We often hear people speak of our nation’s ‘Judeo-Christian heritage.’ As near as I can tell, when people say that, they are speaking of our culture’s traditional adherence to selected Christian doctrines (that’s the Christian part), and to the 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20 (that’s the Jewish part). I really think it’s as simple as that (although it is possible that some also have in mind Genesis 3).
The 10 Commandments, as the concept of a divinely-given law, are indeed important to many people in our country (even if few people actually know many of the individual 10 Commandments!). So much so, that many people advocate for their appearance in law courts and other official buildings. I’m not going to get into the church/state debate (at least not in this current blog series), but my point is that many take them to be the basis of our society and our society’s laws.
I want to make it clear that I think the 10 Commandments are indeed important and should be taken seriously. However, I stumbled on an interesting passage a little while ago from Deuteronomy 27. I won’t reprint the whole text this week, but it recounts the story of Moses, who, at the end of his life, gave the Israelites a new set of commandments that they were to write on stones and set up after they entered the Promised Land. I am wondering why this list of commandments in Deuteronomy is relatively unknown; that is, when we talk about our ‘Judeo-Christian heritage,’ I wonder why no one ever talks about Deuteronomy 27.
First, it is clear from the passage that Moses meant this list of commandments to be the basis for the law in the Promised Land. Thus, they were (or should have been) the legal foundation for the Jewish nation. Now, there is nothing to suggest that this made the list of commandments found in Exodus 20 irrelevant, but it seems that Moses regards this new list as having special importance for the future of the Jewish nation.
It is also a little awkward that the 10 Commandments from Exodus 20 are regarded as the basis of America’s laws, because 8 (out of 10!) of them are perfectly legal. And not only are they legal, but there is no cultural taboo against, say, coveting or working on the Sabbath. Furthermore, the two that are illegal in certain contexts, namely stealing and killing, aren’t at all particular to Christians or Jews. That is, every society that has ever existed for any length of time necessarily had some kind of injunctions against killing and stealing.
Interestingly, most of the commandments found in Deuteronomy are illegal in America. Or at least violating them is a cultural taboo, or could even get you sued. So, my proposal is this: let’s weave together Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 27, as this represents a more complete understanding of our Judeo-Christian heritage. More to come next week about how this might work.
7.14.2011
The After-Life: An Argument for Ignorance, Part IX
I began this series by reflecting briefly on Rob Bell’s book, which claims to reveal ‘the fate of every human who ever lived.’ In brief, he wants to convince us that there is no hell. On the other side of Protestant theology we have the conservative evangelicals, who claim that every person will experience eternal conscious torment in hell, unless they accept the Gospel (which I have been referring to as the Evangelical Hell Doctrine [EHD]). Indeed, they are so certain about this belief that it often makes an appearance on a list of official church doctrines, and it is thus what its members are expected to believe.
In the last weeks, I have not chosen one of these sides, but taken a different route entirely, namely, to claim that there is not really much information given about the negative side of the after-life in the Bible, and this is true of both the Jewish scriptures and the Christian New Testament. This is particularly problematic for Bell and the conservative evangelicals, because they tell us that their beliefs are formed entirely by Scripture.
Bell’s position strikes me as arrogant, but I reserved most of my disdain for the EHD, because in addition to the arrogance problem, they are making a dramatic, terrible claim about almost every person who has ever lived. If you are going to state that you know that another person is going to live in conscious torment, you really should have some good evidence for your claim. However, when we examined the passages that supposedly offered proof of the EHD, we found something different. There were three groups of passages. First, there a handful of passages in Matthew and one in Luke that say that you go to hell (or something like it) for moral failings such as neglect of the poor, and not for a lack of belief. There are also several passages that talk about how the unbeliever will someday die, or perish, or be destroyed, which is explicitly defined in Scripture as the opposite of living forever in torment. The third group of passages is from Revelation, which describe the eternal conscious torment of the devil and his worshippers. But nowhere do we find anything close to a passage that supports the EHD.
What I have to say next may sound like a joke, but it is not. When you experience what is sometimes called a ‘brain freeze,’ try to imagine that pain lasting forever. That pain is excruciating, but it is bearable because it lasts only a few sounds. But what if it never stopped? If you are a conservative evangelical, you are saying that you know for sure that something like this kind of pain will happen to almost every person who has ever lived. And, importantly, you are saying this without any Scriptural evidence.
Two parting notes before I start a new series next week. It strikes me that people who believe in the EHD should order their lives far differently than they do. For example, why in the world would you have children if you thought that there was a decent chance that one of them would be tortured forever? Why would you oppose abortion? Isn’t it better for a being to die as a fetus than to grow up and thus have a chance of being tortured forever? Also, why would you spend time with family, friends, church, leisure, travel, career, sports, hobbies, etc? Because if the EHD is true, life is an emergency, and the only point to it is to make sure that as few people are tortured forever as possible. I really wonder if anyone - including those who outwardly affirm it - really believes in the EHD.
In Scripture, we learn what kind of lives we should lead. If we are Christians, we should order our lives accordingly. What we are not told is what will happen to those ‘on the other side.’ And so, if we are honest, we will continue on in ignorance, as we must do already with very many issues.
In the last weeks, I have not chosen one of these sides, but taken a different route entirely, namely, to claim that there is not really much information given about the negative side of the after-life in the Bible, and this is true of both the Jewish scriptures and the Christian New Testament. This is particularly problematic for Bell and the conservative evangelicals, because they tell us that their beliefs are formed entirely by Scripture.
Bell’s position strikes me as arrogant, but I reserved most of my disdain for the EHD, because in addition to the arrogance problem, they are making a dramatic, terrible claim about almost every person who has ever lived. If you are going to state that you know that another person is going to live in conscious torment, you really should have some good evidence for your claim. However, when we examined the passages that supposedly offered proof of the EHD, we found something different. There were three groups of passages. First, there a handful of passages in Matthew and one in Luke that say that you go to hell (or something like it) for moral failings such as neglect of the poor, and not for a lack of belief. There are also several passages that talk about how the unbeliever will someday die, or perish, or be destroyed, which is explicitly defined in Scripture as the opposite of living forever in torment. The third group of passages is from Revelation, which describe the eternal conscious torment of the devil and his worshippers. But nowhere do we find anything close to a passage that supports the EHD.
What I have to say next may sound like a joke, but it is not. When you experience what is sometimes called a ‘brain freeze,’ try to imagine that pain lasting forever. That pain is excruciating, but it is bearable because it lasts only a few sounds. But what if it never stopped? If you are a conservative evangelical, you are saying that you know for sure that something like this kind of pain will happen to almost every person who has ever lived. And, importantly, you are saying this without any Scriptural evidence.
Two parting notes before I start a new series next week. It strikes me that people who believe in the EHD should order their lives far differently than they do. For example, why in the world would you have children if you thought that there was a decent chance that one of them would be tortured forever? Why would you oppose abortion? Isn’t it better for a being to die as a fetus than to grow up and thus have a chance of being tortured forever? Also, why would you spend time with family, friends, church, leisure, travel, career, sports, hobbies, etc? Because if the EHD is true, life is an emergency, and the only point to it is to make sure that as few people are tortured forever as possible. I really wonder if anyone - including those who outwardly affirm it - really believes in the EHD.
In Scripture, we learn what kind of lives we should lead. If we are Christians, we should order our lives accordingly. What we are not told is what will happen to those ‘on the other side.’ And so, if we are honest, we will continue on in ignorance, as we must do already with very many issues.
7.04.2011
The After-Life: An Argument for Ignorance, Part VIII
Next week I will make some conclusions, but this week I want to make one final observation about the attempt to derive the evangelical hell doctrine (EHD) from the Bible. There are a few passages in the New Testament that use the words ‘death,’ ‘destruction,’ or ‘perish’ to describe the fate of unbelievers. For instance, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says that “[t]hey will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord…” John 3:16 famously says that unbelievers will ‘perish,’ and Romans 6:23 says that “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” The one who holds the EHD has to believe that these are euphemisms; that is, Paul and John talk about mere death, but what they really mean is that these people will be alive forever while being consciously tortured.
These are two reasons that this is an irresponsible reading. First, if it is true that most people who have ever lived will suffer eternal, conscious torment, then such a truth would be the most important thing that we could ever discover. Therefore, we should expect the writers of the Bible to talk about this at every turn! But Paul never does, and John only does in Revelation when talking about worshippers of the beast and the devil. So are John and Paul holding out on us? Do they actually know that the fate of most people will be eternal conscious torment and yet do not tell us because it would be impolite? This seems absurd.
The second reason has to do with the Greek words being used. Those three passages I reference use three different Greek words for death, and when those words are used in other passages, they really just mean death – as in a complete end to life. For instance, the word translated ‘destruction’ in the 2 Thessalonians passage also shows up in I Corinthians 5:5, where Paul talks about “the destruction of the flesh,” which he contrasts with the “spirit [being] saved in the day of the Lord.” Or in John 3:16, the Greek word translated as ‘perish’ shows up in Matthew 5:29, when Jesus says that you should take out your right eye, because “it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell” (NKJV). In Jesus’ teaching in Matthew, then, perishing is the opposite of going to hell. So why would he use it in a radically different way in John without explaining himself? Did he just assume that we would get the message? In both of these passages, then, death is contrasted with ‘going to hell’; that is, perishing, or dying, or being destroyed is the opposite of living forever.
And so we have a handful or passages that mention hell or something like it. There are a few (mostly from Matthew, one from Luke) that mention hell as a place that you go for doing immoral works, and not for what you do or do not believe. Therefore, these passages cannot support the EHD. Then there are a few passages, all from Revelation, that describe literal, conscious torment. These, however, do not refer to regular unbelievers, but to the devil, worshippers of the beast, etc. Therefore, these passages cannot support the EHD. Then there are the passages I talked about today. They do (unlike the other two kinds of passages) talk about those who do not believe in the Gospel. However, they do not talk about hell as a destination for unbelievers; rather, they say that they will die, instead of having to endure some sort of everlasting torture. We can see that the Evangelical Hell Doctrine is unraveling fast. I want to make some concluding remarks next week.
These are two reasons that this is an irresponsible reading. First, if it is true that most people who have ever lived will suffer eternal, conscious torment, then such a truth would be the most important thing that we could ever discover. Therefore, we should expect the writers of the Bible to talk about this at every turn! But Paul never does, and John only does in Revelation when talking about worshippers of the beast and the devil. So are John and Paul holding out on us? Do they actually know that the fate of most people will be eternal conscious torment and yet do not tell us because it would be impolite? This seems absurd.
The second reason has to do with the Greek words being used. Those three passages I reference use three different Greek words for death, and when those words are used in other passages, they really just mean death – as in a complete end to life. For instance, the word translated ‘destruction’ in the 2 Thessalonians passage also shows up in I Corinthians 5:5, where Paul talks about “the destruction of the flesh,” which he contrasts with the “spirit [being] saved in the day of the Lord.” Or in John 3:16, the Greek word translated as ‘perish’ shows up in Matthew 5:29, when Jesus says that you should take out your right eye, because “it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell” (NKJV). In Jesus’ teaching in Matthew, then, perishing is the opposite of going to hell. So why would he use it in a radically different way in John without explaining himself? Did he just assume that we would get the message? In both of these passages, then, death is contrasted with ‘going to hell’; that is, perishing, or dying, or being destroyed is the opposite of living forever.
And so we have a handful or passages that mention hell or something like it. There are a few (mostly from Matthew, one from Luke) that mention hell as a place that you go for doing immoral works, and not for what you do or do not believe. Therefore, these passages cannot support the EHD. Then there are a few passages, all from Revelation, that describe literal, conscious torment. These, however, do not refer to regular unbelievers, but to the devil, worshippers of the beast, etc. Therefore, these passages cannot support the EHD. Then there are the passages I talked about today. They do (unlike the other two kinds of passages) talk about those who do not believe in the Gospel. However, they do not talk about hell as a destination for unbelievers; rather, they say that they will die, instead of having to endure some sort of everlasting torture. We can see that the Evangelical Hell Doctrine is unraveling fast. I want to make some concluding remarks next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)