Hey, this was a great episode and finally something 'clicked' for me - the thought about our arrogance in assuming we 'know' all reasons behind what's being written in some passage.
THAT BEING SAID... haha: I think this maybe touches a bit on what Bill talked about. And it might be full of errors; I'm officially early on in my theological studies. My query is something like this: Chris, if I get you correctly, we need to let biblical texts work on us *in light of* Jesus' death and resurrection. The conundrum I'm facing is the early Christians (they terrify me in many ways). The early Christians, presumably, had the vision of the resurrected Christ very much at the forefront of their minds most of the time. They also seem to be saying something to the effect of "Christians, being saved, are now in a position where they can live sinless lives" (I think Fleming Rutledge commented on the Didache saying this). And they seem to be strict about it as well, to the point of excommunicating those who 'fall short'. There seems to me to be a tension here between how we portray Christian living ("forgiven sinners") and how the early Christians did it ("forgiven sinners who, if they're living the Christian life, should not be sinning any more"). As an aside, I honestly don't see how this doesn't reintroduce 'the law' in how they approach life, but that's a different story. For now, my point is that both we and the early Christians have the resurrected Christ in our minds as we interpret things. However, your way of interpreting leaves me consoled, whereas the early Christians very often leave me desolated.
I feel like I've written myself away from what I am trying to say, so let me try to summarize: Wouldn't the fact that the early Christians 'spawned' texts and thoughts that are in many ways so different from what we think today (and not in a way that can fully be explained by changing cultural factors etc) imply that seeing things "in the light of the resurrected Christ" meant something different for the early Christians than it does for us (which again would imply that we're probably off?)
Hey, this was a great episode and finally something 'clicked' for me - the thought about our arrogance in assuming we 'know' all reasons behind what's being written in some passage.
THAT BEING SAID... haha: I think this maybe touches a bit on what Bill talked about. And it might be full of errors; I'm officially early on in my theological studies. My query is something like this: Chris, if I get you correctly, we need to let biblical texts work on us *in light of* Jesus' death and resurrection. The conundrum I'm facing is the early Christians (they terrify me in many ways). The early Christians, presumably, had the vision of the resurrected Christ very much at the forefront of their minds most of the time. They also seem to be saying something to the effect of "Christians, being saved, are now in a position where they can live sinless lives" (I think Fleming Rutledge commented on the Didache saying this). And they seem to be strict about it as well, to the point of excommunicating those who 'fall short'. There seems to me to be a tension here between how we portray Christian living ("forgiven sinners") and how the early Christians did it ("forgiven sinners who, if they're living the Christian life, should not be sinning any more"). As an aside, I honestly don't see how this doesn't reintroduce 'the law' in how they approach life, but that's a different story. For now, my point is that both we and the early Christians have the resurrected Christ in our minds as we interpret things. However, your way of interpreting leaves me consoled, whereas the early Christians very often leave me desolated.
I feel like I've written myself away from what I am trying to say, so let me try to summarize: Wouldn't the fact that the early Christians 'spawned' texts and thoughts that are in many ways so different from what we think today (and not in a way that can fully be explained by changing cultural factors etc) imply that seeing things "in the light of the resurrected Christ" meant something different for the early Christians than it does for us (which again would imply that we're probably off?)
So good, and exactly what I needed to hear, now. Thank you.