Reinterpretation For 21st Century?

Northern Light-Norway-XG+

PhD Edit

With John Hick’s work on Soul-Making Theodicy, his approach to Scripture is to look at much of it metaphorically.[1]  Although his theodicy does have some merit, I reason by not looking at Scripture contextually, and instead assuming that it is not to be taken literally as metaphor in many cases,[2] his theodicy becomes hyper-speculative.[3]  I am not a fundamentalist, and do not reason Scripture should at every point be read plain literally,[4] but where contexts suggests,[5] Scripture should be read within the genre intended which could include figurative language.[6]  I reason that the Reformed approach to reading Scripture in context is more beneficial to producing a realistic functional theodicy,[7] than is Hick’s approach.[8]  This should not be interpreted as a complete dismissal of soul-making[9] or related soul-building concepts, as I view this as a reasonable concept within Hick’s approach.[10]

November 1, 2014

The theological concept of Scripture being literally the supernaturally revealed word of God, not intended as fictional metaphor to be later reinterpreted is essential. From the October 30 Briefing of Albert Mohler. Dr. Mohler quotes the ‘Time’ article from October 28, 2014 ‘What Christianity Without Hell Looks Like’.

Time October 28 

Cited

‘The idea that the Bible declares hell a real and literal place is no more valid than the toxic lie that the Bible condemns homosexuality.’

Yet the idea that hell is real persists. Why? Because over the centuries those in positions of power within the institutions of Christianity have methodically, relentlessly, and with great art used the doctrine of hell to exploit the innate fear of death that is harbored by one and all.

Show me a Christian terrified of hell, and I’ll show you a Christian ready to pay good money for the assurance that he is not going there.

If you don’t think the “doctrine” of hell is about the accrual of money and power, then God bless your naiveté.’

End citation

However, a naiveté of Scripture in context is being demonstrated here. 

Even if verses in regard to hell and everlasting punishment are not taken plain literally because of the use of figurative literal language, they are still describing a literal place of everlasting suffering for those outside of Christ, although in a different realm. A fictional, metaphorical abode is not under discussion.

Crockett’s view below is not a metaphorical view as in mythological in Hick’s sense, but rather metaphorical as in a figurative literal view of hell.

William V. Crockett suggests that his view is similar to that of John Calvin, and that eternal fire texts are better understood metaphorically. Crockett pointed out that metaphorical language was used throughout the New Testament, for example, heaven as a city was described in first century terms, a city surrounded by walls and gates.

Today that type of metaphorical language would be obsolete. Crockett also pointed out that hell is described in places like Matthew 8:12, 2 Peter 2:17, and Jude 14 as a place of darkness. So if it were a literally fiery hell, it would not be a place of darkness. Crockett believes that hell is a place of everlasting punishment, but that it is described metaphorically in the New Testament. Crockett noted that Hades is a temporary resting place for the unsaved, until they are thrown into the Lake of Fire, which is Gehenna.

It should also be pointed out as I have previously on my blogs that Christ is infinite God and perfect man, perfectly righteous and outlasted and covered finite and everlasting sin against the infinite God in the atonement.

Only he could serve as a suitable atonement for human sin.

Sin against God is not infinite because it had a beginning, but it is everlasting. Theologically and philosophically, only God is infinite having no beginning and no ending.

No finite, morally imperfect, unrighteous, human being could atone for his or her sin. Certainly not in any complete sense.

This would be true for any amount of time because the everlasting sin is against an infinite God and would not be covered.

Therefore, in justice, everlasting hell is just punishment for sin.

If annihilation took place, in order for it to be just, the atonement of Christ would have to universally cover each person, even the non-chosen, non-elect (Ephesians 1, Romans 8).

I do not see this as a clearly defined Biblical doctrine.

In regard to homosexuality, one can review it from a plain English reading or from the original Hebrew or Greek with lexicons to see that it is condemned, arsenokoitai.

Sodomites

The context of sodomites being within homosexuality.

Those being mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9 among those that will not inherit the Kingdom of God, along with fornicators, idolaters, adulterers and effeminate by perversion (according to the New American Standard Version).

Romans 1 explains homosexual activity as unnatural.
I am not stating that by 21^st Century standards this makes homosexual persons the worst sinners or anything like. From a Biblical, Reformed perspective, in Romans 3 in particular it becomes clear that all persons have a sinful nature and are apart from God’s righteousness. The solution is the righteousness of Christ and the atoning and resurrection work of the Gospel as can be seen in Romans 4-5 and throughout the text.

Practically and personally speaking, therefore, I do not create a special worse sinfulness category for my LGBT and related non-Christian readers and friends which I admit sadly is sometimes is done within fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity.

Rather according to Romans, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3: 23), including me. All would be in need of the atoning and resurrection work of Christ for salvation. Within this salvation repentance needs to occur. 

As an academic, philosopher and theologian, objectively as possible, no one having complete objectivity, I am attempting to state what the Scripture states. 

Reinterpretation does not allow that to take place. 

Greek New Testament

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1985)(2005) ‘The Suffering of God:
An Old Testament Perspective’, in Theology Today, Volume 1, Number 1, Bookreview17. Princeton, Princeton Theological Seminary.

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.),  Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993)  ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.  

ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.),  Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

---

[1] Hick (1970: 172).  He wrote, for example, in 1993 The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.

[2] Hick (1970: 172). 

[3] Roth complains that it is overly optimistic in its speculation.  Roth in Davis (2001: 62).

[4] To read anything plain literally when grammar and context provide reasons to read the text otherwise, would be non-academic and philosophically troubling.

[5] Fretheim (1994: 153).  La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).

[6] Fretheim (1994: 153).  La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).

[7] The idea being to let God speak, since God is the one being questioned in the context of theodicy.

[8] Hick (1970: 172). 

[9] Hick (1970: 292).

[10] Hick (1970: 292).