Rob Bell and His Sex God 2

I haven't read Bell's book, but the objections you raise, Scot, are biggies to me. Both objections #2 and #3 boil down to the tendency that is so prevalent today of speakers (and writers, evidently) of trying to find an exotic and different window onto a biblical text and not taking the time to verify whether the insight is actually valid or not. It's a trend that is very disturbing to me; it's like the Scripture itself isn't "cool" enough to study--we have to find some hidden knowledge that the average person can't see. It's the gnostic impulse. Genuine historical and linguistic information can enhance our understanding of Biblical truths, but word pictures that aren't genuinely relevant are dangerous.

Rob,

On 1st Century Judaism: the best book is EP Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief. I understand that it is out of print and I'm saddened to hear that; the used copies on the internet are pricey.

Scot,

It seems to me that there would be times in history when 150-200 years would make relatively little difference and times when it is of enormous importance. In Judaism the period from 1 AD to 200 AD appears to be one of those "revolutionary" stretches, what with the challenge from Christianity, the destruction of the Temple ca. 70 AD and the Bar Kochba revolt and further desolation of Jerusalem in the 130's. Judaism changed over this period. Is this part of your reluctance to project Rabbinic sources back - even though there is clearly some connected development?

Alex,

All Joel 2:16 speaks of is the urgency to gather, and it asks the bridge and groom to leave their marriage chamber. The word "chuppah" there probably means nothing more than "covered room". It does not mean the prayer shawl held up by four poles -- the word "chuppah" is parallel to "room" in the previous line.

The significant feature is this: the Mishnah, which most date to about 200 AD, reflects a kind of Judaism not really existent in the NT times; it is post 70 AD, post Jamnian, and post development of the rabbi as many now know "rabbi." There is massive change occurring after 70 AD. Talmud is much later, and also quite different, full of stories and later developments.

Mishnah uses "chuppah" as bridal covering -- though I'm not sure it uses it quite the way Bell uses it. The use in Joel is not the same. More importantly, Bell says this chuppah stuff is at the time of Moses -- and I'm assuming he thinks there was a real Moses and that he is not saying the Moses who was described by later writers and inserted into Pentateuch. There is no way to demonstrate that there was a chuppah custom at the time of the historical Moses. So, it imposing on those texts what is from a later date. So, yes, the US Constitution and our day analogy is nearly perfect. Think of this: Mishnah is 200 AD, reflecting some oral traditions that can be old (we know those only be confirmation from other sources not by saying "this is oral, it is old, therefore it is 1st Century"); most of which traditions got their life after 70AD. Moses is 1400 or so? You do the math: our day and St Patrick's maybe? Augustine's? That is what it is like to use Mishnah (or worse yet, Talmud) for interpreting Moses.

On Pharisees ... nearly every scholar recognizes the significant difference between Pharisees at the time of Jesus and the Rabbis (by the way, "Pharisee" is not self-description hardly ever in rabbinic writings). Christians tend to equate 1st Century Pharisees with later Rabbis -- this is wildly inaccurate. Pharisees are a sectarian movement within Judaism of the 1st Century and that movement had diversity -- a Hillel sort and a Shammai sort -- and the Hillel sort survived into the rabbinic era and shows resemblance to rabbis. The Shammai sort, the kind Jesus seems to be arguing with, does not survive to the same degree.

Alex,

One more time. If you have access, read R. DeVaux's Ancient Israel, pp. 26-34. Solid summary of evidence that is knowable from OT era sources. What's more, I'm not so sure the analogy to the Mosaic covenant is marriage; it is more like an ancient suzerainty treaty. There are "connections" but I'm not sure "this (treaty) is that (marriage)" (to use Bell's clever line).

"readers don’t go to footnotes to find fun"

Really? I distinctly remember enjoying William Goldman's Princess Bride and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy because of the footnotes. A postmodern audience, especially, should be responsive to Bell's reversal. I certainly was.

I understand that Bell's work isn't fiction and that some problems enter in if the footnotes that are intended to support scholarship are questionable. However, to make absolute statements about the purpose of footnotes (endnotes, whatever) seems overly stodgy.

I've really appreciated everything else you've had to say about the book, Scot, as well as the insight and questions of your readers. This is the first time I've been to your site, although your name has been at the fringes of my study for awhile now. I'm glad I followed the link.

Thanks Marcia. And Scot. Yes, I did notice Bell's use of deconstruct!! Yes!
I think the reason I feel a little conned about the physicality of the book: I bought it on Amazon, paid $13 and free super saver shipping if I ordered within 22 hours and 41 minutes, so it wasn't breaking the bank --but it's money -- and I got a 175 page book that I think is really an 85-90 page book if it hadn't had so much white space: is that a book or an essay? I don't know. I don't want to quibble because the book has really worthwhile things to say and I'm glad for the conversation ... But as with Tich Nat Hahn (I'm thinking Living Buddha/Living Christ, at first I felt really good about what I was reading but then questions arose. Here we go: Now the sacrificial, lay-your-life-down-for-your-wife thing is starting to sound over the top to me. We have the Virgin/Whore dichotomy for women. Do we want a Knight/Pig dichotomy for men? It feels good for men and women I think that a man lay down his life for his wife (and vice versa) but let's be real. How many men are going to throw themselves on grenades or take bullets to save their wives? That's not everyday life. What about a man who would: subordinate his career to his wife's? Do the second shift at home so she could pursue her passion? Help his wife write her book and then wave her off to the jammed conferences while he stayed home blowing his toddlers' noses? I think Bell made an excellent point in his chapter but have liked a longer book that teased out more what this sacrifice means in everyday life. Second, Johnny and June Cash isn't setting well with me, because they weren't equals: Johnny was the star, June the supportive wife whom frankly I had never heard of. I think a better example would have been maybe Will and Ariel Durant and the way Will included her name on his books and recognized her contribution in a public way as an equal partner. Again, I think Bell is on the right path, but needs to be challenged too.

Diane,

I agree that Bell needs to be challenge, but I wonder if you are making too much out of the layout of the book. In other words, why assume that the space there to make the book "longer" rather than to emphasize certain points? His writing style is similiar to his speaking style and his big points are bracketed, often, by a pause.

Yes, Brian I know I am potentially being cranky, but I also think it's legitimate to raise the question about the book's appearance and length. I don't want to get too off-track on this. And I don't want to give Bell a pass because he's "an artist" or a "work in process." To me, artistry is about rigor and discipline and getting your facts straight. Have I gotten my facts wrong once in awhile? Yes. But I have also gotten my head smacked. I lived, and I didn't get off the hook on the claim being "an artist." I think that if I wrote a book with inaccuracies or holes, that as a woman, I would be dismissed as a fluff brain. And I don't think it's unfair to Bell to bring these things up. You hang yourself out there when you write a book. We can live in the tension of both affirming and questioning a writer. It's not black and white.

And I agree with Diane -- the book is not as long as its appearance. By the way, I have very little problem with his one word-lines that drag you along ... I feel his voice and his verbal communication and

his

pauses

to

good effect.

But, as I said, this sort of thing is "piddly" for me. I'm more concerned about his use of rabbinic sources and his careless etymologies.

So, I'm asked in essence off the blog if there is a way to use "chuppah" for what Rob has done. Here's my suggestion:

1. Make it clear that the "chuppah" practice is later, probably 2d or 3d century.
2. Observe that marriage and covenant with God are brought into the discussion by Hosea.
3. Discuss covenant in Exodus and Deut as treaty, and then...
4. As a metaphor, describe the covenant connection as like the later chuppah connection.

Now you've been fair to the Bible and used a biblically-justifiable (via Hosea) metaphor for covenant.

Now tie that all into marriage with Ephesians 5.

Bingo.

For some it doesn't matter; to those of who care about the primacy of Scripture it does matter.

Thanks for your post on the SexGod. Between you and Ben Witherington I am certainly going to be reading it in the near future.

I had wondered if the trinity came up in the book. Thanks for answering that question long before I had a chance to ask it.

When I first read about the book on Ben's blog I wondered 'Is this just an evangelical version of John Paul II's Theology of the Body?'

Catholic historian George Weigel called it "one of the boldest reconfigurations of theology in centuries" – a "theological time-bomb set to go off with dramatic consequences ...perhaps in the twenty-first century." Even if we as evangelicals get squeamish about his Mariology, I would be willing to say at least 90% of the book we ought to agree with. Yes, I am a catholic leaning believer in general, but I hope you take me seriously on this one.

I am excited to know any believers are thinking seriously about sex, marriage, family and why/how they are so important both practically and theologically.

I think Weigel is right about about the potential impact of the Theology of the Body. Not a day goes by that I don't pray that Catholic believers discover it. I pray the same for all who confess the name of Christ.

thanks.

Scot,
long time reader. I was about to suggest what you proposed in #22 above. I guess I made those connections in my head as I read. I had an advance reader copy so I didn't get all the colors. As for the white space, I think its important.

Maybe Rob should be more clear, whether it is chuppah or "one" I don't read him as scripture. The 'aha' moments are for me "great illustration".

But in the end I ask myself do I agree with his point? That is usually a yes for me.

Michael,

I yield to historians here that might know. I've read Rendtorff's piece on the covenant formula and I just scanned through it again -- I see no connection to marriage in his study.

The issue, as you observe, is not so much a similarity of language between marriage and covenant (one thinks of Esther's great lines) but the use of chuppah as the image.

Scot,

I had the same curiosity that Paul did, wondering if Bell made any reference to JPII's work in his own study. For those who don't have the background, JP II long taught on matters of sexuality and in a way that frankly would shock Christians with a more "puritan" aesthetic. He did this when he was a parish priest, and wrote later Love and Responsibility. It's rooted in a close reading of Genesis and in some of the philosophical recognitions that come from personalist phenomenology. The book you referred to Scot is a collection of the first series of catecheses that JP II did during his Wednesday audiences at the beginning of his pontificate.

Paul, it's slow going, but believe me, the word is out in Catholic circles and it is remarkable how much penetration this teaching has gained in Catholic culture in just the past five years.

I've been slowly working through the book myself.

As an aside, Scot, Fr. Thomas Loya, a Byzantine priest in the Chicagoland area, is a constant teacher on the Theology of the Body and he's started a number of efforts to make Chicago a bit of a center for such instruction. So, if you are ever interested in learning more, you actually live in a good spot to do so.

Etymology is both fascinating and dangerous. You scanned Witherington's post - so what does that mean?

Scan comes from the Latin - used in the sense of marking off verse in metric feet originally coming from a term meaning to climb (verses rise and fall?). This is still a dictionary definition. You analyzed his poetic structure? The English word developed the meaning to look at closely and examine some 400-500 years ago. We "scan" documents to reproduce them exactly. Oh - but wait in your last sentence you used the term in a new meaning (less than 100 years old): to look through something quickly. We could have a lot of fun with etymology here - but context rules.

hmm, I tried to post this earlier, but it didn't work. Let's try again and sorry if there are double posts...

Scot - I do agree with a lot of what you say. It's just more fun to comment when I don't.

I do believe that Trinitarian thought is based in the scripture, but it wasn't defined/named until later. But that rationale can be used for a lot of issues (including the chuppah one). Its roots are in scripture even if it wasn't articulated or practiced until later. I understand the issues with trying to say that a later practice/belief was present in the 1st century (actively as opposed to potentially) when it wasn't actively practiced/believed until later. It just seemed like you were promoting implicit but not yet practiced thing while criticizing the use of another.

Michael,

Thanks for the link about JPII. The two articles discussed male/female and human sexuality within the context of bioethics, probably outside of the context of this discussion, though important. How we value marriage and male/female relationships has serious implications for the society we create, and if we take JPII seriously, at least as presented here, it's imperative that we nurture and honor male/female relationships in their sexual dimension and all dimensions.
From the link:
"Indeed, a society that definitely severed the sexual-procreative nexus between the community of persons established between man and woman and a community of persons established across the generations would cease to be a human community (whether it did so by what is usually called “contraception” or by some futuristic possibility like modifying the genome to enable general parthenogenesis)."

Mike,
Two things:

First, Bell's point is not about Gospel texts but Moses' covenant.

Second, yes, the Mishnah and Tosefta codify oral traditions. Some of which may have existed in the 1st Century. How do we know? Sometimes we use commonsense that a given datum is something very much like what was going on in the 1st Century (say Matt's divorce statements in Mt 5 on divorce imply something not unlike the later get of rabbinic texts -- the release of the woman to marry another). But, what we are always looking for is confirming evidence that corresponds to what we see in the rabbis. The fundamental tack is this: don't use rabbis unless you have evidence that the rabbinical text is 1st Century. Rabbinic Judaism is a development out of OT Judaism and then Second Temple Judaism and then, with the changes caused by the Temple's destruction, the Bar Kochba revolt, and the rise both of Roman empire and earliest Christianity, you have in the rabbis a new constellation and development of everything prior to it. Just be careful; see if you can find stuff in Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, targums, and Dead Sea Scrolls that confirms. If nothing confirms the rabbis, avoid using them except at the most general of levels.

Scot ---

Thank you for your leadings! I'll definitely be taking up some more reading over spring break next week :-) Any more suggestions dealing with Rabbinical sources and relation to NT or OT times?

-Alex

Steve,
I actually just got done listening to it today. I think you are absolutely right. As a frequent listener of Rob's sermons I think he writes the same way he speaks. I have listened to a lot of audio books and this was the first one that has ever felt like the author was sitting in my living room.

I can't recall who made the comment about the white space and the length of the book inviting further conversation... that too, I believe would be an accurate assessment. I have herd him say on more than one occasion that he views a sermon not as the final word on a subject, but maybe as the first word of a further conversation.

I liked the book a lot... will have to explore some of the criticisms further. thanks Scott for all the comments.

John,

He's relying on Ray Vanderlaan's book and I've not seen it. The word insula is a Latin term.

The overall sense is obvious and probably realistic -- though he's got details that seem to be routine facts and practices that are probably only imaginative, realistic suggestion. It seems common (not always) that the husband-to-be would be building a room for his wife -- unless the father already had a big place with spare rooms -- and the villa could begin over time to take on lots of rooms and odd shapes. I'd not overdo that; the homes were often shaped like row houses more than a single-family sprawling estates. The Roman villas of the wealthy could be sprawling - perhaps like Cicero's places.

The use of John 14:1-4 as the speech of the bridegroom, though, is overdone -- is there really Jewish evidence that these words were used by the man to speak to his wife? Song of Solomon 8:2 is "like" this, but it isn't so specific. It's typical for this approach: it's overdone. The substance is not far off; the precision is unsubstantiated. I want to see the 1st Century evidence to support his claim: "They [the disciples] would have known exactly what he was talking about. They would have heard the groom's speech growing up, the ones who were married would have given it to their brides..." (171). I'm open to be persuaded; I want to see the evidence.

I was tinkering with "chuppah" just to check some more facts. Chuppah is not used in Ezek 16 where we have a text not unlike what Bell is looking for, but the word is clearly not referring to the chuppah but the edge of the tunic. It connects the male's garment with God's covenant love. But no one disputes the interchangeability of marriage and covenant language.

Jimmy,
Ekklesia is Greek, and it was used in Athens for the democratic governing body. So, it does have political connotations in Greek, in Athens, with those kinds of writers about those kinds of subjects. Does it have political connotations in Paul? Sure. What kind? That's the question.

Sam

I'm aware that "Caesar is lord" was a statement of allegiance during phases of the Empire. I have no doubts that for many early Christians to claim Jesus as Lord was a risky political statement both in the Empire and perhaps within Early Judaism as well.

However, my concern was primarily with the validity of Rob Bell's claims about ekklesia being used as a title for communities/cities that vowed allegiance to Caesar and declared him "Lord". There is a big difference between Bell's claim and the use of ekklesia within Greek culture (specifically in Athens) to designate a democractic political gathering. As I mentioned earlier, I would love for someone to give me some information to verify Rob Bell's statements. So far I haven't found any, and it seems to be based more upon assumption or mistaken interpretations of history rather than reality. It reminds me of that old story about there being a gate in the wall of Jerusalem called the "Needle's Eye"...it makes a great message except for the fact that it is completely false.

My guess is that in the Christian Scriptures the use of the word ekklesia is more accurately tied to the Hebrew word qahal--which is sometimes used to designate the assembly the Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures. In the LXX qahal is translated ekklesia. This would perhaps place Jesus (and Paul's) use of ekklesia more in a theological-political statement about a new qahal, or community, being formed within Israel. This might line up more soundly within the sectarian Judaism exhibited in some of the Qumran documents. I'm not saying that Jesus or his followers were Essenes or anything of that sort, but it is clear that some in Early Judaism viewed themselves as a type of New Israel. (Also, please don't hear me advocating some type of replacement theology...this was clearly a "keep it in the family" type of issue for the sectarians. The Ekklesia doesn't replace the Qahal of Israel.)

BTW--I know that yachad is the most often used word for community in Qumran texts, but I would be very interested if anyone with access to an index of words used in the non-Scriptural Qumran texts could tell me how often (if ever) qahal is used. There is no way of knowing if this word was even used by Jesus, but it would be interesting to know how it was used within other sectarian Jewish groups since its Greek LXX translation is ekklesia.

Thanks for the review. It has made me realize that perhaps I have taken Bell's writings and teachings a little bit too much hook, line and sinker. One question is regarding not only Rob's use of Rabbinical material but also just historical or original context information. Is his greatest error merely in the rabbinical issues or does it flow into all study of historical context he paints. Ex. Empire Context.

Thanks

I liked the colors on this book's cover... Velvet Elvis was too white.

(Actually, I have more to say than that but it's already been said twice by three different people, and so I just like the colors).

Matt,

Thanks for your note. I'll be direct.

First, it is a huge assumption to say that Mishnah records exactly what happened -- which it didn't in many things nor did it need to (it wasn't written for us so we could figure out NT stuff) -- and that therefore it is what was going on in the 1st Century. As I said in a comment above, it is like assuming our science classes in grade school can be used to understand pre-Civil war classes. It is not acceptable in serious scholarship to assume for the NT what is now found in Mishnah -- neither Jewish nor Christian scholars do this. No one says Mishnah is always inaccurate; it is sometimes recording stuff from an earlier era. How do we know? By finding confirming evidence elsewhere: NT, Dead Sea Scrolls, OT Pseud, OT Apocrypha, Targums, Philo, and Josephus. A good place to work on this is with EP Sanders' book Judaism: Practice and Belief.

Second, Rob states that at the time of Moses the chuppah stuff was going on. Had he said what you said, I'd have been fine with it -- that is, that this is nothing but an analogy. Instead, he puts chuppah back in Moses' day.

Third, check out what he does at the very end of the book. Once again, he explicitly states that the disciples would have recognized the John 14 words as words of a groom to a bride ... c'mon, I say, show me the evidence that all grooms always made this speech ... are we to believe that all grooms were adding rooms to their fathers' homes?

It is this sort of stuff that is simply inaccurate history and makes his stuff (1) catchier and (2) less credible to those who study the material.

I have been following this thread, but not commented because I wanted to think long and hard about what to say. So I find myself today reading what Daniel as said, and being feeled compelled to say...Ditto.