It's somewhat of a funny phrase that Jesus uses more than once in His ministry. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." What did He mean? Well, it could have meant that some people were born without ears, so He was only addressing those who had physical ears. No, that didn't make any sense. No one really thinks that. So it must mean spiritual ears. When His disciples asked Him why He taught in parables, His answer was interesting. "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted" (Matt 13:11). While we tend to think that Jesus came to be as clear as He possibly could, it appears that Jesus had other ideas. More than that, it appears that He spoke in parables to intentionally hide "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" from those who were not His disciples.
So we get to the "He who has ears to hear" question. There were, from what Jesus said, two categories of people. One category was "having ears" and the other was "not having ears". Now, on the side of the "having ears" category, it was possible to have them but not use them. Jesus was telling those who had them to use them. But what we typically ignore is the other category. Jesus's statement, "He who has ears to hear, let him ear," requires that there be a particular group of people who does not have ears. Or, to go with what Jesus said, we might add, "I'm not telling you who have no ears to hear. I'm only telling those who have ears to hear."
So ... what does it mean that there are some who have no ears? You see, those with ears could listen or not, but those without ears had no option to listen. They could not hear. So who was it that lacked the total capacity to hear? To hear most Christians talk today, the answer is "No one." This requires the conclusion that Jesus was confused. But in Deuteronomy Moses called Israel together and said, "You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders. Yet to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear" (Deut 29:2-4).
Based on this passage, it would be the reasonable conclusion that those who do not have ears to hear -- those who lack the capacity to hear -- would be those whom the Lord has not given eyes and ears. Two important observations, then. 1) There are those who cannot see nor hear in the realm of spiritual things. Oh, they can see the signs and all. It's not hidden from them. They ... just don't get it ... because they don't have "ears". 2) Despite what you might think or like to think, there are those to whom the Lord does not give the capacity to see or hear. That seems to be the intent of Jesus's words and the self-proclamation of God.
11 comments:
And, so, off to Hell they go, when they die?
Stan, have you ever written about Hell and I've just missed it?
See Inability. The "lack of ears" is not built in or natural inability; it is moral inability.
No, I've never written about Hell. What would you like me to say about it?
Sherry asks the same question that I have been tempted to ask Stan for many months, but just never quite did.
In addition to whatever Sherry wants to know, there are these:
Are you one of those modern Christians who demote hellfire to merely “separation from God,”as Hank Hanegraaff and some others do?
Regardless of whether you believe Hell is separation or torture, is it occupied for eternity?
Some Christians allow nonhuman pets entry to Heaven. For consistency, would they say certain animals go to Hell?
Do you have any sympathy for the Catholic idea of purgatory?
Do you ever use the phrase, “Really it is people who send themselves to Hell”? (I have heard some Christians say that, but I don’t remember if I have ever seen that in your writing.)
Do you think that word of active volcanoes in the Mediterranean region, with their hot lava and smoke and sulfurous smell, spread to Palestine and contributed to the idea of a hellish underworld? (Tangential topic, but I remember reading that the Oracle of Delphi may have been a fumarole or something like that, which burped out sounds now and then that could be interpreted as words, with some imagination.)
If I recall, Gehenna is synonymous with Hell. One story I heard is that Gehenna was originally the name for a smoldering trash dump near Jerusalem. Any thoughts on that?
--Lee
You want to know what Stan thinks about Hell? Why?
The Bible says that Hell is eternal.
The Bible says that Hell is eternal torment.
Conjecture on pets is pointless. It can only be conjecture since pets are not mentioned. Someone once asked me, "Do dogs go to Heaven? Because if my dog doesn't go to Heaven, I don't want to go." My answer was evasive. "Since Heaven is a place of eternal bliss, if you need your dog to be there to be happy, your dog will be there." It was evasive because if you cannot be happy in Heaven without your dog, you're not likely going.
Purgatory is a purely Roman Catholic concept without biblical merit. Further, the concept (a place where you are purged from your sin) violates the basic biblical principle of "justified by faith".
C.S. Lewis said that Hell, in a sense, is Man's victory over God. God wanted them to be with Him eternally, but they chose otherwise. In The Great Divorce (Lewis's stylized version of Hell) he wrote, "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell." Elsewhere he wrote, "The gates of Hell are locked from within." I don't see any reason to disagree with Lewis.
I, of course, believe the Bible. As such, I, of course, reject the notion that Hell is a figment of human imagination fueled by volcanoes. Gehenna was the New Testament term for Hell but not because Gehenna was Hell; it simply illustrated eternal decay and torment.
As for Hanegraaff's "separation from God", it can only be conjecture. The Bible doesn't say, "Hell is not a real place; only separation from God." It is a real, eternal place of torment. What that torment consists of is not clear. That it is torment, that it is eternal, and that it is not pleasant is without question. I do need to point out that relegating "Hell" to "separation from God" is not a "demotion". There can be no greater torment than separation from God.
Note, by the way, that the clearest, best descriptions of Hell come from the lips of Christ. In fact, He spoke about Hell more than He did about Heaven. For a Christian (a "Christ-follower) to deny Hell, then, would be to nullify being a Christian -- a Christ-follower.
Just curious, why the distinction of "nonhuman" pets. Are there "human pets"? Or is there something I'm missing?
Come on, David. You read science fiction. You know history. Alien life forms could easily have human pets. It could even be said that ancient civilizations used humans as pets. Okay, just kidding.
Lee may or may not answer, but I'm thinking the "nonhuman" was a distinction between "humans who go to heaven and hell" and "nonhumans who go to heaven and hell", with the latter being "pets". Perhaps it could have been said "We know what Christians think about humans and what happens to them, but some think that pets -- who are not human -- may go to heaven."
But it was amusing.
Come on Stan. You saaaayyyy that you are relying on what the Bible says, but we know that God conferred with you and asked you what you wanted before he inspired those people to write it. Come on Stan, admit it.
Oh, sure, Dan, it's all fun and games until someone goes to Hell!
Seriously, though, being human, if I were to think up this stuff myself, I wouldn't think it up this way. God had to do that one all on His own.
David wrote, “Just curious, why the distinction of ‘nonhuman’ pets.”
We were coming up on Valentines Day and it struck me that “pet” is sometimes used as a term of endearment for a human, so I figured I had better clarify.
That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
Stan wrote, “You want to know what Stan thinks about Hell? Why?”
My fantasy project when my retirement years get here is to write a book on what people believe, and why they believe it. One percent chance I will ever get around to it, but just in case I do, I will have some notes from my interactions with people to draw upon.
--Lee
A couple of other things I should have mentioned—
I have heard some Christians make a distinction between Hell and Hades. I think those Christians believe both places exist, but there is one purpose for one of them, and another purpose for the other. Sorry to be so fuzzy on this one, but it’s been some years since I heard about it. I am pretty sure the church of my youth never made use of the ‘Hades’ term.
If anyone is interested, I may be able to dig up some old notes I took from Catholic programs on the radio giving a biblical justification for Purgatory. Let me know. Stan may already have looked into those claims and rejected them. I’m thinking the passages Catholics use are NOT in those extra few books that the Catholic Bible has that the Protestant Bible does not have, again relying on a pretty old and dim memory.
-Lee
Well, since my ideas and beliefs about Hell are just what come out of the pages of Scripture, feel free to write, "Some people believe what comes out of the pages of Scripture" and you'll have an accurate representation.
There is, by the way, a distinction between "Hell" and "Hades". One is the eternal place of the dead -- that place of eternal torment referred to in Revelation as "the lake of fire". Revelation says, "Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire." So, while the terms may vary and may even cross, one references the place of eternal torment and the other is simply the grave. One is temporary and the other is permanent.
Oh, and Catholic doctrine of Purgatory comes from 1) a faulty understanding of justification (Protestant theology holds we are imputed righteousness and Catholic theology holds we acquire it) and 2) obscure references in the apocryphal books of the Bible that Protestants don't accept.
Post a Comment