It seemed to me that this book set out to do two main things. One was to demonstrate that so many of our notions of what goes under the label 'hell' are not well rooted in scripture. The other thing was to promote the doctrine (or is that something else, like event?) of the harrowing of hell. Implied in the first of those projects is a weakening of the notions of 'hell' as permanent, conscious torment. Indeed maybe more than weakening. As I read, I recalled several times that the credal statement in Tudor English "He descended into hell" is translated more recently (the ELLC texts, for example) "He descended to the dead" -Earls doesn't mention this (unless I missed it) but it shows support for his core contention that the word 'hell' needs to be considered carefully in contemporary English usage and theology based in English language. I was and am convinced that Earls is right that the underlying words are 'sheol'* and 'hades'** in Hebrew and Koine Greek respectively. He also deals with a couple of other Greek words (gehenna and tartarus) that are used as well as the word 'paradise' though the substantial points concern sheol and hades. The basic take-away in this is that they don't refer to the medieval torture chamber but rather are simply the abode of the dead. I think that he substantiates this point thoroughly and helpfully: convincingly, indeed.
The second project of commending a doctrine of what has often been termed 'the harrowing of hell'. To do this Earls adduces much scripture and many relevant sermons and writings of early and medieval church teachers of the faith. This is quite convincing in the amount of literature and scripture that can be brought to bear. It is hard not to agree that there is something here that has been neglected by much of modern protestant and especially evangelical teaching. Though it is worth noting that Luther and Calvin both saw it and taught it. It is there in embryo in the creed 'He descended to hell'.
Where I found myself worrying away at what was shared was in relation to the way that the abode of the dead was described by Earls himself. He seems to take the imagery fairly literally in the way he talks about what sheol/hades is. I think what disturbed me about this is that it seems to me that we need to re-locate these 'descriptions' culturally and world-viewishly. It kept feeling to me like I was expected to endorse and believe in the ancient three-decker universe: a firmament (that is a solid dome) above the earth, a flat-ish earth and water underneath and above the solid dome. In this scheme the abode of the dead is pictured as being under the earth (and presumably still above the underlying waters). Earls narrates this imagery and at one or two points, asks us to take it "literally". Well, I'm sorry, I can't: I understand the universe to be structured in a different way and cannot find a way to take seriously the idea that there is literally somewhere beneath our feet, a chamber full of dead people.
There is a lot of work done by the parable of Dives and Lazarus. I agreed that it is a story using imagery from the wider culture of second Temple Judaism. And I agree that this in itself doesn't invalidate details being taken seriously. Page 51: "This parable doesn’t define Hell in the eternal sense— it shows the pre- resurrection spiritual landscape." I quibble slightly in thinking that 'riffs off' might be more to the point than 'shows'. I kept feeling that Early makes too much of what are (in my view) incidental story-specific details. He makes doctrine out of what I think are probably best understood as narrative devices and culturally familiar tropes. I think that it is unsafe to make much more of the parable than that there is spiritual peril for the rich and God cares for the poor. It is too speculative and culturally specific or particular to read much more out of it than that. -Particularly in view of the philosophical, world-view and theological questions below.
The difficulty for me is that it brings me to this: there's also another problem, theological-philosophically, which remains unaddressed: what is the medium of subsistence of these dead? Presumably it can't be the bodies they had before they died since those are in their graves (or incinerated ... dismembered ).
Relatedly, on p.50 we are told that there is awareness of some kind for the awaiting dead. But I could only then question further: what is the medium of awareness? A body? Some quasi physical realm? God's own awareness? An equivalent of a kind of cyber space?
I think that with this imagery and narrative of sheol/hades we have to ask ourselves questions analogous to how we read Genesis1 and Genesis 2 and 3 (as well as other passages, but these can serve as pars pro toto). That is, if we know the physical structure of the universe is not the three-decker universe, how do we find sustenance in these passages as disciples? What insights can we discover to live in the wider world in which we seek to do the work that the Spirit leads us into?
I guess that is what I'm left with. I think Earls is right that we should take seriously the Harrowing of Hell. However, I don't think that means taking it literally, any more than I think we should take literally the imagery of the earth being made in 6x24 hours or the picture of a world surrounded by water with a bubble of air contained above by some kind of crystal dome and below by a firm earth which sits atop the water below it (indeed what is gravity in such a picture to give 'up' and 'down'?)
I think that this story leaves me, at least, thinking that I do want to affirm that Christ conquered death and liberates those 'captive' in death leading to resurrection. I'm not sure of what the relationship of space and time are in respect of the abode of the dead to our everyday world. But I don't think that excavations of the earth will ever uncover a chamber once full of dead 'spirits' (or still full of them -is it one resurrection or two simply experience by us in two space-times?) I **think** that my take is that when we die we are 'held' in God's remembrance; the medium of our subsistence is not physical but related directly to God's knowing of us. I'm personally skeptical of how conscious we might be between death and Resurrection. I note that the term sleep has been used in scripture and I note that the fourth Gospel seems to picture an immediate personal awareness in resurrection after death. So I sit light to drawing too many implications from the harrowing of hell imagery or the folk-storying of intermediate states. I suspect that these are ways to affirm or assert that we are not 'lost' and that there is a future for us beyond our graves. I think that the question of how souls in this kind of picture subsist, is a definitive question.
Philosophically I'm probably a non-reductive materialist, and I think that the wholistic strands of biblical teaching support this. And that means that we have to ask what might sustain the being of the dead if not a physical or physical-analogue (Paul's "spiritual bodies" come to mind). But in scripture there is this world and there is the new creation. How do 'we' subsist in this 'former' creation without embodiment? This is the lacuna in Earl's account. The dead are under the earth -but not in their graves. These, then, are their resurrection bodies? I think not.
This is picture language for God's preserving of us and calling for hope in the conquering of death begun in the Resurrection of the Christ. The details are to encourage us to see the depth and width of the scope of resurrection, not to give us a photo-realistic physical picture.
I read this book partly because I think that there is a place for considering the Harrowing of Hell as a hope-giving image of the work of God in Christ around the Cross and Resurrection. I'd like to make more room for it liturgically on Holy Saturday like the Eastern Orthodox do. However, I'd value too being able to spend time in waiting on Holy Saturday, observing God's hidden works and honouring that sometimes we are called to sit with death (of hopes, beloved people, projects, etc) for a time and consider how surprising resurrection might be. I think we can do both, but the celebration of the Harrowing of Hell, for me, properly belongs with the Resurrection.
Quotes
* See page 30 The Hebrew word שְׁאוֹל (Sheol) is a noun that appears 65 times in the Old Testament. Some bible versions translate it as “grave,” or “pit,” while others translate the word as it should be, Sheol the abode of the dead.
** Page 35 "... the Septuagint nearly always translates the Hebrew Sheol as Hades." And, page 37 "Hades is not the same as eternal punishment— it is a realm awaiting resurrection."
Links for the Review:
|
