'Paul was wrong'....It was a simple yet profound thought that entered
my mind more than 11 years ago. The
implications were staggering. I had
always been taught and believed that the Bible was inerrant. At the time, I believed in what is
technically known as verbal plenary inspiration: The authors were inspired by God to write His
words, with liberty to use their own voice and perspective, and all of the
words came together to communicate a perfect, equally authoritative truth,
including all historical and scientific claims.
If God is perfect, and he inspired or breathed into the words, then the
truth communicated by those words were completely true. Yet here was this thought nagging at me,
threatening to completely destroy the rigid framework that I had regarding the
nature of Scripture, on which my entire faith was based.
The thought wasn't planted in my mind by some rogue professor in
college. I knew very few people who were
not Christians. I went to evangelical
Christian schools where the opposite was taught. I had no external reason for the thought to
be there, and I also knew its implications would mean some level of ostracism
by some of my conservative evangelical community. I had every external reason in the world to
quickly dismiss it and continue to go with the flow. And yet, there it remained. Over the years, all of these reasons why it
shouldn't have been there has given me great peace that God put me on this path
for a reason.
You might think I came across some contradiction that I couldn't
reconcile, or that there was some irrefutable scientific or historical evidence
to prove a claim Paul, or the Bible in general, made was wrong. No, I had read all about those
contradictions. I knew that all someone
had to do was to give one incredibly improbable, but technically plausible
answer to maintain inerrancy; and whole books were written about these
brain-twisting scenarios (I’ve read some of them!).
At some point, I simply started to become uncomfortable with Paul's
emphasis on the second coming of Christ.
It seemed clear to me that Paul was aggressively setting his audience's
expectations for an imminent, physical return of Christ. He taught that many of them would be alive
when Christ returned. He said “we shall not all die, but we shall all be
changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet-call. For
the trumpet will sound, and the dead will rise immortal, and we shall be
changed.”[1] Keep in mind that when Paul
wrote the word "we", he wasn't thinking about present 'you', or some
futuristic 'them'. He meant himself
and/or those to whom he was specifically writing.
Paul gave a similar message to the Thessalonians: “For this we tell you
as the Lord’s word: we who are left alive until the Lord comes shall not
forestall those who have died; because at the word of command, at the sound of
the archangel’s voice and God’s trumpet-call, the Lord himself will descend
from heaven; first the Christian dead will rise, then we who are alive shall
join them, caught up in clouds to meet the Lord in the air.”[2] He was addressing this only because some
people were dying, and the church (again, taught to expect the imminent return)
was confused as to what would happen to these dead people when Jesus
returned. He also encouraged the
Thessalonians to “wait expectantly for the appearance from heaven of . . .
Jesus.”[3]
Ultimately, I came to firmly believe that Paul emphatically believed in
the literal, physical return of Christ within his lifetime OR the lifetime of
those he was writing to.
Paul didn't know the day or the hour, and I imagine he would have
admitted this fact. But that does not
mean he didn't think that soon meant literally soon. I may not know the day or the hour of when
the temperature outside will reach 40 degrees, but I fully believe it will
happen sometime very soon. If that
didn't happen for 2,000 years, I'd be clearly wrong in that belief.
Peter also addressed the delay by saying the famous phrase about a day
to God being a thousand years and visa versa.
This, however, doesn't take away the fact that Paul believed what he
did. If he was wrong about this very
fundamental aspect of the Christian faith, what else could he have
misunderstood?
The most common response to this comes from those that think that Paul
never stated it would definitely happen, but only that the church should be
expectant for it to happen at any time.
This belief just does not line up with the evidence and is based on a
preconceived idea that he simply can't be wrong in order to interpret what he
said in this way. No, he didn't just
passively say it could happen soon, he aggressively and proactively said it
would happen soon.
Some people have said that they can believe he misunderstood the
timing, but the Bible is still inerrant because God knew the words about the
second coming, and more specifically the resurrection of the dead, were for the
final group of Christians, not them.
This is an even less logical position.
There are many ways you can tell someone about the future without saying
"you will not all die". You
can tell people to always be expectant, without saying that something is
definitely going to happen very soon.
Paul can't suddenly be right by us changing the audience from the New
Testament church to some futuristic people to whom the statement may actually,
someday apply. You have to first believe
in inerrancy in order to read the Bible this way. Even if this is the case, it seems quite sad
for the people to whom Paul was writing.
We at least know it may or may not be 'we' who will not die before
Christ returns. They, however, simply
believed Paul when he said 'we'.
Other passages from Paul started to make a little more sense to me
considering 'Paul was wrong'. Paul
promoted a lifestyle reflecting his beliefs about the world’s approaching
end. He saw little need to care about
worldly matters. He proclaimed: “What I
mean, my friends, is this. The time we live in will not last long. While it
lasts, married men should be as if they had no wives; mourners should be as if
they had nothing to grieve them, the joyful as if they did not rejoice, buyers
must not count on keeping what they buy, nor those who use the world’s wealth
on using it to the full. For the whole frame of this world is passing away.”[4]
In other words, Christians should be apathetic about everything in this
dying world – including families, friends, love, possessions, happiness, and
sadness. This would make total sense if
there was no "future" to plan for or to expect. How would you act if you were 100% convinced
Jesus was returning sometime within the next 20 years or so? I wouldn't care about my 401k to start.
'Paul was wrong' about the timing (and perhaps nature?) of Jesus'
physical return. I did not come to this
conclusion lightly or without significant research, for I knew that I could no
longer accept inerrancy with this belief.
In fact, I spent a number of years reading books about the second
coming, about Jesus' own claims of the "end times", and the confusing
topic of what the "kingdom of God" actually means. I learned all about preterism, and the concept
that many (or all) of the predictions in the Bible actually came true with the
destruction Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.
I learned how to understand the "end of the age" as being the
complete destruction of the Jewish way of life.
I followed the path wherever it led and always came back to the same
conclusion regarding Paul. I knew
acceptance of one error meant that error could be the answer to more questions.
And I was also acutely aware of how dangerous this path was in terms of leading
to subjective truth and creating a gospel of my own design.
For many years thereafter, I believed you couldn't have a reasonable
faith without inerrancy (I still think the logical reasoning for wanting
inerrancy is strong), and that you couldn't be reasonable and believe in
inerrancy (due primarily to the issue I laid out above). I was in a place that was truly limbo. I had no idea how to have faith without the
soothing belief that there is no error in Scripture. When that belief collapsed, I was adrift,
without any foundation on which to stand with any degree of certainty. I was strangely at peace with it all, but
also knew that it would take a long time to get back to firm footing, whether
or not I would somehow be able to convince myself to not believe what I had
come to believe.
'Paul was wrong' was a thought and subsequent belief that changed my
entire life. I have since built an
entirely new faith structure; one that is centered not on a perfect Bible of
God, but in the perfect Word of God, Jesus Christ. I understand one might question my ability to
trust in who Jesus was or what He said if I'm willing to accept possible error
in the Bible. I simply believe that the
synoptic gospels are inexplicably consistent in their description of Jesus and
what He said and did; and that they are an entirely reasonable source to rely
on to know and believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The book of John is a bit different, but it
is also a very reliable source of authoritative truth, confirmed by early
church eyewitnesses, and helps us understand the significance of his life and
the meaning behind what he taught (though not necessarily word for word what he
actually said).
The remainder of Scripture is my primary source for spiritual truth,
and represents both the history of humans’ interaction with God, and of God's
interaction with humans. Jesus really is
the key for me to understand Scripture.
If something contradicts what Jesus taught, then it’s not truth. He defines and frames all truth.
I believe that the Bible is the highest, but not only, form of God's
communication directly to us and that objective truth can be found
therein. I simply am no longer bound to
defend every word as literal; or to believe because the Old Testament says that God said
something, that he really did; or that because a Biblical author thought
slavery was morally acceptable, that I have to as well.
I don't think faith was ever meant to feel safe. 'Paul was wrong' is not safe. It's
messy. I don't blame anyone for
disagreeing with me, or not being able to embrace such unsettling ambiguity
regarding the nature of Scripture. As
some might expect, I have had to manage a torrent of questions and doubts
concerning my faith and the Bible over the years, and may continue to do so at
some level. But so far, 'Paul was wrong'
has been the catalyst to a much deeper and stronger faith than I ever thought
possible.
I still don't have it all
figured out or have all the answers, but what is reasonable faith if not belief
in the midst of educated uncertainty? I believe my faith will continue to grow
stronger in the balance of certainty and uncertainty, and I choose to embrace
both without fear.
1 I Corinthians 15:51-52
2 I Thessalonians 4:15-17
3 I Thessalonians 1:10
4 I Corinthians 7:29-31
