I do believe I go a bit further in my explanation and thoughts on hell than Wright does. I appreciate the prayers!

Judging from your recent post.. I can only infer you are in possession of the ‘Magic pencil. Racing about, as you try to call Franken Doodle Bob to life.

Yes, I enjoyed Fee & Stuart’s book. There are some really good books out there on biblical interpretation.

First, I still believe you accused David of viewing Scripture as insufficient. You wrote, “But tell me, beloved, ‘When did you first imagine Scripture was insufficient for declaring truth to the dying?” Explain another way for me to read this statement than, “David, you view Scripture as insufficient for declaring truth, when did you first start thinking in this way.”

Second, you think David based his essay on the thoughts of Klassen. Indeed, you wrote, “Or prefer framing a thesis for an essay on the mind of Randy Klassen?”

However, the point of my response was not to prove that you are accusing David. I think sometimes people should be accused or exposed. In fact, the point of my response was to expose a flaw in your argument. If you think David views Scripture as insufficient, even though his blog is absolutely flooded with Scripture and biblical interpretation (some of which I disagree with), then your rebuttal should shine with Scripture and biblical interpretation, which it does not.

But hey, if you did not mean to accuse David of this… great! In that case, disregard my response to you and have a Happy Sponge Bob Square Pants Birthday!

Jared

You wrote, “We shouldn’t jump to the extreme and think I am calling every single word into question.”
We should also not jump to the extreme and assume my question was an indictment of everything you are writing… it was a question designed to probe your thinking. You gave a thoughtful answer. Thanks.

The book by Fee and Stuart is good.

The point of Jesus’ mentioning the lust in the heart… as well as the exaggeration with the hand and eyes… is to draw attention to the need for the removal of the inward cause of offense. Within the literary context, yes, it is clear that the real concern is not whether Jesus is trying to point out a literal truth, but to go the root of man’s problem.

Your example of Jesus telling his disciples to love one another doesn’t even belong in the same category. There is nothing in the surrounding passage to indicate any kind of figure of speech. We shouldn’t jump to the extreme and think I am calling every single word into question.

The greatest problem we face today among believers, when it comes to the Bible, is that most have been taught to read the Scriptures after having left our brains at the door. Here is where I see the importance of a hermeneutical practice within community. Many preconceived ideas, as well as man’s traditions, have been passed down to us and can easily blind us to the obvious. Indeed, we do need each other.

Overstatement: common within Semitic speech; forceful, even harsh, exaggeration of truth intended to capture the attention of the audience. (e.g. Lk. 14:26; Matt. 5:28-30; Matt. 5:38-42) Notice in Matt. 5:38-42, the point of the exaggeration is made clear: “Do not resist an evildoer.” This is conveyed forcefully through overstatement in turning the cheek, giving the cloak, etc. If a Jew gave up their cloak, they would be naked! Jesus is focusing our attention on the radical nature of loving one’s enemies.

Hyperbole: an exaggeration of speech that makes a literal fulfillment impossible (Matt. 23:23-24; Matt. 6:2-4; Matt. 7:3-5; Mk. 10:24-25) It should be noted that camels can’t enter through needles or be swallowed by Pharisees. Common expressions: “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse”… “I studied forever!”

Likewise, how does one consistently interpret contemporary expressions? Because we are familiar with language and its usage. We recognize a person’s meaning based off a basic knowledge of literary devices and the context in which they are used (e.g. time, occasion, audience, etc.).

We use these expressions almost everyday: simile, metaphor, puns, riddles, irony, etc. When we take into consideration that Rabbinical teaching would have relied heavily upon the crafty usage of language to capture the audience and drive forth the truth in an unforgettable way… we should readily expect to see it around every corner.

I believe the more familiar we are with the way language is constructed and are careful to pay attention to the biblical context… much that is shrouded in obscurity and years of traditional abuse will come into the light and be understood in plain terms.

Therefore, it is not some biblical hermeneutic I have chosen, as if I have devised a method of picking and choosing or cutting and pasting, but a simple enforcement of special literary forms that were common among orators in Jesus’ day, and is common in every language even today.

Hope that helps. I do understand the frustration folks feel when they discover that everything is up for reconsideration when an interpretation is challenged. However, I strongly believe that our skill in recognizing these common literary forms will let the Bible speak… and put down poor interpretations when they don’t hold water.

I recommend reading:
“The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings” by Robert Stein
“Grasping God’s Word” by Duvall and Hays
“How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth” by Fee & Stuart

I know there are other great books out there that address the recognition of literary forms within the biblical text.

I don’t want to get in the middle of you and Brian, but your answer made me think of a question. It comes in two parts.

In Matt 5:28, the context for the verse you mentioned above, Jesus says that a man who looks at a women with lust has already committed adultery. Was Jesus also using exaggeration to make a point, or was he being literal?

When Jesus says there is no greater love than to lay day ones life for another… was that to be taken literally or metaphorically? Did Jesus literally mean it was the highest demonstration of love to die for another person, or was he just talking in human terms?

So those are two off the cuff examples. If you believe Jesus meant these literally, I have one follow-up. And that is, what biblical hermeneutic are using to determine when Jesus was being literal and when he was exaggerating to make a point? What rule or guide do you consistently use to make that distinction?

How do you feel about Matthew 5:30? Surely you don’t think Jesus meant you should literally cut of your hand or gouge out your eye if it causes you to sin?

Just to clarify… I am proposing that Jesus is using a metaphor(s) to describe God’s judgment upon the wicked. This does not deny a horrible judgment to say Jesus was clearly using metaphor to describe “hell” (Gehenna/Hades)… anymore than it denies the seriousness of sin to say Jesus was using over-exaggeration in Matt. 5:30.

I could of course throw out other verses to further prove Jesus’ use of human language that, in the context, demands we not interpret him in a staunch literalism.

As to the 2nd issue of my saying David was “Angry”.. You will notice that is from the 2nd Email (Which was not a continued thread, occurring from accusing anyone of anything). This was an attempt by one writer, making an effort to be sensitive to another’s point of view. Lest our sharing or disagrement digress into argument. For as your own ‘Misreading of my comments amply illustrates – This medium is limited in nature. And any of us, can leap to an opinion of another.
Shalom