Video part 2 -- Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment -- Part 2
I can first of all applaud Greg for asking the simple question -- Can we look at this a different way? It is the question I am asking so I am glad he is asking it too.
Considerations he is asking us to look at with my responses:
1. Luke 16:19-31 is a parable: Really? Greg makes this point because he does not want the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus to teach us on the nature of hell. However, Jesus never identifies this as a parable nor does the gospel writer. It could be factual story. It is purely speculation that this is a parable. Even so, parables are not completely one point deals. In the case of the first parable Jesus tells -the parable of the sower -- it could be argued that Jesus is making a single point by using four sub points. The interpretive model that parables only make one simple point all the time is overly simplistic and does not consider the individual nature of each parable may be different. In any case, even if this is a parable, it does not indicate that Jesus is being inaccurate about the nature of hell.
The fact is that this view of the afterlife was and still is the notion of the Jews based on interpretation of Old Testament scriptures of Sheol -- the grave. So, Jesus then would be reinforcing this belief by default. At the least -- if this story is not accurately representative of what the afterlife is like, then we have Jesus perpetuating a false notion -- I certainly don't see Christ perpetuating a false notion of anything, but even if this is just a parable by using the common belief of Sheol he is doing so. Jesus was certainly not shy about blasting false beliefs but here we would have Jesus actually using one to illustrate a point? I don't think so.
2. Many metaphors to describe eternal punishment: Greg rightly makes the point that metaphors are the basis of what we understand about hell -- I think most of his observation are accurate on this one.
3. Three most common ways God refers to punishment in the bible: a) death b) destruction and c) perish. "Be as though they have never been" Obadiah 16 is particularly telling. The point he is making is that all of these things have a finality to them and do not indicate a torture type punishment. I agree.
4. The Bible sometimes speaks of things being eternal in consequence not in duration. He makes good points here. This is part of my problem with the doctrine of hell is that is what is indicated most of the time -- the consequence of eternal death is what is indicated -- once your dead a second time your dead it is not a continual dying.
Now, I agree with most of this except the notion of Luke 16:19-31 is a parable. I really do not think it is a parable but an accurate representation of Sheol or the grave. If so, that indicates some sort of punishment for the wicked and reward for the righteous. One thing that can be said though is the parable does not indicate that Sheol is eternal -- the belief is that it is a place of waiting for final judgment. Maybe this is where the idea of purgatory first comes from but I don't think the 'hell' side is redemptive although it could be.
Next: Greg Boyd Video 3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I want to commend you for trying to be open-minded about other ways to look at Hell, rather than just going along with the traditional view, of a place where God is directly inflicting the worst sort of suffering, with no let up, and just accepting that God must have some good reason to eternally torture billions of people, in spite of the way Jesus, in most every other place, tries to tell us God is caring, loving and empathetic toward the suffering.
ReplyDeleteBut this is very hard to do when you've been told all along that you HAVE TO accept that "every word" in the modern Bible is directly inspired by God. What to do, when you find contradictions? Such as what you mention regarding the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus?
Well, the short answer to your question is that the idea of Hell evolved in the Bible, beginning in the Old Testament as a giant underground cave where ALL the dead souls ("shades" as they were called) went, to eventually become two places in the afterlife, meaning that people inserted their own ideas about the afterlife into the biblical texts.
So, either you have to reinterpret passages like Luke 16:19-31 to mean something that is contrary to its own context in order to make it consistent with everything else Jesus taught...or accept the fact that some copyist of the original words of Jesus inserted his own ideas about Hell into the text to place them on Jesus' lips.
I've actually written an entire book on this topic--"Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell," (for anyone interested, you can get a free ecopy of my book at my website: www.thereisnohell.com), but if I may, let me share one of the many points I make in it.
If one is willing to look, there's substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: "You don't know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!" Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it.
So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY!
True, there are a few statements that made their way into the gospels which place Hell on Jesus lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.
Rick,
ReplyDeleteThere are several problems with your view:
1. In the case of the texts of Scripture we have one of them best preserved books of antiquity in the Bible particularly the New Testament. In addition, people dating the particular texts as later additions have had to fold because of textual criticisms recent discoveries particualrly p52. In any case there is no evidence of wholesale editing like you suggest on this subject. Luke 16:19-31 has only three possible changes based on manuscripts and it is verse 21, 22-23 none of which deal with the word hell. The rest of the story has no changes. So your statement "True, there are a few statements that made their way into the gospels which place Hell on Jesus lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted" has no textual or historical evidence to back it.
2. You have a problem with your interpretation methods: Why can't it be the teaching on hell is true and Christ teaching on compassion is not what Jesus taught? The problem with saying that not every word in the Bible is inspired and thus authoritative is that it allows a person to pick an choose what they want to believe. Just because you don't want something to be true does not make it so. Once you call into question one verse in the Bible then even the ones you believe are true are subject to the same criticism. Who is to pick and choose which are authentic or not? You. Me. Someone else. What you say sounds good on the surface but it leads pretty much to creating a Christ in the image that we want which is to me idolatry.
If Jesus teaches on hell, and he does, then we need to reconcile the view not just push the delete button because we do not like it.
My personal belief is that we are not looking at this right and that there is an interpretation that is not contradictory all and upholds all the words of Christ and the other teachings on the Bible.
I'm not going to comment on Rick's post because it utterly fictionalizes the Bible.
ReplyDeleteEd, since it seems you're suggesting that Hell is not an eternal place, what do you do with texts such as Rev 19:3 and 20:10?
"Aionas ton aionas," translated as "forever and ever" appears 18 times in the NT, 17 times meaning "without end - lasting into infinity." The one exception is Rev 14:11, but only slightly different - it is translated as "ages of ages." So although the phrase is slightly different, it doesn't change the meaning which still denotes an eternity.
Paula,
ReplyDeleteActualy, I have no problem with your observation about 'forever and ever' the question me and Boyd pose is not how long we all agree the duration is eternal but WHAT exactly lasts 'forever and ever'? Is it 'torment' or 'annihilation' or soemthing else? Is the eternal a place or a consequence or something else? Now I don't have any hard answers on these questions when I say I am examining this, it is becasue quite frankly don't see this as cut and dry. There is the image of God as a loving God but there is also the image of a holy God -- both are true -- how then can hell be justified. Honestly, I am just posing the framework and questions right now -- the answers I am still looking for. Hopefully as I examine the Scriptures something new will come to mind that reconciles these problems. The Bible has always done this for me in the past and I am confident it will do so in the future.
I enjoy listening to men like Boyd who are more interested in truth rather than protecting a church doctrine, true or untrue. I've just written a book on Hell & eternity that will be out soon. It talks about what the Scriptures actually say on the subject.
ReplyDeletewww.whatthehellbook.com