Hello and welcome to TheologyWeb – theology debate with a serious dose of fun! It has been our goal to create one of the best and most innovative discussion sites on the Net. Please visit our forums where we debate and discuss everything from religion, politics, lifestyle, pop culture, to who is the coolest member of the moderating team. Register now and join in the fun, its free, easy, and makes Dee Dee Warren happy.
*This site is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox with a minimum display resolution of 1024x768.
Deconstructing George Murphy's use of "verba" and "epiclesis"
Last edited by BibleWheel : October 28th 2004 at 08:41 PM
.
George Murphy's attack against my condemnation of Apostasy in the Episcopal Church began with the following post:
Originally posted by George Murphy
I feel bound to point out that you've missed the real problem with this service. It is not a Eucharist in any sense in which the church has ever used the term liturgically, having neither verba, epiclesis, nor even mention of Christ. It does not follow the directives of the Prayer Book for the celebration of the Eucharist. The statements about worship of the Queen of Heaven mean that the OT was wrong in distinguishing between Yahweh and the deities of the nations. And there are other problems.
<snip of an irrelevant menstrual argument>
Please do not leap on your chargers and attack me as a defender of this ersatz liturgy. I'm not. But let's focus on the real issues.
I found, and still find, his actual position difficult to discern. It will help if we represent it in numbered form:
1) I feel bound to point out that you've missed the real problem with this service.
2) It is not a Eucharist in any sense in which the church has ever used the term liturgically, having neither verba, epiclesis, nor even mention of Christ. It does not follow the directives of the Prayer Book for the celebration of the Eucharist.
3) The statements about worship of the Queen of Heaven mean that the OT was wrong in distinguishing between Yahweh and the deities of the nations. And there are other problems.
His post is confusing for a number of reasons. It is a real hermeneutical challenge. Point 1 states that I missed the "real problem," and Point 3 presents one such problem, namely, denial of the Word of God, and notes there are "other problems." There is no challenge here, his intent seems perfectly clear.
But what are we to make of Point 2? What is it doing there? It follows immediately after Point 1 and so it seems natural to think that he meant it as an explanation of some aspect of the "real problem" I had missed. But if that is the case, are we to understand that one of the real problems with the Apostate Eucharist was that it failed to have "verba, epiclesis," and any "mention of Christ," and that it was not done in accordance with "the directives of the Prayer Book?" This interpretation is obviously absurd! No one in their right mind would say the abomination would be lessened by making it conform more closely to ecclesiastic rules. Such would, in fact, make the crime worse.
So what is Point 2 doing there, and why did George stuff it like a thanksgiving turkey with irrelevent denominational distinctives couched in technical theological jargon? I'd like to know how many TWebbers checked to be sure that there was proper verba and epiclesis last time they went to the Lord's Table! And how deeply did Peter, Paul, and John feel about these issues? How many verses of Scripture direct our minds to these questions? Is this the "theological cogency" George speaks so frequently of? Yikes!
I'll let the puzzle rest here. I already have given it too much time. The solution is posted for those who want to find it. But I felt that it was really important that other Christian TWebbers know what they can expect to encounter if they proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ with too much passion or clarity. Don't get fooled or distracted with Stuffed Turkeys! As is obvious in this case, the verba and epiclesis had absolutely nothing to do with the "real problem" of the Apostate Eucharist, even within George's own line of reasoning.
Christians need to sanctify their heart, soul, mind and mouth to the Lord Jesus Christ and not waste time with any pseudo-intellectual challenges presented against the plain proclamation of the Gospel.
Last edited by George Murphy : October 28th 2004 at 09:30 PM
.
Reason: addition, correction
Originally posted by BibleWheel
George Murphy's attack against my condemnation of Apostasy in the Episcopal Church began with the following post:
I found, and still find, his actual position difficult to discern. It will help if we represent it in numbered form:
1) I feel bound to point out that you've missed the real problem with this service.
2) It is not a Eucharist in any sense in which the church has ever used the term liturgically, having neither verba, epiclesis, nor even mention of Christ. It does not follow the directives of the Prayer Book for the celebration of the Eucharist.
3) The statements about worship of the Queen of Heaven mean that the OT was wrong in distinguishing between Yahweh and the deities of the nations. And there are other problems.
His post is confusing for a number of reasons. It is a real hermeneutical challenge. Point 1 states that I missed the "real problem," and Point 3 presents one such problem, namely, denial of the Word of God, and notes there are "other problems." There is no challenge here, his intent seems perfectly clear.
But what are we to make of Point 2? What is it doing there? It follows immediately after Point 1 and so it seems natural to think that he meant it as an explanation of some aspect of the "real problem" I had missed. But if that is the case, are we to understand that one of the real problems with the Apostate Eucharist was that it failed to have "verba, epiclesis," and any "mention of Christ," and that it was not done in accordance with "the directives of the Prayer Book?" This interpretation is obviously absurd! No one in their right mind would say the abomination would be lessened by making it conform more closely to ecclesiastic rules. Such would, in fact, make the crime worse.
So what is Point 2 doing there, and why did George stuff it like a thanksgiving turkey with irrelevent demoniational distinctives couched in technical theological jargon? I'd like to know how many TWebbers checked to be sure that there was proper verba and epiclesis last time they went to the Lord's Table! And how deeply did Peter, Paul, and John feel about these issues? How many verses of Scripture direct our minds to these questions? Is this the "theological cogency" George speaks so frequently of? Yikes!
I'll let the puzzle rest here. I already have given it too much time. The solution is posted for those who want to find it. But I felt that it was really important that other Christian TWebbers know what they can expect to encounter if they proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ with too much passion or clarity. Don't get fooled or distracted with Stuffed Turkeys! As is obvious in this case, the verba and epiclesis had absolutely nothing to do with the "real problem" of the Apostate Eucharist, even within George's own line of reasoning.
Christians need to sanctify their heart, soul, mind and mouth to the Lord Jesus Christ and not waste time with any pseudo-intellectual challenges presented against the plain proclamation of the Gospel.
In service of the Master Teacher,
Richard Amiel McGough
I got into this forum this evening hoping to put fruitless argument with Richard behind me, having decided to let him the last word on another thread, and found that he wasn't content with that. I don't know if I can get through to him but perhaps need to clarify things for others. I do hope though that Richard will attempt to understand what I'm saying even if he doesn't agree with it.
Then to the post above. 1st, I did not intend to "attack against [his] condemnation of Apostasy" totally, but to say that I thought he was focussing too much on the wrong aspect of the ritual. But let me proceed in detail.
I admit that my language may have given the impression that I was just concerned about liturgical niceties, but that wasn't it. A Eucharistic Prayer is supposed to be a thanksgiving for for all that God has done, centering on the person and work of Christ, especially his passion death and resurrection, and remembering his words at the Last Supper. It is the complete omission of everything that I underlined here that invalidates any ritual as a Christian Eucharist - quite apart from other criticisms that can be made of it. (I also mentioned the lack of an epiclesis, primarily because I knew that that would be a special concern of Orthodox Christians.) The issue is not whether the precise wording is right but whether the significance of the Bread and Cup is clearly brought out. And of course in the ritual in question it isn't.
Richard has said that the Eucharist is the central act of Christian worship, and therefore a deliberate substitution of something that can't be a Eucharist is a very serious problem. It seemed to me that Richard had already used sufficiently heated language and that I didn't need to use terms like "mockery," though they would have been appropriate.
I also pointed out the problem with the language about the "Queen of Heaven" whom "our fathers and brothers wouldn't let us worship." (I may not be not quoting exactly.) As I said, that meant that the OT distinction between YHWH and the gods of the nations was wrong. I perhaps should have explained in more detail what that meant: Throw out the First Commandment. I guess I thought that others could draw that inference. In any case my comments here, though perhaps too calm, were certainly critical of the ritual in question.
Then to the supposedly "irrelevant" statements about menstrual blood. It is strange for Richard to say that they were "irrelevant" because he's the person who devoted a good deal of criticism to the ritual's use of the symbolism of menstrual blood. My point here - and my only initial criticism of Richard - was that by doing that he seemed to be focussing on the wrong thing. The fact that menstrual blood was ritually unclean in the OT does not mean that Christians should consider it unclean in that sense. I expanded on that point and its significance in my post dealing with feminist theology in the "Call to Arms" thread. Frankly I think it would be a lot more profitable to discuss that here, even if my views are criticized strongly.
So what's the upshot of the matter? Richard seems to take my rather measured criticisms of the ritual in question as evidence that I secretly approve of it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I'll accept the criticism that I don't do very well as a fiery prophet. That isn't my calling. But I will also insist that theologians as well as prophets have a place in the church.
But what really strikes me as odd is that Richard persistently refuses to engage the questions about the ritual uncleanness of women and wants to say that they are "irrelevant", though he introduced the topic. In the post dealing with feminist theology that I mentioned, I explained why the question is significant. He can say very simply whether or not he thinks menstruating Christian women are ritually unclean. If he says No, fine, we're in agreement. If he says Yes then we're definitely not in agreement but we have something substantive to debate.
Now I'm afraid I can imagine Richard's reaction to all this: The whole thing is an abomination from the word go, and there's no need to quibble about details. But seeing the ritual for the first time, that was not the way I approached it. I remind him that at that point neither of us knew that it was composed by a would-be Druid. I took its claim to be a Christian Eucharist seriously, evaluated it by the criteria of what the church has always considered the Eucharist to be, and found it wanting. It is not what Christians are to do "for the remembrance of Me," and what is substituted for that is idolatrous. It seems to me to be of some value to point out what it wrong with the thing with some precision rather than just to denounce it wholesale, though the end result may be the same.
Having tried to explain my original post, I'm quite content to leave it at that. I don't insist on an answer to the above question, though I would be happy to pursue it in a Christian manner if he wishes to.
Since you have shown a lot of interest in the understanding of the uncleanness of menstrual blood under ceremonial law and how this applies in the NT and to the Christian, it would really help me a lot to know where you are coming from in general on such questions. To that end, could you please explicate God's use of the term "unclean" in Revelation 18:2?
And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Since you have shown a lot of interest in the understanding of the uncleanness of menstrual blood under ceremonial law and how this applies in the NT and to the Christian, it would really help me a lot to know where you are coming from in general on such questions. To that end, could you please explicate God's use of the term "unclean" in Revelation 18:2?
And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Thanks!
Richard
Richard -
The reason I showed interest in this issue is that you placed great emphasis on it in your original post on the "Women's Eucharist." You raise an interesting question about the use of the concept of uncleanness in Revelation, but I've asked you several times a simple question about this concept and have gotten no answer. So I will delay answering your question until you respond to mine. Do you regard a Christian woman today who is menstruating as "unclean" in a religious sense?
The reason I showed interest in this issue is that you placed great emphasis on it in your original post on the "Women's Eucharist." You raise an interesting question about the use of the concept of uncleanness in Revelation, but I've asked you several times a simple question about this concept and have gotten no answer. So I will delay answering your question until you respond to mine. Do you regard a Christian woman today who is menstruating as "unclean" in a religious sense?
Shalom,
George
Hi George,
I have a very simple answer for you, NO! Such a thought has never occured to me in all my years as a Christian. I am absolutely 100% small "o" orthodox small "c" catholic with respect to capital "C" Christianity.
I look forward to your answer about Revelation 18:2 and other related passages of the NT that use OT symbols of uncleanness.
I have a very simple answer for you, NO! Such a thought has never occured to me in all my years as a Christian. I am absolutely 100% small "o" orthodox small "c" catholic with respect to capital "C" Christianity.
I look forward to your answer about Revelation 18:2 and other related passages of the NT that use OT symbols of uncleanness.
In Christ,
Richard
Richard –
OK. If you’d said this in the 1st place things would have been a lot simpler. & having said this, I hope you can see why I felt that you were giving too much attention to this particular aspect of the “Women’s Eucharist.”
Now to your question about the reference to “every unclean and hateful bird” in Rev.18:2. (There is a textual variant here and some versions translate akathartou as “foul” but I don’t think these affect the question.) I think it’s important to start with the understanding that the OT regulations about some things being ritually unclean no longer apply for Christians: You’ve recognized that in the case of menstruation and I assume do in regard to foods, &c.
There are many places in the NT that point in this direction: Romans 14:14 is one of the clearest. Paul does say here that something (in particular, food) is “unclean” for those who believe it so, but the point is that a person who ate something he or she believed to be unclean would be going against conscience and would thereby be sinning. That is different from the OT concept that contact with certain intrinsically unclean things defiles a person. The concept of “uncleanness” is in the process here of transition from the sense of taboo or ritually off-limits to the meaning of immorality – as in Eph.4:19 (ergasian akatharsias). (& of course both senses are metaphorical developments from the literal concept of “unclean” – i.e., dirty.)
So what is the reference in Rev.18:2 about? 1st, I’m sure that for many Christians of Jewish background at that point the idea of ritual uncleanness of some things was still strong. Furthermore, many of the birds that were declared unclean in Leviticus were scavengers, so that a natural sense of revulsion would attach to them. & then the fact that the word had begun to be used as a term for immorality means that being a haunt of “unclean birds” would symbolize being filled with immorality.
Similar things could be said of other NT passages. Exceptions are II Cor.6:17, where Paul is quoting from Isaiah, and Mt:23:27, which is set in a Jewish context.
Now to return to the main point: Use of the imagery of “unclean birds” to speak about sin isn’t likely to offend anyone today, though it wouldn’t be very meaningful to very many. But to speak of menstruation or menstrual blood today as a symbol of sin will offend a lot of women (and men), and do so quite unnecessarily. Whether or not use of the imagery of menstrual blood in a positive way in some kind of liturgical setting might ever be helpful is another matter.
I think there is a lot we can build on here. Our views are sufficiently close to make conversation possible, and sufficiently divergent to make it interesting, particularly as a means of comparing and contrasting our hermeneutic methodologies, suppositions, and styles.
Originally posted by George Murphy
So what is the reference in Rev.18:2 about? 1st, I’m sure that for many Christians of Jewish background at that point the idea of ritual uncleanness of some things was still strong. Furthermore, many of the birds that were declared unclean in Leviticus were scavengers, so that a natural sense of revulsion would attach to them. & then the fact that the word had begun to be used as a term for immorality means that being a haunt of “unclean birds” would symbolize being filled with immorality.
These points are both valid and significant, but I think there is more too it. The word akathartos (unclean) occurs 30 times in the NT. In the 19 occurrences found in the Gospels, every instance modifies the words pneuma (spirit). As you know, pneuma also denotes wind and so there is an immediate, intuitive connection with flying creatures, that is, birds, as in Rev 18:2. This is part of the divine consistency of the supernatural symbolic system of Scripture: in the ultimate positive sense, God uses a bird (the dove) to repesent His Holy Spirit, and in the ultimate negative sense He uses unclean birds to represent demons and even Satan himself who is called "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience (Eph 2:2). These ideas come together with perfect clarity in the threefold parallelism of Rev 18:2
And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
1) Habitation of devils
2) Hold of every foul spirit
3) cage of every unclean and hateful bird
Your ultimate conclusion that this "would symbolize being filled with immorality" is correct but significantly incomplete. It misses God's full intent, which is the revelation that the Apostate Babylonian Church is more than merely immoral - it is truly satanic. It does not have the Spirit of Christ and so has absolutely nothing to do with Him (Rom 8:9).
Originally posted by George Murphy
Now to return to the main point: Use of the imagery of “unclean birds” to speak about sin isn’t likely to offend anyone today, though it wouldn’t be very meaningful to very many. But to speak of menstruation or menstrual blood today as a symbol of sin will offend a lot of women (and men), and do so quite unnecessarily. Whether or not use of the imagery of menstrual blood in a positive way in some kind of liturgical setting might ever be helpful is another matter.
This brings up a very interesting point with regard to our different hermeneutical styles. Fluctuating social norms have no place in my preaching and teaching of Scripture. I teach that the Bible is given by the Eternal God and was written for all people at all times. Turning peoples minds to what it might have meant to the original author and his audience, while important for a full understanding, runs the danger of suggesting that it was not designed by the Omniscient Creator and is therefore not relevant for today. This is one of the primary errors of modern scholastic theology, which rarely addresses Scripture as what it truly is, the very Word of Almighty God.
That said, there are other significant problems here. The only reason a valid Biblical Symbol would lack relevence to a modern reader is ignorance, and this is precisely what we, as biblical teachers, are called to overcome, not accomodate. For example, the typical Bible student will not know what to make of Leviticus and without proper guidence will dismiss the whole thing as obsolete ceremonial law. This is a tragedy! The testimony of the greatest Bible Teachers God has given His Church declare with one voice the incomparable typological significance of that great book.
Now in your explanation of unclean birds, you correctly noted that the "natural sense of revulsion" added to the symbolic meaning. Exactly the same thing applies to menstrual blood, which is a waste product excreted from the body not unlike urine and feces. It seems absurd to suggest that any of these waste products could be "clean" and suitable to be associated in any way at all with the most holy Sacrament in the Christian Church. You seem to have acknowledged this in your somewhat muted point made in the last sentence of your post. This revulsion is then amplified by God's own symbolic use of menstrual blood, which I think would become even more clear if we subjected it to a proper biblical analysis as was done above with respect to unclean birds.
Good talking George! I look forward to your answer.
I think there is a lot we can build on here. Our views are sufficiently close to make conversation possible, and sufficiently divergent to make it interesting, particularly as a means of comparing and contrasting our hermeneutic methodologies, suppositions, and styles.
These points are both valid and significant, but I think there is more too it. The word akathartos (unclean) occurs 30 times in the NT. In the 19 occurrences found in the Gospels, every instance modifies the words pneuma (spirit).
This is an interesting observation. I note that this usage is heavily Marcan - i.e., most of the uses in Mt. & Lk. follow Mk, with the exception of Lk.6:18 & Mt.12:43/Lk11:24. The latter does indicate this usage in Q (if you believe in Q!).
As you know, pneuma also denotes wind and so there is an immediate, intuitive connection with flying creatures, that is, birds, as in Rev 18:2. This is part of the divine consistency of the supernatural symbolic system of Scripture: in the ultimate positive sense, God uses a bird (the dove) to repesent His Holy Spirit, and in the ultimate negative sense He uses unclean birds to represent demons and even Satan himself who is called "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience (Eph 2:2). These ideas come together with perfect clarity in the threefold parallelism of Rev 18:2
And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
1) Habitation of devils
2) Hold of every foul spirit
3) cage of every unclean and hateful bird
I think that considerable care is needed in speaking of a "supernatural symbolic system of scripture." Different biblical writers use different symbols, images, metaphors. I certainly belief in a unity of scripture but I do not think that that unity is to be found in the modes of expression of the different biblical writers. It is a christological unity, one that the different parts of the Bible express in different ways. & while the connection you make - pneuma as spirit to pneuma as wind to birds - is not completely implausible, I don't think it can carry much doctrinal weight. (Especially since it also requires translation of the synoptic imagery to revelation.)
Your ultimate conclusion that this "would symbolize being filled with immorality" is correct but significantly incomplete. It misses God's full intent, which is the revelation that the Apostate Babylonian Church is more than merely immoral - it is truly satanic. It does not have the Spirit of Christ and so has absolutely nothing to do with Him (Rom 8:9).
Here I would question whether one can speak of Babylon as an apostate church in Revelation. Its immediate significance there is the Roman Empire circa 100 A.D., and if that's to be seen as a type of future anti-Christian powers it should correspond to things that have the characteristics of that empire. Please note: I am quite familiar with the way in which the reformers, & especially the Lutheran tradition, applied these images of Revelation to the papacy of their time. For them it was not implausible because of the linkage of the church with the secular powers of the time, although the fundamental reason for considering the papacy at that time to be "the true Antichrist" had to do with its opposition to the doctrine of justification. But I do not think that Babylon/Rome of Revelation can be equated with any church today - which is not at all to minimize the dangers of the doctrinal and ethical errors allowed by some of them.
The fundamental test to distinguish the Spirit of God from other spirits is I John 4:1-3. & the basic problem with the "Women's Eucharist", as I've noted, is that in no way does it confess Christ.
This brings up a very interesting point with regard to our different hermeneutical styles. Fluctuating social norms have no place in my preaching and teaching of Scripture. I teach that the Bible is given by the Eternal God and was written for all people at all times. Turning peoples minds to what it might have meant to the original author and his audience, while important for a full understanding, runs the danger of suggesting that it was not designed by the Omniscient Creator and is therefore not relevant for today. This is one of the primary errors of modern scholastic theology, which rarely addresses Scripture as what it truly is, the very Word of Almighty God.
In 1 sense fluctuating social norms had better have a place in your preaching & teaching or else you'll have to speak in Hebrew or Greek and very few will understand you - especially if you address them as one would Israelite peasants of the 8th century B.C. or residents on Antioch in 50 A.D. The gospel has to be addressed to people of today. That's what Barth meant when he said that the preacher should go into the pulpit with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other. Preaching has to be based on scripture, but it has to address the situation of today's audience.
I've got a conference call in a few minutes and will have to wait to respond to the rest of your post.
That said, there are other significant problems here. The only reason a valid Biblical Symbol would lack relevence to a modern reader is ignorance, and this is precisely what we, as biblical teachers, are called to overcome, not accomodate. For example, the typical Bible student will not know what to make of Leviticus and without proper guidence will dismiss the whole thing as obsolete ceremonial law. This is a tragedy! The testimony of the greatest Bible Teachers God has given His Church declare with one voice the incomparable typological significance of that great book.
Symbolic interpretation of scripture is fraught with perils. That doesn't mean that it can have no value but it is far too easy for a person to read whatever symbolic meaning he or she wishes into a text. Some of the church fathers let this kind of thing run wild - water can always represent baptism, wood the cross and so forth. Many of the typological interpretations of Leviticus in the Epistle of Barnabas are simply absurd. My general rule would be that only the symbolic meanings of OT texts for which we can find any clear attestation in the NT have much reliability - e.g., Yom Kippur as a type of the sacrifice of Christ in Hebrews. But any attempt, e.g., to give moral meanings to the various unclean animals (a la Barnabas) are arbitrary & of little or no value. This is not to say that Leviticus itself is of no value!
Now in your explanation of unclean birds, you correctly noted that the "natural sense of revulsion" added to the symbolic meaning. Exactly the same thing applies to menstrual blood, which is a waste product excreted from the body not unlike urine and feces. It seems absurd to suggest that any of these waste products could be "clean" and suitable to be associated in any way at all with the most holy Sacrament in the Christian Church. You seem to have acknowledged this in your somewhat muted point made in the last sentence of your post. This revulsion is then amplified by God's own symbolic use of menstrual blood, which I think would become even more clear if we subjected it to a proper biblical analysis as was done above with respect to unclean birds.
Here I think you're reading something into scripture that isn't there. While I'm sure that the Hebrews considered feces and urine "dirty" in the same sense we do, defecation and urination do not, according to the law, make a person "unclean" in the sense that menstruation and - N.B. - emissions of semen did.
The "uncleanness" of both the latter have more to do with the connection with which menstrual blood and semen have than with "uncleanness" in the modern sense. While you were right in saying earlier that we can't stop with the meaning of a text in its original setting, we do need to understand its meaning, and affect, for its original audience. I think you've failed to do that here.
This is an interesting observation. I note that this usage is heavily Marcan - i.e., most of the uses in Mt. & Lk. follow Mk, with the exception of Lk.6:18 & Mt.12:43/Lk11:24. The latter does indicate this usage in Q (if you believe in Q!).
Hi George,
Glad to see you back in the convesation! Your posts confirm that there is a lot we can build on.
As for Q - no, I don't have much faith in it's existence since it is a hypothetical doc invented to give a purely naturalistic explanation of certain patterns found in Scripture, along the similar lines as JEPD. I am constantly amazed at how much effort and faith these folks can apply in developing such theories, all the while ignoring extremely obvious large-scale typological and structural patterns, which I will discuss further below. Quick nuance: I do believe that Q and JEPD could be true - I see no reason to deny that God could work that way to achieve his end product, the Bible. In fact, it seems likely given the incarnational style of God's Work. I just don't see the value in devoting so much time in such research, especially if it is ultimately used to deny (even implicitly) the divine inspiration of Scripture, which often seems to be the case.
Now before entering into the specifics of your post, I would like to clarify our different hermeneutical styles. There seems to be a natural linguistic analogue to Heisenberg's Uncertainty relation. The expression of any proposition will have a degree of Simplicity S and a degree of Precision P. These seem to be complementary:
dS x dP > q
Where dS = error in Simplicity, dP = error in Precision, and q some small (unknown) lower bound. (Please remember this is analogical at this point.) True genius minimizes the product dS x dP.
You seem to be heavily weighted towards Precision, often at the expense of Simplicity, while I tend to err by emphasising Simplicity over Precision. Thus I make bold proclamations in hope of cutting through all the blather, and you write complex precise statements that often may seem to cloud the important and weighty matters. My hope is that our interaction will move us both towards minimizing the product dS x dP.
Originally posted by George Murphy
I think that considerable care is needed in speaking of a "supernatural symbolic system of scripture." Different biblical writers use different symbols, images, metaphors. I certainly believe in a unity of scripture but I do not think that that unity is to be found in the modes of expression of the different biblical writers. It is a christological unity, one that the different parts of the Bible express in different ways. & while the connection you make - pneuma as spirit to pneuma as wind to birds - is not completely implausible, I don't think it can carry much doctrinal weight. (Especially since it also requires translation of the synoptic imagery to revelation.)
Your hesitation is, of course, in perfect harmony with the dominant scholastic theology of our day. It is, on the other hand, completely out of harmony with the traditional understanding of most Christian theologians throughout most of the history of the Church. I address this issue at some length in this post where I quote literary critic Northrop Frye's most excellent book The Great Code: The Bible and Literature:
Further down the page, he has this to say about the source of the typical scholastic reticence against typological interpretations:
I can not over-emphasize my personal realization of the significance of Typology in the Bible. It is truly the language of God. There is no Biblical expression of the Gospel that is not wrapped up with it. Think of the Passover Lamb, the Temple as the symbol of God's presence amongst us that John identified with the Body of Christ who is Emmanuel (God with us), Melchizedek who brought forth the typological communion, Noah's Flood, the Passing through the Red Sea, etc., etc., etc., to infinity and beyond! Without Typology, there is no understanding of Scripture at all.
My personal take on the real reason that is it neglected is because its validity immediately obviates any argument against the divine inspiration of Scripture. Simply stated, Typology can not be true if not designed by God, if it is merely the result of a bunch of cherry-picking polemicists. Its truth, therefore, is the greatest Christian apologetic, and its value is amplified ten thousand-fold when it is realized that this apolgetic is itself the proclamation of the Gospel Message of all Scripture. I see infinite value in Typology.
Of course, Typology can be abused as quickly as the Scripture itself. But what does that have to do with its fundamental validity?
Originally posted by George Murphy
Here I would question whether one can speak of Babylon as an apostate church in Revelation. Its immediate significance there is the Roman Empire circa 100 A.D., and if that's to be seen as a type of future anti-Christian powers it should correspond to things that have the characteristics of that empire. Please note: I am quite familiar with the way in which the reformers, & especially the Lutheran tradition, applied these images of Revelation to the papacy of their time. For them it was not implausible because of the linkage of the church with the secular powers of the time, although the fundamental reason for considering the papacy at that time to be "the true Antichrist" had to do with its opposition to the doctrine of justification. But I do not think that Babylon/Rome of Revelation can be equated with any church today - which is not at all to minimize the dangers of the doctrinal and ethical errors allowed by some of them.
Duly noted. I'll answer more after taking a little time to reflect.
Originally posted by George Murphy
The fundamental test to distinguish the Spirit of God from other spirits is I John 4:1-3. & the basic problem with the "Women's Eucharist", as I've noted, is that in no way does it confess Christ.
We differ strongly here. The basic problem I see with it is that it explicitly invokes the "Queen of Heaven" and does so using the word "defiance" - it looks to me like pure apostasy.
Originally posted by George Murphy
In 1 sense fluctuating social norms had better have a place in your preaching & teaching or else you'll have to speak in Hebrew or Greek and very few will understand you - especially if you address them as one would Israelite peasants of the 8th century B.C. or residents on Antioch in 50 A.D. The gospel has to be addressed to people of today. That's what Barth meant when he said that the preacher should go into the pulpit with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other. Preaching has to be based on scripture, but it has to address the situation of today's audience.
Point well taken! This is a perfect example of my Simplicity falling short of necessary Precision. When I said that my preaching had nothing to do with "flucuating social norms" the implicit meaning was that I do not make the proclamation of the eternal things of God conform to modern sensibilities. Your comment brought forth the error in Precision - obviously we need to preach in a way that is understood by our audience and relevant to them!
Originally posted by George Murphy
I've got a conference call in a few minutes and will have to wait to respond to the rest of your post.
TheologyWeb Campus
» Systematic Theology Dept.
» Ecclesiology 201
»
Deconstructing George Murphy's use of "verba" and "epiclesis"
