Chapter 3

 The Fires of Hell: Retributive or Remedial?

In chapter 2 I discussed how Biblical authors understood agape and the idea that somehow “God is agape” (which at least seems to imply that God’s actions must be compatible with agape[1]), Jesus’ teachings on agape, and the idea that God “is chrestos to the poneros” – all of which seem to place doubt on the idea that God forcibly imposes endless misery on anyone. This leaves the possibility that some people freely damn themselves forever, in which case God honors their choice because free will is irrevocable. However, chapter 2 also discusses problems with the idea of self-imposed damnation characterized by never-ending misery.

So we are left in a predicament. On the one hand, the idea of never-ending conscious misery seems altogether inconsistent; it is unlikely to be God-imposed, but also unlikely to be freely self-imposed. But on the other hand, we have to acknowledge that some texts are initially difficult on the surface. We find images of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” in the “fiery furnace”.

There are two possible alternatives. Either

a) God will annihilate those in Gehenna so that they no longer exist at all[2]

Or

b) The fiery furnace is itself a means of universalism in which the (metaphorical) flames burn away everything that separates us from God and from each other[3]

It is my contention that the Biblical descriptions of hell are more in line with universalism than with annihilationism (although the latter is still a vast moral improvement over eternal conscious misery). In this chapter I argue that divine fire is a metaphor expressing rehabilitation – that hell fire actually purges and heals people. I argue Jesus himself implied that hell purifies and, in so doing, was in line with a tradition of using “fire” in exactly that way. I also argue that the other texts that mention hell either presuppose remedial punishment or can be interpreted that way without being strained (I call these latter hell texts “the ambiguous hell texts”). The ability to interpret the ambiguous hell texts in a remedial way comes from two things: First, Biblical precedent for using “fire” as a symbol for remedial punishment (which I elaborate on below), and second, Biblical data on the nature/character of God. I will not cite pro-CU prooftexts in this chapter as a way of proving that hell must be remedial (even though I agree with that approach as well) because my critics would claim that I have made a circular argument.

The idea that curing/purification/healing would be “painful” may seem odd to some readers, but consider a few medical examples to help clarify the concept. In the case of heavy metal toxicity (tissue accumulation of heavy metals), the treatment is chelation therapy (therapy with an agent that binds to heavy metals). For some people, the treatment temporarily worsens symptoms until the person’s body has been cleansed of the metals. Something similar may occur on a spiritual/mental level through hell. According to St. Gregory of Nyssa, the soul that is united to sin must be cleansed by fire (“aionios fire”) that burns away the binding sinfulness. 

To start, we must briefly revisit a theme explored earlier: The idea that God’s actions always reflect agape. If God’s actions sometimes do not reflect agape then it would make no sense to say “God is agape”. As Talbott notes, the goal of love is the ultimate good of its object.[4] Sometimes love compels us to help people with self-destructive behavior even when they apparently do not want us to. One example of this would be parents forcing their beloved (but irrational) heroin addict child into a rehabilitation center. Talbott cites the example of a father physically overpowering his suicidal daughter from successfully committing suicide. God loves his own enemies as much as he loves himself, and from that alone, we must conclude that God wills good things for his own enemies.

That being said, I want to follow Talbott in pointing out that suggest that some people must endure an unpleasant transformation. Paul talks about something like this in Corinthians 5:1-5, even claiming Satan as helping with the correction.

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.

You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.

In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Paul is distressed about “immorality of such a kind that does not exist even among the gentiles”, namely a man who sleeps with his father’s wife. This is not only adultery, but it is also betrayal against one’s father. Paul says that the man needs to be “deliver[ed] to Satan”. This is certainly ambiguous, but Paul adds a clarifying detail:  The man’s “flesh” will be destroyed by Satan for the purpose of saving his spirit. In other words, the harsh “punishment” of being delivered to Satan has an underlying remedial purpose – a purpose that is achieved by destruction of flesh. “Flesh” here, of course, does not mean literal flesh (blood, bones, skin, etc.). Instead, it is a metaphor representing the sinful nature. There is a part of this man’s psyche that allows him (or compels him) to betray his father and commit adultery and it is destroyed through Satan. 

Someone may argue that Paul’s sentence uses the aorist subjunctive, which usually implies possibility and not certainty – so the man’s spirit may or may not be saved by having his flesh destroyed by Satan. But that is irrelevant to the point here. The point is that the purpose of being handed to satan is salvation (salvation from sin); the so-called punishment is remedial in function. Whether the purpose will be achieved is irrelevant here. This is part of a trend in Biblical literature in which harsh punishment serves a remedial purpose.

As I explain below, other examples of purification use images of fire, which is perhaps more relevant to our discussion of hell. In the third chapter of his letter to the Corinthians, Paul talks about salvation via fire (verses 10-16):

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it.

For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

If anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.

If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?

Here Paul talks about a fire that tests and reveals people’s work. He says that if any person’s work is “burned up” then “he will suffer loss”. But he reassures the reader that such a man “will be saved, but only as through fire”. Similarly, in verse 3 of the 13^th chapter (discussed earlier) Paul mentions the idea of “giving up” his body so that he “may be burned” and implies that doing so is a good thing.

Similar passages can be found in the Old Testament, where we also find the idea that the fire itself is God’s presence. Malachi writes about God as a “refiner’s fire” in 3:1-5:

“Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming,” says the LORD of hosts.

But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap.

He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the LORD.

Malachi writes about the sons of Levi being refinement and purification through God’s fire (specifically drawing an analogy with the purification of gold and silver whereby the taints and impurities are removed from the metals). More than that, he suggests that God himself is the fire, a concept that is also found in Hebrews 12:29, which says that “our God is a consuming fire”. Of further interest is the reference to “soap”. God’s fiery presence cleans people like spiritual “soap”.

Critics may point out that these examples refer to those who already have a covenant with God and are inapplicable to the fire of hell, which is meant for unrepentant sinners. I offer two replies to that.

First, one point I am trying to convey is that fire imagery is often used for remedial punishment, which immediately opens the possibility of that tradition applying to hell fire. To say that the fires of hell cannot serve the same kind of function simply begs the question. It presupposes the idea that hell fire is endless misery. Critics will say that their position is based on the fact that hell fire is described as “eternal” and “unquenchable”. I address this point later on, but also somewhat in my second point below.

Second, Jesus appears to apply the fire-as-correction tradition to hell in Mark 9:42-49, in which he even says that “everyone” will go through a fire-mediated cleansing:

Whoever causes one of these little ones [children] who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell [Gehenna], to the unquenchable fire.

And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna. 

And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.

For everyone will be salted [purified] with fire. Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.

Jesus starts off with strong hyperbolic language suggesting that anybody who harms children would be better off drowning. He then repeatedly refers to the “fire” that people face(d) in hell (Gehenna). At first this seems like support for ED, particularly verse 48. However, in the very next verse (verse 49) Jesus states that “For everyone will be salted with fire”. The verb “salted” clarifies the cleansing nature of the fire (and v 49 goes on to say that the salting will result in people being at peace with one another). Who will be salted? “Everyone will be.” The word translated as “for” is “gar”, which is a conjunction linking verses 48 and 49 together. Thayer describes it as:

 a particle of affirmation and conclusion, denoting truly therefore, verily as it stands... the force of the particle is either conclusive, or demonstrative, or explicative and declaratory... it adduces the Cause or gives the Reason of a preceding statement... sometimes it confirms, not a single statement, but the point of an entire discussion... The particle is everywhere used in reference to something expressly stated. [Emphasis in original]

 The fire of hell is not quenched gar everyone will be salted with fire. If Gehenna fire is endless misery, then everybody will endure endless misery, including Christians. ED proponents may argue that the reference to “everyone” is limited to “everyone in the category of the saved” and that “only the saved will be salted with fire, whereas the lost will be tormented by the fire forever”. For example, one commentary says:

 “Every one” probably means “Every follower of mine”; and the “fire” with which he “must be salted” probably means “a fiery trial” to season him.

Committed ED proponents must find a way to explain away this verse, so some suggest that the reference to “everyone” actually means every Christian. From this perspective, verse 48 refers to fire of endless hell, whereas verse 49 refers to a cleansing fire that helps purify Christians. However, as discussed above, verse 48 is listed as an example of verse 49; that is the force behind the conjunction of “gar”. So the fire of verse 48 must have the same function as the fire of verse 49 – it must also be a kind of fire that salts, albeit in a more painful/unpleasant way. This is yet another example where fire, judgment (even harsh-sounding judgment), and purification are woven together.

ED proponents often suggest that the salt represents preservation, so that the wicked will be preserved in hell forever. And indeed, salt can refer to either preservation or cleansing, and if one is committed to the ED view then the preservation interpretation of Mark 9:49 is very appealing. However, two problems arise. First, fire does not preserve; fire destroys and consumes. How can a destructive force also be a salting force? The fire preserves that which is good by destroying that which is evil – and that is how “fire” is used elsewhere in the Bible when applied to judgment. Second, once again, the conjunction links verses 48 and 49 together in such a way that the fire of verse 48 must have the same function as the fire of verse 49.

Universalist author Gregory Macdonald writes:

The words “for everyone will be salted with fire” are offered as an explication about the comments on Gehenna [hell]. This verse has long perplexed commentators, but it seems to suggest that the fires of Gehenna function as a place of purification...

However... I do not want to suggest that it [verse 49] can alone carry the burden of driving us to a universalist reading of hell.[5]

Macdonald accepts the argument that verse 49 implies the purgatorial nature of hell (Gehenna), but he is unwilling to place the Universalist view of hell on that verse alone. I agree with him that verse 49 by should not be cited by itself as proof of hell’s cleansing nature. However, the point I am making here is that Mark 9:49 is one example out of several examples. The idea of fiery judgment from God leading to purification is repeatedly stressed in the Bible. Given that precedent, if verse 49 is a genuine quotation from Jesus, then Christians should view hell as providing purifying/ healing fire. At the very least, Jesus implied that purification is one of hell’s purposes, if not the purpose.

Of further interest is the reference to “worm” is verse 48. The actual word is “skolex” and it is better translated as “maggots” (as opposed to earth worms). The interesting thing is that maggots can serve a medicinal purpose: They eat only dead flesh and leave healthy tissue alone. They remove that which does not belong. The fact that maggots are employed in the fiery imagery may suggest that the fire is meant to burn away (or eat away or consume) the person’s sin (dead flesh). However, it is not clear whether the audience would have been aware that maggots do this. At the very least, the reference to “maggots” can go either way.[6]

Unquenchable Fire

Some may ask, “If the fire is purifying, then why describe it as ‘unquenchable’?”

However, “asbestos fire” seems to have been a figure of speech for a fire that burns until it has consumed everything it was supposed to consume – a fire that cannot be stopped until it finishes doing what it is supposed to do. There are several reasons to draw this conclusion:

First, in Luke 3:17, Jesus says that the recipient of asbestos fire is “chaff”, which is incapable of literally burning forever. Chaff is finite and must eventually be utterly consumed. It would be absurd to suggest that a “never-ending fire” will burn chaff forever.

Second, the early church figure Eusibius referred to Christian martyrs who died in “asbestos fire”, indicating that the early church did not necessarily understand the concept as referring to never-ending fire.

Finally, the Old Testament also implies this. For example, Jeremiah 17:27 and Ezekiel 20:47-48 say that Jerusalem was burned with fire that would “not be quenched”. We know that Jerusalem is not burning today (either literally or figuratively). So there is no contradiction by saying that the “unquenchable” fire of hell is remedial. 

Aionios Fire

Some may ask, “But then, what about references to ‘eternal fire’ and ‘eternal punishment’?” I have three lines of response.

First, Gehenna fire is directly paralleled with “aionios fire” in Matthew 18:8-9:

...if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the aionios fire.

And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna fire.

Here Jesus says that “aionios fire” is the same thing as “Gehenna fire”. Earlier we saw that Jesus described Gehenna fire as salting. So if Gehenna fire is aionios fire, then we can say that aionios fire also salts/purifies. This is not circular but logical:

a) Gehenna fire purifies

b) Aionios fire is another term for Gehenna fire

c) Therefore, aionios fire also refers to a purifying fire

This is deductive reasoning; if the first two premises are true, then the conclusion c is necessarily true. Regardless of how we translate the Greek adjective “aionios” (which is still debated), the parallel here suggests that aionios fire is also meant to purify.

Second, Matthew 25:46 quotes Jesus as applying “aionios” to “kolasis”, a term that typically conveyed remedial punishment. According to now-deceased scholar William Barclay, this word “originally referred to the pruning of trees to make them grow better”. Similarly, when applied to human beings, kolasis is for the benefit of the person experiencing it (c.f. usage by Plato and Aristotle); it helps them grow. Although the word is often surrounded by vengeance-style language, the standard meaning of the word was remedial punishment. It is worth noting that Jesus is recorded using “kolasis” instead of the standard words for endless retributive punishment, such as the Pharisees’ expression of “aidios timoria” (“unbreakable vengeance”). Talbott admits that the lexical evidence surrounding “kolasis” is not enough to conclusively demonstrate that Jesus meant it in a remedial sense, but the point is that it can be interpreted that way – it is a possible translation. Whether we should interpret it that way depends on other evidence, such as the evidence discussed earlier. As I also discussed earlier, Luke 10 records Jesus saying that aionios life is obtained by loving our neighbors and God. John says that those who love “will have confidence on the day of judgment”, while those who fail to love will receive kolasis. Interestingly, in Matthew 25 the recipients of kolasis are those who refused to care for the poor. This is part of an overreaching theme of love bringing people to aionios life. People who refuse to love have something wrong with them, something that must be corrected with kolasis.

Third, there is a Biblical precedent of “aionios fire” referring to temporally limited punishment. Jude 7 says that the city of Sodom was destroyed with aionios fire, and yet the prophet Ezekiel said that Sodom will eventually be “restored”. Some have suggested that Jude’s reference to “aionios fire” refers to postmortem punishment in hell. However, Jude’s frame of reference is the account in the book of Genesis (chapter 19), which suggests that both the people and the cities that housed them were destroyed by the same fire. From Genesis 19:12-25 (KJV)

[v 12] the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:

For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

... Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

Jude drew upon this account and concluded that God destroyed the cities and their inhabitants with an aionios fire. Jude was not referring to a postmortem state. Ezekiel 16:55 says that Sodom will one day be restored, even though it was destroyed by aionios fire.

Aionios Parallels

ED proponents often point out that Matthew 25:46 also describes the “life” given to the saved as “aionios”. They argue that if aionios kolasis is temporary in duration, then aionios life must also be temporary in duration. I have two lines of reply:

First, if we view the “kolasis/fire” as purification then we can harmonize the translation of “eternal” with CU. Aionios kolasis/fire is a process that, after completion, results in eternal purification – a cleansing fire whose effects last forever. Likewise, the aionios life is a gift that results in never-ending life.

Second, related to the above point, I cite the discussion by Thomas Talbott:

... the very meaning of the Greek adjective aionios... has been the subject of dispute. For though the adjective literally means “age enduring” or “that which pertains to an age”, Plato gave it a special and much deeper meaning. In accordance with his distinction between “time” (“chronos”) and “eternity” (aion), Plato used the adjective aionios to designate a timeless realm, that which exists without any temporal duration or change at all.[Timaeus 37d] And this Platonic usage seems to have had a profound impact on the Hellenistic period, where the word aion acquired great religious significance by “becoming the name of a god of eternity”.

... But curiously, the same term is also used repeatedly in the Septuagint and occasionally in the New Testament in contexts where it could not possibly mean “eternal” or “everlasting”.

On a few occasions, as when Paul spoke of a “mystery that was kept secret for long ages (chronos aionios) but is now disclosed”, the adjective does imply a lengthy period of time...

On other occasions, its use seems roughly Platonic in this sense: whether God is eternal (that is, timeless, outside of time) in a Platonic sense or everlasting in the sense that he endures throughout all the ages, nothing other than God is eternal in the primary sense. The judgments, gifts, and actions of God are eternal in the secondary sense that their causal source lies in the eternal character and purpose of God. One common function of an adjective, after all, is to refer back to the causal source of some action or condition [footnote 22]. When Jude thus cited the fire that consumed Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of eternal fire, he was not making a statement about temporal duration at all; in no way was he implying that the fire continues burning today, or even that it continued burning for an age. He was instead giving a theological interpretation in which the fire represented God’s judgment upon the two cities. So the fire was not eternal in the sense that it would burn forever without consuming the cities, but in the sense that, precisely because it was God’s judgment on these cities and did consume them, it expressed God’s eternal character and eternal purpose in a special way.

Now even as the adjective aionios typically referred back to God as a causal source, so it came to function as a kind of eschatological term, a handy reference to the age to come. This is because the New Testament writers identified the age to come as a time when God’s presence would be fully manifested, his purpose fully realized, and his redemptive work fully completed. [Footnote 23] So just as eternal life is a special quality of life, associated with the age to come, whose causal source lies in the eternal God, so eternal punishment is a special form of punishment, associated with the age to come, whose causal source lies in the eternal God himself. In that sense, the two are exactly parallel. But neither concept carries any implication of unending temporal duration; and even if it did carry such an implication, we would still have to clarify what it is that lasts forever. If the life associated with the age to come should be a form of life that continues forever, then any correction associated with that age would likewise have effects that literally endure forever. Indeed, even as eternal redemption is in no way a temporal process that takes forever to complete, neither would an eternal correction be a temporal process that takes forever to complete. [Footnote 24]

So it all boils down, perhaps, to how we understand divine punishment and its essential purpose. Is it an end to itself? Or could it be a means to an end, indeed a means of grace, as I believe Paul clearly taught?

[Snip]

[Above footnotes:

22. A selfish act, for example, is one that springs from, or has its casual source in, selfish motives.

23. In this way, the New Testament writers manages to combine the more literal sense of “that which pertains to an age” with the more religious and Platonic sense of “that which manifests the presence of God in a special way.”

24. Even as an adjective can refer back to the casual source of some action or event, so it can also describe the effects of some action or event. A harmful act, for example, is one whose effects are harmful to someone or another. And perhaps more to the point, an eternal transformation or an eternal change would not be an unending temporal process at all; it would instead be an event of limited duration that terminates, decisively, an irreversible condition. It would be, in other words, an event of limited duration whose effects literally endure forever. So as Christopher Marshall rightly points out: “But punishment is a process rather than a state [contrary to life, which is a state], and elsewhere when ‘eternal’ describes an act or a process, it is the consequences rather than the process that are everlasting (e.g., Heb. 6:2; Heb. 9:12, ‘eternal redemption’; Mk. 3:29, ‘eternal sin’; 2 Thess. 1:9, ‘eternal destruction’; Jude 7, ‘eternal fire’). Eternal punishment is therefore something that is ultimate in significance and everlasting in effect, not in duration” (2001, p. 186, n.123). But whereas an annihilationist believes that the relevant effect is the annihilation of a person created in God’s own image, a universalist believes that the relevant effect is annihilation of a sinful nature or that which is contrary to the image of God within us.

Lake of fire and brimstone

At this point, ED proponents may cite the “lake of fire and sulfur” in John’s Revelation (aka the Book of Revelation). However, as others have already argued, the book of Revelation itself seems to presuppose that the lake of fire has remedial functions.

The very reference to “brimstone/sulfur” suggests as much. Sulfur was well known to have medicinal abilities, particularly fumigation. This was known as far back as Homer’s Odyssey. John’s contemporary readers would have associated sulfur with medicine and healing, not torture or abandonment. Combine this with the existing tradition of using “fire” as a symbol for refinement and remedial punishment and it seems that John did indeed intend to convey a healing lake of fire.

As an example of this, consider John’s comments on “the kings of the Earth” (Gr. “basileus ge”) (KJV). He starts off repeatedly trashing these men as wicked people who end up in the lake of fire, but then goes on to suggest that the very same men enter New Jerusalem, which suggests that the lake of fire somehow cleanses these previously-unclean men.

 [Revelation 6:3-17]: And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

[16:13-14:] I saw three unclean spirits like frogs [come] out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, [which] go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty

[17:2:] the kings of the earth have committed porneia, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication

[18:3:] For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies

[18:9] And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning

[19:19:] And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

John describes “the Kings of the Earth” as hiding from (and recipients of) God’s wrath, as “spirits of devils”, and as working with “the beast”. These are hardly descriptions of endearment. John implies the evil nature of these “kings of the earth” from chapters 6 through 19. He implies their wickedness six times, five of which are within relatively close proximity. The point here is that John’s repeated use of the phrase should be enough for us to get the picture of what these men are like. John’s usage set the precedent and placed these men in a specific category/ reference class of wicked people. Now, here is the very next occurrence of the phrase in 21:24-26 (KJV):

And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

John now describes these “kings of the earth” as entering New Jerusalem, after previously telling us about their fate in the “lake of fire”. How could these men go from the lake of fire to New Jerusalem? This would not make sense unless the lake of fire somehow enables these previously unclean men to enter. This is consistent with other Biblical uses of “fire” as a metaphor expressing purgatorial judgment.

Furthermore, New Jerusalem is said to have gates that “shall not be shut at all”. What would be the purpose of this statement? It implies that there is incoming “traffic” (incoming because nobody would want to leave the city). But where is the traffic coming from? As Talbott notes, “the only other reality left” is the “lake of fire and brimstone.” As Gregory MacDonald suggests, these passages seem to presuppose a Universalist understanding of hell fire.

Fiery Ruination

Thessalonians 1:7-9:

Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power

Ekdikesis, which is here translated as “vengeance”, can also mean “punishment” or “justice”.[7] The standard word that lined up with our modern conception of vengeance was “timoria”, which is absent in this passage.

Here Paul describes God as a flaming fire and says that some people will experience destruction/ ruination apo God’s presence. The key word here is “apo”, which can be translated as either “from” or “away from”, depending on the appearance of modifying verbs. In this case, there are no modifying verbs to indicate the meaning of “away from”, so it probably means “from”. In fact, that is exactly how the word is used earlier in verse 2 of the same chapter (Thessalonians 1:2), which refers to “grace and peace apo God” (it would not make any sense to say “grace and peace away from God”). The NIV is inconsistent here. It translates verse 2 as “from God”, but then translates verse 9 as “shut out [away] from ... God”. The English Standard Version also says “away from”, but includes a footnote saying: “Or destruction that comes from” (italics in footnote). Translating apo in verse 9 as “away from” seems to reflect a presupposition about what hell is supposed to be (i.e. God’s absence), rather than consistent scholarship. Fortunately, the correct translation still appears in many other translations, including Young’s Literal Translation, the King James Version, American Standard Version, Darby Translation, and others.

As in other texts, hell (divine judgment via fire) is described as God’s presence. For some people God is a flaming fire and the fire causes ruination for those people. What exactly this means it not explicitly stated in the passage, but a remedial interpretation can be inferred from other evidence. As I have been showing, divine fire is elsewhere used as a metaphor for God’s purification, especially when the fire is said to be God’s presence (c.f. sons of Levi), just as it is in this particular passage. Another point I have been trying to communicate is that we should pursue an alternative to ED if such an alternative is equally plausible. We should favor such an alternative because it paints a more consistent picture of hell, but also because it does not create any tension with Jesus’ teachings discussed earlier – e.g. God loves his own enemies (recall what love entails), God is chrestos to the poneros, God does not engage in eye for an eye, etc.

Interestingly, the word translated as “destruction” (Greek olethros) is the very same word used for “destruction” in Corinthians 5:5, where it is used in a remedial sense (annihilation of the sinful nature, or “false self” as Talbott puts it). Thessalonians does not say what the “destruction” entails, but the passage is no harsher than the Corinthians 5 passage (which involves a horrible sin, a man being removed from his people and rebuked in the name of Jesus, and then given to Satan for the destruction of his flesh and the salvation of his spirit). So it is at least possible that, like Corinthians 5:5, the Thessalonians passage refers to remedial punishment. Universalist author Gregory Macdonald insists that the “olethros” in this passage means “ruination”. That may be a good translation. However, the same word occurs in the Septuagint to describe the “ruination” of Israel before God restores it. So either way, it is not “the end” of things.

It seems far more likely that the punishment Paul had in mind here is more along the lines of a purging (whose healing/corrective effects are endless in duration). Additionally, he does not specify human beings as the recipients of God’s fiery presence, and it could refer to demons/devils/dark forces.

Other Objections

I previously discussed several passages on the aionios fire of Gehenna (which I argue is a purifying fire), but there are several other objections that I now turn my attention to. I can share only my own take on these issues, and other CU proponents may see things differently, but I suspect that most of them would at least have similar answers.

The Necessity of Faith, and Other Requisites of Salvation

The New Testament repeatedly stresses the importance of faith, from the Greek “pistis”, and says it is a necessary condition for heaven. I do not know of any Christian Universalists who deny that. Instead, we argue that any requirement for salvation will (at least eventually) be met – even if it must be met in the next life.

ED proponents may argue that there is no explicit Biblical support for that notion. That is debatable,[8] but I accept it for the sake of argument. Assuming that there is no explicit evidence for postmortem reconciliation, one could still argue for implicit evidence. This can be formulized as follows:

a) There is evidence for universal reconciliation

b) Certain conditions must be met before receiving salvation

c) Some people do not meet those conditions in this life before they physically die

Therefore

d) Those people will meet those conditions in the next life

If premise a is true (if there really is evidence for universalism), and if some people do not meet salvation requirements in this life, then we have implied evidence that they will meet those requirements in the next life. The absence of explicit postmortem salvation in the Bible would not be evidence against the idea. This response would be a problem if we assume that people must meet the necessary conditions on Earth before they physically die, but that assumption seems very problematic as I explain later on.[9]

Aside from that, even if we assume that non-Christians will require Gehenna after they die for the sole reason of being non-Christians (which I reject), that still is not evidence against CU because Gehenna purifies.

Belief, Faith, and Knowledge

Several ED proponents have challenged me on the idea of people acquiring postmortem faith. They argue that people will not have “belief” in the next life, but instead will have knowledge/ certainty. And if belief is a requirement for salvation, then those who fail to believe on Earth will not and cannot be saved in the next life – according to some ED proponents. This deserves some more elaboration. Let us say that belief is on a continuum from 1-6. If 6 referred to knowledge or certainty, then I am referring to anything below 6. To illustrate, let us say that my friend buys me a nice watch from a store in the mall. I ask where she purchased it, and she tells me. I believe that she is telling the truth, but I do not know for certain (I have to take her word for “on faith”). Many Christians define faith in exactly that way. More than that, they suggest that such faith is required for anybody to obtain union with God. In the context of evangelical Christianity, it usually means something like “faith that Jesus is the messiah and rose from the dead”. If there really is an afterlife, then anybody who experiences it will not have to take anything on “faith”. At that point, the person will have knowledge and certainty (about reality and God), as opposed to belief. So if “belief” as previously defined is required for union with God, then it must be acquired in this life. Belief as previously defined cannot be obtained in the next life, because at that point people will have certainty and knowledge (and not belief) – or at least that is how many Christians view it. Following this line of reasoning, there cannot be “belief” in the afterlife because at that point people will have knowledge/ certainty, and if such “belief” is required for union with God, then anybody who fails to acquire the belief before they die will go on to experience endless misery after they die.

I have several objections to that.

First, following the philosopher and theologian Gregory Boyd, pistis can refer to loyalty or covenantal trust (the latter presupposes belief or awareness / knowledge). Pistis does not necessarily refer to “belief” as previously defined. Somebody could develop loyalty or covenantal trust in the next life.

Second, the gospels report that after Jesus’ resurrection, he appeared in front of many and even allowed some to touch his body for proof of his physical nature (and that he was not a ghost). If belief (as previously defined) were required, then it seems that Jesus would not have appeared in front of people the way he reportedly did.

Third, the very idea that aforementioned belief is required poses a moral problem. As evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins has pointed out, specific religious beliefs are often “an accident of geography”, i.e. largely (though not entirely) influenced by environment and geographic location. People who grow up in the Middle East are more likely to have Islamic beliefs by no choice of their own; it is a matter of conditioning. They usually do not feel any pull towards Christianity, just as Christians usually do not feel any pull towards Islam. And although some Muslims convert to Christianity (and vice versa), they usually are not swayed by apologists on the other side. We do not choose what we believe, or at least most people do not. Instead, people can choose to perform an investigation, but the result of that investigation is not chosen – the mind involuntarily assents to a particular conclusion based on what strikes the investigator as most reasonable. Whether something appears more reasonable depends on several factors (including neurobiological and even para-natural). An agnostic may be “moved” into becoming a Christian, but similarly, a Christian may be reluctantly swayed by atheists. For example, Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman grew up Christian, but “painfully” became an agnostic during his scholarly education. He did not want to lose his Christian faith, but he had no choice. Many atheists are reluctant atheists in the sense that they truly yearn to have a belief in God, but simply cannot produce it (by no fault of their own). If beliefs are freely chosen, then I could will myself into believing that Bill Clinton is really an alien from Mars. But no matter how hard I try to force myself into believing that claim, I will never believe it apart from convincing evidence (or what I perceive to be convincing evidence).

If God imposes retributive punishment onto people because of their beliefs, then God punishes them for something they cannot control, which means that God would hold them responsible for something they are not actually responsible for. To drive home this point, consider the following scenario. Tim is a father to three children whom he loves dearly. The love Tim has for his children can be described as patient, unfailing, embracing, and something that compels him to do whatever he can to achieve the best interest of his children. As a demonstration of his love for his children, Tim places wonderful gifts beneath the Christmas tree. So far, there is nothing inconsistent about his behavior. However, Tim goes on to tell his children that if they do not believe that he is the person who placed the gifts beneath the tree, then the children will suffer a horrible fate: They will be separated from Tim for the rest of their lives. More than that, the children must acquire the belief by Christmas Eve (Christmas day will be too late). Tim says it will be okay if they acquire the belief by 11:59 PM on Christmas Eve, but no later. If they acquire it a minute later, then it will be “too late”, regardless of how sincere the children are.

Most of us would characterize Tim’s behavior as appalling. We also recognize the sharp contrast between loving and unloving behavior in this scenario.[10] There are people with such split personalities, where one aspect feels love and expresses love, while the other aspect feels rage and expresses it through violence. But surely God is not like that – not if God “is love”, has “love” for all human beings (including “enemies”), and expresses that “love” to them (see chapter 2). Love, when properly defined, is mutually exclusive with the type of behavior exhibited by hypothetical Tim. But it is also incompatible with the idea that God imposes endless misery onto people who fail to acquire certain beliefs before they physically die (see chapter 2 for a more thorough defense of this argument).

A few additional points should be made. It should be pointed out that disbelieving in Jesus’ divinity and resurrection is not the same as outright rejecting Jesus. Before going further, allow me to define my use of “reject”. I am using it in a social sense, e.g. “I asked a girl out to dinner, but she rejected me” (something that cannot occur if the girl does not believe in the existence of the person she is rejecting). Genuine atheists cannot reject Jesus in that sense of the word because they do not believe that Jesus exists to be rejected. People can reject something only if it exists to be rejected (or if they think that the thing exists). Likewise, Muslims do not reject Jesus (in the aforementioned sense of “reject”); they simply have a different set of beliefs about Jesus’ nature and ministry. However, if these same persons were to become convinced of Jesus’ divinity and resurrection, but turned Jesus away, then we could claim that they have rejected Jesus. One cannot knowingly reject a gift unless one believes that the gift exists in the first place. To clarify, I am not denying that some people will/do reject God, but instead I am attempting to demonstrate that Christians should not be so condemning towards those with non-Christian beliefs.

This is still compatible with the idea that pistis is a requirement for salvation because one could argue that atheists will have postmortem chances to acquire it. Some may argue that postmortem chances of acquiring faith render Earthly life pointless. This counterargument implies that the purpose of life is to know Jesus (or at least that is one of life’s purposes according to this counterargument). However, there are people who never get to hear of Jesus’ ministry (e.g. aborigines in remote locations), and these persons demonstrate that the purpose of earthly life is not to know Jesus. If it were, then everyone would be given an opportunity.

Some may still paraphrase this way of looking at things as if God were saying “you must eventually join me or suffer”, but it is not quite that simple. Theologians and mystics regard God as the source of happiness (of “supremely worthwhile happiness”, as Talbott puts it) – so that separation from God “naturally” results in misery. Heaven is special relationship/union with God (something that cannot be experienced in the same way in this life), so while it may require awareness of God, it also requires much more. Similarly, having a relationship with another human being requires awareness of that person’s existence, but it also requires much more. And in this case, the person in question (God) is willing to way until you are aware of his existence before initiating a relationship, even if it must occur in the next life. Or at least that is part of the Christian message as I see it.

There is nothing inconsistent with the notion that some people need to acquire pistis after they die. In fact, some people (such as those who have suffered terrible tragedies) may actually require physical death – the transition from this life to the next – before they can develop pistis. I accept that some will be unwilling or unable to develop the union even in the next life, which means that there is something within them/ something in their psyche that is emotionally separating them from God. Whatever that thing is, it will need to be burned away by the aionios fire. 

But aside from all of that, even if belief as previously defined (without knowledge/certainty) were required for salvation, that still would not pose a problem for postmortem salvation. A problem occurs only if we assume that God cannot set up postmortem environments in which people have opportunities for developing the necessary belief, something that would certainly be consistent with the idea that God “is chrestos to the poneros”. But as I explained earlier, I doubt that mere belief is what counts. Belief is only part of the equation, just as knowledge and awareness are only parts of the equation.

What about Judas?

People often ask about Judas because Jesus described him as “lost” in John 17:12 (ESV):

While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction [Judas]

The word translated into “lost” is “apollumi”, which is used to describe the lost coin (Luke 15:8-10),[11] the lost sheep of Israel, the lost son (prodigal son in Luke 15:24),[12] and those who Jesus “came to save” (Luke 19:10).

The same word occurs in the famous John 3:16 verse that “whosoever pistis will not apollumi, but will have aionios life”. Breaking that verse down, we could have something like the following: “Whoever has union with God will not experience apollumi, but will instead have life from God.” So we come to John 17:12, in which Jesus calls Judas apollumi. Judas did not have union with God at that time, and so was apollumi, but that is exactly the type of person that Jesus came to save (according to Jesus himself).

One could argue that Judas required or went through Gehenna based on Matthew 10:28 (which says that God can apollumi people in Gehenna), but that is compatible with universalism because Gehenna purifies (see chapter 3). And interestingly, 1 Peter 1:7 describes gold being apollumi through fire in order to remove the impurities. This fits with the discussion in chapter 3. Perhaps Judas needed to have his own impurities burned away.

I am not suggesting that apollumi was necessarily a remedial word, but instead I am suggesting that the word by itself does not imply irrevocable doom.

Summary:

Let us briefly sum up what we have so far:

1. God loves his enemies (in fact, we are told that if we love our enemies as ourselves then we will be like God, which suggests that God loves his enemies as himself – i.e. God loves his enemies as much as he loves himself)

2. God is chrestos towards those same enemies (with chrestos meaning benevolent or a healer)

3. (a) Love is patient, does not cause ill to its neighbor, is merciful, and creates forgiveness. (b) And since God loves his enemies, God shows those enemies patience, lack of ill will, mercy, and forgiveness.

4. (a) We are called to love our neighbors as ourselves. (b) If we love our neighbor as much as we ourselves, and if that neighbor is miserable, then we will also be miserable. (c) The residents of heaven/New Jerusalem will be free of mourning and sadness. (d) Those same residents of New Jerusalem will not lose their love for the unrighteous and will not forget about them. (e) Therefore, the unrighteous neighbors are not destined for endless misery, because if they were, and if we love them as ourselves (as Jesus commanded), then we would also endure endless misery. But since we will not endure endless misery, neither will any of our neighbors. (This also counters the idea of self-imposed damnation/endless misery, because the result would still be endless misery for our neighbors)

5. (a) Human beings cannot be more compassionate or forgiving than God. (b) Some human beings demonstrate unconditional love and forgiveness. (c) Therefore, God must also show unconditional love and forgiveness.

6. Ironically, some of the ED prooftexts themselves either presuppose a remedial hell or can at least be reasonably interpreted in that way. ED prooftexts have multiple possible interpretations. Which interpretation we view as correct depends on how we view the nature of divine punishment, which brings us back to the nature of God and the principles discussed above.

This summary will come as a shock to many Christians. Indeed, there is a bumper sticker that says: “Jesus called: He wants his religion back”. There appears to be some truth behind the humor. The portrait of Jesus given in the above summary is so contrary to western models as to be almost unrecognizable, and yet it is exactly the portrait given by the gospels and the writings of Paul. Jesus’ teachings have been widely ignored in western Christianity, which might be better termed hell-ianity. Western Christians have not only ignored Jesus’ teachings on love and forgiveness, but they have also obsessed over the fear tactics of hell.

As we have seen, if the above arguments are sound, then God does not (and probably cannot) damn people forever (given what Jesus taught), but instead actively reaches out to those who are lost. God loves and forgives his enemies and expects humans to follow his example. For most people, this is a process that will continue well into the next life.[13] But God’s loving attitude towards everyone is not only an ongoing process; it is an already-existing attribute of the divine nature.

However, with all of that being said, one could still argue that at least some people (“rebels”) will reject God forever. John’s Revelation poses a problem for that position, but it could still be argued. So indeed, the next question is whether or not all people will be reconciled to God. In the next chapter, I provide a Biblical case for universalism by analyzing standard CU prooftexts (e.g. Romans 5, Corinthians 15, etc.) and the alternative interpretations offered by ED proponents.