The Ambiguity of Early Christianity: How we misread Paul

[TheLightWithin]

Because one thing in remarkably short supply in the New Testament is common sense. The Gospels, the epistles, Acts, Revelation—all of them are relentless torrents of exorbitance and extremism: commands to become as perfect as God in his heaven and to live as insouciantly as lilies in their field; condemnations of a roving eye as equivalent to adultery and of evil thoughts toward another as equivalent to murder; injunctions to sell all one’s possessions and to give the proceeds to the poor, and demands that one hate one’s parents for the Kingdom’s sake and leave the dead to bury the dead. This extremism is not merely an occasional hyperbolic presence in the texts; it is their entire cultural and spiritual atmosphere. The New Testament emerges from a cosmos ruled by malign celestial principalities (conquered by Christ but powerful to the end) and torn between spirit and flesh (the one, according to Paul, longing for God, the other opposing him utterly). There are no comfortable medians in these latitudes, no areas of shade. Everything is cast in the harsh light of final judgment, and that judgment is absolute. In regard to all these texts, the qualified, moderate, common-sense interpretation is always false.

But some of this is hyperbole right? And also things that made a different kind of sense in context - for example I read somewhere a couple of different interpretations of "letting the dead bury the dead" meaning to leave behind certain people who had no ears to hear, as they were all spiritually dead. I read another interpretations that indicated that the phrase before it, the person being responded to said something about wanting to delay to bury his father first. The interpretation I read was that the phrase "let me first bury my father" was a saying in those days which meant procrastinating for an extended time. A person saying it may have a father alive and well, and if asked to do something and they said that, they were meaning to put it off for a very long time.

For many reasons, I have often found the bible to be cryptic and incoherent. I would have the sense that something more was being said than what I saw on the page, but I didn't know what. I didn't even begin to find out until my 30s, internet access and being around people with the same questions (I didn't know about progressive churches before that time)

 

[TheLightWithin]

Christ was remarkably dismissive of the family.

He sort of was, in some spots, but also condemned divorce.
However, I have also read that the condemnations about divorce was not so much about maintaining marriages as it was about wanting to protect women from being abandoned by careless husbands without being given a proper divorce.
Back to the dismissal of family: Saying people needed to hate their family to follow him sounds harsh.
Although when anybody takes on a risky or demanding pursuit, sometimes people say "You must really hate your (parents, family, wife, etc)

 

[Ahanu]

Not only did he not promise his followers worldly success (even success in making things better for others)

Making things better for others - in other words, social progress - wasn't really a concept back then, so I'm not surprised no such promise for his followers existed. Back then worldly success was often synonymous with exploitation and evil. It made sense back then. The rich were doing just that. Need more money? Go to war with the inhabitants of foreign lands, destroy their villages, and enslave their people to gather more material resources.

 

[Thomas]

Making things better for others - in other words, social progress - wasn't really a concept back then, so I'm not surprised no such promise for his followers existed.

Yes, to expect that would be an anachronism.

Back then worldly success was often synonymous with exploitation and evil. It made sense back then.

Gee, you are so down on Antiquity!

The rich were doing just that. Need more money? Go to war with the inhabitants of foreign lands, destroy their villages, and enslave their people to gather more material resources.

So it goes ... The instruments change, but the song remains the same.

 

[Thomas]

But some of this is hyperbole right?

Well, there's a larger debate ... as Hart suggests not:

The first, perhaps most crucial thing to understand about the earliest generations of Christians is that they were a company of extremists, radical in their rejection of the values and priorities of society not only at its most degenerate, but often at its most reasonable and decent. They were rabble. They lightly cast off all their prior loyalties and attachments: religion, empire, nation, tribe, even family. In fact, far from teaching “family values,” Christ was remarkably dismissive of the family. And decent civic order, like social respectability, was apparently of no importance to him. Not only did he not promise his followers worldly success (even success in making things better for others); he told them to hope for a Kingdom not of this world, and promised them that in this world they would win only rejection, persecution, tribulation, and failure. Yet he instructed them also to take no thought for the morrow.

This was the pattern of life the early Christians believed had been given them by Christ. As I say, I doubt we would think highly of their kind if we met them today. Fortunately for us, those who have tried to be like them have always been few. Clement of Alexandria may have been making an honest attempt to accommodate the gospel to the realities of a Christian empire, but it was those other Egyptians, the Desert Fathers, who took the Gospel at its word. But how many of us can live like that? Who can imitate that obstinacy and perversity? To live as the New Testament requires, we should have to become strangers and sojourners on the earth, to have here no enduring city, to belong to a Kingdom truly not of this world.

And we surely cannot do that, can we?

 

[Thomas]

But some of this is hyperbole right?

Well, there's a larger debate – hart thinks not.

There's a discussion between Simeon Zahl and Hart (links below)

Zahl says:
In “Christ’s Rabble,” Hart steadfastly refuses to let us defer the question, or to reinterpret it in a less radical light. To read the essay with care and with an even slightly open mind is to be confronted with an ethical possibility that is deeply uncomfortable for any twenty-first-century Christian who wishes to take his orientation from the New Testament and the witness of the early church.

And like Hart, I am not quite sure what to do with this. Is he right to frame the contemporary significance of this radical stream of early Christian ethics as a stark choice between a melancholy acceptance of modern Christian ethical mediocrity, on the one hand, and a Desert Fathers–style life of asceticism and prayer, on the other? Perhaps he is.

At the very least I am convinced that all Christians should be required to just sit a while with the prospect that the rich young ruler’s problem was not that he had the wrong attitude toward money, but the sheer fact that he had money at all. Hart has preached a sermon for our times—a mighty, disturbing sermon, and he has preached it well. (my emphasis)

Continuing the conversation – Simeon Zahl & David Bentley Hart

Zahl is not in complete agreement by any stretch. a lot of the conversation concerns the 'faith and works' debate, and justification, etc., but it's worth a skim.

 

[Thomas]

For many reasons, I have often found the bible to be cryptic and incoherent. I would have the sense that something more was being said than what I saw on the page, but I didn't know what. I didn't even begin to find out until my 30s, internet access and being around people with the same questions (I didn't know about progressive churches before that time)

I think it's meant to be that way.

Clearly, a 'surface' reading suffices, but if one wants to go deeper, then all the world's sacra doctrina goes as deep as you care to dive, always with the impression it gets even deeper still ... and the deeper you go, the stranger it gets ...

I think the point here is that over time we have woven a comfortable Christian ecology – Christ rails against wealth, but He was funded in His missions by others with wealth ...

Here is where Scripture becomes koan – or rather functions according to the principle a koan typifies – it makes you question your assumed values through and through.

This is where Hart's translation works best – it's not the only version, nor the best nor most accurate – that's not the point. It's certainly more accurate, and therefore better, in certain matters, but all in all, I'd say the value is it makes you sit back and think.

 

[Ahanu]

Gee, you are so down on Antiquity!

Yep.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

This was the pattern of life the early Christians believed had been given them by Christ. As I say, I doubt we would think highly of their kind if we met them today. Fortunately for us, those who have tried to be like them have always been few. Clement of Alexandria may have been making an honest attempt to accommodate the gospel to the realities of a Christian empire, but it was those other Egyptians, the Desert Fathers, who took the Gospel at its word. But how many of us can live like that? Who can imitate that obstinacy and perversity? To live as the New Testament requires, we should have to become strangers and sojourners on the earth, to have here no enduring city, to belong to a Kingdom truly not of this world.

And we surely cannot do that, can we?

Yes, we can, but most of us don't want to radically observe all that Jesus has preached to his disciples according to the accounts we have.
However, there are three things to mention:
- His teachings are given as an ideal and they can't be observed without failure, but they have to be seen comprising the option to fail and fail again, and retry and retry again.
- Much of his speech was directed to his disciples. Many of those who received him and his disciples may have been living in a more "economic" way. He defended her sister who listened to him, but for sure, he also benefitted from Martha, and appreciated her as well.
- Jesus did not preach asceticism and rejection of well-being as a goal, rather he took it as it came and it he could also enjoy pleasures that were beyond the minimum requirements for survival.

Islam meets Christianity in all the forms, from radical ascetism to the abuse of power.

I see myself in the position of Martha, just trying to do good to all around me as I can, but also as her sister, studying the Word.

We need all of those who try to live within God.

Paul found an excellent image for this, saying, "We are one body" (1Corinthians 12ff).

 

[TheLightWithin]

Clearly, a 'surface' reading suffices,

Does it though?
Or does it lead to distortion and inaccuracy?
Enable fanaticism, rigidity, disputes?

 

[Ahanu]

So it goes ... The instruments change, but the song remains the same.

Not necessarily. We have a knowledge economy now. The song is quite different.

 

[Thomas]

Does it though?

Sigh ... yes, I'd have to agree.

What I was trying to do, somewhat clumsily, was protect the idea of the 'simple faithful' getting spiritual comfort from the text – you don't have to be a theologian or have a profound understanding of Koine Greek.

 

[Thomas]

Not necessarily. We have a knowledge economy now. The song is quite different.

I'm not saying the world is without benefit or without improvement.

But 'the old ways' haven't gone. They've just got more sophisticated and discreet.

Back then worldly success was often synonymous with exploitation and evil. It made sense back then.

Well, often but not always. And the same applies today.

The rich were doing just that. Need more money? Go to war with the inhabitants of foreign lands, destroy their villages, and enslave their people to gather more material resources.

Yep. Now 'Big Corporates' disrupt smaller economies to swallow up resources and create dependencies.

 

[EddieC]

The Good News for Mankind is about the Sovereignty -- and not "Kingdom" -- within every one of us
i.e. Conceptual Sovereignty -- We are Conceptualizers
- Interpreters, Invalidators, Innovators and Creators of concepts
- that is the spirit inborn within everyone - our holy spirit.

The following words are key to unlocking the Good News. They have two meanings:
(1) Kingdom
AND
(2) Reign / Kinghood / Kingship = Sovereignty

- the Greek word 'βασιλεία' ( vasileía)
https://archive.md/RSmNj
see also Google Translate: https://archive.md/VKHhM/image

- the Hebrew word ‘מַלְכוּת’ ( mal-hoot-th)

https://archive.md/KIK3g

See also Google Translate for yourself

- the Coptic word 'ⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ' ( mntero)
https://archive.md/cQB5U
also written as 'ⲙⲛⲧⲣⲣⲟ': https://archive.md/iXPQC

Mankind are Conceptual Sovereigns

The Good News for Mankind is about:

writingsonthewall.substack.com

 

[Thomas]

The Good News for Mankind is about the Sovereignty -- and not "Kingdom" -- within every one of us

Does it, though?

The word 'sovereign' itself is French, from the Latin 'superanus', which itself does not appear in the Vulgate.

Rather, it's used to translate the Hebrew word אָדוֹן, 'āḏôn, in English as lord (197 times), master(s) (105), Lord (31), owner (1) and sir (1).

The term is used in some modern English translations (NET, NIV), but not otherwise, and it's always used to qualify the term 'lord', such as 'sovereign Lord' (cf Genesis 15:2, 15:8, Exodus 23:17, etc) – over 300 times, but it's commonly translated as "Lord God' – so even in modern translations, 'sovereign' refers to the dominion of God, nothing to do with man.

+++

The 'kingdom within' phrase occurs only once:
Luke 17:20-21 "And when he was asked by the Pharisees, “When is the Kingdom of God coming?” he answered them and said, “The Kingdom does not come as something one observes, 'nor will persons say, ‘Look: Here it is’ or ‘There it is’ for look: The Kingdom of God is within you.”

Some argue the better translation would be “among you” or “in your midst,” however the Greek entos properly means “within” or “inside of," not “among,” and Luke, in both his Gospel and the book of Acts, when meaning “among” or “amid,” always uses either the phrase en mesa or just en. He uses entos only here, with a distinct and special import.

The 'kingdom' in question, the only kingdom and the only one that matters as far as Jesus is concerned, is the Kingdom of God, a phrase said 75 times in the NT (KJV).

That kingdom will not appear until there is repentance, a change of heart: metanoia.
"The time is accomplished, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel.(Mark 1:15)

 

[EddieC]

Are you not exercising your own conceptual sovereignty - interpreting, (in)validating, innovating and creating concepts - right now - through this forum?

People have in fact become drunk -- self subjugated to, and self incapacitated - by wine - by concepts - man-made constructs.
When ever they separate self from their wine then they will μετανοέω -- restore their mind and purpose.
(Thomas #28)

 

[talib-al-kalim]

The Good News for Mankind is about the Sovereignty -- and not "Kingdom" -- within every one of us
i.e. Conceptual Sovereignty -- We are Conceptualizers
- Interpreters, Invalidators, Innovators and Creators of concepts
- that is the spirit inborn within everyone - our holy spirit.

The following words are key to unlocking the Good News. They have two meanings:
(1) Kingdom
AND
(2) Reign / Kinghood / Kingship = Sovereignty

- the Greek word 'βασιλεία' ( vasileía)
https://archive.md/RSmNj
see also Google Translate: https://archive.md/VKHhM/image

- the Hebrew word ‘מַלְכוּת’ ( mal-hoot-th)

https://archive.md/KIK3g

See also Google Translate for yourself

- the Coptic word 'ⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ' ( mntero)
https://archive.md/cQB5U
also written as 'ⲙⲛⲧⲣⲣⲟ': https://archive.md/iXPQC

Mankind are Conceptual Sovereigns

The Good News for Mankind is about:

writingsonthewall.substack.com

The word "Reign of God" may be closer to the meaning, because "kingdom" may be understood as the (limited) territory where the king rules, whereas the Reign of God is not limited in space.
But "kingdom" is a valid metaphor, and it suits well e.g. for John 8:33-36 (BLB)

33Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and he called Jesus and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?”

34Jesus answered, “Do you say this of yourself, or did others say it to you concerning Me?”

35Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your nation and the chief priests delivered You to me. What have You done?”

36Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world; if My kingdom were of this world, My attendants would fight that I might not be betrayed to the Jews. But now My kingdom is not from here.”

37Therefore Pilate said to Him, “Then You are a king?”

Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I may bear witness to the truth. Everyone being of the truth hears My voice.”