Does God love people in hell?

[Homer]

Earlier I had written:

Jacob would not change his Mind and neither will God

.

I should have said Isaac instead of Jacob.

To me the warning in Hebrews 12:17 is obvious. The writer of Hebrews is concerned about apostasy, and repeatedly warns of the consequences:

Hebrews 10:26-31 (NASB)

26. For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27. but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30. For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Hebrews 10:39 (NASB)

39. But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

Hebrews 12:29 (NASB)

29. for our God is a consuming fire.


On 12:17 Adam Clarke comments:

Nothing spoken here by the apostle , nor in the history of Genesis to which he refers, concerns the eternal state of the two brothers. The use made of the transaction buy the apostle is of great importance: take head lest, by apostatizing from the gospel, you forfeit all right and title to the heavenly birthright, and never again be able to retrieve it; because they who reject the gospel reject the only means of salvation.

The meaning is not difficult to understand. As with Esau, those who reject the gospel will, at some point, forfeit any opportunity, their situation fixed and fatal, whether in this life or at death. I believe God will always accept repentance in this life, but, even prior to death, a person may become so hardened that for all practical purposes his situation is hopeless.

[steve]

Your last line is quite true. In fact, the first quoted line from Adam Clarke is also true, namely, that nothing is said of eternal destinies of Jacob or Esau—either in the Genesis story nor in the New Testament. To leap from Esau's loss to eternal matters is a preacher's trick, not an exegetical procedure. The writer of Hebrews does not do this.

To point out the danger of apostasy in Hebrews 10 (or in several other chapters of Hebrews) does little to determine the meaning of a statement in chapter 12 that has its own context. The entirety of chapter 11, having no direct reference to apostasy, lies between the two passages. It seems plain enough that Hebrews 12:16-17 is a warning against fornication and carnality generally (as in 13:4), and specifically about falling back into Jewish ritualism.

The fact that committing fornication is not necessarily an unforgivable sin would indicate that the author is not describing final apostasy and eternally irreversible damnation, as you seem to suggest he is.

Since the writer does not bring up an example that is known to have had any impact on eternal destiny, he could hardly expect his reader to divine that he has that specific subject in view. Why bring heaven and hell into a passage that has nothing to say, directly, about them? The context of the mention of Esau is in the exhortation to holiness and endurance of chastening. The judgment threatened in vv.25-29 is not about hell, but about AD 70, in my opinion. At least that seems to be the looming crisis repeatedly alluded to throughout the book (e.g., 2:2-3; 8:13; 10:26-30, 37-38; 13:13-14).

[Homer]

Steve,

You wrote:

Since the writer does not bring up an example that is known to have had any impact on eternal destiny, he could hardly expect his reader to divine that he has that specific subject in view.

But in v.14, which is certainly in the context, we find:

Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.

Is it your thinking that sanctification does not have an impact on eternal destiny? That Esau is not an example of an unsanctified person? We do not need to formally renounce Christ as Lord or turn to another religion such as Judaism to commit apostasy. We can deny Jesus as Lord simply by the way we live:

Titus 1:15-16 (NASB)

15. To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. 16. They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.


We deny Him long enough, time runs out, and as with Esau its too late. If that is not the point made with the example of Esau, then the reference to Esau is meaningless.

[steve]

You read far more into a passage than I am willing to do. Esau, as far as we know, may have repented and gone to heaven. What he lost was his birthright, which was related to his earthly usefulness in being the branch of Abraham's family through whom Messiah would come. We read nothing of his salvation or damnation.

I wrote:

Since the writer does not bring up an example that is known to have had any impact on eternal destiny, he could hardly expect his reader to divine that he has that specific subject in view.

You wrote:

Is it your thinking that sanctification does not have an impact on eternal destiny? That Esau is not an example of an unsanctified person?

Yes, Esau, in the story alluded to, was an excellent example of an unsanctified person—one not to be imitated. However, selling his birthright for a bowl of pottage was not his final act in life. He did forfeit a great deal, but not necessarily his salvation.

We must be holy if we would see the Lord. This is a good reason not to fornicate or do anything else inconsistent with holiness. However, the writer is not viewing fornication or other carnal actions as unpardonable sins. Therefore, he is not saying that, if you fornicate, or show yourself to be a carnal man like Esau, you will never have a chance to repent or be saved (which is the point, you will recall, that you are drawing from the passage).

We deny Him long enough, time runs out, and as with Esau its too late.

You are right, but this point is not made in the passage under consideration. If you think it is the unspoken subtext of the author, then we will have to agree to disagree. I think he is drawing a parallel to Esau, which means he is not necessarily discussing eternity (since we do not know, nor does the author say or hint at, anything related to Esau's eternal destiny).

If that is not the point made with the example of Esau, then the reference to Esau is meaningless.

It concerns me when a person says about a contested passage, "If it doesn't mean what I think it means, it can't mean anything at all!"

[Homer]

It concerns me when a person says about a contested passage, "If it doesn't mean what I think it means, it can't mean anything at all!"

OK, please tell me what the reference to Esau means to us, I honestly do not know.

[steve]

Why seek hidden meanings where the obvious is stated:

Fornicators are like Esau—selling away a valuable birthright for a moment's fleshly gratification. As Esau never was able to reverse the consequences of his act (that is, he, like almost everyone else, would never be in the biological lineage of the Messiah), so the fornicator can never undo the damage and loss resulting from his action. Isn't this the plain meaning of the text?

If one never thinks of the consequences of sin except in terms of eternal destinies, he/she is not likely to connect with the thinking of biblical writers, who seldom address such matters. There are many people I know who were fornicators, but who are now Christians. Their fornication did not prevent them from being ultimately saved.

If all we care about is going to heaven, then we might say that these fornicators "got away with it," and escaped negative consequences. If this is so, then the writer of Hebrews was apparently mistaken.

If we value holiness because it is itself a great privilege (Heb.12:10), and desire to live every moment pleasing to God, then sinful actions steal irretrievably from us opportunities to advance in that direction. Like Esau, we can't turn the clock back and do that take over again. There is only one opportunity per moment. An opportunity squandered is never recovered.

[jriccitelli]

I don’t want someone to think I believe Esau (Cain or Ishmael) will not be in heaven, I’m not sure, yet I have a belief they actually will be there. Nor do I want to think I am saying the verse states repentance cannot ever happen regarding Esau’s salvation (repentance was not my point). ‘My point’ was that God is teaching that God does make decisions, they teach us something, He can stick to them, and we should be warned.

Sometimes two patriarchal sons represent the same lesson, Able and Cain, Isaac and Ishmael, Esau and Jacob, one devoted to sin one to God, one after the flesh one of promise. Two sons: two types, but not the realities themselves. I interpret that ‘The Birthright passage’ in Genesis was about decisions, ‘Gods choosing someone’ (I believe God caused Jacob to be blessed). It speaks also of Gods ability to make ‘a decision’ and sticking to it, not just for the afterlife, but all future life. You seem to make a big distinction between the judgments and decisions made in the bible passages and the afterlife. I do not see that our standing with God changes when we die, neither do Gods decisions, judgments, nor do the lessons learned from scripture change in the future or after life. We can repent post –mortem, but there is no more endless opportunity there, than there was here. What we learn from this passage (like so many other lessons learned from all the other passages) will endure forever, even if the heavens and earth disappear.
" Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven" (Psalm 119)
“I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it, and nothing taken from it” (Eccl 3:14)

[steve]

You seem to make a big distinction between the judgments and decisions made in the bible passages and the afterlife.

As a Bible student, I think it only responsible to interpret each passage according to its intent, gleaned from context. I think it right to let the passage speak for itself, and not to add too many speculations about things that it does not state or imply. I assume that passages which speak of temporal things are speaking about temporal things. Passages that speak of eternal things, likewise, are speaking about eternal things. I can think of no hermeneutical policy more commendable than this, in seeking to understand scripture.

I do not see that our standing with God changes when we die, neither do Gods decisions, judgments...

This is my point in this thread. God does not change when a man dies. If He loves a man in that man's lifetime, He also loves him after death. There is another aspect of this comment of yours. If God's judgments and decisions do not change in the afterlife from what they were in this life, then we would have to accept that God forgives repentant sinners then as He does now—since that is the decision and judgment He has made in this life. You admit this, of course, in your next sentence.

We can repent post-mortem, but there is no more endless opportunity there, than there was here.

You are unusual among conditionalists in that you allow for post-mortem repentance. You do place a time limit upon the opportunity, however. Most non-universalists do not allow for post-mortem repentance, complaining that it is not mentioned in scripture. You affirm two things that are not affirmed in scripture: post-mortem repentance and an end of opportunity for post-mortem repentance. Interesting collection of ideas.

[Tigerpaw]

Although "God so loved the world...", hell will not be "the world".

It's not the physical globe that God loves, but the people in it. You say that He will love the people in heaven.... but heaven is not the world (in a physical sense) either.

Hi Paidion, yes I know that it isn't referring to the physical globe, but it is referring to our present life--us humans living now before judgment. Hell is beyond the "point of no return" so to speak, so God's love does not necessarily carry over to that realm for those who did not obey God in this life (see John 14:23). If you die without Christ, I don't see that God has the obligation to continue to love you.

[mattrose]

God's love does not necessarily carry over to that realm for those who did not obey God in this life (see John 14:23). If you die without Christ, I don't see that God has the obligation to continue to love you.

Love is not something God feels obligated to do. God IS love.