Gegraptai

Ask a typical evangelical Christian what will happen to his soul when he dies, and he will likely respond, “Well, it will go straight to heaven, of course.” Having been surrounded by evangelical Protestantism my whole life (I grew up in evangelical churches, attended preschool and elementary school at an evangelical Christian academy, graduated from an evangelical Christian university, and am now studying at an evangelical theological institution) this is what I grew up hearing and believing. As such, the Roman Catholic notion of purgatory, the Eastern Orthodox idea that the soul awaits final judgment in the ‘abode of the dead,’ and suchlike, were off-limits because they were too “Catholic”—and, quite candidly, they seemed rather fantastical to me anyway.

Now, however, try as I might, I simply cannot reconcile the traditional evangelical Protestant understanding of the course of the afterlife with both Scripture and reason. As a result, I’ve found the notion of purgatory—or perhaps the Eastern Orthodox and similar Calvinist conceptions of the soul consciously awaiting final judgment, or perhaps better yet some blend of the two—to better suit both my own reasoning (inasmuch as I have reasoned it out) and what little can be gleaned from Scripture about the matter. My rationale follows in list form.

1. Scripture has precious little to say about the matter, at least in explicit terms. What can be gleaned comes only through implicit references, many of which, at times, seem inconsistent. Evangelicals sometimes argue that in fact there are explicit passages supporting the oft-quoted mantra “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” Indeed, there are at most a handful of passages that, at first glance, may seem to support the traditional Protestant view in a fairly straightforward way (cf. e.g. Deut 18:10-12; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil 1:21-23; 1 Pet 3:18). When read carefully and honestly, however, it is quite obvious that these passages no more explicitly support the notion of immediate entrance into heaven at death than the notion of something like purgatory. Some of them, in fact, are about something else altogether.

To be fair, the passages cited by Roman Catholics in support of purgatory are foggy as well (cf. e.g. Matt 18:23-25; 1 Cor 3:11-15; 1 Pet 3:19; 2 Tim 1:16-18; Rev 21:27), though it hardly needs mention.

It seems clear to me, then, that the precise course of the afterlife cannot be definitively determined sola scriptura. But Scripture does not rule out either of these views—no, not even something like purgatory!

2. God cannot tolerate the presence of sin. This is a rudimentary theme that dominates Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. If God cannot tolerate the presence of sin, then one cannot enter God’s full presence if one is not entirely pure in heart, that is to say in Wesleyan terms, entirely sanctified (cf. Rev 21:27).

So, what of those who aren’t yet entirely sanctified when they die? Their debt has been paid and they will surely enter heaven, but they cannot enter still marred to any degree by sin. The encounter with God requires holiness. Protestant theology, insofar as I perceive it, has failed to satisfactorily answer the question it was left with when it rejected the doctrine of purgatory five hundred years ago.

3. The final judgment has not yet occurred. Obviously. In general, Christians agree that when one dies, one experiences particular judgment, that is, the immediate judgment of one’s eternal destiny. And then what until the final judgment? Here is where the road splits in many directions. Without taking the time to expound all of the nuances and distinctions of Christian theology on this matter, all of which I am not familiar with anyway, I will simply say that the Eastern Orthodox explication of the state of the soul between particular judgment and final judgment is the most satisfactory to my own reasoning.

The Eastern Orthodox understanding is that after death, the soul awaits the final judgment in the ‘abode of the dead.’ Depending on whether one is judged righteous or unrighteous at particular judgment, one’s experience while awaiting final judgment will be that of paradise or suffering—a foretaste of one’s ultimate destiny after the final judgment, but not yet the full experience of heaven or hell. Calvin held a very similar understanding. Insofar as I perceive it, this explanation deals most directly and logically with the position of the soul between the particular and final judgments and the bodily resurrection, though it is not without difficulties, of course.

4. It’s tradition. Like it or not, Protestants, tradition is highly important to Christian theology—and I’m not talking about red carpet and hymn books. When Scripture is vague on certain questions of theology, we must look to the next most authoritative thing, which is Christian tradition. Much of what Christians understand about God, salvation, etc. that cannot be found explicitly within the pages of Scripture has been handed down to us from the very earliest Christians, who were instructed by the apostles, who were students of Jesus. Although in many cases it took several hundred years before certain doctrines became fully developed, most can ultimately be traced back to, or at least very near to, apostolic teaching. Christian tradition, then, must be authoritative (though, of course, it isn’t infallible).

Though the dogmatic definition of purgatory and the name “purgatory” were not developed until the thirteenth century, the notion was dominant from Christianity’s inception. The notion of purgatory may be found in rather precise terms in the writings of many of the Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus (c. 130-202), Clement (c. 150-215), Origen (c. 185-254), Chrysostom (c. 347-407), and Augustine (354-430). Even Paul offered a prayer for his departed friend Onesiphorus (2 Tim 1:16-18), from which we may infer that Paul must have understood the soul of Onesiphorus to be in something like purgatory.

My hunch is that, when the reformer Martin Luther rejected the doctrine of purgatory in the sixteenth century, his contention was primarily with the practice of indulgences, and that contention resulted ultimately in his rejection of purgatory. I could be wrong, of course. But it is certain that, when Luther rejected the notion of purgatory, he discounted and discarded 1500 years of Christian tradition. Perhaps he was right—but 1500 years of Christian tradition handed down from the earliest Church Fathers, and perhaps even the apostles and Jesus, is a thing to be carefully and prayerfully reckoned with.

Conclusion

Plenty more could be said, naturally. After thinking on this for several months, however, I am inclined to believe that purgatory, or something like it, indeed does exist, and necessarily must. Perhaps it is the case that at death, souls experience particular judgment and then await the final judgment and the bodily resurrection in the abode of the dead, either in paradise or anguish, at which time those souls who are not yet entirely sanctified may become prepared to enjoy God’s full presence in heaven. Perhaps I’m wrong.

What do you think?

Here is today’s reading and translation, from Hebrews 4:14-16:

 Ἔχοντες οὖν ἀρχιερέα μέγαν διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανούς, Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, κρατῶμεν τῆς ὁμολογίας: οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα μὴ δυνάμενον συμπαθῆσαι ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν, πεπειρασμένον δὲ κατὰ πάντα καθ’ ὁμοιότητα χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. προσερχώμεθα οὖν μετὰ παρρησίας τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς χάριτος, ἵνα λάβωμεν ἔλεος καὶ χάριν εὕρωμεν εἰς εὔκαιρον βοήθειαν.

Therefore, because we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession; for we do not have a high priest  who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tested in all things, in the same way (as we are), yet without any sin. Therefore, let us approach the throne with confidence, in order that we may receive mercy and find grace for timely help.

I just came across this, and I thought it was both hilarious and frank, so I thought I’d pass it on.

From John 1:29-34:

Τῇ ἐπαύριον βλέπει τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ λέγει, Ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου. οὗτός ἐστιν ὑπὲρ οὗ ἐγὼ εἶπον, Ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν. κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ’ ἵνα φανερωθῇ τῷ Ἰσραὴλ διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν ὕδατι βαπτίζων. Καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν Ἰωάννης λέγων ὅτι Τεθέαμαι τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον ὡς περιστερὰν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπ’ αὐτόν: κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ’ ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν, Ἐφ’ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ’ αὐτόν, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. κἀγὼ ἑώρακα, καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ.

The next day, he saw John coming towards him, and he said, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. This man is the one on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me, a man is coming who ranks higher than I, because he existed before me.’ I did not recognize him, but in order that by this he might be revealed to Israel, I came baptizing in water.” And John testified, saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and he remained upon him; and I did not recognize him, but he who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘Upon whomever you see the Spirit descend and remain upon him, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and have testified that this man is the Son of God.

At this point, I’m not necessarily apt to support Huckabee, but if you’re curious about his plans to enhance border security, you absolutely should watch the following video.

Thanks to Cody for posting a link to this hilarious video on his blog, where I found it.

Amazing! Huckabee may be growing on me now!

I haven’t posted in a while, nor have I been faithful to my commitment to daily NT Greek readings during the past week or so. Woops. I have been a bit busy lately with class and a wedding (not mine!).

Anyway, here is today’s reading from Hebrews 2:11-13:

ὁ τε γὰρ ἁγιάζων καὶ οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντες: δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεται ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοὺς καλεῖν, λέγων, Ἀπαγγελῶ τὸ ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, ἐν μέσῳ ἐκκλησίας ὑμνήσω σε: καὶ πάλιν, Ἐγὼ ἔσομαι πεποιθὼς ἐπ’ αὐτῷ: καὶ πάλιν, Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ παιδία ἅ μοι ἔδωκεν ὁ θεός.

For both the One who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one; because of this, he is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, saying, “I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters; I will sing your praise in the midst of the congregation.” And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again, “Behold, I and the children whom God has given to me.”

Here are few amusing things I’ve come across today that I thought I ought to pass on:

1. Evidently Jesus has authored a few books, which you can buy on Amazon.com if you wish. He has even co-authored some books with Lotus Ray King, Terry Eagleton, and others. Imagine! I pass this valuable information on from the blog of Chris Tilling, whose hilarious post you can read here.
2. The Lord has apparently spoken to his doomsayer Pat Robertson again. He predicts that in 2008, oil will reach $150 a barrel and the stock market will crash. As a result of the economic collapse, many people will turn to the Lord. Read about it here.
3. Evidently Jack is more Wesleyan than we thought! Don’t worry, though; he’s still mostly Calvinist.

Today’s reading is from Rev 21:22-27:

Καὶ ναὸν οὐκ εἶδον ἐν αὐτῇ, ὁ γὰρ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ναὸς αὐτῆς ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ ἀρνίον. καὶ ἡ πόλις οὐ χρείαν ἔχει τοῦ ἡλίου οὐδὲ τῆς σελήνης, ἵνα φαίνωσιν αὐτῇ, ἡ γὰρ δόξα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐφώτισεν αὐτήν, καὶ ὁ λύχνος αὐτῆς τὸ ἀρνίον. καὶ περιπατήσουσιν τὰ ἔθνη διὰ τοῦ φωτὸς αὐτῆς: καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς φέρουσιν τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν εἰς αὐτήν: καὶ οἱ πυλῶνες αὐτῆς οὐ μὴ κλεισθῶσιν ἡμέρας, νὺξ γὰρ οὐκ ἔσται ἐκεῖ: καὶ οἴσουσιν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰς αὐτήν. καὶ οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς αὐτὴν πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ [ὁ] ποιῶν βδέλυγμα καὶ ψεῦδος, εἰ μὴ οἱ γεγραμμένοι ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου.

And I saw no temple in it, for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gave it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. And the nations walk by its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory into it. And its gates shall not ever be shut* by day, for there will be no night there. And they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. And nothing unclean, and no one who practices what is detestable and false, shall ever enter into* it, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

* Both of these expressions are emphatically negative. This is indicated in Greek by doubly negating the aorist subjunctive verb with οὐ μὴ, as we find here. This is the strongest way to negate something in Greek; indeed, it rules out the idea from even being a possibility. So, to paraphrase John’s words here, “Not only will its gates never be shut—it is not even a remote possibility!” And, “Not only will nothing unclean or anyone who does detestable and false things not enter into it—it is not even remotely possible for them to enter!”  Some serious words which, for me, prompt hope, thanksgiving, praise, prayer, and a healthy dose of uneasiness!

Over at Parchment and Pen, Michael Patton responds to his colleague’s post entitled “Top Ten Reasons Why I am a Feminist” with his “Top Ten Reasons I am a Chauvinist.” I thought they were pretty funny, so I’ve repeated them here:

10. I like to smoke cigars.

9. I am a completmentarian and by default that what we are supposed to be.

8. The woman made me do it.

7. If Jesus and Paul were here today, they would be smoking a cigar with me.

6. God’s name is masculine.

5. I don’t like pink.

4. If it weren’t for women, lust would not be an issue (for most )

3. Jack Bauer.

2. The thought of Hilary as president.

1. My wife thinks its a turn on (yeah right!)

I seem to enjoy working through semantic difficulties. No doubt the enigmatic phrase ek pisteōs eis pistin in Romans 1:17 (usually rendered “from faith to faith” in English Bibles) has proved to be one. It is rather unfortunate in my humble opinion that this phrase is often brushed off as meaningless or as nothing more than a rhetorical adornment, since it is by this faith that Paul tells us “the righteousness of God is revealed” (v. 17). As such, it is my conviction that Paul does indeed have something to say to his readers about holiness and Christian living in this short, yet certainly not meaningless, four-word phrase.

Several parallels for this expression can be cited. For example, Ps 84:7 promises that the one whose strength is in God will go on “from strength to strength” (ek dunameōs eis dunamin), and the wicked in Jeremiah 9:3 progress “from evil to evil” (ek kakōn eis kaka). Paul uses this formula again in 2 Cor 2:16, “from death to death … from life to life.” Though only a few parallels can be cited, what is clear from these examples is that this formula does not seem to indicate the kind (e.g. “from one strength to another”) but the degree (e.g. “from strength to greater strength”) of the substantive. As such, implicit in this expression is a sense of progression.

C. K. Barrett is on the right track, I think, in acknowledging that these parallels suggest the meaning “from one level of faith to a higher;” however, wrongly abandoning this textual evidence, he concludes that such a meaning “does not … suit the present context,” and is rather a simple emphatic rhetorical device. This it most certainly is; but its essence is much richer than simply rhetorical emphasis, I think.

A myriad of other proposals have been made regarding the meaning of this phrase, such as “from the faith [of the preacher] to the faith [of the hearer],” and “from faith [as a starting point] to faith [as a permanent condition].” A few (such as my good professor Dr. Witherington, with whom I must respectfully disagree on this point) have proposed the meaning “from [God’s (or Christ's)] faith to [humanity’s] faith.” (Dr. Witherington, in his commentary on Romans, translates this phrase “from the faithful one unto those who have faith.”) However, such interpretations seem to completely disregard what is known about the employment of this formula outside of the present text. I tend to agree with Colin Brown and the NIDNTT editorial committee that

… it seems more natural to construe ek as indicating not the source or starting-point (“from faith”) but the basis or means (“by faith”; as in Hab. 2:4), with the eis pistin either intensifying the effect of ek pisteōs … or denoting the goal of God’s impartation to men of a righteous status (“leading to faith”).

Furthermore, the use of the preposition eis indicates some sort of progression or goal. Moule, in his Idiom Book, affirms the translation of eis pistin here as “leading to faith,” a very appropriate rendering of the phrase. I would suggest, then, that this phrase is best translated “by faith leading to faith,” that is, a greater degree of faith.

What, then, does this mean for the Christians in Rome to whom Paul wrote, and for all Christians today? First, it means that “the righteousness of God” (dikaiosune theou—a discussion for perhaps another day!) is revealed by means of, or on the basis of, faith (or better yet, “trusting in” him, since pisteuō also has this meaning). That is, God makes his righteousness known to those who put their trust in him. Second, it means that God’s revelation of his righteousness to those who trust in him necessarily leads to a greater degree of trust in him. Remember, though, that nowhere are we told that such trust is imparted to us. It does not come automatically. Indeed, it may come with great struggle. But it is in such times that, when we put our trust in him, his righteousness is revealed, and we learn to trust him all the more.

Then again, maybe this interpretation just results from the Wesleyan in me!