How context contextualizes the language of hell
|
The thread on the jealousy of God has again raised a number of important questions about how we construct the context within which we endeavour to interpret the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. It is not enough simply to acknowledge that the texts we tend to cite in order to support our arguments come with literary contexts. There is also the question of how we interpret that context. It is at this level, it seems to me, that the fundamental misunderstandings arise. Consider, for example, danutz’s antithesis between the ‘Jesus that taught an inclusive message which directed all attention toward loving God and our neighbors’ and the ‘Jesus of exclusive institutionalized Christianity that has become the object of twisted idolization’. Apart from the evident prejudice against institutionalized Christianity, I would suggest that this is indicative of a failure to read Jesus within the narrative of first century Judaism. The interpretive framework is instead a more abstract and frankly ‘liberal’ moral opposition between inclusion and exclusion, between personal freedom and institutional repression, etc. On the other hand, we have kingJames1’s more traditional and ‘orthodox’ projection of Jesus’ apocalyptic language on to a universal screen:
I would ask two questions here. First, What is this ‘proper context’? And secondly, How does this context contextualize the teaching? The argument put forward by kingjames1 is that Jesus not only taught a doctrine of hell but also transmitted that doctrine to his disciples and the apostles of the early church. In other words, the thought of hell gets passed on from the particular context of Jesus’ mission to Israel to the universal context of ‘the narrative of God’s plan for the world’. This involves cutting a rather long story short, but I would argue strongly that the language of destruction, gehenna, exclusion, etc., in the Gospels refers to the horrifying ‘judgment’ of the Jewish War in AD 66-70. (There’s a recent podcast interview with Brian McLaren that touches on these themes on Bleeding Purple Podcast.) This narrative framework takes Jesus’ language of devastation and exclusion very seriously - we cannot take danutz’s route of simply filtering it out in the interests of a theology of grace. But the narrative also in some respect must be allowed to confine it, restrict the scope of application - he is speaking about a particular state of affairs; and we must think much more carefully about whether and how we extrapolate from this language to a universal doctrine of ‘hell’. The enemy by which Israel is judged will not itself escape judgment. The historical-eschatological narrative takes us beyond the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple: the New Testament also envisages the overthrow of Rome insofar as it constituted an implacable enemy of YHWH and his anointed one. This accounts for another part of what is traditionally understood as the doctrine of ‘hell’, but it still operates within narrative constraints that cannot simply be ignored by a dogmatic theology. This is not to say that we do not find the language of universal judgment in the New Testament. But I do think that in this matter both Reformed theology and Liberal theology need to pay much closer attention to how context contextualizes statements that are made. There is then a further question to consider. If the New Testament language of judgment is contextualized by the narrative about the experience of the people of God in the first centuries, how is it contextualized by the narrative about the experience of the people of God in a postmodern, post-Christendom society? The answer to this very complex question must take account of the particular and actual state of the church in the West today, which is not the same as the church in the New Testament period, as it engages missionally with the world, which is not the same as the world of the New Testament period. |
Comments
Re: How context contextualizes the language of hell
VIPs - very interesting points.
I guess one of my questions here would be, how should we interpret Jesus’ words in the Gospels relative to Paul’s writings, John’s writings, etc.? Do we evaluate what Christ said in light of the other NT books, or is it the other way around? Or a combination of both, or something else I’m missing entirely?I don’t see any reason to believe that Jesus’ description of the last judgement as an "eternal fire" is meant to be taken any more literally than His description of the kingdom of God as a "mustard seed" or a "coin"… but that makes me wonder all the more what Paul and the other authors might have been thinking when they wrote what they did — and how those writings should be viewed in light of what Christ said (on this and other matters too). If Christ wasn’t speaking literally, and Paul was, where does the priority fall for our understanding of Scripture?Not really connected to the eschatalogical direction your post was going, I suppose, but that’s what it brought up in my mind.
Re: How context contextualizes the language of hell
What frames what? That’s the question. The rule of faith, the rule of analogy, that Scripture interprets Scripture is a wise (and biblical) principle of interpretation. Of course, there is a direction in redemptive history, a process (and progress) of revelation: the prophets interpret and unfold the Law of Moses, applying the Sinaitic covenant in all its implications to the ‘vassal’ nation, and the apostles interpret the Gospel of Jesus Christ, applying the new covenant realities to the new community of God’s people. Yet, we cannot rightly understand the Prophets without the Pentateuch (a friend of mine once said that Deuteronomy is the ‘systematic theology’ of Israel’s prophets), nor can the apostles (and the apostolic kerygma) be rightly understood apart from the ‘gospel’ of Jesus Christ, His life and teachings, death, and resurrection, which God in His wisdom has preserved for us in the form a four-fold Gospel.
So, sometimes Jesus frames John. Sometimes Peter frames Paul. Sometimes Jude frames Jesus! And vice versa. But, if we understand the apostolic office as was ordained by Jesus, it seems unwise to pit one against the other, to force an either/or in the case of an apparent tension (e.g., the common confusion of pitting Paul against Jesus in 1Cor.7:10-12 in many interpretations). Rather than pick and choose, I think constructive theology seeks a ‘frame’ that comprehends all aspects of our scriptures harmoniously. This, I think, is the way forward toward a theology that is both creative and faithful.
Regarding Jesus’ teachings about ‘gehenna’, I think all agree that his language is metaphorical (i.e., Jesus was not refering to a literal valley of perpetual fire outside of Jerusalem). And so his audience would have understood it. To quote from wikipedia (i know, an autoritative source), "Jesus used the word gehenna …and his audience understood quite well that gehenna meant a place of condemnation, for in contemporary Jewish belief "gehenna" was a term for a transcendent (or subterranean) place of eternal punishment." Thus Jesus appealed to the ‘mythology’ of his audience in his teachings about divine judgment (as does Peter, in refering to the Greek concept of Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4, which was essentially identical to the Hebrew concept of Gehenna).
I would not then compare such metaphor to the parabolic language of ‘mustard seed’, ‘coin’, etc. In parables there is an element of allegory, in which certain aspects of the kingdom or the Son of Man are likened to common objects or practices that would have been familiar to Jesus’ hearers. The language concerning hell however is not itself parabolic. He uses this language in non-parabolic discourses (e.g., Matthew 23:33). In fact, Jesus employs the language of eternal judgment and fire in interpreting his parable of the wheat and the tares for the disciples in ‘plain terms’ they would understand (Matthew 13:41-42).
So, it would seem that Paul and Jesus, or John and Jesus, all employing metaphors of fire (whether flames descending from heaven or pooled in lakes), spoke of an eternal judgment that awaited those who disobey the gospel of the kingdom. The language of torment (gnashing of teeth, etc.) is also ‘metaphorical’; yet it seems clear that the reality of real torment is meant to be thus conveyed to Jesus’ audience.
Ugghh. Maybe we should get the hell off this topic!
What contextualizes Jesus’ teachings of eternal life and reclining at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven?
Re: How context contextualizes the language of hell
One quick tangential thought… simply because this topic intrigues me…
Does the language of torment necessarily refer to those being tormented? Following the line of thought that says Gehenna is a place for dead bodies of criminals, etc, could it be that the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is not coming from those who are in the fire, but those who are outside the fire weeping for those they have lost? Just pondering…I’ll have to think more about the context of Jesus’ teachings on eternal life before responding…
Re: Wailing and gnashing of teeth
I liked the story I once heard about a fire-and-brimstone street preacher. He was just winding up to the climax of his peroration by painting a lurid picture of hell’s torments, which he capped with the words: "And there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth", when a voice came back from the crowd: "But I haven’t got any teeth!". Quick as a flash, the preacher responded: "Teeth will be provided!"
I hope this isn’t trivialising a very serious and important discussion.
parousia : vindication and, or bodily resurrection?
Following the period of trouble that will be both judgment and deliverance for Israel, the righteous will be raised, vindicated, honoured.
In your book, Andrew, you implied that the first resurrection was literal - if I understood you correctly - and was limited, as you set out here, to those who particularly suffered, in like manner to the Son of Man, during the particular eschatological crisis of Jerusalem etc.
In the quote above the wording could be interpreted more figuratively - would you clarify? Was the "first resurrection" in your eschatological matrix literal? And, if so, was it witnessed and were there accounts of it, albeit shadowy, like the one (I seem to remember) which appears in one of the gospels?
Thank you.
shalom! - john
Re: Jesus' interpretation of the parable of the weeds of the fie
Hi andrew,
This is a very clever approach. However, I find no warrant to understand Jesus’ interpretation of this parable in Matthew 13 so strictly in terms of Daniel’s apocalyptic propheices in chapter 7, 9, and 12. Moreover, I would differ from you on a number places concerning the interpretation of Daniel. In your interpretation, the vision of God’s Kingdom in Daniel 7 has apparently been fulfilled in toto at the close of AD 70, whereas I would lean more toward a now/not yet understanding of an inaugurated eschatology, leaving room for a yet future fulfillment or consummation in terms of the coming kingdom in Daniel’s vision. E.g., I do not see Jesus’ oft-repeated reference to the Son of Man coming on the clouds of glory from Daniel’s vision to have been fulfilled (i.e., exhausted) in the ascension recorded in Acts 1. Neither, apparently, did John (cf. Rev.1:7)
Perhaps the most problematic aspect of your take is reducing Daniel’s reference to the resurrection of the (righteous) dead in chapter 12, referred to by Jesus here and elsewhere (e.g., Lk.14:14) to the survival of a ‘remnant’ from AD 70. Or so this is how I understand your comment, "Daniel has in mind something like the Maccabean crisis in the second century BC; Jesus takes the vision over and applies it to the analogous crisis that Israel faced in the first century AD." Apart from Christ, the frist-fruits, were the dead "in Christ" raised in the first century? This seems quite fantastic, historically speaking.
Perhaps it could be argued that such a crises as occured in the first century adumbrates and anticipates the great eschatological crises, the ‘great tribulation’ Jesus refers to in Matthew 24 (as most commentators throughout the years have understood it). But certainly Jesus here means more than Titus’ destruction of the Temple in the first century. Jesus clearly saw a future resurrection, to which he here refers in the parable, as a terminus to the present age (13:39), as did the apostle Paul (1Co.15:23-24). The whole point of this parable, as I read it, is that the kingdom-age will co-exist with the prsent evil age, until the end, when Christ will have "abolished all rule, authority and power" (1Co.15:24; cf. Dan.2:34-36, 24-25; 7:13, 22, 27), the last of which is death (1Co.15:26; realized in the resurrection of the saints, 1Co.15:54-55; cf. Dan.12:2-3).
And correspondingly weak, in my view, is understanding the judgment involving the angels harvesting the sons of the kingdom to the fleeing of the ‘righteous’ Jews from Jerusalem (cf. Lk.21:20-22) and the destruction of the ‘sons of the evil one’ within the walls of first century Jerusalem. This simply does not cohere with the similar reference in the Olivet Discourse in Mt.24:30-31, in which the coming of the Son of Man is a public event witnessed by "all the tribes of the earth" (unlike the ascension recorded by Luke), flashing like lightening from one end of heaven to the other (24:27), such that His coming would be undeniable (contrary to the claims of false christs, 24:24-26).
The world, represented by the field, is best understood, not as the sphere of the fourth beast’s operation and domain, as much as the sphere of the gospel’s operation. That is to say, it is better understood in the immediate context of chapter 13, as opposed to (the vision of the four beasts in) Daniel 7. The first parable, the sower, as most commentators agree, frames the entire series of kingdom-parables to come. The seed is the gospel or word of the kingdom (the mystery revealed in Christ’s present coming and ministry, Mt.13:11-17, 52). The seed finds various responses (in ‘four soils’). Similarly, the sower (the Son of Man) sows seed in the field, which is the world, wherein it produces a good crop (those responsive to the gospel, cf. Mk.4:26-29). During the planting season, an enemy (the devil) adds tares (‘sons of the evil one’). Yet the response is not to pull up the tares prior to the harvest (otherwise the sons of the kingdom would be damaged if not destroyed together with the weeding out of the evil ones, v.29). Such a separation (judgment) awaits the end of the age, when the sons of the kingdom will be ‘harvested’ at the resurrection (the full fruition of the harvest, of which Christ is the ‘first fruits’) and the tares gathered for the furnace.
The focus then is the response to the gospel-seed and the inauguaration of the new age, signified in the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom (cf. Mt.11:12-13; Lk.16:16). To delimit this to the first century judgment against Jerusalem (as though this demarcated ‘the end of the age’) seems both unwarranted from the Gospels and from the writings of the apostles.
Would you likewise delimit the eschatological table of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to the survival of a remnant from Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem? Have we received the kingdom in full, shining as the sun? I’m sure the original audience of the Apocalypse (suffering persecution and even martyrdom) would very much disagree with this assessment.
Re: Jesus' interpretation of the parable of the weeds of the fie
Hi Andrew,
Regarding the apocalyptic-prophecy of Daniel as ‘contextualizing’ the parable of the wheat and tares, you write: "But the fact that the figure at the centre of Jesus’ interpretation of the parable is the ‘Son of man’ and the allusion to Daniel 12:3 in verse 43 certainly point in this direction."
Perhaps. But not necessarily. As you no doubt well know, "son of man" is Jesus’ favorite self-designation, and as such is employed in many varied contexts. In fact, he employs the title in ways that clearly go beyond Daniel’s usage, even ways contrary to the exalted imagery of chapter 7 (e.g., Matthew 8:20; 17:12, 22; 20:18; 26:2, 24, 45). In fact, Jesus appears to integrate the messianic-apocalyptic imagery of Daniel with the mysterious ‘suffering servant’ of Isaiah (Matthew 20:28). So we cannot confine his usage and understanding of the title to Daniel’s heavenly man.
Regarding the reference to Daniel 12:3, ‘allusion’ is the right word (Jesus’ words are only vaguely similiar to Dan.12:3 LXX - in fact, Paul’s statement about the Philippians shining ‘as stars in the universe’ in 2:15 is a closer parallel). With most commentators, I understand the point of this allusion to refer to the resurrection in the latter days (Daniel 12:2), which Jesus mentions elsewhere (e.g., Luke 14:14; 20:35-36; cf. John 5:28-29). The point of fact here is thet Daniel 12:2-3 is the clearest and most direct OT testimony to a future resurrection of the dead (both the righteous and the wicked). Jesus’ reference then to Daniel’s language in chapter 12 is to the ‘end of the days’, in which all the dead, including Daniel himself, will be raised to receive their ‘alotted inheritance’ (12:13) [which btw seems highly problematic for your approach of ‘historicizing’ the eschaton within the circumference of AD 70].
You write, "The language of the kingdom, I would suggest, has to do quite concretely with whether Caesar or YHWH was king over the covenant people. Once the kingdom was given to the Son of man to reign on behalf of YHWH, we are no longer in a situation in which we are waiting for the kingdom still to come."
Wha? I guess I would refer to 1Co.15:23ff., but apparently another author has ‘dealt’ with this text. Nevertheless, Paul says the ‘end’ will come after the resurrection of Christ’s ‘own’, at which time the kingdom will be handed over to the Father. To suggest this resurrection happened in ‘some sense’ is to ignore the entire context of chapter 15, which is an involved argument for the corporality of the future resurrection. Ironically, the ‘historicization’ of the NT eschatology here denies the concreteness and physicalty of the future resurrection.
When then did Jesus ‘drink of the fruit of the vine’ with his disciples in his Father’s kingdom? When did the son of Man establish twelve thrones for the twelve apostles to judge the twelve tribes of Israel? And as far as the coming of the son of man appearing as lightening, flashing from one end of the heavens to other being applied to the mission of the church (preaching the gospel to the nations post-AD 70), what can I say? This defies any grammatico-historical, contextual exegesis of Matthew 24:27. The reference is clearly to the appearance of the Son of Man, contrasted with the false appearances of pseudo-messiahs. How then can the spread of the gospel (over a period of decades, even centuries) be reconciled to the words of Jesus here? I deduce from your interpretation of chapter 24, that all this talk of angels gathering the elect, the tribes of the earth mourning in response to the Son of Man coming on the clouds with power and great glory is all mythological, and is to be ‘demythologized’, de-eschatologicalized, and reduced to an historical moment. Such a radical re-reading of the texts not only contradicts the historic understanding of God’s people, but would have been (understandably) mystifying to Jesus’ original audience (for whom such language was understood in accordance with Jewish acopalyptic with its trans-historical eschatology). Moreoever, it is clear that the apostles did not understand the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ in this manner (see 1Thess.4:13-5:10, which according to your interpretation would be irrelevant for, or at least quite misapplied to Gentile Christians living in Macedonia).
"God reigns over his people through the Son of man who through his (and their) suffering overcame death and satan and was vindicated."
When have the martyred saints been vindicated by God in history? Apparently not in any spiritualized resurrection of ‘going to be with the Lord’ (see Rev.6:9-11). Or do you believe martyrdom of the saints has ceased?
"The ‘now and not yet’ argument would have made sense at a time when the church was longing for deliverance from its persecutors in the first centuries, but we have moved beyond that."
Really. May I suggest that such a view could only come from a modern Western perspective, isolated from the rest of the world. Does the persecuted church today figure in at all?
"What we wait for now is not the coming of the kingdom but the renewal of creation - these are distinct themes."
Distinct perhaps, but not separate. In fact, John ties them closely together in Revelation 20-22, in which the final judgment, the coming of the New Jerusalem from heaven to earth (the full restoration of ‘the kingdom to Israel’, as John’s numerous references to the prophets in these chapters would indicate) in the sphere of the new heavens and the new earth. Cf. Jesus’ comments to the disciples in Matthew 19:28 ("at the regeneration") and Luke 22:30 ("in My Kingdom"). Cf. Peter’s comments about the new heavens and new earth as our promised ‘home of righteousness’, in light of which we are to be diligent in our faith (2Peter 3:13-14) and the kingdom we are to (yet) receive through the same diligence (2Peter 1:10-11).
Contra the realized eschatology of Dodd (which your view seems to approximate) I would recommend Ridderbos’ "The Coming of the Kingdom".
Re: Jesus' interpretation of the parable of the weeds of the fie
Hi Andrew,
I agree with you, the discussion has become detailed, but also scattered. Perhaps we should leave certain issues aside and focus on a few matters that have been raised.You and I disagree fundamentally on the eschatology of the NT and OT. I hold to what might be called a realistic eschatology, which, understanding the symbolic and metaphoric language of apocalyptic literature and the ‘mystique’ of its genre, accordingly reads the texts ‘literally’ (i.e., according to the literature). So, when Daniel 12:2-3 speaks of the resurrection of the dead in those days (i.e, the last days, "the end of time" 12:4), he means a literal, physical resurrection (not merely a vindication, in some sense, of the saints). And so it was understood by Jesus’ contemporaries (with the exception of the Sadduccess, who apparently did not accept the writings of the Prophets as authoritative, see Matt.22:23; Ac.23:8).
Moreover, it seems evident by Jesus’ application of Daniel 9 in Matthew 24 et al., (let the reader understand) that Antiochus Epiphanes is the not the final horizon of Daniel’s visions (i.e., Jesus not merely re-applying Daniel’s language to a different scenario, but unpacking Daniel’s mysterious prophecy in chapter 9 for his audience). Rather, the abomination of desolation extends beyond Antiochus and his desecration against the holy of holies, even beyond AD 70 (Lk.21:20ff.) in which Rome similarly desecrated the holy place (as the language of ‘wrapping up’ the eternal purposes of God for His people in Dan.9:24 would seem to suggest), to the time of this ‘man of lawlessness’ of whom Paul speaks to the Thessalonians (2Thessalonians 2:1-4) and the beast(s) of Revelation (written well after Jerusalem’s destruction), for which Daniel 7, and 2 provide the theological background (and not in imagery only). In a word, I would argue that ‘apocalyptic’ embraces both historical events (divinely wrought events within history), but also eschatological events, in which God’s kingdom irrupts into history, guiding the political and spiritual forces of the world toward His divine goal, culminating in the great and terrible day of the Lord, the end of history (which is no mere metaphor for ‘a dramatic change within human history’). Thus, as do the prophets of Israel, I would distinguish the eschaton from history. Certainly the eschaton is seen to overlap with history (‘the latter days’ of history), as Jesus’ teachings on the inaugurated kingdom would suggest. Yet history and eschatology are distinct realities or ages in the progress of redemption.
You, however, hold to what might be called an historical eschatology, by which I mean an eschatological horizon bounded within history, and first century history in particular. Such langauge as employed by the prophets, the apostles, and Jesus himself cannot but be mere dramatic metaphor for historical events, as you understand it (except, oddly, the language of the new heavens and new earth, in which case you become a realist it would appear). However, such a reading does not appear to be supported by the OT, the Apocrypha, or the NT documents (and NT pseudopigrapha).
For example, consider the lofty language in the Psalms and Prophets regarding the exodus and wilderness wanderings. Grandiose? Yes. Earth-shattering, cosmic? Indeed. Historical events? Certainly. Truly miraculous, supernatural phenomena that transcended the natural course of history? If we accept Scripture’s own testimony, we have to conclude ‘yes’. Or were the cloud and pillar of fire mere symbols? Certainly the rabbis did not think so. The earth-shaking metaphors and ‘proto-apocalyptic’ imagery were employed precisely because the nature of the events demanded such language. Perhaps Israel’s ritualistic and poetic remembrance of the exodus and wilderness wandering really was the womb of the apocalyptic genre. Such events ‘transcended’ the relatively mundane prose of ancient historiagraphy, demanding a new genre. (BTW, the tendency to universalize the kingdom (the domain and sovereignty) of the covenant God of Israel is not a Western phenomenon, but an ancient near eastern one, see for example Isaiah 40:6-41:7; 45; 49; or Mal.1:5, 11).
So I would affirm that your non-realist reading of eschatology is a radical interpretation, departing from the general ‘hermeneutic’ of the typical ‘second temple’ reader. Compare for example your historicized eschatology to the strongly apocalyptic (i.e., supernatural, end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it) eschatology of the Essenes, or any piece of intertestamental apocalyptic literature. Or compare your delimitation of eschatology to the destruction of Herod’s temple to the early rabbinical commentaries on Daniel, Zechariah, etc., or compare to post-AD 70 Jewish apocalyptic works (e.g., 4Ezra). It is significant that in these works the future Messiah(s) was still execpted to come as a real, supernatural person to save Israel from her enemies and establish her as the head of the nations. (Certainly AD 70 was not seen to accomplish this - your interpretation would certainly baffle the rabbis). Thus messianic expectations and apocalyptic forms are intertwined, and it is consequently difficult to reduce one to the realm of colorful, poetic historiography (even sacred historigraphy) without so reducing the other as well.
But what about the understanding of the early church? Compare you interpretation of Revelation 20, for example, to the earliest known understanding in the early chruch (e.g., Papias’, and according to his disciple’s testimony, Polycarp’s premillennialism). Did the second and third generation community really so quickly and profoundly misread the first? More importantly, did they so radically misunderstand this genre, which stands much closer to their cultural milieu than ours.
How did the apostles read their Lord? I mentioned in my previous post 1Thessalonians. It seems clear that they too saw "the coming of the Son of Man" as the Day of the Lord, that last day, when history would be drawn to an end, and the final judgment of mankind would be accomplished.
Lastly, you write "By the time we get to Revelation 21 it has become a more literal hope: this is a new creation in which there is no more wickedness and no more death. That cannot be said of the renewed people of God." I would disagree. It is precisely in the matrix of God’s covenant promises to Abraham, His covenant with Israel and David that the realization of this cosmic renewal and restoration are unfolded. Israel’s history is the world’s; and the nations are spectators to God’s covenant dealings with his elect nation (e.g., Amos 3:9-10), and thereby drawn into the redemption of Abraham and his descendents (Ro.15:8-12), such that, through him, all the nations of the earth are blessed and renewed. This is the gospel (Gal.3:8). Israel will be restored at the regeneration of all things (cf. Ac.3:19-21; 1:6; Mt.19:28), and the nations with her (Ro.11:11-12; cf. Ac.15:15-18).
Perhaps we should start a new thread on biblical eschatology and the coming kingdom, or something to that effect?
[Comment moved to new thread]
Re: How context contextualizes the language of hell
Andrew,I agree with you 100% on this point. I think we can derive the meaning of Jesus in the NT by asking 2 questions: What did the authors (1st century Jewish Christians) want to tell us? Why did they tell it this way? The answers will be completely in context to the story of Israel. 1st they wanted us to know that Jesus was the answer to God’s promise to deliver Israel (once again) from their oppressors. In this case the oppressor was the Roman Empire. 2nd they told the stories this way because they were building a religion. They were building a proof text for their idea that Jesus was the solution to their problem and I agree that he was in fact that solution. I like the fact that you are willing to acknowledge the fall of the Roman Empire as fulfillment of that promise or at least the beginning of that fulfillment. I haven’t read your book yet, but I get the idea that this is the basic premise (fyi, it’s on order from amazon but they say 4-6 weeks for delivery to the states).
The bible seems to me to be a series of mini-stories that all have the same 3 part theme to their metaphors. Promise, obstacle, and fulfillment are the parts to that theme. We also see this theme if we look at the bible in totality as one big metaphor for the nation of Israel. If we don’t try to take the stories, poems, myths, parables, and dreams of the bible so literally they all line up and become more “true” from a metaphorical standpoint. The truth is that Israel (we?) are hopelessly separated from God but he gives us a promise of reconciliation and he has and/or will fulfill that promise.
Of course it wouldn’t be any fun to just accept the overall theme. As "thinking people" we need to debate the theologically details. We will probably have to agree to disagree on those details and which parts are meant as metaphor v. historical truth, but I think in the end we can all rally around the big picture truths and work together on that level.
Re: History and metaphor
Andrew,
I think you might be creating division where is there is none. I don’t intend to get worked up when people like yourself need to see every detail of these stories as historical facts. I would only find that to be a big problem if you took it another step further and insisted that believing those events to be literal history was a requirement for "salvation".
I am making your same point about defining the context of these stories within their proper setting in the history of Israel and it’s quest for fulfillment of promise. I’m not suggesting that the historical Jesus is ONLY metaphor. I’m suggesting that the metaphor is the explanation for the unbelievable claims. The historical cry for a messiah is the framework that helped the metaphors of Jesus’ death and resurrection become a part of the story. I believe that the historical facts and the metaphorical elements are both essential. This explanation would also apply to the incredible hell languange of the NT. This is no different than the way you explain the events in Revelation with the demise of the roman empire. The entire Bible is filled with real historical events explained with the grand language of mythology.
Re: How context contextualizes the language of hell
"They were building a proof text for their idea that Jesus was the solution to their problem and I agree that he was in fact that solution."
Now this is a thought that I have been toying with in my mind for quite some time. I hope I make sense with this - I was thinking along the lines of: Jesus made several attempts to provide a progressive path to the religion of his day (Judaism) and failed. His death provided an opportunity to the oppresseed to declare themselves not Jewish, but, followers of Jesus (a Christian) and therefore ‘escape’ oppression of their race. Based upon this thought I am guessing one could say that Jesus did in fact save those who believed in him - or - people saw an opportunity to save themselves.
Any thoughts?
Re: How context contextualizes the language of hell
It would seem so, judging from Paul’s language of fire and everlasting punishment against those “who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus”, concomitant with the Lord’s coming “with his powerful angels” (2Th.1:7-10; cf. Mt.13:40-42), and the ‘lake of fire’, from which “the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever,” (Rev.14:11) in John’s Apocalypse - the second death, which is the terrible destiny of those whose “name is not found written in the book of life” at the last judgment in chapter 20.
But more importantly to your question, I wonder if you are not over-determining the ‘contextualization’ of Jesus’ words in confining them to his historic mission to Israel, thereby delimiting the ‘theological context’ of his preaching/teaching both geo-politically and eschatologically. We should bear in mind that Jesus’ central message of the coming kingdom (his theological context) was eschatological in the fullest sense of that term. Its implications were by no means restricted to the borders of first-century Palestine. Rather, the coming Kingdom was univeral in implication, indeed, cosmic. One cannot, it seems to me, divorce his teachings regarding the immediate implications for his original, Jewish audience of the coming judgment and blessings of God’s reign from their implications for human history in toto. We see from the kingdom-parables, for example, that the kingdom of God has a reality that is both present in Jesus’ mission (Mt.13:10-15, 18ff., 32, 34-35, 37, 44-45 - the kingdom is apparently small, insignificant, hidden, the word of which is ‘scattered’ by the Son of Man in his earthly ministry) to Israel in particular (Mt.15:24; 10:6), and for the whole world (13:38; cf. 8:12; 15:26-28), both now (cf. 21:28-45; 22:1-13) and extending on to the end of history (13:39-43, 49-50; cf. 25:31-46). Certainly we can distinguish his teachings regarding, say, the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 (see esp. Lk.21:5-24) as the tragic downfall of Jerusalem, for which Jesus wept (Lk.19:41-44; cf. Mt.23:37-38) and the future, eschatological judgment “when the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him” and the “cursed [depart] into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” and the “righteous to eternal life” (Matthew 25:46; cf. 16:27). But we must understand both within the overarching theological context of the kingdom as the in-breaking of God’s reign in Jesus Christ, with profound (eternal) implications for judgment and blessing (both in his first advent and second).
More specifically, our Lord’s language of ‘their worm does not die, the fire is not quenched” (Mk.9:48) is taken from Isaiah 66:24 - the last verse of the book in fact, in which the eschatological horizon entails “the new heavens and the new earth”, in which “all mankind will come and bow down before me.” In other words, if Jesus intentionally refered to Isaiah’s apocalyptic vision in his language concerning ‘gehenna’ (which he no doubt did), then it seems unwarranted to restrict the meaning/application of such language to only his historic mission in Palestine and the judgment in AD 70 (as though these events exhausted the prophetic significance of Isaiah’s visions). It seems our ‘hermeneutical horizon’ must go well beyond the first century, even as the Olivet Discourse itself does (referring both to the imminent judgment against Jerusalem and to the Last Day, e.g., Mt.24:30-31).
Your thoughts?