Lee Harmon's Blog, page 92
June 4, 2012
Hebrews 13:1, Brotherly Love
Let brotherly love continue.
//One of the distinguishing marks of early Christianity was its propensity for treating one another as "brethren," greatly beloved. Rome thought those early Christians a strange lot--"they love one another as though their precious Jesus were still with them."
Let's break today's verse down. "Brotherly," in the original Greek, is disturbingly literal. It might be more correctly interpreted, "from the same womb." How are we to understand this? As Nicodemus says, "Can a man enter into the womb and be born again?" I can imagine Jesus smiling as he explains: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
"Love" in this verse is the Greek word philia; ...that is, a fondness, a close companionship.
And "continue" means just what it sounds like; a plea to make sure love endures. Let's put it all together again in a wordy retranslation:
Let there be a deep and enduring fondness between all who have been reborn of the Spirit.
//One of the distinguishing marks of early Christianity was its propensity for treating one another as "brethren," greatly beloved. Rome thought those early Christians a strange lot--"they love one another as though their precious Jesus were still with them."
Let's break today's verse down. "Brotherly," in the original Greek, is disturbingly literal. It might be more correctly interpreted, "from the same womb." How are we to understand this? As Nicodemus says, "Can a man enter into the womb and be born again?" I can imagine Jesus smiling as he explains: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
"Love" in this verse is the Greek word philia; ...that is, a fondness, a close companionship.
And "continue" means just what it sounds like; a plea to make sure love endures. Let's put it all together again in a wordy retranslation:
Let there be a deep and enduring fondness between all who have been reborn of the Spirit.
June 2, 2012
Job 42:12-13, Job's Blessing
So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses. He had also seven sons and three daughters.
//Sometimes, one person's blessing is another person's curse. Like in football: All those fans praying their hearts out, so God blesses one team with a touchdown, and the same blessing saddles the other team with a seven point deficit. Poor God can't win for losing.
Here's another blessing of good intention that would have hardly been appreciated by another. Job begins his testing period with three daughters and two or more sons. That's at least five kids so far, probably many more, and they all die in a storm.
After Job's test, God tries to make it right. He blesses Job with ten more kids.
So who's the loser in all this? Ladies will have no trouble guessing, but maybe the guys need a hint: No epidurals back then.
//Sometimes, one person's blessing is another person's curse. Like in football: All those fans praying their hearts out, so God blesses one team with a touchdown, and the same blessing saddles the other team with a seven point deficit. Poor God can't win for losing.
Here's another blessing of good intention that would have hardly been appreciated by another. Job begins his testing period with three daughters and two or more sons. That's at least five kids so far, probably many more, and they all die in a storm.
After Job's test, God tries to make it right. He blesses Job with ten more kids.
So who's the loser in all this? Ladies will have no trouble guessing, but maybe the guys need a hint: No epidurals back then.
June 1, 2012
Book review: Is God a Moral Monster?
by Paul Copan
★★★★
Paul Copan responds to the New Atheist stance that the God of the Old Testament is a “moral monster.” I agreed with only about half of Copan’s conclusions, but his book was well-written, informative, and fun to read.
Copan begins by attempting to make sense of the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. I loved the short discussion comparing the two times that God called Abraham: The first time to come to the promised land, the second time to sacrifice his son. Because of similar language, Copan argues that Abraham “couldn’t have missed the connection being made … God is clearly reminding him of his promise of blessing in Genesis 12 even while he’s being commanded to do what seems to be utterly opposed to that promise.” Outside of this, though, the Abraham/Isaac story is one of those sections of Copan’s book that just didn’t work for me. It doesn’t seem to matter how it’s explained to me, as soon as someone tries to pull this story down from the level of mythology and make me imagine it to be a true story that really happened, I start to feel queasy. I’d have a few choice words for God if he told me to kill my son. If Copan doesn’t mind, I’ll continue to classify this Bible passage as “storied theology,” where it’s much more palatable.
Copan spends several chapters talking about Israel’s slavery laws, and this section is superb. Was this law ideal? Certainly not. But there are three points I’d like to bring out here:
[1] We are discussing the Law of God, not what actually transpired among imperfect people. Yep, they kept slaves against the rules. The law was not faithfully followed.[2] Copan points out again and again that Israel’s laws were a great improvement over the surrounding nations. God held Israel to a higher standard.[3] Although this point gets little press time in the book, as the law evolved, it became more and more humane. Compare, for example, the Book of the Covenant, quoted by the Elohist in Exodus 21, with the Priesthood writings in Leviticus 19, and finally with the Deuteronomist’s instructions in Deut 22.
Yes, the Old Testament law seems archaic and brutal by today’s standards. Yet it’s clear Israel was learning and was trying to become Godly. Perhaps slowly approaching the standard God had in mind. Buy the book and, if you read nothing else, study chapters 11-14.
Next, Copan tackles what I feel are the most troublesome issues; genocide and ethnic cleansing. Particularly, the conquest of Canaan. Copan points out (rightly) that the Bible’s claims of utter annihilation are highly exaggerated, and that archaeological evidence hints that no such mass conquest took place. For the most part, Israel peacefully settled into Canaan without warfare and without driving out its inhabitants. But whether or not the conquest really happened, the fact remains that the Word of God graphically describes these holy wars in quite unholy terms, and claims that God commanded this inhumanity. Read, for example, Numbers 31:17-18, where God gives instruction regarding Midianite captives: “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” Copan tries to soften the command, explaining that the non-virgin women were seducing Israel’s men and the boys would grow up to become warriors, but nothing can soften that one.
Copan presents a word game at this point. Moses commanded the armies to “utterly destroy” the Canaanites and not to “leave alive anything that breathes.” Joshua didn’t do this; we have lots of evidence of Canaanite people remaining afterward. Yet if you read Joshua 11:12, it says Joshua did as he was told; he utterly destroyed them as Moses commanded. Ergo, since Joshua didn’t kill ‘em all, but the Word of God says he did what he was told, then we can apparently consider Moses’ original command as hyperbole…the rhetoric of war. God didn’t really sanction genocide.
Well, whatever. Copan’s next attempt to justify this evil by reminding us that God is the author of life and has a rightful claim on it falls flat for me. If any kids were killed, they would go straight to heaven anyway, he says. The danger of that kind of thinking hardly needs discussion!
Though well-researched and thought-provoking, I finished the book with the feeling that Copan tried his best to tackle an impossible topic. I think it’s a four-star attempt and a fun book; I can’t judge the loser of a debate merely because he was given an indefensible position, right?
★★★★
Paul Copan responds to the New Atheist stance that the God of the Old Testament is a “moral monster.” I agreed with only about half of Copan’s conclusions, but his book was well-written, informative, and fun to read.
Copan begins by attempting to make sense of the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. I loved the short discussion comparing the two times that God called Abraham: The first time to come to the promised land, the second time to sacrifice his son. Because of similar language, Copan argues that Abraham “couldn’t have missed the connection being made … God is clearly reminding him of his promise of blessing in Genesis 12 even while he’s being commanded to do what seems to be utterly opposed to that promise.” Outside of this, though, the Abraham/Isaac story is one of those sections of Copan’s book that just didn’t work for me. It doesn’t seem to matter how it’s explained to me, as soon as someone tries to pull this story down from the level of mythology and make me imagine it to be a true story that really happened, I start to feel queasy. I’d have a few choice words for God if he told me to kill my son. If Copan doesn’t mind, I’ll continue to classify this Bible passage as “storied theology,” where it’s much more palatable.
Copan spends several chapters talking about Israel’s slavery laws, and this section is superb. Was this law ideal? Certainly not. But there are three points I’d like to bring out here:
[1] We are discussing the Law of God, not what actually transpired among imperfect people. Yep, they kept slaves against the rules. The law was not faithfully followed.[2] Copan points out again and again that Israel’s laws were a great improvement over the surrounding nations. God held Israel to a higher standard.[3] Although this point gets little press time in the book, as the law evolved, it became more and more humane. Compare, for example, the Book of the Covenant, quoted by the Elohist in Exodus 21, with the Priesthood writings in Leviticus 19, and finally with the Deuteronomist’s instructions in Deut 22.
Yes, the Old Testament law seems archaic and brutal by today’s standards. Yet it’s clear Israel was learning and was trying to become Godly. Perhaps slowly approaching the standard God had in mind. Buy the book and, if you read nothing else, study chapters 11-14.
Next, Copan tackles what I feel are the most troublesome issues; genocide and ethnic cleansing. Particularly, the conquest of Canaan. Copan points out (rightly) that the Bible’s claims of utter annihilation are highly exaggerated, and that archaeological evidence hints that no such mass conquest took place. For the most part, Israel peacefully settled into Canaan without warfare and without driving out its inhabitants. But whether or not the conquest really happened, the fact remains that the Word of God graphically describes these holy wars in quite unholy terms, and claims that God commanded this inhumanity. Read, for example, Numbers 31:17-18, where God gives instruction regarding Midianite captives: “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” Copan tries to soften the command, explaining that the non-virgin women were seducing Israel’s men and the boys would grow up to become warriors, but nothing can soften that one.
Copan presents a word game at this point. Moses commanded the armies to “utterly destroy” the Canaanites and not to “leave alive anything that breathes.” Joshua didn’t do this; we have lots of evidence of Canaanite people remaining afterward. Yet if you read Joshua 11:12, it says Joshua did as he was told; he utterly destroyed them as Moses commanded. Ergo, since Joshua didn’t kill ‘em all, but the Word of God says he did what he was told, then we can apparently consider Moses’ original command as hyperbole…the rhetoric of war. God didn’t really sanction genocide.
Well, whatever. Copan’s next attempt to justify this evil by reminding us that God is the author of life and has a rightful claim on it falls flat for me. If any kids were killed, they would go straight to heaven anyway, he says. The danger of that kind of thinking hardly needs discussion!
Though well-researched and thought-provoking, I finished the book with the feeling that Copan tried his best to tackle an impossible topic. I think it’s a four-star attempt and a fun book; I can’t judge the loser of a debate merely because he was given an indefensible position, right?
May 31, 2012
Exodus 1:22, Pharaoh Screws Up
Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live."
//In the days of Israel's captivity in Egypt, Israel's men are driven hard as slaves, yet they only grow stronger and more virile. Pharaoh, recognizing that the birth rate among Israel is skyrocketing, gives this decree: kill all the boys as soon as they are born.
It doesn't work, of course. Ancient Israel is polygamous, and killing boys doesn't halt the birth rate. In fact, had Pharaoh understood the basics of evolution, he would realize he only added to the problem.
So we've got a generation of strong, studly guys. Pharaoh decides to kill all their male offspring. A new generation of girls grows up, with no guys to impregnate them. Suddenly, the studly generation has twice as many women to enjoy.
Pharaoh, hoping to curtail the population explosion, probably only stimulated it.
//In the days of Israel's captivity in Egypt, Israel's men are driven hard as slaves, yet they only grow stronger and more virile. Pharaoh, recognizing that the birth rate among Israel is skyrocketing, gives this decree: kill all the boys as soon as they are born.
It doesn't work, of course. Ancient Israel is polygamous, and killing boys doesn't halt the birth rate. In fact, had Pharaoh understood the basics of evolution, he would realize he only added to the problem.
So we've got a generation of strong, studly guys. Pharaoh decides to kill all their male offspring. A new generation of girls grows up, with no guys to impregnate them. Suddenly, the studly generation has twice as many women to enjoy.
Pharaoh, hoping to curtail the population explosion, probably only stimulated it.
May 30, 2012
Genesis 8:3-4, The Ark Runs Aground
The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
//Ever wonder why Noah’s Ark ran aground? The Bible says it’s because the waters receded, but that turns out to be hardly necessary. Here’s how much it rained:
The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. –Genesis 7:20
On the face of it, this sounds impressive. Indeed it is … the waters rose to twenty feet above the mountains. But it isn’t nearly as impressive as the measurements of Noah’s boat.
This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. –Genesis 6:15
So the ark was more than twice as high as the water level! I’d say Noah did some pretty miraculous steering to have kept the boat afloat for 150 days.
//Ever wonder why Noah’s Ark ran aground? The Bible says it’s because the waters receded, but that turns out to be hardly necessary. Here’s how much it rained:
The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. –Genesis 7:20
On the face of it, this sounds impressive. Indeed it is … the waters rose to twenty feet above the mountains. But it isn’t nearly as impressive as the measurements of Noah’s boat.
This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. –Genesis 6:15
So the ark was more than twice as high as the water level! I’d say Noah did some pretty miraculous steering to have kept the boat afloat for 150 days.
May 29, 2012
Book review: Apocalyptic Tremors
by C. R. Chapman
★★★★
Let me start by saying Chapman reads Revelation the traditional way: as a promise of our future. She also firmly believes in the inerrancy of scripture. Therefore, she and I will certainly differ in opinion. It’s hard for me to grasp how any serious scholar of Revelation can still read the Bible as inerrant scripture, but Chapman gives herself two outs: She emphasizes that her foundation is scripture alone, and she admits that John did not fully understand the vision himself. Whereas I read the book from the understanding that John knew full well the things he was watching happen with his own eyes, and the things he anticipated in his near future.
That said, Chapman’s writing is logical, simple, and well-organized. It’s a nicely written book, and will be appreciated especially by conservative Christians. It’s also true to the flavor of Revelation, which made it enjoyable for me as well. She remains true to the Scripture, varying only occasionally for embellishment, and does not dampen the spirit of revelation by pulling punches. She reveals revelation to be a song of wrath and vengeance. She highlights the dichotomy of Revelation, its us-versus-them plea. For example, she wonders if the sword of the red horseman represents the sword of Islam. “Islam is already murdering Christians because they don’t follow the laws of Islam.”
Scholars will protest, of course, knowing that John’s intended meaning couldn’t possibly have been a nation or religious movement he had never heard of. But Chapman’s book shouldn’t be read in that manner. Chapman makes Revelation contemporary, as if it were written by a minister of today. She modernizes the message by substituting Muslims for the hated Rome, and the apostate church for the wayward Jerusalem, and maintains precisely the right tone of vitriol for both. As Revelation’s Babylon became a dwelling place for demons, so has the Vatican today (the Vatican’s chief exorcist says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession in his life). Chapman brings to life the apocalyptic, leave-it-to-Jesus atmosphere of John’s day by suggesting that the plagues of Revelation will mock the attempts of environmentalists to save the earth and the seas from pollution. This treatment actually brought Revelation alive for me, by forcing me to imagine how its fiery message was first received by the Christians John was writing to. I imagine with much the same disparate feelings as fundamentalist Christians today would read Chapman’s book. (I confess, that worries me.)
Two-thirds of the way through the book, the coverage of Revelation dwindles and Chapman begins discussing the rapture and the argument for a post-tribulation timing. Rapture is, of course, a Pauline idea, and most of Chapman’s treatment the rest of the way concerns the writings of other Biblical authors. I merely scanned from this point forward as my interest waned once the topic moved away from Revelation. But back to Revelation and a few of the discussions I found interesting:
Chapman believes in a post-tribulation rapture. She understands the two periods of tribulation to be periods of trial for the Christians. She welcomes this time with joy and anticipation, knowing what is to follow.
She and I agree a great deal on how to interpret Revelation’s bizarre imagery. For example, we agree that the rider of the white horse is an apostate force. We agree that the seals, trumpets, and vials are unique sequences. She proposes that we have entered the seal period, just as I surmise that John of Patmos felt he was living in the seal period as he wrote. Yet Chapman surprised me at times with new ideas, such as her comparison of the four beasts around the throne with the four horsemen.
A large part of Chapman’s theology is the rebuilding of the Temple. She anticipates this during the era of the two witnesses. This puzzled me at first, because Revelation says absolutely nothing about rebuilding the Temple; one of John’s most striking contributions is his direct contradiction of the prophets (primarily Ezekiel) who promised a new Temple. Instead, Revelation says just that opposite, that there will be no Temple in the New Jerusalem. Jesus, says both Revelation and John’s Gospel, is the new Temple. But as I continued reading, I began to recognize the reason for Chapman’s emphasis on a rebuilt Temple. If she is translating Revelation to the current day, the Abomination of Desolation has to go somewhere! From the point of view of my own book, the AofD came and went back in the first century while there was still a Temple, of course, but we must somehow make Revelation current to our time for Chapman’s treatment, and we don’t have a Temple today! Ergo, it apparently has to be rebuilt!
That led to the next confusing part for me. She apparently interprets Revelation’s “new heaven and new earth” to coincide with the arrive of a NEW New Jerusalem…this second New Jerusalem residing up in heaven and having no Temple…presumably replacing the first New Jerusalem. “The millennial city has no walls, but the eternal city has walls.” I hope I haven’t misinterpreted her meaning.
Conclusion: I enjoyed reading and enjoyed the atmosphere of the book. None of it is relevant to me as a historian except that fitting the story into contemporary surroundings, fearing the Muslims and dreaming of living in heaven, helped me share in Revelation’s original flavor. Yet I cannot give it five stars because, should it be read by the wrong audience, it would stimulate distrust rather than understanding between religions and nations.
★★★★
Let me start by saying Chapman reads Revelation the traditional way: as a promise of our future. She also firmly believes in the inerrancy of scripture. Therefore, she and I will certainly differ in opinion. It’s hard for me to grasp how any serious scholar of Revelation can still read the Bible as inerrant scripture, but Chapman gives herself two outs: She emphasizes that her foundation is scripture alone, and she admits that John did not fully understand the vision himself. Whereas I read the book from the understanding that John knew full well the things he was watching happen with his own eyes, and the things he anticipated in his near future.
That said, Chapman’s writing is logical, simple, and well-organized. It’s a nicely written book, and will be appreciated especially by conservative Christians. It’s also true to the flavor of Revelation, which made it enjoyable for me as well. She remains true to the Scripture, varying only occasionally for embellishment, and does not dampen the spirit of revelation by pulling punches. She reveals revelation to be a song of wrath and vengeance. She highlights the dichotomy of Revelation, its us-versus-them plea. For example, she wonders if the sword of the red horseman represents the sword of Islam. “Islam is already murdering Christians because they don’t follow the laws of Islam.”
Scholars will protest, of course, knowing that John’s intended meaning couldn’t possibly have been a nation or religious movement he had never heard of. But Chapman’s book shouldn’t be read in that manner. Chapman makes Revelation contemporary, as if it were written by a minister of today. She modernizes the message by substituting Muslims for the hated Rome, and the apostate church for the wayward Jerusalem, and maintains precisely the right tone of vitriol for both. As Revelation’s Babylon became a dwelling place for demons, so has the Vatican today (the Vatican’s chief exorcist says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession in his life). Chapman brings to life the apocalyptic, leave-it-to-Jesus atmosphere of John’s day by suggesting that the plagues of Revelation will mock the attempts of environmentalists to save the earth and the seas from pollution. This treatment actually brought Revelation alive for me, by forcing me to imagine how its fiery message was first received by the Christians John was writing to. I imagine with much the same disparate feelings as fundamentalist Christians today would read Chapman’s book. (I confess, that worries me.)
Two-thirds of the way through the book, the coverage of Revelation dwindles and Chapman begins discussing the rapture and the argument for a post-tribulation timing. Rapture is, of course, a Pauline idea, and most of Chapman’s treatment the rest of the way concerns the writings of other Biblical authors. I merely scanned from this point forward as my interest waned once the topic moved away from Revelation. But back to Revelation and a few of the discussions I found interesting:
Chapman believes in a post-tribulation rapture. She understands the two periods of tribulation to be periods of trial for the Christians. She welcomes this time with joy and anticipation, knowing what is to follow.
She and I agree a great deal on how to interpret Revelation’s bizarre imagery. For example, we agree that the rider of the white horse is an apostate force. We agree that the seals, trumpets, and vials are unique sequences. She proposes that we have entered the seal period, just as I surmise that John of Patmos felt he was living in the seal period as he wrote. Yet Chapman surprised me at times with new ideas, such as her comparison of the four beasts around the throne with the four horsemen.
A large part of Chapman’s theology is the rebuilding of the Temple. She anticipates this during the era of the two witnesses. This puzzled me at first, because Revelation says absolutely nothing about rebuilding the Temple; one of John’s most striking contributions is his direct contradiction of the prophets (primarily Ezekiel) who promised a new Temple. Instead, Revelation says just that opposite, that there will be no Temple in the New Jerusalem. Jesus, says both Revelation and John’s Gospel, is the new Temple. But as I continued reading, I began to recognize the reason for Chapman’s emphasis on a rebuilt Temple. If she is translating Revelation to the current day, the Abomination of Desolation has to go somewhere! From the point of view of my own book, the AofD came and went back in the first century while there was still a Temple, of course, but we must somehow make Revelation current to our time for Chapman’s treatment, and we don’t have a Temple today! Ergo, it apparently has to be rebuilt!
That led to the next confusing part for me. She apparently interprets Revelation’s “new heaven and new earth” to coincide with the arrive of a NEW New Jerusalem…this second New Jerusalem residing up in heaven and having no Temple…presumably replacing the first New Jerusalem. “The millennial city has no walls, but the eternal city has walls.” I hope I haven’t misinterpreted her meaning.
Conclusion: I enjoyed reading and enjoyed the atmosphere of the book. None of it is relevant to me as a historian except that fitting the story into contemporary surroundings, fearing the Muslims and dreaming of living in heaven, helped me share in Revelation’s original flavor. Yet I cannot give it five stars because, should it be read by the wrong audience, it would stimulate distrust rather than understanding between religions and nations.
May 28, 2012
Isaiah 25:8, The Death of Hell part II of II
He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces;
//Yesterday, I pointed out the verse in Revelation that tells how hell would be destroyed. It turns out that God isn’t destroying hell at all, but Sheol, a dark, shadowy netherworld where the Jews believed the souls of all men descended after death. At first it was imagined that these souls would gradually fade away and disappear, but in time, the Jews came to believe in bodily resurrection, and imagined Sheol to be only a holding place until its residents were brought again to life.
But what’s this about Sheol being destroyed? Today’s verse shows that the destruction of “death” was long believed to be part of God’s glorious plan. Paul jumps on the bandwagon as well:
1 Corinthians 15:26, The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Many seem to read these verses as a sort of creative way of promising that there will be more death in the age to come. Indeed, Revelation makes that promise, but accomplishes it by literally destroying the abode of the dead! It reads quite plainly: Death and Sheol are literally destroyed in a lake of fire.
A number of other Jewish writings continue this theme, if you want to study further: 4 Ezra 8:53, The Apocalypse of Baruch 2:23, and the Testament of Levi 18.
//Yesterday, I pointed out the verse in Revelation that tells how hell would be destroyed. It turns out that God isn’t destroying hell at all, but Sheol, a dark, shadowy netherworld where the Jews believed the souls of all men descended after death. At first it was imagined that these souls would gradually fade away and disappear, but in time, the Jews came to believe in bodily resurrection, and imagined Sheol to be only a holding place until its residents were brought again to life.
But what’s this about Sheol being destroyed? Today’s verse shows that the destruction of “death” was long believed to be part of God’s glorious plan. Paul jumps on the bandwagon as well:
1 Corinthians 15:26, The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Many seem to read these verses as a sort of creative way of promising that there will be more death in the age to come. Indeed, Revelation makes that promise, but accomplishes it by literally destroying the abode of the dead! It reads quite plainly: Death and Sheol are literally destroyed in a lake of fire.
A number of other Jewish writings continue this theme, if you want to study further: 4 Ezra 8:53, The Apocalypse of Baruch 2:23, and the Testament of Levi 18.
May 27, 2012
Revelation 20:14, The Death of Hell, Part I of II
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
//Few Christians are aware of this verse, and fewer still know what to make of it. John’s famous apocalypse, the book of Revelation, promises here that hell will one day be destroyed. All of the evil people down there will be emptied out and tossed into a flaming lake of fire, and then hell itself will be tossed into the flames.
Wait. Isn’t the lake of fire down in hell to start with? How can hell be disposed of in the lake?
Answer: This isn’t hell that Revelation is talking about, it’s Sheol, the underworld where the souls of men descend after death to await punishment or reward. And neither is the lake of fire part of hell. It’s just a place to dispose of evil fellows, to kill them a second time. “This is the second death,” today’s verse explains, after they have been brought up from Sheol.
It’s absolutely amazing to me what people think Revelation says. There’s no hell in that book at all. More about this topic tomorrow.
//Few Christians are aware of this verse, and fewer still know what to make of it. John’s famous apocalypse, the book of Revelation, promises here that hell will one day be destroyed. All of the evil people down there will be emptied out and tossed into a flaming lake of fire, and then hell itself will be tossed into the flames.
Wait. Isn’t the lake of fire down in hell to start with? How can hell be disposed of in the lake?
Answer: This isn’t hell that Revelation is talking about, it’s Sheol, the underworld where the souls of men descend after death to await punishment or reward. And neither is the lake of fire part of hell. It’s just a place to dispose of evil fellows, to kill them a second time. “This is the second death,” today’s verse explains, after they have been brought up from Sheol.
It’s absolutely amazing to me what people think Revelation says. There’s no hell in that book at all. More about this topic tomorrow.
Revelation 14:20, The Death of Hell, Part I of II
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
//Few Christians are aware of this verse, and fewer still know what to make of it. John’s famous apocalypse, the book of Revelation, promises here that hell will one day be destroyed. All of the evil people down there will be emptied out and tossed into a flaming lake of fire, and then hell itself will be tossed into the flames.
Wait. Isn’t the lake of fire down in hell to start with? How can hell be disposed of in the lake?
Answer: This isn’t hell that Revelation is talking about, it’s Sheol, the underworld where the souls of men descend after death to await punishment or reward. And neither is the lake of fire part of hell. It’s just a place to dispose of evil fellows, to kill them a second time. “This is the second death,” today’s verse explains, after they have been brought up from Sheol.
It’s absolutely amazing to me what people think Revelation says. There’s no hell in that book at all. More about this topic tomorrow.
//Few Christians are aware of this verse, and fewer still know what to make of it. John’s famous apocalypse, the book of Revelation, promises here that hell will one day be destroyed. All of the evil people down there will be emptied out and tossed into a flaming lake of fire, and then hell itself will be tossed into the flames.
Wait. Isn’t the lake of fire down in hell to start with? How can hell be disposed of in the lake?
Answer: This isn’t hell that Revelation is talking about, it’s Sheol, the underworld where the souls of men descend after death to await punishment or reward. And neither is the lake of fire part of hell. It’s just a place to dispose of evil fellows, to kill them a second time. “This is the second death,” today’s verse explains, after they have been brought up from Sheol.
It’s absolutely amazing to me what people think Revelation says. There’s no hell in that book at all. More about this topic tomorrow.
May 26, 2012
Book review: Third Way Allegiance
by Tripp York
★★★★
Here's a perfect selection for your book club. York feeds us a collection of thought-provoking essays, ranging from the politics of war to the proper celebration of our holidays. York doesn't have the answers, but he has plenty of questions to make us wonder whether we have, in capitalistic America, lost our way down the Christian path.
For one thing, Christianity may hardly be worth fighting the New Atheists over. Have we forgotten what a fantastic story it is we cling to? Didn't Tertullian get it right when he claimed to believe precisely because the story was unbelievable? Christianity is simply not philosophically defensible, and it may be that our very attempt to defend Christianity, ironically, leads to its demise. When it becomes common sense, guys, it's all over for Christianity.
But is it common sense to seek the common good? Goods are only good if they are shared goods, at least according to Scripture and early Christian history. Yet without reverence for the seven deadly sins (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride) our capitalistic country would fold in on itself. What's a good Christian to do?
York will leave you wondering whether it's even possible anymore to be a Christian.
★★★★
Here's a perfect selection for your book club. York feeds us a collection of thought-provoking essays, ranging from the politics of war to the proper celebration of our holidays. York doesn't have the answers, but he has plenty of questions to make us wonder whether we have, in capitalistic America, lost our way down the Christian path.
For one thing, Christianity may hardly be worth fighting the New Atheists over. Have we forgotten what a fantastic story it is we cling to? Didn't Tertullian get it right when he claimed to believe precisely because the story was unbelievable? Christianity is simply not philosophically defensible, and it may be that our very attempt to defend Christianity, ironically, leads to its demise. When it becomes common sense, guys, it's all over for Christianity.
But is it common sense to seek the common good? Goods are only good if they are shared goods, at least according to Scripture and early Christian history. Yet without reverence for the seven deadly sins (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride) our capitalistic country would fold in on itself. What's a good Christian to do?
York will leave you wondering whether it's even possible anymore to be a Christian.
