Paul and the coming of Christ

[Vlad!]

Vlad!: Hey, could you start a thread, or maybe just discuss it here, about how Paul thought Jesus was coming soon. This is a new concept for me, and I am ignorant on the subject. I've never looked at Paul's letters like that. It intrigues me very much, and I'd love to hear what you think about it more in depth.

Ok, well, I don't have time to look up verses right now, but I will later, unless some valiant phorumer wants bonus points by finding the ones I refer to.

There are several points in the Pauline epistles where he asserts that Christ will be coming within his lifetime. There is one scripture where he admonishes his readers to "remain in the same state (married/single, slave/free) as they are now" because Christ will be here soon. Another passage that Skraps cited was his injunction to keep following traditions that (presumably) he set up in the Corinthian church. In his correspondence with Timothy he makes it pretty clear that he believes that even if he doesn't live to see the second coming, Tim will.

Obviously, Paul was mistaken in this. I use this as one of the foundational premises in my argument that the Bible authors sometimes present opinions of their own (such as this that we're discussing as an opinion of Paul) that can be right or wrong and are not necessarily straight from the mouth of God.

That's it in a nutshell. After class tomorrow I'll try to answer any questions and maybe provide some references for y'all.

[oneafroboy]

I eagerly await a more indepth response, Vlad!. Thanks, man.  

[Skrappybiskit]

I once read a really great book by RC Sproul, synthesizing this view with the fact that Christ has not yet returned. I can't remember how it went, or what the arguments were.

So yes, this a useless post

Skraps

[RokrantheGreat]

Please get some specific verses, Vlad!. This is very interesting...

[DvChWi]

The only scripture I could dig up in 2 minutes of searching about Paul talking about marriage was 1 Cor. 7:7, which clearly isn't the one you are talking about.  I know about the passages you are talking about, but I would have to have them here for me to really discuss the issue.  Let me just say that I disagree with you on this.  Details to follow.

[Vlad!]

1 Cor 7:17-29:
Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none...

1 Tim 4:1
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

2 Tim 3:1-5
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God-- having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

Ok, so there's some that I could find off the top of my head.

Note the interesting phrase in Corinthians: "I have no specific command from the Lord." Here Paul is talking in his authority as an apostle, but not speaking the words of the Lord. And we see here that he is wrong: if everyone had followed his advice, we wouldn't be here.

I'm afraid I have to run off again--class coming up--but I'll be back this evening to impart my wisdom

[DvChWi]

Seems to me "the present crisis" is referring to persecution, not to the end times.  And yes, that does seem to be Paul's personal reccomendacion.  The other two passages don't seem to assert anything about the end times happening soon.

[Vlad!]

Seems to me "the present crisis" is referring to persecution, not to the end times.

Ok, read the last sentence in the I Cor 7 passage. That should help explain what Paul's motivation is for his instructions. And I think you're right about his use of the 'present crisis', but I think he sees the resolution of this crisis as Christ's return.

And yes, that does seem to be Paul's personal reccomendacion.

This is my whole point: sometimes the human authors of the scriptures will offer their own recommendations and opinions apart from what God may be saying through them.

The other two passages don't seem to assert anything about the end times happening soon.

You have to keep the audience in mind. Why would Paul say this to Timothy? Only because he believes Timothy will have to deal with the end times, and (especially in 2 Tim) he realizes that he himself won't be around to help Timmo through it.  

[oneafroboy]

Hmm...

I definitely see where you could get that from the reference in 1 Corinthians. The other two are not see clear about what Paul is referring to, although I could also see how you could logically deduce that Paul meant the end times. I'm still not sure yet. Maybe Paul thought it, maybe he didn't. I have to think about it more and study some. But thanks for the help. You really have me intrigued.

And I certainly agree that sometimes Paul does state his own opinion not a command from the Lord. Like the thing about women speaking/being pastors in church....(yes, I purposely meant to open that can of worms!)  

[Vlad!]

That can of worms has already been opened and devoured. In fact, that's where I first presented this concept, though I doubt you were around then.

And I encourage you to read the whole chapter around the verses I quote. And Paul has other verses where he mentions stuff like "we can see the Day approaching" and "His return is close." I don't want to subvert the Bible certainly, but this is something I've found.

[Skrappybiskit]

Ok, read the last sentence in the I Cor 7 passage. That should help explain what Paul's motivation is for his instructions. And I think you're right about his use of the 'present crisis', but I think he sees the resolution of this crisis as Christ's return.

Something you may want to take into consideration in the interpretation of these mentioned verses is that Paul gives advice to the opposite in at least 2 other places that I can think of in the NT. In fact, the verses where P says that he would like "everyone to be like I am" can be taken to apply, not to singleness, but to zeal for Christ.

In view of scripture interpreting scripture, I'd have to say that Paul is addressing a church- and maybe even culture-specific problem in the verses, one that doesn't necessarily affect us today in the same way as the heavily-persecuted church of the Apostles era.

On an interesting note, however, "because the time is short" is interepreted by Mr Calvin to refer to the shortness of human life, not in any way to the coming of Christ.

Skraps

[latinchic]

The thread title cracks me up.

latinchic  

[Vlad!]

I'm glad you like the title ^_^

Skraps:
Calvin's interpretation (like many of his...) is a feeble attempt at explaining away something that should be taken at face value. Why would Paul immediately follow his warning that 'time is short' with the phrase 'from now on' if he meant human life? That doesn't make any sense.

What do you mean Paul "gives advice in the opposite?" Opposite to what? And doesn't the fact that Paul contradicts himself prove my point rather than detract from it?

[Skrappybiskit]

What do you mean Paul "gives advice in the opposite?" Opposite to what? And doesn't the fact that Paul contradicts himself prove my point rather than detract from it?

This is exactly my point. If you look at every time Paul gives church-specific advice, and the advice is different for each church, and if you take these as conflicting commands given in a non-context-sensitive conscience binding manner for all churches in all time you destroy the inerrancy of scripture and undermin your entire faith in the process.

Skraps

[enemy anemone]

The thread title cracks me up.

me too. plus this line:

That can of worms has already been opened and devoured.

I'm reading this thread with interest but at this point I don't have anything to add except the above.

[Vlad!]

This is exactly my point. If you look at every time Paul gives church-specific advice, and the advice is different for each church, and if you take these as conflicting commands given in a non-context-sensitive conscience binding manner for all churches in all time you destroy the inerrancy of scripture and undermin your entire faith in the process.

Skraps

Ah, ok, I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page, so I don't end up arguing with someone who agrees with me

I don't think it undermines your entire faith to say that sometimes Paul gives audience-specific or time-period-specific advice that doesn't come directly from God.  

[Skrappybiskit]

Given the theory that Paul is making non-inspired parenthetical comments aimed at specific situations, how do you determine which part of scripture is inspired and which is not? It seems to me that the idea that the Bible has certain parts in it that are non-inspired leaves a door open for people to excise portions as they wish, much like theistic evolutionist do with the creation account.

Skraps

[smartash]

i LIKE how paul turned out wrong in this case, proving he's just as human as the rest of us. if you think about it, amost every generation has thought "oh! the end is coming! oooh!! look at the signs!"
i had a pastor who is soooo sure it's coming soon, because of the euro being established in europe (the "single form of currency") and now isreal has been restablished, etc.
i guess for some it helps them to live their lives more successfully for Christ if they think He's coming back soon, i guess it's great motivation.
for me it tends to just be distracting-- a focus on the goal rather than the journey, rather than our purpose for being here on earth NOW. yes, the ultimate goal is to be with Him in eternity, but were also HERE for a reason. although, at the end of things, i wonder how disapointed paul really was when it didnt happen. i'm sure he looked back on his life with God and saw how much of an impact his life had and still does!

[Vlad!]

Given the theory that Paul is making non-inspired parenthetical comments aimed at specific situations, how do you determine which part of scripture is inspired and which is not? It seems to me that the idea that the Bible has certain parts in it that are non-inspired leaves a door open for people to excise portions as they wish, much like theistic evolutionist do with the creation account.

Skraps

First off, you assume that whenever Paul says that something is from God, it is. I also assume that many of the things Paul says about Grace, Faith, and God are true, though I suppose those could be called into question.
Second, you assume that everything said by Christ is true, and everything that describes what He does is more or less accurate.
Third, you assume that everything stated to be direct revelation (such as teh book of Revelation) is true.

Then you take these premises and compare everything else to them. If what is said seems to be consistent with what you have observed and what we know to be true given the above statements, we accept it as truth.

And there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can accept some things in the Bible on faith. But just sweeping this issue under the rug because "it starts us down a slippery slope" is the same sort of anti-intellectual fallacy that the Catholic church (and, to be fair, the Protestant church to a slightly lesser extent) has been committing for ages.

[linds]

Given the theory that Paul is making non-inspired parenthetical comments aimed at specific situations, how do you determine which part of scripture is inspired and which is not? It seems to me that the idea that the Bible has certain parts in it that are non-inspired leaves a door open for people to excise portions as they wish, much like theistic evolutionist do with the creation account.

Skraps

i'm with skraps.

i don't believe that saying that the bible is completely true is committing a 'slippery slope fallacy.'  out entire faith depends upon the fact that the bible is completely true.  
what if, as you say, parts of the bible are true, and other parts aren't.  how do we know which is which?  how do you know that Christ really resurrected? following vlad's logic, we don't really know.  it could just be the opinion of matthew, mark, luke and john that he resurrected.  
i think this is a dangerous game to play.  

however, i think it is important for us to remember that the bible is written in many different styles.  in some passages, it uses metaphorical language, and in other passages, it is literal.  for example, revelation can be taken figuratively or literally.  (pre-millenialists and post-millenialists will generally take the literal view while a-millenialists will take the figurative view.)
in addition, some parts of the bible are clearly written about a particular cultural situation; for instance, paul writing about women who braid their hair.  does it mean that because i braid my hair i am immodest?  no.  that was cultural.  does it mean that the verse is completely irrelevant, then?  no.  that verse (i don't have my bible now, but i think you all know what i'm talking about) makes a true statement concerning modesty.  we need to take that truth and apply it to our own culture.

in short, i believe that the bible is the inspired word of God. amen.

[Skrappybiskit]

First off, you assume that whenever Paul says that something is from God, it is. I also assume that many of the things Paul says about Grace, Faith, and God are true, though I suppose those could be called into question.
Second, you assume that everything said by Christ is true, and everything that describes what He does is more or less accurate.
Third, you assume that everything stated to be direct revelation (such as teh book of Revelation) is true.

These are a lot of assumptions. Where do these come from, if I may ask? Certainly not Biblical criterion. And in doing so you've committed exactly the error of all the so-called "higher" critics of the bible: submitting the infallable standard of the scriptures to a test of your own fallable mind.

Skraps

ps: I dislike calling what I said "slippery slope logic". I'm pointing out that the solution to the "problem" that you find in these scriptures merely creates more problems of interpretation than it solves.

[Skrappybiskit]

I thought I might quote the oft-used 2 Timothy 3:16 passage:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And what Calvin had to say about that. Sorry if anyone feels I'm quoting Calvin ad nauseum...

16. All Scripture; or, the whole of Scripture; though it makes little difference as to the meaning. He follows out that commendation which he had glanced at briefly.

First, he commends the Scripture on account of its authority; and secondly, on account of the utility which springs from it. In order to uphold the authority of the Scripture, he declares that it is divinely inspired; for, if it be so, it is beyond all controversy that men ought to receive it with reverence.

This is a principle which distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God hath spoken to us, and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare.

Whoever then wishes to profit in the Scriptures, let him first of all, lay down this as a settled point, that the Law and the Prophets are not a doctrine delivered according to the will and pleasure of men, but dictated by the Holy Spirit.
___
and it goes on, but I left it there.

Skraps

[Vlad!]

RE: My 'slippery slope' comment: I wasn't saying that believing "that the bible is completely true is committing a 'slippery slope fallacy'," as you seem to think, linds. What I'm saying is that rejecting my argument on the grounds of "it opens the door to questioning the entire Bible" is a fallacy, because the validity of my argument is in no way related to the effect of my argement on scriptural interpretation. It may be TRUE that I start us down a slippery slope, but that doesn't mean that we should refuse to acknowledge it as a valid point. I'd rather believe truth that you consider to be dangerous than deny that truth and live in comfortable self-delusion.

These are a lot of assumptions. Where do these come from, if I may ask? Certainly not Biblical criterion. And in doing so you've committed exactly the error of all the so-called "higher" critics of the bible: submitting the infallable standard of the scriptures to a test of your own fallable mind.

Oh, ok, so I'm supposed to take the authority of the scriptures without question because when I think I spot a contradiction I really just don't understand because my human mind is too limited? Any faith that can't stand up to questioning is no faith of mine.

However, I do acknowledge that you have a point. Because let's think about it: here we have evidence (assuming I'm right; more on this in a minute) that Paul was wrong about something. Who wrote 2 Timothy? Paul. So we can call 2 Tim 3:16 into question. Before you know it, you are left with a book that's no more inerrant than the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Bhagavad Gita. So what is a Christian to do with this?

Obviously, you attack the root of the issue: you point out that either Paul wasn't mistaken or that Paul was mistaken but somehow this was a special circumstance or it should be taken figuratively (like linds mentions). So rather than addressing how we know which parts of the Bible are true and which aren't, we can start from the position that the New Testament IS true and then move from there to try and explain things such as this apparent Paul contradiction. We maintain an open mind, but we try to look for the truth as it applies to our current problem.

So. Any thoughts?

[Skrappybiskit]

Oh, ok, so I'm supposed to take the authority of the scriptures without question because when I think I spot a contradiction I really just don't understand because my human mind is too limited? Any faith that can't stand up to questioning is no faith of mine.

However, I do acknowledge that you have a point. Because let's think about it: here we have evidence (assuming I'm right; more on this in a minute) that Paul was wrong about something. Who wrote 2 Timothy? Paul. So we can call 2 Tim 3:16 into question. Before you know it, you are left with a book that's no more inerrant than the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Bhagavad Gita. So what is a Christian to do with this?

Obviously, you attack the root of the issue: you point out that either Paul wasn't mistaken or that Paul was mistaken but somehow this was a special circumstance or it should be taken figuratively (like linds mentions). So rather than addressing how we know which parts of the Bible are true and which aren't, we can start from the position that the New Testament IS true and then move from there to try and explain things such as this apparent Paul contradiction. We maintain an open mind, but we try to look for the truth as it applies to our current problem.

So. Any thoughts?

You're supposed to take the authority of scripture, search the scriptures to make sure that it says that, and find a better solution than the one you're offering. I'd have to look at what some of the great theologians said, because I'm not sure that you're raising, or I'm attempting to solve, any problem that hasn't been raised or solved a hundred times over the course of Christian history.

On the other hand, I agree with you that we should try to explain the apparent (nice choice of words) Pauline contradiction. But that contradiction should be solved in a way that both satisfies the intellect and also satisfies the holiness of Scripture.

I'm just not sure how to do that

Skraps