In terms
of what the glorified body is like, we have roughly two different sources of
information. In the NT, we have the Gospel accounts, especially Lk 24 and Jn
20-21. In addition, we have 1 Cor 15. There are other passages, but these are
less detailed. There are also some OT passages.
1
Corinthians and the Gospels belong to different genres. The Gospel accounts are
historical narratives which describe the postmortem appearances of Jesus, as
well conversations. By contrast, 1 Corinthians is more expository. But that’s
not a hard and fast distinction, for the Gospels contain interpretive
statements.
Christ’s
glorified body is a prototype for the resurrection of the just. So we can learn
some things about the glorified body from these accounts.
On the
one hand, he wasn’t restored to life in the same condition he died in. His
wounds have healed. On the other hand, he retains scars from his ordeal.
We might
focus on the recognition scenes. Some readers infer from Lk 24:16,31 that the
glorified body of Jesus had the capacity to materialize and dematerialize at
will. However, that’s a fallacious inference.
For one
thing, the divine passives indicate that the observers were kept from
perceiving Jesus. They didn’t hallucinate seeing Jesus. Rather, they hallucinated
not seeing Jesus. Instead of perceiving something that wasn’t there, they
failed to perceive something that was there–until the psychological impediment
was removed. Like hysterical blindness.
His body
wasn’t objectively invisible, but subjectively invisible. That’s probably how Jesus could slip
through lynch mobs undetected (Lk 4:30; Jn 8:59; 10:39).
It seems
likely that Jesus concealed his true identity to heighten the impact when he
broke bread, which would remind them of other times when they ate with him or
saw him distribute food.
To some
degree, we have a similar situation in Jn 20:14-16 and 21:4-7. It’s possible
that their lack of recognition has the same psychological point of origin.
However, the text doesn’t say that.
Moreover,
the text distinguishes between facial recognition and voice recognition. The
observers fail to recognize Christ on sight. It’s only when they hear him speak
that they know who he is.
So that
suggests a different explanation. It may be that Jesus had a more youthful
appearance after he rose from the dead. He was in his early 30s when he died.
He probably had a weathered complexion from spending so much time out of doors
in the hot, dry, sunny climate.
If
glorification restores us to a pristine condition, or something approximating a
pristine condition, then that process would involve aging us up or down to an
optimal age, depending on how old we were when we died. So their lack of
recognition may be due to the fact that Jesus looked about 10-15 years younger,
without a tan or facial lines.
One time
I attended a wedding with my father. He hadn’t seen these relatives for over 20
years. When we went into the reception room, a cousin didn’t realize who he was
until he spoke.
We also
have a recognition scene in Acts 9:3ff. Although this might have antecedents in
OT theophanies, the Transfiguration supplies the more immediate precedent (Lk
9:29). Once again, there’s a distinction between seeing and hearing, as well as
psychologically disparate perceptions of the event (Acts 9:7; 22:9). God is
controlling what the observers are permitted to see. And, once again, what we
have a not case of sensing what is not there, but not sensing what is there.
We
encounter this differential phenomenon elsewhere (Jn 12:28-29). The event is
public, but its perception is private and variable.
I dont think Jesus sudden appearances and disappearances are cases of psychological impediments. I think they are cases of Jesus teleporting. The same happened to philip while he was talking to the ethiopian eunuch.
ReplyDelete"When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesare"-
Acts 8:39-40
Here we have Philip suddenly disappearing and reappearing in another city. That sounds like teleportation to me. Jesus could have done the same.
That may be the case in some instances. However, I gave exegetical reasons for thinking it's psychological in Lk 24.
DeleteThey were psychologically kept from recognizing Jesus. The text indicates that much. But I dont think the text indicates that they were kept from perceiving Jesus when he disappeared from sight.
DeleteIts possible Jesus blocked their perception, but I dont see why he would. He was planning to leave anyway before they begged him to stay.
Steve do you take a strong position on the disagreement between the Reformed and Lutherans on the Lutheran understanding of the Communicatio idiomatum. It seems to me that while the Reformed understanding is more consistent with the Chalcedonian negatives that deny \in the hypostatic union mixture, confusion, separation and division; yet the Lutheran could also make some sense of the passages you mentioned. Though, I too think that teleportation or translocation (like that of Philip) could explain it too.
DeleteI ask because, assuming the eternal state means that glorified saints will live on earth, if there are millions (possibly billions) of Christians on earth during the eternal state, then only a few people at any given time could spend intimate interaction with Christ. Think of the distance between a singer during a concert and the fan standing farthest from the stage.
Applied to Christianity, think of glorified Christians celebrating the opening of a garden on the American continent and other glorified Christians in Europe at the same time performing Handel's Messiah in a concert (with Handel conducting). Given the Reformed understanding, Jesus could NOT attend both events at the same time. Sure, there will be plenty of time in eternity to spread out such events, but that would mean that it might take years for the Lord Jesus to visit every saint on earth (in rotation).
Let's say the Lord spent 3 minutes time with each of 1 billion glorified Christians. It would take aprox. 5707 years till Jesus visited each one of those 1 billion Christians (assuming I did my calculation right). Three minutes isn't much time, and waiting 5707 years for Christ to visit you again seems a long time to wait (at least in our current psychology). It doesn't make much sense to me. Having said that, while I lean toward the Reformed view for theological reasons, the Lutheran view seems more appealing or plausible practically. Though, I don't agree in their application of it to the eucharist and their view of consubstantiation.
Alex,
DeleteI think Lk 24:16 and 24:31 are describing the same process, only one is the reverse of the latter. And that combined with his ability to elude lynch mobs suggests to me a psychological impediment. I also think that has precedent in 2 Kgs 6.
Whereas in the Lutheran view, the Lord could physically visit multiple Christians during the Eternal State wherever they were simultaneously.
DeleteSteve,
DeleteI agree, but there are two parts to verse 31.
"Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight."
Luke 24:31
First they recognize him, then he disappears. I dont think those two things necessarily involve the same process. And I always thought Jesus escaping Lynch mobs also involved him teleporting away. Unless it is argued he couldnt do this before his resurrection.
Annoyed Pinoy,
DeleteYou're forgetting that God only elects "the chosen few." At last count I think that was way up to 13, although we might be able to squeeze a fourteenth passenger aboard in coach class, not to mention stowaways.
Alex
Delete"I agree, but there are two parts to verse 31."
And the second part doesn't say he left or went away. Rather, it says he became invisible. That may have been a prelude to departing, but it has a different nuance.
ANNOYED PINOY
ReplyDelete“…yet the Lutheran could also make some sense of the passages you mentioned…, the Lutheran view seems more appealing or plausible practically.”
You’re not explaining how the Lutheran view makes sense of the passages I mentioned, or is more logistically plausible:
i) I didn’t mention any passages requiring Jesus to be in two or more places at once.
ii) At best, the Luther view can explain the presence of Christ. But ubiquity doesn’t explain the absence of Christ; Christ coming and going, departing, appearing and disappearing. It doesn’t explain why he’s unrecognizable in some of his postmortem appearances.
“I ask because, assuming the eternal state means that glorified saints will live on earth, if there are millions (possibly billions) of Christians on earth during the eternal state, then only a few people at any given time could spend intimate interaction with Christ…Let's say the Lord spent 3 minutes time with each of 1 billion glorified Christians. It would take aprox. 5707 years till Jesus visited each one of those 1 billion Christians (assuming I did my calculation right). Three minutes isn't much time, and waiting 5707 years for Christ to visit you again seems a long time to wait (at least in our current psychology).”
i) To begin with, who’s to say all the saints coexist in the world to come? What if God groups them in different centuries?
ii) Moreover, Christ doesn’t have to be physically present to personally commune with individuals. He could come to us in vivid dreams and visions which are phenomenalogically indistinguishable from real time and space. Dreams and visions can simulate physicality, simulate the five senses. After all, that’s how God sometimes interacts with people in Bible history.
to Steve:
ReplyDeleteYou’re not explaining how the Lutheran view makes sense of the passages I mentioned...
Looking back, I realize I should have posted my comments in your previous blog when you addressed Andrew. I got confused because both blogs are related, and you responded to two different people with names starting with "A" ("Alex" here, and "Andrew" there). I had too many tabs open.
It doesn’t explain why he’s unrecognizable in some of his postmortem appearances.
Actually, I'm sympathetic to you speculations on both blogs. So, I'm not disagreeing with you.
What if God groups them in different centuries?
I suppose God could do that. But for myself (and others) part of what makes the eternal state exciting is the opportunity to get to know all Christians who have ever lived and to be able to interview some of your heroes of the faith. Maybe there will be special occasions when all Christians will be able to gather together away from (or out of) the different "centuries" they are in.
After all, that’s how God sometimes interacts with people in Bible history.
I concede that those are sufficient answers. Yet, in another sense, part of the redemption of humanity includes the special status the physical world has for saved human beings. God could simulate the physical world in the intermediate state so that the physical world wouldn't be necessary since the experience would also be "phenomenalogically indistinguishable from real time and space." Yet, God will still renovate the Earth for our resurrected bodies to live on. The "Matrix" might be indistinguishable from the real world, but once a person knew about it, they wanted out because they wanted reality. Similarly, a vision of Christ might not be as satisfying as having him sitting in a chair 3 feet away from you. Though, I suppose one could argue that Christ's manifestations in visions or Christophanies might be more satisfying than His physical presence and that we'll be able to experience both kinds of His presence. Sometimes, physical, sometimes in theophany/Christophany and sometimes visionary, et cetera.
ANNOYED PINOY
Delete“I suppose God could do that. But for myself (and others) part of what makes the eternal state exciting is the opportunity to get to know all Christians who have ever lived and to be able to interview some of your heroes of the faith. Maybe there will be special occasions when all Christians will be able to gather together away from (or out of) the different ‘centuries’ they are in.”
You’re shifting the question from how so many glorified Christians could have personal access to Christ to how so many glorified Christians could have personal access to each other. Of course, in one respect, we’d have all the time in the world to get to know them.
“I concede that those are sufficient answers. Yet, in another sense, part of the redemption of humanity includes the special status the physical world has for saved human beings. God could simulate the physical world in the intermediate state so that the physical world wouldn't be necessary since the experience would also be ‘phenomenalogically indistinguishable from real time and space.’ Yet, God will still renovate the Earth for our resurrected bodies to live on. The ‘Matrix’ might be indistinguishable from the real world, but once a person knew about it, they wanted out because they wanted reality. Similarly, a vision of Christ might not be as satisfying as having him sitting in a chair 3 feet away from you.”
i) A physical existence doesn’t rule out dreams and visions in the world to come. After all, we inhabit a physical world right now. Seers and dreamers are embodied agents. It’s not unique to the intermediate state. So you can have that in the new Eden.
Will we sleep in the world to come? Will we dream in the world to come? What will we dream about?
ii) Normally, we don’t have direct access to other minds. That’s normally mediated by a physical interface, as bodies interact with other bodies. Dreams and visions are just a different medium or modality for accessing other minds.
iii) There are variations on virtual reality. In one version, you’re interacting with computer programs masquerading as real people. They are fictitional characters who seem to be real.
But in another version, real people insert themselves into the simulation. In that respect, it’s not illusory. You’re interacting with real people, even if the setting is simulated.
Those are interesting and plausible speculations.
DeleteWe might focus on the recognition scenes. Some readers infer from Lk 24:16,31 that the glorified body of Jesus had the capacity to materialize and dematerialize at will. However, that’s a fallacious inference.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, the divine passives indicate that the observers were kept from perceiving Jesus. They didn’t hallucinate seeing Jesus. Rather, they hallucinated not seeing Jesus. Instead of perceiving something that wasn’t there, they failed to perceive something that was there–until the psychological impediment was removed. Like hysterical blindness.
A psychological impediment does not explain Mary in Jn. 20:31 or the disciples in Jn. 21:4. In fact, a pyschological impediment would indicate that others could see him physically, and that only those affected by the impediment could not. I would suggest that other arguments of materializing and dematerializing are no less plausible than this psychological impediment hyposthesis you offer. In addition, I see your argument as special pleading because if you apply the standard of proof to alternatives, your conclusion has no advantage. In the end, if the alternative arguments commit the fallacy of inference, then so does yours.
What is the best explanation? Since Scripture does not provide a specific explanation for how these things occurred, then it appears to me that the best explanation is that we simply don't understand how Jesus was able to perform these things because Scripture is silent on the matter. All Scripture wants us to know, seemingly, is that these things happened. It seems to me that any conclusion risks the fallacy of non causa pro causa. In addition, to infer that we can learn specifics about how our post-resurrected bodies will be based on the post-resurrected body of the God-Man may actually commit the fallacy of converse accident. Due care is always the best policy where divine revelation includes ambugiuties around the details of certain events. Respect the revelation is the best policy.
Dr. Liberal
Delete“A psychological impediment does not explain Mary in Jn. 20:31 or the disciples in Jn. 21:4.”
Irrelevant. This isn’t a law of nature. I’m not contending for a uniform principle that applies mechanistically. God individualizes.
“In fact, a pyschological impediment would indicate that others could see him physically, and that only those affected by the impediment could not.”
And what’s wrong with that consequence?
“I would suggest that other arguments of materializing and dematerializing are no less plausible than this psychological impediment hyposthesis you offer.”
i) I’ve given exegetical reasons for why that’s not plausible.
ii) Dematerialization undermines the physicality of the Resurrection, which Luke and John are at pains to accentuate.
“In addition, I see your argument as special pleading because if you apply the standard of proof to alternatives, your conclusion has no advantage.”
That’s a claim you need to demonstrate.
“In the end, if the alternative arguments commit the fallacy of inference, then so does yours.”
That’s an argument from analogy minus the supporting argument.
“What is the best explanation? Since Scripture does not provide a specific explanation for how these things occurred, then it appears to me that the best explanation is that we simply don't understand how Jesus was able to perform these things because Scripture is silent on the matter. All Scripture wants us to know, seemingly, is that these things happened.”
Yet you just plugged dematerialization.
“It seems to me that any conclusion risks the fallacy of non causa pro causa.”
That just means there’s a hypothetical risk of being mistaken. So what? The hypothetical risk of error is unavoidable.
“In addition, to infer that we can learn specifics about how our post-resurrected bodies will be based on the post-resurrected body of the God-Man may actually commit the fallacy of converse accident.”
i) 1 Cor 15 and Phil 3:21 treat the glorified body of Christ as prototypical.
ii) Some of the descriptions in Lk 24 and Jn 20 are recorded for the express purpose of giving the reader some specifics about the nature of a resurrected body, viz. Jesus could eat, Jesus was tangible. Those aren’t concerned with the body of Christ qua God-Man, but the body of Christ qua body.
“Due care is always the best policy where divine revelation includes ambugiuties around the details of certain events. Respect the revelation is the best policy.”
Revealed ambiguities invite possible explanations. Respecting revelation means respecting possible implications of revelation, as well as ruling out explanations inconsistent with revelation.
“Irrelevant. This isn’t a law of nature. I’m not contending for a uniform principle that applies mechanistically. God individualizes.”
ReplyDeleteWe have three appearances under investigation. It seems to me that for the sake of consistency and to avoid arbitrary interpretations, one would initially seek the same explanation for all three experiences unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. In other words, what makes Luke 24 exegetically different from John 20 & 21? Is the passive construction enough justification to isolate this experience? I am not so sure. That is open for debate.
I suppose nothing is necessarily wrong with the speculation that others could see Jesus while these two disciples could not. But I wonder if that is really what happened. I am not prepared to make that part of my interpretation because we are dealing with divine revelation, not Moby Dick.
The common phenomenon of Jesus’ appearance being somewhat obscure to observers would indicate a common cause. At a minimum, that is where I would land until I had very good reason to think otherwise. It seems rather clear that Jesus’ resurrected body was not easily recognizable. Could it have been a difference in physical appearance or was it psychological impediment? It could have been something else altogether. The truth is, and this is my basic argument, we simply don’t have enough data to draw a conclusion one way or the other.
I have not “plugged” dematerialization. What I have advocated is what any good exegete ought to do when handling something as holy as the sacred Text, refuse to conclude, pass on proposing. Be willing to admit that we simply do not know how Jesus did this with any degree of certainty. Look for those things that we can learn for sure. For example, why would Jesus not be recognizable until after he used Scripture to argue for the resurrection of the Messiah?
“That just means there’s a hypothetical risk of being mistaken. So what? The hypothetical risk of error is unavoidable.”
Perhaps error is unavoidable. However, simply because sinful men err, that is no excuse to take a fatalistic attitude toward interpretation nor such a casual view of something as sacred as Scripture. Again, we aren’t playing around with Moby Dick. The risk is not hypothetical. It is real. There is a real risk that we could be mistaken.
That our resurrected bodies will be analogous to Christ’s resurrected body is beyond contention I think. However, it does not follow that our bodies will have the very same features and abilities as Christ’s resurrected body just because our bodies will be similar to His.
Respecting revelation means not putting oneself in a position of mishandling God’s word because we have a keen proclivity to know the unknowable. My argument, once more for the sake of clarity is this:
Scripture does not provide enough information to draw a firm conclusion for why Christ’s disciples were not able to recognize Him in several settings and on more than one occasion. It is reasonable to conclude that God may have been the cause of this phenomenon. However, we simply do not have enough data to arrive at an actual interpretation of exactly how God accomplished these events. Respect for Scripture, and humility of heart and intellect necessitate that we withhold an opinion as to the means by which these events transpired. This is my argument. Should you find fault with it, that is, if you find that it is fallacious in some way, or perhaps invalid, I would be more than open to examining your analysis and evaluation.
Dr. Liberal
Delete“We have three appearances under investigation. It seems to me that for the sake of consistency and to avoid arbitrary interpretations, one would initially seek the same explanation for all three experiences unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. In other words, what makes Luke 24 exegetically different from John 20 & 21?”
We should interpret Lukan passages consistent with Luke and Johannine passages consistent with John. But that hardly means we should impose a Lukan grid on John, or vice versa. We need to interpret each author on his own terms.
Likewise, we need to interpret passages according to the information given in the passage. The Lukan passages have different interpretive clues than the Johannine passages.
“Is the passive construction enough justification to isolate this experience? I am not so sure. That is open for debate.”
Actually, there are other examples of divinely-induced psychological impediments in Luke (e.g. Lk 9:45; 18:34). Then there’s the matter of Jesus eluding lynch mobs. We also have cases of divinely-induced blindness in the Lukan corpus (Acts 9:8,17; 13:10-11). That could be a physical impediment to sight, or else a psychological impediment–like hysterical blindness. Paul wasn’t blinded by the light, for his traveling companions retained their sight. So that invites a psychological interpretation.
“I am not prepared to make that part of my interpretation because we are dealing with divine revelation, not Moby Dick.”
That’s a non sequitur.
“The common phenomenon of Jesus’ appearance being somewhat obscure to observers would indicate a common cause.”
That’s not an exegetical argument. Moreover, different causes can yield the same effect. You’re operating with a mechanistic framework. While God employs providential second causes in many situations, he also performs miracles in other situations. Don’t prejudge.
“What I have advocated is what any good exegete ought to do when handling something as holy as the sacred Text, refuse to conclude, pass on proposing. Be willing to admit that we simply do not know how Jesus did this with any degree of certainty. Look for those things that we can learn for sure.”
Good exegetes don’t require certainty for their interpretations. They go with the best interpretation, as they see it. You’re imposing an arbitrary, unrealistic standard.
Are you suggesting that similar events or even parallel passages serve no purpose in the interpretive process. When one encounters obscurities within similar events, proper exegesis would require you consult other witnesses to similar events in order to deepen understanding. This only seems fitting.
DeleteI can see at this point, before I comment further on your "divinely-induced psychological impediments," I need a definition. There are other plausible explanations for why Paul's companions were not blinded by this light. The implication that it may have been psychological is interesting.
The Moby Dick comment is an encouragement to treat Scripture with the care it is due. While we are free to handle the projects of men in a certain manner, the treatment of divine revelation is in a class all its own. False interpretations of the Scripture can be dangerous.
I am not suggesting it was necessarily a common cause. I am suggesting the best indicator points in that direction first. That is where you would begin. A hole in the head similar to the circumference of a bullet would lead the pathologist to begin with that as a working hypothesis and expand the investigation from there.
Actually, I am saying that good exegetes recognize where God's revelation ends. After all, there is a divine limit on revelation and there are some things we wish we knew, but we do not. What is wrong with leaving those things to the arean of the unrevealed? What is so bad about saying, "I do not know exactly how Jesus passed through the crowd because Scripture really doesn't tell us? I don't know how Jesus just appeared in the middle of the room. I don't know what it was exactly that caused the disciples to have a difficult time recognizing Jesus in His resurrected body? It seems to me to be the safest course of action. Is it not a bad thing to say that Scripture implies something that it does not? Is it not wrong to say that the Bible teaches x when it really doesn't teach x? When we encounter the obscure, isn't it better to say that God's revelation in this area is obscure and the truth is we will not know the answer until later, or maybe never. God knows the answer. Second, God gave me exactly what He wanted me to know in the text and isn't the case that it is precisely that part of the text that I should be investigating and appropriating, and applying to my life? Just curious.
Dr. Liberal
Delete“Are you suggesting that similar events or even parallel passages serve no purpose in the interpretive process. When one encounters obscurities within similar events, proper exegesis would require you consult other witnesses to similar events in order to deepen understanding. This only seems fitting.”
That assumes what you need to prove: the degree of similarity. We must respect the particularity of each passage.
“I can see at this point, before I comment further on your ‘divinely-induced psychological impediments,’ I need a definition.”
I’ve given several examples to illustrate what I mean.
“There are other plausible explanations for why Paul's companions were not blinded by this light.”
A vague, unargued assertion.
“The Moby Dick comment is an encouragement to treat Scripture with the care it is due.”
Which I have.
“I am suggesting the best indicator points in that direction first. That is where you would begin.”
You seem to be fond of taking shortcuts. Presuming ahead of time what the text probably means. That’s not exegesis.
“It seems to me to be the safest course of action.”
Like an overprotective mother, you have an exaggerating sense of fear. I’m just following up on leads given in the text.
“When we encounter the obscure, isn't it better to say that God's revelation in this area is obscure and the truth is we will not know the answer until later, or maybe never.”
You’re the one who’s assuming obscurity, which is, itself, a judgment call on your part.
“Second, God gave me exactly what He wanted me to know in the text and isn't the case that it is precisely that part of the text that I should be investigating and appropriating, and applying to my life? Just curious.”
Yet you allow yourself to consider alternative explanations, like dematerialization–which undermines the reality of the resurrection. An immaterial body is not a physical, flesh-and-blood body.
The discples in Luke 24, Mary in John 20, and the discples in John 21 all did not recognize Jesus. To my way of thinking, that indicates similarity. All passages are dealing with post resurrection appearances in which people did not recognize Christ. Why didn't they recognize him is precisely the question. It is better to examine all those texts rather than create an artifical exegetical dogmatism that, in my view has no merit.
DeleteIf you think that my contention that there are other pluasible explanations for why Paul was blinded and his companions not, then perhaps you should consider reading Bruce, Polhill, and others. Perhaps, Mr. Hays, you would be better served if you read another record of the same event: “But since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me and came into Damascus" (Acts 22:11). Clearly, the language here indicates that Paul was physically blind, and that the cause of that blindness was the brightness of the light. I continue to find your approach quite fascinating. You seem to default to the more complex, the more obscure rather than the simple, and the clear. I do not mean that as an insult, just as a mere observation.
I prefer to say that my method of interpretation assumes that the right answer us usually the simplest one, the one easiest for most to understand. It is a fundamental premise of my hermeneutic. God intentionally did not call many smart chaps. Therefore, I must assume that when He spoke, He was speaking mostly to the rest of us. This is not to say that all of Scripture is simple and that there are no complexities whatever. I have over 50 hours of language in my portfolio. I understand that some complexities exist. But the revelation of Scripture is to the masses, not the top 3% of the intellectually gifted. Right or wrong, that defines my approach. If I am wrong, God help me.
Your analogy of an overprotective mother was received with great humility. Thank you for such a kind and gracious remark. When it comes to the divine revelation, I would much rather be accused of being an overly protective mother than I would of being a wreckless, undisciplined teenager.
I have given your conclusion the same consideration I give dematerialization. My conclusion is that neither conclusion can be taught as true. My conclusion is that the truth is this matter is that we do not know. The truth in this case is that we don't have sufficent evidence to form an opinion about how this happened. If you think that is being a coward, then our definition of cowardice is not the same. I think it is proper, and personally, I think it is the only real exegetical conclusion one can reach given the evidence.
@Dr. Liberal
Delete1. Actually, Dr. Liberal, I say this respectfully, but it sounds to me like you're making all this unnecessarily complex. It sounds to me like you're trying to foist your philosophical views onto the text. If so, this is ironic considering you believe your approach is the more simple one.
2. If I had to sum up the difference between your approach and Steve's in a single word it'd be pretty straightforward: exegesis. If you think Steve is mistaken, then why not provide a better exegetical argument? It's (nearly) as simple as that.
3. Also, Steve has already taken great pains to point out the following: taking the position we don't or can't know the text or the text is ambiguous or the like is itself taking a position. Say for the sake of argument Steve's interpretation is actually the best one. Or say the materialization/dematerialization interpretation is the best one. If either interpretation is the best interpretation of the text, then you would not actually be "respecting" the text by saying the text is unclear on the matter.
4. What does God not saving many "smart chaps" have to do with the obligation to correctly interpret the Bible? Isn't it incumbent on every teacher of the word to seek to correctly interpret God's word, whether or not he happens to be intelligent? (Which is perhaps one reason why James 3:1 recommends few should become teachers for they'll be judged more strictly.)
5. You say "my method of interpretation assumes that the right answer us usually the simplest one, the one easiest for most to understand. It is a fundamental premise of my hermeneutic."
a. First, even if this were true, you admit it is only "usually" the case. What makes you think the current topic under debate fits into your "usually" category?
b. Besides, what do you mean by "simplest"? Simplicity can be defined in multiple ways. Ontological simplicity, syntactic simplicity, etc.
Dr. Liberal
Delete“The discples in Luke 24, Mary in John 20, and the discples in John 21 all did not recognize Jesus. To my way of thinking, that indicates similarity.”
They are similar in that respect, at that general level. However, the texts don’t give the same reasons for lack of recognition. So they are dissimilar in another respect.
“It is better to examine all those texts rather than create an artifical exegetical dogmatism that, in my view has no merit.”
I did examine all of them. You’re the one who’s being dogmatic by stipulating obscurity, by stipulating simplicity.
“If you think that my contention that there are other pluasible explanations for why Paul was blinded and his companions not, then perhaps you should consider reading Bruce, Polhill, and others. Perhaps, Mr. Hays, you would be better served if you read another record of the same event: ‘But since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me and came into Damascus’ (Acts 22:11). Clearly, the language here indicates that Paul was physically blind, and that the cause of that blindness was the brightness of the light.”
Maybe you need to expand your own knowledge of the exegetical scholarship.
i) To begin with, Acts 22 doesn’t say Paul was blinded by the “brightness” of the light, but by the “glory” (doxa) of the light. That’s a very evocative choice of words. Bock thinks it refers to the Shekinah (Acts 661).
ii) Apropos (i), commentators on 2 Corinthians (e.g. Paul Barnett, Murray J. Harris) have also pointed out that 2 Cor 4:4-6 glosses Paul’s Damascus Road epiphany. So we’re dealing with a play on words, where light signifies spiritual illumination or spiritual blindness. That’s psychological.
“You seem to default to the more complex, the more obscure rather than the simple…”
That’s your problem. You think there’s a default explanation. You have an a priori preference for simplicity. But we shouldn’t make a text simpler than it is. We should interpret each text as it comes to us.
“I prefer to say that my method of interpretation assumes that the right answer us usually the simplest one, the one easiest for most to understand. It is a fundamental premise of my hermeneutic. God intentionally did not call many smart chaps. Therefore, I must assume that when He spoke, He was speaking mostly to the rest of us. This is not to say that all of Scripture is simple and that there are no complexities whatever. I have over 50 hours of language in my portfolio. I understand that some complexities exist. But the revelation of Scripture is to the masses, not the top 3% of the intellectually gifted. Right or wrong, that defines my approach.”
You’re assuming there’s only one audience for Scripture. That Scripture only targets the lowest common denominator.
However, NT writers often have subtle allusions to OT passages–literary allusions which would be lost on the average Gentile reader or listener, who had little or no background in the OT.
Scripture operates on more than one level. It also targets the ideal reader. Someone with the background to pick up on puns, allusions, &c. A narrative can have an easy-to-follow storyline, but also have a subtext that the average reader will miss.
“When it comes to the divine revelation, I would much rather be accused of being an overly protective mother than I would of being a wreckless, undisciplined teenager.”
Except that you’re selectively risk-adverse. Your own method, which prizes simplicity, carries its own risks. The danger of overlooking anything below the surface. You play it safe, but you’re oblivious to the hazards entailed by your own methodology.
“The truth in this case is that we don’t have sufficent evidence to form an opinion about how this happened.”
Yes, that’s your opinion. You don’t offer much by way of exegesis to justify your opinion.
In any case, I’m under no obligation to convince you. I state my position, give my reasons, respond to objections, and that’s it.
Cont. “For example, why would Jesus not be recognizable until after he used Scripture to argue for the resurrection of the Messiah?”
ReplyDeleteWhich favors a psychological interpretation.
“Perhaps error is unavoidable. However, simply because sinful men err, that is no excuse to take a fatalistic attitude toward interpretation nor such a casual view of something as sacred as Scripture.”
You’re the one who’s acting fatalistic by fretting over the hypothetical risk of error.
“Again, we aren’t playing around with Moby Dick. The risk is not hypothetical. It is real. There is a real risk that we could be mistaken.”
If you think there’s a real risk that we might be wrong whenever we interpret the Bible, then I guess we should play it safe by leaving the Bible on the shelf to gather dust.
“That our resurrected bodies will be analogous to Christ’s resurrected body is beyond contention I think. However, it does not follow that our bodies will have the very same features and abilities as Christ’s resurrected body just because our bodies will be similar to His.”
You have a habit of retreating into generalities when the Bible gives specifics.
“Scripture does not provide enough information to draw a firm conclusion for why Christ’s disciples were not able to recognize Him in several settings and on more than one occasion. It is reasonable to conclude that God may have been the cause of this phenomenon. However, we simply do not have enough data to arrive at an actual interpretation of exactly how God accomplished these events.”
You’re remarkably certain about your uncertainty.
“Respect for Scripture, and humility of heart and intellect necessitate that we withhold an opinion as to the means by which these events transpired.”
I don’t think we should artificially suspend judgment. You also act as though the cost of possible error is worse than the possible cost of missing out on truth. But each has its price.
"They are similar in that respect, at that general level. However, the texts don’t give the same reasons for lack of recognition. So they are dissimilar in another respect."
DeleteSo Luke's account provides more details, still not enough for a solid conclusion. Isn't this how we interpret Mr. Hays? We look at other witnesses who may fill in the gap a little here and a little there?
"I did examine all of them. You’re the one who’s being dogmatic by stipulating obscurity, by stipulating simplicity."
Your use of dogmatism is highly unusual. Far from being dogmatic, I thought you would accuse me of being agnostic. Oh, yes, simplicity. The divine revelation is indeed mostly a simple one. I operate on the premise that it is for the masses, not the rhetorician, not the debater, not the philosopher. It is mostly for us common folks, and we make up the overwhelming majority of the Christian community. Therefore, the revelation by nature, if it is to reach us, must be simple.
"That’s your problem. You think there’s a default explanation. You have an a priori preference for simplicity. But we shouldn’t make a text simpler than it is. We should interpret each text as it comes to us."
You are correct. I do approach the text with such a presupposition. But that is not because I chose to do so on my own. The text itself makes this demand. Every text, Mr. Hays, has as its primary goal, sanctification. There is something in the pericope designed to change me. The text was never given to provide intellectuals with philosophical fodder that serves mostly to puff up and contaminate the soul. It was given to humble us, to conform us to His image, to sanctify us according to the prayer of our Lord. I do not need to speculate about every single meaning of an event revealed in the text in order to discover that truth in the text that sanctifies. This is absolutely the case if the text chooses not to reveal some things about the details. After all, it would not make sense for God to give us His truth in order to sanctify us and then make it so difficult to interpret that only the smartest among us could get it.
"You’re assuming there’s only one audience for Scripture. That Scripture only targets the lowest common denominator. "
Well, I do assume that Scripture targets the lowly, mostly because this is what Scripture teaches about itself. Is not this the problem with Rome, Mr. Hays? Only the Magisterium can interpret the text! Wasn't this Luther's issue with the Pope? If the text can only be understood by the most intellectual among us, then what of the poor man who has not real education? I suppose God has no way by which he may be sanctified. The primary intent of the text Mr. Hays is pastoral, not philosophical, and certainly not apologetical. It is given to sanctify us and perform a work in us.
Why do I need to know how Jesus made Himself unrecognizable in order to recognize the sanctifying truth is these narratives? I simply do not and you cannot show that I do. The best you can do is claim that you seek the deeper truth, but for some reason, even if you find it, that truth does provide even an ounce more sanctifying ability to me. It is irrelevant to my sanctification process.
Continued below
"i) To begin with, Acts 22 doesn’t say Paul was blinded by the “brightness” of the light, but by the “glory” (doxa) of the light. That’s a very evocative choice of words. Bock thinks it refers to the Shekinah (Acts 661)."
DeleteMr. Hays, do you really think I would have simply consulted an English translation to make my point? Indeed, that is interesting. I would have assumed you would know better. Surely you must know that DOXA, in this context means brightness, radiant, shining! cf. Acts 26:13 is yet another case where Paul said the light was "brighter" than the sun. You must know that a word's meaning is determined by its context and usage. You seem determined to hold you view despite evidence to the contrary.
"Scripture operates on more than one level. It also targets the ideal reader. Someone with the background to pick up on puns, allusions, &c. A narrative can have an easy-to-follow storyline, but also have a subtext that the average reader will miss."
And I am to assume that you consider yourself "not" among us average readers I presume. How interesting!
"Except that you’re selectively risk-adverse. Your own method, which prizes simplicity, carries its own risks. The danger of overlooking anything below the surface. You play it safe, but you’re oblivious to the hazards entailed by your own methodology."
I operate under the reformed principle of perspicuity. The main things, Mr. Hays, are the plain things. And the plain things are the main things. My refusal to push to an opinion when the text simply does not provide enough data to do so, is one way in which Scripture has sanctified me, Mr. Hays. Over time, Scripture has taught me that I cannot solve every puzzle, every mystery, such as how the Trinity works, or how Christ could be both God and man at the same time without compromising either. I have learned that sometimes, the most intelligent answer of all is, I don't know! It took a long time for me to get here, but here I am by God's grace and I am better for it.
Scripture was not given to satisfy intellectual lust. It is not a complete chemistry set given to us by God for our intellectual fascination. It has not been provided so as to be a complex puzzle, simply there to be solved and when we do, we can see ourselves as NOT THE AVERAGE CHRISTIAN, not the average reader! Until Scripture begins to purge such things from us, I am afraid we will miss the entire reason that we have the text in the first place.
Dr. Liberal
Delete“So Luke's account provides more details, still not enough for a solid conclusion. Isn't this how we interpret Mr. Hays? We look at other witnesses who may fill in the gap a little here and a little there?”
You’re assuming there’s a gap to be filled, rather than granting that Luke and John each work on their own terms.
“Your use of dogmatism is highly unusual.”
To the contrary, commentators typically try to interpret an author on his own terms.
“I operate on the premise that it is for the masses, not the rhetorician, not the debater, not the philosopher. It is mostly for us common folks, and we make up the overwhelming majority of the Christian community. Therefore, the revelation by nature, if it is to reach us, must be simple.”
You’re postulating a false dichotomy, as if Scripture can have only one audience–as if Scripture can’t have something for everyone.
“The text was never given to provide intellectuals with philosophical fodder that serves mostly to puff up and contaminate the soul. It was given to humble us, to conform us to His image, to sanctify us according to the prayer of our Lord. I do not need to speculate about every single meaning of an event revealed in the text in order to discover that truth in the text that sanctifies. This is absolutely the case if the text chooses not to reveal some things about the details.”
You’re dictating to Scripture what Scripture is allowed to tell you.
“After all, it would not make sense for God to give us His truth in order to sanctify us and then make it so difficult to interpret that only the smartest among us could get it.”
You’re asserting that my interpretation is so difficult that only the smartest among us could get it. There’s no reason for me to grant your assertion.
“Well, I do assume that Scripture targets the lowly, mostly because this is what Scripture teaches about itself.”
You continue to postulate your false dichotomy.
“Why do I need to know how Jesus made Himself unrecognizable in order to recognize the sanctifying truth is these narratives? I simply do not and you cannot show that I do.”
You suffer from a peculiar sense of being imposed on. No one forced you to read my post or comment on my post. Don’t complain about how put upon you feel.
Cont. “Surely you must know that DOXA, in this context means brightness, radiant, shining! cf. Acts 26:13 is yet another case where Paul said the light was ‘brighter’ than the sun.”
DeleteIf that’s all Paul wanted to say, he could have chosen a word without the connotations of doxa. Instead, he chose a loaded word.
“You must know that a word's meaning is determined by its context and usage. You seem determined to hold you view despite evidence to the contrary.”
I referred to Darrell Bock’s commentary on Acts, as well as two commentators on 1 Corinthians, to substantiate my position.
“And I am to assume that you consider yourself ‘not’ among us average readers I presume. How interesting!”
i) You’re dodging the question of whether a 1C slaveboy (to take one example) hearing a NT book read in church could register all the puns, literary allusions, &c.
ii) You were the one who referred me to commentaries by “Bruce, Polhill, and others.” Do you think the average reader consults Bruce, Polhill, &c.? You said “I have over 50 hours of language in my portfolio.” Do you think that’s true of the average reader? You need to drop the moral posturing and be consistent.
“I operate under the reformed principle of perspicuity. The main things, Mr. Hays, are the plain things.”
I haven’t said otherwise. However, you’re the one who referred me to commentaries and advertised your knowledge of languages. So don’t suddenly do an about face and play the populist card.
“My refusal to push to an opinion when the text simply does not provide enough data to do so, is one way in which Scripture has sanctified me, Mr. Hays.”
Men of sanctity don’t brag about their superior sanctity.
Dr. Liberal said:
Delete“I operate on the premise that it is for the masses, not the rhetorician, not the debater, not the philosopher. It is mostly for us common folks, and we make up the overwhelming majority of the Christian community. Therefore, the revelation by nature, if it is to reach us, must be simple.”
I agree with what Steve Hays has said in his replies to you.
However, as far as that goes, the Bible says "For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards" (1 Cor 1:26). The Bible doesn't say there are "none" who are wise according to worldly standards. It says "not many." Why do you discriminate against the "wiser" brethren?
Here is your homework assignment:
DeleteFind the place where I said that God does not call ANY wise. I think I was very careful to avoid distributive terms in my dialogue. If you cannot find where I said that no wise people are called, no smart people, etc., then I expect an apology. If you can, then I will issue a clarification and apologize for sloppy argument and poor choice of words. Of course God calls a few, but not many. He mostly calls the lowly. That is what I have said all along.
Dr. Liberal said:
Delete"Here is your homework assignment:"
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news: you're not my teacher.
"Find the place where I said that God does not call ANY wise. I think I was very careful to avoid distributive terms in my dialogue. If you cannot find where I said that no wise people are called, no smart people, etc., then I expect an apology."
Actually, the truth is you've been playing both sides. On the one hand, you cite your intellectual credentials: referring to commentaries by "Bruce" and "Polhill," citing your "50 hours" of "language," and of course calling yourself "Dr.". But on the other hand, you set up a dichotomy between the wise and "the rest" or "average" reader which is also where you so modestly place yourself.
If Dr. Liberal is so humble, why does he suddenly talk down to rockingwithhawking by saying "Here is your homework assignment." That's a classically patronizing statement.
DeletePaul prays for knowledge so that we may bear fruit in Col. 1:9:
ReplyDeleteFor this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;
The entire point of Scripture is godly living, sanctification, love for one another, humility of heart, serving one another, honoring one another (even when you disagree with them). If intellectual inquiries lead us away from this core set of principles, what then is the purpose of inquiry? If the purpose of inquiry is not an aim to please God, to serve God, to serve and love one another, and to deliver a deliberately foolish message using an intentionally selected foolish method, to mostly the simple, not the elite, then what is the point of inquiry? I cannot think of a more profane corruption of Scripture than to allow it to become mostly philosophical fodder by which we use it, spending hours and hours of our time doing little more than feeding our ego by convincing ourselves of our own brilliance by thinking we are able to understand what "average" Christians cannot. I wonder how often we stop to think how or even if these speculations benefit the rest of the Church. When critical thinking arrives at truth, we are better off for it of course. That is not my point.
2 Tim. 3:16-17
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
It is clear by the context in Timothy that Paul was not at all thinking about philosophical ascendancy or even perspicacity in that area. I realize an effort will be made to impose on Paul the notion that what we call apologetics in modern America falls into the category of good works, as if that were what Paul had in mind when he wrote πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ or even πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος. That the defense of sound doctrine against heresy and error certainly is included in this practice cannot be denied. And to understand Paul in this way is correct. However, any attempt to expand the author's thinking to the use of philosophy or even psychology would be anachronistic.
Our Lord prayed that we would be sanctified through the truth. God's word is the truth. God's word sanctifies.
If inquiry into the text is not leading to profound humility, and Christian charity, the loving of one another, an intense sense of the fear of God, and a skeptical attitude concerning our own motives in everything, to include why we seek knowledge, then our understanding of the purpose of Scripture may be suspect. I am working on yet another credential. I ask myself why I am doing this every day. The only answer that motivates me to continue the project is, "to do my best to serve the body." Yet the sin of intellectual pride lurks continuously in the background. I am tempted to view others who don't have the time or put in the same degree of effort as I do, differently. "What do you know?" is the vile thought that I must rebuke, recognizing that God has called us all to a different labor. That servant helps me to be more compassionate, more in touch, more empathetic, more engaged perhaps. I may help them understand a finer point of a particular doctrine, or even a more basic one. I may help them ask better questions when evangelizing. The point is to serve. When we disagree with fellow Christians who are our brothers, whom we are supposed to love, and respect and appreciate, that disagreement should be, it must be with grace.
If Scripture does not lead us to say on many occasions, “I do not know,” then perhaps we are missing the point of Scripture. We should at least be willing to think about that question and be honest with ourselves.
I'm opposing inferences or interpretations which undermine the physicality of the Resurrection. I'm also opposing atheists who foist misinterpretations onto the text to attack the Resurrection. If you don't wish to defend the faith, that's your choice. Don't fault others who do a job you refuse to do.
DeleteYou also need to resist the impulse to fluff your spiritual feathers. It isn't seemly. Humble people don't brag about their advanced state of humility.
Because you lost the exegetical argument, you retreat into self-congratulatory mock pieties. This has become an exercise about you saving face.
You strike me as a young man who can find fault with just about anything you decide to find fault with, except, of course, yourself.
Deletei) As if you hadn't been fault-finding throughout our exchange.
Deleteii) It would behoove you not to make prejudicial assumptions about the age of your interlocutor.
Brag? Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord, Mr. Hays, not in the fact that he is not the "average" reader, and apparently not the "average" Christian.
DeleteBecause you completely ignored it, I am going to point it out one more time:
While so engaged as I was journeying to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me. “And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ ACTS 26:12-14
The light physically blinded Paul. There is no hint that Paul's blindness was psychological. I suppose the same could be true of Zacharias when he doubted the angel and could not speak until John was born. Was this a psychological impediment as well? Should we now begin to reinterpret various texts using this device? Was Elymas’ condition the result of divine psychological impediment? How did God kill Ananias and Sapphira? Was it a heart attack, or a stroke? Perhaps it was an aneurism? Because you seem to insist on knowing all the details of a given passage before you considered properly interpreted, I am wondering if you know how God killed this couple. Surely you know the answer. How did Phillip find himself in the desert? Since it is not enough to say we don’t know; I am curious to know exactly how this worked. You must know. There is obviously no room in your exegetical process for inconclusiveness. It would seem to me that your method requires a certain arbitrariness to it. At least that is my prediction. Who knows, you may actually think you know the answers to these questions. It would be hard not to laugh if indeed you responded so.
You are operating from an unproven assumption that Jesus' resurrected body could not do things that His physical body could not do without it compromising the fact of the resurrection. I would argue that is sheer nonsense. Christ’s resurrected body could not perish, it could not decay; it did not require food. In fact, there are a number of radical differences between Christ’s physical body and His resurrected body. I do not need to resort to your tactics in order to provide an adequate defense of the gospel. My defense is reasonable and more importantly, it comports with Scripture. I do not require the level of details you seek in order to obey the mandate to given an answer for the hope that is in me and, stop the mouth of the critic. Christ’s physical body walked on water. That defies the laws of gravity. His resurrected body ascended up into the sky. How? If God can engage in divine psychological impediment, He certain could transport Christ's body in a way similar to dematerialization. In fact, we use the word dematerialize, but couldn't God have accomplished the same end in a different way that we simply do not have knowledge of? In other words, it was dematerialization in the way we think of it, but something else, something we have no knowledge about, something that only God has knowledge of may be the right explanation. Maybe how God did this is beyond us. Yes, maybe it is. Maybe God even placed it beyond us on purpose. Maybe? Was not Phillip's experience just as mysterious? I would be willing to say that Phillip could equally be said to have vanished.
making much ado about nothing Mr. Hays. Your speculations serve no spiritual purpose other than to feed an insatiable intellectual lust for "figuring it out." Unless you have a working hypothesis for everything, your ego seems unsatisfied. Your lack of charitable interaction has reached a level where I must conclude that your inquiry of Scripture does not seem to be a desire to be conformed to Christ as much as it is to win the intellectual joist. I have verified that a friend of mine was indeed correct in his assessment of Triablogue, and especially of you Mr. Hays. If the Scriptures are not sanctifying us so that we treat one another with kindness, then what exactly are they doing?
DeleteI did not think that a fellow-believer could actually say something bad about my last remarks on sanctification because they reflect, as clearly as I think it can be reflected, the true nature and purpose of Scripture. Yet, you find something bad to say. I am simply befuddled. I would encourage you to think about how you interact with your fellow believers in the future. Let your speech even on the internet always be seasoned with salt. God will not let you off the hook, nor me, for our unkind and ungracious remarks.
The extent of a man's love for God and his spiritual character is clearly seen, not in his intellect, not in his ability to write, not in his philosophical acumen, but rather, in how he views, treats, and speaks to others, and the internet is not an exception to charitable speech. This is not a difference of opinion between a heretic and a believer. This is a minor disagreement between two Christians. I have tried to influence toward a more cautious approach and you have responded by turning up the vitriol. This turned out to be a very disappointing exchange.
Dr. Liberal said:
Delete"I have verified that a friend of mine was indeed correct in his assessment of Triablogue, and especially of you Mr. Hays."
Hm, I don't suppose this friend of yours is named Ed Dingess?
Or are you Ed Dingess? Both of you use similar language, style, tone, and so forth. Not to mention the exact same phraseology in several cases.
Dr. Liberal,
DeleteYou need to stop polishing your humility medal and put it in a drawer. Wearing your humility medal so prominently on your vest sends mixed signals.
You want to make this personal: fine, let’s make this personal. Unfortunately, you’re not the first Christian I’ve met who’s warm and fuzzy on the outside, but a cactus just under the skin. Scratch your spiritual pride, and a prickly alter ego emerges.
Say what you will about me, but I’m not two different people masquerading as one. I don’t have a nicey-nice façade that conceals a very different person who surfaces the moment his pride is slighted.
Dr. Liberal:
Delete“Acts 26:13 is yet another case where Paul said the light was ‘brighter’ than the sun.”
Now you’re moving the goal post. You originally said:
“You would be better served if you read another record of the same event: ‘But since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me and came into Damascus’ (Acts 22:11).
Since that didn’t work out so well for you, you shift to a different prooftext. Moreover, your newest prooftext doesn’t get you where you need to go. Did I deny the brightness of the epiphany? No.
“The light physically blinded Paul. There is no hint that Paul's blindness was psychological.”
The fact that his companions weren’t blinded by the same light militates against your naturalistic explanation–not to mention Paul’s own interpretation of the event in 2 Cor 4:4-6. If the cause is purely physical, why doesn’t the very same cause have the very same effect? Why the differential effect?
The luminosity is emblematic of blinding light, but the source of Paul’s blindness is divine agency.
It’s odd that you’re so fond of a naturalistic explanation and so hostile to a supernatural explanation (i.e. divinely-induced hysterical blindness).
Okay, I have had enough. No one could possibly think after this much discussion that I dispute divine agency. I have accepted divine agency all along. You failed to deal with Acts 26:13 Mr. Hays. I have opted for supernatural cause all along. What I have rejected, and done so clearly, is your notion that it was psychological impediment. My view has always been divine causality, with real physical blindness, not necessarily divine psychological impediment. At the same time Mr. Hays, I have nowhere ruled out your hypothesis either. I have merely accused you of going too far and entering into speculation that the text did not support. I stopped right there, because, that is where the text stops sir. My footing is firm, my conscience is clear, the text has not been harmed, at least not by me, and at least, not in this case.
DeleteFor some odd reason, there are always some Christians who feel threatened by apologetics. They act as if apologetics is an attack on their faith rather than a defense of the faith.
ReplyDeleteA man of a certain maturity USUALLY does not conduct himself in such a manner Mr. Hays. I know, I would be such a man. You strike me as a relative young man with a large intellectual capacity who has yet to figure out that the intellect, like every other part of us, requires the highest degree of discipline. If your faith is genuine, I am confident God will move you along to a better place in His good time. Until then, those of us who have already tread the ground upon which you stand will have to show to you the same grace that our mature brothers and God showed to us along the way.
DeleteI think you are intelligent enough to know the deceptive fallacies that you continue to use in these arguments you have with your opponents. They are not befitting a Christian man and they certaintly are not befitting a man with your obvious intelligence. I must conclude that you know better. You just don't care.
I have no fear of apologetics. I have been involved in the field for over twenty years now. It is a passion of mine falling just after languages, hermeneutics, and theology. I am an old school Van Tillian. I saw what you said about the old man. I didn't appreciate it. But that is another conversation, if I am even up for it and have the time. Clearly, we will disagree on that subject as well. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing presuppositional about your apologetic method. From my perpsective, this website suffers terribly from apologetic schizophrenia. I do not mean that as a personal attack toward you. I mean it as a criticism of a method that seems to employ as many contradictory concepts along the way while trying to appear somewhat reformed. Van Til would have laughed if he were to visit this sight and then learn that the primary author claimed to be reformed, but then he would have been quite annoyed.
This seems to speak in part to a sort of Old Lights vs New Lights divide. For instance, you appear hung up on old school Van Tillianism. Have you read and interacted with Van Tillians like James Anderson or Greg Welty?
DeleteWhy do you denigrate apologetic method without at the same time engaging in apologetics?
By the way, since your Blogger profile notes "Dr. Liberal" was created this very month, i.e. February 2013, would it be a reach to say you haven't been online much? What apologetics have you done online for starters?
Dr. Liberal said:
Delete"Van Til would have laughed if he were to visit this sight [sic] and then learn that the primary author claimed to be reformed, but then he would have been quite annoyed."
How is Van Till's apologetic method necessarily tied to Reformed theology? Would you say someone like R.C. Sproul merely "claimed to be reformed" and so forth because he's criticized Van Til as well as advocated classical apologetics?
I should say you sure do sound a lot like this other guy who was banned on Triablogue named Ed Dingess. For instance, see here.
DeleteI do not do apologetics online for the most part. I do engage in apologetics mostly in evangelism.
DeleteI would hope there more than just one more person out there that sounds like me or that I sound like.
For example, I enjoy John MacArthur, Al Mohler, James White, etc. R.C. Sproul has recieved much criticism for his incongruency. I admit that I have never been able to understand how he reconciles his reformed theology with his apologetic method. He is a wonderful man of God, gracious, kind, and brilliant in his own right. On that point, I think he is mistaken. And I am sure he would say the same thing about me, at least the mistaken part.