er, ecumenical website. :-)
Pax?

[Gene Godbold]

C. S. Lewis doubted the virgin birth? Where'd you get that from?

[Robert Buechler]

I am an avid reader of C.S. Lewis. He is not to be idolized, even though I do hope that one day I will get to shake his hand and thank him for helping me in my faith walk when I was a child. The Lord worked through him.

I have not ever read from him that he denied the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Doctrine of Original Sin, nor did he deny the inspiration of Scripture. In fact, I have seen in print where he has upheld these things as absolutes which we cannot give up and still be Christian.

What is more, we can find in his writings that he believed whole heartedly in the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper; the Sacramental nature of Baptism; and the historical reliability of both the Old and New Testaments as a whole. (Indeed, I am reading his Space Trilogy right now, and one cannot but conclude from this that he even takes in the Adam and Eve story as factual...something that many text critics would deny, but which he seems to affirm as a whole).

I do disagree with him about some aspects of the after life. In my reading of his works, he had some sympathy towards the Roman doctrine of purgatory which I cannot in good faith accept.

Yet I would have to stand on the belief that he was orthodox to the core. His writings and his life after his conversion don't really point to anything else.

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweather,ND

[Brian John Schuettler]

I agree with almost all that Rev. Buechler said regarding C.S. Lewis and one would be hard pressed to present him as anything other than orthodox. In fact it has been humourly claimed that he was more catholic than most catholics. He does, by the way, a very convincing presentation of the choices we face as humans in choosing Heaven or Hell with The Great Divorce in a manner that is entertaining, if one may use such a word in this context. His great line: "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'"

[smh]

The book I refer to is Brian D. McLaren's A New Kind of Christian, which I have been told should be read by anyone who wishes to get a grasp on the "emerging church" phenomenon. I am about halfway through the book. This is something I have come to think I should learn about, and about which I have no firm opinions as yet. Once I have done enough reading to get what one of my teachers called a satisfactory "grasp on its Geist," I hope to publish some observations in Touchstone. For now, however, I simply took advantage of its proximity to extract a few things that were useful for instant purposes. My implied criticisms of McLaren's church would be those typical of a person with Lewis's theological viewpoint, which I share almost exactly, looking at a fairly typical modern Evangelical congregation. Nothing extraordinary there.

My own view on the "rapture" is that it is certainly an apostolic doctrine, the word itself being reasonably derived from the Greek of I Thessalonians iv. This is not in dispute among orthodox Christians, whereas the eschatological meaning and place of the event most certainly is. I am content to allow this to be a matter of discussion, with as little rancor as possible, among those who believe in the return of our Lord to judge the quick and the dead.

I don't think Pr. Buechler was out of line to mention what he believes to be a Schwaermer interpretation of scripture, uncatholic and dangerous, pertinent to the conversation as an example of untoward sectarian conviction. But of course I would prefer that others resist the temptation to divert from the main line of conversation by picking it up and running with it.

I, too, would like to know where Lewis denies or shows himself skeptical of the Virgin Birth. I have never heard that charge before, and have never seen the vaguest hint of it in what I have read by him.

[David Gray]

>t is those who assume the mantle of pope and confidently pronounce absolutely that it will be before the "Great 7 year Tribulation".

Indeed. It would be a very protestant who would seek to do that.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>My own view on the "rapture" is that it is certainly an apostolic doctrine, the word itself being reasonably derived from the Greek of I Thessalonians iv.<<<

Strange that that the Fathers missed it for all those centuries, though, isn't it?

[Brian John Schuettler]

>>>My own view on the "rapture" is that it is certainly an apostolic doctrine, the word itself being reasonably derived from the Greek of I Thessalonians iv.<<<

Strange that that the Fathers missed it for all those centuries, though, isn't it?

Please give me examples of Apostolic Fathers who endorsed the rapture.

[Bill R]

"The book I refer to is Brian D. McLaren's A New Kind of Christian, which I have been told should be read by anyone who wishes to get a grasp on the "emerging church" phenomenon."

I haven't read McLaren's book, although I've read enough of "Emergent adulation" in Christianity Today to make me think I HAVE read his book. But I'll be very interested in your take on the so-called "Emergent" church movement, Dr. Hutchens. One thing I've noted is that this movement has a virtual hammerlock on evangelical youth/young adult ministries these days (or is that just another Southern California phenomenon?). Our Saturday and Sunday evening services are drenched in po-mo atmosphere, and so the "Hardshell Evangelicals" (I've been waiting to use that...), such as yours truly, stay far away. But I think I've seen the future of almost all evangelical churches, and most assuredly I don't like it.

[Lance Roberts]

What happens more often than not is that people are taught biblical principles, and then someone more "into" the modern culture tells them that they don't apply because there isn't a verse that says exactly that. Biblical principles are also those that are derived from scripture. So the principle of modesty instead of meaning next to nothing as most of the modern generation take it, actually covers a lot of areas. Dancing would certainly be an example of an immodest behaviour.

[LabriAlumn]

Don, the Biblical teaching on these matters is to be found in Col. 2:20ff and in 1 Timothy 4:1-5. Teetotalism and avoiding dancing are not at all Biblical wisdom, but demonic in origin, and "lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence" So it is written.

Dr. Schaeffer attempted to separate the Biblical teachings from the legalisms, but over time he discerned that the students coming to L'Abri wanted to be free of any moral accountability, to do the 'forbidden' things, rather than cleave the more closely to Scripture.

And yet, we may not bind the consciences of others with anything beyond (let alone contrary) to what is written.

The "emergents" aren't Evangelicals. Many of them do not appear even to be Christian, though they like the name and the rituals. They don't like the content, or even the -concept- of content. Bill, the world does indeed extend beyond southeran Kali-fornica.

Lance, when I read the NT on modesty, I see a command against conspicuous consumption (, not against dancing.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Please give me examples of Apostolic Fathers who endorsed the rapture.<<<

My point precisely. But then, they could read Greek, and Tim LaHaye can't.

[Bill R]

"The "emergents" aren't Evangelicals. Many of them do not appear even to be Christian, though they like the name and the rituals. They don't like the content, or even the -concept- of content."

A bit harsh, but tending in that direction, no doubt. And the term "emergent" is about as vague as "evangelical" these days. I've attended two or three of these services, just to see what it's all about. The sermons are fairly innocuous; it seems to be largely about atmosphere and attitude. Lots of candles, lack of decent lighting, plenty of bad singing, and the strangest communion service I've ever encountered ("Go have some bread from the back table, if the mood strikes you. Dip it in the grape juice." Mercy!)

[Steve Nicoloso]

Well... if they use grape juice, they MUST be evangelicals!

[Bill R]

"Well... if they use grape juice, they MUST be evangelicals!"

Don't get me started on the subject of grape juice....

[GL]

I do not know Greek, but 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 states:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

According to The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon, the words "caught up" in verse 17 is a translation of the word αρπαζω, which means

1. to seize, carry off by force


2. to seize on, claim for one's self eagerly


3. to snatch out or away

SMH can speak for himself (no doubt about that ;-)), but I take him to mean that this show that the apostles believed in rapture in the since of being "caught up." This is no way means that they believed in premillennial dispensationalism. They almost certainly did not. But they did believe in a catching up (i.e., a rapture). Like "evangelical," the term rapture has now taken on a meaning which it did not always have. I suspect that SMH was referring to the original meaning of the term, not the specfically eschatological meaning now assigned to it use because of the way it has been used by premillennial dispensationalists.

[Bill R]

"αρπαζω"

Greek fonts--I'm enraptured!

[Robert Buechler]

GL wrote: "SMH can speak for himself (no doubt about that ;-)), but I take him to mean that this show that the apostles believed in rapture in the since of being "caught up." This is no way means that they believed in premillennial dispensationalism. They almost certainly did not. But they did believe in a catching up (i.e., a rapture). "

In this you will get no argument from me. My purpose in bringing up the Rapture discussion was vis-a-vis the Tim Lahay crowd. There are those who made the Left Behind movies who were telling actors and actresses that what they were doing was a true reflection of what the bible says will happen. When these actors/actresses find out this is not so, will the church lose them for Christ? The authority and veracity of Scripture is at stake in that matter.

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweather,ND

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>but I take him to mean that this show that the apostles believed in rapture in the since of being "caught up." <<<

But the term is metaphorical, not to be taken literally. Reading apocalyptic literature without understanding jewish apocalyptics as a genre invariably leads to serious misunderstandings, That's why the Eastern Churches were so leery of Revelations, and do not, to this day, read it in church.

[smh]

GL is quite right, and apparently took my meaning without difficulty. Finding a church father who did not believe in the "catching up" (i.e., the "rapture"--as with a "raptor" who catches things up in his talons) would be to find one who denied the truth of I Thess. iv. I don't know of any who did. And frankly, I am irked that several of you were more interested in fighting about this than accepting a meaning that was clear on its face to the more attentive--and meant to divert you.

I checked the Vulgate and found that it translates "harpazo" not with "rapto"--"snatch away"--but the far gentler "adduco"--to "bring out." I don't know how the Latinate English "rapture" came to be used to describe the action of this passage--that would be an interesting story--but note that its Latin root is an perfectly acceptable rendering of the Greek. I think, in fact, BAG would agree with me that it is better, for "harpazo" carries strong overtones of force or violence, as befits a derivative of "rapio."

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>GL is quite right, and apparently took my meaning without difficulty. Finding a church father who did not believe in the "catching up" (i.e., the "rapture"--as with a "raptor" who catches things up in his talons) would be to find one who denied the truth of I Thess. iv. I don't know of any who did. <<<

Paul still meant it metaphorically. It's not uncommon in Jewish apocalyptics, and Paul was an apocalyptic Jew. He most decidedly did not mean people flying up into the sky, nor did he believe in the end of the material universe.

[Donald Johnson]

Oh come on, 1 Thessalonians is hardly apocalyptic. You are doing the text a disservice in saying that.

And LabriAlumn, teetotalism is a "doctrine of demons"??? Wow! So what would you call the doctrines of Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell or Mary Baker Glover Patterson Eddy? Just as 'for instances'?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[James A. Altena]

Dear Stuart,

I think you need to prove that St. Paul meant it metaphorically, not just repeatedly assert it. Where are your citations from the patristic fathers saying that this is only a metaphor?

And I Thessalonians is not "apocalyptic literature", but an epistle that happens at one point to touch upon a particular eschatological matter to clear up a point of confusion in a local congregation.

I'm with Dr. Hutchens on this one, as usual. And given that we know not the hour, or day, or any other thing about Our Lord's Second Coming, I don't waste time speculating on it. It lies totally in the hands of God. My infinitely more puny hands are more that full with the minute amount of cooperation that God has lovingly (in C. S. Lews' terms of "stern and splendid") granted me in working out daily with fear and trembling my own salvation.

[GL]

I agree with SMH's advice that as long as one believes and professes that Christ will come again to judge the quick and the dead, it is best to avoid arguments about it. I suspect that just about everyone will be just as surprised by the exact manner of the Second Coming as just about everyone who recognized it was surprised by the manner of His First Coming. (Of course, everyone will recognize His Second Coming, either to their joy or to their grief and horror.)

Having said that, I grew up being taught premillennial dispensationalism (PD). My mother and mother-in-law still believe in it. (My mother was horrified a couple of years ago to find I Want to be Left Behind by Ted Noel in my bookcase and had to explain to her that not everyone accepted the understanding of the rapture which she had been taught. Her response was, "We'll I'm going to be raptured." ;-))

I have several problems with PD, but what bothers me most is those who call it the blessed hope because they will not be in the world during the Great Tribulation and those who use one's view of eschatology as a test of whether someone is truly a Christian. To believe that a pretribulation rapture is the blessed hope is to have a serious misunderstanding of the Gospel and the resurrection of the sainted dead. (Not to mention that it would, apparently, exclude folks like St. Polycarp from being beneficiaries of the blessed hope. It has never been clear to me how suffering in "the great tribulation" would be any worse a fate than the martyrs faced through the ages.) The dogmatists on this matter have a gnostic feel about them: if you don't share this specific knowledge (i.e., belief in PD), you are not really saved. As long as one does not confuse PD with the blessed hope and is not dogmatic about his understanding of eschatology, however, I don't believe it is a point to divide over.

In the end, I am with James and believe it is best not to speculate about these matters, but to trust Him who makes "all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." I take that to be the Eastern view as well, which is why, as Stuart notes, "the Eastern Churches were so leery of Revelations, and do not, to this day, read it in church."

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> "C'mon, folks, we don't really believe that whole ascension bit,Elijah caught up in chariots of fire, or the walking on water, or feeding five thousand with a few scraps, or it's just a visual picture to help us see our obligation to lift up our fallen man, clothe the needy, feed the hungry, fulfill millennium Development Goals..."<<<

One can fully believe in miraculous deeds without having to take every eschatological metaphor in Scripture at face value. Paul was an apocalyptic Jew. So were most Jews of his time. Apocalyptic literature was a genre with a specific symbolic matrix including metaphorical descriptions of cosmological events. In Paul's case, he, like a host of other early Christians, falls back on the symbology of Daniel 12; Jesus himself used that metaphor. But in reality, the Parousia is going to be a transformation of creation beyond human comprehension (if we could comprehend it, we could do it ourselves). Like all truly theological concepts, it is a mystery that transcends our abilities of expression, and so we fall back upon the limited tools at our command--metaphor, analogy, anthropomorphism. Like all theological formulations, they are approximate, incomplete, and to some extent, likely to be wrong.

The problem with taking this "snatching up" business literally is that it denigrates the reality of the resurrection and creates the impression that our ultimate fate is to live some ethereal existence on an astral plane called "heaven", rather than living forever in spiritual bodies in a material world made perfect.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And I Thessalonians is not "apocalyptic literature", but an epistle that happens at one point to touch upon a particular eschatological matter to clear up a point of confusion in a local congregation.<<<

All early Christians were apocalyptic. Eschatology was an immediate and pressing concern of theirs, and every word in the New Testament is apocalyptic in the sense of being a "revelation". Being apocalyptic Jews, all of the Apostles (and all the Evangelists save one) were steeped in apocalyptic literature and its symbolic matrix. They used these symbols and metaphors unselfconsciously--it is how they and all Jews spoke and thought back then (see the works of Geza Vermes and E.P. Sanders for details), and they fitted Christ into that matrix. Jesus transfigured their messianic expectations, but the core expectation--that the world would be transfigured and made right, the dead would be raised, and we would live eternally in transfigured bodies--that did NOT change. In early Christianity, there is no sense that the Parousia means the destruction of the world, or that salvation consists of living in heaven. Rather, there are repeated references to the reestablishment of the universe (particularly in Gregory of Nyssa). Even the Apocalypse of John says, "Behold, I make all things new", not "Behold, I make all new things". There is a transfiguration, not an obliteration; the Kingdom of God will be here, on earth, this earth, remade in the manner God intended it.

It is rather hard to find such references in the Greek Fathers, since they disliked the Apocalypse (and wanted it out of the canon--even today it has ambiguous status) precisely because they knew such metaphors were likely to be misinterpreted, especially as the Church spread into areas and among people for whom such a literary form was alien.

[Stuart Koehl]

I'll also add that the Didache deals with the signs of the approaching Parousia, which it enumerates as: "the sign spread out in the heavens", Christ and his hosts; "the sign of the trumpet"; and "the resurrection of the dead". Nothing there about being picked up and carried into the clouds. In fact, if you read the passage with a knowledge of Jewish apocalyptic writing, you find Paul at this point working entirely within the genre, even if his letter has a broader objective. Paul's writings are full of apocalyptics, because, as I said, Paul was an apocalyptic Jew, and all early Christians were apocalyptics in the Jewish tradition.

[Stuart Koehl]

Also look to Chrysostom's Homilies VII and VIII, both of which deal with 1 Thess 4:13-18. These brush very lightly over "we shall be caught up together with them in the clouds", and definitely treats the phrase as a metaphor--which is odd for Chrysostom, who as an practitioner of the Antiochian School of exegesis, tended towards historical and anthropological interpretations.

[kate]

Stuart Koehl: “The problem with taking this "snatching up" business literally is that it denigrates the reality of the resurrection and creates the impression that our ultimate fate is to live some ethereal existence on an astral plane called "heaven", rather than living forever in spiritual bodies in a material world made perfect.”

I wade into this discussion with trepidation, being neither a theologian nor a biblical or language scholar. However, it seems to me that Stuart Koehl has made a leap of logic in this argument.

I have always taken naively the ‘plain’ sense of this passage, and if you look closely at the passage, it doesn’t say (even if SK asserts that the passage “creates the impression”) that our existence will be in ‘heaven’. It says we will meet Him in the air and “so shall we always be with the Lord.” Where does it mention heaven?
As in many passages of Scripture, there is much left unsaid. Just as I believe the plain sense of Thessalonians, so I believe the plain sense of St. John’s vision of a new heaven and a new earth, and that the Lord will make his dwelling with his people. Nothing in the passage in Thessalonians would contradict “living forever in spiritual bodies in a material world made perfect.”

If we are going to exegete Scripture with an eye to avoiding plain understandings because they are likely to be misinterpreted, then we are in big trouble. I find it curious whenever Christians want to ignore or eliminate parts of the canon to accommodate their theology or out of a fear that someone else will get it wrong. The Greek fathers took exception to Revelation, Luther took exception to James, the Jesus Seminar took exception to just about everything. Sometimes accepting humbly the plain sense means that we only get to see through a glass darkly. Drat. Maranatha.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I have always taken naively the ‘plain’ sense of this passage, and if you look closely at the passage, it doesn’t say (even if SK asserts that the passage “creates the impression”) that our existence will be in ‘heaven’. It says we will meet Him in the air and “so shall we always be with the Lord.” Where does it mention heaven?<<<

Nowhere at all. i speak rather, of the dichotomy between what a large number (perhaps the majority) of Christians see the afterlife, and what the Bible says and the Fathers taught. There is no doubt that for the majority of Christians, the Second Coming is synonymous with the ending of the world, but there is nothing in scripture that says this; rather, there is every reason to interpret Scripture to mean that there will be a physical resurrection into the material universe, a material universe transformed but not destroyed.

We still do--though we make extensive use of the imagery in our liturgy.

[GL]

By the way, for those of you who don't subscribe to The St. James Daily Devotional Guide for the Christian Year, you are missing our annual readings from The Revelation to John and Father Reardon's accompanying commentary at the Daily Reflections site. You can pick up on the good father's views by reading his reflections.

Today, we begin chapter 6 and we began this year's readings from The Revelation on November 19. You can go to the archives section of Daily Reflections to catch up and pretty much follow along on the daily readings thereafter by consulting that site. If you would subscribe, next year you could follow through the entire year's lectionary. (No need to thank me for another plug, Jim.)

[James A. Altena]

Dear Stuart,

"Paul was an apocalyptic Jew. So were most Jews of his time."

This evades the point of my original comment. Even if St. Paul was an apocalyptic Jew, I Thessalonians is not a piece of apocalyptic literature but an occasional epistle.

"It is rather hard to find such references in the Greek Fathers, since they disliked the Apocalypse (and wanted it out of the canon--even today it has ambiguous status) precisely because they knew such metaphors were likely to be misinterpreted, especially as the Church spread into areas and among people for whom such a literary form was alien."

This likewise evades rather than answers my question. First, I didn't ask for a reference to the Apocalypse, but to the passage in I Thessalonians -- and there are several patristic commentaries on that. Second, such a reference could very easily state that the passage is a metaphor (which is what you originally claimed, Stuart) without having to elaborate on that. Third, precisely by stating it to be a metaphor, the fathers would have been combating the misinterpretation you state they feared, so there would be no reason for them not to make such a comment and a very good reason for them to do so.

More interesting to me, however, is the rather patronizing approach of your post regarding St. Paul -- almost gnostic in its implicit tone that you have such a superior grasp of the eschaton than he and his fellow apocalyptic Jews who just couldn't shake off that matrix into which they had to fit Christ.

In addition to not speculating about the eschaton in general or rapture in particular, I also happen to be convinced that when St. Paul set down something in the canonical Scriptures, he knew what he was talking about because of the underlying inspiration of the Holy Ghost that guided him, and that I therefore should believe him. Of course, as you noted in another blog, we have a different understanding of that as well.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>This evades the point of my original comment. Eeven if St. Paul was an apocalyptic Jew, I Thessalonians is not a piece of apocalyptic literature but an occasional epistle.<<<

When an apocalyptic attitude totally pervades the mindset of a person or of a group of people, and when those people share a common literary genre and its symbolic matrix, then it doesn't really matter what form a particular piece of writing has, or what its intended purpose might be; the apocalyptic vision and the apocalyptic language will pervade everything and fill every nook and cranny of their thoughts and deeds. Eschatology for early Chrisitans wasn't the obscure stuff and the end of the theology text, but front and center in their lives. The Gospel isn't a morality handbook, but the announcements of eschatological good news, an apocalypsis of Jesus Christ. The Pauline Epistles, the letters of James, John and Jude, these are all apocalyptic at their core; the moral instruction, the theological and pastoral instruction, are all incidental to the central apocalyptic message that Jesus Christ the Son of God, came into the world, died and was resurrected, inaugurating the Kingdom of God. Everything else is secondary and derivative of that fact. In which case, why should it be surprising that Paul uses apocalyptic imagery in letters that are not labled "The Apocalypse According to Paul"?

>>>More interesting to me, however, is the rather patronizing approach of your post regarding St. Paul -- almost gnostic in its implicit tone that you have such a superior grasp of the eschaton than he and his fellow apocalyptic Jews who just couldn't shake off that matrix into which they had to fit Christ.<<<

Better than taking the neo-Marcionite route that tries to take Jesus and Paul out of their Judaic milieu.

As to gnosis, it's a perfectly good word sprinkled throughout the Fathers. They sought it, they in fact possessed it--but it did not make them gnostics.

>>>and there are several patristic commentaries on that<<<

So what do you make of Chrysostoms Homilies VII and VIII on Thessalonians?

[GL]

So what do you make of Chrysostoms Homilies VII and VIII on Thessalonians?

I just looked at these. From where do you conclude that Chrysostom viewed the "catching up" as a metaphor? He wrote:

If He is about to descend, on what account shall we be caught up? For the sake of honor. For when a king drives into a city, those who are in honor go out to meet him; but the condemned await the judge within. And upon the coming of an affectionate father, his children indeed, and those who are worthy to be his children, are taken out in a chariot, that they may see and kiss him; but those of the domestics who have offended remain within. We are carried upon the chariot of our Father. For He received Him up in the clouds, and "we shall be caught up in the clouds." (Acts i. 9) Seest thou how great is the honor? and as He descends, we go forth to meet Him, and, what is more blessed than all, so we shall be with Him.

* * *

When these things then are done, then also will be the voice of the Archangel shouting and commanding the Angels, and the trumpets, or rather the sound of the trumpet. What trembling then, what fear will possess those that remain upon the earth. For one woman is caught up and another is left behind, and one man is taken, and another is passed over. (Matt. xxiv. 40, 41; Luke xvii. 34, 35) What will be the state of their souls, when they see some indeed taken up, but themselves left behind?

* * *

Nay, you say, but God is full of love to man, and none of these things will happen! Then it is written in vain! No, you say, but only as a threat, that we may become wise! If then we are not wise, but continue evil, will He not, tell me, inflict the punishment? Will He not then recompense the good either with rewards? Yes, you say, for that is becoming to Him, to do good even beyond desert. So that those things indeed are true and will certainly be, while the punishments will not be at all, but are only for the purpose of a threat, and of terror! By what means I shall persuade you, I know not. If I say, that "the worm will not die, and the fire will not be quenched" (Mark ix. 44); if I say, that "they shall go away into everlasting fire" (Matt. xxv. 41, 46); if I set before you the rich man already suffering punishment, you will say that it is all a matter of threatening. Whence then shall I persuade you? For this is a Satanic reasoning, indulging you with a favor that will not profit, and causing you to be slothful.

How then can we banish it? Whatever things we say from Scripture, you will say, are for the purpose of threatening. But with respect to future things this indeed might be said, but not so concerning things that have happened, and have had an end. You have heard of the deluge. And were those things also said by way of threat? Did they not actually happen?

Homily VIII on 1 Thessalonians

[Stuart Koehl]

Because the thrust of the homily is not on the physical ascent, but on its mystical and spiritual meaning. Not "what" God is going to do to us, but "why" he does it. The ultimate focus of both homilies is on why death should not be of concern to Christians.

[GL]

I agree with everything you have said except that I see no evidence that the "catching up" or rapture is a metaphor.

In any event, have a blessed Advent as we together anticipate the coming of our Lord.

[LAbriAlumn]

Steve Nicoloso,
Not all evangelicals are Zwinglians.

Don Johnson,
Don't believe me? Read 1 Timothy 4:1-5.
As to those heresiarchs you mention, of course their doctrines were demonic. In some cases, going by 1 John, of the spirit of the antichrist.

Stuart,
Indeed, the anakainensis, and the melting of the -stoichaeia- in the heat -- not the periodic table of elements, but the elementals.

I don't see upon what textual basis you determine that the meaning of the text to Soloniki somehow isn't to be taken seriously. Where do you see that in the text?

Kate,
Quite so, the air is only 'the first heaven'. (space the second, and 'heaven proper' the third)

Dominic,
As nearly as I can tell, the philosophical basis of the "emerging 'church'" is that of Derrida, Pound, de Mann, etc., in rejecting the concept of the possibility of a transcendent objective, signified. With there being no objective truth in the "upper story", and probably none in the "lower story", they feel free to make up their own meaning and mysticism in accordance with their own personal preferences. In the case of the "emergents" that happens to have, much (but not all!) of the time, Christian rite elements, but that is only the window-dressing. The pre-modern view of an objective reality and God objectively speaking and acting in a knowable fashion into creation is alien to them, and profoundly rejected by them.

Then some of course will call themselves emergent simply because they are tired of the show-biz atmosphere of the "seeker-sensitive" movement and are looking for something deeper, not realizing that that isn't what the "emergents" are doing - just latching onto a trendy name.

Stuart,
What then are your sources for interpreting Paul (and God the Holy Spirit) as meaning something (what, please) other than what is actually written down in that passage?

[Ethan Cordray]

Stuart, I'm fully prepared to recognize that the "rapture" passages have a "mystical and spiritual meaning" beyond the physical event (else St. Paul wouldn't have really bothered to mention it, would he?), but I don't see how that invalidates a literal reading as well. Why must it be either mystical and symbolic or literally descriptive? Mightn't it be both? That seems to me to be what Chrysostom is getting at, at least from the passages GL posted.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Why must it be either mystical and symbolic or literally descriptive? Mightn't it be both?<<<

Since Paul claims to teach only that which he learned from the other Apostles or was shown directly by Jesus, one would have to find similar and explicitly literal understandings in the writings of the other Apostles and Evangelists. But they don't show that. On the other hand, Jewish literature of the times is full of this kind of "being taken up" language, which was part of a highly metaphorical and symbolic approach used in apocalyptic literature. The first century Jews, when they called for the Messiah, weren't lookiing for the end of the world, but the world put to rights. This would be such an overwhelming experience that it can only be described as "rapturous", that one would be taken outside of ordinary perceptions and thoughts, to something beyond description. "Rapturous" was a metaphor then, just as it is now. The Christian understanding of Christ changed some elements of Jewish messianic expectation, but not all. The Jews expected the Messiah to work within this world, that the transfigured world would be their world with the restoration of the earthly Kingdom of David. It would be a true case of restoration, of "bottom rail on top" and a return from the spiritual exile. The Jews would be proven right, and the Gentiles wromg, because Yahweh would be revealed as Lord of the Universe, and the world would see His justice. One way in which that would be manifest was the resurrection of the dead.

Christian understanding accepted part but not all of that. First, it understood now that the Kingdom of God was not going to be the Davidic Kingdom restored, that rather it was to be a universal kingdom operating according to a different set of principles. And they recognized that there would be no general resurrection at this time, but that the resurrection of Jesus sealed the deal--the Kingdom of God was already inaugurated, but not yet fully implemented. They believed that time would arrive when Jesus came again, and their understanding was fully congruent with the Jews in that the Kingdom would be a material one, THIS one, set to rights, made new. it would not be a different new world, nor would it be an ethereal, "spiritual" world, but it would be the prelapsian universe in all its perfect glory, where all would be all with all in Christ. The notion that people die and go to heaven isn't present there. That's not what the Jews meant by resurrection, and it's not what the Christians meant, either. The post-resurrection Gospel stories make that quite clear. Only much later, when the key to the code of the apocalyptic genre had been lost (the Jews ceased being apocalyptic by the end of the second century) did people start putting a literal spin on the words.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What then are your sources for interpreting Paul (and God the Holy Spirit) as meaning something (what, please) other than what is actually written down in that passage?<<<

The writings of the Fathers (particularly the early ones), the unbroken Tradition of the Church, and modern research into just what a Jew of Paul's era believed and thought (as opposed to what people over the centuries have ascribed to first century Jews through retrospective imposition of rabbinical Judaism on the Second Temple era.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Stuart,

"The writings of the Fathers (particularly the early ones), the unbroken Tradition of the Church, and modern research into just what a Jew of Paul's era believed and thought (as opposed to what people over the centuries have ascribed to first century Jews through retrospective imposition of rabbinical Judaism on the Second Temple era."

Ah, yes, the assured results of modern research -- brought to you by the same people who brought us Paul of Tarsus the self-hating misogynistic homosexual. Nice to know in whom you place your trust Stuart, and that you concede your neo-Gnosticism (which is not gnostic in any sense used by the fathers). "Stuart the Heretic" -- has a nice ring to it, like "Aethelred the Unready". . . . :-)

There was and is nothing neo-Marcionite about my position, however. You have yet to present a scintilla of proof for your assertions that Jews of St. Paul's time were almost uniformly apocalyptic, or that the fathers understood I Thess. 4 metaphorically. Indeed the two points actually stand in contradiction; an apocalyptist would surely take the passages literally, not metaphorically.

Or are you asserting that the fathers knew that St. Paul meant the passage literally and deliberately suppressed that to interpret it metaphorically instead? And if so, do you believe the fathers did this with the Scriptures regularly?

This morning I pulled the IVP "Ancient Christian Commentary" volume for that epistle off the shelf, and had no trouble finding excerpts by figures such as Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim the Syrian, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Venerable Bebe, who all clearly understood the passage literally and connect it explicitly with Christ's Ascension -- or was that only metaphorical too?

[Gene Godbold]

Stuart and Co.,
I agree with all of you and think you are talking past one another.

The 1 Thessalonians 4 passage certainly seems to say what Chrysostom (thanks, GL) seems to be saying about it. The believers who are alive when Jesus descends to the Earth are going to be caught up *to* Him and accompany Him to the Earth. Their bodies are transformed into Resurrection bodies at some point. This follows the Resurrection of the Dead in Paul's passage.

But I think everyone has noted that Jesus' direction of movement is toward the Earth and that the assurance that we are going to be with Him forever certainly seems to indicate that we'll be together here on Earth, re-created (as it was created) by the Word of God and the Holy Ghost to the glory of the Father.

[Gene Godbold]

I think it is much more plausible to argue that various interpretations of Daniel help explain *why* apocalyptic fever was running high at that time. Caird (and Wright after him) do a good job explaining this milieu.

[Ethan Cordray]

Let me reiterate: don't see the need to distinguish between a "spiritual" or "metaphorical" meaning to the passage and a literal one. Just as the language of the passage can denote our participation in the descent and return of Christ, a literal rapture would be a literal participation in that return.

The common view of eternal life as disembodied and "heavenly" is certainly mistaken. Yet I cannot see how such a view is a necessary conclusion to a literal view of the passage. As Chrysostom seems to indicate, the "taking up" is for the purpose of participating in the Lord's descent, so we shall be returning to earth straight away. The remaking of the earth and our eternal bodily existence thereon follows. If there is a disembodied state of existence (by no means a certainty from the Biblical witness, though perhaps deriveable from certain passages, e.g. Saul and the Witch of Endor and the parable of Lazarus), it is purely a temporary state awaiting the bestowal of our incorruptible bodies. I can't see how belief in a literal rapture necessarily corrupts this view.

[Stuart Koehl]

Ethan,

Sorry I haven't responded. I have the flu, which doesn't really put me in form for metaphysical disputations, other than wondering if death might not be a more comfortable state of being.

I'll try to get back to you as soon as I can.

[Ethan Cordray]

Stuart,

Sorry about that. We'll try to keep Mere Comments alive in your absence!

A scholarly opinion from the year 3006:

"All scholars recognize that apocalyptic fervor was high around the turn of the 21st century, particularly among Evangelical Protestants. This is why many authorities ascribe a 1995 composition date to the Book of Daniel (although an embattled minority argue for 1996).

[James A. Altena]

Dear Stuart,

Prayers for your swift recovery and return to verbal jousting! (Don't drown in a bath of holy oil!)

Dear Ethan,

Very fine post. Should you ever be moved to waste precious time reading my essay-length book review published a few years back in Touchstone (it's in the on-line archives), it deals at some length with the very point you make. In developing the fourfold typological hermeneutic of Scriptural exegesis -- literal/analogical/tropological/anagogical -- the fathers developed two a priori principles that prevented allegorization from running unchecked (as it tended to do with Origen and Clement):
a) type-antitype relations and other analogies used for Scriptural exegesis were to have their contents drawn from Scripture itself;
b) the analogical, tropological, and anagogical forms of exegesis, while not requiring literal interpretation of the text, could not contradict or deny a literal interpretation either.

[Bill R]

"Should you ever be moved to waste precious time reading my essay-length book review published a few years back in Touchstone (it's in the on-line archives), it deals at some length with the very point you make."

Read James's essay/review, folks. It's very informative, and most of us likely can't afford to buy the book! (If nothing else, you'll learn that "heumeneutics" was not a '60s rock band....)

[Ethan Cordray]

Though "the hermeneutics" would be a great name for a rock band! (Sorry, James, I know how you feel about such things)

[Rob Grano]

When I was in Bible college, I labelled one notebook, "Presenting Tim Nudics and his little brother Herman!" and included an accompanying sketch of said siblings. It seemed humorous at the time. From then on we all referred to the class as 'Herman Nudics.'

[James A. Altena]

I always wanted to walk into the offices of theology faculty and ask to meet distinguished visiting Prof. Hermann Utics from Germany. :-)