Thoughts On Reconciliation: Hard Questions
April 30th, 2007 | by Scott |For me, the topic of reconciliation involves many questions:
1. Does Hell exist?
2. If so, is it eternal?
3. What, exactly, would condemn one to hell?
4. How do we reconcile a loving and compassionate Parent condemning a child to everlasting torment without hope of “rehabilitation?”
5. Do we miss something by focusing salvation in a purely legal context?
6. Who is Anselm and why is he saying all these terrible things about me?
7. How do we reconcile passages that direct us to forgive 7X70 and then excuse God from the same standard?
8. Do we really believe that God is a God of love? And how is that reconciled with our cries for justice? If we believe that 85% or more of people living today will suffer forever and ever and ever how do we preach a loving God?
9. Is it possible to elevate our “free will” to a place of idolatry?
10. Can there be a different view that incorporates God’s Sovereignty, man’s free will and God’s tender and compassionate love that continues to hold a high regard for scripture?
11. What did the early church believe?
12. If hell is an eternal reality why am I not more serious about it?
13. Can people hold varying views and remain in fellowship?
These are just a few of the questions that I have grappled (and still!) with over the last few months. Ultimately, I believe that there is a more fleshed-out, nuanced understanding of the matter of God’s love (which justice is a part of, not a separate reality) that holds out far more hope than I ever realized.
It goes beyond the Augustinian notion of hell and posits God as the source of our hope. A hope that goes beyond eternal torment.
I know that these are difficult questions and I intend them to be. I’ve stopped and started this series many times in my head because I know the potential volatility of the subject matter might even outstrip that of non-violence.
But I know the participants in this community and we can wrestle with these questions in the spirit of brotherhood. Let’s do that.
What are your thoughts on these initial questions? What would you add to that?
Here is something to chew on as well from Thomas Allin:
It is wholly inconceivable that the definite plan of an Almighty
Being should end in failure—that this should be the
result of the agony of the eternal Son. God has, in the face
of angels and of men, before the universe and its gaze of
wonder, entered Himself into the arena, become Himself a
combatant, has wrestled with the foe, and has been defeated.
I can bring myself to imagine those, who reject the
Deity of Christ, as believing in His defeat; but it is passing
strange that those who believe Him to be “very God Almighty,”
are loudest in asserting His failure.
17 Responses to “Thoughts On Reconciliation: Hard Questions”
By len on Apr 30, 2007 | Reply
Scott, I wrestle with many of the same issues. Just like the thoughts on non-violence I don’t always like the conclusions the Bible forces me to come to. But I believe we should take the same approach on hell that you have suggested we take on other issues: begin with Jesus. His words/teachings seem to plainly teach that there is a hell (using it generically to refer to a place of torment/punishment) and that people will go there. In Luke 16 and Matthew 25, Jesus is pretty clear.
1, it seems to me that Jesus believed it did
2, for the devil and his angels yes, for humans ??????
7, I believe God is more forgiving than we can begin to comprehend
8, Paul begins Romans by laying out a case for universal guilt before God. He then goes on to focus on the love of God.
9, yes
10, this is most definitely worth investigating.
12, the manner in which I treat truth does not validate it. We claim to believe a lot of things as Christians that we don’t practice as we should.
13, as long as the gospel is not compromised then this is a resounding YES.
These are my initial thoughts, not final answers. Ought to be an interesting discussion.
By Scott on Apr 30, 2007 | Reply
Len, I do agree with you that Jesus teaches the idea of a hell. But what that means is another story. As I pointed out earlier the use of the word Gehenna was a literal place.
The idea of the afterlife was something that the Jewish people did not hold from the beginning. And so the historical aspect of eternal life in context of the Jewish people is important as well.
By len on Apr 30, 2007 | Reply
In Luke 16 and Matthew 25 Jesus does not use gehenna. Luke 16:23 Jesus says, “And being in torment in Hades…..” Matthew 25:41 Jesus says, “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels…” And in 25:46, “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.”
I understand that context is important. And we need to know the history of the Jewish thought on the afterlife. But when we talked about non-violence it didn’t matter what the Jewish thought had been for centuries. The fact that they had annihilated other nations is not our focus. Our focus is the life and teaching of Jesus. What mattered is that Jesus came in and spoke, as well as lived, the truth.
By Scott on Apr 30, 2007 | Reply
I agree, but Jesus spoke in context as well.
I was not trying to indicate that Jesus was using the word Gehenna in the two passages you mentioned. Sorry for the confusion.
I do believe the use of the word “everlasting” in both of those passages is a mistranslation, however.
By Jeff B. on Apr 30, 2007 | Reply
Anyone who doesn’t think hell exists should try being a Dallas Mavericks fan right about now.
By Jeff B. on Apr 30, 2007 | Reply
Seriously, though, I think this is going to be a very good discussion. I’ve been wanting to re-examine these things for a while. My initial thoughts:
1. Yes (see Len’s comments)
2. Don’t know. Would it change the way I live my life if it was punishment for limited duration vs. eternal duration? I don’t think so.
3. Lack of/loss of the atoning sacrifice
4. Perhaps God allows our lives to end when He knows that we have had ample time for spiritual rehabilitation in this life. AND/OR, who are we to question God on his parenting skills? The fact that I don’t understand it doesn’t make it untrue (like the trinity).
5. Always, without fail.
6. I think he was some Bishop. I don’t know where he fits into this discussion. And maybe he was a Republican.
7. I don’t think I’m in the position to approve/excuse God for anything. His being defines goodness. I simply acknowledge and submit.
8. By reminding them that He has provided salvation to us by His grace and love. Every breath we take is evidence of his love. 100% of us have earned whatever punishment God sees fit to administer. That we are not being punished now proves his love. That many will not be punished in the afterlife proves his love.
9. Yes
10. Probably
11. Don’t know. Building off of this question we should ask, What has the historic church believed?
12. Once again, in my mind, I think that my life and devotion to Christ will be unaltered regardless of whether I think the punishment is bad but temporary or eternal. So my taking seriously the idea of punishment is a matter of faith, not a matter of fully understanding the nature of that punishment.
13. Absolutely.
By Scott on Apr 30, 2007 | Reply
Nice thoughts, Jeff. I’m less concerned, though, if it would change the way we live our lives but if it would change the way we view God. More importantly, if it would change the way the world views God. And if would address some inconsistencies in our message.
I encourage us to try to enter this conversation afresh with less of a reliance on pat answers. It’s difficult but there is an Augustinian reliance on a doctrine of eternal punishment that might not jibe with a full understanding of scripture.
Maybe, maybe not. We shall see.
By terri on Apr 30, 2007 | Reply
I can only think of one thing at a time - all these questions make my head hurt. As I understand it, no matter what form or fashion hell takes on, God won’t be there and I don’t want to be anywhere God isn’t.
By KS on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Too many questions… I can’t even begin to understand most of them, but isn’t that another “God is God and I am not” type of thing. I do believe their is a hell, I do believe God punishes people (see entire OT), but am not sure to what extent. Jesus quotes about “everlasting fire” seem to point to a pretty long lasting punishment.
My question would be more along the lines of how we would be judged in the end (those who knew and rejected vs. those with no knowledge. And if there was no punishment, why would we have scriptures where we are told that wide is the road to destruction.
By len on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Scott, I am interested in hearing why you think “everlasting/eternal” is a mistranslation in these passages. The word used is “aionion” and is pretty much translated eternal throughout the NT. Vine states that the word “describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; or undefined because endless as in Romans 16:26, and the other sixty-six places in the N.T.”
In Matthew 25:46 it is used to describe both the punishment for the wicked and the life for the eternal. It would be pretty selective interpretation to say that the same word used a half dozen spots apart means something totally different.
By Scott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
First off, let me re-iterate. I believe there is a hell. I don’t deny it’s existence. Therefore, my answer to the first question is a resounding yes.
But I wrestle with the implications of that. That word “aion” most closely lines up with our “eon” If you look at the Jewish belief that time consisted of two periods: this age and the age to come then you can see the translation bear itself out as “age-abiding.”
I want to get into this deeper in a subsequent post. However, Young’s concordance always translates it as “age” and never “eternal.”
The Hebraic counterpart for “aion” is “olam” which cannot be interpreted as meaning “eternal.” There are countless passages in the NT where aion is used that cannot mean everlasting. In those cases I believe they are rightfully interpreted as “age.”
In regards to Matthew 25:46 it’s not selective interpretation. Much of the understanding has to do with the subject that the word refers to, but more importantly is the understanding that the Matthew 25 passage is not the sole one to go to in understanding of life in heaven.
By len on May 1, 2007 | Reply
“There are countless passages in the NT where aion is used that cannot mean everlasting.” So you are saying there is a limitless supply of times that the word does not mean without end?!
Never said that Matthew 25 was the only source to go to. I used it because it is a reference of Jesus to final judgment and the specific destination of 2 groups of people. One ends in torment and punishment. One ends in life. The same word is used to describe life and punishment. Are you saying that Jesus is not teaching eternal life for the blessed in this particular passage?
I can accept that the punishment of the wicked in hell is limited in time. But at least as a place the Word seems to indicate to me that it exists forever.
The earliest church reference I have found so far is from Theodore of Antioch who said this about 2 Thess. 1:9: “Indeed the punishment of those wicked who have died is completed in a reality that transcends time itself and is forever.” I’ll save Scott the time and point out that this was written around 400 AD, post Constantine, therefore can have no bearing whatsoever on our discussion.
By Scott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
I don’t think we can hitch our wagon to the belief that the saved experience eternal life solely from the Matthew 25 passage.
I think, ultimately, what will have to come into play here is a more consistent hermeneutic of these words. We use words like “all” very inconsistently.
Of course, there are those writers who capture these ideas far better than I do. Thomas Talbott most namely.
By justin on May 1, 2007 | Reply
If you believe in hell, you have to believe in progressive revelation. I’m not sure that some of you want to go there *coughslaveswomenhomosexualscough*
Is it possible that Jesus was using hyperbole? I mean, Hades is part of greek mythology, gehenna was an actual place. If hell is real, it was introduced by the zoarastrians or the greeks. The whole idea of dualism didn’t enter the jewish theology until the exile.
I tend to view Jesus’s statements on hell as being a warning, especially to the jews, about rejecting the kingdom of God. Their earthly kingdom was about to come to a screeching halt (AD 70) and Jesus knew it. He tried to warn them in the most dire way he knew, that they must enter into the kingdom of God, because their old religion and worldview was about to go to hell (or gehenna) in a handbasket.
As a matter of fact, I bet after the seige of Jerusalem, a lot of citizens of palestine ended up in Gehenna. Quite literally.
That, combined with the 70 x 7 forgiveness thing, which basically says to us we should never stop forgiving people, and the fact that I cannot wrap my mind around how it is just to punish someone eternally for sin that was finite…
By len on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Here are some early church thoughts:
Ignatius of Antioch, approx. 117 AD, in his letter To The Ephesians: “Such a one shall go in his foulness to the unquenchable fire.” In his Epistle To Diognetus, AD 138, “..when you fear the death which is real, which is kept for those that shall be condemned to the everlasting fire, which shall punish up to the end those that were delivered to it.”
From 2 Clement, AD 150: “Nothing shall rescue us from eternal punishment, if we neglect his commandments.” And this one: “…those who have done amiss, and denied Jesus by word or deed, are punished with terrible torture in the unquenchable fire.”
From the Martyrdom of Polycarp, approx. AD 160: “And the fire of their cruel torturers had no heat for them, for the set before their eyes an escape from the fire which is everlasting and is never quenched.” And this one, “You threaten with the fire that burns for a time, and is quickly quenched, for you do not know the fire which awaits the wicked in the judgment to come and in everlasting punishment.”
By Scott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
You are way ahead of me Len. I will make the case that the consensus of the early church was toward a universal reconciliation.
Clement, who you name for example, believed that God’s love was active everywhere up to and including hell.
Origen believed that God would reconcile everyone, including Satan.
By justin on May 1, 2007 | Reply
More early church thoughts
I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna, are scourged by the scourge of love. Nay, what is so bitter and vehement as the torment of love?…It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God…it torments sinners…Thus I say that this is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret. —St. Isaac of Syria, Ascetical Homilies 28, Page 141
According to that, hell is not allowing the Holy Spirit to transform you, and then when you are in the presence of God, it becomes torment. I assume like “by doing good to him you will heap burning coals on his head”