(I've read the comments in the 'discussion' and will try to carry out faithfully your wishes as best I can. Hopefully the next slice of the text will come on on Tuesday.)
And he said: He who shall find the interpretation of the words shall not taste of death.
A lot could be said about this statement. First we can say that it seems to agree completely with John, who said in 8:51: Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
The important thing is to try to get some grasp of what he means by death-- not necessarily what we think of when we hear the word. There are many kinds of death, and what do Thomas and John mean with the word, or Paul for that matter?
IMO they aren't referring primarily to physical death, but what Paul called "dead in your sins" (Ephesians 2:1-6). The dichotomy of life/death means being spiritually one or the other.
The N.T. has a great deal to say about life and death, almost always referring to spiritual rather than physical processes. Paul often talked about being dead to sin and alive with Christ. It seems likely that the writer of Thomas knew people who had "found the interpretation of the words" and then had died physically.
Thomas forces us to think of the two realms, the realm of matter and of spirit. Of course Eastern religions have made us aware that the two are not separate, but Thomas, and the N.T. writers as well, seem to have keen sense of the difference.
As we go through life physical death means less to us than the joy of spiritual life.
8 comments:
I was thinking in this direction when I read this, too.
Thank you for the work it will take for you to present us with Thomas. I appreciate it very much.
Yes, thanks Larry!
Thank you for broadening tehs ense of the word "death" here. Its helpful I think.
I still getsnagged on teh word "interpretation". For the synoptic Jesus the issue is "keeping" the words and for Thomas it's "interpreting" them. I wonder at what the difference(s) might be.
I don't understand this, David. Whose 'issue', and what does it mean?
Well it is "my" issue I suppose. I'm noticing a dofference and I'm taking the difference to be significant.
The Jesus of the canonical scriptures bids us to "keep his words" and to "obey him" but the Jesus of Thomas bids us to "interpret" his words. What is the difference?
I think "keeping" and "obeying are publically observable acts and subject to complaint if you get it wrong. Interpreting seems to be a much more free form and cognitive act -- maybe one that is invisible to your neighbours and not subject to the same possible censure.
But I may also be reading too much into it.
Right. So I was innocently responding to the meaning of death in our typical interpretation of death - physical, where you are reading spritual death. Likely you are correct here. This is so true in my experience, that once I felt God's presence in my heart I cannot imagine feeling spiritual death, though even in this likely I am quite innocent.
Re: David's dialogue with keep, obey, and interpret: I don't see any difference here. To keep to me is to hold and to continue, to carry forth this message. To obey it is the same, keep these word in your heart and let them lead you. And to interpret is to make this truth you carry come alive for you, so they are not stagnant words but a living breathing experience of spiritual grace.
Note: This is not to say that I beleive that my interpretation is the only correct one, but merely the way I read it, wherein there is no conflict of words, nor meaning, but a deepening synthesis of spiritual truth.
There's a difference, to me, between "keep my words" and "correctly interpret my words" .... the first seems to do with how one lives life, actions. The latter seems to be more of figuring out a mental puzzle.
I agree with David; I asked for clarification simply because I didn't somehow grasp his intent. Looking at the gospels as a whole (especially John and Thomas): I perceive a strong contrast (maybe theological rather than otherwise real) between John's exhortation for us to believe in a set of theological propositions and Thomas's insistence that we look within.
In sum: the first I call orthodox and the second gnostic (but only in the broad connotation which I've given to the word).
Well you 'feelers' need not concern yourselves with our theological arguments.
Post a Comment