Re: Where are the dear departed? (was Re: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation)

Hi Bernie, Merv,

Bernie wrote:
>> I have a hunch that if you throw-out Revelation, then there's no
>> problem with thinking that people die then go to heaven (or hell). I
>> think the problem only comes when theology is taken from the Book of
>> Revelation. Correct?

I'm genuinely sorry to be contrary Bernie, but, I can't agree.

Let me say that I didn't appeal to Revelations as a proof, but as an illustration of the entire tenor of NT eschatology as I understand it. And, frankly, I think the consistent teaching of the NT is against the idea that we go at death immediately to our eternal reward / punishment. I've already mentioned I don't think "going to heaven" works, but I ALSO think the idea of a post-resurrection judgment makes the "go straight to heaven / hell" idea problematic in the extreme.

The primary issue here is, to my mind, the problem of a "misplaced" judgment. Consider; if one wants to be faithful to the NT idea of a post-resurrection judgment AND suggest we die and go immediately to heaven / hell, then one is arguing that the order is; death, temporary stay in heaven / hell (without judgment!), resurrection, judgment, and permanent assignation to heaven / hell. I don't find such a schemata satisfactory, and I don't see that I can until somebody explains how the problem of a "misplaced judgment" might be gotten around.

That said, I would like to make very clear that I'm not arguing against the idea that the eternal fates of the righteous and unrighteous vary. In particular I'm not suggesting that ultimately nobody ends up in hell.

What I AM questioning are our ideas about those future states - particularly I'm questioning the common tendency of Christians to think of heaven rather than the renewed earth as the eternal resting place of the righteous. I'm suggesting that we should be contrasting "New Earth / Hell" rather than "Heaven / Hell."

I'd only add two observations;

First, I think the chronological problem - the question of what we do with the period between death and judgment - seems to remain REGARDLESS of how one understands the future states. So I'm not just troubled by the idea that we die and go to heaven, I'm troubled by the fact that this seems to entail a rejection of the NT idea of resurrection and judgment - which is, frankly, far more clearly taught than the idea of "going to heaven."

Second, I'll come clean and acknowledge that I think the "Dante's Inferno" notion of hell is wrong-headed. As far as I can see there are only TWO scriptures which can be adduced in support - one from Revelations (where the genre of Jewish Apocalyptic raises some thorny issues about symbology / pictorial images) and Jesus' use of the story of Lazarus and the rich man (on which more below). I mention it to make clear that I reject arguments that common notions of hell lend weight to dualistic notions of body and mind / spirit / soul. Again, I'm not denying that the unrighteous are "damned" but I do question common assumptions about how this is often understood.

> Of course, there is always the little matter of what Jesus says
> according to the gospels: ...better to pluck out your eye than be cast
> into hell... ...better to fear him who can destroy both body and
> soul in hell than those who can destroy only the body...

As noted above I'm not arguing against the idea of hell - questioning our understanding of its nature, perhaps, but NOT questioning the claim that the unrighteous "go to hell" (whatever that entails).

The issue, as I hope I clarified above, is one of chronology - do the unrighteous go DIRECTLY to hell? If so what do YOU, Merv, do with Jesus' talk of a FUTURE resurrection which must occur BEFORE the eternal fates of the righteous and unrighteous are established?

Here it's all very well and good trying to critique MY position - but please think of what you're actually asserting in doing so.
 
> ...tormeneted rich man may plead for mercy but an impassable gulf
> separates him from Lazarus in Abraham's bosom... All from the
> heart of Scripture --multiple gospels -- none of them in Revelation.

This is all well and good as a challenge to MY position, but to me the above comment about what you're actually asserting rings loud and clear here;

It's fine to argue that this story teaches that heaven and hell are actual places where the good and the bad go. But do we REALLY want to claim that the righteous (all of them!) are going to spend eternity reclining on Abraham's bosom? Or that the righteous / unrighteous will be able to converse across the impassable gulf? I don't believe people want to assert these things, yet they want to take certain other elements of the story (usually the torments of hell) as literally correct. I find this curiously selective.

My view is that this passage is NOT teaching about the nature of heaven and hell at all. Rather it is, to my mind, the MOST OBVIOUS example of accommodation in all of Jesus' teaching. I believe that reading the passage in it's context is that he's taking a commonly held (but erroneous) first century Jewish notion of eternal reward / punishment and turning it on its head in order to offer a challenge to the religious leaders' notions of wealth, righteousness and reward. And perhaps more importantly, this critique is grounded in a fundamental challenge to Jewish assumptions about the Law and to Jewish assumptions about their status as descendants of Abraham. So to see it as a teaching about heaven and hell is, frankly, to miss the entire point of the story.

Now, one is welcome to take the story literally but I'd point out one further curious point: in the story we see the rich man talking to Abraham - which means that one CAN'T take "Abraham's bosom" in a symbolic sense. So, if the rich man is an actual person, condemned to a literal fiery hell, than it seems to follow that Abraham is a literal person upon whose literal bosom an actual Lazarus reclines. In consequence, if this story teaches a literal fiery hell, then it even more strongly teaches that EVERY person ever saved will end up reclining on Abraham's bosom. And I've never heard anybody defend THAT claim even though I've met dozens who've wanted to take the rich man and his fiery torments literally. This seems to me more a case of self-righteous schadenfreude inspired by Dante's Inferno than the result of sound, consistent, sober Biblical exegesis.

I'll close by merely reiterating - and I here direct this remark to Merv more than Bernie: it's all well and good throwing out a bunch of passages as a challenge to MY position - but please think of what you're actually asserting in doing so.

Blessings,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 20 13:22:17 2008