Читать книгу The Cloak and the Parchments - Frank P. Spinella - Страница 10

I awoke to the stirring of the crew as it made ready for our departure. We were heading southwest for Melos, an island with a tragic history. As recounted by Thucydides, Melos had initially been sympathetic to Sparta during the Peloponnesian war. The Athenians sent envoys to Melos to persuade them to fight instead with Athens, or else be annihilated by superior numbers. When the Melians offered instead to remain neutral, the Athenians besieged the island, massacred the men, enslaved and deported the women and children, and resettled the island with Athenian colonists.

Sitting in the stern as we got underway, I could still feel the rise and fall of the ship, although much less than in the bow. A few meters away Timothy was already talking about the Way to one of the passengers, a Cretan merchant whom we had met the day before. Saving souls was never far from Timothy’s mind at any time of the day or night.

At length Timothy finished the conversation by embracing the man, and then turned back toward me with a nod and a smile. “This man knows Titus and some of the faithful in Crete. By God’s grace, he is coming to believe! I must write Titus to welcome him on his return. That, however, can wait until after we eat; I am starved!”

We made ourselves as comfortable as possible, and over our breakfast of wheat cakes and pears, I could barely wait to open the conversation we had started the previous day. But Timothy was his usual relaxed and unhurried self. At last he seemed ready to talk. “All right, Mark. Where shall we begin?”

“Let us speak first of the new covenant, the one foretold by Jeremiah. What are the details of this promise by God, and what performance does He require of us in order to obtain it?”

“Mark, you seem to want to define all the terms of this new covenant as though it were a contract produced by many lawyers! Let us simplify the question if we can. Is your question not simply this: what must one do in order to be saved?”

“That does capture the kernel of my meaning, yes.”

“And should we not first define salvation, define being ‘saved,’ before we attempt to answer this question?”

“I agree.”

“I think you have touched on the meaning already, Mark: eternal life with God. Is that not what you meant—life eternal, precisely as our Lord has promised?”

“It is. Of course I still expect to die one day, but the hope of a life after death, at least in a spiritual if not physical realm, in a paradise of joy and happiness with God and His angels—that is what I mean.”

“You say the hope of eternal life, Mark—not the certainty of it. Are you unsure whether your soul is immortal?”

“As a matter of pure logic, I confess I am unsure. I struggle even with the notion of a soul as existing independent of a body. The Genesis story teaches that man was a physical body fashioned from the earth and then animated by the breath of God, not a soul or spiritual being which was then incarnated in flesh. So why should we think that the soul can exist independently of the body?”

“Your body is made up of composite parts, each of shape, mass and function—skin and bones, organs and sinews, blood and other fluids, and so on; is it not so?”

“Indeed.”

“These parts can corrupt and die, whether by natural or unnatural causes—and indeed, if the more vital of these parts are separated from the whole, death of the whole is sure to result, is it not?”

“True.”

“But what of the soul? Does it likewise consist of composite and divisible parts?”

“No.”

“Can that which is not composite be dissolved, or that which is indivisible be divided?”

“It cannot.”

“Is it not then logical to say that the soul, being spirit and not corporeal, being incomposite and not the sum of parts, need not be affected by the same corruption and destruction which overtakes our physical nature?”

“I agree, Timothy. On the other hand, the soul seems always to be associated with one body, dependant upon it as its vehicle, so it would not be illogical to conclude that when we breathe our last, our souls may cease to exist as well, for want of a vehicle to carry them further. Either could be true, as I see it.”

“This ‘paradise of joy and happiness’ that you say you hope for; like every human being, you want at all times to be happy, do you not?”

“Of course.”

“Can you achieve complete happiness within the span of your physical life, to the point where you are fully sated with happiness and wish for no more?”

“We will always want more happiness, Timothy! Happiness is not something that we can say one day, we have had enough of! It is human nature always to want more happiness.”

“Then tell me, my logical friend: do you think God would implant in human nature a desire that could never be fulfilled? Would that not be inconsistent with your notion of a perfect, loving and just God?”

“I suppose it would be inconsistent.”

“So there must be a way to achieve this perfect and sufficient happiness that by nature all men desire; don’t you agree?”

“Yes, I suppose so.”

“Well, if during the entire span of our lifetime we do not achieve it, do not stop wanting more happiness, then unless we are to say that God has instilled in us a craving that can never be sated—which we have agreed is not logical—there must be a possibility of life beyond the grave where this perfect and sufficient happiness may be enjoyed, must there not?”

“That would make sense, Timothy, but for one thing: at every moment after death, would we not still want more happiness the next moment, and the next . . . and so on to infinity—so that this craving can still never be satiated, even in heaven?”

“Ah, so on to infinity, you say. I see.” Timothy had that thoughtful gleam in his eyes as he paused, and looked askance for a moment. “I think, perhaps, that you and I mean different things by the phrase ‘eternal life’—or perhaps I should say that our notions of ‘eternity’ are different.”

“How so?”

“By your answer, Mark, I glean that you are equating ‘eternity’ with ‘perpetuity.’ To me, the two concepts are not equivalent. To me, ‘eternity’ suggests an unchanging, immutable and therefore timeless state, while ‘perpetuity’ suggests a temporal component, that is to say, everlasting, for all time, for an infinite duration of time. Do you understand the distinction I am drawing?”

“Perhaps you should explain it further.”

“My notion is simply that time is nothing more than a measure of change. Think of it this way: If all were static—if the universe were completely motionless—then rational, sentient beings within that universe would have no conception of time. So it is one thing to say that after the body dies, the soul lives on in perpetuity, for all time; that would entail the notion of everlasting existence in a universe of change. It is quite another to posit that after the body dies, the soul remains for eternity, unchanging and immutable, outside any realm that can be measured by time—or space. To the extent that it is eternal, then, the soul would be as free of the temporal dimension as of the physical dimension—and equally free of dependence on the physical and changeable body.”

“Ah! Now I see the distinction.”

“And do you also see which is better able to be fully happy and need for no more: a soul that thereafter experiences change, or one that does not?”

“The latter.”

“So if, after death, the soul experiences no ‘next moment,’ but only an eternal ‘now,’ would you then agree that this desire for happiness, insatiable while we live in the flesh, could indeed have been instilled in us by a just, loving and perfect God, without the logical objection that your notions of infinity and perpetuity entail?”

“I would agree.”

“And let us look at this from the opposite perspective. Tell me, Mark; do you believe not only in heaven, but in hell?”

“I do. I think of hell as a place—perhaps I should say a ‘state’—of eternal punishment for the wicked.”

“But during a man’s life, no matter how extensive his wicked deeds, surely he can only have been finitely evil, not infinitely so—at least as you reckon infinity; am I right?”

“You are.”

“If God is indeed just, then, surely He would not mete out infinite punishment for finite evil, would He?”

“I suppose not.”

“Then a place or ‘state’ of eternal punishment cannot be consistent with the notion of a just God—if ‘eternity’ is simply ‘temporal infinity.’ Agreed?”

“Agreed.”

“So whether in terms of heaven or hell, must we not say that eternal life is indeed different than perpetual life?”

“We must, if we are to believe God to be just.”

“Precisely, Mark. And if such a concept of eternal life follows rationally from the concept of a just, loving and perfect God, should we not also explore God’s justice, love and perfection for clues as to how eternal life is to be obtained—what you have been calling ‘salvation?’”

“I am anxious to do so!”

“We have agreed that it is not illogical for the soul to survive the body and enjoy eternal life—but neither is it necessary that all souls will do so. I take it, by phrasing your question as one of ‘salvation’ you mean ‘being saved from the absence of eternal life’—saved from eternal death, in other words?”

“True.”

“So, if one needs to be ‘saved’ from eternal death, then such eternal death must be what awaits us if we do nothing, if we keep no covenant with God; else the concept of ‘salvation’ would make no sense here, would it?”

“No.”

“Eternal life, then, is not the automatic fate of all humanity simply by virtue of being born; rather, the status quo, if not altered, leads to death. Is that not your belief?”

“It is.”

“And it is this altering of the status quo through the promises of our Lord—the ‘new covenant,’ as you phrased it—which you wish to understand better, so that you will know how one may secure the promise of life eternal that awaits those who keep their end of the ‘bargain,’ as you put it?”

“Exactly!”

“Then let us look first to the old to give context to the new. As you have said, it was with Israel that God made the old covenant, to be their God and to take them as His people, called apart from the rest of the world. And as you have said, obedience to the Law of Moses was what He demanded of Israel, in return for which He offered—what?”

“As the Torah puts it, ‘to raise them high in praise and renown and glory above all other nations he has made.’”

“Do you understand this to be the same as eternal life?”

“In truth, Timothy, I am not sure. The Torah makes no mention of eternal life, not explicitly anyway. It references ‘salvation’ only in the context of deliverance of Israel from its enemies, and in the context of a long and prosperous life followed by an unending line of descendants.”

“Then unless such references are a euphemism for eternal life, the old covenant is different from the new on both sides—that which God offers, and that which man must do to demonstrate acceptance; do you agree?”

“I do indeed. But if these words were meant euphemistically, if they were intended to have a meaning beyond the literal, why the obscurity? Why would the scriptures not be direct, if this were their true meaning, rather than casting something so important in metaphor?”

“Why indeed, Mark! What shall we say, then? That a faithful Jew who observes the Law in every respect has earned God’s favor for himself and his progeny so long as they shall live, but does not have the promise of life eternal in God’s presence as his reward?”

“It would seem so.”

“And indeed, that is what the Sadducees believe. But the Pharisaic view is quite different; to varying degrees, they hold to life eternal as the reward for faithful observance, do they not?”

“It is as you say; the Pharisees interpret the Psalms, certain of the Prophets, and the apocalyptic books, particularly the Book of Daniel, as supporting the promise of eternal life for those who adhere to the Law.”

“But as we have said, this is not a necessary interpretation. And even if it were a defensible one, still, the quid pro quo—faithful adherence to the Law—is at best a difficult achievement, perhaps an impossible one given the frailties of human nature; is it not so?”

“It is. There are so many precepts to keep, and the Torah is explicit that one who fails to fulfill any of the provisions of the Law shall be accursed.”

“Is it likely, then, that God would be so mean-spirited as to set before His people so precious a prize, yet at the same time ensure that it is virtually if not completely unattainable?”

“I cannot believe that He would!”

“It must follow, then, that the Pharisaic interpretation must be wrong; that eternal life is not a reward for faithful observance of the Law, and indeed never was. Do you agree?”

“Yes, that follows.”

“At least in terms of the promise of eternal life, then—whatever other benefit there may have been, and may still be, to being a descendant of Abraham and to observing the Law—there is no advantage to being a Jew. For purposes of gaining eternal life at least, Jew and Gentile are on an equal footing.”

“So it seems.”

“And perhaps we can be even more general: If even observance of the Law—the very precepts for behavior given by God Himself as a commandment to His own chosen people—does not have as its reward eternal life, then perhaps eternal life is not strictly a reward for human behavior at all. After all, had God intended eternal life to be a quid pro quo for the performance of some set of humanly achievable acts or forbearances, surely it would have been to Israel that such a reward for conduct would have been offered; don’t you agree?”

“I do.”

“And if it is not a reward, eternal life must then simply be a gift; does that not follow?”

“I suppose it does. Still, I cannot believe that our actions are of no concern to God, that He does not care how we behave, or whether we lead just and moral lives.”

“Nor do I make any such claim, Mark. Certainly He cares! And we shall return to this subject in due course. For now, I simply mean to draw the distinction between earning salvation as a reward for a moral life, and receiving salvation as the unmerited gift of God.”

“I see the distinction. But if, indeed, eternal life is simply a gift, who receives it, and how?”

“To this subject, we will turn in earnest tomorrow. For now, however, let us break from our discussion. See, we are approaching Melos!”