Purification After Childbirth

http://photobylisa.zenfolio.com/

Purification after childbirth is a levitical matter that has posed many problems for commentators and biblical scholars throughout the centuries. One can definitely see how social influences and limited knowledge has played a role in interpreting God’s intent for the parturient. While it is important to understand the context under which all generations have interpreted this function it is also vital that modern medicine and scientific advances not be disregarded as aids to interpretation. Due to the difficulty of accumulating data as it pertains to pregnancy and childbirth because of legal statutes that protect the sanctity of life, advances in this area are slow in development and as of yet not reflected in most Bible commentaries.

The looming issue, to which most commentators address first, is that of compatibility between the commands of Genesis 1:28 “to be fruitful and multiply” and the surrounding implications of uncleanliness associated with this function in Leviticus 12:1-8. As Lloyd Bailey notes, “unfitness for worship that results from the natural processes of childbirth and menstruation seems hardly fair!”[1] Bailey is quite correct if an understanding of the passage lies in the functions of reproduction alone. 

   

At the time of the giving of the Law to the people of Israel, surrounding cultural context dictated much of the people’s interpretation. The creation of sexually polar spheres was characteristic of surrounding cultures of that day.[2] The men dealt with hunting and war while women dealt with birth. In these two areas alone there are similarities in the laws that governed these spheres. Numbers 31:19 outlines specific restrictions for men returning from battle so as to draw a clear boundary between the rigors of war and death and the everyday life of the people. Likewise, women combating the pain and toil of childbirth were also separated from society. In light of more recent developments in the studies of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and postpartum depression we can understand the need for recovery, reorientation and reintegration following these tasks. Outside of cultural norms and within the realm of theology we must also view the Law as mandates of God for the protection and in the best interests of His chosen people.

             

A second assumption given leeway to in light of surrounding cultures was that of demonic activity associated with the parturient and menstruant. Allen Ross combats this notion in his work on holiness and suggests that “the flow of blood did not imply demonic activity to the Israelite; it was a sign of possible death. Any loss of vaginal blood (or seed) meant a diminution of life. It was therefore incompatible with God, the source of life.”[3] Both parturition and menstruation can thus be seen in this light as indicators of death. While the child itself is a symbol and incarnation of joy and life, menstruation is a sign that no life is present in the body of a woman and the elements (placenta and lochia) of parturition mark the end of sustainment by the womb of woman. In the matter of menstruation, primate females differ from the majority of the animal kingdom in that the endometrial lining is not reabsorbed to replenish the following estrous cycle thereby marking the end or death of conceptual opportunity for the current cycle.[4] In like manner the bodily seminal secretions of men constitute uncleanliness as they are also evidence of unfulfilled life and therefore incompatible with the source of all life.

            

 Early Church views of sexual activity heavily impacted interpretation of levitical law pertaining to parturition, but later on proved to be helpful in countering heretical concepts such as Mary’s “immaculate conception.” Origen associated sin therein with conception and birth itself while Augustine attached transmission of sin to the sexual act, which he stated, took place only outside of Eden. Catholic tradition, understanding well the implications of the blood and placenta, removed such presence from their birth accounts. Protestants later countered this notion with Mary’s observance of ritual cleansing sacrifices as evidence of a normal birth. However, this also absolves any accountability of sacrifice to the sin nature of the child birthed since Mary observed this ritual in spite of Jesus sinless nature.[5]

           

The association with a child’s sin nature was long the supposition associated with the sacrificial requirements following parturition. Some have suggested that iniquity was imputed on the woman for bringing a sinner into the world. Calvin believed that the existence of a depraved offspring in the womb created uncleanliness. This becomes illogical in light of similar sacrificial demands on the menstruant where a child is not present. This also poses a problem in light of the fact that Mary presented the same offering after giving birth to the sinless Son of God. Andrew Bonar suggests that the offering is for the cleansing of the woman’s sins.[6] This presents difficulty since no act leading up to parturition involves a sin. The order of offerings in Leviticus 12 also suggests that personal sin of the mother is not the issue.[7] The best and most logical understanding of the postpartum sacrifice is then in direct relation to the loss of blood and life-sustaining elements of the placenta rendering the woman “unholy” and therefore incompatible during the length of her courses with the source of all life.

            

 Reprieve for the parturient has traditionally been interpreted patristically as a means for a man to avoid infection himself, but is refuted by modern medicine and the exact requirements in present day practice to postpartum procedures in order to prevent any damage to the mother’s reproductive system. The concern for abstinence for six weeks following childbirth is a safeguard for healing and restoration in the body of the mother. Sexual activity will potentially exacerbate any internal bleeding resulting in infection and possible death to the woman while posing no threat to the man. Such interpretation may also reflect some of the surrounding cultural superstitions associated with the fear of a bleeding woman and the concept of fluctuating power that accompanied menstrual and parturient bleeding. A better understanding of this practice however, is as a protection for women against male whims and impulses that would harm her body in its vulnerable and impaired state.[8]   

             

The most puzzling aspect of all, which has long baffled commentators, involves the contents of Leviticus 12:5, and the demands for an additional time of separation following the birth of a female child. Bonar assumed the additional time was associated with the impurity of woman overall or a possible sanctifying element that accompanied the circumcision of a male child.[9] This of course, seems absurd in light of the fact that there is no additional sacrificial offering required for females over males and suggests that there is no difference in value based on the gender of the child. Additionally, the sacrifice and any obligatory and purifying elements are referred to in regards to the mother. It is difficult to say with all certainty why God designed postpartum rest in this fashion, but I believe science and medicine may eventually offer the answer to this confounding question.  

Application

           

In a recent paper published by Oxford University Press, the theory was presented, tested, and published that maternal serum human chorionic gonadotrophin        (MSHCG) is higher in women carrying a female fetus than in those carrying a male fetus. Male and female gonads differentially regulate placental gonadotrophin production and levels change in specific relation to the development of the fetal pituitary-gonadal system. The gender-related differences should therefore be attributed to differential expression of placental proteins by female compared to male fetuses.[10] Some women carrying female fetuses rendered hCG results almost twice that of women carrying male fetuses.

             

The implications of this discovery bear testimony to the level of stress and hormonal fluctuations a woman’s body undergoes and the greater taxation of these efforts in forming a female child. As such it seems logical that a longer period of rest would be necessary before a woman’s hormonal production returned to a healthy, whole and normal state. The presence of hCG in the mother’s body remains at an elevated level for at least six weeks after giving birth. Since the definition of a disease is that which creates an abnormal state or impairs wholeness, the production of hCG in a woman’s body, one of the key indicators of pregnancy and this abnormal state, would fall under the category of a disease.

            

 This accommodates for the double portion of time allotted to the overall period for purification of eighty days to be observed by the mother of a female infant, but there is still the matter of the initial two weeks of separation in contrast to the one week allowed for a male child. During gestation the female fetus’ reproductive system has absorbed the pregnancy hormones of the mother and the female fetus responds to the hCG hormones by retaining an endometrial lining. Upon birth the female infant menstruates for one week where the endometrial lining sustained by the pregnancy hormones is shed in the absence of the mother’s hormones. Since the time of separation for a menstruant is two weeks this would explain the two weeks of separation before the female infant can join society whereas the male child joined society upon his initiation into the covenant on the eighth day following circumcision.

            

 Many feminist considerations, while valiant in effort, pose a hindrance to women’s understandings and appreciations of their bodies and the functions of God’s design in them. Such attempts to absolve all differences between genders thus consternate some of the necessities of rest and healthy living. While man and woman were created equal and are viewed spiritually as equal in the eyes of God, our physiological differences possess purpose and cannot be ignored. What I may learn from this passage in Leviticus 12 is, first and foremost, that God had and always will have my best interests as a woman at heart. Secondly, I may know that my body physically and hormonally grieves all loss of life and I must validate that reality. Thirdly, I must not take offense to past interpretations no matter how harmful they may seem to me. The biblical scholar is dedicated to understanding the Scriptures in light of the information they have available at the time and one cannot fault the scholar for lack of scientific support. Ultimately, we are all products of the cultures and societies in which we are born.    

---

[1] Lloyd R. Bailey, Leviticus (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1987). 74.

[2] Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus: a commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 147.

[3] Allen P. Ross, Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 267.

[4] Strassmann, B. I., "The evolution of endometrial cycles and menstruation," The Quarterly Review of Biology 71, no 2 (June 1996): 181-220.

[5] Ephraim Radner, Leviticus (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2008). 120-134.

[6] Andrew A. Bonar, An Exposition of Leviticus (Grand Rapids, MI: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1971), 99.

[7] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2000), 184.

[8] Gerstenberger, Leviticus: a commentary, 152.

[9] Bonar, An Exposition of Leviticus, 99.

[10] Yuval Yaron, Ofer Lehavi, AVi Orr-Urtreger, Ilan Gull, Joseph B. Lessing, Ami Amit, “Maternal Serum HCG is higher in the presence of a female fetus as early as week 3 post-fertilization,” Oxford Journals 17, no. 2 (October, 2001): 485-89, http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/2/485.full (accessed June 20, 2011).

Creation in Salvation

This summer I have been taking two Old Testament courses at Denver Seminary. One of them is titled Early Israel and its Wisdom Literature. During one of the lectures on Genesis 1 and the creation of the world the ideas in this blog came to me as I listened to Dr. Hess. I attempted to research other perspectives similar to what I came up with but could not find anything although I am sure it exists somewhere. If through the course of reading this you identify similar ideas please feel free to point me in that direction so I may read what others write on the matter. With that being said, here are a few ideas I came across in the process of “working out my salvation with fear and trembling.”

Creation of the World

1.       Light from darkness – “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness.

2.       Division of waters – “Let there be an expanse between the waters, separating water from water.”

3.       Land and water – “Let the water under the sky be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear…Let the earth produce vegetation: seed bearing plants and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.”

4.       Time / Sources of light – “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night. They will serve as signs for festivals and for days and years. They will be lights in the expanse of the sky to provide light on the earth.”

5.       Movement in the waters below and above – “Let the water swarm with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.”

6.       Movement on dry land – “Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that crawl, and the wildlife of the earth according to their kinds…Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.”

7.       Rest – God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, for on it He rested from His work of creation.

Creation of the New Man

1.       Light from darkness / Righteousness from sin  – “Take care then, that the light in you is not darkness.” (Luke 11:35) “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His possession, so that you may proclaim the praises of the One who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.” (1 Peter 2:9)  

2.       Separating the waters / Recognizing Jesus – “He said to them, ‘Where is your faith?’ They were fearful and amazed, asking one another, ‘Who can this be? He commands even the winds and the waves, and they obey Him!’” (Luke 8:25) Jesus answered, “If you knew the gift of God, and who is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would ask Him, and He would give you living water.’” (John 4:10) “Within these lay a large number of the sick – blind, lame, and paralyzed – waiting for the moving of the water…’Get up,’ Jesus told him, ‘pick up your mat and walk!’” (John 5:3-8) “If anyone is thirsty, he should come to Me and drink! The one who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, will have streams of living water flow from deep within him.” (John 7:37-38) “They willfully ignore this: Long ago the heavens and the earth were brought about from water and through water by the word of God.” (2 Pet. 3:5) “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give water as a gift to the thirsty from the spring of life.” (Rev. 21:6)

3.       Seed-bearing Fruit – “This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God.” (Luke 8:11) “So you’ll recognize them by their fruit.” (Matt. 7:20) “Remain in Me, and I in you. Just as a branch is unable to produce fruit by itself unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in Me. I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in Me and I in him produces much fruit, because you can do nothing without Me.” (John 15:4-5) “You did not choose Me, but I chose you. I appointed you that you should go out and produce fruit and that your fruit should remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you.” (John 15:16) “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, self-control.” (Gal. 5:22-23)

4.       Sources of light / Eternal life “I am the light of the world. Anyone who follows Me will never walk in the darkness but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12) “For God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of Gods’ glory in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Cor. 4:6) “You are the light of the world. A city situated on a hill cannot be hidden…let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.“ (Matt 5:14) “For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light.” (Eph 5:8) “For you are all sons of light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or the darkness.” (1 Thess. 5:5)

5.      Life in the Waters / Baptism – “Jesus answered, ‘I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:5) “to make her (church) holy, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word. He (Jesus) did this to present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and blameless.” (Eph 5:26-27) “let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water.” (Heb 10:22)

6.       Infilling of the Holy Spirit / Movement based on the foundational truths of Scripture and creation of the new man “After Jesus was baptized, He went up immediately from the water. The heavens suddenly opened for Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming down on Him. And there came a voice from heaven: ‘This is My beloved Son. I take delight in Him!’” (Matt. 3:16-17)

7.       Rest / Inner peace, tranquility of the cross – “Therefore, while the promise to enter His rest remains, let us fear that none of you should miss it…Let us then make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall into the same pattern of disobedience.” (Heb. 4:1-11)

Why I am a Calvinist

                Humans did not choose to be created. God chose to create them in His image. If I apply this principle to the formation of the new man within me, then I must conclude that I had nothing to do with the selection to be a new man.  God chose me and drew me to Himself. He began the process of forming me into the image of His Son and breathed His life into me. I cannot resist His call on my life and His will to create a new man within me.

“There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.” (Rom. 3:10-11) “But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, made us alive with the Messiah even though we were dead in trespasses. You are saved by grace!” (Eph 2:4-5)

Why I am an Arminian

                The point at which God breathed life into Adam and released him into the garden to be fruitful and multiply was the point at which Adam obtained his free will. Adam possessed free will once God gave him his existence and life. Jesus, the second Adam, possessed free will. One squandered it; the other harnessed it and submitted it to the will of the Father. The point at which mankind lost free will was at the Fall. I must assume then that upon the creation of this new man within me, I once again am free and reobtain free will. Until the moment that Christ frees me and God breathes His life into me, I do not have free will. Once I am a partaker of eternal life, I have free will. The responsibility of that knowledge is overwhelming in and of itself as I now have the ability to choose between right and wrong whereas before I could only choose what was wrong, but accompanied with the knowledge of my Helper, the Holy Spirit, it is fathomable and manageable.

“I assure you: Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. A slave does not remain in the household forever, but a son does remain forever. Therefore if the Son sets you free, you really will be free.” (John 8:34-36) Paul teaches in Romans 6 that we have died with Christ and that we now live with Christ. This being so, we have died to sin and its claims and in Christ sin and death no longer rule over us. But Paul goes on in verse 16 to say that we do still chose to become slaves of sin. This implies free will.

Living Calminian

                I am new at refining my theology, although I have been trying for a long time without knowing it. I cannot help myself. It is what I am wired to do. This does not mean I always get it right, but it does mean that my pursuit and heart are in the right place. Something seems amiss in my mind in regards to pure Calvinism, yet something rings true. The same applies to pure Arminianism. Until a few weeks ago I was not able to explain the relationship between the two and had heard quite often that they were irreconcilable. I cannot accept that. And so I arrive today at the juncture of grace and free will. First there is undeserved grace in my creation, and then there is absolute free will.  Before Christ I was formless and void. Now, I am a new man and I am beautifully and wonderfully formed in the image of Christ. I am free; a new creation. What remains to be answered is what shall I do with my freedom?

Time Will Tell

Finally! I finished up my spring semester at Denver Seminary last week and now I am, at last, writing the promised blog on Rob Bell’s visit to the school on April 8, 2011. This morning I reviewed my notes and again listened to my audio recording of the event. I ended up with four additional pages of notes, (oh joy!) but did you seriously expect any less from me? If you would like a bit of pretext before reading the following review you may read this blog and listen to the included audio of the event.  For a “brief” (ha-ha) overview of my take on Bell’s book, Love Wins, see my previous blog.

In Rob Bell’s opening statements he articulates his personal reasons for appearing at Denver Seminary.  Plainly speaking, Bell understands the power of presence and the impact and influence associated with physical presence. Physical presence is captivating and enthralling. The downfall of presence and a distortion of its true intent is manipulation. It is in light of these two polarities that I approach my analysis of Bell’s visit. 

Equality on the playing field is how I would describe the initial address to the students at Denver Seminary. We were reminded of our fallen human state and that misguided pursuits of dreams are but foolishness. Sometimes we enter into ministry out of desperate attempt to gain a sense of love and to satisfy an inner desire to be needed. The quick pace of Bell’s speech did not allow for introspective analysis of personal motive to enter into a discerning spirit as he spoke. I imagine I was not the only person in the room who felt as if my endeavor at seminary to become better equipped in the Word was being stripped and demeaned on the spot. But I need not concern myself with that, because God loves me and love wins. What a relief! Perhaps there are some, of which I am not one, who come to seminary with self-righteous motives. I have never carried any disillusions of my fallibility and incompetence. But the tone of address carried with it an accusatory note that I did not discern as conviction. Feeling somewhat disarmed however, I ignored the slight and attempted to focus on content. 

Dr. Wenig began the Q&A session with a reference to the methods and theology of Friedrich Schleiermacher, more prominently known as the “Father of Modern Liberal Theology.” Dr. Wenig asked Rob if he envisioned himself as a modern day Schleiermacher in his ministry to make the gospel more relevant to culture through the redefining of biblical terminology. Bell’s initial answer involved some interesting imagery. The question brought to his mind a wet piece of toast. I thought this odd since I have never had the privilege of eating a wet piece of toast. So what do I do? I went to the kitchen and made some toast. Then I soaked my piece of toast. The result was interesting. The crispy piece of bread did not simply lose its “oomph;” it cracked apart and essentially disintegrated in my hands. I guess the imagery was accurate because I believe this is exactly what happens to the substance of God’s Word when we attempt to redefine or infuse with meaning its original meaning and context. The realization and application of the gospel is a two way street. I begin in the present, where I am right now and I must travel to the gospel in its original context for realization of God’s Word. The journey to application describes the road back to the present with those realizations in hand. If I reverse the order my interpretation falls apart and disintegrates. Bell referenced Plantinga’s definition of sin as the “culpable disturbance of shalom” as a good example of the proper redefining of terms. But I would argue that the definition in and of itself means nothing if we do not firstly comprehend “shalom.” So my caution in this practice would be to make sure we do not use loaded terms in our definitions that have further potential to create distortion.  (Read here for a working definition of peace to better understand phrases such as “culpable disturbance of shalom.”)

The second question dealt with Bell’s chapter on Heaven. Dr. Wenig stated that according to Scripture on end-times judgment, it did not appear that love wins. The question posed was whether or not he accurately understood Bell’s meaning of love in this context. Bell placed God’s desire to set all things right at the forefront of his answer. I find this aligns with Scripture and in particular with Jesus’ practice of restoration during his ministry here on earth. So what do we do with justice? This is of course one of those terms that may need a little philosophical pondering. Bell described the relationship between justice and mercy, likewise in his book (pg 39), as a type of tension filled dance. I concur with this analysis from a fallen perspective, but God in and of Himself is not characterized by tension. Tension is a characteristic of the encounter between good and evil. So to understand justice and mercy as they pertain to the character of God we must approach the matter differently. 

 

When we dance with a partner (as would be the case between justice and mercy since they are two separate qualities), one person leads and one follows. The roles are equal in importance but different in function. In the dance between justice and mercy, justice leads and mercy follows. Without justice there can be no mercy. Think of a typical court case. There is justice, which usually entails a verdict and sentence. Only after this is there any exercise of mercy. So yes there is a dance between justice and mercy, but it is not an interpretive nonsensical display; it is orderly and precise. I think our misinterpretation of justice is that it involves the execution of a sentence devoid of mercy and this may be where Bell is headed but perhaps not able to articulate. Judgment means that the sentence for wrongdoing is set in place and into effect. Mercy means the removal of consequence through saving grace. The wage, consequence, and just result of my sin is death. But the merciful gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ (Romans 6:23). Here is our dance and the circumstances that surround it – Jesus Christ - who both metes out justice and subsequently offers mercy and grace to those who believe in Him. There is no tension in this dance, but absolute order. 

Bell goes on to refer to the fires of judgment as refining in nature. I can accept this definition, but we must go further and understand what fire refines. As far as I could find in my research the only context for the refining properties of fire pertains to metal (gold, silver, bronze, steel, etc.). These metals are analogous for the properties of divine qualities in the Word of God. Ephesians 6:11-17 defines these qualities for us: truth, righteousness, peace, salvation, and the Word of God. The fires of refinement only purify these elements of faith and without them one will dissolve into ash. If we do not have Christ in us, there is nothing to refine. Bell’s reference to divine life, as a “pilot light,” is problematic in its theological implications and I will not delve into this diversion right now as I am unsure about his meaning.

The third question posed to Bell by Dr. Wenig dealt with Jesus’ use of the word aion in Matthew. Bell redefines this word in his book as a “coming age” or indicative of the “intensity of an experience” in somewhat of a “lost track of time” sense, not a forever sense. Dr. Wenig invoked the work of several biblical scholars to support the traditional understanding of the word and framed the question so as to understand how Bell arrived at his conclusion of the interpreted meaning. Bell’s answer simply reiterated what was stated in the book as to the definition but fell short of adequately explaining “due process.”

The final question addressed the matter of salvation, the unsaved, and the extension of God’s grace after death. If there is an opportunity to repent after death then what drives any sense of urgency for the present? Bell answered by explaining his intent to balance between the tensions of urgency and possibility in the book. Bell spoke of the two extremes in dealing with the matter as either laissez faire or “extra crispy – you’re done.” I think both of those approaches fail to comprehend the complexity of God or understand His provision of grace. What we can be absolutely sure of is that God is just and He will mete out justice to all of us. God’s provision of grace and mercy that follows the outpouring of His wrath in justice culminates at the foot of the cross.

Bell’s overall approach to the topic was interesting since it leaves one with the sense of suspension and perpetual presence. Here is a question that has not been fully or adequately answered for two thousand years to which he writes a book in address, full of more questioning and no resolution. I understand the desire to find resolution through open dialogue and the profession of this intent through literary expression, but I did not receive this impression from the live event. I question the spirit behind a pursuit that lauds and thrives amidst so much tension or as Bell phrased it “the friction of the tension is part of the joy.” When asked who he intended as a target audience, Bell could identify no one in particular, but concerned himself more with the intrigue offered in the question.  However as Scripture repeats over and over throughout the narrative, Jesus Christ is the mystery revealed in all its fullness. The distinguishing factor between heaven and hell, life and death, justice and mercy, is Jesus Christ. 

In closing, Bell makes a statement that “there is what you believe and then there is how you believe it, and you can believe the right thing wrongly.” This is definitely true, but so is the adverse. You can believe the wrong thing, rightly. It is not all about the “what” or the “how;” it is about the “what” AND the “how” and “what” is pivotal to our practice of “how”. I opened my analysis with a reference to the power of presence. Rob Bell brings forward a fascinating new spin on an age-old question. The question propels forward on the power of his presence. He is an excellent pastor and relational human being and it shows. We are faced with two options. Either it is time to address the question with all sincerity and perseverance and for this reason Bell is an instrument in the hands of God to bring the matter to our attention, or he is serving his own desire to impact our generation for his own purpose. One will ring eternal… as in forever, and the other will pass away with this age.  Only time will tell. 

Soon, but not yet...

I know I promised to write a review of Rob Bell's visit to Denver Seminary and I am posting this to assure you I will indeed write it. Two things prevent me from writing it right now. The first is the last minute slam of paper writing for the Spring semester. It does not go over well if I am blogging about the latest and greatest thing while handing in less than stellar products. The second reason I have postponed the review is an upcoming round table discussion on the content of Love Wins and Bell's visit to Denver Seminary. I would like to hear the input of others before publishing my thoughts here. The round table will take place on May 3rd so don't expect anything until at least after that. Thanks for your patience!

For Whom the Bell Tolls - Time Marches On...and On...

Introduction

            I read it, every word. Cover to cover I labored, thought through, and annotated all that came to mind. Rob Bell raised some interesting questions in his recent book, Love Wins. None of the questions are new and perhaps the fact that we, as a Church, have continuously brushed them off, led to the inevitable tackling of these troubling questions, no matter how inadequate the answers may have turned out to be, because of our ignorance.

Love Wins was not written for theologians, academics, or those devoted to biblical studies. The book was written for the suffering laity we frequently ignore because the “why” questions and the demand for empathy is too uncomfortable. I am guilty; I recognize that. I am a perpetual student. I bury my nose in books and study Scripture with a passion that often burns to the detriment of real life around me.  But I do not offer up my shortcomings as an excuse for poor exegetical work. Just as I am called upon to develop more compassion for the world outside, so also are those motivated by compassion called upon to reach the world through sound theological solutions. As stuffy as that may sound, it is our responsibility as leaders. A proper balance between the thoughts of the heart and the sentiments of the soul is essential to our understanding of God’s will and purpose.

The format of the book makes it difficult to succinctly address all the issues raised and would take us on a multitude of rabbit trails were we to chase after each and every diversion. My attempts are not to counter what Rev. Bell writes, but to contribute to the discussion in light of what he has written. I will start where all good gospel stories start, with Jesus.

It has long been my opinion that the world is presented with a fragmented image of who Jesus is because the mirror in which the world glimpses Him is fractured. Division and chaos has long divided the Church. Sin plagues and distorts what the world is to see. Rev. Bell cites account after account displaying just this tragedy as sinful humans claiming to bear the image of Jesus, hurt and abuse others. But what we must not shy away from saying is this: there is only ONE Jesus. He is the light and in Him is no darkness. The transformation of the human soul is not instantaneous. The human soul grows and develops just like the life of a human embryo. There is a quickening of life, and then there is growth – years upon years, decades upon decades of growth until we reach a ripe and mature age. When we observe behaviors that are clearly sinful, we do not identify it as Jesus or label it as the wrong Jesus. It is NOT Jesus – plain and simple. If it does not look like Jesus, does not act like Jesus, and does not sound like Jesus, then it is not Jesus. The way we find out who Jesus is now, is by studying who He was then.[1]  

So who is Jesus? Jesus is the Word of God in flesh. Scripture tells us “for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.” (Luke 6:45) This passage is referring to man who is made in the image of God. What we learn from this image-bearing truth is that through the Word of God (Jesus), the Heart of God (the Father), is made known to us. The word cannot be separated or severed from the heart, they are one. The word always reveals the heart and Jesus pronounced this purpose many times as he revealed the Father to us.

Another dimension of the Trinitarian relationship that Bell brings up in his first chapter that I would like to address is one of “verbs”. Verbs are important. Doing is important. But a verb never comes first and cannot subsist alone. A verb is nothing without a noun to give her purpose. And so to best understand the nature of doing, we must first understand the nature of being. The verbs – accepting, confessing, believing – do not come before the recognition of our identity as sinners and the identity of Jesus as savior.[2] These are nouns – sinner and savior. Now that we have our nouns set in place we may do. We may accept our savior. We may confess our sins. We may believe in Him. Paul and James balance exquisitely the relationship between being in faith and doing in faith. They are not contradicting one another, they are complementing one another. Together with their conglomeration of nouns and verbs they make complete sentences. What saves us, in the end, is the complete sentence. We recognize who we are, a sinner and we confess that. We recognize who Jesus is, our savior and we accept Him. There is the being of nouns, the doing of verbs and fulfillment of a sentence in living. That sounds oddly like a verse I recognize… “In Him we live, and move, and have our being.” (Acts 17:28) And here is our Trinitarian picture: we live in Christ, we move in the Spirit and we have our being in the Father. Every transformation cited within the opening pages of Love Wins, in an attempt to discount any type of formatted sinner’s prayer, follows this recognition and action.  Each individual realizes who they are, and who Jesus is. There is no magic order of words, but the sinner’s prayer should not be discounted because of this. It is recognition of who we are, who Jesus is, what he did and what we will do. If we take away any portion of being or doing we will never arrive at God’s purpose for our lives, which is living.

Heaven

            An interesting question arises in Bell’s chapter on heaven. Is heaven here and now or somewhere sometime in the future? Theological developments have brought us far over the course of the last century in understanding the Kingdom of God as partially here in the now, and fully coming in the future. But in order to exist here partially it must also exist somewhere else fully or we have no comprehension of what it even means for something to partially exist. Our recognition of the Kingdom here is based on our recognition of the Kingdom somewhere else. Bell states that we must take the present seriously “because we have great confidence that God has not abandoned human history and is actively at work within it, taking it somewhere” and if we are still moving, as time is, then sometime as well. This is true. The question is where are we going? The answer of course is – heaven.

A misunderstanding of the concept of time presents a problem in the subsequent presentation of the Kingdom. History is a sequence of events through time. The only dimension of time that moves is the present. The past does not move; it does not retreat into the distance. The present travels along through history and distances us from past events. The future cannot be dragged into the present or approach us with any further haste than the pace traveled in the present. We progress through a sequence of events. Time is dependent on events. Our choices in this sequence of events, dictate what will happen as we travel through time. We are defined in being by our past, our origins, our parenthood. We are sustained, nurtured in the present through perpetual motion. We live for the future because we have a destination we desire to reach. I have been an avid runner for the past year and one truth I have realized is that the future, my finish line, only draws near as I move. It cannot come to me, I must travel to it. So, the point of all of this is the following: If heaven is our future then we will only reach it through perpetual motion forward through the present. We do not get the luxury of laissez faire and standing still in the present awaiting the approach of heaven. We learn from our Creator how best to live life and approach Him.

On the following point, Bell and I clearly agree. “If you believe that you’re going to leave and evacuate to somewhere else, then why do anything about this world?”[3] I believe this thought is grounded in some unhealthy fundamental eschatological developments, but it is incorrect. I do not believe we are leaving this earth to go somewhere else. Of course there is death and we do go somewhere else. We go to heaven to wait the time when heaven and earth meet and merge becoming a new creation. We progress through time based on events. If we do nothing, we progress nowhere, time progresses nowhere and we move no closer to heaven. Time is meaningless without events. Time and events are inseparable. If we desire to reach that time that only the Father knows then we must follow His events – His will here on earth. No events, no time. That is motivation enough to do the Father’s will each and every second we draw breath.

            Bell brings up the Lord’s Prayer and the invocation of heaven on earth: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” This is our hope. That one day we will see God’s will fully implemented on earth as it is in heaven, in essence bringing heaven and earth together into a new creation. One truth we claim as believers in Christ is that heaven and hell are incompatible. There is no cosmic battle between good and evil where evil is a necessary balance to good. Good does not require evil to exist. But where there is evil, good cannot fully reign. It is a process of transformation. We must assume then that the fact that heaven is not yet fully here is because hell is also partially here. And this brings us to hell.

Hell

            We will begin hell with Bell’s summary of hell. “We need a loaded, volatile, adequately violent, dramatic serious word to describe the very real consequences we experience when we reject the good and true and beautiful life that God has for us.”[4] We need something to describe evil in the world and that word is “hell”. The problem with Bell’s solution is that the criteria for evaluating our definition of heaven is not the same as that used to evaluate our definition of hell. If we say that the partial reality of heaven here on earth, is dependent on a real place existent somewhere by which we derive our definition of heaven, then we must also say that the presence of hell on earth is dependent on a real place existent somewhere by which we derive our definition of hell. The presence of hell on earth is evidence that hell exists somewhere else.

            So if heaven is in our future and is the place to which we are headed then where does that leave hell? The presence of hell is necessitated by the existence of sin. The consequence of sin is death. These three are inseparable – sin, death and hell. Before the propitiation of sin, hell was our future, as was death. Hell is where we were headed. A consequence is not for the purpose of correction.[5] A consequence is a result of an action whether it is good or bad. There are good consequences to good actions and we do not define these as corrective in nature.

The pivotal point in history that changed the course of the earth and mankind forever was the Cross. A loving and compassionate God makes a way for restoration where one is not deserved or merited. A gracious and merciful God orchestrates events in history to intersect and interject Himself into the present. A sacrificial and serving Savior pays for the sins of the world so that we need not suffer the consequences of death and hell, the natural cause and effect relationship that results from sin.      

Death

            It is easy to see how a fundamental misunderstanding of hell is possible in light of a misunderstanding of the concept of death. Death was never a part of the creation design. In the world that God created there was no death. Trees did not die. Leaves did not wither. Fruit did not fall.[6] The cycle of life and death simply did not exist. The reason that “leaves drop from the trees and the plants die”[7] is because death entered the world with sin. The purpose for creation taking on the restorative nature of dying to live is because it announced what would forever be the consequence of sin and what God Himself would need to undergo in order to redeem the world from sin. “A seed has to be buried in the ground before it can rise up from out of the earth as new life”[8] because this is what the seed of God would have to suffer in order to bring us new life.[9] The seed of God is the Word of God and the Word of God is Jesus Christ. The Cross is not just a metaphorical symbol, it is a physical reality.

Death continues to be a consequence of sin. There is no need to die to self if sin does not exist within oneself. We die because we sin. The world dies because sin continues to exist in the world. But as the Cross proved, we are incapable of eradicating sin from the world. This is a feat only God can accomplish. We are simply instruments, living vessels in His hands. We bring genuine restoration to the world because God lives in us. To suggest that God would create a world where death is essential to new life is to suggest a cruel and sadistic Creator. Death is essential to new life where sin exists. The death of sin is what begets new life. Nature simply attests to that fact because she must coexist with sin. We talk so much about saving the earth perhaps we ought to return to the reason why she is dying in the first place.  

It is impossible to contemplate the Cross without dwelling on the magnitude and meaning of the blood. The blood cannot be minimized. Blood has always been paramount in our understanding of pain and suffering. Blood permeates the Scriptures, from the very first sacrifice to cover the sin of Adam and Eve, to the murderous cries of Abel’s blood as it seeped into the earth, to the grieving and suffering of every woman who ever lived to bring forth life, to the blood on the Cross, to the very pages of Revelation as the blood of the saints demands vengeance. Blood is part of who we are and has always cried out and attested to the suffering of mankind. It is not only relevant under an Old Testament sacrificial system; blood continues to speak out every day as testimony to the suffering of mankind. Every time blood spills, God hears its cry. What makes the blood of Christ so pivotal to the Christian faith is not only what it represents, but what that blood attested to. It attested to a sinless God that would humble Himself, becoming a man, and spilling out the very essence of His life for us. That blood cried louder in suffering than any other blood in the history of world. The anguish of God in that moment was so great, that the very foundations of the earth trembled at their core. That blood continues to cry out every time it confronts and covers sin, and God feels every ounce of pain and suffering. You ask how a loving and compassionate God can condemn mankind to eternal damnation, but I ask you, how could an innocent, sinless God go through that kind of suffering for me?  Suffering does not please God. Life pleases God. The only way to bring life to mankind was through suffering.  

What happened on the cross? God poured out His very life and blood for us. The Cross was about the end of the sacrificial system because no other blood would ever match the magnitude of that sacrifice again. The Cross was about the reconciliation of broken relationships under the blood of Jesus. The Cross was about a guilty defendant set free by the blood of Jesus. The Cross was about a battle won after the blood of Jesus proclaimed His innocence. The Cross is about the redemption of a lost world through the blood of Jesus. It is all about the blood. If you take away the blood, you take away any hope we have of avoiding eternal separation from God. The blood is not about the language of the day in 33 AD. If we suffer a loss in sensitivity towards the blood then perhaps that does not speak to the relevance of the blood, but instead to the callousness of our hearts.[10]   

God’s Purpose

            When we talk of Sin, we refer to those things which do not please God. If Sin does not please God then by logical conclusion we must assume that death does not please God. If death does not please God then hell does not please God. If none of these things please God then why do they exist? And furthermore, why would He come to take our sins upon himself, undergo death and travel to hell? The answer is life. Life is God’s purpose; life has always been God’s purpose. The mystery does not begin with God’s pleasure.[11] The mystery begins with God’s purpose. The fulfillment of God’s purpose is what produces God’s pleasure. The mystery of Christ is wrapped up in His role as the Son of God. He is the very life of God. Jesus is God. That is the mystery. One might think that does not sound all that mysterious, but it is quite the mystery when you realize that everything in the world is dying. How can eternal life possibly subsist in a place that is continually falling away and dying around it? There is your true mystery.

            It is difficult to understand a purpose driven philosophy. We are such a pleasure driven culture. We rationalize all different forms of pleasure and secernate them from their purpose. God’s purpose is to bring us eternal life through Him. His pleasure lies in His power to accomplish this feat. Our philosophy tends to shape God as opposed to allowing God to shape our philosophy. When we live our lives grounded in pleasure we cannot comprehend a God who does not meet our immediate pleasure and who will sacrifice all that He has, even to the point of suffering on a cross, in order to fulfill a purpose. Our problem is not whether or not there is a hell. Our problem is that we do not understand and appreciate the price paid for our eternal life enough to care that at one time it was lost. We do not recognize what it means to be a sinner. Without the recognition of our state as sinners it is impossible to appreciate the presence of a God who would be our savior.

Judgment

            “And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:11-15

            There are three separate concepts in this passage. There is Death, Hades, and a lake of fire (Hell). Somehow in my mind I have always clumped the three together into one place but I have realized this may not be the case. The second thing is that Hades is not eternal, but that it too will pass away. The one place that we do not hear of an end to is the lake of fire. The lake of fire comes after judgment. Hades comes before judgment and is separate from Death. And so now I have questions of my own about Hades and Hell and my traditional understanding of what these places entail. I still believe that Hades is a place apart from earth. It is a location where those who have not placed themselves under the covering of the blood go, but it is not eternal. Revelation states that Death and Hades cough up the dead to stand in judgment. And then only after judgment, if not found in the Book of Life, does anyone go into the lake of fire which is eternal. I have many new questions now, but the one thing I cannot yet accept is the idea that all will choose reconciliation with God. John the Evangelist clearly sees that “anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.” Why would John say this if he did not in fact see someone thrown into the fires? I must assume from this that there will be some. As uncomfortable of a message as that may portray to the world, I cannot reconcile with the idea that none will suffer an eternity in the lake of fire (Hell), whatever that may entail.   

Gospel

            Rob Bell makes an important point in Love Wins. He expresses a genuine frustration over a gospel that propels itself on the wings of fear. I agree with this point and believe it should not be the message at the forefront of the gospel. Fire and Brimstone is not the Good News. We have something of genuine value to every living thing on earth. We present a message of life. We offer a hope in a future, free from pain and suffering. We bring to a dying world the promise of a place where sin and death no longer hold reign. What we are seeing played out in the controversy over the content of Love Wins is a battle of extremes. We have attempted to motivate the unsaved by tyrannical means of fear. This is abusive and coercive and does not propagate authentic change at the heart of the individual. It is a shame we resorted to such measures. But the answer is never to dampen the gospel or eliminate something as real as Hell. What has inadvertently occurred as a result of attempting to soften the blow of eternal punishment is also the devaluation of eternal life and the price paid so that we may have it.

---

[1] Rob Bell, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2011), 7-9.

[2] Ibid., 11.

[3] Ibid., 46.

[4] Ibid., 93.

[5] Ibid., 88.

[6] Eze 47:12.

[7] Bell, 130.

[8] Ibid., 130.

[9] Luke 8:11.

[10] Bell, 127.

[11] Bell, 148.