Keys of the Kingdom 34

Matt, Paul always sent his letters with someone who had heard him deliver them for writing, knew the intent of their content, and could in turn deliver them for Paul to the recipients at least something close to the manner Paul would have delivered them had he been able to come in person. They are essentially oral lectures or homilies delivered in writing through the medium of a representative of Paul. We see Peter later commenting that people are already twisting and distorting things Paul wrote. (I also love the comment that some of the things Paul says and writes are hard to understand.)

We have difficulty from more than one perspective. First, it is proven that written text is more likely to be misunderstood than oral communication. (Actually there are studies about the amount of miscommunication in person, via videoconference, via teleconference, and via writing. The further removed you are from direct personal interaction, the more likely miscommunication becomes.) We also know that translation introduces error in understanding. When something was said or written in a different language, it is more likely to be misunderstood in translation. We know that differences in time, even within the same society, introduce more likelihood of misunderstanding. We are more likely to misunderstand something written in 19th century America than something written today. And we know that cultural differences lead to much miscommunication as well.

So what do we have in Scripture? We have a written text translated from other languages from a time two thousand and more years ago written in a cultural milieu vastly different from our own. You can certainly read it on your own (at least in translation, which means you already have the historical interpretation of the translators as a filter). And you'll even understand some of it. But unless you learn or someone teaches you all of the above and then, on top of that, explains how Jesus interpreted and reinterpreted the entire "OT" in light of himself, can you ever rightly and fully interpret Scripture for yourself?

So the ones who determine what Scripture means to you are those interpretive voices to whom you give weight. And since that is also true for the interpreters themselves, you develop a chain of interpretation. What's the root of your chain? You should be able to trace it and figure it out, at least for specific ideas. I'm discovering that's even easier in my Protestant tradition because most of the ideas aren't actually very old at all. I mentioned one. I could do the same for others. It's not about what Scripture does or does not say. It's the interpretation that shapes.

Scot, I went back and found my comment on your post entitled "Keys of the Kingdom 2" on January 8. Here is what I said, with a few edits:
"Scot, I have some questions that I’ve always wanted answered regarding this topic. Each pertain to my understanding of Matthew 16 and the correspondence of ekklesia to kingdom. Is it possible that Jesus uses ekklesia as the political organization that rules (possibly legislates and judges) over the kingdom? In Matthew 16:18, Jesus asks his small band who the Son of Man is– a phrase with a lot of political meaning if taken from Daniel 7 (very little meaning if taken from Ezekiel). Then Jesus takes it a step further asking them who they think he might be– obviously implying that he may be such a figure. Peter then really crosses the line– You are the Messiah (the one who will free us from the empire), the Son of God (a title given to Caesar). Interestingly, this whole scene takes place right outside of Caesarea, the political capital of Rome in that region. And isn’t ekklesia used in the Roman empire at this time to describe the local group of powerful citizens of the Roman empire that meet together in each town/city to discuss town business? Isn’t Jesus stating that he will build his own ekklesias, as opposed to Caesar’s ekklesias? Then Jesus says that he will give the keys/authority of the kingdom to this little band of followers. Then two chapters later, Jesus addresses the process of how to handle disputes in this new ekklesia– a new non-Roman ekklesia. It seems to me that the ekklesia is a local government of the new kingdom that serves the new Caesar Jesus Christ. Basically, they make decisions and settle disputes in their region of the kingdom. Just as in the Roman empire, most people were not citizens, but this local group of citizens made decisions affecting the non-citizens around the city/town."

So, am I getting this right, making too many leaps of interpretation, or something else entirely? It seems to me if I am somewhere near correct on this, then this has a lot of implications for this kingdom discussion, what the church is in relation to the kingdom, and what our role today is.

Jay, you bring up the aspect I think is so compelling in the text. The gates of Hades either referring to the fountain cave or to the actual city gates in Caesarea. I occasionally hear people say that the gates of hades referred to one particular gate in the city where various messiah/insurrection/terrorist figures were taken for crucifixion (i.e. the gates of death). I've never came across any commentary mentioning this theory-- so it makes me question it, although it sounds super plausible.