I considered the possibility a few years ago that "the one" Paul "knew" may indeed have been a reference to someone else. I've heard "John" proposed. Then, perhaps under influence of the Bullinger method of exegesis, I had wondered if Paul was even referring to two different people - "such a one" caught up to the "third heaven", and another - "such a one" -caught away to "Paradise".
But then, the interpretation that Paul was speaking in a manner like Bob Dole is not unique
to Wierwille, and can be traced back quite a ways. Offhand, the 4th century Armenian writer Eznik de Kolb, in his work "Against the Sects"; even earlier, Tertullian, Prescript. Haer XXIV, e.g., "Now although Paul was carried away to the third heaven, and was caught up to Paradise..." (cf. also "The Apocalypse of Paul" from the Nag Hammadi Library)
Anyways, a very fascinating section, open to many interpretations.
Not sure either way. If it is a Bob Dole type of third-person self-reference, there's no evidence to back that up, whether VPW, Tertullian, or anyone else says so.
Personally, I have no problem with the interpretation that Paul was speaking of himself. He may have used the third person specifically to keep from distracting the reader from his intended topic which was the glory of the Lord. But Weirwille the self-acclaimed master of Biblical research should at least have explained why he changed "a man in Christ" to "Paul" rather than doing it automatically and without explanation.
Now here's an idea I've been tossing to and fro in wee hours of the night. Suppose---just suppose--that VP's distincition between revelation and inspiration is invalid. First a referesher is called for.
In the Advanced Class, we learned The Great Principle. God, who is spirit teaches His creation in you which is now your Spirit and your spirit teaches your mind. (God help me, I still remember it). That's VP's definition of the mechanics of revelation. Inspiration, on the other hand, was loosely described as 'in-spirit action".
Step One: The implication was that revelation is straight from the mouth of God, while inspiration is an indirect, less precise proclamation. So we placed speaking in tongues, interpretation and prophecy in the inspiration category, and put word of wisdom, word of knowledge, and discerning of spirits in the vaunted revelation category.
But the Bible does not make such a distinction. In fact, the Bible doesn't even use the words "inspire" or "inspiration" (Remember the phrase "given by inspiration of God" in II Timothy 3:16 is translated from the Greek word theopneustos). So the distinction between revelation and inspiration is entirely a construct of TWI or whoever VP learned it from. In reality, the words could be as distinct in meaning as allos and heteros, which is to say, not at all.
Step Two: What do we know about the linguistic and hermeneutical precison of inspired utterance? Well those of us who have spoken in tongues and interpreted should know that the interpretation is "the gist sum and substance" of what was spoken. Anyway, we know it's not very precise. Here's something else that I have observed about inspired utterance. It is affected by what you believe and what you expect. Agnostics and atheists among us will no doubt offer this as proof that it's not a manifestation of holy spirt at all, but let's not get distracted with that tangent right now. I have spoken to people who went to CES fellowships and were taught that interpretation of tonges is a prayer, not a message from God. After being presented with this teaching, they were asked to speak in tongues and interpret and voila! Out came a prayer. I attended a fellowship of ex-way folk here in Lexington for a while that is pretty much pro-PFAL and not the least bit inclined to change anything VP taught. When they interpret or prophesy it's all about "My word"' this and "My Word" that. When I interpret or prophesy, that phrase NEVER came out of my mouth. Instead of 'the Word' the focus of my messages was always God himself. Because I no longer believed in the perfection of "the Word", I was never inspired to use that phrase.
I have concluded from these and other experiences too numerous (and boring) to specify, that inspired utterance is affected by the beliefs of the individual speaker. It's filtered through our concious and subconcious minds.
Step Three: Since there is no Biblical distinction between messages received by revelation and inspiration, and we know that messages we have been taught come from "inspiration" are affected by the mind and belief of the user, why would it not also be true of revelation? Couldn't the revelation of 'The Word of God" have been filtered and colored by the beliefs of those who spoke and penned it? This is actually not as heretical as it may sound. VP himself in PFAL taught that the men of God used their vocabularies to write the Scriptures. "Amos was a herdsmen". John had "that beautiful P.H.D. language" and so on. So if our father in fundamentalism who said God has a reason for everything He says, where He says it, how He says it, when He says it, and to whom He says it, also taught that it got somewhat distorted and affected by whom He says it, it should not be a radical idea to take that notion one step further and posit that the Bible can be the Word of God....but still be flawed and somewhat self-contradictory. Because it was filtered through the limited vocabularies, minds, and beliefs of people. And people are flawed and somewhat self-contradictory. Didn't the Apostles have arguments? Of course they did! Then why should it be anathema to think that their collected writings should reflect some of those arguments--and still contain the words of life?
Perhaps this is why what Matthew wrote about eternal life doesn't agree with what John wrote about eternal life. (Matthew 19:16-29 vs. John 3:15 & 16). Perhaps this is why what Paul tried to communicate about the spiritual body contradicts some of what Luke tried to communicate about the words and deeds of the resurrected Christ (Luke 24:39 vs. I Cor 15:44) .
Does the Bible assert that no Scripture contradicts any other Scripture, or did somebody just decide that if it's the Word of God it can't contradict itself. I'm sure VP didn't come up with that on his own. Either it's in the Bible--personally, I've never been comfortable with II Timothy 2:13 as the "proof text" of that creed---or it's a man-made condition. If the latter, perhaps we should reexamine it and consider another option. Maybe the Scripture is the written Word of God and maybe it does contradict itself. Maybe that's part of why we still see through a glass darkly and look forward to seeing face to face.
Maybe that's just an intellectual dodge form an analytical person who sees the Scripture's inconsistencies but doesn't want to abandon the concept of the of God's power being resident therein. Maybe it's a cop-out. But maybe it's worth considering.
I knew a man above 20 years ago, who believed that revelation from God needed not to fit with the “mathematical accuracy and scientific precision” that some claimed it did. He thought that God, if he dictated His Word to others, could and likely did use the same sorts of literary devices that humans frequently use. He also believed that the Bible never claimed to be “the Word of God” in its entirety, but did claim to contain a portion of the Word of God, as well as words of men.
This man also believed that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” referred to the origin of prophecy, not the understanding of it, so he would never carry on about people privately interpreting scripture.
Even today, though he no longer believes that any of the Bible is revelation from God, this man thinks that Paul was talking about himself, rather than some other person.
Maybe that's just an intellectual dodge form an analytical person who sees the Scripture's inconsistencies but doesn't want to abandon the concept of the of God's power being resident therein. Maybe it's a cop-out. But maybe it's worth considering.
Maybe.
Or maybe it means exactly what it says-
he knew this Christian who saw this vision.
I'm curious as to whether Tertullian or anyone else had a psychological issue
with the idea that some guy who wasn't all over the Bible might have
a special characteristic like a cool, "special" vision.
Is there a reason other than
"it MIGHT be that way"
to think that Paul suddenly switched to this method of address?
Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. All that stuff I added about inspiration and revelation wasn't specifically about Paul. I was addressing the point of view that if the Bible is God's Word, it can't contradict itself. I included it in the brief remark about Paul referring to himsekf in third person and apparently muddied the waters of discourse. Sorry.
Now, about II Corinthians. I think the context makes it fairly clear that Paul is actually writing about himself. Check out verses 5-7. emphasis added.
5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
"...the abundance of the revelations..." seems to refer back to the things seen and heard in the third heaven, which would make it clear that the man Paul knew in Christ was in fact him. Although it's not nearly as dramatically written there is at least one other instance of Paul referring to himself in third person. It's verse 9 of Philemon.
9 Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.
This is a not too delicate reminder to Philemon that the main reason for this epistle (a request that Philemon forgive a runaway slave) may be unusual for the culture, but it was coming from an esteemed man of God whose opinions and requests should be treated with gravity and respect.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any others.
It's not exhaustive, but it's nonetheless a great tool.
References to 2 Corinthians ch.12 can be reviewed here.
I was curious to see what other interpretations had been kicked around by the early writers, but so far, the "Bob Dole" take appears quite common among orthodox and heretical movements alike, for whatever reason.
WW -
I'm curious as to whether Tertullian or anyone else had a psychological issue
with the idea that some guy who wasn't all over the Bible might have
a special characteristic like a cool, "special" vision.
That's an interesting thought, considering the struggles and even rivalries among the early Christian movements to define and establish themselves, their doctrines, their canons. I would imagine people continually coming forth with new "prophecies" and "revelations" would have certainly posed challenges and even obstacles to the process (perhaps a hint of that in 1 Cor.14 - even ch.13).
But then again - we can't dismiss the possibility that the early writers - writing only about 1-2 centuries after Christ - may have also been privy to information and interpretations passed down to them (perhaps even through living witnesses, or descendants thereof), through sources no longer available to us some 20 centuries later.
Nice points. Why wouldn't revelation/inspiration be subject to the filtering of the human mind with all it's attitudes and prejudices? How could it not?
Side point: why would John have that "wonderful PhD language" as poosed to Amos' herdsman language, when John was a fisherman? Who says fishermen are smarter than herdsmen
I guess my deal is that there's no evidence either way to state with certainty either way whether Paul was speaking of himself or someone else.
If "that's what it says, that's what it means" is a standard, then we have to say it was someone else. If there's some figure of speech at work here, it doesn't translate well into English.
I declined earlier to include this in the "actual errors" list, but I lean toward Paul meant what he said and said what he meant: he knew someone, not speaking of himself. If he was speaking of himself, my faith structure doesn't fall to pieces (perhaps because it was not as fragile as Wierwille's, whose faith fell apart at the mere thought of a preposition being out of place).
Recommended Posts
markomalley
Is this supposed to be Mike-bait? ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
As for me, I am perfectly capable of participating in a discussion about the bible without bringing up that I don't believe it...doh!
That being said, I agree that this is a contradiction. Wierwille is insisting that the passage says things that it clearly doesn't say.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I considered the possibility a few years ago that "the one" Paul "knew" may indeed have been a reference to someone else. I've heard "John" proposed. Then, perhaps under influence of the Bullinger method of exegesis, I had wondered if Paul was even referring to two different people - "such a one" caught up to the "third heaven", and another - "such a one" -caught away to "Paradise".
But then, the interpretation that Paul was speaking in a manner like Bob Dole is not unique
to Wierwille, and can be traced back quite a ways. Offhand, the 4th century Armenian writer Eznik de Kolb, in his work "Against the Sects"; even earlier, Tertullian, Prescript. Haer XXIV, e.g., "Now although Paul was carried away to the third heaven, and was caught up to Paradise..." (cf. also "The Apocalypse of Paul" from the Nag Hammadi Library)
Anyways, a very fascinating section, open to many interpretations.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Cynic thinks a Bob Dole analogy is on the right track.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Not sure either way. If it is a Bob Dole type of third-person self-reference, there's no evidence to back that up, whether VPW, Tertullian, or anyone else says so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Personally, I have no problem with the interpretation that Paul was speaking of himself. He may have used the third person specifically to keep from distracting the reader from his intended topic which was the glory of the Lord. But Weirwille the self-acclaimed master of Biblical research should at least have explained why he changed "a man in Christ" to "Paul" rather than doing it automatically and without explanation.
Now here's an idea I've been tossing to and fro in wee hours of the night. Suppose---just suppose--that VP's distincition between revelation and inspiration is invalid. First a referesher is called for.
In the Advanced Class, we learned The Great Principle. God, who is spirit teaches His creation in you which is now your Spirit and your spirit teaches your mind. (God help me, I still remember it). That's VP's definition of the mechanics of revelation. Inspiration, on the other hand, was loosely described as 'in-spirit action".
Step One: The implication was that revelation is straight from the mouth of God, while inspiration is an indirect, less precise proclamation. So we placed speaking in tongues, interpretation and prophecy in the inspiration category, and put word of wisdom, word of knowledge, and discerning of spirits in the vaunted revelation category.
But the Bible does not make such a distinction. In fact, the Bible doesn't even use the words "inspire" or "inspiration" (Remember the phrase "given by inspiration of God" in II Timothy 3:16 is translated from the Greek word theopneustos). So the distinction between revelation and inspiration is entirely a construct of TWI or whoever VP learned it from. In reality, the words could be as distinct in meaning as allos and heteros, which is to say, not at all.
Step Two: What do we know about the linguistic and hermeneutical precison of inspired utterance? Well those of us who have spoken in tongues and interpreted should know that the interpretation is "the gist sum and substance" of what was spoken. Anyway, we know it's not very precise. Here's something else that I have observed about inspired utterance. It is affected by what you believe and what you expect. Agnostics and atheists among us will no doubt offer this as proof that it's not a manifestation of holy spirt at all, but let's not get distracted with that tangent right now. I have spoken to people who went to CES fellowships and were taught that interpretation of tonges is a prayer, not a message from God. After being presented with this teaching, they were asked to speak in tongues and interpret and voila! Out came a prayer. I attended a fellowship of ex-way folk here in Lexington for a while that is pretty much pro-PFAL and not the least bit inclined to change anything VP taught. When they interpret or prophesy it's all about "My word"' this and "My Word" that. When I interpret or prophesy, that phrase NEVER came out of my mouth. Instead of 'the Word' the focus of my messages was always God himself. Because I no longer believed in the perfection of "the Word", I was never inspired to use that phrase.
I have concluded from these and other experiences too numerous (and boring) to specify, that inspired utterance is affected by the beliefs of the individual speaker. It's filtered through our concious and subconcious minds.
Step Three: Since there is no Biblical distinction between messages received by revelation and inspiration, and we know that messages we have been taught come from "inspiration" are affected by the mind and belief of the user, why would it not also be true of revelation? Couldn't the revelation of 'The Word of God" have been filtered and colored by the beliefs of those who spoke and penned it? This is actually not as heretical as it may sound. VP himself in PFAL taught that the men of God used their vocabularies to write the Scriptures. "Amos was a herdsmen". John had "that beautiful P.H.D. language" and so on. So if our father in fundamentalism who said God has a reason for everything He says, where He says it, how He says it, when He says it, and to whom He says it, also taught that it got somewhat distorted and affected by whom He says it, it should not be a radical idea to take that notion one step further and posit that the Bible can be the Word of God....but still be flawed and somewhat self-contradictory. Because it was filtered through the limited vocabularies, minds, and beliefs of people. And people are flawed and somewhat self-contradictory. Didn't the Apostles have arguments? Of course they did! Then why should it be anathema to think that their collected writings should reflect some of those arguments--and still contain the words of life?
Perhaps this is why what Matthew wrote about eternal life doesn't agree with what John wrote about eternal life. (Matthew 19:16-29 vs. John 3:15 & 16). Perhaps this is why what Paul tried to communicate about the spiritual body contradicts some of what Luke tried to communicate about the words and deeds of the resurrected Christ (Luke 24:39 vs. I Cor 15:44) .
Does the Bible assert that no Scripture contradicts any other Scripture, or did somebody just decide that if it's the Word of God it can't contradict itself. I'm sure VP didn't come up with that on his own. Either it's in the Bible--personally, I've never been comfortable with II Timothy 2:13 as the "proof text" of that creed---or it's a man-made condition. If the latter, perhaps we should reexamine it and consider another option. Maybe the Scripture is the written Word of God and maybe it does contradict itself. Maybe that's part of why we still see through a glass darkly and look forward to seeing face to face.
Maybe that's just an intellectual dodge form an analytical person who sees the Scripture's inconsistencies but doesn't want to abandon the concept of the of God's power being resident therein. Maybe it's a cop-out. But maybe it's worth considering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I knew a man above 20 years ago, who believed that revelation from God needed not to fit with the “mathematical accuracy and scientific precision” that some claimed it did. He thought that God, if he dictated His Word to others, could and likely did use the same sorts of literary devices that humans frequently use. He also believed that the Bible never claimed to be “the Word of God” in its entirety, but did claim to contain a portion of the Word of God, as well as words of men.
This man also believed that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” referred to the origin of prophecy, not the understanding of it, so he would never carry on about people privately interpreting scripture.
Even today, though he no longer believes that any of the Bible is revelation from God, this man thinks that Paul was talking about himself, rather than some other person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Maybe.
Or maybe it means exactly what it says-
he knew this Christian who saw this vision.
I'm curious as to whether Tertullian or anyone else had a psychological issue
with the idea that some guy who wasn't all over the Bible might have
a special characteristic like a cool, "special" vision.
Is there a reason other than
"it MIGHT be that way"
to think that Paul suddenly switched to this method of address?
Or,
was he doing this ALL OVER THE EPISTLES
and I've missed it somehow?
(If so, please provide examples.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. All that stuff I added about inspiration and revelation wasn't specifically about Paul. I was addressing the point of view that if the Bible is God's Word, it can't contradict itself. I included it in the brief remark about Paul referring to himsekf in third person and apparently muddied the waters of discourse. Sorry.
Now, about II Corinthians. I think the context makes it fairly clear that Paul is actually writing about himself. Check out verses 5-7. emphasis added.
"...the abundance of the revelations..." seems to refer back to the things seen and heard in the third heaven, which would make it clear that the man Paul knew in Christ was in fact him. Although it's not nearly as dramatically written there is at least one other instance of Paul referring to himself in third person. It's verse 9 of Philemon.
This is a not too delicate reminder to Philemon that the main reason for this epistle (a request that Philemon forgive a runaway slave) may be unusual for the culture, but it was coming from an esteemed man of God whose opinions and requests should be treated with gravity and respect.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any others.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
There's a handy site I came across last night, that provides an online scriptural index linked to the early patristic writings (in English):
Compiled Alllusions to the New Testament in Ante-Nicene Fathers
It's not exhaustive, but it's nonetheless a great tool.
References to 2 Corinthians ch.12 can be reviewed here.
I was curious to see what other interpretations had been kicked around by the early writers, but so far, the "Bob Dole" take appears quite common among orthodox and heretical movements alike, for whatever reason.
WW -
That's an interesting thought, considering the struggles and even rivalries among the early Christian movements to define and establish themselves, their doctrines, their canons. I would imagine people continually coming forth with new "prophecies" and "revelations" would have certainly posed challenges and even obstacles to the process (perhaps a hint of that in 1 Cor.14 - even ch.13).
But then again - we can't dismiss the possibility that the early writers - writing only about 1-2 centuries after Christ - may have also been privy to information and interpretations passed down to them (perhaps even through living witnesses, or descendants thereof), through sources no longer available to us some 20 centuries later.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Jerry:
Nice points. Why wouldn't revelation/inspiration be subject to the filtering of the human mind with all it's attitudes and prejudices? How could it not?
Side point: why would John have that "wonderful PhD language" as poosed to Amos' herdsman language, when John was a fisherman? Who says fishermen are smarter than herdsmen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I guess my deal is that there's no evidence either way to state with certainty either way whether Paul was speaking of himself or someone else.
If "that's what it says, that's what it means" is a standard, then we have to say it was someone else. If there's some figure of speech at work here, it doesn't translate well into English.
I declined earlier to include this in the "actual errors" list, but I lean toward Paul meant what he said and said what he meant: he knew someone, not speaking of himself. If he was speaking of himself, my faith structure doesn't fall to pieces (perhaps because it was not as fragile as Wierwille's, whose faith fell apart at the mere thought of a preposition being out of place).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.