I will begin these discussions of Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, with a prayer. I am asking that you pause quietly and slow down enough to pray this prayer as the way to approach this entire series:
O Lord, you have taught us that without love whatever we do is worth nothing:
Send your Holy Spirit and pour into my heart your greatest gift,
which is love, the true bond of peace and of all virtue,
without which whoever lives is accounted dead before you.
Grant this for the sake of your only Son Jesus Christ,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God,
now and for ever. Amen.†
The title for Rob Bell’s second chapter — Here is the New There — not only sums up the chapter (and book) but also a burgeoning movement in the evangelical world, and it is one inspired by N.T. Wright’s stuff on eschatology and — to be perfectly honest right up front — sometimes some of Tom’s readers make distortions of what Tom is actually saying. Tom has said over and over that Jesus didn’t save us in order to get us to heaven, but he saved us so that heaven and earth could meet in the New Heavens and New Earth. His emphasis on New Heavens and New Earth is right.
It is that theology that is at work in Bell’s second chapter, and we’ll see if his approach fits the NT.
His repeated words here is that heaven is understood by many as “somewhere else.” Salvation is a story of movement from here to somewhere else and somewhere out there. The Christian story has focused, and he’s surely right here, on heaven and almost as surely that heaven is somewhere else — it’s out there, up there, and somewhere else. And many in the church emphasize who will be there and who will not be there, and he’s surely right about that too.
In your church, is “heaven” somewhere else — ethereal and out there and beyond etc — or is it more earthy? How “New Heavens/New Earth-y” is the kingdom/heaven in your church? When people say “heaven” what do they mean?
The rich man approaches Jesus and asks, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” Jesus’ response is “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” This is from Matthew 19:16.
A summary. Jesus’ response surprises many Christians because he doesn’t give the man the plan of salvation but tells him to do the commandments and to give his money away to the poor. Rob says the issue was the question, and the question the man asked was how to get eternal life… but that didn’t mean to him to be a question about where he would go (to heaven) when he died. Rob says the man’s question was about how to enter into the kingdom life in the here and now. That’s where Rob camps in this chapter, and that is why he focuses on heaven beginning now. Thus, the here is the new there. [The old "there" was somewhere else, heaven in the skies, etc.]
I’ll get to something we need to interact with in a moment, but Bell observes that The Age to Come, or heaven on earth, is for everybody [developed later in his book], it is earthy, and that life will not be all new. There’s lots in The Age to Come that is not new. But it will be the world as God designed it — no more war, all peace and love and joy and justice. Injustices will be made right, our angers will be justified. It will be a “restored, renewed and redeemed” earth. This is typical Judaism and pervasively NT-like.
The way to enter into The Age to Come is to live the commandments. Here’s his theme of continuity: do now what will happen then and you will be ready and prepared. Back to the rich man… Jesus gave five commands, and it bugs me that Rob missed the love your neighbor from the Jesus Creed here, but I’ll forgive him. The rich man was greedy and greed will have no place in The Age to Come.
So Jesus takes the man’s question about his life then and makes it about the kind of life he’s living now. But the odd thing here is that Rob hereby flattens his eschatology, while I think Rob has a both-and in his theology, and I suspect that man did too, and I suspect Jesus did too. What happens now continues into the life of The Age to Come. That means it is not just now but both now and then. So I agree that what we do now is of immense (and eternal) value. If there is an afterlife or a “heaven,” and if it is eternal, then it an act of colossal foolishness not to live now in light of then.
And I agree that heaven will have lots of surprises. He seems to suggest that it is character that gets a person into heaven (on p. 53). Then this piece of poetic language: “heaven is as far away as that day when heaven and earth become one again and as close as a few hours” (55). He seems to be getting at heaven being super reality of the current reality.
I don’t know where he gets the idea that aion means “intensity of experience that transcends time” (57). I’m thinking it could come from something like John 10:10 where Jesus said he came to bring life to its utter fullness. But I don’t think the Greek term means that except by associations with ideas connected to The Age to Come.
And I agree on the eternal life that is something now and through and beyond death. We are now playing the piano while wearing oven mitts. Nice one. But that very point lands Rob right back where he began, and it cuts against the theme of his aversion to the “somewhere else” idea for heaven, which is part of biblical faith from the time of Daniel 12:1-3 on (resurrection to judgment or salvation; shine like stars).
This response has to be a little long so I’ve put the main points in bold. Just read those lines if you want to see the big picture.
Three points that deserve some scrutiny... the big point I will make is this: Rob sets up an either-or (heaven is out there vs. heaven is here) and pushes hard on Jesus talking not about an endless eternity but about the present, but closer inspection shows that Bell operates (correctly) with a both-and (heaven is both here and there, both now and then, both continuous and discontinuous). In the language of the scholars: he operates with an inaugurated eschatology but seems to overdo the realized dimension. Or he operates with a realized eschatology but also has a bit of an inaugurated eschatology at work.
First. There’s a reason why the ancients, both Jews and Greek and Romans, used a word like “heaven” for where God is and where folks go when they die. Yes, there’s lots of variety in the ancient world; and they used a variety of words, but the NT word is “heaven” and that word means “sky.” And there all kinds of Jewish texts about ascending into heaven. Why did Jesus and the early Christians fasten on that word for doing the lion’s share of work on where God is? Obviously this is phenomenology. God was above and beyond and when we die, if we are righteous, we go to be with God and that means we go to heaven (in the skies). This is at work in the NT but .., but… but… and this is where Rob camps and he’s right. The NT modifies this: it eventually lands not on just ascending into heaven (into the skies) but on a meeting of heaven and earth in the New Heavens and the New Earth. Most Christians need to learn this and the sooner the better. The “final” place in the Bible is the New Heavens and the New Earth — and these two meet in Jerusalem! Read Revelation 20-22. Bell’s emphasis here is correct and important.
Second, I want to argue the rich man in Luke 18 was asking about the future world too and not just the present world. For Jews of Jesus’ day, The Age to Come distinguishes itself from This Age. So, there was This Age and The Age to Come. Bell seems to equate Eternal Life with The Age to Come and to emphasize it as now, but Jesus says those who give up their lives for him will — and this is my translation of Luke 18:30 — “will not fail to receive [first] abundance in This Age and [second] in The Age to Come eternal life.” So it does not appear to me that “eternal life” is quite the same as The Age to Come so much as a property or characteristic of The Age to Come. Eternal life then is the kind of life one has in The Age to Come. [Rob somehow uses the word aion when the Greek word is aionion. The first means "age" with a beginning and an end, and he drives this idea hard. But the second one, the one Jesus uses, according to the standard specialist lexicon, means "pertaining to a period of unending duration, without end." The Latin equivalent of aionion was perpetuus. Rule for writers: use the standard lexicons and if you differ from them you better have good evidence because you are disagreeing with some mighty good scholars who have for centuries pondered the evidence in the original languages.]
So, let me put together what Jesus says in Luke 18: Jesus says his followers will acquire “eternal life” in The Age to Come, which is endless, and that means they would possess a kind of life appropriate to that Age. That eternal life, or aionion, is beginning to work its way into the present. It appears to me, then, that the rich man and Jesus were referring to a future endless reality; in fact they were referring to the future reality and saying it could invade time now — the future can begin now but it is still the future …
But Rob wants to push against this harder (p. 58): “heaven is not forever in the way that we think of forever, as a uniform measurement of time, like days and years, marching endlessly into the future.”
Third, Jews did conceive of The Age to Come in terms of endless time. Rob’s ideas need to be sharpened because Jews did think of The Age to Come in a measurement of time. I could draw on a number of texts but one NT that makes this clear is that the Book of Revelation describes the Age to Come with this description: it involves a Lake of Fire, and the Lake of Fire — which is John’s equivalent for Gehenna in Jesus, which is also called the “second death” — lasts “for ever and ever” (Rev 20:10), and there the words are aionas ton aionon, or “ages of ages.” Their way of saying this would be like this: The Age to Come is one Age piled on top of another on top of another. It is not some kind of abstract infinity but a measurement of time expressed in an endless quantity of Ages: Age after Age. [See below for more of this.] The New Heavens and the New Earth have that same property, but instead of a fire it is a place where all things become New (21:1-8). In fact, I would say the Jews did think of The Age to Come in a measurement of time. And they used what was the longest one they knew: ages upon ages.
Now let me turn this inside out, and for those who are deconstructionists, that’s what this is. “Here is the new there” is Rob’s line. OK, but… the new heavens and the new earth are different enough from what is now here that Rob’s here-is-the-new-there is actually somewhere else because it is not the same place as we have now right here. The here-is-the-new-there is all new so his now-here is not his there but a new-here and a new-there. It may be here, but here will be so different that we can take off our oven mitts and play the piano and dance to the eternal music. The minute you start talking about taking off our mitts you enter into the “somewhere else” (at least in part).
Now reduced to its simplest form: When the rich man asked Jesus about eternal life and Jesus used “life” in his response, they were both talking and thinking about what it takes to participate in The Age to Come, that future endless glorious rule of God when heaven and earth meet in the New Heavens and New Earth. Jesus was saying it can begin now, but that now will continue into The Age to Come, which is eternal and where death will be no more. The Here, then, is a foretaste of the There.
The rich man, I suggest, was asking a 1st Century version of what some ask today when they say “How do I get to heaven?” Our answers will nuance “heaven” but they aren’t in a different category altogether as Rob contends.
[Another Jewish expression for eternal as endless is found in the Jewish Josephus, when commenting on the Pharisees, and he was one of them at one time in his life, says the "souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment." Jewish War 2.163. The term "eternal" here is not aionios but aidios, and that word (like aionios) comes from aei, which means "always." Josephus, the Jew, the former Pharisee, sees punishment as endless in duration. The good have a soul that passes into another (eternal?) body via resurrection. See also Antiquities 18.14, which gives a variant on this same idea with aidios again meaning eternal punishment and the good souls being given a new (eternal) life. More at Jewish War 2.154-155, where endless punishments are stated.]
Exploring Love Wins 1, part 2, part 3, part 4.
For other posts, see Tony Jones, Greg Boyd.
Jeff Cook compares Rob Bell with C.S. Lewis.
Early Rob Bell reviews.
Hey Scot,
A tweak for you: The Rich Man and Lazarus is Luke 16.
Best,
Dave
Dave, a tweak back. I think we’re talking about the rich young ruler (Matt 19, Luke 18). Right?
I also felt that Rob Bell’s ideas about time and eternity were vague. I know that God lives in eternity, with him a thousand years are no different from a day, etc. But it seems to me that human beings are not like God in that respect. We were made to inhabit bodies and live in space-time. That limitation is intrinsic to what we are. The second coming of Christ will mark the end of the present era of world history and the beginning of another, but until that moment the clocks keep ticking, and I see no evidence in the Bible that time will not continue without interruption into the new era and thereafter. I have heard many people speak of eternity as if time itself will disappear from human experience. But where does that idea come from? Where’s the evidence? My hunch is that the post-resurrection life and world will be a lot more similar to the present than many people now think.
Good thoughts here, Scot.
When Robert Capon was asked if he overstates his case for grace he said, “You don’t get a 600 pound gorilla to play on the teeter-totter with you by feeding him bananas. You become a 700 pound gorilla on the other side.” (That’s a paraphrase more than a quote. Good line, regardless, no?)
I’m speculating here, but maybe Rob overstates his case (heaven is here)because there’s a 600 pound gorilla insisting that heaven is only there?
Scot-
On aionion: Well, it isn’t the only place Rob is disagreeing with some “mighty good scholars”, is it? Would it be fair to say that one sees one’s own eschatology in the understanding of aionion, more than to say that aionion has a clearly understood meaning? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s only found once or twice outside of the NT, and I can do a word study with those in the NT and see that if one interprets aionion as “the life of all time” (slightly different from Rob) that it can have that realized eschatology feel to it and be consistently applied to all its uses in the NT.
C’mon, Kenton, don’t say things like “once or twice” if you don’t know. Look at BAGD, the standard lexicon, and notice the dozens of references outside the NT. Dozens. It would be fair to say that one’s eschatology is at work, but the issue here is whether it is right or not. We do our best to check our ideas — if we care about the Bible — against the Bible, not read our ideas into the Bible. My point is this: BAGD is the result of more than a century of careful examination of words, careful checking of meanings and nuances, and studied by hundreds of scholars who care about such words … and what is set down there is the best of scholarship. To disagree with BAGD requires careful presentation of all the evidence.
“Our Father who art in heaven” leads me to believe that Jesus was praying to his heavenly Father who was in the place of heaven.
Thanks, Scot! I don’t know why “Love Wins” didn’t include a footnotes section like Bell’s other books did. (Maybe it was the publisher’s choice?) But I would like to know from where he got the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words he uses.
Sorry, I didn’t know BAGD.
That’s what I get for trying to rub elbows w/professional theologians, I guess. At first I thought it might be a Ukelele tuning.
I’ll look it up.
But to your point, would it be fair to say that BADG was compiled by a set of guys who shared a traditional heaven/hell eschatology? And would it be fair to say that if’n they did that they would see a meaning consistent with their theology even if there were other paradigms to view it from? Pardon my post-modern epistemology here, but I would call into question a possible guild mentality in a case like this.
In a word, Kenton, no. Let’s get back to the post.
Great launching pad, Scot, and even better the continued invitation to fantastic discussion, dialogue, and meaningful conversation.
A couple of questions/thoughts for you and the readership out there.
1. Where DID Rob pull the “intense experience” idea from aion?
B. Has anyone else read Fretheim’s “God and World in the Old Testament”? The Relational Theology of Creation is a golden thread throughout the Scriptures and -in many respects, could prove to also be a sort of glue for Love Wins as well. It’s certainly not a 1:1 ratio, but it’s almost like Love Wins is a proverbial Tip of the Iceberg, and Fretheim’s text is, at the very least, taking place somewhere beneath the surface, haha! What do you guys think?
Also, when you write, “It appears to me, then, that the rich man and Jesus were referring to a future endless reality; in fact they were referring to the future reality and saying it could invade time now — the future can begin now but it is still the future …”
I think this is right on the money. And, the more conversations I am having with people regarding Love Wins, the more I realize how often we end up talking about Kairos and Kronos…
Kenton: It would be fair to say as a theory, but the only way to know if it’s fair in fact is to analyze the theology of the BADG scholars individually, their methods of work, the criteria they employed to filter out “bias,” etc. to give your suspicion any credibility.
My church is starting to come into the realization that even as we sit in the pews we are also seated in the heavenlies in Jesus the Messiah (Ephesians 2:6). If we are co-located like that, then it becomes harder to think of heaven as way far away and easier to think of it as close at hand. IOW, we are thinking more dimensionally than geographically ~ heaven is more of a higher dimension of God’s creation instead of a place way out beyond the stars.
We have also been coming into a realization that the kingdom of God ~ the will of God being done on earth as it is in heaven ~ is not something reserved only for the future, but has already begun and has been growing ever since Jesus came and announced it.
I believe we are in the transition between the ages ~ the passing away of this age and the increasing presence of the age to come. As John said, “The darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining” (1 John 2:8). This is present tense reality.
I believe that Bell embraces the idea of overlapping realities where “here” and “there” are actually both here, and in moments of Christ-like love the realities actually intersect. This means (to me) that the “somewhere else” can still be “here” for Rob but he really means the future reality of “here”
I also thought when he was referring to the rich man interaction that the man was referring to “then” and Jesus was referring to “now especially” with definite impacts into the “then”
It seems the “aion” bit (as opposed to aionios)is one of Bell’s bigger mistakes in the book, it doesn’t seem typical of him. I believe that he takes this from Tom Talbott’s Inescapable Love of God, which I haven’t read, but it would be interesting to see if Tom makes the same oversight.
I think Bell made some tradeoffs to make his book as accessible as possible, I feel he would have been more careful with his statements if he were to turn it into a theological work.
maybe i misunderstood his point with the chapter, but i took “here is the new there” to be like “blue is the new black” or whatever you want to use to indicate a perspective or paradigm shift. he’s wanting us to change our focus to here instead of only there. i got confused on the turning it upside down part.
Kenton,
I usually know the lexicon as BDAG. Here’s the link if you’re interested:
http://amzn.to/ifC1wj
Mike
I just read the first two chapters of N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope. In ch. 2, he talks specifically about the rich young ruler, and what he meant by “eternal life.”
I know this post is about Bell – but – Tom Wright says that the rich young ruler is NOT asking about eternal life as we might be tempted to think about it. He says that he is asking “how do I get in on the kingdom that you are going to establish here: political, religious, socioeconomic?”
Any feedback on that, anyone? Are we saying that N.T. Wright is wrong too? If you have the book and can read that section, I’d like to know what you think!
I was raised with the focus of salvation being about getting into heaven “someday”, about going “there” “someday” (hopefully not “today”). But I’ve come to see salvation about getting heaven into us “today/here”, with a fuller revelation of heaven “someday/there”.
This is the focus of “my” church today, but then again, as I’ve shared elsewhere on this forum, “my” local fellowship is pretty small right now, just me and a couple of others, because what I’ve come to believe (Universal Reconciliation) is not accepted in most/any fellowships in my area.
Concerning aionios, I appreciated your definition Scott, “Eternal life then is the kind of life one has in The Age to Come.” I believe that this reflects the intended meaning well. It goes well with the Hebrew concept of olam, the coming age of the Messiah. Though I do tend to think of the Kingdom of God, the age of the Messiah, as being a Present Eternal Reality that transcends our Present Temporal Reality. So it is both Now and To Come simultaneously. In like manner then, aionios as used in relationship with punishment would be the kind of punishment one has in the Age to Come” like the aionios fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorah; it wasn’t that the fire lasted forever, but that it was from God and fully accomplished God’s will in the “here/today” from the “there/someday”.
In like manner, we shall all face aionian judgment, but is this meant to say that judgment is unending, that we’re always having our sins rehearsed and reviewed, that the wood, hay, and stubble just burns unendingly? I don’t believe so. Rather it is judgment that “is the kind of judgment one has in the Age to Come.”
I’ve encountered eternal judgment in the present. It’s terrible, but it worked good in me. It burnt the hell out of me and I still smell the smoke, but it forever changed me for the good. It was terrible while happening, crying buckets of tears and grinding my teeth to my gums, but it worked good in my soul that is seen in my character today.
Holly #18,
I take the kingdom to be an eschatological promise of the OT. Jesus came and preached the gospel, “The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand.” I think that signaled the end of the present age and the coming of the age to come, i.e., the eternal age. So to enter into the kingdom would be to enter into eternal life.
At Bible college, there was a tract we used quite extensively that was called, “Am I Going to Heaven?” We though of heaven as someday out there.
Today, if I were to write a tract, I think I would call it, “Am I seated in Heaven?” We begin to participate in the life of heaven here and now. Born “again” being born “from above” (John 3:3). Our citizenship is now in heaven (Philippians 3:20). We have made alive together with Christ, raised together with Christ and made to sit together with Christ in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:5-6). Not a future promise but a done deal and a present reality. We are meant to live from now on out of that reality.
First..I’m in the both/and camp on this. I trust what Scot says to be true, but I also think the words themselves allow a play of meanings to be evident.
Second, I am with Brian#4, I think Bell is overstating his position in this chapter to overcome the inertia present in the common view.
Third, I can’t wait to quote this paragraph of Scot’s out of context (who’s on third?)
Holly (#18), Could NT Wright be wrong? Here is what NT Wright wrote: “I frequently tell my students that quite a high proportion of what I say is probably wrong, or at least flawed or skewed in some way which I do not at the moment realize. The only problem is that I do not know which bits are wrong; if I did I might do something about it. … I make many mistakes in moral and practical matters, why should I imagine my thinking to be mysteriously exempt?”
(NTPOG, xvii). Yet, alas, this post is about Rob Bell, not NT Wright.
Scot, thanks for the clarification on the consensus on how ‘aionion’ should be translated. But when it is fastened to words like ‘punishment’, does that necessarily mean that the punishment endures forever or, as Sherman discusses above, merely that it occurs in that unending age?
John @24, after I end up sharing something others find particularly informational, profound, and stirring, and they are thoroughly impressed with me, I’ll close by saying, “Remember, I could be absolutely wrong!”, smile and walk off.
It’s funny, but it’s absolutely true. I’ve learned from multiple experiences, that my understanding of things could be completely wrong, and thus I encourage others to study/think for themselves, to wrestle with the evidence for themselves and to live under their own convictions (always realizing that they could be wrong to).
I also find it helpful to have my faith set in Christ and not in my understanding. I trust the Lord to teach me and thus that necessarily implies that I realize I have something to learn.
Sometimes in theological discussions I feel like we’re blind men arguing over shades of green!
Holly, well, I looked through chp 2 twice and can’t find anything about the rich man… can you give me page numbers?
But, in the big picture, Tom is fighting off Platonic idea(l)s about heaven and Rob, in his own words, is fighting off heaven as somewhere else. They are both fighting off similar problems, and both are trying to show that these words in Jewish context aren’t about that kind of heaven, but something invading the world now — and Tom is careful also to talk about “heaven” really as “the new heavens and new earth,” which is not here completely in the now.
jayflm @25, one must also take into consideration the purpose of the punishment. Is it the punishment that a loving father inflicts on his children because of his love for them, the punishment of a good shepherd unpon the rogue members of his flock to teach them to stick close to the shepherd and/or not cause problems in the flock; or is it the punishment of a Hitler, a despot, a tyranical ruler who inflicts suffering on his enemies? Is it punishment with a positive purpose, meant to bring about remorse and reconciliation; or is it punishment meant just to vent the demands of justice; or possibly punishment meant to vent the anger and malice of the ones sinned against.
I believe that scripture indicates that punishment that comes from God is reconcilaroty, redemptive even, as in chastizement. God punishes, chastizes those whom He loves, whether that be in this life through trials and tribulations or in the life/age to come, the age of the Messiah.
But remember, “I could be wrong!”
Not “could” he be wrong, (John, #24) but do you think that he is? Is Scot saying that Wright is wrong (hehe), along with Rob Bell, regarding this particular passage of Scripture (concomitant with what Wright says as a whole?)I felt free to ask, only because Scot brought up Wright’s name AND because Wright deals directly with this exact example from scripture (and ‘cuz I just read it.)
I like the quote you posted – yet another reason I enjoy Wright’s writing. Humility.
Reminds me of James 3: 1-2.
“Don’t be in any rush to become a teacher, my friends. Teaching is highly responsible work. Teachers are held to the strictest standards. And none of us is perfectly qualified. We get it wrong nearly every time we open our mouths. If you could find someone whose speech was perfectly true, you’d have a perfect person, in perfect control of life.”
oops, Scot. I’m sorry. You posted while I was in the process of posting. I’ll go look for the reference.
Sherman (#28), I would add one more possibility to your list of purposes for punishment that come from God (realizing that the very word ‘punishment’ may not exhaust all that the original language encompasses. That would be the due result of the Adamic curse, death/annihilation.
The positive side for this interpretation, as I see it, is that it allows the many references in Scripture to ‘death’ and ‘perishing’ as the ultimate end of the unbelieving to have their plain meaning. The main weakness of universal salvation theory, as I see it, is that it has to explain away those references by appealing to arguments about the nature of God.
@Kenton re: αιώνιος:
Per BDAG:
αἰώνιος (ία Pla., Tim. 38b; Jer 39:40; Ezk 37:26; OdeSol 11:22; TestAbr A; JosAs 8:11 cod. A; 2 Th 2:16; Hb 9:12; mss. Ac 13:48; 2 Pt 1:11; AcPl BMM recto 27=Ox 1602, 29; Just., A I, 8, 4 al.; B-D-F §59, 2; Mlt-H. 157), ον eternal (since Hyperid. 6, 27; Pla.; ins, pap, LXX, En, TestSol, TestAbr A, Test12Patr; JosAs 12:12; GrBar 4:16; ApcEsdr; ApcMos 29; Ps.-Phocyl. 112; Just.; Tat. 17, 1; Ath., Mel.; standard epithet for princely, esp. imperial, power: OGI index VIII; BGU 176, 12; 303, 2; 309, 4; Sb 7517, 5 [211/12 a.d.] κύριος αἰ.; al. in pap; Jos., Ant. 7, 352).
① pert. to a long period of time, long ago χρόνοις αἰ. long ages ago Ro 16:25; πρὸ χρόνων αἰ. before time began 2 Ti 1:9; Tit 1:2 (in these two last pass. the prep. bears the semantic content of priority; on χρόνος αἰ. cp. OGI 248, 54; 383, 10).
② pert. to a period of time without beginning or end, eternal of God (Ps.-Pla., Tim. Locr. 96c θεὸν τ. αἰώνιον; IBM 894, 2 αἰ. κ. ἀθάνατος τοῦ παντὸς φύσις; Gen 21:33; Is 26:4; 40:28; Bar 4:8 al.; Philo, Plant. 8; 74; SibOr Fgm. 3, 17 and 4; PGM 1, 309; 13, 280) Ro 16:26; of the Holy Spirit in Christ Hb 9:14. θρόνος αἰ. 1 Cl 65:2 (cp. 1 Macc 2:57).
③ pert. to a period of unending duration, without end (Diod S 1, 1, 5; 5, 73, 1; 15, 66, 1 δόξα αἰ. everlasting fame; in Diod S 1, 93, 1 the Egyptian dead are said to have passed to their αἰ. οἴκησις; Arrian, Peripl. 1, 4 ἐς μνήμην αἰ.; Jos., Bell. 4, 461 αἰ. χάρις=a benefaction for all future time; OGI 383, 10 [I b.c.] εἰς χρόνον αἰ.; EOwen, οἶκος αἰ.: JTS 38, ’37, 248–50; EStommel, Domus Aeterna: RAC IV 109–28) of the next life σκηναὶ αἰ. Lk 16:9 (cp. En 39:5). οἰκία, contrasted w. the οἰκία ἐπίγειος, of the glorified body 2 Cor 5:1. διαθήκη (Gen 9:16; 17:7; Lev 24:8; 2 Km 23:5 al.; PsSol 10:4 al.) Hb 13:20. εὐαγγέλιον Rv 14:6; κράτος in a doxolog. formula (=εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας) 1 Ti 6:16. παράκλησις 2 Th 2:16. λύτρωσις Hb 9:12. κληρονομία (Esth 4:17m) vs. 15; AcPl Ha 8, 21. αἰ. ἀπέχειν τινά (opp. πρὸς ὥραν) keep someone forever Phlm 15 (cp. Job 40:28). Very often of God’s judgment (Diod S 4, 63, 4 διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἐν ᾅδου διατελεῖν τιμωρίας αἰωνίου τυγχάνοντα; similarly 4, 69, 5; Jer 23:40; Da 12:2; Ps 76:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 13:15) κόλασις αἰ. (TestReub 5:5) Mt 25:46; 2 Cl 6:7; κρίμα αἰ. Hb 6:2 (cp. κρίσις αἰ. En 104:5). θάνατος B 20:1. ὄλεθρον (4 Macc 10:15) 2 Th 1:9. πῦρ (4 Macc 12:12; GrBar 4:16.—SibOr 8, 401 φῶς αἰ.) Mt 18:8; 25:41; Jd 7; Dg 10:7 (cp. 1QS 2:8). ἁμάρτημα Mk 3:29 (v.l. κρίσεως, κολάσεω, and ἁμαρτίας). On the other hand, of eternal life (Maximus Tyr. 6, 1d θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰ.; Diod S 8, 15, 3 life μετὰ τὸν θάνατον lasts εἰς ἅπαντα αἰῶνα; Da 12:2; 4 Macc 15:3;PsSol PsSol 3:12; OdeSol 11:16c; JosAs 8:11 cod. A [p. 50, 2 Bat.]; Philo, Fuga 78; Jos., Bell. 1, 650; SibOr 2, 336) in the Reign of God: ζωὴ αἰ. (Orig., C. Cels. 2, 77, 3) Mt 19:16, 29; 25:46; Mk 10:17, 30; Lk 10:25; 18:18, 30; J 3:15f, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2f; Ac 13:46, 48; Ro 2:7; 5:21; 6:22f; Gal 6:8; 1 Ti 1:16; 6:12; Tit 1:2; 3:7; 1J 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jd 21; D 10:3; 2 Cl 5:5; 8:4, 6; IEph 18:1; Hv 2, 3, 2; 3, 8, 4 al. Also βασιλεία αἰ. 2 Pt 1:11 (ApcPt Rainer 9; cp. Da 4:3; 7:27; Philo, Somn. 2, 285; Mel., P. 68, 493; OGI 569, 24 ὑπὲρ τῆς αἰωνίου καὶ ἀφθάρτου βασιλείας ὑμῶν; Dssm. B 279f, BS 363). Of the glory in the next life δόξα αἰ. 2 Ti 2:10; 1 Pt 5:10 (cp. Wsd 10:14; Jos., Ant. 15, 376.—SibOr 8, 410 φῶς αἰῶνιον). αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης 2 Cor 4:17; σωτηρία αἰ. (Is 45:17; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 1, 19) Hb 5:9; short ending of Mk. Of unseen glory in contrast to the transitory world of the senses τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα αἰώνια 2 Cor 4:18.—χαρά IPhld ins; δοξάζεσθαι αἰωνίῳ ἔργῳ be glorified by an everlasting deed IPol 8:1. DHill, Gk. Words and Hebr. Mngs. ’67, 186–201; JvanderWatt, NovT 31, ’89, 217–28 (J).—DELG s.v. αἰών. M-M. TW. Sv.
EricW (#32),
Nice. hee hee…
Hmm. I was wrong. (No one panic. It happens all the time. Ha Ha.) But I am sorry, I thought I was being so careful. I have a bad habit of picking up a book and just reading a chapter that interests me. I’ll go back and read the entire thing, of course, but if I have a few minutes here and there I’ll spot read and try to fit it into the whole. Then, alas, I am not sure where I have come across the specific point I am trying to make. Forgive me.
Here is one place where Wright is talking about this story and the meaning behind it. It’s from a Lent devotional series on YouVersion.
http://www.youversion.com/reading-plans/lent-for-everyone/27
And Scot – (I’ll stop pestering everyone after this…this just interests me so much and I want to learn! I am trying, valiantly, to struggle through and put the big picture together.)
Thank you for your thoughts above – I see the difference now in what the two men are saying. Excellent stuff!
Great post, Scot.
It seems like your characterization of our present experience of heaven is summarized in the idea of a “foretaste”. But is this too conservative?
It seems to me that the language of rebirth (both in Jesus and Paul) is huge–that we are actually being delivered into a new reality. Aren’t we entering now, in a substantive way, that presence and experience of God which will be the primary attribute of God’s future? That is, aren’t adoption, sanctification, fellowship with the Holy Spirit more than foretastes?
To qualify this, I certainly see the language of “now but not yet” all over the NT. (“We see now as through a glass darkly.”) I simply wonder if we are mentally underselling the present power, relevance and necessity of experiencing heaven now.
Again, excellent series!
Holly (#29),
I was just messing with you because like a lot of people, including me, it’s as if NT Wright is NT RIGHT. I appreciate the character of NT Wright as well as his brilliance. And I don’t think what NT Wright suggests about the RYR’s question is opposed to what Scot writes.
Jeff, no doubt, we have both undersold the present and de-earthized the future, while Rob perhaps oversells the present and might minimize the newness. Hence, I like your foretaste (Holy Spirit is called that in Eph 1) … Paul says, “Behold, New Creation! The old has passed, all things are new!” 2 Cor 5:17 (my translation). So, anything that sees all new things in the future Age to Come is wrong. But there’s something big and new in the Regeneration of All Things (Matt 19:28).
jayflm @31, if not for the many promises in scripture that seem to indicate (to me at least) that all shall be saved, and if I “only” looked at what scripture says concerning the punishment of sin, then I too would believe that those who are not ultimately saved are annihilated, perish, die, cease to exist. But passages like Rom.5:18 where Paul specifically contrasts the universal devestation of the sin of Adam with the even greater universal salvation that is in Christ have inspired me to have faith in Jesus not only for my salvation, but for the salvation of all humanity. So I agree that death/annihilation is the justice due us all because of the sin of Adam and all our subsequent sins; but my hope is in Christ that His sacrifice is greater than the sin of Adam, that it not only redeems us from the curse due because of that sin, but the curses due us because of our sins. So I don’t “explain away” such passages, but I hope in Christ because of other passages. And of course, to me the revealed nature of God confirms this hope in me. But it’s the promises of scripture concerning the salvation of all that inspire me to trust in God for the salvation of all, even myself! I mean, I figure if God can save me, having been a hypocrite of hypocrites, blinded by religious pride and self-righteousness, then He can save anyone! I certainly didn’t choose Him, but He chose me and the revelation of His love, His righteousness, and my unholiness, well, His judgment forever changed me. He killed the old Sherman, burnt me up; and gave me new life in Him, the new Sherman. It was something He did through the revelation of His love as revealed in the Atonement and as made real in me by His very presence giving me life, raising me from the dead.
Well, I’m sorry for getting off track; I just get a little excited recalling when I was saved, when Heaven flooded my soul, when the lights came on from me and I was raised from the dead! Hallelujah!
Well put and I concur.
On Ephesians 1, I’ve heard Tom Wright suggest that “deposit” here is big, that contemporary greek uses the word “arrabon” (sp?) to refer to an engagement ring. If true, again, that seems to have significant weight (perhaps more than “foretaste”). Am I wrong here?
Much love.
Scot, would it be fair to summarize in two points that:
1) you’re agreeing with Bell’s overall point regarding the here and now-ness of heaven but would like more nuance to avoid a flattened/fully realized eschatology and
2) you’re disagreeing with Bell’s definition of “eternal”
???
Thanks for the responses all – dismissive, genuine and overwhelming.
An urgent problem has popped up at work that’s going to take my focus away so I’m going to have to disengage from this thread. I have a nagging suspicion at work here that’s greater than my deference to experts. Work and life dictate that for now I have to live with that tension.
“at work here” meaning “in operation” not “at my place of employment”.
Richard, yes.
Thanks for this thoughtful response, Scot.
I’m especially thankful for your cautious reminder that “sometimes some of Tom’s readers make distortions of what Tom is actually saying.” I have been watching the last few years to see what Evangelicals would do with Wright’s eschatology at the popular level and I think Love Wins is the first major attempt.
My biggest unease about Surprised by Hope was that it felt like Wright was throwing out too much of Evangelicalism’s emphasis on discontinuity in his attempt to establish a strong continuity between life now and the life to come. I’m for the latter but wary of too much of the former.
There’s something essential to Christian eschatology in the old paradigm of heaven as an escape from earth. That essential element is not a distaste for physical existence (that can happily be discarded!), it is a realization that the current world order is in such a fallen, rebellious state that it needs radical and catastrophic purification. The fire in 2 Peter 3 will certainly purify, but it will purify precisely because it burns up some things that have to go. When gold goes through the fire, not everything comes out the other side more valuable. Some bits get thrown out. So too with the New Heavens & the New Earth.
Scot, I wonder what you think of Jonathan Pennington’s work on “kingdom of heaven” language in Matthew? He argues, in part, that the reason for using “heaven” is to create a contrast between heaven and earth. Does this have any relevance to the discussion here about continuity/discontinuity?
As the kingdom of God continues to advance in the world, I look for the will of God to be increasingly done on earth as it is in heaven, and thus the continuity between heaven and earth also to increase. Until Jesus comes, when heaven and earth will be completely joined. Of course, I am postmilennial in eschatology.
Scot,
I really appreciate your tone in your critique and the way you do not dismiss Bell even though you have some disagreements. I also have a question that touches on the themes we are covering.
Why is the OT so vague about death and uses Sheol/Tartarus and Everyone seems to go there? Why aren’t the other wordly Heaven themes worked out at all? I only ask this because I believe in the Narrative of Scripture and to have a theme seem to pop up that is not worried about before seems to be out of place in my perception of it. If I am missing places that other worldly ‘Heaven’ is worked out in the OT please point me to it. Did people just start asking the ‘Heaven’ question in Jesus’ time? If it was I have a hard time seeing such a theme go from not talked about to the most important issue.
In my view of Scripture it seems that God’s dream has always been restoring the Good World He created, not dreaming of a different place; it seems to have continuity and make sense of all God’s actions towards redemption from the fall.
I would really appreciate some help wrestling with this as it does not make sense to me how ‘other worldly Heaven’ is being pointed to as a major theme.
Kaleb,
The Bible’s “eschatology” developed over time and within the pages of the Bible. Let’s grab the big future into The Age to Come, and one can grab the themes of Isaiah as well as texts like Daniel 12:2. That Age became more and more glorious, and there’s no question that it was always very earthly. So when Jesus steps onto the scene and says the Kingdom has drawn near, which is not quite the same as saying “here already,” he upped the expectations. And he taught the dawning of the kingdom in his powerful miracles, etc.. And the NT constantly has this “it’s here now, but not completely, but someday it will all be here” theme. So your “go to heaven” theme in the NT is much more about the New Heavens and the New Earth, which is found esp in Rev 20-22 and it is the fullest and most complete vision of that end time. But it’s the meeting of heaven and earth into the fullness.
Does this help?
In my church, when people say “heaven” I think most of them think “another place”. But if that’s what they think, they haven’t listened to the prayer-songs of the Liturgy, and they haven’t paid attention to not only the ancient writers, but also contemporary, popular-level writers:
http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=28
“The union of heaven and earth” is built into the architecture of our worship structures. It is sung of in the hymns, it is partaken of in the Eucharist. It is most perfectly realized in the Incarnation, because all things point to and are held together in Christ.
Dana
@Jeff Doles (#46), so does your eschatology lead you to pray the Lord’s Prayer less frequently than believers 1000 or 2000 years ago? In other words, how much has the continuity increased over the last 2000 years? And does this increase require fewer or more infrequent summons for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven?
These are honest questions, not meant to provoke. I’m not post-mill, so I don’t know how the pieces fit within that system very well.
Thanks!
Scot,
It definitely makes sense what you are saying and I would fully affirm the same things. I like the ‘already not yet theme’ and very much agree with it. I guess I really like the way Wright talks about every act of love, grace, and mercy being carried over and transformed in the age to come. It is very hard for me to think of Heaven in terms of age to come, since I grew up with Heaven as the great escape-they almost feel like they conflict to me still.
In my opinion that is why Rob has tried to refocus attention to the ‘dirt under the fingernails’ Kingdom that is here, but not yet fully realized. I may have read Rob differently since I am use to his teachings; it felt like he did not displace emphasis on Heaven by talking about it in terms of age to come. We make the choice by which we live into here and now, and we are left the choice/freedom to choose. I never thought of New Heaven-New Earth as a new place altogether, but this place the way it was meant so it will feel totally new to us all, without the fall tainting everything.
Do you think the same is true for the idea of Sheol/Hades/Tartarus being more fully developed into the concept of Hell as Heaven was more developed?
Thanks for taking the time to help me with these important issues that I am working through.
I’m guessing that Rob takes his Sheep and Goats and eternal punishment (“aionios”) ideas primarily from Tom Talbott.
read pages 83-90
http://books.google.com/books/p/0639945340294576?vid=ISBN1581128312&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Then forgive Rob for a sloppy paraphrase.
Scot, you mention that, “Rob somehow uses the word aion when the Greek word is aionion. The first means “age” with a beginning and an end, and he drives this idea hard. But the second one, the one Jesus uses, according to the standard specialist lexicon, means “pertaining to a period of unending duration, without end.”
My grasp of Greek is very rudimentary. If aionion is a cognate of aion (which is my guess on how Bell relates the two, he’s not sloppy and he’s been working on this for at least a decade so there must be a logic behind that move), why are the definitions so different? Do we have other examples of cognates varying to such a degree or is there really no relationship here?
As an aside regarding the source of Bell’s claims, in his discussion of universalism, Keith DeRose of Yale argues that “eternal” is pertaining to an age so I wonder if Rob is leaning on DeRose (who in turn leans on Talbott and others):
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/univ.htm#10.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html
I haven’t had a chance to read the book from tentmaker (originally published in 1875 by John Wesley Hanson, a Universalist), if anyone else gets a chance and wants to weigh in on it, I’d be interested in your thoughts – especially you Scot.
I guess I meant sloppy in the sense that he’s covering a lot of groundwork in only a few paragraphs and he never intended to fully develop and support his explanation in this format.
My point is that this is not a theological work for scholars to debate, but instead it’s a piece of poetry that paints a fresh, beautiful picture for a broad audience. He wrote this for the girl who hands him that slip of paper at the end of his sermons.
At one of his talks he said “this is my song, do you like it?”
My church is definitely focused on how we participate today in the renewal of all things, which is a welcome change from the first 30 or so years of my life, when I got the traditional “how do we get off this freaking rock?” mindset.
I thought this was arguably the best chapter in the book. It struck me while reading that it could stand on its own as short, accessible introduction to an NT Wright-ian outlook on the matter. Wright’s stuff is very accessible, but Surprised by Hope is still a pretty thick book. While Rob’s chapter is not without its problems, I would consider giving it to someone as a good, often very good, articulation of what many find so appealing about this idea.
As far as how much here is actually there, Rob is good at coming up with rhetorical nuggets that get the reader’s attention and quickly introduce/provoke thought on the topic. “Here is the new there” and “Does God get what God wants?” and so on. But like all shorthand, it can’t fully encompass the entire issue and thus breaks down at a certain point. I think Rob occasionally pushes them past that point, and this chapter is an example.
Scot #2
Indeed! My mea culpa.
And my mea culpa is a phrase from the the department of redundancy department!
Peter G. #50,
I pray the Lord’s prayer more now that I ever have in my life, and I pray it more aggressively. Wherever I see something out of alignment with heaven, I pray, “Kingdom of God, come! Will of God be done here as in heaven!”
When I pray over someone who is sick, it is, “Kingdom of God, come into this body! Will of God, be done in this body as it is being done in heaven” (because there ain’t no sickness in heaven.
When I hear about the troubles in the world on the news, say in Libya, I pray, “Kingdom of God, come into Libya! Will of God, be done in Libya as it is in heaven.”
My conviction is that the kingdom of God is forcefully advancing in the world, ever since the days of John the Baptist, and forceful men lay hold of it. And my confidence is that the kingdom of God will increasingly saturate the earth and the will of God will increasingly be done on earth as it is in heaven. And I am convinced that when we pray the way Jesus taught us to pray, God hears and answers.
I am postmillennial because I believe God intends to answer the Lord’s Prayer. And because I believe that the Great Commission, to make disciples of all nations (not just in all nations) will be fulfilled, because all authority has been given to Jesus in heaven and on earth. That does not cause me to slack off but to move forward with greater passion and assurance.
A better way to think about the earth is to see heaven as spiritual dimensions that exist alongside, or within our physical world. An even better way might be to see the physical world as three additional dimensions added on to a multi-dimension spiritual world. The spiritual world is more real than the physical world, so this latter view is most likely correct, but it is too hard for us to handle, because our eyes are calibrated for a physical world. Seeing heaven as spiritual dimensions attached to our physical world is not perfect, but provides some useful insights.
At the ascension, the disciples saw Jesus ascending and a cloud hid him from sight. It is not that he disappeared out into space, like an interstellar rocket, to a place on far distant planet. Rather, he moved back into the spiritual dimension from which he had come. Because the eyes of the disciples were calibrated to the physical world, he was hidden from their sight.
When the Holy Spirit comes and lives in a Christian, the spiritual dimensions and the physical dimensions come together. If we walk in the Spirit, heaven and earth come together under Jesus in the way that Paul promised. The Holy Spirit is the perfect link between heaven and earth. They spiritual and the physical dimension of life come together. We just need more people on earth to open their hearts to him. When we are filled with the Spirit the spiritual and physical dimensions intersect.
After the final resurrection, we will have spiritual bodies like Jesus. That will enable us to move freely in the spiritual dimensions of life. Because we are human we will be continue to be at home in the physical world. When we move into this multi-dimensional life, we will gain a totally different view of existence. The physical dimension will not be limited to life on earth, but will encompass all the starts and planets throughout the entire universe. We will also understand how the entire universe links to the spiritual dimensions of reality.
Matt (#15)… those were my thoughts as well.
Willard talks about “eternal life” beginning now… and Bell is a big Willard fan.
That said, the aion term perplexed me as well. Nice to see discussion on it.
Richard #53 DeRose paints a terrifying picture, “all of the beer is warm”… But thanks for the links!
Seriously though, a month ago I thought universalism was John Lennon and “coexist” bumper stickers. How did I miss arguments like DeRose and Talbott that not only make it sound plausible but also Biblically justifiable?
I’m certainly not all-in in the universalism camp but it definitely seems consistent to fully believe in universal reconciliation through Christ without undermining or dismissing any part of the Bible. Am I wrong here? Is there a danger here?
Scot, my question is not so much about Bell’s usage (as I haven’t read the book and wouldn’t presume to speculate) as it is about your comment:
“I don’t know where he gets the idea that aion means “intensity of experience that transcends time” (57). I’m thinking it could come from something like John 10:10 where Jesus said he came to bring life to its utter fullness. But I don’t think the Greek term means that except by associations with ideas connected to The Age to Come.”
So, my question is: aren’t those associations extremely important for determining the use of the word. I’m with you on the lexically founded approach. But as far as taking the next step to the *theology,* aren’t we right to make much of those associations and implications? What you mention for example–Jesus’ extended sheep comparison–has a great deal to say metaphorically (theologically?) about what Jesus means in the more prevalent Johannine language “eternal life”–right?
Regarding the idea in popular Christian literature, Dallas Willard’s first chapter in Divine Conspiracy, entitled “Entering the Eternal Kind of Life Now,” has had as much impact on my own thinking as anything (just in case anyone else was wondering about where to look for this discussion). Anyway, the eternal *kind* of life is not just a temporal issue (though the “now” part of the title shows he is also pushing in the “foretaste” direction you and Wright and others affirm) but a *qualitative* issue. I think there is much to this on the basis of the associations you allude to.
For a similar connection, I’ll also add Louw and Nida (I think they’re pretty legit, if different in m.o. from BDAG) to the growing compendium of lexicography in these comments:
“67.96 aidios, on; aiōnios, on: pertaining to an unlimited duration of time — ‘eternal.’
. . . ‘his eternal power and divine nature’ Ro 1:20.
. . . ‘be thrown into the eternal fire’ Mt 18:8; . . . ‘of the eternal God’ Ro 16:26.
The most frequent use of aiōnios in the NT is with zoē ‘life,’ for example, . . . ‘so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life’ Jn 3:15. In combination with zoē there is evidently not only a temporal element, but also a qualitative distinction. In such contexts, aiōnios evidently carries certain implications associated with aiōnios in relationship to divine and supernatural attributes. If one translates ‘eternal life’ as simply ‘never dying,’ there may be serious misunderstandings, since persons may assume that ‘never dying’ refers only to physical existence rather than to ‘spiritual death.’ Accordingly, some translators have rendered ‘eternal life’ as ‘unending real life,’ so as to introduce a qualitative distinction.”
Thoughts? Thanks.
Greg,
I agree that zoe, life, etc, connected to ainios defines the kind of life and the kind of endlessness. They interact to become a third thing — life as it was meant to be, full and flourshing. But Rob said the word aion (sic, aionios) also has that meaning of intensity … I know of no lexicon that uses the word “intensity” with aionios, but that’s not really the point. Show us some evidence that the Greek word aionios means that.
Someone asked why I use BAGD. Here’s the story: Bauer (B) wrote the original one in German. Arndt and Gingerich were English translators with slight changes. Then Fred Danker came along and made it his personal project — imagine the painstaking detail — to make Bauer better. In my James commentary I abbreviated it what is now becoming more customary BDAG to give credit to Fred Danker for his massive contribution to the lexicon. I’m irritated with myself for having BAGD in the comment I made much earlier in this thread.
Like I said, I wan’t quite interested in Rob’s usage, which I guess makes this a tangent. Sorry. I certainly don’t have any evidence that would defend him; nor am I trying to. I was just wondering if there is any legitimacy to a broader qualitative connotation (which his usage reminded me of) in your mind. You’ve answer that question, so thank you. I’ve felt a little awkward at times teaching about an “eternal kind of life” since I have no desire to play fast and loose with the lexicon.
So, just because I can’t resist =), if there *is* a legitimate connotation, then we’re not really talking about sticking to just the words that, e.g., BDAG have selected for their succinct entries. We’re talking about the process of translation and communication, and the question becomes whether Bell’s more poetic “intensity” is a totally illegitimate as a way of commentating on that quality of kingdom life. (Again, I haven’t read the book; maybe he’s really trying to sell this on the lexical level or something. Doesn’t sound like it given the writing style reviewers have described.)
WOW! Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven is “at hand,” it’s “near,” and had the audacity to say it was “in us.” I’m suspecting the non-parsing types got some of that. That we could indeed be in touch with a reality that has continuity from the beginning, to the present, and beyond. It is largely based in love, love being the core reality that has the power to bind us to our best selves, to each other, and to the very One who gave us our being in the first place. It is (and I hate to use this term) trinitarian, that is the essence of God is deeply communal and interpersonal, the essence of real people and real life. Every Jesus encounter in the Gospels reveal that.
Rob Bell is a poet, musician, preaches and teaches from such a bent. For those of us who “see” the world from such angles he is an angelion, or messenger sent from God. He handles theological stuff from that same bent and I think does more than an adequate job tapping into the core of the human Spirit, the imagination, exciting many about the things of a God who is, well, is enormously in love with us. My take is that Bell is wholly uninterested in the Ivory towers of a failed Christendom, he is wholly uninterested in convincing those who have turned the Holy things of God into cul de sac Christendom or theological ghettos. Bell is after those who have tired of such haughty pontification. Bell is not interested in making a case to those who have a certain glee over those who are said to be perishing when such dispositions are laying waste to many of the Jesus franchises.
I think Greg is absolutely correct and have thought so from the beginning of this “Hell’s Bells” issue. “We’re talking about the process of translation and communication, and the question becomes whether Bell’s more poetic “intensity” is a totally illegitimate as a way of commentating on that quality of kingdom life.” My answer to that is absolutely NOT. My greatest fear for Rob Bell is not his theological integrity but the temptation of the market place with the ruin it reaps on so many. Jesus said, “Fear NOT.” So I am with Bell, LOVE WINS.
Thanks everyone! Great conversation – I have learned from each of you.