(Angels 1) Unraveling the Intent: Understanding the Purpose of Paul's Letters

 "Unraveling the Intent: Understanding the Purpose of Paul's Letters"

In the book "Inheritors of Antiquity", the Jaison Ndlovu emphasizes the importance of understanding letters as a means of communication, whether one-way or two-way. He uses the example of Paul's letters to churches, which were written with clear instructions on how to live a Christian life and how to manage church affairs. The author argues that if a letter is not understood by the recipient, the fault lies with the writer, not the reader.

He references 2 Peter 3:16, where Peter acknowledges that some of Paul's writings are difficult to understand. However, the author also points out that Paul had previously rebuked Peter for his double standards in Acts 10-11, where Peter initially refused to eat with Gentiles but later understood the vision of the sheet with animals, symbolizing the inclusion of Gentiles in the gospel. This incident highlights Peter's initial limited understanding of the all-encompassing nature of Jesus' gospel, which Paul fully embraced.

The author suggests that Paul's letters were meant to be clear and understandable, and that any difficulty in understanding lies not with the reader but with the writer's ability to communicate effectively. He emphasizes the importance of clear communication in letters, citing Paul's example as a model for effective communication.

Furthermore, the author notes that the biblical concept of letters as a means of communication emphasizes the importance of understanding and clarity. The Bible itself is a collection of letters, histories, and prophecies written to convey God's message to humanity. The Bible authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote to convey spiritual truths and practical instructions for living a godly life.

And so, the author of "Inheritors of Antiquity" stresses the significance of clear communication in letters, using Paul's letters as an example. The author highlights the importance of understanding and clarity in written communication, emphasizing that any difficulty in understanding lies with the writer, not the reader. By exploring the biblical concept of letters, the author demonstrates the value of effective communication in conveying spiritual truths and practical instructions for living a Christian life. 

In the case of Peter, it's important to note that Jesus Christ, the author of the faith, was not at fault. Rather, Peter lagged behind in his understanding, clinging to Jewish customs and norms. This is evident in his initial reluctance to preach to the Gentiles, as seen in Acts 10-11.

Earlier in Matthew 10:5-10, Jesus had sent out the twelve disciples to preach to the lost sheep of Israel, instructing them to take no gold, silver, or copper in their purses and to focus solely on Jewish towns and villages. This initial mission was a crucial step in Jesus' ministry, as it marked the beginning of the disciples' training and preparation for their future roles as apostles.

However, in Luke 22:35-36, Jesus prepares the disciples for their mission after his resurrection, telling them to take their purses, bags, and swords, and to go out to all nations, including Gentiles. This marked a significant shift in their mission, as they were now commissioned to spread the gospel to all people, regardless of their background or ethnicity.

Peter's struggle to fully grasp this shift is evident in his behavior, as noted in Galatians 2:11-14. Paul reproached Peter for his hypocrisy, pointing out that he had been one person when with the Jews and another person when with the Gentiles. This incident highlights Peter's ongoing struggle to reconcile his Jewish heritage with his newfound faith in Jesus Christ.

It wasn't until the Cornelius mission, as recorded in Acts 10-11, that Peter fully understood the scope of Jesus' message and the inclusive nature of the gospel. This experience marked a significant turning point in Peter's ministry, as he finally grasped the truth that Jesus' message was for all people, regardless of their background or ethnicity.

The issue of adhering to previous instructions or experiences, rather than embracing new revelations or commands, is a common theme in the Bible. A similar situation occurred with Moses centuries before Peter's time. In the Desert of Sin, God instructed Moses to strike the Rock to provide water for the Israelites (Exodus 17:1-7). Moses obeyed, and the Rock yielded water.

However, much later in the Desert of Zin, God gave Moses new instructions regarding the same Rock. This time, God commanded Moses to take his rod and speak to the Rock, and it would yield water (Numbers 20:7-13). Instead of following God's new instructions, Moses relied on his previous experience and struck the Rock again. Although the Rock still produced water, Moses' disobedience resulted in him losing his privilege to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 20:12-13).

Similarly, Peter might have clung to Jesus' earlier instructions or teachings, neglecting the newer revelations or commands. This tendency to rely on past experiences or understanding can lead to spiritual stagnation and disobedience, as seen in Moses' case. Just as Moses failed to adapt to God's new instructions, Peter's rigid adherence to his initial understanding hindered his full embrace of Jesus' inclusive message.

Peter's difficulty in understanding Paul's letters (2 Peter 3:16) was not solely due to the complexity of the content. Rather, it was also a result of the tendency to over-interpret and add unnecessary layers of meaning to the text. The original recipients of Paul's letters were intended to understand them at face value, without needing elaborate interpretations or hermeneutical gymnastics.

In the 1st century, letters were a common means of communication, and their purpose was to convey information, instructions, and encouragement straightforwardly. Paul's letters, in particular, were written to address specific issues and concerns in the early Christian communities. The recipients were expected to read, understand, and apply the teachings and instructions contained within.

However, as time passed and the original context was lost, subsequent generations began to interpret and reinterpret Paul's letters, often reading into them their own biases, cultural influences, and theological agendas. This led to a departure from the original intent and meaning of the texts.

The problem was further compounded by the fact that many of the early Christians failed to adhere to the teachings and instructions in Paul's letters. This disobedience led them to assume that Paul's words could not be taken at face value, and that they required elaborate interpretation to uncover their "deeper" meaning.

In reality, Paul's letters were meant to be understood as they were written – clearly, concisely, and without needing unnecessary interpretation. The issue lay not with the letters themselves but with the readers' willingness to accept and apply their teachings. By understanding the historical context and original purpose of Paul's letters, we can gain a clearer understanding of their meaning and significance.

Peter himself recognized Paul's gift of wisdom, and such a gift would not intentionally convey puzzles and mazes to readers. In the context of 2 Peter 3:15-16, the individuals who perverted Paul's letters, as well as the rest of the Scriptures, were not people of later generations but rather those who rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ preached by Paul. They were not unlearned in the sense that they couldn't understand the language, but rather, they disliked the true meaning of the gospel and deliberately distorted it to suit their own intentions. Peter warns that this perversion leads to their own destruction, as echoed in Revelation 22:18-19.

In essence, Peter acknowledges Paul's wisdom and clarity in his writings, and the distortions arose from the refusal to accept the true message of the gospel, not from any inherent complexity in Paul's letters.

Peter himself wrote in a letter (2 Peter 3:15-16) that he intended for people to understand and heed its message, implying that his writing was clear and not as difficult to comprehend as Paul's letters. However, despite Peter's intention, people still chose to interpret his words, refusing to take them at face value. This tendency to seek deeper meanings or alternative interpretations, rather than accepting the literal sense, persists to this day.

Ironically, these same individuals often selectively apply their interpretive approach. When it comes to straightforward commandments like "Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15), they readily accept the literal meaning without feeling the need to interpret or spiritualize it. Yet, when confronted with teachings that challenge their beliefs or practices, they suddenly seek elaborate explanations or allegorical interpretations.

This inconsistent approach to scripture perpetuates the complication of the message, leading to confusion and misinterpretation. By acknowledging the clarity of Peter's writing and accepting the literal meaning of scripture, we can gain a more accurate understanding of the message and its application to our lives.

And so, this narrative has highlighted the importance of understanding scripture in its literal sense, without imposing unnecessary interpretations or complications. We've seen how Peter's letter, though written centuries ago, still conveys a clear message that can be understood and applied today. Similarly, Paul's letters, though sometimes challenging, were intended to be understood by their original recipients without needing elaborate interpretations. By embracing the clarity of scripture and accepting its literal meaning, we can deepen our understanding of God's message and its relevance to our lives, avoiding the pitfalls of over-interpretation and misapplication.

With this in mind, we can anticipate ongoing debates and discussions among theologians and scholars regarding the interpretation of Scripture. While we respect the diversity of perspectives, we must exercise caution against dogmatically closing off alternative interpretations and declaring a single understanding as the sole authorized truth. Instead, we prefer to embrace the literal meaning of Scripture, acknowledging its clarity and simplicity.

Moreover, we recognize that the Lord prophesied an increase in knowledge in the last days, enabling people to uncover hidden truths and decipher the mysteries of books like Daniel (Daniel 12:4, Revelation 22:10). However, this prophecy raises important questions about the limitations of our current understanding, shaped by the selective compilation of Scripture by early church councils.

The process of canonization, which determined the inclusion of certain books and the exclusion of others, was influenced by the theological and cultural biases of the time. This raises concerns about the potential for a narrow, blinkered perspective, constrained by the preferences of ancient councils. How can we be certain that we are not missing crucial insights, hidden from us by the very filters of interpretation imposed by these early compilers?

By acknowledging the historical context and potential limitations of our current understanding, we remain open to the ongoing revelation and refinement of truth. We seek to approach Scripture with humility, recognizing that our comprehension is incomplete and subject to growth, rather than assuming a fixed, absolute interpretation. In this way, we can continue to uncover the riches of Scripture, unencumbered by the constraints of dogma and tradition.