Comments on: Eschatological Errors?

By: Biblical Studies Carnival 29 (XXIX) « Dr Jim West

Biblical Studies Carnival 29 (XXIX) « Dr Jim West — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:05:46 +0000

[...] a different matter, Jim Getz wonders aloud what to do with those pesky and difficult eschatological passages which may, in his post title, be [...]

By: Hugo

Hugo — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:41:39 +0000

It’s such a blessing that the Thessalonians took the call to live Christianly, AS THOUGH Christ’s return were upon us, as a call to live Christianly because His return WAS upon them; unfortunate, yes, in that they took it as a call to separate themselves from the world, but also charming in its earnestness and obedience and, most of all, a blessing in that it enabled Paul to redraw his distinctions in ways that still serve, us urgently in this time as in theirs. (Think Y2K.) Had Paul taught them to sing “Onward, Christian Soldiers”, the Thessalonians might’ve gone marching to war, until Paul stopped them and told them that the point was to go marching AS TO!

The errors are so human and so familiar to us, and the resolution of them so fresh. Sometimes I feel as though I am among the errant ones and Paul is sternly but lovingly setting me straight. Or straightening out my brothers and sisters in other limbs of the Body—right here today.

I see as as sort of like the “Troubleshooting” section in the User’s Manual. It’s marvelous, really. There is an immanence in these divine communiques, but immanence in the sense of immediacy and intimacy. Reminiscent of the Nazarene’s special fondness for Thomas.

It’s an interesting conundrum, but I’d like to see a feminist take on it, because I think the conundrum viz inerrancy and literalism may be a fairly arch construction and I have a hunch that a feminist exegesis would blow right past the ostensible contradiction.

By: bleport

bleport — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:13:47 +0000

Could the Pauline corpus show us that the Apostle had a both-and approach to his eschatology? Maybe he believed in the possibility of an imminent return but was also well aware of the possibility that the church may have a longer haul that hoped? Even now we Christians live with this tension. We realize that Christ could return now like a thief in the night and we also realize it could be a thousand or two thousand more years before that great day. The pastoral Paul would have needed to introduce both perspectives to the church and with that being said maybe even Paul’s understanding of the Parousia was vague in some sense?

By: wezlo

wezlo — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:47:46 +0000

I don’t call it an error, like ohmygoshthebibleisn’ttrue, just that Paul’s belief in that happened to be wrong. Why, because Paul’s a human-being and well, people often work off of bad assumptions. Then again, I do agree with Calvin that strict inerrancy kinda paints you into a corner in that regard. If Paul’s mistaken, then the threads start unraveling.

It’s kinda weird though, given that books like Acts have moments which seem to be deliberately correcting the “Jesus is coming back now stop working” mentality that existed in the Church. But then, in some circles saying that the New Testament documents are in conversation with one another (sometimes heated) that might get you flogged.

By: Calvin

Calvin — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:39:07 +0000

Jim,

I think one can hold a high view of Scripture without holding to inerrancy (whatever that word might mean).

What I find quite interesting here is that a strict view of inerrancy removes any chance for the apostles’/writers of Scripture to have had a theology that developed over time. A more conservative view of things requires that Paul, et al had to have the entire theology worked out at the beginning, rather than allowing it to develop. I’m sure some might disagree and say that their theology could have developed, but not in a direction that contradicted early theology already set down in the inspired text(s). I don’t find that a very convincing argument, but it is out there.

By: Nick Norelli

Nick Norelli — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:53:32 +0000

James, I think that one can hold a high view of Scripture while recognizing legitimate errors in Scripture (you might be interested in this post). Having said that, I'm not sure that this constitutes an error. I think if Paul said that Jesus did return, when in fact he didn't (like Hymenaeus and Philetus), then that would constitute an error, but I don't think that a belief in an immanent return qualifies. Plus, I think there were very practical benefits to such teaching/belief. I see it a 'scare tactic' of sorts, and we all know that fear can be a great motivator. All throughout the NT we have exhortations for believers to be ready and watch so that when Jesus returns they're counted worthy (Mat. 24:36, 42, 44; 25:13; Mk. 13:32, 35; Lk. 12:40; 1Thes. 5:2-6; 2Pet. 3:10-12; Rev. 3:3; 16:15). It's a way to call believers to obedience to Christ. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.