Do Messages come from Beyond the Grave?

I have been told by many, whom I consider to be above average intelligence, that they have received on more than one occasion what they believed to be nonverbal signs from deceased loved ones. Of course, if the messages were nonverbal, they must, by necessity, to have taken the form of an event of some sort that would be sign-receivers understand as being directed specifically at them—some sign-event that others would see as rather benign or commonplace, and not highly charged with any special significance. In other words, the sign-event requires interpretation by a particular sign-receiver to turn the sign into a personal “message,” which others are not able to see in the event. The fact that the “sign” requires interpretation by the sign-receiver to turn it into a “message” also renders the “message” suspect, since the message is dependent on the interpretation of the sign-receiver. How can one know that the “message” is not just wishful thinking on the part of the sign-receiver?

            Since I have never knowingly received such a sign from deceased loved ones or close friends (in fairness, perhaps I was just too dense and could not recognize the sign to be a sign), that set me to thinking: can the dead really send signs with nonverbal messages? For the Greek poet Homer (if there actually was a Homer) that may not be the case. In The Odyssey (Book XI) The Nymph, Circe, told Odysseus to seek the counsel of the dead, blind, Theban seer, Teiresias, so as to find his way back home to Ithaki following the ten-year Trojan War. To learn the wisdom of the seer, Odysseus had to travel to Hades, where dead souls are “housed” as little more than oblivious shadows. By drinking the blood, which Odysseus provided, Teiresias recovered his memory and visionary powers temporarily, and was able to advise Odysseus on the perils of his homeward journey. In other words, there was no possibility of signs being sent from the beyond. Nevertheless, there was a possibility of a message, but it was not sent to Odysseus as commonplace event. He had to go to Hades to get it from Teiresias himself.

            On the other hand, in the Roman tradition “Nearly everyone was affected by the desire for signs about the future: ‘Heaven consorts directly but with few [as in prophetic inspiration], and rarely, but to the great majority gives signs from which arises the art called divination’” (Plutarch, On the Sign of Socrates 24 [Moralia 593D].”¹ And the Latin writer, Cicero, notes the following: “Now I am aware of no people, however refined and learned or however savage and ignorant, which does not think that signs are given of future events, and that certain persons can recognize those signs and foretell events before they occur.” (Cicero, Divination 1.1.2. W. A. Falconer, trans. [LCL. Harvard, 222-223]). But these are messages sent by the Gods, not by deceased loved ones.

            In the Old Testament (1 Samuel 28), there is a situation similar to that in The Odyssey. The Israelite King Saul was facing an imminent military attack by the Philistines. His prayers to God in the crisis went unanswered. His “Hail Mary” solution was to consult a medium at Endor (although Saul himself had earlier deported all mediums and wizards out of the land); he asked her to “divine by a spirit and bring up [from Sheol]” whomever he requested (1 Sam 28:8 RSV). He asked that she bring up from Sheol (the place of the dead) the Lord’s Prophet Samuel who delivered to Saul a verbal message he did not want to hear (1 Sam 28:15–20). So, it appears, that in the Old Testament, there are no arcane commonplace nonverbal events serving as signs to be converted into “messages” from the dead to particular living persons, who must interpret the signs—and there is always the risk that they will interpret the sign (if indeed it was a sign) incorrectly.

Two other comments from Job (7:9–10) and Ecclesiastes (9:5) suggest the unlikelihood that there could be signs from the dead to the living.

            In the New Testament the situation is similar. I only know two narratives that involve messages from beyond the grave and neither narrative features commonplace events serving as signs whose nonverbal message must be teased out of the event by the receiver’s interpretation. In the early Christian gospels, the narrative of the Transfiguration of Jesus (Mark 9:2–10; Matt 17:1–9; Luke 9:28–36) features the deceased figures, Moses and Elijah, who appeared before Jesus (and also James and John) and were talking with him.² There is in the narrative a message from beyond the grave but it is verbal, specific, and narrated by two great figures of Israelite tradition, who personally appear before Jesus. No personal interpretation of a commonplace event is necessary.

The second story is found only in a Lucan narrative about a rich man and a poor beggar named Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31). The situation of the beggar was tragic, while the rich man lived in luxury. Lazarus died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s Bosom and the rich man died and was buried. Through the flames of Hades he still could see Lazarus and requested Father Abram to permit Lazarus to come to his aid and briefly relieve his sufferings but was told that there was a great chasm fixed between them that permitted no passage between each location, nor apparently did the fixed chasm permit Lazarus to deliver a message to the rich man’s five brothers (Luke 16:26–31). This narrative appears to contradict the Transfiguration narrative in that Moses and Elijah apparently found a way to bridge the chasm between Abraham’s Bosom and the Land of the Living.

Paul does describe a trip into the third Heaven and then to Paradise by “a man, in Christ,” “where this man heard things that cannot be told, which a man may not utter” (2 Cor 12:2–4). While not directly on the point of the deceased sending coded signs to be interpreted as messages by the living, it does suggest that what goes on in heaven, must stay in heaven.

If the dead in Hades have been consigned to oblivion in the land of forgetfulness,³ how will they devise and send signs containing nonverbal messages to be interpreted by the living and thus bridge the chasm that was thought to separate Abraham’s Bosom from Hades?

Well, at least, it is something to ponder when you next think you see a sign!

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (3^rd ed.; Eerdmans, 2003), 220.

²In Matthew and Mark, the subject of the conversation is unstated but Luke notes that it was about the departure Jesus was to accomplish at Jerusalem (that is his death and ascension, Luke 9:31).

³ See the Wry Guy Blog: Hedrick, “The Land of Forgetfulness.” http://blog.charleshedrick.com/search?q=The+Land+of+Forgetfulness

A Personal Complaint Against Celestial Wisdom

I have a personal complaint against Divine Wisdom (God, if God there be) who manages our tiny solar system on the outer edge of the great Milky Way Galaxy. We have been taught in our religious myths of origin that God created the Heavens and the Earth and everything in it (Gen 1:1–31): male and female, God created them from the same bone and flesh (Gen 2:21–23); and in their coupling they become one (Gen 2:1; cf. 1 Cor 6:16), a supportive, symbiotic relationship. After living together for 60 years or so, couples have so completely bonded that they consider themselves two halves of one whole (at least I did). Such is the case with many happy marriages: the two, now united as one, expect to continue enjoying long lives together, for they have been gifted by the creator with eternity in their minds (Eccl 3:11). Yet one day the union unexpectedly ends with the untimely death of one or the other, leaving the surviving half to cope with life’s issues apart from the whole.

My complaint is this: the breaking-up of long-time intimate unions is wasteful in the extreme. Divine Wisdom should have made a better plan.

As one might surmise, my angry charges against the considerable powers of the universe have gone unnoticed and unaddressed. Complaints about the mismanagement of the universe, however, are not presumptuous for even Jesus complained about the actions of God as he was dying: “My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me.” (Mark 15:34/Matt 27:46)

In the Protestant Old Testament, biblical writers show no hesitation in complaining to the Almighty for perceived mistreatment at God’s hands (so to speak). The Psalter (Israel’s hymnbook), for example, has a type of psalm described as a complaint, or a lament, psalm. Here are few brief examples of complaints from the Psalms:

“My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me.” (Ps 22:11 RSV)

“O Lord God of Hosts, how long wilt thou be angry with thy people’s prayers? Thou hast fed them with the bread of tears, and given them tears to drink in full measure.” (Ps 80:4-5 RSV)

“Thou hast sold thy people for a trifle demanding no high price for them.” (Ps 44:12 RSV)

Job also complained bitterly of God’s mistreatment of himself and others (see, in particular, Job 9:20–24):

“God has cast me into the mire and I have become like dust and ashes. I cry to thee and thou dost not answer me. I stand and thou dost not heed me. Thou hast turned cruel to me; with the might of thy hand, thou dost persecute me.” (Job 30:19–21 RSV)

“If I sin, what do I do to thee, thou watcher of men? Why hast thou made me thy mark? Why have I become a burden to thee? Why dost thou not pardon my transgression and take away my iniquity.” (Job 7:20–21 RSV)

“I am innocent, but God denies me justice. Although I am right, I am considered a liar; although I am guiltless his arrow inflicts an incurable wound.” (Job 34:5–6 NIV)

God responds to Job’s criticisms (Job 38:1—40:2; 40:6—41:34), but God’s response never directly addresses Job’s specific criticisms of God’s behavior. God’s answer boils down to: I am bigger, better, and stronger than you, as Job’s responses seem to acknowledge (Job 49:3–5); so, Job acquiesces (Job 42:1–5).

            In the New Testament, however, the writers are more pious, or cowed, and defend God’s perceived mistreatments of people (Rom 9:14–23; Heb 12:3–11). In the New Testament, there are only two specific complaints against God of which I know; one, the evangelist attributes to Jesus, quoting Psalm 22:11 (Mark 15:34/Matt 27:46), and the other, John attributes to slain martyrs, who complain that God has delayed judgment and not avenged them: “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth.” (Rev 6:10 RSV)

            Does God pay any attention to our complaints about his divine misbehavior, do you suppose? Clearly, in the Old Testament people believed their complaints could have an influence on divine behavior. In the New Testament, however, Paul’s answer to that question is: God does what he wants (Rom 9:14–18) and your perceived mistreatment at God’s hands (so to speak) depends on his mercy.

            That is not a very satisfying response! God’s inconsistent, erratic, or capricious behavior (as suggested by Paul) is a genuine handicap to trusting God to do the right thing.

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

Curiosity, Critical Thinking, Skepticism, and Faith

Can a critical thinker also be a person of traditional religious faith? It is true that many are, or at least appear to be, but who knows what goes on in another’s mind. As a purely theoretical question, the answer must be: perhaps. Two variables skew the response: the thinker’s curiosity and the reasonableness of the article of faith. Faith may not demand that critical thinkers affirm something they know to be patently false. Critical thinkers by their very nature are curious. Leading them to evaluate and critique the evidence before making a decision, or making a faith commitment. Curiosity is the mother’s milk of critical thinking. Without it there will be little critical thought.

            Religion in Western culture is generally conservative and offers its propositional truths as paradigmatically absolute; they are the product of divine revelation, we are told, to be questioned only at the risk of one’s immortal soul. Nevertheless, critical thinkers are not typically so generous as to affirm without critiquing. Regardless of the stakes, an individual who suppresses curiosity and affirms a religious proposition without serious challenge is not thinking critically.

            The real difficulty with religious truths, however, is that the absolute religious truth of one group frequently refutes the absolute religious truth of another group. Here is an example of one divine truth canceling another. Catholics regard the wine and bread of the Mass as transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Lutherans reject this view but affirm that in some way Christ is truly present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Baptists and others, on the other hand, regard the bread and grape juice (for Baptists certainly not wine!) of the Lord’s Supper as only symbolical. The bread and grape juice only represent the body and blood of Christ. As long as such ideas as these are considered simply different “beliefs” between religious groups, it is merely an oddity prompting the response, “how odd. How can people in the same religion who use the same holy books believe such remarkably different things?” But when it is remembered that these three groups hold that their respective views are absolutely binding on their memberships as the product of divine wisdom, it should strike a critical thinker as a curiosity for further investigation, particularly into the rationale of each group. Of course, they cannot all be the result of divine revelation! But the solution is not as easy as determining which is the correct view and eliminating the other two.

            The problem really goes to the nature of “religious truth.” Religious truth is not objective like mathematics—like 2+2=4, for example. Rather religious truth is only subjective truth in every case. Like beauty, religious truth lies in the eye, or in this case mind, of the beholder. That the character of the propositional truth is absolute is only true for the one who believes it is true. It is unlike Einstein’s theory of relativity E = MC², which is universally true—although true believers are scarcely apt to agree. Such an uncritical perspective is apt to strike the critical thinker as suspicious—if not worthy of complete skepticism.*

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

*This essay first appeared in Charles W. Hedrick, House of Faith or Enchanted Forest. American Popular Belief in an Age of Reason (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2009), 39–41. It appears here newly edited and under a new title.

Lady Luck or Divine Providence?

Perhaps God has nothing to do with the weather at all and the climate of a given region is a natural phenomenon. As such, the weather is simply due to luck, an observation that begs the following question: what controls our lives Divine Providence or Lady Luck? At some point everyone has exclaimed, "What a great stroke of luck," or "We survived by the providence of God." As a Baptist, I have grown up with the concept of "the providence of God," but what exactly is luck and how do I reconcile it to a dominate idea in Western culture that God somehow regulates the universe?

            My brother-in-law had a great game of golf one weekend—even for him. He shot 67 for 18 holes, including a hole-in-one. His wife (my sister) chalked up the hole-in-one to his skill with the clubs. But he insisted, "No, any time you shoot a hole-in-one, it's luck." I thought about it for a moment and had to agree. If holes-in-one were due to skill there would be more of them. So, I suggested, "Perhaps it was divine providence." My brother-in-law replied, "No, it's luck. God doesn't care about golf." My brother-in-law is a Baptist Deacon, so I had to take him seriously. Golf is a game where you play against yourself, so the only reason for God to intervene in his game and bless him with a hole-in-one was to lower his golf score and make him feel rather smug. We usually like to think that God has bigger issues on his plate, which is what I think he meant when he said, "God couldn't care less about golf."

            What we seem to mean by luck is that sometimes things go in our favor and at other times they do not, including even the most trivial matters. We seem to conceive of luck as a pervasive random force in the universe that, for whatever reason, is erratic or whimsical in its application. If this is true, we do not live in a universe where everything is micromanaged by God. Hence, people who believe in God's providence must cope with the disturbing idea that God (if God there be) manages some things that happen, but, on the other hand, God allows other things simply to happen, as they will, without his oversight. Or perhaps we do live in a world where God micromanages everything and must be given the credit (or take the blame) for everything that happens. If God is to be given the credit for everything that happens, then we humans bear no responsibility for global warming, poverty, the breach of the ozone layer, or the failure of the levees in New Orleans in 2005. Somehow, however, we instinctively know that we cannot make God the scapegoat for all the misfortunes of the world. Most of us realize (I hope) that God is not responsible for the incompetent response of the Federal Government to the disaster in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina, or the current bumbling administration presently making a mockery of the democratic ideals of the nation. Voters at least must share the blame for that debacle.

            Perhaps luck is only a more or less natural force in the universe, something like gravity for example. While the ancient Greeks and Romans personified it into a deity named Tychē (Greek) or Fortuna (Roman), we moderns have secularized the force. Nevertheless, the idea that some things just happen for no apparent reason is a disturbing concept for those who think that God guides a master plan for the universe. If things happen for no reason, then we have a universe permeated by a principle of randomness that suggests God may guide matters in the universe in most instances, but leaves others to happen without his guidance. Such a possibility raises the question how can we tell benevolent concern from random event? Perhaps we cannot.

            The Bible is full of bad things perpetrated by the biblical God on basically decent people. Many believers seem willing to accept that sometimes God does bad things to good people for reasons they cannot understand. Job thought so as well: "Shall we receive good at the hand of God and shall we not receive evil" (Job 2:10 RSV)? Maybe we invented the idea of luck because such capricious behavior on God's part is simply inconsistent with the idea of a benevolent God. But if we invented luck, we could have invented God as well.¹

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹Charles W. Hedrick, House of Faith or Enchanted Forest. American Popular Belief in an Age of Reason (Eugene, Or: Cascade, 2009), 6–7. This essay first appeared before 2009 as a Religion and Ethics Editorial in the daily Newspaper, The Springfield News Leader.

Psychic Mediums and Christian Believers

What is the difference between psychic mediums and Christian believers? Or is there a difference? A medium claims to have an inherent ability to communicate with the insubstantial spirits of the dead and a Christian-believer claims to have the ability to communicate with a divine insubstantial spirit (that is to say, God) through a spirit (Rom 8:26–27). The only evidence offered by either to prove their claims is their public confidence that said communication has taken place. The voices of the deceased arise (if at all) apparently in the mind of the medium and the voice of God arises (if at all) apparently in the mind of the one who prays. We outsiders are only privy to their claims and cannot listen in on their conversations or probe their minds for evidence of the “voice” messages they claim to have received from beyond the grave.

            In the Christian Old Testament one who was thought to communicate with the dead was called a medium (Hebrew ‘ob) or necromancer (1 Sam 28:7). Generally, Bible dictionaries treat such figures and practices under the category of magic.¹ In general, in antiquity, nature itself was thought to be under the control of both gods and demons; one who practiced necromancy was thought to be in collusion with the dark spirits of the universe.² Thus, the Bible condemns those who were believed to practice magic by means of communication with the spirits of the dead³ but encourages those who through the Spirit seek communication with the God of Hebrew faith through prayer. Necromancy is defined by one Bible dictionary as a “[form] of divination using spirits of the dead to foretell the future.⁴ In 1 Sam 28, for example, King Saul solicits a medium, a woman of Endor, to call up the shade of the prophet Samuel to consult him as to “what he should do” (1 Sam 28:15 RSV).

            In the New Testament there are several encounters of the apostles with those who practiced the magic arts involving divination through an insubstantial spirit and soothsaying (a person who claims to foretell the future through various means).⁵ Apparently there were books to consult in the practice of magic (Acts 19:19).

Today, the practice of necromancy has edged its way into modern culture to the point of respectability on the basis (it seems) that the medium provides a service to society (the medium brings comfort to those who have lost loved ones). The names of many of the mediums who currently have a television presence, or otherwise public persona, are known and consulted by many in society from presidents to dishwashers.⁶ A glance at the internet shows that contemporary Christian denominations overwhelmingly condemn the medium’s practice of necromancy, soothsaying, and the magic arts in general, but resolutely encourage Christians to maintain a constant practice of prayer.

With this observation I have come full circle to where I began: What is the difference between a psychic medium and a Christian believer, if any? The psychic medium claims an ability for communicating with insubstantial dead spirits and often uses a spiritual guide. The Christian believer claims an ability for communicating with an insubstantial divine spirit through the medium of an insubstantial holy spirit—that sounds rather similar to my ear. But absent any evidence, the claims of each are unsubstantiated, no matter how comforting the practice of each may be. At best, the claims of both could be genuine. At worst, their claims could be an elaborate scam, or each could be deceiving themselves. The bottom line is: do we share the cosmos with insubstantial spirits good and bad, and do the dead still “exist” in some kind of spirit “substance” somewhere?

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹Joanne K. Kuemmerlin-McLean, ABD 4.468–71, especially, 469 under A.1.g and h.

²Kimberly B. Stratton, “Magic,” NIDB 3.767–69. (767).

³For example, in Hebrew Bible: Lev 19:31; 20:6; 20:27; Deut 18:10–12; 1 Sam 28; 1 Chron 10:13—14.

⁴Joann Scurlock, “Necromancy,” NIDB 4.248.

⁵Acts 16:16–18; Acts 8:9–13.

⁶Here are the names of a few of the better-known mediums: https://www.keen.com/articles/psychic/well-known-psychic-mediums

https://www.aol.com/psychic-stars-rising-stars-netflix-135700140.html

Ash Wednesday and Lent

Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent, happens on Feb 18 this year. It is a church event that begins a forty-day season of penitence and fasting leading up to the celebration of Easter. On Ash Wednesday ashes are marked on worshipper's foreheads to symbolize they are beginning the Lenten journey. Lent (the word means Springtime) is one of those religious observances of the Christian Church worldwide that I did not experience in my youth.¹ Although some churches in the Anabaptist tradition do observe it,² the Baptist church of my youth did not (First Baptist Church, Greenville, Mississippi, 1940-52). On the other hand, the small Baptist church that I now attend (Grace Baptist, Gladstone, Missouri) does observe it—ashes and all.³

In the fourth century the church invented Lent institutionalizing it with prayer, fasting, and almsgiving as its basis and incorporating these religious acts into the Easter celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. Lent has been practiced as 40 days of self-denial, altruism, and spiritual renewal preceding Easter. The Lenten season is promoted as a time of religious renewal, incorporating, as it does, personal contemplation, simple living, and personal honesty. It begins on Ash Wednesday and extends 40 days to resurrection Sunday (this year April 5). The church modeled the 40-day period on Jesus' temptation by Satan in the Wilderness (Mark 1:12–13; compare Matt 4–11/Luke 4:1–13 from the Q tradition). Only Matthew describes it as a period of fasting, however. Luke says that Jesus did not eat during this period. Mark says nothing about food. The difference between dieting and fasting is that fasting is given a religious connotation.

The earliest date for the observance of Lent in Christianity is 325 CE, following the Council of Nicaea, although the custom of fasting in connection with Holy Week goes back to the second century.⁴ Thus, Lent, as such, was not a part of the religious practices of the earliest first-century Jesus-gatherings as reflected in the genuine Pauline letters, for example. Nevertheless, fasting and prayer as a religious exercise were part of the Israelite tradition and hence were practiced in Judea during the time of Jesus (Luke 2:37). In fact, "the practice of fasting is found in all religions" and was "spread across the whole of the ancient world."⁵

Matthew gives a litany of criticisms attributed to Jesus as to how some practiced praying and fasting in Matt 6:1–18. One of these criticisms can easily be applied to the modern Christian practice of Lent, specifically with respect to marking one's face with ashes to indicate that one is observing the Lenten practice of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving:

And whenever you fast do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matt 6:17–18 NRSV)

Do some make a parade of their almsgiving? Jesus criticized that practice, as well (Matt 6:1-4).⁶ It is a mystery to me why some churches continue the practice of Ash Wednesday and persist in its observance of ashes on the forehead in the light of these rather pertinent remarks attributed to Jesus.

Another aspect of Lent, mentioned earlier in this essay, is that of self-denial, likely derived from the idea of denying oneself food. The earliest Jesus-followers did practice a kind of self-denial, but it wasn't like the Lenten practice of denying oneself a few things one enjoys for a short period, like not drinking beer or not eating sweets during Lent, for example. Paul described his commitment to Christ as an all-consuming life-commitment; everything else by comparison he considered trash, loss, rubbish (Phil 3:7–11; Luke 9:23–24). Compared to Paul's idea of self-denial, the contemporary observance of Lent pales in comparison—the personal sacrifices are too little, the time frame too short.⁷

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lent

²https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anabaptists. Greenville First Baptist belonged to the Southern Baptist Convention.

³Grace Baptist Church belongs to the American Baptist Convention.

⁴https://groundworkonline.com/blog/a-short-version-of-the-long-history-of-lent

⁵J. Behm, "νῆστις" [nēstis, fasting], vol. 4.26 in G. Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (G. Bromiley, trans.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967).

⁶Hedrick, http://blog.charleshedrick.com/search?q=Alms

⁷This essay appeared first on March 24, 2025. It appears here again edited and expanded: http://blog.charleshedrick.com/search?q=Lent

Greek Mythology in the New Testament: Tartarus

Here is an interesting question for my friends who regard the Bible as being literally the Word of God, Himself: Must I believe everything written in its pages to be truth revealed from God?* There may be the odd equivocation here and there, but my impression is that religious leaders, whose beliefs about the Bible correspond to what a majority of Southern Baptists are said to believe, would answer that question in the affirmative.¹

There are reports in the Bible, however, that will cause a twenty-first century human being, who has had a basic science course, to pause before answering. One incident that comes immediately to mind is God causing the sun to remain at its zenith in the heavens and not go down for an entire day. Practically, this means the earth pauses in its journey around the sun. The incident is reported in the book of Jashar, which is not in the Bible, but it is also found in Joshua 10:12-14, which is in the Bible. There are also many other things in the Bible that might even tax the incredulity of a generally credulous true believer.²

            There is one passage, however, in Second Peter that, if pondered, just might undermine how most Baptists (and others) view the Bible (well, except for true believers, who are generally disinclined to ponder what they read).

For if God did not spare the angels who had sinned, but delivered them down captive into Tartarus in chains of nether darkness in custody until judgment…(2 Pet 2:4a, my translation)³

The word translated Tartarus is tartarōsas. It does not signify a person, place, or thing; it is a participle from the verbal form tartaroō, describing an action. In this case, "being held captive in Tartarus."

            I don't know of a story in the Bible about angels, who having sinned, were cast into nether darkness into Tartarus, but the Book of Enoch has a report about sinful angels and their fate (1 Enoch 10:4, 11-12).⁴ In Greek mythology Tartarus is both an earth-God (one of the earliest primeval Gods of Greek tradition, Hesiod, Theogony,115-129) and it is also a place, the deepest location beneath the earth. It is

as far beneath the earth as heaven is above the earth; for so far is it from earth to Tartarus. For a brazen anvil falling down from heaven nine nights and days would reach the earth upon the tenth; and again, a brazen anvil falling from earth nine nights and days would reach Tartarus upon the tenth. (Hesiod, Theogony, 721–725)

Tartarus is lower even than Hades. The ancient Greek poet, Homer, describes the distance from Hades down to Tartarus being, "as far beneath Hades as heaven is above earth" (Iliad 8. 16). Hades is the abode of the dead and Tartarus is reserved for the enemies of the Gods.

            Hadēs, is another bolt out of the Greek mythological blue: in Greek mythology Hades is also an ancient Greek God and a location beneath the earth, where people are punished for their sins.⁵

            How are believers in the Bible, as in some sense "the Word of God," supposed to handle what are standard features of Greek mythology appearing in the Bible? Are they mandated to take aspects of Greek mythology as God's Word?

            What they believe about these texts does not alter what they are, however: texts written by human beings whose inspiration by God could never be investigated; texts collected by human beings whose names are lost to memory; texts translated into numerous language, human beings choosing the modern language equivalent for the Greek and the Hebrew; texts whose Hebrew and Greek words that appear in the critical text are decided by human beings (text critics) and translators by judicious comparison of the ancient manuscripts that have survived.

            The truth is: the Bible is a collection of selected Hebrew and Greek texts that point toward a particular understanding of God.

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹Here, for example, is what Southern Baptists say that a majority of Southern Baptists believe about the Scriptures: "The Baptist Faith and Message Statement 2000," https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/#i

²See Charles W. Hedrick, "Superstition, faith, and the Marginal Relevance of the Bible" in Unmasking Biblical Faiths. The Marginal Relevance of the Bible for Contemporary Religious Faith (Eugene, Or: Cascade, 2019), 1-12.

³Compare a similar translation in the Holman Christian Standard Bible, a translation that is associated with the Southern Baptists.

⁴See also Gen 5:1-4; Jude 6.

⁵And a regular word for the place of punishment in the New Testament. For example, Hadēs: Matt 11:23, 16:18, Acts 2:31, Rev 1:18. Gehenna (generally translated Hell) is another name for a place of punishment in the New Testament: Matt 10:28, Luke 12:5, Mark 9:47, Jas 3:6.

The Theological Implications of Bird Poop

Does everything happen for a reason? If I said that someone survived a car crash with barely a scratch, but four others in the car were killed outright, most people, religious or not, would likely observe, “stuff happens for a reason.” Behind that observation is the popular religious belief that God micromanages the world. But if I were to ask, was there some divine reason for a bird dropping poop on my forehead rather than on my shoulder this morning, many might think that my question was silly. Nevertheless, a serious issue lies behind both situations: is anyone completely in charge of the universe?

            One answer is that God is in charge and micromanages the universe. If so, everything happens for a reason. A micromanaging God would scarcely leave anything to chance. This way of reasoning leads inevitably to the conclusion that even bad things (the recent pandemic, for example) are due to God’s deliberate management. Hence, since by popular definition God can do no wrong, whatever seems bad must really be good—and that includes the bird poop on my forehead. A micromanaging God would have had good reason for the bird poop—for under the theory of divine micromanagement, God makes everything happen for a benevolent reason

            Perhaps, however, God only generally manages the universe and is simply not responsible for everything that happens. Under “general” management some things are divinely manipulated but other things are simply allowed to happen for no reason at all. Under this theory the universe has been set up to work in a well-regulated way, and God only intrudes every so often for whatever reason strikes the divine fancy. For the most part things do seem to work fairly well in our world. The world turns with general regularity and only an occasional glitch or two (cancer and destructive tornadoes come to mind). This theory raises the question: how can we ever really be certain what is caused by God, what is part of the regular pulse of the universe, and what is a glitch in the system? The bird poop is well accommodated by this explanation: it is just one of those billions of little things that never register on the divine radarscope, or are just part of the regular pulse of the universe where things happen for no particular reason—like a leaf falling off a tree or bird droppings. I simply happened to look up at an opportune moment this morning at the precise time the bird pooped. Such occurrences are part of the regular design of things, for leaves fall from trees and birds poop all over the place. But under this theory one can never be sure of anything God does or does not do.

            It is also possible that God has chosen to be an observer of events in a universe designed to run itself, more or less—or worse God has gone missing. One may well ask, how is that possible? God created the world, so why would he abandon it? Good question! But since we cannot even prove that God exists, how could we possibly know whether God is missing? A missing God, however, does make a kind of perverted sense of our human situation, and could account for natural disasters and unconscionable human suffering (cancer, tsunamis, and hurricanes come to mind)—in short, no one is minding the store. Bird poop on the forehead makes excellent sense in such a world. A God absent for the big things could scarcely be expected to be around for the little things.

            Perhaps we have simply misunderstood God’s character. If God were a bit devious, it could explain the general regularity of the cosmos and its blessings when things work without the glitches, such as natural disasters, the tragedies of human disease, and fatal accidents. In short, God may be prone to be a bit “impish,” so to speak. Certain passages in the Bible seem to support such a theory, at least the early Israelites and Christians must have thought so by some of the ways they portrayed God (the Book of Job comes to mind). Bird poop on the forehead is precisely the kind of thing one might expect from a mischievous God.

            Of course, it is always possible there is no God. The only difference between this possibility and the last is that human tragedy and natural disaster could not be caused by a nonexistent God, but must be the result of randomness in the universe that never had a manager of any sort. We would be alone in a sort of well-regulated universe—except for the occasional glitch. Such a situation accommodates regularity, natural disasters, and bird poop on the forehead.

            The five possibilities for explaining bird poop and divine management of the universe boil down to this. Do you choose to believe in an uptight micromanager, a lax general manager, a God gone missing, a mischievous deity or in no God at all? I suppose one could choose to ignore human experience (which the Bible is), and fashion a God of one’s own imagination. I suspect that is what most of us do.*

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

*This essay appeared originally in Hedrick, House of Faith or Enchanted Forest. American Popular Belief in an Age of Reason (Cascade: Eugene, OR, 2009), 13–15.