The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 8 -- Job and Isaiah Naked

Job says several things about being naked but one is the most classic line about coming fro the womb naked and in nakedness we return to the dust. (Job 1:21). In using nakedness this way Job shows symbolically that we come into the world with nothing and we will leave it with nothing. Solomon does the same thing in Ecclesiastes 5:15 -- it is almost a quote of Job. In any case nakedness is sue to make a point and a good one.

The Bible does use nakedness to symbolize things that sometimes involves shame, sometimes vulnerability.

Isaiah 20 is an example of this: Isaiah is TOLD by god to strip naked and walk around naked for three YEARS. It is symbolic of how God is going to shame Egypt and Cush through the Assyrians and in this way God uses the prophet's actions to pronounce judgment on Egypt and Cush. Much the same thing happens in Isaiah 47 about Babylon as far as judgment although there is no record of Isaiah walked around naked. In short God is saying -- I am going to expose you for what you really are -- powerless against me. Other verses about nakedness in Isaiah demonstrate need and the neediness of people that are oppressed. There is also one verse about the comfort of a mother's breasts in 66:11 (see previous post)

I wonder what the modern proponents that all nakedness is sinful do with this passage: Here is someone who walks around naked for three years AT GOD"S DIRECTION! I don't know I am beginning to wonder if the same of nakedness is so much about physical nakedness or a state of spirit. Isaiah is naked but I doubt he himself has any shame about it -- He is being obedient to God so why would he be ashamed of his nakedness? Creates a problem doesn't it when God asks you to be naked before him?

Next: Jeremiah and Ezekiel say a few words.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 4 Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment -- Video 3

Seeing this is the hot topic on my blog right now let's continue.

Video 3 -- Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment

Greg is wrapping up and drawing his conclusions to their final end:

1. His final conclusion is one of 'annihilation' that is anything that does not line up with God's will has its ultimate and complete end. The punishment still is eternal -- that is once a person gone they are gone for eternity.

2. Regardless of what way you interpret these things there are three things that are true:
a) We were created for eternal life, b) The consequence of rejecting god is hell -- regardless of what you mean -- and it is not a good thing. c) The sure way to avoid hell is to completely submit to the Lordship of Christ and thus join the church which is predestined for salvation.

Now, I am going to admit that Greg Boyd's view has a lot of merit. It considers the more common uses of eternal punishment and uses a lot of Scripture. It's one weakness overall is its treatment of Luke 16:19-31 as a parable. It certainly has given my cause for pause to rethink the merits of the annihilist position. As I have done osme historicla research -- the fact si that the early church supported both views. The nature of hell was a big debate.

Next: The Nature of Hell -- Biblical Considerations

The Real Story of Friday the 13th

Superstition and paranoia surround this day every time it happens but the real story is far less than dramatic. In the 1300s some of the Knights Templar were burned at the stake on Friday the 13th and since then 'bad luck' has been associated with this date. More of a superstisious time flowing over into our own.

For the Christian, superstition is a little more problematic as we are really not supposed to have it. God being control and all. Plus Paul's words about old wives tales as well.

Me, I have always found, like Thomas Jefferson, that I always have plenty of good luck the harder I work.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 3 Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment -- Video 2

Video part 2 -- Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment -- Part 2

I can first of all applaud Greg for asking the simple question -- Can we look at this a different way? It is the question I am asking so I am glad he is asking it too.

Considerations he is asking us to look at with my responses:

1. Luke 16:19-31 is a parable: Really? Greg makes this point because he does not want the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus to teach us on the nature of hell. However, Jesus never identifies this as a parable nor does the gospel writer. It could be factual story. It is purely speculation that this is a parable. Even so, parables are not completely one point deals. In the case of the first parable Jesus tells -the parable of the sower -- it could be argued that Jesus is making a single point by using four sub points. The interpretive model that parables only make one simple point all the time is overly simplistic and does not consider the individual nature of each parable may be different. In any case, even if this is a parable, it does not indicate that Jesus is being inaccurate about the nature of hell.

The fact is that this view of the afterlife was and still is the notion of the Jews based on interpretation of Old Testament scriptures of Sheol -- the grave. So, Jesus then would be reinforcing this belief by default. At the least -- if this story is not accurately representative of what the afterlife is like, then we have Jesus perpetuating a false notion -- I certainly don't see Christ perpetuating a false notion of anything, but even if this is just a parable by using the common belief of Sheol he is doing so. Jesus was certainly not shy about blasting false beliefs but here we would have Jesus actually using one to illustrate a point? I don't think so.

2. Many metaphors to describe eternal punishment: Greg rightly makes the point that metaphors are the basis of what we understand about hell -- I think most of his observation are accurate on this one.

3. Three most common ways God refers to punishment in the bible: a) death b) destruction and c) perish. "Be as though they have never been" Obadiah 16 is particularly telling. The point he is making is that all of these things have a finality to them and do not indicate a torture type punishment. I agree.

4. The Bible sometimes speaks of things being eternal in consequence not in duration. He makes good points here. This is part of my problem with the doctrine of hell is that is what is indicated most of the time -- the consequence of eternal death is what is indicated -- once your dead a second time your dead it is not a continual dying.

Now, I agree with most of this except the notion of Luke 16:19-31 is a parable. I really do not think it is a parable but an accurate representation of Sheol or the grave. If so, that indicates some sort of punishment for the wicked and reward for the righteous. One thing that can be said though is the parable does not indicate that Sheol is eternal -- the belief is that it is a place of waiting for final judgment. Maybe this is where the idea of purgatory first comes from but I don't think the 'hell' side is redemptive although it could be.

Next: Greg Boyd Video 3

The Book of Revelation -- Part 11 -- The Great Multitude

Revelation 7:9-17. Now if you are looking at the future of things I suppose you could see it as a future scene in heaven around the throne -- but why can't it be a current scene?

If I was writing to seven churches --- some good, some bad, some ugly I think this picture of the saints around the throne in worship would inspire them all regardless of what time this is. Now I know some make a big deal of the phrase -- "these are they that have come out of great tribulation", but I want to note that, it does not say THE great tribulation -- it says great tribulation which can and has happened at many times and places in the history of the world, not just here in the book of Revelation.

Otherwise the passage speaks for itself. it is who is worshiping around the throne and we could be one of them someday.

Next: The Seventh Seal.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 7 -- Women's Breasts

I suppose that one might argue that I seem to have a fascination with this topic and maybe an obsession. I could argue -- "Yeah, I am a guy. Get over it, guys are fascinated with the subject." What I don't think most Christian men and women understand about this issue is that it is a current issue. One State of the United States, New York already has a law about this subject -- anywhere a man can appear without a top so can a woman. Similar laws exist in in about 7 other states in certain situations (beaches and other areas). In Europe, there are many places where a woman can appear topless -- the fact is Europeans don't have as many hang ups about nudity in general as we do in the US. Many local cities, towns, etc. have their own laws because most states leave the issue to local government to deal with on their own. For instance Columbus, OH has a very similar law to the one in New York state. The point is in certain places a Christian can be walking down the street and see a woman topless (or topfree if you prefer) and they really can't call the cops -- in fact calling the cops in New York can get you and the cops sued. So what do you do? You can't avoid everything.

I all states and places though the problem is that a woman is only considered indecent if she shows her nipples. That still leaves a lot of room on a woman's breast.

At this point in going through Bible I am looking for how the Bible refers to nakedness. In the issue of women's breasts at this point I would have to say the Bible is silent other than a few references to nursing. Now as we get past David and begin to look at the rest of the Bible -- nothing till the book of Job. The fact is the poetic literature of the Bible has a lot to say about the subject of women's breasts. Job makes mention of them, Song of Solomon as well (9 separate verses). Job makes mention of the motherly aspects of women's breasts. No sexual connotation at all. Song of Solomon is a different story.

In the context of Song of Solomon, the subject is the desire the couple has for each other. In chapters 1-7 the mention of breasts is one of admiration. That is the man is admiring his future bride's breasts and commenting on them. In short, he is saying his bride has a nice pair. 8:1 mentions the motherly aspects of women's breasts again much like Job. In Chapter 8 verses 8 and 10 the woman in the story mentions her own breasts as a symbol of her virtue -- she has kept her virginity to her wedding night referring to her breast as acting like towers. In this case they are symbolic of her virtue but it is not mentioned how that is so other than to say she was not a women who just put out for anyone. Probably no one has touched them. Seen them? Well it does not say.

What can be said at this point when dealing with the subject of the Bible and women's breasts:

1. When women's breasts are mentioned, the most common reference is to nursing or the motherly aspect of the breasts or women. It is about nurturing.

2. In Song of Solomon we have an unmarried couple and the man makes continued reference to how much he admires -- not only his future wife's body but her breasts in particular. Wonder how he knew what all this looked like in a middle eastern culture? So is admiration a sin? Not with these verses -- they got into the Bible and no sin is mentioned.

3. In all cases, it is never stated that a woman showing her breasts is sinful or shameful. if anything the virtues of women's breasts are set forward and they are not presented in a negative light.

Next: Job and Isaiah Naked.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 2 -- Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment -- Video 1

The context for this part of the discussion watch Greg Boyd in this video

Luke 16:19-31 provided the backdrop of the discussion. Now I think this story does not actually recount what heaven and hell are like but it is a reinforcement of the Jewish idea of Sheol or the grave. The waiting place for final judgment. It has some marked differences from the idea of eternal fire in Revelation. Here the people are placed in waiting placed and punished or rewarded based on what their life was like on earth. In Revelation, this idea does not appear at all but their the eternal fire has a finality to it based on whoever is in the Lamb's book of life. So Boyd gets off a little wrong in my opinion because I don't believe this story is dealing with the final state after final judgment but a holding place in waiting for final judgment. However he does an excellent job of presenting the problem with traditional thinking on eternal punishment.

Boyd brings up the standard questions in objection to eternal punishment:
1. How can we enjoy heaven when right down the road are people being tortured in flame that I may love and am called to love?
2. How is eternal punishment consistent with the theme that God's anger lasts only for a moment but his love and mercy lasts forever?
3. How is eternal punishment consistent with the teaching God is love?
4. How is eternal punishment consistent with the Bible's teaching regarding God's final victory?

As I watched these points being brought up I can see myself asking the same questions. The issues here are well presented and will serve as the basis for his and our further discussion.

Next: Greg Boyd Video 2