The two most prominent trees in the Garden of Eden were the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. God said to Adam and Eve, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die" (Genesis 2:16-17). A loving and generous God gave them everything freely except one thing.
Satan makes his first appearance in chapter three, giving us a picture of his modus operandi of maligning God and twisting His words. "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?'' (Genesis 3:1). Was that what God said? No. Eve didn't fall for that. So Satan tried again: "You surely will not die!" (Genesis 3:4).
And Eve believed that lie, as have many other people. Most Christians will say that everybody lives forever; it's just a question of where. I believed that myself until recently when I studied what the Bible actually says. The Bible states very clearly that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), not eternal life in torture. God told Adam that if he sinned he would die. Psalm 37:20 says, "But the wicked will perish; and the enemies of the Lord will be like the glory of the pastures, they vanish--like smoke they vanish away." Malachi 4:3 talks about the Day of Judgment when it says, "'You will tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,' says the Lord of hosts." They will be completely destroyed--dead forever when God ushers in "the new heavens and new earth in which righteousness dwells" (2 Peter 13). No sin or evil can mar His perfect new creation where He will live among His people (Revelation 21:3).
After Adam and Eve sinned, God forced them out of the Garden of Eden so they would not eat from the tree of life and live forever. This was an act of mercy because to live forever in a sinful state would be eternal torment. So God specifically withheld eternal life from fallen humanity, until He could purchase our redemption with His blood. To His redeemed, He will grant access to the tree of life (Revelation 2:7), and they will live forever in a glorified state, crowned with glory and majesty (Psalm 8:5).
The idea of an inherently immortal soul was alien to the ancient Hebrews. They believed that the dead went down to Sheol, or the grave. Psalm 146:3-4 says, "Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." And Ecclesiastes 9:5 says, "For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything."
Did the New Testament change this perception? No. In Acts 2:29, Peter quoted Psalm 16:8-11, and explained that David was talking about Christ. “Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.” And Acts 2:34: “For it was not David who ascended into heaven.” David is dead and buried and will rise again at the resurrection. John 3:13 states clearly, "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man."
The Bible does not teach that disembodied souls live forever in heaven or hell, because a soul is not inherently immortal. The words "immortal" or "immortality" are only used in the context of God and the redeemed on the day of judgment (Romans 2:7, 1 Cor. 15:53-54, 1 Tim. 6:16-17, and 2 Tim. 1:10). The soul that sins will die (Ezekiel 18:20). 1 Timothy 6:16 says that God alone possesses immortality. If He alone possesses immortality, and the redeemed will receive immortality when Jesus comes again, then immortality is not something we all possess. It is a gift of God's Spirit.
Instead, the Bible teaches that Jesus will come in glory with the angels for the Great White Throne Judgment, and the dead will rise from their graves. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 says, "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." If they rise, they are in the graves. All the dead will rise and stand before Him. "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29). Matthew 10:28 says that God is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. If the soul is destroyed, it ceases to exist. "Our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29). How does a fire consume? It destroys completely and leaves nothing except ashes, which is consistent with Malachi 4:3.
Where then did this idea come from that souls are immortal and we will all live forever in eternal bliss or eternal torture? Greek mythology taught that the immortal souls of the dead go down to Hades, and when the Hebrew Old Testament was translated to Greek in the Septuagint, the word "Sheol" was translated "Hades." Also, the Greek philosophers like Plato heavily influenced a number of the church fathers. So hell came to mean conscious, unceasing punishment in a lake of fire. When we think of it that way, we read "death," "destruction," "perish, "consume," etc. to mean something other than what those words actually mean. They have become euphemisms for eternal torture.
Now, of course the idea of hell as eternal, conscious torture is the traditional view, and there are a couple of passages that have given me pause because they have convinced many that hell is conscious suffering, in spite of all the parts of the Bible that tell us the wages of sin is death. They are the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-30, and the account of Judgment Day in Matthew 25:31-46, where Jesus separates the sheep from the goats on the basis of what they did or didn't do for the least of His brothers.
Before I begin to analyze these passages, I would like make one general observation. In both of these passages, the lost souls were not terrible people by any stretch of the imagination. The "goats" may even have been professing Christians, because they called Jesus "Lord." (It's not much of a stretch to conclude that since Matthew 7:21 says that only those who do the will of God will enter the kingdom of heaven.) The text doesn't tell us one way or the other. The only thing we know about the rich man and the "goats" is that they lacked love. In other words, they failed to do God's will to love their neighbor as themselves (Matthew 22:37-40, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8). The rich man didn't kick Lazarus when he walked past him. He just ignored him. Likewise, we don't get a laundry list of the sins of the "goats"--all we know is that they didn't seem to care about those who suffer.
So if we want to ignore everything in the Bible that say that the wages of sin is death in order to focus exclusively on these two passages, we have to face the fact that lovelessness will put us squarely in the goat camp. If we don't feel tremendous relief at the idea that nobody will be eternally tortured, we should examine our hearts and ask ourselves whether our relationship to a God of love is what it should be.
This reminds me of the story of Solomon and the two women who fought over a baby because one the women's babies died. When Solomon suggested that they cut the baby in two and give one part to each of them, one woman readily agreed and the other one asked Solomon to give the first woman the baby instead of killing him. Solomon immediately knew that the baby belonged to the last woman because of her love for him.
Likewise, our love for other people (or its absence) should tell us if we really belong to Christ. If the idea of the vast majority of people suffering excruciating pain forever and ever with no relief doesn't trouble us deeply, we either don't really believe it, we don't want to think about it, or we know nothing of love. If it's the latter, Matthew 25 and Luke 16 give us no assurance that they are not describing us.
However, I think these two passages are consistent with the rest of the Bible, and do not teach unrelenting conscious torture for the lost. In Matthew 25:46, Jesus says, "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." The same word for "eternal" is used in both instances, so the argument goes that if the righteous will live forever, the others will also be alive and punished forever. However, the word for "eternity" is "aion," which according to Strong’s Concordance means 1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity 2) the worlds, universe 3) period of time, age. So it doesn't definitively mean forever and ever. In fact, the word "aion" is used in Hebrews 11:3: "By faith we understand that the worlds ("aion") were prepared by the word of God." And the Bible clearly states that this universe is not forever.
A form of the word "aion" is also used in Jude 1:7 when it says that Sodom and Gomorrah were an "example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." But Sodom and Gomorrah were completely annihilated. The inhabitants of these cities are not still being tortured in an unrelenting fire. If, as Jude said, these cities were an example for us, and the traditional view is correct, then we would expect to read about screaming ghosts in the fire after they died. But all we know is that the "smoke of the land ascended like the smoke of a furnace," and that "God destroyed the cities of the valley" (Genesis 19:28, 29). This is how the Bible illustrates what it means by destruction by eternal fire.
As for Luke 16:19-30, it is important to remember that since Jesus always taught in parables, this is also a parable. And that means that we have to think about what it means rather than taking everything at face value. All the parables contain symbolism. If we read this in the context of the rest of the Bible, we know that this does not represent something that has already happened. Why? Because nobody except the Son of Man has gone to heaven (John 3:13). This means that Lazarus is not a real person who went to heaven. But some say that "Abraham's bosom" is a pre-heaven for the redeemed, a place where they stay in a disembodied state until the resurrection. However, Hebrews 11:8, 13 tells us that Abraham was a great man of faith who has not yet received the promise. He is still awaiting its fulfillment, like all those who are symbolically in the bosom of Abraham, the man of great faith. Like David (Acts 2:34) and Daniel (Daniel 12:13), he is dead and buried--or rather "asleep" and awaiting the resurrection. Most likely this is a picture of Judgment Day, and the rich man would not be quite so loquacious in the real lake of fire, because, like all the examples in the Old Testament of death by divine fire, it would be sudden and complete (for example, Leviticus 10:2 and Numbers 16:35). There is no example of slow torture anywhere.
Speaking of Abraham, he said, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" (Genesis 18:25). Most of us fallen creatures would not torture an animal for even a few seconds. Would the God of love, who is the source of the moral law written on our hearts, torture billions of people throughout all of eternity, just for failing to receive His gracious gift of eternal life? Job 4:17 says, "Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his maker?" The obvious answer is no.
This is the conclusion I have reached after studying for myself what the Bible has to say on the subject. But my objective is always to get you to think and never to indoctrinate. Although the word of God is infallible, I am not, and I invite you to study this subject for yourself. I welcome your thoughts, and any correction, in the comments.
45 comments:
If I completely derail this, you can kill me later, but...
Where do you get the idea that the serpent was Satan?
Have you ever read "The Apocalypse of Peter"? It was written about 100 CE, before Revelations. In fact there are many Apocalypse books written about that same time. The Apocalypse of John (Revelations) was almost not part of the Bible and its place was debated for so long that Martin Luther excluded it from his own Bible. Eastern Orthodox churches to this day consider it apocrypha.
BeamStalk,
That's an excellent question, and an easy one to answer because I just commented on that yesterday on AC. You are right that there is nothing in the text that reveals that he is anything but a talking snake. So every Christian who identifies the snake with Satan (just about everyone) is admitting that there is symbolism in the opening chapters of Genesis.
We know it's Satan in part because Revelation 12:9 says, "And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world."
I disagree with Luther that Revelation is not inspired. There are a lot of parallels between the opening chapters of Genesis and the book of Revelation. In fact, the two books are often called the "bookends" of the Bible because of this. I admit that the middle of Revelation is difficult to make sense of, though.
I think Luther was wrong about all the books he wanted to exclude, particularly James. James says nothing that contradicts the rest of the Bible--it simply warns against antinomianism, and Galatians warns against legalism. Both are risks for a Christian, but Luther erred on the side of antinomianism.
Luther's famous quote referring to the book of James was, "Throw Jimmy into the fire." (I wonder how that sounds in German.)
At first, Luther thought that the epistle of James could not possibly be included in the canon of scripture, chiefly because he believed that James 2:24 "We see how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" contradicted the clear teaching in Romans and Galations that we are justified by faith apart from works.
His objection was short lived, however, after he determined that James was talking about works flowing from faith necessarily, thus being the evidence, or justification, that faith was present, something that Paul also taught.
Not only did Luther include James in his German translation of the Bible, but drew upon it for textual support in his "Masterwork," The Bondage of the Will. In Luther's commentary on Romans, he actually calls upon James 2:24 to support Paul's teaching (in chapter 3), the very same verse that he previously thought contradicted it. A reading of Luther's commentary on Romans proves that he was no antimomian.
Revelation has puzzled many Bible scholars over the years (except Fundamentalists ; ). Calvin's commentaries on almost all the books in the Bible did not include Revelation, not because he didn't believe it was canonical, he just didn't understand it.
I agree with you, Anette. There are essential themes in redemptive history that have their beginning in Genesis and final fulfillment in Revelation.
Was there supposed to be something in this post about hell? I must've missed it :-)
Craig
Annette -
We know it's Satan in part because Revelation 12:9 says, "And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world."
Actually, this verse does not necessarily support the conclusion that the serpent is Satan. Instead, it could be the author's attempt to draw a parallel or make an analogy to the serpent of Genesis.
I disagree with Luther that Revelation is not inspired. There are a lot of parallels between the opening chapters of Genesis and the book of Revelation. In fact, the two books are often called the "bookends" of the Bible because of this. I admit that the middle of Revelation is difficult to make sense of, though.
Presumably what follows your opening sentence here is supposed to also act as support on its behalf. However, I fail to see how the existence of certain "parallels" between Genesis and Revelation constitutes positive evidence in favor of Revelation's divinely inspired status.
What is this? Does nobody want to talk about hell? "We'll pretend she didn't really say that and just politely change the subject so as not to embarrass her." :)
Craig,
To a certain extent I agree with you about Luther. He actually coined the term "antinomian" to distance himself from one of his followers. I wrote a blog post on his "sin boldly" statement, and I basically agree with him, but I think he focuses too much on the "faith" part and not enough on the "evidence" of faith part. This misleads people, because the concept of faith bearing good fruit is difficult for people to really internalize anyway.
Revelation has puzzled many Bible scholars over the years (except Fundamentalists ; ).
My sentiments exactly!
QED,
Actually, this verse does not necessarily support the conclusion that the serpent is Satan. Instead, it could be the author's attempt to draw a parallel or make an analogy to the serpent of Genesis.
If one approaches this question from the perspective of believing that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then Revelation 12:9 supports my conclusion that the serpent is Satan, because that verse draws the connection.
However, I am by no means claiming to have proved that there is a Satan in the first place, or that the Bible is inspired. I'm sure BeamStalk didn't believe in Satan when he asked the question and he still doesn't. He simply asked a question pertaining to my biblical scholarship, perhaps wondering if I just assumed that the serpent was Satan.
Presumably what follows your opening sentence here is supposed to also act as support on its behalf. However, I fail to see how the existence of certain "parallels" between Genesis and Revelation constitutes positive evidence in favor of Revelation's divinely inspired status.
My only point was that there is no reason to think that it isn't inspired because it is consistent. But the theological consistency of the whole Bible is indicative of its inspired nature, particularly with respect to all the subtle typology (symbolism) in the OT that perfectly communicates the gospel message.
What is this? Does nobody want to talk about hell? "We'll pretend she didn't really say that and just politely change the subject so as not to embarrass her." :)
Or, it may be that your arguments were so overpowering that they were just unanswerable; iow, you knocked the hell out of traditional Christian theology, and now there is no more hell to be talked about. (-:
I will have a couple of easy questions to toss your way, but first a follow up to your response to me about Luther:
I think he focuses too much on the "faith" part and not enough on the "evidence" of faith part.
The recovery of the doctrine of Justification by Grace Alone, really the recovery of the Gospel, was the big thing in those days, eclipsing most other religous topics. Luther does give "the evidence of faith part" a pretty good treatment in his commentary on Romans, and in the Galatians commentary, of course, he gives a very nice exposition of "faith working through love."
You are right though, the Solas were the top story for Luther and his contemporaries.
You realize now, don't you Anette, that if you have a Calvinist on your blog, the slightest mention of anything Reformation related, will cause him to go off-topic in a heartbeat? ;-)
You realize now, don't you Anette, that if you have a Calvinist on your blog, the slightest mention of anything Reformation related, will cause him to go off-topic in a heartbeat? ;-)
I wasn't going to kill BeamStalk for mentioning Luther, but I may have to after all . . . :)
QED,
I said: "However, I am by no means claiming to have proved that there is a Satan in the first place, or that the Bible is inspired."
What I meant to say is that I know that I have not proven that there is a Satan and that the Bible is inspired. My initial sentence made it sound like I'm not claiming that the Bible is inspired.
(I just noticed that I wrote a number of illiterate-sounding and not quite coherent things this morning. Maybe I should wake up fully before clicking the "publish" button in the future.)
"A couple of easy questions."
What is the "wrath to come," which people are to flee?
What was the nature of that which Jesus suffered in our place?
When Jesus told the man who was crucified next to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you shall be with me in Paradise," where was he talking about?
Jesus' words: "It would be better for that man if he had not been born." In what way would having been annihilated be any different to that man than having never been born?
Does it concern you that your independent study of the Bible on this topic led you to a conclusion that is nearer to that of the Jehovah's Witnesses (almost exactly, in fact) than that of historic Christianity?
Craig,
Does it concern you that your independent study of the Bible on this topic led you to a conclusion that is nearer to that of the Jehovah's Witnesses (almost exactly, in fact) than that of historic Christianity?
The JWs do not believe that Jesus was God and they believe that Jesus and the archangel Michael are the same person. That alone qualifies them as a cult, but they also believe that Jesus already came again (as they predicted) in the early twentieth century.
They further believe that there is a heaven for exactly 144,000 people and an earthly paradise for the rest of the saved. And they believe that the unsaved will be destroyed.
That is not even remotely what I believe. I supported everything I said with Scripture. But it's interesting that you mention the JWs, because I was just reading Forgotten God: Reversing Our Tragic Neglect of the Holy Spirit by Francis Chan, and he talks about JWs coming to his house and he had a chance to point out to them what the Bible actually says. I don't know if you've read anything by Chan (I think he's a Calvinist :), but he's very good about sticking with the text of the Bible without prior assumptions.
This is what he said after telling the account of the JWs:
"I left that conversation feeling a bit proud of myself because I stumped them and got them to question their beliefs. Yet I couldn't help but wonder whether I was fair to them. Had I ever sat down with the Bible and sought after its self-evident truth? Or had a passively ingested what I heard from other people, much like my front-door visitors?
"It was then that I began reading the Scriptures as though I had never read them before. I asked the Spirit to make them 'living and active' to me, though I'd been reading them for years. I asked God to 'penetrate' the wrong and ill-conceived notions I'd collected along the way (Heb. 4:12 NIV). It's a great exercise for those of us who have been immersed in church culture for years.
"There are, of course, dangers in this, since the Bible is meant to be interpreted within the context and accountability of faithful community. Yet even with that qualification, there is still a need for those of us nestled deep within the Christian bubble to look beyond the status quo and critically assess the degree to which we are really living biblically.
"Most of us assume that what we believe is right (of course we do--it is why we believe what we believe) but have never really studied for ourselves. We were simply told, 'This is the way it is,' and didn't question. The problem is much of what we believe is based more on comfort or our culture's tradition than on the Bible."
First, I want to say one thing about the JWs. They are clearly a cult because of what they believe about Jesus, but does that mean they are wrong about everything? And if we believe the right things about Jesus, are we right about everything? If I agree with an atheist about something other than the existence of God, does that make me an atheist?
The real question for us is what the Bible says, because the road is wide that leads to destruction, so following the historical church blindly may put us on that road. Isn't it true that the historical church waters down the teachings of Jesus considerably? In fact, some (most) of His teachings on hell put every person (including Christians) in danger, so the idea that we are safe but others will burn forever does not come from Jesus. To get to that conventional wisdom, the church has to water down the words of Jesus.
Also, most Christians never talk about hell. I wouldn't have talked about it either if someone hadn't raised the issue.
But a number of evangelical Christians subscribe to the annihilation view now. When I researched this, I found a lot of information on it--more, in fact, that I found on the traditional view. I think that most people who accept the traditional view prefer not to think about it.
What is the "wrath to come," which people are to flee?
I think there is going to be judgment and punishment at the Resurrection, but I simply don't think the Bible says that it will last forever.
What was the nature of that which Jesus suffered in our place?
The second death and the tribulation associated with that. In other words, the lake of fire. Also, His death means that we can be safe from the second death. He took the punishment for our sins and died in our stead. However, this is only true of those who are born of the Spirit and bear good fruit.
When Jesus told the man who was crucified next to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you shall be with me in Paradise," where was he talking about?
I think He was talking about the new earth, because the man would have died and the next thing he would be aware of would be the Resurrection. Jesus couldn't have literally meant "today" because He died on Friday and didn't rise until Sunday. Do you think He went to heaven from Friday to Sunday morning? I doubt that, because He was "in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." (I might do my next blog post on that and elaborate--one traditional view is to say that hell is in the heart of the earth.)
Jesus' words: "It would be better for that man if he had not been born." In what way would having been annihilated be any different to that man than having never been born?
He could be severely punished and then annihilated in the lake of fire. God would judge fairly and then Judas would receive the fitting punishment. But if hell is eternal torture for all those who don't believe, Gandhi would get essentially the same punishment as Judas. In fact, it would be better for most people not to be born. Why make a special statement about Judas if in general it is better not to be born?
Craig,
I would highly recommend Future Grace by John Piper. He is another one who doesn't water down the words of Jesus.
But the thing is that if we take seriously the teachings of Jesus, the idea of hell as a place of eternal, unremitting torture becomes very difficult to understand. When the rich young ruler couldn't give up his possessions, Jesus simply let him go. He didn't plead with him; He just told His disciples how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. He talked about people not being fit for the kingdom of God if they looked back. His call was to radical discipleship. This is very different from the middle-class conservative Christianity we are used to.
I was referring to their doctrine of annihilation.
I know you believe in the diety of Christ and salvation by grace through faith because of Christ. That makes you a Christian, and that is wonderful : )
Reading and studying the Bible . Yes, that is what I've been doing too, for the last 36 years. I do pause to take stock of what I believe the Bible is saying from time to time by clearing me wee brain and reading through the text of Scripture and letting it speak to me. I have also found that there is some accumulated wisdom from some of God's gifts to the church (Ephesians 4:8-13)that have gone before me, and they have left some signposts in the form of debates that have been worked through in the past. Valuable lessons. I think both are necessary, reading the Bible afresh, and looking at what those before us have discovered.
So, yes maybe it is time to reconsider the idea that those not saved simply go into non-existence, and that that our souls do not (yet) do not go on after death.
The issues that you have brought up are worth discussing.
The only reason I mentioned the J.W.s is that I talk with them a lot and the texts they use and their lines of reasoning for their position are exactly the same as that which you have discovered by studying the Scriptures and discerning definitions of Bible words, etc.
Thank you for your answers; very good. Good topic.
Craig
Oh yes. The punnishment prior to annihilation. What might that consist of? For example, maybe it is being in the presince of a holy God for a period of time and made to feel their shame and guilt?
Also, what do you think of the possibility of (at least some) people being given the opportunity to repent, once they have seen God and the outcome of their sins?
Just speculating.
Good discussion, sister.
Oh yes. The punnishment prior to annihilation. What might that consist of? For example, maybe it is being in the presince of a holy God for a period of time and made to feel their shame and guilt?
I think that will certainly be part of it. John 12:48 says, "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day." So I think the shame of failure and exposure will be a huge part of the punishment. Luke 12:2, Matthew 10:26, Mark 4:22, and Luke 8:17 make it very clear that everything secret will come to light. It will be a complete and public evaluation of our lives.
Daniel 12:2 says, "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt." Like Lewis says, "In the end that Face which is the delight or the terror of the universe must be turned upon each of us either with one expression or with the other, either conferring glory inexpressible or inflicting shame that can never be cured or disguised."
I disagree with Ray that the Ten Commandments will judge us. Jesus made it very clear in John 12:48 that His word will judge us. So the whole Bible will judge us, probably particularly His teachings in the gospel. The teachings and example of Jesus represent absolute morality since He fulfilled all righteousness, and that is the standard that will judge us.
I think we will find out exactly how our words and actions have affected other people. "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment" (Matthew 12:36).
Also, what do you think of the possibility of (at least some) people being given the opportunity to repent, once they have seen God and the outcome of their sins?
I don't know. There is no real reason to expect that, and Luke 16 indicates the opposite. So we should definitely live as if this is the only chance for us and those we influence to inherit eternal life.
One of the problems with the traditional view of hell is that it can really traumatize people and even make them think they're saved when they're really just terrified of hell. Others just become angry at being threatened with hell. For others still, like the atheists we know, it makes them just reject Christianity because they see the cognitive dissonance in believing that a God of love would torture most people throughout eternity. So they figure it can't be real in the same way that we don't think Allah is real. Either way, it becomes a stumbling block to faith.
But neither should we hold out false hope of a second chance. In my opinion there simply is no reason to believe that.
Yes, it looks like you're right about a second chance. You mentioned Luke 16, and Revelation 22:11 seems to seal it.
I was debating whether to post an excerpt from Gerstner (you've seen me mention him recently) where he deals briefly with the issue of Believers in heaven knowing that their friends or family members didn't make it. Not comfortable to think about, but the fact is that Christians do have loved ones who die without Christ. What do you think, would something like that be of use in this conversation?
Craig
Go ahead and post it, Craig. I'd like to see it.
Okay, this is from John Gerstner's book, Theology in Dialogue. Gerstner has two friends, one a Christian, the other a biblically literate Inquirer, discussing theological issues over coffee. Each of the 25 chapters covers a different topic. That is a lot of coffee.
C: The mere thought of heaven excites me now beyond words.
I: That is good enough for me. I respect you (though I do not always agree with you), and if the mere thought of heaven can make you happy then there must be something to it. Tell me more.
C: We do not know too much about heaven, except that it is perfect happiness forever.
I: Will hell make the inhabitants of heaven unhappy? Suppose you see me in hell, will that spoil your fun - at least for a while?
C: No, your misery as an unbeliever will add to my joy.
I: And I thought you were a friend!
C: I am a friend, and I am trying to snatch you from the burning and make you happy in heaven with me.
I: But if I do not make it, you will not feel sorry for me? You are friend of mine, and I would feel sorry for you if you cut your finger; yet you will rejoice in heaven while I burn in hell!
C: For one thing, you realize that if the redeemed in heaven sorrowed over those in hell, that would make a hell out of heaven.
I: I can see that, but what kind of monsters are you, if you get pleasure out of indescribable misery that will go on forever?
C: We will not be getting pleasure out of their misery.
I: I thought you said that those in heaven would rejoice as the smoke rises from the pit.
C: I did, but they will not rejoice because of hell's miseries.
I: What will make them happy?
C: The revelation of the justice of God in their deserved punishment in hell.
I: Hell's victims deserve eternal torment?
C: Yes, because they eternally reject and resent the just judgments of a holy God. You are glad now to see murderers punished, are you not?
I: Yes, but not eternally.
C: If the murderer went on murdering, you would want him to be punished continually, would you not?
I: You have a point there. But your Bible says that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
C: God's pleasure is not in the death and suffering of the wicked, but in the righteousness of His punishment.
I: Just as I get pleasure in seeing a murderer punished?
C: Exactly.
I: Okay. You have solved the greatest problem I have ever had with the Christian doctrine of heaven. But there is a lesser problem.
C: What is that?
I: Christ says that there is no marriage in heaven, and if I went to heaven I would be miserable without my wife.
C: If you both became believers you will both go there. The fact that you are no longer married in heaven does not mean that you do not see and love each other, and far more perfectly than you now do. You will love your wife more in heaven than you do now.
I: Suppose I go and she does not?
C: You will rejoice in her deserved suffering as an impenitent sinner.
I: Yes, and if she goes and I do not, then she will rejoice in my misery which I deserve as an impenitent sinner!
C: I am begging you both to believe and be saved!
I: You suffer about us now; but you will rejoice then!
C: Let us get on with our dialogue, and you and your wife get on with seeking God.
God's pleasure is not in the death and suffering of the wicked, but in the righteousness of His punishment.
I don't know if I buy this way of thinking, Craig. It doesn't seem to fit the nature of God. I don't think He either delights in the death of the wicked or in punishment. It is a necessary evil, but I have a hard time accepting the idea that God takes pleasure in it.
I certainly agree with his point that hell cannot be allowed to trump heaven. C. S. Lewis made that point as well, but never explained howit's possible for those in heaven not to grieve over loved ones (or others) being perpetually punished and miserable in hell.
And the idea that they keep on sinning and therefore have to be punished isn't persuasive. We are like children to God and He is a Father. He wouldn't set up a universe in which this type of outcome would be possible. I think that is the significance of God keeping Adam and Eve from living forever when they sinned. Death is the "wages" of sin. It's not even so much a punishment as it is a necessity.
C. S. Lewis, Timothy Keller, N. T. Wright, and others believe that hell is eternal separation from God, and that used to be my view as well. But the problem with that perspective is that they act like God can't do anything about it. We have made the choice to reject God, so God won't force us to come to Him. But of course God had a choice of how to create us, and He would have foreseen the outcome! Certainly this would be a problematic position for a Calvinist because God wouldn't seem sovereign. In fact, it seems that it would be impossible for a Calvinist to take this position because to him or her salvation depends on God's election not on human choice.
And if our loved ones are annihilated, it is a fact of life that we will grieve but get over it. That is what we are used to in this life. Grief over loss is certainly present, but it doesn't last forever.
Craig,
I got these quotes from my friend Becky's blog (remember Becky?), and I think they are very relevant to the issue of loss, both on earth and in the event that loved ones are not saved:
"O Lord, if this were lost instead,
And all I had was you, I would
Be rich, and have the greatest Good." - John Piper
"This is the true bride, the one who says to Christ:
I do not want what is Thine, I want Thee, Thyself.
Thou art not more dear to me when i am doing well, nor less dear when i am doing poorly." - Martin Luther
"He is indeed enough. He is not all we would ask for (if we are honest), but it is precisely when we do not have what we would ask for, and only then, that we can clearly perceive His all-sufficiency. It is when the sea is moonless, that the Lord has become my light." - Elisabeth Elliot
"Those who seek the Lord lack no good thing." - Psalm 34:10
I don't think He either delights in the death of the wicked or in punishment. It is a necessary evil, but I have a hard time accepting the idea that God takes pleasure in it.
I think the idea there is that God is pleased that Righteous Justice has taken place. If we carry that concept through, glorified saints will then be like God in their love of justice, as well as their hatred of sin. Then, of course, they will see unrepentant sinners as God sees them.
From my own subjective perspective, I can (but not always) see that my sins would merit eternal hell, especially if I still had the inclination to sin. Once all my past sins had been punished there would be new ones to account for because I would hate God for the punishment I had just received. Punisment doesn't change the sinful heart. That seems to make for an endless spiral trajectory for me deeper and deeper into hell because my debt would never be paid down to the "paid in full" level.
Also, when I meditate on the Lord's agony in Gethsemane, and how horrified and overflowing with grief he was in anticipation of what was about to come upon him, I know that it was more than temporary annihilation, (or as Whaateverman called it "a bad week-end" )that he was to experience instead of me, the one who really deserved it.
And then, I reason that if Jesus suffered the unmitigated wrath of the Father on account of my sins just being imputed to him, how much more would I, whose sins they actually are, deserve God's wrath.
I am beginning to get the idea of the enormity of what sin really is.
That brings to mind something else from John Gerstner that I will share here because it is on this topic:
...When Christ gave His cheek to the betrayers kiss, He knew that He was putting the cup of wrath to His lips, the full dregs of which He would not taste until the morrow when He would cry out, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? ...My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
...
This then, is how Jesus made atonement - how He paid it all. The punishment which was due to us He voluntarily received. The death which was the wages of our sin He underwent. The stripes with which we deserved to be beaten fell upon His willing back. The chastisement which was owing us was borne by Him. The price we would have paid by endless suffering He paid by an infinite sacrifice. It should have been I who cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" It should have been He who said: "I am persuaded that nothing shall separate me from the love of God." Because Jesus paid it all, it was He who was forsaken and we who never shall be. Because He drank the full cup of divine wrath, we shall never taste it. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus."
Don't you see, Anette. To me, deserving some kind of penalty after being judged, and that followed by my going out of conscious existence, trivializes what my Lord did for me. ("He just had a bad weekend"? No, no, no!)
That is one reason I love repeating those wonderful words that I selected for the "about me" in my Blogger profile. It is not just the answer to a catechism question. Those words really do apply to me and belong to me.
He really did purchase me. I am my Beloved's, and He is mine.
Craig
Oh, Anette,
I just saw the comment you posted while I was still writing mine. Those quotes are beautiful, just beautiful. Thank you for posting them.
I haven't checked out Becky's blog for a long time. There was a long period of time with no new posts from her, and I failed to continue checking back.
Craig
Also, when I meditate on the Lord's agony in Gethsemane, and how horrified and overflowing with grief he was in anticipation of what was about to come upon him, I know that it was more than temporary annihilation, (or as Whaateverman called it "a bad week-end" )that he was to experience instead of me, the one who really deserved it.
I agree with this, and that is going to be the topic of my next blog post, "The Sign of Jonah," which is going to be about the suffering of Jesus. I wrote about that on AC recently, but I'm just going to edit it for my blog because it's related to the subject of hell.
Looking forward to reading it.
Don't you see, Anette. To me, deserving some kind of penalty after being judged, and that followed by my going out of conscious existence, trivializes what my Lord did for me.
I don't think it trivializes it at all. Proverbs 24:11-12 says, "Deliver those who are being taken away to death, and those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back. If you say, 'See, we did not know this,' does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps you soul? And will He not render to man according to his work."
This seems to be a prophetic statement about bringing people to salvation. And although it talks about "death" and "slaughter," which implies permanent annihilation rather than eternal torture, in no way does this diminish the urgency in "holding them back." And if we fail to take this responsibility seriously, God will hold us accountable. He wants to save as many people as possible from the "slaughter" and has chosen to work through those who already know Him.
The fundamental question is whether a soul is inherently immortal, and there is no biblical basis for believing that. The word used for when Adam became a "living soul" is "nephesh," which is the same word used for "living creatures" in Genesis 1:24. Adam was made of "dust" and animals are made of "dust" as well (Psalm 104:29). All living creatures are made of the same stuff, according to the Bible. What distinguishes us is that we are like God, in knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:22). And, through Christ, He has offered us immortality.
And if the soul is not immortal, why make people immortal for the sole purpose of letting them sin and be punished repeatedly? This is not only illogical, but it is not biblical. Why do you suppose God didn't want mankind to live forever as stated in Genesis 3:22? According to the conventional wisdom, we all do live forever, which means that either Genesis 3:22 is wrong or the conventional wisdom is wrong. I will put my confidence in the word of God.
Also, in Psalm 17:15, David says: "As for me, I shall behold Your face in righteousness; I will be satisfied with Your likeness when I awake." Awake from what? It appears that David expects to awake on Judgment Day, which to him (and to everyone) will seem like an instant after "falling asleep." This also fits with Acts 2:29-34.
I'll get to work on that new blog post now.
"What He did for me" = the degree of what he endured in my stead.
He drank the full cup of God's wrath, something that if I were to do would never be entirely finished.
I agree with that--since Satan gave Him his worst, it was probably the worst suffering anyone has experienced. He did take the penalty for all the sins of the world. But the point is that it didn't last forever. So if the penalty for sin is to be tortured forever, then He didn't pay it because He wasn't (isn't) tortured forever. That is by no means downplaying what He suffered; it's just that the Bible clearly states that the wages of sin is death. Christ suffered and died for us. "But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities" (Isaiah 53:5). But He is not being tortured in hell forever for us.
I think you are right about my saying "trivialize." That was a little hyperbolic. At any rate, because of the value of the person of the Son of God the value of what he paid certainly exceeded the sin-debt of the whole world.
You know Anette, these two issues, (1)eternal hell and (2)people immediately after death finding themselves at the final judgment having been resurrected, with no perception of any time having elapsed, I have wrestled with in my mind before. I even tentatively and hopefully held those positions for a time.
I think that reading some of Jonathan Edwards' arguments may have influenced my not holding to them permanently.
I still see red flags when I note the Watchtower similarities, especially the fact that rejection of the historical Christian view of hell was THE issue that C.T. Russell lectured about when it all began. I know that the J.W.s don't get everything wrong, but Plato probably didn't get everything wrong either. :)
On which thread at AC did you comment about the sign of Jonah?
Craig
I know that the J.W.s don't get everything wrong, but Plato probably didn't get everything wrong either. :)
I agree that Plato is a whole lot cooler than the JWs, but I don't care about either the JWs or Plato, I care about what the Bible says. I don't want to get anything wrong if I can help it. Slippery slope arguments only make sense if I am wrong. So how am I wrong?
How did Jonathan Edwards persuade you to change your mind? I'm not interested in his rhetoric--just his interpretation of Scripture. And how did he deal with the fact that every reference Jesus made to hell puts Christians at risk as well?
I'll try to get to the Sign of Jonah post soon, but it's toward the end of the Nation of Israel thread.
Actually, a slippery slope argument only makes sense if I read the writing of the JWs and they convinced me of the annihilation view, so next I'll decide that maybe Jesus is the archangel Michael after all. ;)
As it is, I've never read any of their literature nor have I even talked to a JW. I researched the Bible and how other Christians have interpreted these verses. I also thought about how it all fits together logically, and the traditional view of hell is neither logical nor Scriptural as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you can convince me otherwise, but you'll have to show me how I'm wrong.
This is the problem: I think a lot of non-believers reject Christianity over the traditional doctrine of hell. You remember what Whateverman said. So if it is neither Scriptural nor logical but I continue to teach it, I am a stumbling block to people who would otherwise believe. That would mean that Proverbs 24:11-12 would apply to me when I answer to God. It would be wrong for me to be so cowardly as to worry about accepting the annihilation view because the of JWs. And I'm not saying it's cowardice for you if you believe it, but for me it would be because I can't think of a single argument for the traditional view.
Hi Anette.
It has been interesting, working through these two isues with you, re-examining what we believe, and comparing those beliefs with the bible.
To get it clear in my mind, Did I understand you to say that you did until recently, hold the "traditional views" i.e. 1. that our souls survive death in heaven or hell awaiting the resurrection of our bodies, and 2. that "the just" will live with Christ for ever while "the unjust" experience eternal existence under condemnation; and that you radically changed your views after an atheist (Clam Flats?) challenged you to re-examine their validity in light of the scriptures?
I need you to confirm or correct my undestanding of your transition from what you formerly believed there.
Also, on the Jehovahs Witness thing, please understand that I realize that you came to your conclusions on "soul sleep" and "annihilation" independently, by logically researching the scriptures and definitions of words. (And recognizing that the immortality of the soul was an ancient Greek concept.) I know that there are others besides the Watchtower Society (e.g. L.D.S., Christadelphians, Christian Science, as well as some Evangelicals) who have reached the very same conclusion that you have. Also, I am sure that a lot of Christians hold your view privately, even though their churches don't officially teach it. I hope you understand my knee-jerk reaction when I noticed that your words, line of argument, and choice of texts to cite almost exactly matched those of Jehovah's Witnesses (with whom I converse frequently), and their literature (which I do read).
I think a lot of non-believers reject Christianity over the traditional doctrine of hell. You remember what Whateverman said.
Yes, I do remember that exchange with Whateverman. (In fact, I just reviewed that thread this morning)It is troubling that he has rejected the Christ whom he once embraced, but he seems to be content in his present condition. There must be a certain comfort and peace of mind in thinking that even if you happen to have made "the wrong choice," at least you will have only an endless sleep to look forward to, and not a conscious existence in the presence of the God of Revelation 6:16-17.
Craig
Yes, that is correct, except that Clamflats didn't "challenge" me to reexamine my views. He simply asked me to explain (or give evidence for) certain things, including the existence of an immortal soul and the traditional view of hell. So instead of giving an off-the-cuff answer based on my best understanding, I did a careful study of what the Bible actually says.
I held to the traditional view of hell because I had never thought about it, studied it, or even heard a sermon on hell in church. I've really only heard Ray talk about it much.
Then I researched what the Bible said about it, and did some Internet research to find Bible verses I might have missed. I found that a number of evangelicals hold to the annihilation view.
By the way, I looked up Revelation 6:16-17 and it doesn't say that we will have a conscious, neverending, existence in the presence of God. It talks about the great day of their wrath. That is Judgment Day, which I have already stated that I believe in. I also believe in the lake of fire. All of that is very clearly in the Bible.
And I do understand your visceral reaction to the similarities to JW et al. I feel the same way, and I think a lot of people hold to the traditional view for that reason. But I still have a responsibility to go by what the Bible says, and not "the traditions of men," as the Bible warns.
So if you want to tell me how Jonathan Edwards persuaded you, I'd be interested to hear it.
Craig,
How God punishes in the lake of fire is up to Him, and He will act with perfect justice. Satan and his angels will surely be tormented.
I just think we have to be careful about teaching that God will torment all humans (even decent people who have never understood the gospel) forever, because this goes against the moral compass that God has given us. And if this is not in the Bible, it is very risky to be teaching it. We are to glorify God, and when I think about the traditional view, it seems blasphemous to say that God plans to torment most of humanity forever (including many Christians--few are those who find the narrow path to life). Revelation 21:8 says that the cowardly, all liars, and idolaters end up in the lake of fire. So if we put anything before God (idolatry) that means us. Very few Christians teach this (remember what Francis Chan said about believing things because they are comfortable and traditional rather than biblical?), but many feel very conscientious and uncompromising when they talk about God condemning others to eternal torture. There is a danger of pharisaism there. And Jesus was harder on the Pharisees than on anyone.
By the way, evangelicals call the annihilation view the "conditionalist" view, and more than just a few hold to it.
As for a non-believer having "comfort and peace" about not being tortured forever for having made the wrong choice, Jesus would probably simply say that such a person is not fit for the kingdom of God. If it is simply a means of avoiding hell, a conversion would probably not be real anyway. I don't want to be instrumental in terrifying and manipulating someone into believing; I want to be instrumental in leading people to love and know Christ on a deep level.
Craig,
My understanding of hell was always that it was eternal separation from God, in large part based on 2 Thessalonians 1:10 and the rationale that we choose whether or not to spend eternity with God. And that our sins will eternally separate us from God. But of course this only makes sense if every soul is immortal, something that the Bible does not teach. As I said in my original post, it teaches the opposite.
Also, look at the difference between the NIV interpretation and Young's Literal Translation (I also included the KJV):
NIV: "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power."
Young's Literal Translation: "who shall suffer justice -- destruction age-during -- from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his strength."
KJV: "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power."
The context of this verse is what happens to the unbelieving and the disobedient when Jesus comes again. The NIV and other newer translations interpret this the way I had always understood it: we spend eternity away from God's presence. However, the older translations and Young's make it sound as if the presence of God destroys unless we are in Christ. Young's also translated "eternal" "age-during." I think this means destruction that comes from the eternal realm rather than destruction that goes on forever. (Destruction going on forever doesn't even make sense now that I think about it.)
It is troubling that he has rejected the Christ whom he once embraced, but he seems to be content in his present condition. There must be a certain comfort and peace of mind in thinking that even if you happen to have made "the wrong choice," at least you will have only an endless sleep to look forward to, and not a conscious existence in the presence of the God of Revelation 6:16-17.
Point: This is the God that you won't be facing if you were to go into non-existence after being temporarily aroused from your intermediate state of "sleep" for the purpose of be shown the evidence that you are a goat, be judged and setenced to permanent non-existence.
(Destruction going on forever doesn't even make sense now that I think about it.)
Not in our realm of experience. But the Lord gives a word-picture of it when he speaks of "the worm that does not die, and the fire that is not quenched." Seems like the fire never goes out by using up the fuel, and the worm never starves from depleting it's supply of food. In other words, the body is forever being consumed without ever being completely consumed. Horrible to even think about.
Jesus said these kinds of things (and His ministers say these kinds of things) to awaken sinners to their danger. I don't believe people can be scared into heaven, scared into accepting salvation in Jesus. But if awakened to the danger that their sins are leading to, and then they understand what Christ has done for sinners, Jesus and His Gospel becomes the most precious thing in the world to them. They are seen to be the pearl of great price, or the treasure hidden in a field, for which they would sell everything in order to obtain.
The most loving thing we can do for men and women is to lead them to Christ.
My understanding of hell was always that it was eternal separation from God, in large part based on 2 Thessalonians 1:10 and the rationale that we choose whether or not to spend eternity with God. And that our sins will eternally separate us from God. But of course this only makes sense if every soul is immortal, something that the Bible does not teach. As I said in my original post, it teaches the opposite.
Might that depend on the definition of "immortal" that you choose to use? And could it be that the Bible doesn't "teach the opposite," notwithstanding your original post?
"'Tis the infinite Almighty God Himself that shall become the fire of the furnace exerting His infinite perfections that way." __Jonathan Edwards
John Gerstner commented, "That is the most important thing that Jonathan Edwards has to say about hell."
Good morning, Craig.
Might that depend on the definition of "immortal" that you choose to use? And could it be that the Bible doesn't "teach the opposite," notwithstanding your original post?
"'Tis the infinite Almighty God Himself that shall become the fire of the furnace exerting His infinite perfections that way." __Jonathan Edwards
John Gerstner commented, "That is the most important thing that Jonathan Edwards has to say about hell."
First, Jonathan Edwards may have a lot of biblical insight, but his work is not part of the canon, so what he says cannot overrule what the Bible teaches about the "immortal soul." Immortal means to live forever and mortal means to die. Is there another definition?
Second, Edwards doesn't contradict anything I have said in that quote. I believe that God is a "consuming fire," and that His very presence will destroy sinners. Only "new wineskins" will make it possible to withstand the power of His presence.
We will see Him in the flesh. Job clearly stated this in Job 19:26. There simply is not a single example or mention of a disembodied human soul or spirit anywhere in the Bible. There is the witch of Endor example, but spiritism is expressly forbidden in the Bible. Why? Probably because the "spirits" are demons. People have such a desire to commune with their dead, and demons, who are disembodied spirits, capitalize on this.
But throughout the Bible, humans exist in the flesh, and they will live forever in a new body on the new earth. They will be resurrected from the dead. Even in the Lazarus and the rich man example they had bodies. They were not disembodied souls.
Anette,
Is there another definition? Well, maybe there is more than one sense in which it is used.
I was only going to give you a little taste of Edwards there, but you just may have provoked me to write another Blog post_____no, TWO blog posts.
You agree with what Edwards said there? Be careful, I might bypass waiting to see the orange robe, and just call you an "Edwardsian."
Craig
(Hmmmm "Immortality")
Is there another definition? Well, maybe there is more than one sense in which it is used.
What is the other sense in which it is used? And keep in mind the cardinal rule of Bible interpretation: the plain meaning of the language unless the context (whole Bible, cultural, literary style, and textual) tells us that is wrong.
I was only going to give you a little taste of Edwards there, but you just may have provoked me to write another Blog post_____no, TWO blog posts.
Sounds good. I look forward to reading it even though I'm sick to death of thinking and writing about hell.
You agree with what Edwards said there? Be careful, I might bypass waiting to see the orange robe, and just call you an "Edwardsian."
It's bad enough that you associate me with Jehovah's Witnesses, 5-point Calvinists (shudder), and Hari Krishnas, but the man who is associated with the infamous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? Enough with your vicious attacks! :)
you just may have provoked me to write another Blog post_____no, TWO blog posts.
Sounds good. I look forward to reading it even though I'm sick to death of thinking and writing about hell.
I know what you mean; it kind of gets me down as well. I was thinking of something on annihilation, preceeded by a few words about the intermediate state.
You must not have read "Sinners in the Hands..." all the way to the end. Btw, I read that famous sermon frequently ; it gets me "pumped up" and ready to go out and take on the world. : )
I was just joking about Edwards; I've heard some good things about him (Piper talks about him all the time), so maybe I should read "Sinners in the Hands of an angry God."
His most beautiful sermon EVER is the one that concludes his series on I Corinthians 13. The sermon title is Heaven: A World of Love.
That is a very nice sermon, Craig. I've started reading it and have not had a chance to finish, but it is beautifully written and inspirational.
Post a Comment