jim

ps – i’ve read the book…it is shit

But I suppose we humans are constantly seeking coherence and comprehensiveness, and if that’s what you mean by system, I don’t disagree at all.

Thanks, all, for good conversation here at pomomusings. Keep up the good dialogue!

- Joshua

Congratulations on your efforts to nudge the church toward what you see as being more faithful to our Lord.

Just a brief comment/question. You say that it is important to look at the Bible “narratively,” and not simply as “proof-texts” for systematic theology. Absolutely — we ought not simply take verses out of context to prove our own system, nor should we develop a system on an improper reading of Scripture.

Clearly, we must look at all Scripture together. But it is probably a chariacature to say that all Scripture was meant to be narrative. It is filled with laws, praise songs (!), and lots of different genres. I assume that you mean that we must use all these genres to try to reconstruct a narrative of God’s story of interaction with humanity from Scripture. That is a great idea — something that Bible readers have been trying to do since the second century (e.g., Origen, Clement of Alexandria). Of course, such an attempt to see the God the Bible presents holistically is nothing new. It simply has been lost a bit in the science of the Enlightenment. (But that is not to say that there have not been faithful souls in the past 300 years that have not had a lot to add to the reconstruction of this narrative.)

Now, as to the link between Scripture and theology. I would posit that, no matter your desire to read the Bible narratively and not to use it to proof-text your own theological system, that you do indeed have a theological system in your mind before reading the text, and that you have one in your mind after you read the text. I guess the optimal thing is to be malleable and humble and in-touch with the Spirit enough to allow for the system to be changed with your reading of Scripture.
N.T. Wright and Walter Brueggemann certainly have (very different! “New Perspective” Anglican vs. Presbyterian (USA) reformed) theological systems in mind going into their readings (systems that, in my opinion, are sometimes breathtakingly wonderful and sometimes a bit theologically piecemeal), and in their writings you do not merely have narrative exposition, but you have theological claims that come out of that narrative.

I know that you would not deny this. I just want to set the record that we do not merely have Biblical narrative and that’s it. The moment after we read it (and the moment before), we make internal theological claims — claims that unfortunately we probably seek to support things that we want to be true. But the point is that we cannot help but make theological claims, systematically so if we want to be faithful to other areas of faith. We are all a bundle of theological beliefs — whether we want to admit it or not — that are a result of intense reflection, lazy intellectualism, inherited beliefs, socio-cultural osmosis, etc.

I am glad that you seem to be one of those who is willing to admit to being a theologian, and wants to do it well, in service of the church, no matter the uncomfortable or unpopular places it may lead — even if it means angering the right (or the left, too, I hope).

- Joshua

Sheol’s semantic domain is much broader than our English “hell.” For instance, both the righteous (Jacob in Gen. 37:35) and sinners (Korah in Num. 16:30) go to sheol.

Even the KJV, which translates sheol “hell” more than most (all?) other English versions, translates it “grave” in Gen. 37:35 (and 30 other times). The Geneva Bible translates sheol as “grave” 40x and the NIV 57x (and never “hell”). I think the RSV, NRSV, and ESV simply transliterate: Sheol.

Sometimes sheol seems to refer to the literal grave where the body of the dead is laid (Job 17:16; Isa 14:11). There is a sense in which it refers to a place specifically for the wicked (Ps. 49:13-14; Prov. 5:5) in contrast to the righteous, but no specific descriptions of its nature are given. This is not inconsistent with NT descriptions of Gehenna, just not as complete (and here the question of intermediate state vs. eternal state arises–sheol seems to refer to the intermediate state and Gehenna to the eternal).

…but the Old Testament doesn’t use such language. Sheol’s not a fire-filled place. Call that what you will, but it isn’t “consistent.”

Yes, gehenna was a place where trash was dumped outside of Jerusalem. The word gehenna comes from the word ge which means “land” and the word hinnom or beney hinnom (Hinnom referring to the sons of Hinnom). The place that Christ was referring was this place, a valley southwest of Jerusalem and a place where people sacrificed their children to Moloch. Because of this idolatry, the Jews considered this place to be unholy. Eventually this place took on the name ‚Äúthe valley of tophet (or spittle).‚Äù Fires were constantly kept burning in this place to burn the remains of the sacrifices offered there. This was not your ordinary dumping grounds for trash. Also, the idea of fire often is used in association with the word gehenna. Take for instance Matthew 5:22, 29, and 30. To reduce gehenna to a wasted life is quite reductionistic.

In regards to Brian‚Äôs imagery argument, brimstone boils at a dark brown, and this is something that little is known about. It’s a little presumptuous to declare certain images inconsistent.

So, perhaps the kingdom of God is one more image. Why be literal about justice but not about hell?

“In fact, one of the main words translated hell in the New Testament is that word Gehenna. Does that mean that people will very literally be deposited in that trash dump outside Jerusalem? And he talks about a place where words don’t die – a place of perpetual decay, I guess you’d say. Do you believe in literal eternal worms? Why be literal in one place and not another? Besides, all these images can’t be taken literally at the same time – I mean, you can’t have literal fire and darkness, right? So don’t they all suggest waste, decay, regreat and sorrow? Isn’t that what anyone would feel if he spent his whole life on accumulating possessions or wealth or knowledge or power but missed out on life to the full in the Kingdom of God? He would have wasted his life…Wouldn’t that make you want to weep and gnash your teeth? Isn’t the garbage dump the perfect imagery to use for that kind of waste. It sounds to me like hell is one image Jesus uses among many others.”

Thank you for this new book. After reading it, I must say that the issue of Hell doesn’t truly seem to be the point. While I realize that this is a “hot button” issue, it is not at all what moved me. I came away from this book with a deeper appreciation of God’s love than perhaps I had ever realized before.

In particular, the story of Neo and Dan in the holocaust museum really shook me, in that my view of Hell could justify any type of human suffering in the present life (i/e Darfor). I just pray that the Church may respond in loving action for the those who are dying senselessly around the globe rather than battle this idea of the afterlife. Perhaps it is easier to get angry over thoughts, ideas and interpretations than to do something loving for others.

Regardless, thank you for setting my eyes on the bigger picture of God’s love and how we can be a blessing to the world.

-chad

In terms of ‘The Last Word…,’ it is much appreciated! In light of your book as well as others, those of us within this conversation have been criticized from outside voices for not having enough theological voices present. I could argue this, but…

Do you think it is a fair analysis, and thus we need voices such as Wright, Willard, the GOCN folks, as well as others, more directly involved? Or is this a criticism that will be leveled simply because it’s always an easy target? (After all, nobody here goes by ‘Calvin.’)

Blessings Brother.

In terms of ‘The Last Word…,’ it is much appreciated. In light of your book as well as others, those of us within this conversation have been criticized from outside voices for not having enough theological voices within our midst. I could argue this, but…

Do you think it is a fair analysis, and thus we need voices such as Wright, Willard, the GOCN voices, as well as others, more directly involved? Or is this a criticism that will be leveled simply because it’s always an easy target? (After all, nobody here goes by ‘Calvin.)

Blessings Brother.