It's not that broader meanings can't exist in Biblical themes - just that as readers of ancient manuscripts, it's helpful (necessary, in fact) for us to try to put ourselves in the original picture, try to catch the flow of where the writer was going by mentioning the themes he mentions, and try to grasp the portion of truth which the writer meant by mentioning the themes where he did.
It's sort of like if a witness answers that Yes, he indeed saw a truck driving along the road. We could focus on the description of the truck - and that wouldn't be wrong. All trucks have descriptions! But what if the reason he'd been asked, was more to do with the load that the truck was alleged to have been carrying? By noticing what a truck is doing - carrying the load that it is carrying - that's not a denial that trucks do more than just carry that type of load.
Sort of like a scene in a film showing a fresh stream flowing rapidly over round black stones: it wouldn't be impossible to focus our attention on the stones, and think about their nature in full - but what if the significance which the scene has in the videographer's overall story is not the full nature of the stones, but the stream, and where it's going as it flows over the stones. He's telling a story: he mainly wants us to see the part the stones have in that story - even though of course all stones do have more to their own composition than just the part they happen to play in someone's story.
Anything that's true of a nation as a whole, in this case, Israel - is true of the nation as a whole only because it was first of all true of individuals in the nation, right? Anything that's true of individuals, will be true of a nation that's comprised of those individuals. That's a given - and there's no denying that. But the thing to grasp, for what it's worth, is: what is the passage doing? which might it mainly have in mind?
It's like someone looking at a patch of a distant mountain through binoculars, and describing to you what he's seeing. Certainly, there's more to the mountain-range than just what he's describing to you. There's no denying that. It's just that right now he's focusing on a very particular patch of the mountain - for his own reasons.
And that's what any writer does, isn't it? Paul included. He has his own reasons for mentioning the themes he mentions. He's answering his own questions. Addressing his own issues. Even though of course the themes are bigger than that. A theme always is!
Every piece of manuscript by any writer, on any theme, usually takes a particular aspect on something - not that there isn't more to some of the themes they mention, and not that the writer didn't also know that. Just that he was doing something by mentioning the theme, and it pays for us to notice that.
So, words like 'righteousness'; 'justification'; 'works'; 'faith' - it's not that there aren't multiple facets inherent within each of those words - there always is more, just like the guy with the binoculars - nevertheless Paul uses those words in his letters because he was going somewhere with it - like the stream flowing over those rounded rocks - and that's what we're meant to see: we're meant to grasp what he's doing with it and where he's going with it in each instance (without denying that there's more to the themes he mentions - of course there is: there always is, with anything!)
I'm no expert on Tom Wright, for example - but he knows there's more to each of those words, not only in English but especially even in Greek; and what I think Wright attempts to do is to draw our attention to the particular aspect which he thinks the original writer may have had in mind by mentioning those terms where he did the way he did.
My 'hunch' when I read Paul, is that he very often did have the corporate body in mind - even though of course Paul loved the individual.
What's true of a corporate body, say the Church, is only true of the corporate body because it is first of all true for individuals; anything that's true of the corporate body can and must be experienced personally; or what's said about the corporate body can also be said of the individual. But noticing which way an author is discussing it might be important for other questions.
Maybe?
It's sort of like if a witness answers that Yes, he indeed saw a truck driving along the road. We could focus on the description of the truck - and that wouldn't be wrong. All trucks have descriptions! But what if the reason he'd been asked, was more to do with the load that the truck was alleged to have been carrying? By noticing what a truck is doing - carrying the load that it is carrying - that's not a denial that trucks do more than just carry that type of load.
Sort of like a scene in a film showing a fresh stream flowing rapidly over round black stones: it wouldn't be impossible to focus our attention on the stones, and think about their nature in full - but what if the significance which the scene has in the videographer's overall story is not the full nature of the stones, but the stream, and where it's going as it flows over the stones. He's telling a story: he mainly wants us to see the part the stones have in that story - even though of course all stones do have more to their own composition than just the part they happen to play in someone's story.
Anything that's true of a nation as a whole, in this case, Israel - is true of the nation as a whole only because it was first of all true of individuals in the nation, right? Anything that's true of individuals, will be true of a nation that's comprised of those individuals. That's a given - and there's no denying that. But the thing to grasp, for what it's worth, is: what is the passage doing? which might it mainly have in mind?
It's like someone looking at a patch of a distant mountain through binoculars, and describing to you what he's seeing. Certainly, there's more to the mountain-range than just what he's describing to you. There's no denying that. It's just that right now he's focusing on a very particular patch of the mountain - for his own reasons.
And that's what any writer does, isn't it? Paul included. He has his own reasons for mentioning the themes he mentions. He's answering his own questions. Addressing his own issues. Even though of course the themes are bigger than that. A theme always is!
Every piece of manuscript by any writer, on any theme, usually takes a particular aspect on something - not that there isn't more to some of the themes they mention, and not that the writer didn't also know that. Just that he was doing something by mentioning the theme, and it pays for us to notice that.
So, words like 'righteousness'; 'justification'; 'works'; 'faith' - it's not that there aren't multiple facets inherent within each of those words - there always is more, just like the guy with the binoculars - nevertheless Paul uses those words in his letters because he was going somewhere with it - like the stream flowing over those rounded rocks - and that's what we're meant to see: we're meant to grasp what he's doing with it and where he's going with it in each instance (without denying that there's more to the themes he mentions - of course there is: there always is, with anything!)
I'm no expert on Tom Wright, for example - but he knows there's more to each of those words, not only in English but especially even in Greek; and what I think Wright attempts to do is to draw our attention to the particular aspect which he thinks the original writer may have had in mind by mentioning those terms where he did the way he did.
My 'hunch' when I read Paul, is that he very often did have the corporate body in mind - even though of course Paul loved the individual.
What's true of a corporate body, say the Church, is only true of the corporate body because it is first of all true for individuals; anything that's true of the corporate body can and must be experienced personally; or what's said about the corporate body can also be said of the individual. But noticing which way an author is discussing it might be important for other questions.
Maybe?
No comments:
Post a Comment