Christianity Today’s Leadership Journal published today the third installment of an interview with Brian McLaren on the topic of hell. Brian provides more insight into how he understands the teachings of Jesus, and offers five suggestions for rethinking our traditional understanding of hell.
The interview can be read here.
I think his first two
I think his first two suggestions are essentially stabs at a strawman (who seriously thinks that every time the word ‘judgment’ appears it applies to eternal damnation?). His third seems, ironically, insenstive to the genre of the literary units in question. Consuming Jesus’ flesh in John 6 and being born again (or from above) in chapter 3 is unambiguously figurative or metaphorical language - and the texts themselves bear this out (as evidenced also in the history of interpretation of those passages). However, the ‘literature’ of the synoptics regarding Jesus’ teachings on Gehenna are not so clearly of the same ‘ilk’ (a very technical term, I know). To suggest that the same figurative usage pertains is to beg the question. Fourthly, the suggestion that we consider ‘the possibility’ that such language of judgment and fire be understood, not as postmortem damnation, but as the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 is, theoretically, good and fine. I have personally considered it, and find it untenable. But now who has ‘reduced’ the very ‘metaphorical language’ of Jesus on hell (certainly ‘Gehenna’ itself, as a designation of the place of judgment, is metaphorical or analogical) to a ‘concrete’ reality (i.e., the Roman destruction of the Temple)? Man, how unspiritual of McLaren!
He goes on to say, “Jesus, along with the other apostles too, seems to be much less focused on the post-mortem destiny of individual souls and more focused on the end and rebirth of the Jerusalem/Temple/sacrifice-centered world as they knew it, and on the constitution of a new people of God that includes Gentiles with Jews.”
Whoa. Now, this is a real cheap shot - to pit a concern for individual salvation over and against national rebirth? Talk about false dichotomies! He counterposes as enemies that which are in reality ‘friends’ (i.e., go hand in hand). Jesus was clearly concerned with “the postmortem destiny of individual souls,” as well as the fate of the nation. He came to seek and save the lost sheep of Israel - the strays, the rejects, as well as gather Israel under His wings as a hen does her chicks. Yet the nation would not have it. Israel did not recognize the time of her visitation (Lk.19:41-44). Nevertheless salvation came to (many, individual) sons and daughters of Israel through his earthly ministry (e.g., Lk.19:9). Is their individual salvation then nullifed by 70 AD? [And what’s with all the focus on 70 AD? Wasn’t the Roman retaliation against the Bar Kochba revolt far more devastating to the Jewish nation?]
His summary of Jesus’ ‘focus’ pits one aspect of the Lord’s work against another. He came not to judge men, but to save them. Yet, he came to bring judgment, and set the earth on fire! He came that the wall of partition separating Jew and Gentile might be razed (in his own flesh). Yet he came to divide men, and sever even the bonds of flesh and blood! Similarly, the apostle Paul is both the aroma of life to some, and the stench of death to others, dividing the human race, as it were, into “those who are being saved” and “those who are perishing”. It will not do to reduce the full range of Christ’s work in the world to those aspects we better understand or appreciate, and thereby ‘marginalize’ and suppress other aspects that may be less palatable to our peculiar tastes.
“People should re-read the texts with this possibility in mind. After all, when the Old Testament prophets used apocalyptic language, we know they were referring to historic events – like the attack by Assyria, or the exile in Babylon for example.”
This too is moot. Apocalyptic, predictive prophetic language is often ambiguous (e.g., the remarkable diversity in interpreting Daniel’s visions), and one would be bold indeed to insist that its references are entirely circumscribed by the historical horizons of the exile(s), restoration(s) under Medo-Persian rule, and Alexander’s conquest of the known world of antiquity (in Daniel and Zechariah in particular). Case in point, Daniel’s ‘abomination of desolation’ - apparently fulfilled by the sacrilege of Antiochus Epiphanes, and yet, apparently not, according to Jesus’ teaching in the Olivet Discourse. What then? A double fulfillment? Historical adumbration of the eschatological? Etc.
Fifthly, …what’s his point exactly? I suppose he is suggesting that the orthodox doctrine of eternal judgment fails to do justice to God’s character. Well, this argument is hardly new. I confess that I too wrestle with the difficult doctrine of hell (what calloused soul hasn’t?). Yet, I suppose I see it as one of those ‘thorns in the flesh’, theologically speaking, reminding me that God’s justice is both terrible and wonderful beyond my limited grasp of ‘what is fair’ (just as His grace is always scandelous, even as I attempt to domesticate it, making it ‘fair’, cf. Mt.20:13). It is a hard, awkward, embarrassing doctrine that reminds me that His ways are indeed not mine. I don’t know that it’s necessarily a bad thing that we, fallen sinners as we yet are, find our God ‘offensive’ at times - disturbing us, and causing us to wonder, wrestle, and even to question. I’d be far more concerned with a theology that has made God perfectly ‘at home’ in our intellectual and theological landscape (a domesticated god). Rather, let God be true, and every man a liar!
Mclaren's Hell
I really like what you have to say. May I post your comments on my site: www.azusapacificalumni.com ?
Fourth, we should
Fourth, we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell.
Wait a minute. Did I hear him correctly? “Perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire comments… refert not to postmortem judgement” but rather very “historic” consequences.
How this is speaking about earthly consequences is beyond me, but my point here is not to dissect the numerous passages that fly in the face of Brian’s perspective.
I’m simply not sure where the disconnect is here. Lets look at this as simply as we can. Brian looks at the Bible from his perspective, with all his research, his understanding of biblical literary motifs etc and he arives at the above statement. Maybe ALL of Jesus’ comments about hell refer not to what happens afetr death, but what happens to us here on earth? I’m tempted to freak out loud about the implications of such a statement. Particualrly fro the faithful Christians in Sudan who end up suffering something nearly as bad as hell despite their faithfulness etc, but I won’t. I think you get my point. But Brian’s misses something so utterly obvious when we are attempting to understand the context of the NT langauge. Where does the perspective of the earliest Fathers come into play in this? I can only assume from his comments that they are entirely irrelevant. None of the Fathers saw it the way that Brian does and yet this factor seems to not even affect him. It is as if he is entirely ignorant of the beliefs of the Fathers on such issues. But I don’t believe that he is. He isn’t dumb. And thus I have to question more than just his hermeneutic. But doing so out loud would be the ultimate heresy in the Emergent universe.
Clement was alive and serving the Church during the apostolic age. His letters almost made it into the canon. So let me ask you this very importatn question: Who is better equipped to understand and speak about hell; Brian Mclaren or Clement?
“But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory to their God saying, ‘There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart!’” (ibid., 17:7).
What about Justin Martyr?
“No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments” (First Apology 12 [A.D. 151]).
Please focus on his next words, “We have been taught” By who? By the Apostolic Tradition.
Polycarp was a disciple of John, the one who was all mushy about love and so forth. Who would understand the Apostolic NT understanding of hell better; Mclaren or Polycarp?
So again, I have to ask, has the heck is Brian thinking teaching this rubbish? Is not teaching that which is unorthodox the worst form of bad orthopraxy? Has he not heard of the verse that says that those who presume to teach will incur a harsher judgement?
Inferno
McLaren’s discussion on hell isn’t unique to the emerging church; the debate has been going on much longer than that. Is belief in a doctrine of eternal suffering a necessary mark of correct scriptural belief and doctrinal orthodoxy?
Discussions on hell on this site seem to be driven by a variety of agendas. It does strike me that ‘hell’, as it has come to be understood, isn’t a developed doctrine in the NT (or OT), so I think some latitude of interpretation is permissible.
Matthew 10:28, which Joel cites above, employs the more commonly used reference to hell as the valley of Hinnom, instead of the less commonly used Hades, and in this particular instance might equally be taken as an argument for annihilationism (or, for that matter, the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70).
The annihilationist debate revolves around what, precisely, is meant by ‘destruction’ and ‘eternal punishment’. Despite the church fathers, it seems valid to me to ask whether ‘eternal punishment’ is the same as ‘eternal suffering’, and also to propose that eternal loss might be equivalent to eternal punishment. Those who adhere to the view of hell as eternal suffering argue that annihilationism is an escape from punishment. I’m personally not convinced, but can see that this is a major obstacle to the view becoming main-line orthodox opinion.
But isn’t it interesting that Jesus, from whom our understanding of hell is primarily derived, does not use it in the generalised way which has become the historic belief of the church, but as a judgement on those whose understanding of the scriptures was greatest - the Pharisees, and a warning to those who had the greatest light - his own followers?
Sorry, Peter, I didn't see
Sorry, Peter, I didn’t see your comment when I posted. I’m more or less in agreement with you over Matt. 10:28 but have a rather different take on ‘eternal’.
Destroying body and soul in hell
Joel, please note that Brian’s statement is tentative: ‘we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all… fulfill much of what…’.
With regard to Matt. 10:28, my argument in COSM is that this forms part of Jesus’ warning to his disciples as they go about preaching the message of the kingdom throughout the towns and villages of Israel. Keep in mind the historical context. They will face violent opposition, but they are not to be afraid, for they will be vindicated at the coming of the Son of man (Matt. 10:32). Jesus uses the dualistic language of body and soul here to speak of the difference between their fate and the fate of apostate Israel. Obedience will lead to vindication and life; disobedience will lead to destruction (AD 70) without any prospect of sharing in the life of the age which has now come (ie. the age of the Spirit).
Again for Israel this is to be conceived historically - ‘gehenna’ (not ‘hell’) is an image of judgment on Jerusalem through military destruction (Jer. 19:6-7). In biblical thought aiÅnios does not mean ‘eternal’ in the sense of ‘continuing forever beyond death’. It means something like ‘of the age’ or ‘continuing for the duration of the age’. Jesus is talking about the difficult transition from second temple Judaism to the renewed people of God in the Spirit - the birthpains of the new age.
In the case of the disciples, I think Jesus is talking about a postmortem reward for their faithfulness - they will share in the life of the age to come through resurrection to the right hand of God (ie. in heaven), and they will reign with Christ until all his enemies have been destroyed, including death. This hope is relevant for the early church insofar as it constitutes the Son of man community that suffers persecution from a satanicly inspired pagan oppressor. But it is specifically a hope for the oppressed, martyr community, which will share in Christ’s vindication at his parousia; it is not a universal paradigm.
I’m not sure how well the early church fathers understood this, but I would place them nevertheless within the same eschatological framework: they look forward to vindication and an end to suffering (Clement’s ‘rest’) and to judgment on a regime and society (Rome) that is idolatrous, wicked, and hostile to YHWH and his people (Clement’s ‘punishment of the age’).
Bangin' my head
Okay, I’m not banging my head against the wall. Those loud thuds are my pulse.
To repeat the main point of my post: The Fathers, including the very earliest of all of the Fathers, taught something entirely opposite to what you guys and Brian are reading here. Does anyone see the relevance of this point? Why is it avoided? My question is: To what degree do should the undertadning of the Fathers matter when trying to understand contextaully the apostolic (NT authors) understanding of hell? Again just to reiterate: Clement was alive, and ministering during the apostolic period. Yet you guys seem to explain your interpretations of the one verse that I mentioned not tentativley but as if it is a forgone conclusion. Yet who is better equipped to undertand contextually how hell was understood by the NT authors, Clement or you? Polycarp or you? Justin or You?
Again just in case there is any misundertanding as to what these guys believed:
Clement says that those “who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire”
Justin says that “We (the early Orthodox Church) have been taught (by the apostolic Tradition)…” that “the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility (ie. they will maintain their senses), he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons”
What I am asking for is a serious long-term discussion of what should be the proper place of the early Fathers as we attempt to discuss the NT/apostolic context. All of the heretics used the scriptures to promote their own doctrines. But The Holy Spirit used the Fathers and the councils to refute these doctrines. We use the canon that they decided on, yet we brush them aside when attempting to interpret passages or concepts from out of the very canon that they have given us.
. . . against the wall
I didn’t realise - you wanted a serious long-term discussion of the place of the Fathers in an understanding of hell. At the same time Joel, are you willing to engage with points of view other than the Fathers (or your own)? Like the ones mentioned in my post?
You haven’t stumbled across a viper’s nest of heresy in this site which needs to be stamped on. Many of the ideas being exchanged here are tentative, exploratory, and not absolute.
In the meantime - some questions:
Can you quote the Fathers on Matthew 10:28? (My own suggested interpretation was tentative: I was making a point which questioned your own “foregone conclusion”).
Where have I denied Jesus “in word or deed” in the previous comment, so that I am destined for “terrible torture in unquenchable fire”? (I am simply trying to point to what Jesus actually said, and how he said it).
The Fathers may have been guided by the Spirit in much of what they said, but they never claimed canonical status, nor did they decide on the canon. I am certainly not brushing them aside, as you suggest.
If you look carefully, you will see that I am not saying the same as Andrew (or Brian McLaren), nor is Andrew saying the same as me. Why not take another look at my comment?
Angles
There seems to be a marked tension between Joel’s more-or-less orthodox view of things and Andrew’s rather radical preterism, and I think we need to be very cautious that this site does not become a forum for DEBATE. What happened on the whole End of Days debate for the last week or two is going to happen in this debate as well.
There is a vital difference between open discussion and debate. The thesis of this site is to have a forum where we can consider one another’s views on things, regardless of the degree to which they vary from a known standard of theological propriety. I’m not the administrator of this site or anything, but I would caution everyone involved to make sure that their posts are phrased for discussion and not for “end of story!” arguments. None of us have the market on absolute truth and interpretation is just that interpretation.
While I believe whole-heartedly that there is an actual place called the lake of fire where the wicked will be condemned for all eternity (a position that Andrew probably takes issue with based on what I have read of his various but consistent arguments for his interpretative scheme), I would never dream of trying to dissuade the others on this forum by force or even by logic. Both are the bastions of modernism, and they nearly destroyed the post-Enlightenment church. Instead, let’s try to dialogue here. There’s no reason to get angry.
Joel, I think you and I probably agree on a number of things. As I’ve read your posts, I found little I would disagree on. Certainly, it is frustrated when other reasonable, intellectual people do not agree with you, but if you let it get under your skin, you only weaken your own arguments. Only those who are not confident of what they are saying shout.
I"M CALM!! I'M CALM!!
I”M CALM!! I’M CALM!! ALRIGHT! Anybody else want a piece of me??
Okay. Maybe I overdid it with my pulse-pounding intro. I’m not really upset at all. And I’m fine with people disagreeing with me. Most of my time for the past several years has been spent dialoguing with Muslims. But I do get aggravated by people far more intelligent than me talking circles around the obvious. Frustrated would be the best descriptive. But despite my hardened East Coast exterior, I’m pretty easy-going. I also happen to be the type of person that learns the most when he argues. What so many see as negative vibes, I simply see as iron sharpening iron. But I also understand that most post-modern urbanite metro-sexual post-evangelicals are not this way. Just kidding. One hand should not say to the other… I get it.
Also when I say “a long-term discussion”, I’m not neccessarily saying that it needs to take plac here and now, but in general in the Emergent Church. The typical protestant brush-aside of the Fathers is no longer feasible. To ignore the Fathers with a simple, “well they were not canonical” is no longer intellectually possible. While the Fathers are not infallible, this fact is actually entirely irrelivant. When trying to get back to the early church, where various issues and discussions were hashed out as today, the writings of these men record what was the Apostolic consensus of the earliest church. If we discount the clear things that these men believed fairly universally, and instead only focus on our word studies and so forth, we have completely decieved ourselves. While they may not be canonical, they are still the context of the early Church! And if any of us presume to be teachers, teaching others our preliminary conclusions, which we ourselves are entirely unsure of, then we are indeed in danger. They say that the size of a man is based on the size of the things that cause him to become angry. St. Nicholaus, infuriated, walked up to Arius and slugged him in the face. Over doctrine. After he was dismissed from the council for such, a few of the men reported that they had dreams where Mary or Christ appeared to them and explained that Nicholaus was right to be furious at Arius. His zeal was from the Lord. Now, I’m NOT trying to encourage hitting each other, but maybe we have sold ourselves short with all of the easy “I wouldn’t want to impose my opinions onto anyone” nicey nice stuff. Mens souls hang in the balance. Some thing are worth getting passionate about. Debate is the stuff that any progressive society is built on. If this is not the place, that’s fine, but it must take place somewhere.
Is it true that "None of us have the market on absolute truth"?
“I would never dream of trying to dissuade the others on this forum by force or even by logic.” And yet isn’t that what you have just done?
Thanks for the chuckle Angles.
How So?
I state my positions and lay them out for others to understand and discuss. I have not, to my knowledge, ever posted something with the purpose of persuading people to adopt my stance. I was under the impression that the concept of “Open Source” implied that we presented elements and then developed them.
Interjection
While I am very late to join this discussion, it seems to me that the heat and dust over the interpretations of the Fathers really mirrors something more fundamental. Has anyone noticed that most “scholars” interpret by unpacking the meaning of texts in the context of form-redaction-whatever critical thought? Methodologically, this often involves deciding beforehand on which was prior (in the development of the theology) and based on the reconstruction, then we can unpack the “original intention of the author”.
I apologise if this is getting off the track of the original discussion but just wondered whether the variety of methodology may not be contributing a fair amount to the apparently divergent views…
Live to serve : Serve to live
There seems to be a marked
There seems to be a marked tension between Joel’s more-or-less orthodox view of things and Andrew’s rather radical preterism.
I know Andrew needs no defense, especially from me, but I do find it ironic that while you advise Joel on how to carry out conversations here, you use words like “orthodox” and “radical” to describe things you agree and disagree with.
Don’t you think that’s a bit ironic? :)
And if you think Andrew is “radical” I have news for you. Talk to Brian about this, or me, or others who are involved with Emergent.
I Fail to See Your Point
Joel is more-or-less orthodox and Andrew is a radical preterist from Joel’s point of view. And there does seem to be a tension in their discussion.
I’m afraid that I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
Joel, you are quoting the
Joel, you are quoting the fathers to prove your point. I think that is one approach. But my question is how you actually understand quotations: ‘punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire’ ‘the eternal sentence of fire’ ‘will be punished in everlasting fire’ ‘he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons’ My question is: do you believe in an actual fire as in fire? if not, and if you therefore apply metaphorical meaning into it, then why do you not accept others doing so?
Paul,Metaphores are used
Paul,
Metaphors are used to help us understand that which we might not easy otherwise. Generally they describe suffering etc with words like fire outer darkness, torment etc, but metaphor does not use eternal to describe for instance a long week, or toment to describe ceasing to exist.
I believe that Hell is both consious and eternal:
“If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be TORMENTED with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their TORMENT rises FOREVER and EVER. There is NO REST day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.”
Beyond those two issues of consciousness and eternality,we know nothing. No one likes the concept of hell, but at times we must simply believe what the Bible and the Church teaches (via the apostolic tradition) and trust in God’s fairness and goodness etc. When the saints are all i heaven in the Book of Rev. after the final judgements, they sing of his justice and fairness and goodness. I will also do so now. And I do not need to reject certain portions of the Christian faith to do so. Embracing mysteries is part of our faith. Mclaren seems to be atking the approach that since his brain and heart cannot reconcile hell with a perfectly good God, that he must deconstuct the Biblical passages that speak of hell and then ignore the apsotolic tradition that bears witness to this reality. We know that the Bible uses both metaphores and descriptives to give us an idea of things that are difficult to grasp. Outer darkness, fire, weeping, bitter regret etc are all used. They seem to conflict though there is a theme. What Hell is we do not really know. Who will go there, I do not know. I know that I will not be there by the grace of Him who loved me. Despite my utter sinfullness and perpetual shmuckishness. We do know that anihilationism (those souls who do not go to heaven cease to exist) or universalism (everyone eventually goes to heaven) is not Orthodox according to the apostolic tradition and needs to be rejected. We need to embrace Orthodoxy and trust God. Anything beyond this is pride.
Revelation 14:9-11
Joel - You could have simply quoted Revelation 14:9-11 and pointed out what are to you the features of the passage which suggest that hell is a post mortem punishment following judgement which entails conscious suffering for eternity.
I’d like to point out some further features of the passage.
First hell (gehenna/hades) is not mentioned here. The features of the passage may relate it to descriptions of hell elsewhere, but hell as a place of eternal punishment is not explicitly mentioned or developed.
Second, the day of judgement is not mentioned here. Again, you can say the passage contains the features of punishment following judgement - but these ideas are not explicitly developed.
What can be said with certainty about the passage?
Those who worship the beast will experience God’s anger - described in the severest of terms.
The torment of God’s anger is said to take place not in hell (gehenna or hades), but “in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb”.
The ‘eternal’ consequence of God’s anger is described as “the smoke of their torment”. This could infer consciousness of torment, but the metaphor does not dictate that this is the meaning. It could equally refer to destruction following torment.
That there may be conscious torment for eternity could be inferred from “they have no rest day or night” - but at this point we need to consider how metaphor works in Revelation as a whole, and apply that to our exegesis here. Rarely if ever are we encouraged to take a detailed point by point correspondence between metaphor and referent in Revelation. If this were the case, we would encounter some challenging ideas about how ‘the angels’ and ‘the Lamb’ will be spending their time in eternity. Usually the writer is aiming for dramatic effect rather than detailed meaning - here, describing the almost undescribable - the moment when those who have opposed a holy God face his anger, and receive irreversible destruction.
The annihilationist position does not jettison the horror of facing an angry God and his judgement, but makes some distinctions about how that judgement is dispensed for those who incur it. The position deserves to be heard and weighed. To weigh means to give careful consideration, not reject out of hand. All are agreed that the day of judgement will be a terrible day for those who have rejected God and his purposes.
I would again point back to the striking feature of Jesus’s teaching on hell, which is that it was directed at two groups of people: those who had the greatest understanding of the scriptures, but the least understanding of God - ie the Pharisees, and those who had the greatest light about God and were warned of the consequences of rejecting that light - ie the disciples.
Peter, I would love to
Peter,
I would love to believe in annihilationism. I really would. But after openly an honestly hearing the best apologetics for such, my mind and conscience simply does not allow me to do so.
The explanation that you offered (to me) felt like stretching. Of course Peter we must attempt to do our best to appreicate all of the various linguistic elements of any passage and not end up abusing a passage with hyper-literalism, but I think in the end, at least in this case, we are still left with the verse staring back at us with a reather disaapproving look on its face. For me, to interpret this passage to be indicating annihilationism requires a measure of wishful thinking. Again, this is just how I see it. I’m fine with you feeling otherwise. So long as you do not disregard other references by men who were taught directly by the apostles, who and lived and ministered with them. Thus while the annihilationist may attempt to deconstruct this or other passages, they also need to face up to other such clear comments by leaders of the church such as Clement’s: “who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire” etc. etc. etc.
Bless you
Revelation 14:9-11
I don’t think Revelation 14:9-11 argues for annihilationism either; it argues for punishment of the wicked - and with a highly disapproving look on its face. I’m simply saying that it may not be as good a proof-text for a biblical doctrine of conscious eternal torment as it first appears.
I’m very happy to consider the views of the church fathers, with which you seem better acquainted than I. My reading of some of the literature brings a mixed response - helping me to see why they were not accepted by the church as having the same authority as the canon. They were also clearly wrong in some of their assumptions - such as the belief in an imminent return of Jesus to Jerusalem to set up a millennial kingdom. (I wonder whether Paul’s silence on this subject - millennial kingdom in Jerusalem - might be connected with the greater freedom he seemed to have than they to take the gospel into all the world?)
I’m not a preterist, futurist, historicist, continuous-historicist, or idealist. Maybe a mixture of some or all of these. Deuteronomy 18:11 forbids me from being a spiritualist.
Spiritualist
LOL : )
Also whatever you do, do not take a necromancer approach to the book of Revelation.
“The Fathers” entails a whole world and are certainly a mixed bag. I fully agree with you. Its interesting that the Jews have the Talmud to help them understand the Torah. The Muslims have the Hadith to help them understand the Quran. The Christian Church (especially the reformers) has always had the Fathers to help them understand the Bible, but for some reason the Protestants think that the Christian bookstore is plenty sufficient.
Hi there, just found this
Hi there, just found this thread.
When quoting the Church fathers regarding this subject, especially Clement…. you should be aware that many of them were Universalists. Clement often talked about the fires of hell, but believed they were purgatorial .
It should also be noted
It should also be noted that “eternal fire” or “unquenchable flames” doesn’t actually mean a punishment that goes on forever and ever. For example, it was an “eternal fire” that destroyed Sodom and Gommorah. Is it still burning? No, clearly not. Some things are eternal in a causal sense, not a plain literal sense.
Here are a couple of texts about the views of the early Church fathers.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/EarlyChristianView.html
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html
of course!
thank you for this! http://www.tentmaker.org/books/EarlyChristianView.html (Hannah Whitall Smith, author of The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life. and The Unselfishness of God and How I Discovered It, a Spiritual Autobiography. )
i feel as though i could have written her story in this quote. but i thought no one else INSIDE the church thought such things or saw this in scripture or in the character of god. i had nearly given up hope until i stumbled across this site. perhaps now i can rest again in the hope of god. but why is this perspective not embraced? why not preached? think of our capacity to love and cherish all mankind in view of what christ accomplished once for all?
thank you
all of you.
Re: thank you
hi everyone….good discussion. This reminds me of why I am a historian and not a theologian. I am just comforted to know that reasonable, intelligent and spiritual people can have a variety of opinions on this subject and still be godly Christians. I don’t feel any need to figure it out in detail… I am sure God has worked out something regarding hell that will make a lot of sense when we get over there.
blessings
Joseph Holbrook
Re: thank you
I also think it is important to note, as Andrew briefly pointed out, that many of the words translated as “eternal” and “forever” did not carry such meanings in the original Greek. Indeed, the words can express long extensive amounts of time, but I do not think the words can express time that has no end; and even if the words are capable of expressing such endlessness, it is extremely context dependent.
For example, Rev 14:11, “for ever and ever” (KJV), is translated from the Greek eis aiwnas aiwnwn, eis meaning into, and aiwnas and aiwnwn both being plural forms of aiwn (age), meaning “ages,” thus a literal translation: “into ages [of] ages.” Now I’m no Greek scholar, but I know how to read Interlinear translations and use dictionaries. This would be similar to saying today, “It took ages to finish my essay” or more literally “it has been ages since Jesus’ ascension.” In other words, it represents an indefinitely, limited, with both beginning and end, long time.
Additionally, the adjective form of aiwn translated “eternal” in reference to “eternal life” and “everlasting punishment” merely means “pertaining to the age” or “age-enduring.” People argue that the “eternal life” Christ offered must mean “eternal” because the resurrected never die; yet, Christ seems to be using the word in reference to the particular age (the 1000 years) in which the persecuted of Christ reign with Christ in Heaven over Earth.
There is, as it seems, a Greek word that represents eternity, yet it is used only one time in the Bible. The word is adios, and is used in the following verse:
“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting [adios] chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day” (Jud 1:6).
We must ask ourselves, if there indeed existed a Greek word that unambiguously represented eternity, then why do our New Testament authors not use this word?
Interpreting phrases such as “for ever and ever” as “ages of the ages” is compatible with both Universal Salvation and annihilationism, in my opinion. You could say that the unrepentant are tormented for a finite amount of time (ages of the ages) and then destroyed; you could say they are immediately destroyed and “ages of the ages” represents the long amount of time the sign of their destruction remains (the signs of destruction remain as a sign to the believers of what befalls disbelievers, in the same way that Sodom and Gomorrah was set forth as an example); and you can say they are tormented for a limited amount of time (ages of the ages), for the purpose of correction and purification, and then accepted into New Jerusalem. It is all personal opinion and interpretation. I do not see these Greek words as compatible, however, with the doctrine of eternal torment.
Andrew, please feel to correct me if I am wrong, since you are the scholar here, not I.