The Historical Romans 9, or Why everything you thought you knew is wrong

I was planning on writing a book against Calvinism from a biblical-theological perspective. The theological books against Calvinism out there don't engage scholarly Scriptural study in the way that they could, and the scholarly Scriptural evidence against Calvinism has not been gathered together and put into a layman's book. I wanted to write such a book. I still might some day, but I don't think it will happen any time soon. Thus, I am going to write a few blogs dealing with the main Scripture passages that seem to support Calvinism. This one, as you can tell, is on Romans 9.

John Sanders rightfully states that double predestination is what happens "when Romans 9 is divorced from its historical setting and universalized into a timeless truth."(1) Indeed, it is because this chapter has been read the way it has since Augustine that it seems to obviously support double predestination. Rather than dealing with the topic of individual salvation, James Dunn provides, Paul here "is thinking solely in terms of salvation-history, of God’s purpose for Israel."(2) He is talking about Israelites, addressing their history and their future, and is defending God's righteousness and faithfulness in his dealings with them: "It is not as though the word of God has failed" (v.6). With that, let's dive in:

11-16: For when they were not yet born nor had done anything good or evil, in order that the purpose of God should stand in terms of election, not from works but from him who calls, it was said to her, "The elder will serve the younger," as it is written: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

What then shall we say? There is no injustice with God, is there? Certainly not! For to Moses he says, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will show compassion to whom I show compassion." So then, it is not a matter of one who wills or the one who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

With this passage, rather than supporting the doctrine of arbitrary or unconditional election, Paul is making known that the election of the Israelites never had anything to do with what they did: "not from works . . . not a matter of one who wills or the one who runs." Dunn states Paul here is using Israel's own scriptures on their election to refute the idea that their "obedience to the law . . . was a factor in sustaining their covenant status before God."(3) He is making known that their election was solely an act of God's mercy and compassion. One would have to read the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election into the text, because Paul is not referring to all the elect people in Christ, he is talking about elect Israel.

17-23: For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this purpose I raised you up, in order that I might demonstrate in you my power and in order that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then, to whom he wills he shows mercy, but whom he wills he hardens. [I explore this last verse in my blog on divine hardening here]

You will say to me then: "Why does he still find fault? For who has resisted his will?" On the contrary, who are you, man, who answers back to God? Does the thing made say to its maker, Why have you made me thus? Or does the potter not have the right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? But what if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, bore with much patience the vessels of wrath made ready for destruction, in order that he might make known the wealth of his glory on vessels of mercy which he prepared beforehand for glory?

It is no coincidence that Paul brings up both the rejection of Esau and the hardening of Pharaoh within a few verses of each other. Dunn provides, "God's redemption of Israel from Egypt meant that Pharaoh had filled the same sort of antithetical role" as that of Esau, who became the counterpart to his brother when Jacob was chosen and he was not.(4) Paul is using these examples to build up to a point, and that point is this:

The antithetical role filled by Esau and Pharaoh in relation to Israel's election and redemption is now being filled by the bulk of Israel in relation to God's calling of Gentile as well as Jew through the gospel.(5)

Whereas, before, Esau was the counterpart to Jacob's chosenness and Pharoah was hardened, now Israel is the counterpart to the inclusion of the Gentiles and they are hardened. In this, God remains faithful because the gospel was always the goal of God's covenant.(6) Israel is the one who failed by rejecting the gospel. Thus, Paul's question, "Who are you who answers back to God?" is valid, since the "disobedient and obstinate" Israelites (Rom. 10:21) are the ones who are questioning God's treatment of them.

The 'vessels of wrath' are "the bulk of the covenant people who have rejected the community/fulfillment of the covenant in the gospel."(8) The 'vessels of mercy', then, are the Gentile as well as Jew recipients of the gospel.

Vessels of wrath are not arbitrarily chosen by God before time to be prepared for destruction; nowhere is that provided. Vessels of wrath are such vessels because they made themselves that way. This is indicated by the potter and clay quotation from Isaiah, in which Israel was defying God's will (Is. 29). It is also indicated by the statement, God "bore with much patience the vessels of wrath" (v.22). In 10:21, Paul makes this point a second time, quoting Isaiah again, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people." Why would God have to bear with much patience a people that he molded to be vessels of wrath? Why would he hold out his hands all day long to a people he made disobedient and obstinate? It would simply not make any sense at all.

Additionally, we must also consider the nature of God's wrath. I explore this topic more here and here, but suffice it to say, Romans 1:18-32 shows us, "God's wrath comes upon man's rebellion. . . . [M]an cannot escape responsibility for his fitness for destruction; on the contrary, in striking free from God he assumed the primary responsibility for what he became."(9)

Paul's point is that God can deal with the Israelites however he wills, and that he is righteous and faithful in his judgment. They have been hardened because they made themselves vessels of wrath, just as Pharoah was hardened because he made himself a vessel of wrath.

However, vessels of wrath do not have to stay that way. This is indicated by the use of the potter analogy, which Dunn states was most likely a "deliberate echo of the most famous of the scripture's potter passages (Jer. 18:1-11) [and] would be an invitation to his Roman readers to recognize that the divine purpose could be tempered and changed, that the pot made for a disreputable use could be remade into a work to be treasured."(10) Here is the potter passage in Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 18:1-10: This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: “Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.

Then the word of the Lord came to me. He said, “Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel.

If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

Robert Chisholm comments on this passage: "there is no room for fatalistic determination here, for the 'clay' is depicted as exercising its own will, prompting an appropriate response from the divine 'potter.'"(11) The potter responds to the clay and adapts to its movements. Paul and his readers definitely would have thought of this passage in response to the use of the potter and clay metaphor--something that was most likely intentional on Paul's part.

Indeed, Paul even echoes the Jeremaic understanding of the potter and the clay metaphor in II Timothy. Here is a comparison of his use of the metaphor in Romans 9 and in II Timothy:

Romans 9:21: Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object (σκεῦος) for honorable (τιμὴν) use and another for dishonorable (ἀτιμίαν) use?

II Timothy 2:20: In a large house there are utensils (σκεύη) not only of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable (τιμὴν) use, some for dishonorable (ἀτιμίαν).

σκεῦος / σκεύη = object (or vessel, or utensil)
τιμὴν = honorable
ἀτιμίαν = dishonorable

These two verses are virtually making the same point: there are vessels made for honorable use and others made for dishonorable use. But Paul continues in II Timothy to say this:

2:21: All who cleanse themselves of the things I have mentioned will become honorable (τιμήν) utensils (σκεῦος), dedicated and useful to the owner of the house, ready for every good work.

If we apply the understanding of the Jeremiah passage and the II Timothy passage to Romans 9--which we have no reason not to do--all notions of double predestination disappear entirely. It becomes clear that vessels of wrath are not that way because of some divine decree, but because of their own actions.

It also shows Paul did not think vessels of wrath had to stay vessels of wrath. As Dunn provides, Romans 2:1-3:20 (and I would add 11:11-24) shows us "being outside the elect people of God is no guarantee of final condemnation, just as being inside the elect people of God is no guarantee of final justification."(12)

In fact, Paul writes so that the vessels of wrath will not stay fit for destruction! He says just a few verses later, "Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved" (10:1).

So here is the overall flow of Paul's message to the Israelites:

1) The covenant people were not chosen because of anything that they did (vv.11-12, 16), but their call to election was solely based on God's mercy and compassion (vv.15-16).

2) The roles that Esau and Pharaoh played in the salvation-history of Israel are now being filled by Israel herself in the coming of the gospel to the Gentiles. God chose Jacob over Esau and used Pharaoh's obstinate state to further his purposes for Israel, and now he is choosing the gospel over obstinate Israel and is using Israel's obstinate state to further his purposes for the world, "in order that he might make known the wealth of his glory on vessels of mercy which he prepared beforehand for glory" (v.23). God prepared beforehand the gospel and that it would be presented "not only [to] the Jews but also [to] the Gentiles" (v.24; see also vv.25-26).

3) Paul emphasizes that God retains the right to do all of this, because he is the Creator, the Potter (v.18-21). However, it does not have to stay that way. At the beginning of chapter 10, Paul says his purpose is for Israel to be saved. If the vessels of wrath alter their behavior and embrace the will of God, they can be vessels of mercy.

It has been made clear that Romans 9 is not at all referring to predestination or individual salvation. Nothing in the text provides it. When you read the chapter with the understanding of its intended purpose for its intended audience, all notions of Calvin's doctrines fade away. I encourage you to read chapters 9-11 with this understanding and see how well the pieces fit together.
________________

This was just a general overview of the argument in Romans 9. If you want to research further, here are several places you can go:

• Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 2. New York: T&T Clark, 2002.
• Dunn, James D. G. Romans 9–16. Vol. 38B of Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.
• Jewett, Robert. Romans. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2006.
• Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902. 
• Sanders, John. "Romans 9-11." In The God Who Risks, rev. ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 127-130. This is another general overview, but a good one. 
• Shellrude, Glen. "The Freedom of God in Mercy and Judgment: a Libertarian Reading of Romans 9:6-29." Evangelical Quarterly 81, no. 4 (October 1, 2009): 306-318. 
• White, Charles Edward. "John Calvin's Five-Point Misunderstanding of Romans 9: an Intertextual Analysis." Wesleyan Theological Journal 41, no. 2 (September 1, 2006): 28-50. 
• Wright, N.T. The Climax of the Covenant (Philadelphia: Fortress press, 1992), 231-257.

Notes:
(1) John Sanders,The God Who Risks, rev. ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 129.
(2) James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, Vol. 38B of Word Biblical Commentary, eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 562.
(3) Ibid., 562-563.
(4) Ibid., 563.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Dunn says that Paul highlights "the continuity of the gospel with God's covenant election." Ibid., 568.
(7) Dunn states that Paul's "focus remains fixed primarily on the problems causes . . . by Israel's rejection of the gospel."Ibid., 566.
(9) Ibid., 567.
(10) Ibid.
(11) Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 177.
(12) Dunn, 564.

Matt Brake and John Daniel Holloway on Open Theism

What is your understanding of Open Theism?

Matt: In layman's terms, a good understanding of Open Theism: the future is not set in stone; God has not set the future in stone; God has delegated free will and choice to the physical universe and, in doing so, that gives free choice teeth; choice is not an illusion, as in double predestination. But, in that, God sees all the possibilities of the future.

John Daniel: David Basinger highlights key factors of Open Theology: a claim about God's power, God's moral nature, God's emotive nature, and God's knowledge. With regard to God's power, it states that at the beginning of time, he gave humanity power to create their futures--free will. With regard to God's moral nature, it says that he is love and perfectly revealed in Christ, who entered into solidarity with the world, experienced time with the world, and suffered to save the world. With regard to his emotive nature, Open Theism denies God's impassibility and says that humanity affects God intimately. He suffers with, for, and because of humanity. With regard to God's knowledge (and this is the most distinct feature), Open Theism denies that God possesses exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. The future does not yet exist, except as possibilities--all of which God knows perfectly.

Why do you think people are afraid of Open Theism?

Matt: Because they're afraid of a God who doesn't know the future. If God doesn't know the future, then he isn't in control--which undermines people's trust in God. They also fear because certain theological gatekeepers have made them afraid of it. People who say, "Open Theists don't worhsip the same God as the Christian God," etc. Even if the idea has its merits, they pressure people into thinking that they're committing idolatry if they give Open Theist ideas any consideration. They may lose their salvation.
(Which begs the question: what defines a true believer? one who believes all the right things, or who is all the right things? )

John Daniel: Open Theology gets vilified. The "guardians" of evangelical theology, when they hear something they think undermines God's glory, turn such a theology into something incredibly "liberal" and paint it as something which goes against all Scripture. Not only does it undermine the glory of God (as they see it) but in their minds it completely ignores Scriptural teaching. They don't accept that the view interprets Scripture a certain way; they consider Open Theists to be rejecting parts of Scripture in order to find a God who makes more sense to them.
People are afraid because they are fed this propaganda.

Matt: I remember talking to a pretty Calvinist dude before I heard of Open Theism. He said he didn't think Clark Pinnock was really a Christian because he was an Open Theist. That's inaccurate; with Open Theism you don't redefine who God is, you redefine what omniscience is.

John Daniel: Well...that's the most unique feature of Open Theology. There are others.

How is Open Theism compatible with the blatant predestination passages in Scripture?

John Daniel: It's a case by case basis. Most of the time there's nothing incongruent with the passages about God predestining events, and God's lack of exhaustive foreknowledge. God can know in the future whatever he decides is going to happen--when he decides that he is going to do something, he makes it happen. He knew that he was going to send Jesus; he could know that because it was his choice. Sometimes he does make executive decisions, but, again, it is a case by case basis depending on the particular Scriptures that mention predestination. Lots of times the text doesn't actually say when he predestined such things. None of those verses require us to think he presdestines all things, or that he has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future.

Matt: So what you're saying is, as opposed to the classical view of omniscence, God's omnipotence causes something to happen rather than the future being set in stone?

John Daniel: Yes. He can make executive decisions because of his omnipotence.

Matt: Not fatalistic? He was planning it, but he made it happen in the moment?

John Daniel: I think God can look into the future as it is--as possibilities--and see a need. He knew that Christ would be a necessity; so, before time began he predestined Christ's coming.

Does Open Theism lead to the rejection of biblical inerrancy?

Matt: Since I don't buy into the concept of inerrancy, this is kind of a non-starter for me. I believe in inspiration; but if we're talking about the Bible being completely historically and scientifically inerrant, then no I do not believe that. When it comes to Scripture, I think Open Thesim, instead of imposing fatalism on the text, allows the Bible to say what it's actually saying. And it allows you to take into account things like genre, historical setting, and what modern science has told us about the world and about time. It makes our understanding of Scripture potentially richer. 

John Daniel: I agree with Matt. But I will add that I absolutely do not think Open Theism requires a rejection of biblical inerrancy. I suppose it doesn't look good, however, that I also don't buy into the inerrantist view of scripture. But I, like Karl Barth, still treat the Bible as inerrant in its teaching. Though there may be historical things we can't explain, and it's not a book of science or inerrant in its details, and it does include human elements, I think the teachings of Scripture are absolutely inerrant. In that, you could be an inerrantist and an Open Theist because the two beliefs are unrelated. They're two different topics. You dont have to deny inerrancy to say that God faces an open future.

Matt: Michael Saia might confirm. He holds a very conservative view of Scripture, and yet, is in Open Theist.

John Daniel: I'm an Open Theist because of Scripture. When God says "perhaps" and "if," I take it seriously, and I include it in my assesment of God's nature. Thus, there is no denial of biblical inerrancy inherent in Open Theism.

Question from Debbie: My interaction with strict inerrantists has shown me that they read the Psalms with just as much authority as the prophets or the words of Jesus or of Paul. And all throughout the Psalms is language of God's foreknowledge, and basically just language that says a lot about foreknowing and predestining and, so, it kind of refutes Open Theology in general. So, that kind of inerrantist probably would have a problem with Open Theology. Your thoughts?

John Daniel: I don't agree that the Psalms support exhaustive foreknowledge and predestination as you say. Some seem to support it, but they don't require it. When the psalmist says "you know my actions before I do them," the point is not to theologize about God knowing the future. The point is to say how well God knows him. I still think God knows the person so well that he knows what he is most likely to do, and he is not at all surprised at what he does. And I think you can be an inerrantist and look at the Bible in a more realistic way.

Open Theists tend to focus on the love of God, as claimed by both critics and advocates. Is there a place for God's wrath, holiness, and judgment in Open Theism?

John Daniel: Well, obviously there has to be because wrath, holiness, and judgment are in Scripture. So, if we are to have a complete theology from Scripture, we have to include such elements. However, I do not think we have to adopt the popular views of God's wrath, holiness, and judgment. Open Theism is a very Christ-centered theology: God experiences time with us, is affected by us, suffers with us and for us, does not control us, and in love gives us freedom. Open Theology takes seriously the statement that God is love. Thus, we look at God's wrath, holiness, and judgment through the lens of Christ and his love. This does not mean that God's wrath is somehow transformed into lollipops. But, rather than holding up an angry, wrathful image of God and combining that with a love-filled, Christ-like image of God, and by doing so creating a paradox, Open Theology looks at God's wrath, holiness, and judgment in a way that is compatible with his Christ-like nature.

Matt: I don't think Open Theism does away with God's wrath. It does do away with the Calvinist notion of double predestination (i.e. that God predestines some people to Heaven and others to Hell regardless of their will). It takes choice seriously, and it isn't any different from Wesley's prevenient grace, anyway. So I don't know what the fuss is about!

John Daniel: It also does away with the Calvinist understanding of God's wrath. In Open Theology, wrath is not something that brings God glory, but rather is something that breaks his heart.

Does Open Theism make God smaller and less powerful?

Matt: I guess that depends on which Open Theist you listen to. I like Boyd's idea that God sees all of the infinite possibilities--which...put your head around that: ALL of the infinite possibilities--as a opposed to one set plan. However, If your idea of a big God is that of a God who needs to know everything in advance, and you want to continue dealing with the "paradox" of a God who knows the future, possibly causes the future, and yet still gives man free will, and then you want to say, "Well, we'll just never understand God, I guess"--well, then, two things: 1) I smell "cop-out" and 2) good luck...you're probably still going to Heaven.

John Daniel: Quite the contrary. I think a smaller, less powerful God would need to know the future. A smaller, less powerful God would need to control everything and everyone in order to get what he wants. A more awe-inspiring God is one who faces an open future full of possibilities, and through wisdom has to decide the perfect responses--and still get what he wants! First, like Matt said, think about what it would mean to know the trillions of possibilities because of your exhaustive knowledge of the past, present, and all of earth's inhabitants. Then, think about how wise God would have to be to execute the perfect responses to billions of free wills who constantly oppose his will. Then, think about the fact that in the midst of all of this, God still remains "in control" in the sense that we don't give him anything he can't handle, and we don't give him anything he can't use for good. Then, think about the fact that, in the end, God will get what he wants, even after thousands upon thousands of years of opposition to his will--all because he is so wise. I think Open Theology--maybe, ironically--presents a much more awe-inspiring view of God's wisdom than that of the Arminian and Calvinist views.

What do you think?
Feel free to join the conversation in the comment section below.

Universal Reconciliation Q&A

"I have reason to believe we all will be received in Graceland."
Paul Simon

I recently wrote a blog (here) advocating the doctrine of universal reconciliation. I knew there would be plenty of challenging questions in response, so I wanted to take some of them and respond to them here.

(I want to add to this, so please send me a question if you've got one to add.)

Yes, God is love, but he is also just. Though he wants all people to be saved, he also desires justice.

I have a few things to say in response to this.

First, universal reconciliation doesn't remove justice from the picture. Was justice not served when the prodigal son ended up fighting with pigs over food after demanding his inheritance and abandoning his father? In the same way, justice will be served when those who have chosen Hell on earth will get what they wanted. God's wrath is letting them have it (click here for a more thorough explanation of this view of God's wrath).

Secondly, what happened when the prodigal son returned?
In that day, it would have been the custom to make the son sit outside the home for days to prove that he was genuine in returning home. But when the son in the story returned, was the father so concerned with justice that he made him do this? Or did he run out to him (in that time, N. T. Wright provides, running was thought to be "undignified")(1) and embrace him? Did the father stop his son and ask him all kinds of questions to see if he was worthy of returning?

The son had a whole speech planned, and in it he was merely going to ask the father if he could become a slave in his house. The father wouldn't have it. He was just so happy that his son was returning.
Does this seem like a father that is super concerned about justice when it comes to his children?
Many say universal reconciliation is too human, but in this case, even the son himself was only expecting to be made a slave! In this case, the human version of justice wasn't good enough for God!

Finally, Jesus is a testament to the fact that [human perception of] justice is not God's main concern. He says something very interesting in John 12: "If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world" (v.47; also see Jn. 3:17). He then adds, "The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge" (v.48). He is implicating God the Father here (see vv.49-50). However, elsewhere Jesus tells us that "the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son" (Jn. 5:22). So, the Father is not the judge, but hands judgment over to the Son, and the Son does not come to judge the world but to save it! Yes, there is judgment. Yes, there is justice. But "mercy triumphs over judgment" (Jas. 2;13). Ultimately, God's purpose is to save the world and not condemn it forever and ever, so Jesus will have mercy on those who reject him in this life. Timothy Jennings says beautifully, "biblical justice is delivering the oppressed, not punishing the oppressor!"(2)

(I elaborate more on this topic in another blog, here)


Can't "all people" simply refer to all races, cultures, and groups rather than literally every single person who ever lived?

In some cases, you can look at it that way, like when it says "all nations" or "all the ends of the earth." However, it is not more valid to interpret it this way. For other verses, I don't think you can avoid it by saying that it refers to all kinds of people. For example, when Psalm 65:2 says all people will come to God, the Hebrew words there don't mean, literally, "all flesh," same as 145:21.

In John 12:32 and 1 Cor. 15:22, the Greek text doesn't actually say "all people," but only says "all," and the Greek word for all literally means all, every kind of, each and every one, the whole.
 I don't see how you get past that.

If the Greek and Hebrew words for "forever" don't actually mean forever, wouldn't that also mean that God's love doesn't have to go on forever, since the same words are used to describe God?

I get this one a lot. It's a good point, but it stops short of disproving universal reconciliation because of two things:

1) I didn't say the Greek and Hebrew words for eternal can't mean forever. The reason these words don't have to mean forever is because they don't refer to an actual duration of time, because the biblical writers didn't think about forever and ever. They thought in generations and ages. Hell and God are similar in the sense that they are both beyond ages and generations, and their ends are not in sight to humans. When it says God's steadfast love goes on "forever and ever," it's really saying that it goes on and on and the end of God's love is not in sight.

I know what you're thinking. Wouldn't that mean that God's love can end?
No, and this leads to my second point:

2) These are not the only words used to describe God. Other words were used to describe God's everlasting characteristics. For example, God's love is said to never end. Nowhere does it say that Hell will never end.

Consider this illustration: the sun is huge.  Its circumference is 2.715 million miles long. We use words like enormous, gigantic, and humungous to describe how big the sun is, because it's so big we can't actually conceive of how big it is. The universe is also  enormous, gigantic, humungous. It goes on for billions upon billions of light years.

While the sun is enormous, it does have an end. The universe doesn't (well...maybe it does, but I'm not going to get into that; you get the point). Likewise, how long God lasts and how long Hell lasts can both be said to be olam or aion, it can also be that God can last forever while Hell ends at some point, because the words used to describe them doesn't actually specify a duration, just like the word humungous doesn't specify an actual size.

I should also add that this problem with these Greek and Hebrew words still comes up no matter what you believe about Hell. The Hebrew word olam (which is "supposed" to mean forever) is used by Jonah to describe how long he was in the belly of the fish (2:5-6). If it can be used to describe a period of 3 days, this word clearly doesn't have to mean forever.

If Hell is not forever, wouldn't that demean the atonement?

Maybe it would, if the only reason Christ died on the Cross was to save people from an everlasting Hell. But I don't believe this was the only reason, nor do I believe that this is the central reason.

Christ died on the Cross so that God could be in an intimate relationship with his creation. Throughout the Old Testament, God is trying everything he can to be in relationship with his people. All of human history is God in search of man. Jesus is a continuation of that story. The Cross is the greatest point in human history where we can see God in search of man, and I believe that story will continue even after death.

The atonement is many things. Let's not make it just about saving humanity from a never-ending Hell. It's so much more than just that.

I should also add that the doctrine of universal reconciliation doesn't take any of the horror out of Hell. One of the reasons for the atonement was still to save people from the horrible place in which they would experience all the consequences of their own sinful choices. It's not like Hell is any less terrible because it doesn't last forever and ever.

Consider this illustration: let's say all of humanity signed up to get addicted to cocaine at a certain point (it's a silly example, but sin is also silly). When God saw this, he sent Jesus to give them a way to avoid this doom. Some didn't accept his invitation, so they still headed to cocaine addiction. Sure, there's always rehab, but forcing oneself to submit to rehab while addicted to cocaine is incredibly hard, and the process of rehab isn't any easier. It doesn't take a Christian to tell someone to avoid cocaine. Why do most people avoid it? because they know that, though it promises euphoria, it leads to a terrible experience of which it takes what feels like a lifetime (here would be a good place for the word aionios) to break free.

Hell, like a cocaine addiction, is an awful fate no matter how long it is. Thank God he gave us a way out!

Isn't universal reconciliation an altered form of Calvinism's irresistible grace? Wouldn't the idea that God will eventually win all people over contradict free will?

I have a few things to say in response.

One, I am not saying that as long as there is a Hell, God is going to be turning up the heat, if you will, on his love so that he will become irresistible to people. I am saying that as long as there is a Hell, God is going to continue to do everything he can to save people from it. But as long as people have free will, they can reject him.

I will use an example to illustrate my point: let's say I find out that my friend Matt hates me. I can choose to ignore that fact and go on living my life forgetting that I love his friendship. But I do love his friendship, so instead I pursue him and am absolutely determined to find reconciliation. If I finally get to the point where Matt chooses to be my friend again, it wouldn't be because I overrode his free will, but because I pursued him long enough. In the same way, whenever God finally reconciles all people to himself, it will not be because he obliterated their free will with his love, but because he pursued them long enough.

Two, forever is a very long time. I don't think the day after judgment day God is going to win everybody over. Some will insist on Hell for a very, very long time. I just don't think God is ever going to stop pursuing those people.

Three, what I stress in universal reconciliation is not that everyone is going to be saved, but that God is never going to stop pursuing people. I stress this because I have no idea when everyone is going to be saved, and if it weren't for Scripture, I wouldn't believe it. It is because Scripture tells of a day when all people, all flesh, everyone will come alive and worship God that I believe that some day God will succeed in drawing all people to himself.


Have a question to add? Send it to me! 

Notes:
(1) N.T. Wright, After You Believe (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 12.
(2) Timothy Jennings, The God-Shaped Brain (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 188.

Is God a Universalist?

"I am not a universalist because there are some people that I don't want to see again. But God may be."
Jurgen Moltmann

Which Universe Do I Live in?

Before I get into a defense of Universalism, I should clarify which form of Universalism I am defending.

I don't believe that all roads lead to God, or that it doesn't matter how people live in this life because they will all be in Heaven when they die. Nor do I deny the existence of Hell.

I believe in Universal Reconciliation, which states that as long as there is a Hell, God will be trying to reconcile all of its inhabitants back to himself. In this, Jesus is the one way to salvation, but eventually everyone will choose to say Yes to him.

Is Universalism in Scripture?

Any Bible-believing Christian must at least recognize that Universalism is something God wants.

1 Timothy 2:4 says that God "wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

We are told in 2 Peter 3:9 that God "is patient with [us], not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

Similarly, in Ezekiel 33:11, God says, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live." So, at the very least, Unversalism sounds just as wonderful to God as it does (or should) to us.

But can we go further than that and say that all people will actually be saved?

The Psalmist of Psalm 65:2 says to God, "to you all people will come."

Psalm 86:9 says, "All nations whom you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and they shall glorify your name."

Psalm 145:21 says, "all flesh will bless his holy name forever and ever."

Isaiah 2:2 says that "all nations will stream" to "the mountain of the LORD's temple."

Then, in 52:10, we are told that "all the ends of the earth will see the salvation of God."

Jesus says in John 12:32 that "when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself."

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians, "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (15:22).

He tells us in Philippians that, "at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord" (2:10-11).

The writer of Hebrews quotes what God revealed to the prophet Jeremiah, that "No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" (8:11).

So it appears there are actually several places throughout Scripture that support Universalism. How then do we reconcile these verses with verses that talk about Hell?

Is Hell Forever?

The Greek and Hebrew words that are translated 'forever' or 'eternal' or 'everlasting' do not actually fit the description of these English words. The Hebrew word olam and the Greek words aion and aionios do not have specific durations. They do not mean "absolutely unending."

They denote time-independence, describing an age that is not bound by time and cannot be measured. It cannot be measured because the end is not known or in sight. These words mean "until the vanishing point" or "beyond the horizon."

The punishment one experiences in Hell is described in Scripture as something that is perpetual, ongoing. However, its actual duration is unknown. Thus, it does not have to be taken to mean forever.

And why should we limit God to that one thing? Why limit God to "All unrepentant sinners will go to Hell when they die and will be there forever and ever"? Does this not make us like Jonah, who, after he prophesied to the Ninevites, sat and waited for God to destroy them? He limited God to that one option. But God, when he "saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened" (Jon. 3:10).

Forever is a long time. Why decide for God that billions of years from now he is still going to be in Heaven thinking, "Yah, they still deserve it. I'll let them continue to suffer"? Why not let God decide how long Hell is going to last? This is what the biblical writers did. The words they used implied that people would be punished but they left the end of that punishment up to God.

Is God a Universalist?

The parable of the Lost Sheep is one of the most powerful explanations of the Father's heart that we have in Scripture. Every time I read it, I see something new and experience a little piece of the Father's love in the most magnificent way.

As an aspiring theologian, I often think about the theological implications of this parable. What does it tell us about God? Recently I have asked, what does it tell us about God and the doctrine of Hell?

But before we go there, let's look at some other parts of Scripture that tell us about the character of God.

Psalm 30:5 tells us that God's "anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime."

It is revealed in 1 John 4:16 that "God is love" and in 1 Corinthians 13:8 that "Love never fails."

Similarly, in Lamentations 3:22 we are told that "the steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end."

A few verses later, we are told that "no one is cast off by the Lord forever. Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love" (vv.31-32).

This is similar to what James says, that "mercy triumphs over judgment" (2:13).

God tells us in Malachi 3:6, "I, the LORD, do not change."

Simarly, James tells us that "there is no variation or shifting shadow" in the Father of Lights (1:17).

So, now let us return to the parable.

God is the kind of God that leaves the 99 sheep to rescue the 1 that ran away (Lk. 15:4-7). He searches for it "until he finds it" (v.4). And "when he finds it" (v.5), he rejoices and throws a party. This is God's attitude toward sinners who run away from him.

Let us put these pieces together.

God is love. God's love never fails. (The Greek words that are used to describe punishment after death do not have to mean forever, but the Greek and Hebrew words for never are quite clear.) Though his anger comes, though he brings grief, mercy triumphs over judgment. He will show compassion because his love is unfailing. 

This is the way God is. He does not change. Though we are inconsistent, God remains the same.

What about after people die? Does God stop being the God who leaves the 99 to rescue the 1? Does his love cease? Does he stop trying?

In the Old Testament, God struggles with his people. He often threatens destruction and brings punishment, but he always ends up bringing restoration and promising ultimate reconciliation and victory. This is because, as Abraham Joshua Heschel says, "God does not delight in unleashing anger"(1) but, rather, his anger is used "to bring about repentance; its purpose and consummation is its own disappearance."(2) Ultimately, he pours out his love on his people; "It is a love that transcends the most intense anger, a love that abides in full recognition of human weakness."(3)

In the New Testament, this is beautifully revealed through Jesus, who tells us that God is not indifferent to sinners, but searches for them until he finds them. He runs to them when he sees them and embraces them as much as he can, knowing that when they sin and run away "they know not what they do" (Lk. 23:34).

Will this change once they die? Or will God keep seeking sinners even after they have chosen Hell?

Heschel said that, "All of human history as described in the Bible may be summarized in one phrase: God is in search of man."(4) I don't think this is a search that will ever end until God finds all of his creations and can embrace all of them.

So how do we reconcile the Universalist parts of Scripture with the Hell parts? We can affirm both. Yes, people will go to Hell if they choose it with their lives now (click here to see my blog about the nature of Hell for more explanation).

But, eventually, it will be that all people will come to God, all people will worship and glorify and bless his name, all nations will stream to his temple and experience salvation, all people will be drawn to Christ, all will be made alive in Christ, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord, and everyone will know him.

Yes, I think God is a Universalist.


Notes:
(1) Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 369.
(2) Ibid., 367.
(3) Ibid., 380.
(4) Heschel, God in Search of Man (New York: Farrar, Starus and Giroux, 1983), 136.

Inciting the Wrath of God: Divine Hardening and Human Depravity

"But my people did not listen to my voice,
And Israel did not obey me.

So I gave them over to the stubbornness of their hearts,
To walk in their own devices."
                                         - Psalm 81:12

"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity . . . God gave them over to degrading passions . . . God gave them over to a depraved mind."
                                                                                                - Romans 1:22-24, 26, 28

In my post "Bane and Hell: Tortured with Hope" I examined these passages in regards to the doctrine of Hell. Here, I am going to examine them in an explanation of what happens when God hardens hearts.

Perhaps the most disturbing verse on this topic can be found in Romans 9: "So then, God has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills" (v.18). This verse is used by many to support double predestination and God's absolute control over humans. John Piper, for example, says God "decides who will rebel in their hardness of unbelief and therefore deservingly be condemned." He adds that God "does not base his decision whom to harden on anything a person does." In other words, God arbitrarily picks people and hardens them--this hardening makes it impossible for one to choose to obey God and forces one to live an evil life. But don't think that this makes God responsible for one's evil, because "people who are hardened against God are really guilty. They have real fault. They are really blameworthy. They really deserve to be judged. And God decided who would be in that condition." You think this an absurdity? Piper isn't surprised, because you are thinking with a "natural, fallen human mind" and "the opinions of man don’t count for much."(1) Thus, it is simply a mystery.
If what Piper is saying was true, I do not think I could be a Christian. This kind of god is not praiseworthy, in any whatsoever.

So let me offer a different explanation.
I contend that God's hardening is his appropriate response to a person's (or a people's) depraved sinful state. In hardening, I believe God removes himself from their hearts; he severs his influence on their minds.

Plenty of biblical scholars and theologians share a similar view. Joseph Fitzmyer states that “The ‘hardening of the heart’ by God is a protological way of expressing divine reaction to persistent human obstinacy against him, a sealing of a situation arising, not from God, but from a creature that rejects divine invitation."(2) Likewise, Abraham Joshua Heschel contends that God's wrath "is never a spontaneous outburst, but a reaction occasioned by the conduct of man."(3) Indeed, Morgan Guyton suggests that "God's οργή [wrath] is the proliferation of sin itself."(4)
 
God's hardening looks exactly like the passages quoted at the top. People refuse to listen to God's voice; they disobey him; they become stubborn; they become fools; they replace God with earthly things; they lust in impurity and fill themselves with degrading passions. So then, God gives them over to a depraved mind. He withdraws his influence from them. Gregory Boyd says that "the essence of God’s 'wrath' against sin is simply allowing evil to run its self-destructive course."(5)
 
"How abysmal stubbornness can be," Heschel observes, "Man rears his own despots--idols, lies, perversions; he labors to prepare his own disaster. Is he insane?"(6) Sins themselves are steps to absolute depravity. Such was the nature of the fall: "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" (if you will).

Humanity was created in God's image; though the fall corrupted humanity, it did not destroy the Spirit of God inside them. From the beginning, God's grace has been the ever-present hand extended towards humanity, constantly pleading that they grab hold of it and be reconciled back to his image. But there comes a point (which you may call 'the point of no return') when people cross a line. In Isaiah 65 God laments, "I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways that are not good, pursuing their own imaginations--a people who continually provoke me to my very face . . . who say, 'Keep to yourself, do not come near me" (vv.2-3, 5). This is the point where God pulls back his hands.

It is almost as if sin becomes one's exhortation to God to harden his heart. Indeed, in all of the times God is recorded to have hardened someone's heart, he was hardening a heart that was already, if not mostly, hard. Heschel says, 

It seems that the only cure for willful hardness is to make it absolute. Half-callousness, paired with obstinate conceit, seeks no cure. When hardness is complete, it becomes despair, the end of conceit. Out of despair, out of total inability to believe, prayer bursts forth. . . . Where signs and words from without fail, despair within may succeed.(7)

A perfect example of this is found in the most famous (or infamous) occurrence of divine hardening. That is, the hardening of Pharoah.

The first instance of this is found in Exodus 4: God tells Moses to perform before Pharaoh all the wonders for which he has given him the power, and then he says, "but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go" (v.21). It must be said that the "so that" does not actually appear in the Hebrew text. It would be more accurate to either split the statements up or say "I will harden his heart and he will not let the people go." The difference is that, in the former, God is purposefully going to harden his heart so that he will not let the people go; whereas, in the latter, God is merely stating a fact. This could very likely be God's prediction that he will harden Pharoah's heart and, consequently, Pharoah will not let the people go. The same thing appears in 7:3-4 (the second occurrence of the phrase). 

Later, there is one instance that says, "When Pharaoh saw that the rain and hail and thunder had stopped, he sinned again: He and his officials hardened their hearts. So Pharaoh's heart was hard and he would not let the Israelites go, just as the LORD had spoken through Moses" (9:34-35, emphasis mine). This verse is most likely referring to 4:21 and 7:3-4. Yet, in the fulfillment of these verses, Pharoah hardens his own heart! Thus, when God says "I will harden Pharoah's heart," rather than telling Moses that he will override Pharaoh's free will and force him into a state of depraved stubbornness, he is predicting(8) the inevitable based on his knowledge of Pharaoh's sinful state. 

Indeed, in the next seven occurrences after God's prediction, Pharoah hardens his own heart (Ex. 7:14, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34-35). After these, there are four verses in which God hardens his heart (Ex. 9:12; 10:20, 27; 14:8). So then, when God hardened Pharoah's heart, he was merely giving Pharoah over to the depraved mind he was already seeking. He was making Pharoah's willful hardness absolute by withdrawing from his heart. He was letting Pharoah's sin take its self-destructive course.

It should also be noted that this "divine hardening did not override Pharoah's decision-making powers."(9) After all, Pharoah did end up letting the people go. But what is interesting is the response of Pharoah's servants after being hardened. They hardened their hearts (9:34), and consequently God hardened their hearts (10:1); however, they responded by begging Pharoah to change his mind: "How long will this man be a snare to us? Let the people go, so that they may worship the LORD their God. Do you not yet realize that Egypt is ruined?" (10:7). It seems that Heschel was right: the despair within them from their absolute hardness of heart caused them to surrender.

God is not an arbitrary puppet-master that forces half of his puppets into a hell-bound state of hardness. He is a God of love, never giving up in his mission to reconcile humanity back to himself. He seeks man's heart in every way that he possibly can. But there comes a point when man rejects him so much that God gives him what he wants. Man says "Keep to yourself! Do not come near me!" and God responds, "As you wish." In that state, he can either see his utter need for God, or he can reject the Holy Spirit. This, I believe, is why rejection of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. Because the Holy Spirit is the embodiment of God's mission to reconcile humanity back to him. The Holy Spirit is within man and all around him, forever trying to influence him. When man fully rejects the Holy Spirit and his work, there is no more that can be done, for he has cast out his only hope. He has smacked God's hand away and has given an adamant 'No!' to the offer of grace. This is unforgivable because man will not go back after this. He will not seek forgiveness or receive it.

"How abysmal stubbornness can be. Man rears his own despots--idols, lies, perversions;
he labors to prepare his own disaster. Is he insane?"

But how does this understanding of hardening fit with Romans 9:18? Well, the context is the key to this verse, so you should check out my blog on Romans 9. But without reading another couple thousand words, when you consider what it means for God to harden someone's heart, and what the meaning of God's wrath truly is, the verse is no longer intimidating. That is, God's hardening does not mean he is making someone evil, but rather that he is withdrawing from the person's heart and his withdrawal causes the heart to harden. Furthermore, God only does this when the person is rejecting his will or resisting his Spirit (cf. Luk. 7:30; Acts 7:51). Thus, Paul here is merely stating that God retains the right to harden people if he so chooses. He is not at all advocating for an arbitrary God who hardens people regardless of what they have done, as Piper suggests.

To conclude, it must also be remembered that God's wrath is never what God wants. "God's heart is not of stone," says Heschel, "God does not delight in unleashing anger," but rather, his wrath is executed in order "to bring about repentance; its purpose and consummation is its own disappearance."(10) In Ezekiel 22, God says "I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none. So I will pour out my wrath on them . . ." (vv.30-31). Throughout the Old Testament there are people who plead to God not to unleash his wrath upon his people. And many, many times God changed his mind. This is because God is not one who loves and desires to unleash his wrath. God is one who suffers when he has to use it. He is one who is always looking for a reason to show mercy, as he was in Ezekiel 22. Yes, God can harden whomever he chooses, he can withdraw his influence from whomever he chooses, but he only chooses to if he absolutely must. And I contend that it is never because he desires to, and it is never something he enjoys. Furthermore, Heschel has added that "Judgment, far from being absolute, is conditional. A change in man's conduct brings about a change in God's judgment. No word is God's final word."(11) God's love endures forever! Thus, love is going to be the victor. God is long-suffering as he wrestles with humanity; and his patience is due to his confidence that he will win the hearts of his creations. No word is God's final word when his purpose is the reconciliation of all of his poiéma (Eph. 2:10).

Notes:
(1) All of these quotes were pulled from John Piper, "The Hardening of Pharaoh and the Hope of the World," DesiringGod.org, http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/the-hardening-of-pharaoh-and-the-hope-of-the-world
(2) Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, Vol. 33 of The Anchor Bible, eds. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 568.
(3) Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Perennial Classics, 2001), 362. 
(4) Morgan Guyton, "4 Cringe-worthy Claims of Popular Penal Substitution Theology," Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morgan-guyton/four-cringeworthy-claims-_b_1631944.html
(5) Gregory A. Boyd, "How do you explain the violent judgement of Ananias and Sapphira," Reknew.org, http://reknew.org/2012/08/how-do-you-explain-the-violent-judgement-of-ananias-and-sapphira/
(6) Heschel, 242.
(7) Ibid., 244, emphasis mine.
(8) The New Living Translation actually translates Ex. 9:35 "just as the LORD had predicted through Moses."
(9) Terence Fretheim, Exodus (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991), 99.
(10) Heschel, 376, 369, 367.
(11) Ibid., 247, emphasis mine.

Bane and Hell: Tortured with Hope

“But my people did not listen to my voice,
And Israel did not obey me.

So I gave them over to the stubbornness of their hearts,
To walk in their own devices."
                                         - Psalm 81:12

"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity . . . God gave them over to degrading passions . . . God gave them over to a depraved mind."
                                                                                                - Romans 1:22-24, 26, 28

The Power of Choice

There is something horrible that happens to humans when they become so full of sin that they reject God completely and insist on going their own way--God lets them go. I am speaking of Hell.

With our beliefs and actions, we either say 'Yes' to God or we reject him. Or to speak eschatalogically, we either choose Heaven or Hell. As Oscar Wilde's Dorian said, "Each of us has heaven and hell in him."

One cannot go to Heaven if he has rejected God.

No matter how much God wants everyone to go to Heaven (Ez. 33:11; 18:31-32; Matt. 18:14; Tim 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:4), if people reject God and choose Hell then that is their decision and God cannot override that. He cannot violate someone's free will by bringing them up to Heaven when they have chosen Hell with their thoughts and actions.

As Rob Bell wrote in Love Wins, "God gives us what we want, and if that's hell, we can have it. We have that kind of freedom, that kind of choice. . . . We can have all the hell we want."(1)

And as C. S. Lewis wrote in The Great Divorce, "All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell."(2) 

HELL

But what is Hell? Is it a place to which God sends people? Is it a place where people are tortured for their sins? Will it be like in the movies where the hero finally gets to the villain and beats him saying something like, "This is for what you said about my wife, and this is for what you did to my car!" I don't think so.

I think it will be a place where people "walk in their own devices," where people pursue impurity "in the lusts of their hearts," where people are full of "degrading passions" and live in a "depraved mind." 

Requiem for a Dream is a movie about people who get addicted to drugs and, as a result, their lives spiral into shocking, tragic hells of horror and despair. The Lost Weekend is a movie about a guy who is addicted to alcohol and this addiction ruins every part of his life and leaves him in a hell where there is no comfort, only sadness and even terror. Shame is a movie about a guy who hates himself so much because of an addiction to sex. He finds himself in a hell where "sex is his cross to bear"(3) because he finds no pleasure in it, but always feels the need for it.

"People choose to live in their own hells all the time," says Bell.(4) I think Hell will look like this. As Martin Luther said, "sin is the punishment of sin."(5)

About a week ago, I went to watch my fiancee perform in the play Eurydice. In it, the main character, Eurydice, dies and goes to "the Underworld"--Hades (the play is a modernization of a Greek myth). At one point it is referred to as Hell but that's not an accurate title given what our culture understands Hell to be.

Anyway, the "Lord of the Underworld" said something I found very interesting. He said, "We make it real nice here, so people want to stick around."

Though the Underworld in this play (and in the Greek myth) is simply the place where people go when they die rather than the alternative to Heaven, this statement is very telling of what I think Hell really is.

I am not trying to say that people are comfortable in Hell. I just think people will pursue pleasure in Hell the same way they do in life. Except, like the character in Shame, there is no real pleasure in it.

What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace?
This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.
                                                                                                              - Blaise Pascal

People on earth try in vain to fill the infinite abyss inside them with everything they can find, "seeking in things that are not there the help [they] cannot find in those that are, though none can help." We can see this all of the time. A perfect example is from Woody Allen, who said in a recent interview,

When I look back on my life, I’ve been very lucky that I lived out all these childhood dreams. I wanted to be a movie actor, and I became one. I wanted to be a movie director, and a comedian, and I became one. I wanted to play jazz in New Orleans, and I played in street parades and joints in New Orleans and opera houses and concerts all over the world. There was nothing in my life that I aspired toward that hasn’t come through for me. But, despite all these lucky breaks, why do I still feel like I got screwed somehow?(6)

As I said in a past blog, all people have fires in their hearts and they are constantly trying to find water to put out their fires. What they use, however, is oil labeled "Water" that only makes the fire worse. This is exactly what I think people will be doing in Hell. And this, I think, is much more terrifying.

BANE AND HELL

In The Dark Knight Rises, Bane describes a prison in which he spent most of his life. The prison is underground and there is a well-like structure that reveals the world above (see the picture at the top). Prisoners frequently try to climb out, but it is much too tall and treacherous for them to make it.  

Bane says, "There's a reason why this prison is the worst hell on earth: hope. Every man who has ventured here over the centuries has looked up to the light and imagined climbing to freedom. So easy, so simple. And like shipwrecked men turning to sea water from uncontrollable thirst, many have died trying. I learned here that there can be no true despair without hope."

Bane might as well be describing Hell itself. Hell's inhabitants will be tormented with the need and desire to put out their fires, to fill their infinite abyss. The impurity they pursue in their lusts and degrading passions will be their hope. Indeed, like Bane, it will claim "I am necessary evil." It will promise fulfillment, but will not deliver. "You think the darkness is your ally?" It is just oil labeled 'Water.' It will just make them worse, as more drugs, more alcohol, and more sex make the drug addict, the alcoholic, and the sex addict worse. "The shadows betray you, because they belong to me." All the while, they will be tortured with the hope that the next dose will satisfy them. "Hope is really the key to torture." They will be slaves to this disposition; it will overcome them and control them. "Do you feel in charge?" This is what it means to be led by a "depraved mind." Nothing will satisfy them, because the "infinite abyss can be filled only . . . by God himself."

HEAVEN

Heaven is exactly the opposite. For one to be in Heaven, one would have to completely die to the passions and desires of one's self--that is, one's focus on fulfilling the self. One would have to lose his life. In this dying is life. In this losing is the finding of truth.

"Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."  (Gal. 5:24)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." (Jn. 12:24)

"He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matt. 10:39)

In The Great Divorce, a ghost from Hell talks to a "solid spirit" in Heaven whom he knew as a human on earth. The solid spirit had murdered a man on earth. The ghost was baffled that the murderer went to Heaven and, when the solid spirit told him there was no need to bother about it, the ghost asked him, "Aren't you ashamed of yourself?" "No," said the solid spirit, "I do not look at myself. I have given up myself."(7)

Christ is our image of God, and he gave himself up for us. The Trinity is a union of self-sacrificing, self-emptying love. To be in Heaven would mean to be transformed into a state of this love. In this, we give up ourselves. We give up seeking to fulfill our infinite abyss. But, paradoxically, in dying to the passions and desires of our flesh, in giving up our focus on self-fulfillment, in losing our lives, we experience the fullness of the truth and we find life. "For if we have become united with [Christ] in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection . . . for he who has died is freed from sin." (Romans 6:5,7)

In this, there will be no fire to put out, for we will be engulfed in an Ocean of transforming love. Rather than seeking to fill up our emptiness, we will be whole vessels of God's self-sacrificial, self-emptying, other-focused love!

I will conclude with a reminder:

Our job as disciples of Christ is to make people aware of the Ocean of God's love that can put out their fires. We are to dive into that Ocean and invite everyone to dive in with us.

Our job is to introduce them to the universal salvific love of Christ. The love that transforms. The love that fulfills. The love that satisfies.

Everything I've been describing about Hell is an absolute tragedy. It should inspire nothing but sadness in our hearts as Christians, because it inspires nothing but sadness in the heart of God.

Let us join the trinity in holding out our arms toward the lost. Let us be extensions of Trinity love--self-emptying, other-focused, compassionate, peacemaking, life-transforming. Let us lay down our lives for the lost, for no greater love is there (Jn 15:13).

Notes:

(1) Rob Bell, Love Wins (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), 72 and 113.

(2) C. S. Lewis, The Great Divorce, (New York: Macmillan, 1946), 72.

(3) This was the title of Roger Ebert's review of the film.

(4) Bell, 114.
(5) Martin Luther, quoted in Anthony Tyrrell hanson, The Wrath of the Lamb (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1957), 17. 

(6) Woody Allen: A Documentary, directed by Robert B. Weide, Whyaduck Productions, 2012.

(7) Lewis, 27.