The Role of Hell in the Gospel Message?

[Paidion]

If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put into corrective punishment; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put into corrective punishment. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.14 If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with refiners fire and put into corrective punishment, so that there will be no immorality in your midst.15 If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put into corrective punishment; you shall also put the animal into corrective punishment' (Lev.20:12-15 NCV)

It must be remembered, JR, that God's revelation to man was progressive. It was misunderstood by the ancient Hebrews. They interpreted God's dealing with sinners as retributive, while Christ reinterpreted God's law as restorative.

I strongly advise reading Derek Flood's book Healing the Gospel

Derek also indicates that the apostle Paul, also, does just as Christ did. Paul was addressing a people who were crying out for God's vengeance against sinners. He argued in his letter to the Romans, that the justice of God is restorative rather than retributive.

CENTURIES OF READING THE Bible through the culturally dominant lens of punitive justice are hard to shake off. We read the word “justice” in our Bibles and simply assume that it is referring to punitive justice. But if we can manage to take a fresh look at scripture, and in particular the New Testament, what we will find is that the master narrative of the Bible—God’s salvation in Jesus that all of scripture points towards—is rooted in a model of restorative justice. As a case in point, let’s consider the book of Romans, which has long been considered to be Paul’s masterpiece, and one of the clearest articulations of the Christian gospel. A traditional Lutheran reading of Romans understands Paul to be addressing the problem of a guilty conscience: How can guilty sinners facing God’s wrath instead find a gracious God? As important and valid as Luther’s questions may have been in his own context, recent scholarship has drawn attention to the fact that this is not at all Paul’s point. That is, Paul is not addressing people who wanted (like Luther) to escape God’s wrath and judgment. Quite to the contrary, Paul is addressing people who are crying out for judgment, who longed for God to come in wrath and punish sinners. Paul is addressing a religious audience that has embraced the idea of punitive or retributive justice, and arguing against their perspective. In other words, Paul’s argument in Romans is that righteousness comes through restorative justice instead of retributive justice.

Flood, Derek (2012-08-06). Healing the Gospel: A Radical Vision for Grace, Justice, and the Cross (Kindle Locations 284-298). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.

[Singalphile]

Homer,

No, I wouldn't say that I agree with what he wrote there. I thought it was off, too, when I first read it. I'm inclined to agree with what you wrote about it.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

I strongly advise reading Derek Flood's book Healing the Gospel

In reading an interview of Flood on a universalist forum I see he does not believe in restorative punishment. Wouldn't that be a rejection of "corrective" punishment?

[Paidion]

In reading an interview of Flood on a universalist forum I see he does not believe in restorative punishment. Wouldn't that be a rejection of "corrective" punishment?

What Derek doesn't believe is that retributive punishment is restorative. However, he does believe that the justice of God is restorative.

[dwilkins]

I skimmed the topic as best I could and didn't see the point I'm going to make, but if I missed it discussed previously I apologize. I don't think you can go very far into this topic without realizing that our use of terminology associated with "hell" is what is causing a major disconnect. If it were possible to turn back the clock I'd prefer that the label of the topic be "The Role of the Lake of Fire in the Gospel Message" because I don't think that "hell" is an accurate or very useful term.

I'll go through this quickly because some of you might already be familiar with the point, but "hell" is an English term used to translate three different original language terms, not all of which were talking about the same thing. When it's being used to translate gehenna it is talking specifically about the threat to the apostate Jewish nation in the 1st Century. Whether or not this has an idealistic meaning (meaning that the literal threat against the nation in the 1st Century has a typological application to all men in history) is an interesting topic that deserves its own discussion. But, at least initially, gehenna (translated "hell" in all but two passages associated with Christ's teaching) is simply a reference to Jeremiah 7 in which a threat of military disaster and ignominious burial is made against the residents of Jerusalem (in Jeremiah the threat was Babylon, in the Gospels it's Rome). The other times he mentions "hell" are associated with the base term Hades (which is potentially similar to Sheol) and simply means "the grave" (simply meaning that those cities would be destroyed). He is threatening cities with this end, just as Sodom received. So, Christ did not refer explicitly, directly to a final punishment of all unbelievers at any time in his ministry. As others have pointed out, Paul failed to do so as well.

The Lake of Fire is a different matter, however. That seems to line up clearly with the idea of judgment and destruction as the final destiny of all unbelievers as is postulated throughout the Old Testament. As far as its application to the gospel goes, I think that an appreciation of McKnight's point is in order: There is no such thing as "the gospel" unless it embraces the kingdom of God promised to Israel and Jesus as Israel's promised Messiah. So, Jesus would be Israel's Messiah who brought salvation to all men, and those who don't participate in the kingdom of God promised to Israel under its Messiah are destined for unrecoverable destruction. In that sense, a final, permanent negative state is a key part of the Gospel, but it's name isn't "hell", it's the Lake of Fire.

Doug

[steve7150]

In that sense, a final, permanent negative state is a key part of the Gospel, but it's name isn't "hell", it's the Lake of Fire.






Death and hell (hades) are indeed thrown into the lake of fire, so ultimately it's what happens there that determines the fate of the great majority of mankind.

Jesus had given the command to makes disciples of "all nations" and for a nation to be a disciple i think that most people in the nation and maybe all, would ultimately have to be disciples.
In Revelation we see several references to the fact that the nations will praise the Lord and at the end we see the nations receiving healing from the tree of life
which may be a fulfillment of Jesus last command to make disciples of all the nations.

This can only happen through restorative punishment and postmortem salvation in the lake of fire.

[Singalphile]

steve7150 (or anyone),

If you have the time and will, please briefly explain how you (or UR/CU) best interpret the end of Rev 20 and particularly the second death? Thank you!

Hello dwilkins. You wrote that "Christ did not refer explicitly, directly to a final punishment of all unbelievers at any time in his ministry." It seems to me like Jesus does so in Matthew 25. Do you have another view on what Jesus is talking about there, or would you just not call that explicit and direct (but parabolic/symbolic)?

dwilkins wrote:
In that sense, a final, permanent negative state is a key part of the Gospel, but it's name isn't "hell", it's the Lake of Fire.

A final, permanent negative state or event is probably a pretty good description, I guess. I'm not really sure how key it is to the overall gospel message. I agree that the "lake of fire" is what is usually, really meant when we talk of "hell". However, it seems to me that the "lake of fire" is Revelation's symbolic description (in a book of symbols) for what is explained to actually be "the second death". So the label of the topic should perhaps really be "The Role of the Second Death in the Gospel Message".

(Of course a full preterist or maybe an idealist might not interpret Rev 20 as having anything to do with the so-called afterlife.)

[steve7150]

If you have the time and will, please briefly explain how you (or UR/CU) best interpret the end of Rev 20 and particularly the second death? Thank you!




Hi Sing,

"Rev 20.14" "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

Everyone has been resurrected into life or judgment and it sounds in this verse that "the second death" means there may be no death after this. Either eternal life or life in the lake of fire for a certain period of judgment IMO. However i wouldn't necessarily accept a doctrine on only one verse particularly since it's so symbolic.

However 20.14-15 i think s/b read together with chap 21 & 22 which i think gives opportunities for the folks in the lake to wash their robes and enter the city (New Jerusalem) through the gates which are always open.

In Rev 22.14 we find certain folks may enter the city through the open gates, where are they from? Rev 22.17 is a general and perhaps final invitation to the unsaved. Where are these unsaved existing? I think they are from the lake of fire.

[Singalphile]

Thanks, steve7150. I didn't mean to put you on the spot or anything. You'd mentioned the lake of fire a few times here and there, I think, and I wasn't sure how you viewed it, and more importantly I have also been looking into CU explanations of Rev 20 for a while.

[Paidion]

Singalphile, the term "second death" is found ONLY in the book of Revelation in the following 4 verses:

Re 2:11 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.’

Re 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power [actually "authority"], but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

Re 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

Re 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (ESV)

Here is a UR's interpretation of these verses. Please don't object that the verses don't state all these details. It's true that they don't. But you are wondering how a UR EXPLAINS these verses, so here it is:

20: 14 clearly states that the second death is, in fact, the Lake of Fire.

21:8 lists eight classes of people who will require the Lake of Fire in order to be corrected by its "flames". This Lake could refer to a creation of God for the purpose of correction, for God Himself is "a consuming fire", consuming and destroying all impurities, so that the people being purified will have a regeneration — a change of character.

2:11 states that a person who conquers sin or overcomes sin (through the enabling grace made available by Christ's death) will not need to undergo this severe correction in the Lake of Fire.

20:6 indicates that the second death, the Lake of Fire, has no authority over those who share in the first resurrection (when Christ returns), but that they will reign with Christ 1000 years.

20:11 tells of a judgment after the 1000 years have ended, before a great white throne when the rest of the dead will be judged.

20:15 indicates that everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire to be corrected.