| Author | Message | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1585 Registered: 7-2003  |
I thought I'd start a new thread here because I have very specific "challenge" (I use the term in a friendly, non-aggressive way) for thread participants. Okay, here it is and it's in two parts: 1) Participants accept the challenge to post a passage of scripture (providing enough verses to maintain a unit of thought and show context) then explain line-by-line what the passage intends to teach us about Hell. 2) Participants accept the challenge to avoid any line of argumentation which is based primarily on one's ideas about God's character or attributes. So arguments such as the following examples would not be dealt with in this particular thread: a) If God is truly a God of justice, then Hell must be an eternal conscious experience. b) If God is truly a God of love, then Hell cannot be an eternal conscious experience. Now it may well be that one of the statements in #2 above is true. It may even be a valid line of reasoning/argument. However, we have a whole bunch of threads with with lots and lots of opinions about Hell based on opinions about God's character and attributes. The challenge here is to have just one thread where we all accept the challenge to examine the topic purely from an exegetical standpoint and try, together, to understand what scripture wishes to teach us on the topic. Anyone want to take the challenge? | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1015 Registered: 7-2004  |
Chris, Great idea. Before I begin my posts, I do want to explain my overall position on whether this should be a test of orthodoxy. I do believe that there is room for serious Christians to come to some differences of opinion on this subject based solely on the types of Scriptural arguments found in point 1 and completely avoidin the types of arguments from point 2. I believe in eternal punishment rather than annilihationism because of two overall reasons. I find that a strong majority of texts support the historic church teaching of eternal punishment. And I find that when the texts that don't fit the viewpoints are examined, that it requires less complex explanations to reconcile the pro-annilihation texts to the eternal punishment viewpoint than it does to reconcile the other way around. But I respect fellow believers who will present an exegetical set of reasons for annilihation. My concern about how my brothers or sisters are approaching this question is only about basing arguments on our feelings and conclusions about how God must act. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12611 Registered: 12-2003  |
Excellent idea, Chris! Here are two I find impacting:
I see Jesus using exactly the same word for "eternal" in reference both to life and to hell. Moreover, the words are specific: "eternal punishment". Taking the words at face value, hell must be eternal if eternal life is eternal. Furthermore, "hell" must not be "annihilation" because that would not be "eternal punishment". Not existing is not the same as punishment. My other compelling passage:
This passage articulates the distinction between the first and second resurrections. Moreover, it makes the point that the wicked are resurrected for the lake of fire—and it is the lake of fire, not the condition of those in it—that is called the "second death". So the wicked are resurrected to enter the second death while the righteous are resurrected to enter the kingdom of the Lord Jesus and to reign with Him. In other words, resurrected people are entering the lake of fire which was created for the devil and his angels to be tormented forever and ever. I have to believe hell is eternal if I believe the words of Scripture to mean what they say. Colleen | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1016 Registered: 7-2004 |
I have included the introductory and transitionary verses in order to establish the immediate context and to avoid the temptation to jump around in passages only picking the elements that we like. So I will begin with the complete passage from Rev 20 (ESV) discussing Hell and then I will make comments regarding the individual verses.
Verse 7 context only. But it is important that we set aside any preconceived ideas about what the 1000 years (millenium) might be, as those pre-conceptions could alter our understanding of the verses. Verse 8 context only Verse 9 The fire from heaven consumed the wicked surrounding the people of God. At first pass this might sound like an endorsement of the anniliation position. The fire consumes, but it does not continue punishing. However, the ignores the remaining descriptions in this chapter. I want to cover those and then come back to a further discussion of this consumption question. Verse 10. This verse stands out and is an important element in accepting what Scripture specifically says about Hell. The plain words that simply can not be ignored are "tormented day and night forever and ever." This isn't like smoke rising forever and ever. Tormet is an active event, smoke rising is a passive result. Here the concept of forever and ever is further supplemented by the torment taking place day and night. The straightforward reading of the passage is clear that the torment continues on forever, not just until the body is consumed by the flames. The previous verse makes clear that if consumed was what the author meant, he is capable and willing to use that word. The one possible out for annilihationism is that this eternal torment is only specifically called out for the devil, beast, and false prophet. But even then it would negate all arguments about the need to completely wipe out every trace of sin from the universe (an often repeated concept that is not described in Scripture). verse 11 context only, does not discuss any aspect of Hell verses 12-13 this tells us who is involved in the events that are about to be described. It is the dead. But it is only part of the dead. Earlier in verse 6, the righteous dead already took part in a judgment and resurrection. The remaining dead are now facing judgment. These remaining dead include those who were killed by the consuming fire coming down from heaven in verse 9. The consuming fire coming down from heaven was the first death for some of the wicked. But there is a second death for all of the wicked. verses 14-15 the lake of fire is defined as being the second death. It is not the method of bringing about the second death, it is not the cause of the second death. The lake of fire IS the second death. The lake of fire is not the same thing as the consuming fire that came down from heaven. The fire is moved to the person in the case of the consuming fire coming down from heaven. The person is moved to the fire in the case of the lake of fire. There is distinct imagery because they describe two distinct events and places. This definition of the second death is one of the most important elements to understand when examining other texts about the death of the wicked. The reconciling element that makes these passages sensible is knowing the description here of the second death. The wicked are thrown into the same lake where the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented day and night forever and ever. I would conclude that this is the nature of that lake, that those thrown into it are subjected to this same torment. I realize that is not specifically stated in the passage and requires an inference. This is why I don't think that we can answer this question from 1 passage alone. We need information that would tell us about the validity of the inference I have made above. That is where I will direct my next post which will probably be tomorrow. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1163 Registered: 5-2007 |
Rev 21 1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. J: What happened to the lake of fire? 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[b] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” J: What happened to death? 5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” J: What does everything encompass? How do you make peace with the idea that there would be an eternal hell? On one side of the gulf, heaven and a Loving God, on the other side, an active hell of torment day and night for ever. How do you process this concept and embrace Love, compassion and mercy at the same time? How do you know this is happening and still feel safe? Will we go about in the new world with an emotional numbness, a state of denial? This is another reason it does not fit. No more pain, mourning, tears........ | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1164 Registered: 5-2007 |
Ric, You wrote: Jim, I asked you to start with a basic question, what does Scripture says about the second death. You included that verse, but you included a number of verses unrelated to that question. Scripture defines the lake of fire as the second death. The lake of fire involves being "tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev 20:10). Do we agree that this is accurate so far? J:No I view the Lake of fire causing the second death. The lake of fire grammatically used is describing the name of the event. The second death is the result of the event. The second death is the designation identifier of those lost forever. I do not have an answer regarding the passages forever, eternal, day & night. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1165 Registered: 5-2007 |
Regarding the other verses I had included. They do relate in that they are part of the models or frame work of this puzzle. They are why I say , that eternal hell does not fit the puzzle, model, pattern, construct of understanding, and common sense. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3676 Registered: 10-2004  |
It's still there--see 21:8. Verses 1-7 only apply to the saved. The "no longer any sea" refers to the normal sea--mentioned in 20:13--not to the lake of fire.
Again, 21:1-7 only applies to the saved--see the "But" in 21:8.
It does not include Hell/the unsaved--see 21:8.
The "gulf" in Luke 16 described Sheol/Hades, with its two compartments (prior to Jesus' death). It does not describe the new earth/heaven and the eternal lake of fire. Nowhere are we told that the unsaved/Lake of fire are somewhere that we will be able to see or know about what's going on there.
Love, compassion, and mercy are given to the saved, not to the unsaved (except while they live on this earth--"common grace"). The unsaved will receive justice--pure wrath, not mixed with any love, compassion, or mercy, according to Revelation 14: "Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, 'If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11'And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:9-11 NASB.)
We are safe precisely because God has saved us from His wrath and adopted us as His children. (And because all evil is quarantined in the Lake of Fire.)
No.
Why would we have pain or tears over people being in hell but not over people being annihilated? That doesn't make sense to me. Revelation says that the saints rejoice and praise God for His righteous judgments and the wicked receiving justice. Justice is something to praise God for. Jeremy | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1017 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jim, You have claimed
but you didn't provide any evidence that this is a reasonable grammatical use. The plain construction of the passage in multiple translations resuks in a reading that the lake of fir is the second death. I am not willing tom throw away the plain and direct statement without good evidence that the alternative is not only a viable reading of the passage, but makes sense as the preferred reading of the passage. I am interested to see your evidence that the accurate grammatical understanding is different than the plain and direct reading. Thanks, Rick | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1018 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jim, Chris specifically requested that this thread deal with discussing specific Biblical passages and not philosophical and/or emotional arguments. Your earlier reasoning has certainly strayed from that request
But I will answer the central of these questions even though it is outside the purpose for this thread. I make peace with the idea because I trust God to know more than I do about Love, holiness, righteousness and justice and I trust that His Word to us is true. If I can't completely trust His Word to be true, can I trust a single one of His promiises? Can I even trust that He is Who He claims to be? God and His Word are a package deal, you can't really trust one without trusting both. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1166 Registered: 5-2007 |
This subject and theology in general is making me physically and emotional ill. I am exhausted by it and I do not have the resources to carry this battle on. I do not want to think anymore. It's not a cop out. I have run out of energy and health. I need peace, strength and healing. I need rest. I sit here trembling. Religion is not supposed to be this way. Enough. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1023 Registered: 7-2004 |
Understandable Jim. Keep in mind that you don't need to have all the answers. That is one of the false ideas of SDAism that answers to questions like these is critical to our salvation. It is good, generally speaking, to dig deeper into God's Word and to sort out what things are taught and what things we believe simply because of how many times we have heard them. But it is not salvational to correctly work out the answers to all of the doctrinal questions. Rest and enjoy the fact that it is faith not doctrinal knowledge that has saved us. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1586 Registered: 7-2003 |
For my contribution to the thread, I would like to start with one of the many teachings of Jesus on Hell. I’ll be going through Mark 9:38-48 (NASB) with my comments interspersed.
So for context we can see that Jesus’ teaching on Hell is precipitated by the apostles being offended that someone else was doing works in the name of Jesus. Jesus basically reminds them that anyone who is truly working for Him is on the same team. This should disabuse us of any sectarian attitudes. All who are in Christ will be rewarded for the work He has done through them, regardless of group or denomination. So, you might ask if this means that absolutely anyone (or any group) who happens to use the name of Jesus should then automatically be considered part of the team with no further critical analysis? Jesus clarifies His meaning with the following statement:
“Little ones” appears to refer to those who were listening to Jesus. Today, we might refer to them as “seekers” or perhaps “baby Christians” if we take “believe” to mean “have come to faith in Christ”. For our purposes, I don’t think it’s important to know if those listening to Jesus had truly come to faith or had just begun to believe that there was something special about Him and wanted to know more. The point is that someone who is not yet firmly established in their faith can easily be lead astray with strange beliefs and aberrant teaching. I think the even larger point here, given the context, is that Jesus does not include those who would confuse people and cause them to stumble as members of the team. So while it’s true that all those who are truly doing the work of Christ are on the same team and we should support their works and ministries, we also have to have discernment and be on the lookout for those who are teaching false things and causing people to stumble. We cannot support those individuals or organizations and we can be sure that they will have much to answer for someday, which seems to launch this discussion of Hell.
Following close on the heels of Jesus’ strong words about those who would cause people to stumble, many commentators believe that this is a pointed statement to Christians to separate themselves from anything that might lead them astray. I agree with this. I don’t think this is just talking about sin in general because it has a specific context. Jesus uses startling hyperbole here to stress the necessity of decisively “cutting off” anything from our lives which might cause us to stumble. In context, this would most certainly include false teachings, the teachers who promote them, and the organizations that promulgate them. Pertinent to our collective experience, we cannot keep one foot in the SDA camp, continue to dabble in Adventism, and be obedient to what is being said here. Even if it doesn’t cause us to stumble, how might a non-committal stance cause others to stumble? We’re all called to take a decisive stand, but many feel they can’t. I’ve talked with far too many SDAs who have had a little taste of the true Gospel, seem to kind of get it, but then realize that to embrace that Gospel and that Jesus would cost dearly. They realize they would lose everything they know and love to follow that Jesus and they can’t do it. They “believe” in an intellectual sense, but they don’t “BELIEVE” in the ultimate sense that radically changes the life. Jesus uses strong language to emphasize the importance of being willing to give up whatever it takes in order to follow Him completely. It’s better to lose something dear than to go into Hell where the fire never goes out. The Greek word translated “unquenchable” here is “asbestos” and basically refers to something that can’t be extinguished. So right away, we see that the SDA teaching of a Hell fire that burns for a short time and then goes out is untenable. However we should understand the fire that Jesus refers to, either as literal fire or as a word picture of a much more terrible reality beyond words, we can be sure it doesn’t end because He says so.
Not much more I can say here other than to say that when you see repetition in scripture you should take note. This was common in an oral culture. If you are teaching orally, than repeating something in a slightly different way is a way of emphasizing that this is very important and is a main point. Think of it like being in a lecture in a college class. When the teacher says something, pauses and then repeats it, you write it down because you know it’s probably on the test.
More repetition here to emphasize the same point, but Jesus also adds a descriptor of hell, “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”. The Greek word Jesus is using for “hell” is “geenna” usually written as “Gehenna”. Gehenna is a valley southwest of Jerusalem. This valley was used as a giant trash dump which had continual fires and smoldering smoke from burning the worm laden garbage dumped there. Jesus is quoting from Isaiah 66:24 (NASB):
We now have a ghastly word picture for what the experience of Hell is like. It’s like being a maggot filled corpse only the worms never fully consume you or die off. It’s like being a corpse set on fire and yet you never burn up and the fire cannot be put out by any means. This is not a picture of some brief experience which is soon extinguished in unconsciousness and non-existence. The Bible never describes death that way. The Bible always describes death as a separation from something, and in this case it’s a separation from all that’s good. This is a picture of an eternal ongoing experience of death that is so abhorrent we can barely stand to think of it. Kidding about the “Zombie Apocalypse” is pretty popular right now, but this is the very real eternal “Night of ‘living’ Dead”. It’s horrible beyond all words. I hate it. I flee from it in my mind, but it came straight from the mouth of Jesus and I’ve learned through experience to trust what He says even when I don’t understand or don’t particularly like what I’m hearing……and I REALLY don’t like this…..at all! Yet, I need not personally fear the eternal experience described here. I am in Christ and know that I have no place in Gehenna. As one who belongs to Christ, my only judgment is for reward (v. 41). However, this should give me an intense passion to reach those who are not in Christ. This should give me an intense passion to cut off everything in life that might cause someone to stumble. This should give me an intense passion to work to counteract false teaching and false teachers that lead people astray and trap them in false “gospels”. If I can read an explosive passage like this and then come away saying, “Everyone just needs to do what’s right for them. I have some problems with Adventism’s teaching on Jesus, the Gospel, and salvation, but who am I to tell my friends and family what to believe? Whatever works for them is good. It just doesn’t seem very loving to go around talking about ‘false’ teaching and acting like someone might be lost”, then clearly Jesus hasn’t gotten his point across about what happens when a person is led astray and caused to stumble. If I can read something like this and still continue to associate myself with Adventism, then perhaps Jesus didn’t use strong enough language. The line about it not being very loving to judge someone else’s system of belief (which I’ve heard many times) is 180 degrees wrong. The least loving thing in the world I could do is actively or even passively cause someone else to stumble when I’m given an opportunity to take a stand for Christ and the Gospel. There is a real Heaven to gain and a real Hell to shun. Shouldn’t I be telling people that? Should I be cutting everything out of my life that might cause myself or others to stumble……even if it costs me dearly?
Chris | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1909 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; I don't understand just what hell will be either, but I do know that no one will be punished more than he or she deserves. Check out this passage in Luke 12:47,48 where Jesus said that a person will be punished more or punished less (few stripes), according to how bad they were. As for myself, I'm not really ready to tackle hell, so I'm not reading much about it. I don't know if these verses about it are metaphorical or literal. There's even a good verse in the Old Testament that clearly shows that forever doesn't always mean forever like we might think of it. All I DO know is: 1. Knowing about hell is not required for salvation. 2. God is loving, just and holy. Whatever He does will be what's loving, just and holy. Jim; you can trust His heart. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1167 Registered: 5-2007 |
Asurprise, Thank You. I agree. Jim | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1587 Registered: 7-2003 |
Just a quick exegetical note to help us out as we examine various passages: SDAs like to point to the Hebrew word "olam" in OT passages and observe that it has a wide range of meanings. While it can mean something close to "forever" it can also mean "for a long time or a long duration". This is true. They then make a completely unwarranted and illogical leap to the NT and try to force this understanding on the Greek phrase "aion aion" ("forever and forever"). This makes no sense linguistically. First of all, "olam" and "aion" are different words in different languages that have slightly different connotations so you can't really draw a direct analogy (unless perhaps you are attempting to understand how the Jews understood the Septuagint). Secondly, we can't look at the word in complete isolation. In Revelation 14:11 it is used in a specific way to refer to the torment of the wicked "aion aion". So even if there are contexts where "aion" alone could mean an age, to use it in this particular way is to say "without end" or "forever and ever". Finally, the same author has just used this same phrase "aion aion" in Rev. 11:15 to refer to the reign of Christ. There is no linguistic reason to think that "aion aion" means without end in relation to the reign of Christ, but means "for a short time" in relationship to the torment that the wicked experience. In addition, to these linguistic realities, we have other texts clearly stating that the fire cannot be extinguished so it would be poor hermeneutics to interpret Rev. 14 in a way that contradicts other very clear teaching passages. I think the SDA argument rooted in the OT Hebrew word "olam" just doesn't hold up to logic or scrutiny very well. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1030 Registered: 7-2004 |
Luke 12:47-48 doesn't quite teach that a person will be punished more or less based on how bad they were. 42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that servant [9] whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. 45 But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. 47 And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. 48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. It seems that the distinction between the severe and the light beating is based not on how bad they were, but instead on whether they knew their master's will or not before being bad. If we look at this aspect and the audience that Jesus is speaking to, the message seems to be that Jews who should know their Master's will would be held to a higher standard than would gentiles, who presumably didn't specifically know their Master's will. There is a legitimate difference in the severity of the punishment, but there is nothing to indicate whether this difference in severity translates into a difference in the length of the punishment. A conclusion one way or the other from this passage would be purely speculation. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3677 Registered: 10-2004 |
Chris, I've also noticed that when Jesus says "the fire is not quenched," He uses a different Greek word (sbennymi) than He does for "unquenchable" (Gr. asbestos). Also, sbennymi is used in the Present tense, Passive voice, Indicative mood, which would seem to indicate that the fire does not go out on its own, contrary to the SDA assertion that "eternal fire" that is not "quenched" means that the fire burns up the wicked until it has finished "doing it's job" and then it simply goes out on its own, without God "quenching" it. For comparsion, another verse which uses sbennymi in the Present Passive Indicative is Matthew 25:8: "'The foolish said to the prudent, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out [Gr. sbennymi, Present Passive Indicative].'" (NASB.) Again, this would mean "going out" on their own. In contrast, Matthew 12:20 uses the word sbennymi in the Future Active Indicative and reads thusly: "'A BATTERED REED HE WILL NOT BREAK OFF, AND A SMOLDERING WICK HE WILL NOT PUT OUT [Gr. sbennymi, Future Active Indicative], UNTIL HE LEADS JUSTICE TO VICTORY." (NASB.) I would like to get your thoughts on this. Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12618 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jeremy, I'm struggling a bit. I'm not checking right now with a Bible dictionary to research the Greek, but I can say that in English the phrase "the fire is not quenched" is definitely present tense, passive voice. This means that the fire is not doing the action but is being acted upon-- (or not being acted upon). In other words, it's stating that the fire's being quenched or not is from an outside source. And Jesus says, essentially, that no one is quenching the fire. From an English perspective, however, "our lamps are going out" is not passive. For example, the verb in "the fire is not quenched" is is quenched. But the verb in "our lamps are going out" is "are going". In this phrase the lamps "are going"...and it's not suggesting that anything is acting on the lamps. This is active, not passive, since the lamps are doing their own action: they are going out. It is intransitive, meaning the lamps are not doing action on any other thing. In the third example, it is active and future...the subject is "He", the verb is "will put", and the direct object (what's being acted on) is "wick". The sentence is inverted (the direct object comes before the subject/verb), but it's still active transitive ("He" acts on the "wick"). So overall, I see the first and third examples essentially implying that the fire is not being quenched or put out by God, or an outside person. but in the second example, the lamps are acting on their own. So I'm a bit confused about the "present passive" label on that second example. (Sorry for the esoteric nature of this post...) Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1588 Registered: 7-2003 |
Jeremy, The significance I see in the use of two different words is simply that one is an adjective and one is a verb. So "abestos" describes the type of fire as being inextinguishable. "sebenutai" with the negative participle "ou" states what cannot be done to the fire (i.e. cannot be extinguished). I think it's something of a piling on of terms. Nothing and no one can extinguish the fire and the fire itself is inextinguishable by nature. |
