Gehenna - Literal or Figurative?

[steve]

Just to clarify where I am misreading your sentiments, let me look again—in smaller pieces, this time—at the comments of yours that I was thus interpreting:

I wonder why Jesus was so serious with his comments. He must have gone crazy! He didn't need to express himself with all of that hyperbole.

This sounds like you are saying: "If Gehenna is, as you suggest, only a reference to what happened to the apostate Jews in AD 70, then the words Jesus used are really uncalled for. That is, such severe language cannot be imagined to be appropriate unless Gehenna refers to post-mortem, eternal, conscious torment."

Is there some other reasonable way to understand the point you are making here?

He shouldn't have been so hard on those Pharisees.

Similar point as above. Doesn't this mean, essentially: "Why would Jesus get so angry at the Pharisees, if the only consequence of their bad influence was that people would reject Christ, deprive God of His glory and die in a hideous holocaust. Why should Jesus give these guys such a hard time over a piddly thing like that? Certainly, nothing short of the prospect of eternal torment could have made Jesus this upset!"

Similarly with Paul. Why was he warning us that we could be cut right out after we'd just been grafted in?

The rhetorical questions throughout this diatribe are all asserting one thing: "If Gehenna does not refer to eternal torment after the judgment, then there is little to be concerned about. Why would Paul think it tragic for one who had followed Christ and been grafted into the olive tree to apostasize and be cut off? If such people will not be slow-cooked for eternity, there really isn't much at stake, is there?"

Jerry, if your rhetoric isn't making these specific points (because rhetorical question are always used to make a point) what was the point of each of these questions?

There's no concern for fearing the second death. Lake of fire, nothing.

I am not sure whose ideas are being mocked in this comment. Is there anyone here who has said the Lake of Fire is not a horrendous fate, worthy to be greatly feared? Or is your point that being thrown into fire would not really be unpleasant, so long as it doesn't go on forever? Is this your point? If not, what is? And if so, do you think it would be a tolerable experience to be burned up in the Twin Towers on 9/11? Most Americans talk as if that was a horrendous fate for those who experienced it. However, it wasn't eternal.

Since in the end we'll all be one big happy family, there's no need to get so intense about these things...John should have reminded us that we all get back together in the end! What was he thinking anyway? Silly guy. Happy thoughts, happy thoughts.

There hardly seems to be any way that you would deny what I took from these remarks:

1. That, so long as God repairs everything in the end, it can't matter how mush damage we do in the meantime;

2. "One big, happy family" is never going to be realized in eternity (because God doesn't want it? or because, even though God wants it, He set up a universe that will inevitably deprive Him of it?);

3. It is a silly person who thinks God capable of bringing about the ends He chooses to bring about...and it is silly to think He will fulfill His stated purposes.

Too bad he didn't have the self-help books we have available today.

You completely lost me on this one. It seems like you must have switched topics without notifying the reader.

So, Jerry, if you think I do not draw your meaning and sentiments correctly from your words, would you please explain these original statements of yours, one-by-one, so as to reveal the actual thoughts that produced them?

[jerry62]

@Steve,
Well certainly this post of yours seems a bit more clear than your last one, although at least in part it does not sound entirely compatible with some of what you said the first time around. Regardless, my statements were to emphasize the seriousness of the warnings that exist in scripture, that in my understanding generally go unaddressed by most in the UR camp. While I wasn't using those generally-stated comments as my formal argument supporting "eternal punishment" in that context, it is true that I certainly do believe that comments Jesus made (to an audience that included Pharisees) do in fact refer to punishment that goes beyond the events that occurred around AD 70. And yes, I believe the scriptures warn about eternal punishment. While Jesus did refer to the destruction that was to come to Israel to his disciples, in warnings Jesus makes, such as the obvious hyperbole in cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin, I don't find compelling arguments that such warnings are merely about AD 70.

Yes, I do not believe that the scriptures imply that we will all be one big happy family, based on the context of many available passages that suggest otherwise. Of course it would be better if we all did not reject God, and we were all seeking to serve Him. And I believe that followers of Christ will in fact be happy together, giving glory to God and experiencing joy in new, amazing ways, but I don't believe there are references that those who experience the second death will have more opportunities to become true followers of Christ.

Now to suggest through my sarcasm that I meant to say ".. it is silly to think He [God] will fulfill His stated purposes." is quite a stretch, let's be honest. I definitely believe that He will fulfill His "stated purposes", but I don't believe that includes the "human understanding" of what it means for all human individuals who ever lived to become "one happy family", especially considering scriptural statements that seem quite contrary to such thinking.

[steve]

I definitely believe that He will fulfill His "stated purposes", but I don't believe that includes the "human understanding" of what it means for all human individuals who ever lived to become "one happy family"

Is this not God's stated purpose? :

...that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. (Eph.1:10)

...that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. (Col.1:19-20)

...that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil.2:10-11)

And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: “ Blessing and honor and glory and power Be to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!” (Rev.5:13)

Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. (Rom.5:18)

I don't know about you, but that sure sounds a lot like one big, happy family to me.

Now, I don't profess to know whether God will meet His goals in this matter, but I would not think it silly to suggest that He might know some way of doing so, of which we are unaware.

Since we all have to use one stream of scriptural testimony to inform our interpretation of more difficult passages, why is it silly to give precedence to those verses that make God out to be infinitely loving, redemptive and victorious over evil, rather than using those few verses which some take to make Him look like a vindictive tyrant to cancel out the rest of scripture? In other words, why not follow Jesus' revelation of the heart of God, rather than that which the Pharisees believed and promoted?

There are far more passages in scripture declaring God''s will to save all people than there are to suggest He will not do so. What we often do is take the four or five verses that sound like they may speak of eternal torment, and use them to sweep away the abundant scriptural evidence that judgment may not last forever, and that God may just be wise and good enough to bring about the happy end that He envisaged when He created the world.

It is difficult to believe that God had an intention in His heart, but that He unnecessarily set up an arrangement that would deliberately thwart His intentions. Even if we allow completely for free will and for just judgment, God could include these in His plan without creating the phenomenon of eternal torment. If He is indeed the author of eternal torment (it could not exist without His having freely created it), then we can only deduce that He wanted it to exist—in which case, He did not wish for everyone to be saved. If so, the Calvinists are quite right, and Paul was apparently indulging in a pipe dream. If He really desired (as He said) that all people would ultimately be rescued, He could easily have arranged for a post-mortem corrective judgment, and left the option open for all to repent, even after death.

I am not saying He has necessarily done this, but I know of no scriptural case against it.

[Homer]

Steve,

That is one strange argument! You had me convinced you are a universalist, then closed by as much as saying "not that I believe any of it".

[steve7150]

Steve,

That is one strange argument! You had me convinced you are a universalist, then closed by as much as saying "not that I believe any of it".







Homer,
I had a different take which was it's a possibility but no guarentees.

[steve]

I have said for years that I see plenty of evidence in favor of universal reconciliation—but possibly more for conditional immortality. I am undecided, because both positions have superior evidence in their favor (biblically, I mean) than has the traditional view.

As I indicated, I think that universal reconciliation would be the view most in harmony with the revealed will of God, and I know of no objections to it that could be raised on evangelical grounds, but there are verses that raise questions in my mind. That is where I stand, and it is the position I have been taking publicly for a number of years now (e.g., in my lectures on the three views of hell).

My heart is for universal reconciliation, as, it would appear from scripture, God's is. I am willing to believe that God might concede to take a loss in terms of achieving His highest will, if doing so would serve to accomplish some purpose that is less negotiable to Him (like maintaining un-coerced human free will). However, I cannot believe that He was forced to set up an arrangement (like eternal torment) which would bring Him unceasing grief and leave the problem of sin eternally unresolved.

[jerry62]

@Steve,
You see no synecdoche there? We know life is available for "all people", but we also know that not all people will respond to such life. I believe Paul already knows that his audience has this understanding based on other statements he made (1 Cor 6:9-10). In the passages you referenced, I see no reference that all humans who lived on earth will end up entering into life. To "head up all things in Christ" certainly does not have to mean that everyone enters "life". Obviously knees can bow w/out the individuals entering into life. Having all things reconciled to Christ does not have to mean that all people end up in heaven/entering "life"...

Rather than trying to stretch the meaning of these verses into "everyone will enter life and will fellowship (positively) with Jesus", we should seriously consider the sharp contrasts that Christ presents us with in scripture. "For what does it profit a man... " ... we should be more concerned about what Christ means when he discusses losing our life/soul. Consider the many sharp contrasts presented throughout scripture. "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (gehenna)." ... what an overwhelming contrast we have here! See the words of Christ... "fear the one who is able to..." Like Pascal's Wager, I would emphasize that individuals should not take a chance that they would "possibly" be able to repent in some post-mortem fashion.

[Paidion]

Since it is the God of LOVE we're dealing with here, who will do His best for every person, willing to correct those who need it, and bring them to Himself, it is not "taking a chance" to trust Him to reconcile to Himself all things.

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Col. 1:20)

[steve]

Steve,
You see no synecdoche there? We know life is available for "all people", but we also know that not all people will respond to such life. I believe Paul already knows that his audience has this understanding based on other statements he made (1 Cor 6:9-10). In the passages you referenced, I see no reference that all humans who lived on earth will end up entering into life. To "head up all things in Christ" certainly does not have to mean that everyone enters "life". Obviously knees can bow w/out the individuals entering into life. Having all things reconciled to Christ does not have to mean that all people end up in heaven/entering "life"...

Before deciding that a view is incorrect, one must become aware of its claims. You may be under the impression that I have never noticed the verses that speak about judgment and loss, such as those to which you allude, or that I don't like them, and therefore do not consider them. However, there are alternative ways in which they can legitimately be exegeted, of which you may never have heard.

First, it is obvious that not all people will enter into eternal life in this lifetime. The question remains whether people who fail to repent in this life might be brought to repentance (so as to occasion the joy of God and all the angels in heaven) after death. I do not believe any scriptures can be presented to rule out this possibility—and one might even lean toward the assumption that God organized things in such a way as to ultimately bring Himself the greatest satisfaction.

Second, it may be possible that some people could be reconciled with God without "inheriting" the kingdom. The latter phrase (in my opinion) refers to inheriting a throne in the kingdom and reigning with Christ. That there will be some who do not reign, but who are "reigned over" does not demand too great a stretch of the imagination, and, in fact, would seem to be implied.

Third, you may have missed the point of my earlier post. I suggested that, even if everyone were eventually to be brought to repentance, post-mortem, this would not remove the tragedy in the waste of their lives, which could otherwise have been employed in glorifying God (the purpose for which we were created). Thus, stark contrasts and dire warnings would remain appropriate.

Fourth, I do not see how one who bows the knee to Christ and confesses Him to be Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil.2) could be said to not receive life. It is true that men may be coerced to say many things at gunpoint, but such a forced confession, offered without sincerity, could hardly be thought to be "to the glory of God the Father." Only sincere praise glorifies God. He takes no pleasure in those who draw near to Him with their lips, but remain far from Him in their hearts.

Fifth, in what sense can people be reconciled in Christ without being saved as a result? Could persons enduring eternal damnation be said to be "in Christ" or "reconciled"? Would it not be simpler to take the plainest meaning of words? If Paul (hypothetically) had wished to communicate a belief in universal reconciliation, can you require him to state it in words plainer than these?

[steve]

Now for those who think I have expressed a personal conviction that God will save everyone, I would point out that I am only answering what I consider to be invalid objections to the view. I would do the same if people brought invalid objections to either of the alternative views. I simply do not like invalid arguments. If valid objections can be raised against any of the views, I will readily receive those objections without attempting to offer a refutation. If universal reconciliation is to be rejected, it will have to be upon the basis of better objections than those offered here.