I have been meeting with a guy from church on a weekly basis who has taken it upon himself to try and assist me with my spiritual life. We meet for 'discipleship'. Basically, what it looks like for me is I tell him about the questions and problems I have with certain texts in the Bible, and he helps with translation and putting things in perspective. His Masters of Divinity from Golden Gate Seminary, and pertinent life experiences, provides a good foundation for helping me with some of these issues.
The last time we met, we talked about how to go about bringing the kingdom of God to those around us, what some might call 'sharing the gospel', 'sharing our faith', 'evangelizing', etc. Somehow we got on the topic of Revelation 3:20. The verse goes something like this, depending on which version you read [I'm using the Jewish New Testament]:
Here, I'm standing at the door, knocking. If someone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he will eat with me.
The 'traditional' interpretation is that the 'knocker' is God, or Jesus, or the Holy Spirit; that the door is the door to a person's heart; that if one opens the door that person has let God in; and that eating with God is a good sign that a person is 'in' with God and vice versa, that the person will go to heaven/be in God's kingdom/is saved from sin/etc.
It seems a simple enough verse to stomach. But adding even just a little bit of context confuses things. This passage is in Revelation. Without going into an uber-detailed examination of it, let's agree for the sake of this blog post that Revelation is the subject of much contention among just about anybody that reads the Bible, scholar or layperson.
The text itself says it is the "apokalupsis" (Greek for 'unveiling') which God gave to Jesus by sending an angel to his servant John. Now that is some wicked hearsay! It is apparently about the 'end times' (predicting the future), is based on an alleged 'vision', and the mysterious supposed author maybe wrote some other letters included in the New Testament, but nobody really knows. And therein lies a small portion of the contention. Was John high on some drug? Was it really a revelation from God? Was John really the author? And what the HELL is he talking about?
It makes me think twice about the appropriateness of using this particular passage as a teaching tool for our toddlers in Sunday School.
I think many of us have been exposed to this verse, if only through some version of the ubiquitous painting (above) seen all over the US, and I would venture to guess the world. It is usually a white Jesus...but that's a whole other 47 gigabites of text we can't go into here.
Apparently, this is a belief held by highly educated folk: that this applies only to the Laodiceans. Hm. So God only knocks at the doors of their hearts, not anybody else's? But what about the part that says 'if SOMEONE hears...'? And why, pray tell, if He's knocking, would a person inside hear his 'voice'? Wouldn't that person hear a knocking sound? I'm not being silly here.
The problem I have with this interpretation is that this means, if applied to the Bible as a whole, all the other letters written to specific people in the Bible are applicable to only the recipients of those letters. And the New Testament is pretty much just a collection of letters. This does not make sense to me, although I've wondered about this style of Biblical interpretation.
I guess only each person can know if there is a particular knocking, a voice, and whether or not to answer.
(I included the second and third pictures because, honestly, I thought they were funny.)
Interesting thoughts and terrific pictures. There is a lot to be said about Revelation in general, this passage in particular, and the nature of scripture as a whole. I am not the person to comprehensively answer all said questions.
ReplyDeleteI do think that it would be a fall division to say that the letter in Revelation 3 is either particular to that church or it is general to humanity as a whole. I do not think those things are mutually exclusive here or, potentially, in any other letter in the NT. If I wrote you a personal letter on the importance of eating a healthy diet and exercise it would be to you, but no less true or applicable to anyone else who came across the writing.
But this can be a difficult part of interpreting the letters in the NT b/c I would argue that some part are definitely particular without much direct application for the rest of us other than thematically (after all portions are addressed to specific people - Philemon for example). And others are more theological in nature and don't seem as bound to the particularities of the time and place (although context does help provide interpretation) think Romans.
It is interesting in revelation 3 though to consider that this passage which we most often refer to when speaking of an individuals salvation, is actually addressed to a community of believers. As if there can be a whole church who has locked out Jesus while he knocks and (its seems) calls out to them. Which is not to say that the metaphor doesn't work for individuals as well. I can certainly connect to the image of sometimes choosing to shut out the voice and presence of God in my life when. I imagine most people can which is why the verse is used in that view so much.
Not sure I helped at all with your questions, but those were some thoughts I was having about the post
should have spell checked that.... sorry =)
ReplyDeleteHave you read (or even heard of) the book "Grasping God's Word" by Duvall and Hays? In my opinion, it is an excellent book on the basic principles on interpreting scriptures accurately. Unfortunately, I don't think many pastors or even scholars for that matter actually use them - the principles that is. It is a standard text in a lot of universities and seminaries, but it is a very readable book that has been extremely useful to me to help me sort through some of the questions I have.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your post:
I think one of the primary problems with evangelicals today is their confusion between literalness (I may have just made that word up) and accuracy (or truth). Often times, they mistakenly interpret something in the scriptures as being literally true, when it shouldn't be taken literally at all. They fear that relegating something to a figurative expression will somehow weaken the truth the passage is trying to express and then they themselves will be accused of being... oh the horror... liberal. Figurative language can be used to express literal truth just as clearly, but it is a lot more boring. Saying, “I am very hungry,” means the same thing as saying, “I am so hungry I could eat a horse,” but we all know I don’t literally want to eat a horse. The truth of the statements is not in question. For some reason, a lot of evangelicals in the world forget the normal rules and usage of language when it comes to the Bible.
I think this happens a lot especially in Revelation which is a book filled with figurative expressions of the difficult-to-understand-and-describe goings-on of the heavenly realm. The main idea of the book, however, and all of its specific imagery is unified in its message that believers (the churches) ought not lose heart, because to him who conquers/perseveres/remains, there will be victory. Things are going to get bad, but the end is sure, and Jesus will reign victorious.
Great post. I have often felt this passage has been taken out of context for some time. Though it might offer a pretty mental picture, I do not think it's context is for evangelism. There are certainly better ones to use for the purpose of sharing faith.
ReplyDeleteI feel that about the one lost sheep passage as well. I'm going to chew on this for some time before I respond. Thank you. Though I must say I am a Calvinist by conviction, so my leanings on my response will be in that direction.
Love the post, love the title of your blog, thank you. These conversations need to take place.