Here is my 1,001st blog post—and I have been wanting to write this since making the Dec. 26 post that was largely based on Habakkuk 3:17. This article begins with Hab. 3:18—and focuses on just one word in that verse: salvation (or Savior, depending on the translation).
What is the meaning of salvation in Habakkuk 3:18? That is the first matter to be clarified. In evangelical
Christianity, salvation is primarily thought to be the future gift of “eternal
life” in Heaven that we humans can receive through the forgiveness of our sins by
faith in Jesus Christ.
That, obviously, was not what Habakkuk meant in referring to “God of my
salvation” (NRSV) or “God my Savior” (NIV). Habakkuk lived 600 years before Jesus
was born, and the context is about being “saved” from the effects of crop
failure.
As in much of the Old
Testament, salvation here primarily means deliverance from physical
hardships in the present, not salvation from the punishment of sin and blissful
life after death.
Salvation in the OT usually
means deliverance from some physical calamity or liberation from bondage. Of
course, even in modern times, we sometimes use that same terminology. For
example, a child is saved from death in a burning building, or a company
is saved from bankruptcy with a large loan.
So in spite of the
fig tree not budding and there being no fruit on the vine, the song of Habakkuk
3:17-19 rejoices in the God who the prophet expects to deliver God’s people
from doom. At the very least, the people’s faith in God delivers them from worry
and frees them from fear of the future.
What did Jesus say about salvation? Jesus didn’t talk much about salvation or people being saved—although
there was certainly much about that in the New Testament after Jesus’ death and
resurrection.
One of the very few times Jesus used the word salvation was
in the story about Zacchaeus as recorded in the 19th chapter of Luke.
After Jesus invited himself to Zacchaeus’s house, treating him as a person
worth respect rather than an enemy of the people, Zacchaeus said,
Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.
Jesus responded by declaring, “Today
salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham”
(vv. 8-9, NRSV).
Was the salvation Jesus was referring
to here the gift of eternal life in Heaven? No, Zacchaeus’s promise to generously
share his possessions was not him buying a ticket to Heaven.
Jesus was most likely thinking of
salvation in the ways the Jewish people of his time, and for centuries before,
had generally thought of salvation. It was deliverance or liberation for the
present, not for some future state of existence. But from what was Zacchaeus saved/delivered?
He was saved/liberated from his
alienation from his own people by his working as a hated tax collector for the
Romans. By releasing much of his ill-gotten wealth, he was freed from allegiance
to Rome and became, again, a member of his Jewish community. He became, again, “a
son of Abraham.”
Concurrently, Zacchaeus
was saved/freed from his greed, his love of riches, his self-centeredness. He committed
himself to boldly helping others, not lining his own pockets as tax collectors
then regularly did.
Because of Zacchaeus’s
repentance (=180o change of direction in his way of living), salvation
came to his house that day.
What does salvation mean for us today? Certainly, I am not disparaging what the followers of Jesus
later said about “eternal salvation,” even though there are, undoubtedly, many misunderstandings
entwining that important concept.
What I am emphasizing here is the need to understand salvation
also, or maybe first, in the way Jesus spoke of salvation to Zacchaeus.
Perhaps it is primarily the “prosperity Gospel” preachers,
the “Foxvangelicals” (to use the term my friend Brian Kaylor recently used with
reference to Robert Jeffress), and so many U.S. Christians who are so entangled
in consumerism who need to consider this the most.**
But what about you—and me?
_____
** Kaylor
is President and Editor of Word&Way (the Christian media company based in Missouri since 1896). He used this term
in a Jan. 17 article (found here)
titled “A Tale of Two Services.” I highly commend this piece
comparing/contrasting what former Vice-president Pence said at First Baptist Church,
Dallas, and what President Biden said at Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta, this past
Sunday.
Local Thinking Friend David Nelson gifted me, and us, with the following comments:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for continuing to share your wisdom. I appreciate your focusing on the gift of salvation here and now in the midst of the current world rather than something I have to die to receive. The Good News that Jesus brought was 'the Kingdom of Heaven is present, repent and accept it.' Deliverance in my present hardship and from my present addictions really is good news. I will sleep better tonight knowing the power of the sacred embraces me now."
The second email with comments regarding today's post has come from local Thinking Friend Lonnie Buerge:
ReplyDelete"Thanks Leroy. That is helpful in understanding a word that I have often avoided in the past."
I think this is an interesting context to understand in biblical hermeneutics. With that said, learning from the context on the mindset of the Jewish people in their era on salvation in the Old Testament and understanding theology in the New Testament is important as well. I think that the context of the language and the people is very helpful in those terminologies. Thanks for sharing those, it is also interesting that in the last line when I read on the prosperity gospel or Pentecostals that follow them is that, a lot of those preachers would teach that salvation can be lost and I never understood but why would they teach that doctrine when Scripture clearly says that we are saved that nothing can snatch out in God's hands? I just believe that God saves His saints as it is His gift. Blessings, S.K.
ReplyDeleteHere are helpful comments from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:
ReplyDelete"Very good and important, Leroy. Jesus also used 'saved' with reference to physical, spiritual and emotional healing. Note his word to the woman who bathed his feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair (Luke 7:36-50): 'Your faith has saved you' (7:50) could be translated, 'Your faith has made you well.'"
Thanks for your helpful comments, Dr. Hinson. I agree with the alternative translation you gave for Luke 7:50--and that verse could also be interpreted as her faith being instrumental in her being delivered or freed/liberated from her illness.
DeleteI like this blog very much. I also appreciate Glenn's comment above. I've never quite understood how that concept of the day of resurrection developed among the early followers of Jesus. And I've certainly never quite understood why Christians, especially the orthodox, decided that only those with an explicit faith in Jesus Christ would gain eternal life. We know of Platonic philosophy's influence on the early church, but I think the idea of a resurrection day was somewhat unique.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I abandoned the idea of some kind of self-conscious afterlife as a result of my faith. Whatever comes after death, is, I presume, in the hands of God and not something I or anybody else need be concerned about. In my view, if there is such a thing as a self-conscious afterlife, it is universal and not merely for those with a particular historical faith.
You and I have discussed this only briefly in the past, but I'm reminded now of two of your essays in 100 Views from This Seat and a question I didn't get a chance to ask at Vital Conversations. In one blog, you seem to endorse the doctrine of annihilationism for "those who reject that gracious gift" of eternal life. In another blog you suggest there are "some people in most religious traditions and some who are not 'religious' at all" who love and do justice and who then also know God. So my question is, in your view, will those who know God but who are of religious traditions other than Christianity also receive eternal life?
Anton, as always, I appreciate your significant comments/questions. I'll respond now only to the last paragraph--and will seek to be brief even though the issues are complex and cannot be responded to adequately in just a few lines.
DeleteI appreciate you mentioning two of the 100 blog posts included in my book "100 Views from This Seat." The first reference is to "Are Humans Like the Dog Named Rover?" that I posted on Feb. 18, 2019--and it was closely related to "What about Annihilationism?" the blog post I made the previous month (on 1/20/19). Both of those primarily dealt with the question of people suffering in an eternal, and literal, Hell. That is a common evangelical Christian position that I definitely do not accept now--and a matter I wrestled with uneasily when I was an evangelical Christian in the early years/decades of my life. Earlier today I had a Thinking Friend whom I first met in the conservative Baptist college where he and I were students in the 1950s, and he was raising this very question about Hell--and when I respond to him, I will be making reference to the two blog posts noted in this paragraph.
Regarding the question at the end of your last paragraph, I first must say that I fully agree with what you said in your second paragraph: whatever comes after death for anyone is in the hands of God alone and it is not for me or anyone else to say who will or will not receive "eternal life" (although eternal life, as I have long believed, is about a quality of life that is available for "enjoyment" now and is different from what was long called "everlasting life"). That 3/12/10 blog article was titled "To Know God Is to Do Justice," and I wrote briefly about that emphasis of South American liberation theologians among others--and also cited 1 John 4:7-8 from the New Testament. So, surely if anyone, of whatever religion or of no religion, knows God and does justice and practices the love I John speaks of, that person will be fully embraced/accepted as a child of God.
Your blog has inspired my bookclub/SS class again. First we read Brian McLaren's new Do I stay Christian? We are now started into the subject of your November 15, 2022 blog about Rosemary Radford Ruether and her book Sexism and God-Talk: toward A feminist Theology (1983). I bring this up here, because she is very fierce on the here-and-now issues of life. For instance, on page 30 she says "Jesus' criticism of power and of religious models of domination is interpreted by the Church to spiritualize his understanding of the Kingdom of God. That understanding is said to be purely 'spiritual'; hence it has no relevance to questions of social justice 'in this world.'" Needless to say, Reuther is very big on social justice in this world.
ReplyDeleteTo my surprise, so far I have liked Ruether's book even better than McLaren's, and I like his book a lot. I think the difference is that McLaren has written in the white male Christian gaze so long, that he keeps right on writing that way, even when he turns to criticize it fiercely. So somehow, even when describing torture techniques used by the Inquisition, his writing seems sort of soft focused, almost fuzzy. There is nothing fuzzy so far in Ruether's book. She writes like a prophet on a mission. Her quotes from Amos and Jeremiah flow right into her arguments. It was refreshing, and made clear to me what I was missing in McLaren's otherwise inspiring book. She not only writes a good salvation story for women, it is a good one for thinking men as well!
As you indicate in this blog post, Leroy, there are both consistent (OT & NT) meanings of salvation/saviour, as well as different meanings, depending, of course on contexts. The biblical references to salvation are also connected to other significant biblical concepts such as: justice, justification, reconciliation, and so on. That reminds me of the wisdom of bishop and professor Krister Stendahl, in his book "Meanings." One important thesis he suggests is that there are a host of meanings in biblical texts: beginning with the original author, the original audience, and followed by each generation reading the text, up to the present day.
ReplyDelete