Chapter 2

Theological and Philosophical Reasons for Favoring Christian Universalism

“I want to believe so badly in a truth beyond our own, hidden and obscured from all but the most sensitive of eyes; in the endless procession of souls; in what cannot and will not be destroyed. I want to believe we are unaware of God’s eternal recompense and sadness; that we cannot see his truth; that that which is born still lives and cannot be buried in the cold Earth, but only waits to be born again at God’s behest - where an ancient starlight we lay, in repose.” -- David Duchovny

Throughout history Christians have quoted the Bible against each other on the same issues, and the situation continues today. Before the abolition of slavery, many Christians quoted the Bible to support slavery, and others quoted the Bible to oppose it. More recently, Christians have quoted the Bible for and against evolution, for and against equal civil rights for women, and so on. The same is true for the debate surrounding universalism vs. conventional ideas of hell, both of which found support in the early church. Some early church fathers believed in eternal conscious misery, others in annihilationism, and others in universalism. Although universalism was widely believed in the early church, and although no church fathers considered it heresy until after the third century, it became taboo and condemned by church leaders in the fifth century. It survived throughout the ages, but resurfaced with more force in the 1800s and has gained increasing traction since the 1990s.

The current debate over universalism clearly highlights and underlines a problem about Biblical interpretation that Christians need to be honest about. The problem is that the Bible, on the surface, seems to contain mixed (or even contradictory) messages. There are some passages that seem to clearly teach endless damnation, but there are also passages that seem to clearly teach universalism. Christians must come to grips with this reality, instead of dismissing people who disagree as heretics. To be clear, I am not claiming that the Bible actually does contradict itself on salvation or hell. Rather, I am claiming that the very nature of the Bible – written by many different authors in different cultures and eras and with different literary genres – means that there will be theological “wiggle room” on many issues. To avoid sounding cynical, let me simply say that I do indeed believe that we can form a consistent Biblical picture of hell and the extent of salvation. However, to do so requires us to explore the general nature/character of God in the Bible and philosophical reflections. We must also explore quoted prooftexts on both sides of the debate (those that appear to teach endless damnation and those that appear to teach universalism).

For a brief illustration of how surface readings can go either way, consider the following passages (citations taken from the English Standard Bible).

To defend eternal damnation (ED), one can cite verses on “aionios” punishment, which proponents of ED interpret as meaning “eternal punishment” (or “never-ending punishment”). Descriptions of “aionios” punishment can be found in Jude 7, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9,[1] and Matthew 25:46[2] (as well as other passages). The Matthew passage places “aionios punishment” of the wicked right next to the “aionios life” given to the righteous. ED proponents argue that the parallel in verse 46 implies that both the punishment and the life are equal in duration, so if the punishment is temporary in duration and will eventually end, then the life given to the righteous will also eventually end. However, other passages imply that the life given to the righteous will never end, so therefore the punishment for the wicked will also never end – or so the argument goes.

For many, that settles the issue decisively. However, one could defend universalism by citing passages that talk about “all” human beings receiving salvation. These passages include Titus 2:11,[3] John 12:32,[4] Luke 3:6,[5] and Romans 5:18.[6] Some of these verses can be explained away by arguing that they refer to all groups of people (i.e. some people from every group will be saved). However, the Romans passage and the corresponding Corinthians 15 passage both seem to clearly define the reference class as every human being (as opposed to every group of people). They both seem to describe every descendent of Adam as obtaining life from (and with) Jesus.

Anybody who presupposes eternal damnation could reject the Universalist interpretation of these passages by arguing that “scripture elsewhere clearly affirms the never-ending nature of hell”. In contrast, those who presuppose universalism could reject the ED interpretation of ED prooftexts by arguing that “scripture elsewhere affirms that all descendants of Adam will be saved, which implies that hell must have an end.” Aside from that, there are important philosophical issues to consider. 

To make the waters murkier, there are Annihilationists who insist that hell (at least eventually) utterly destroys wicked people so that they no longer exist, at which point every human being in existence will be righteous. They argue that God will eventually save “all people” because a time will come when “all people” will be righteous.

As the reader can see, this issue is not black and white. Thomas Talbott, retired professor of Philosophy at Willamette University, argues that there is prima facie Biblical evidence for both ED and CU, and that surface readings alone are not enough to determine which view is correct.[7] He argues that we have prima facie evidence for each of the following claims (which I have paraphrased):

a) God wants / desires to be reconciled to all human beings (note: whether his desire will be fulfilled is a separate question)

b) God has the power to achieve all of his redemptive desires / the ability to achieve his plan(s) for salvation

c) God wants universalism but does not have the power to achieve it without interfering with free will, and so allows some people to damn themselves forever via their own free will

d) God does not want or desire to be reconciled to all human beings and therefore either allows ED to occur naturally or he imposes it directly

At least one of the above claims must be false, but each of these claims has a set of prooftexts that are typically cited in its defense, and proponents for each claim have their own way of handling objections.[8]

To defend claim a (the claim that God wants to be with all people), one can cite 1 Timothy 2:4, Peter 3:9, and Ezekiel 18:23 and 18:32.

To defend claim b (the claim that God can/ will achieve his plans for salvation), one can cite Ephesians 1:11, Job 42:2, and Isaiah 43:10-11.

To defend claims c and d (the idea that some are damned forever), one can cite texts that I listed earlier: Jude 7, Matthew 25:46, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9, etc.

Talbott notes that if we combine claims a and b above then the logical outcome would be universalism, and so any evidence that both of those claims are true would be automatic evidence for universalism, apart from the absence or appearance of explicit CU texts in the Bible (e.g. Romans 5). He goes on to suggest that there is good evidence that both claims are true, whereas claim d rests on controversial translations and interpretations.

Calvinist proponents of ED reject claim a; they believe that God can save everybody but simply does not want to.

Arminians reject claim b; they believe that God wants to save everybody, but cannot do so without interfering with human free will. And since he respects free will and because it is irrevocable, Arminians believe that God allows some people to damn themselves.

Christian Universalists reject claims c and d, but accept claims a and b; they believe that God not only wants to save everybody, but also that he is capable of doing so with and without violating anyone’s free will.

If the above were all we had to go by, then we would have no way of confidently knowing which position is correct and does the most justice to God. This may be why the Catholic and Eastern Churches officially view CU as a possibility that we should hope and pray for, as opposed to a fact that we can be certain of.[9] ED proponents could say something like, “Universalism is not Biblical because the Bible explicitly teaches endless damnation in Thessalonians 1:7, Matthew 25:46, and other texts”. But similarly, CU proponents could say, “endless damnation is not Biblical because the Bible explicitly teaches universal reconciliation in Romans 5:12-19, Corinthians 15:24-28, and other texts.” In either case, a subset of texts will be reinterpreted in light of another subset of texts. And in either case, proponents try to explain away texts that seem to support the opposite position. In the following chapters (including this one) I argue that CU is the only way to make sense of God’s character as revealed through scriptures and that the ED prooftexts have been misinterpreted. But given the complexity of this issue, we must approach the CU conclusion step by step. For those who accept Biblical authority,[10] a careful investigation into this topic requires the following:

1. Linguistic and historical examination of the CU and ED prooftexts (i.e. studying the original words and historical context of the passages, which is covered in the next chapters)

2. Philosophical Considerations (for example, whether humans can freely reject God forever)

3. Extrapolating and examining passages that discuss the nature/character of God in general

Of course, if one does not accept Biblical authority then one can simply dismiss these varying texts as being irreconcilable and genuinely contradictory. However, given that conservative Christians make up my main (but not only) target audience, this chapter covers numbers 2 and 3 above (though mostly the latter). I discuss passages that deal with the character of God in general in order to extract some underlying principles. These principles, in turn, help us determine whether Christians who accept Biblical authority can reasonably believe in CU. Additionally, the off-handed suggestion that the passages are really irreconcilable overlooks something I demonstrate in chapter 3 – the observation that some of the ED prooftexts themselves either presuppose a remedial hell (the universalist understanding of hell) or can at least be interpreted that way without being strained. The ED prooftexts that do not presuppose a remedial hell can be interpreted either way; they can be interpreted in a way that is compatible with either CU or ED, and which interpretation we view as correct partially depends on the nature of God, which is where the aforementioned principles come into play.

Agape

When Universalists talk about love and its relationship to God, critics tend to think of the simple and clichéd argument that “a loving God would not send people to hell forever”. I actually do think that the argument is good, but I also believe that it needs refining and elaboration. What I have in mind is not the caricature, but a multi-layered argument. When I talk about love, I talk about the following:

1. Jesus’ teachings on agape (including the idea that God has agape for his enemies), who should receive it, and why (“agape” one of several Greek words for love, but it is the only one I have in mind in this chapter)

2. The idea that God “is agape” (leading to #3 below)

3. How the New Testament authors understood agape – I discuss the entailments of agape as implied or stated by those authors

It is my contention that a Biblically-elaborated concept of agape rules out the idea of God forcibly imposing eternal conscious misery on anybody. So my focus when talking about agape is to show that God cannot impose ECM. That by itself does not prove universalism because one could still claim that people freely choose their own damnation (by choosing endless misery or by choosing annihilation). I discuss that possibility later on.

With that background in mind, I now turn to Jesus’ words as recorded in the fifth, nineteenth, and twentieth chapters of Matthew’s gospel. In each case, I jump right into the more relevant parts of the chapters, which requires me omit a large portion of what was said earlier on. One may claim that I am ignoring the context, but that is not the case; quoting the entire text would be consume too much space and would bore readers, but I still encourage people to read the entire chapters of Matthew’s gospel themselves in order to judge the merits of my arguments. 

Beginning with chapter 5:

[5:38] You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, offer no [violent] resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow. You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[19:16] Now someone approached him [Jesus] and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?” He [Jesus] answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, “‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

[22:34] When the Pharisees heard that he [Jesus] had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them tested him by asking, “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

A similar speech was recorded in the sixth chapter of Luke (starting with verse 27):

... to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same.

If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit (is) that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount. But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Commentary:

I suggest five lines of commentary that should make us question the idea of God-imposed ED. Afterwards I discuss what it means to us to say that “God is love”.

First, Jesus’ opposition to violence and eye-for-an-eye retaliation: In contrast to the law found in the Jewish scriptures, Jesus explicitly rejected the eye-for-an-eye model, and instead insisted that we should resist evil non-violently. Jesus cites eye for an eye and says, “But I say”. He then condemns “anthistemi”, which is typically translated as “resist”, but which really implies violent resistance. According to Biblical scholar Walter Wink:

The term is used in the LXX primarily for armed resistance in military encounters (44 out of 71 times). Josephus uses anthistemi for violent struggle 15 out of 17 times, Philo 4 out of 10. Jesus’ answer is set against the backdrop of the burning question of forcible resistance to Rome. In that context, ‘resistance’ could have only one meaning: lethal violence.[11]

Jesus’ denunciation of violence may be a generality allowing for exceptions (such as self defense or defense of the innocent), but that view is not explicitly expressed; it must be inferred from other evidence. Perhaps we should conclude that the eye-for-an-eye model was necessary at one point but no longer is.[12] Either way, Jesus’ rejection of that model is too explicit to be denied. This is relevant because it sheds light on the character of God. The theme of the passage appears to be that humans should do certain things to be like God. After telling his followers to avoid eye-for-eye and to love their enemies Jesus says, “Be perfect just as your heavenly Father is perfect”. Similarly, in Luke’s gospel, Jesus tells his followers to love their enemies and then says “Be merciful just as your Father [God] is merciful”. The “just as” statement implies that God’s perfection/mercy is such that God does not engage in eye for an eye or equal retaliation (or at least not anymore).

This immediately raises a challenging question: If God does not engage in “eye for an eye” (or no longer does), then why should we think that God would deliver infinite punishment for finite sins (which is much more extreme than eye for an eye)? Christians often explain the idea of God-imposed endless punishment by claiming that sins have “eternal consequences”. But even if that is true, God-imposed eternal punishment would still amount to the very same “eye for an eye” model that Jesus rejected (because it would be eternal punishment for eternal sin/ eye for an eye).

Second, Jesus’ insistence that we love our enemies, and the implication that God loves his own enemies: Who are the recipients of agape? The accounts in Matthew and Luke both have Jesus saying that followers are to love (agapao) all of their neighbors as much as they love themselves, including their “enemies”. According to Thayer, “plesion” (the word for “neighbor”) meant “any other man [person] irrespective of nation or religion with whom we live or whom we chance to meet”. Indeed, in Luke 6:27 Jesus said that we should love (agapao) our own “enemies” because doing so will make us “children of the most high” (i.e. God). Similarly, Matthew has Jesus saying that we should love our “enemies” because doing so will make us children of the “heavenly father” (i.e. God). These accounts say that people become children of God (or show their status as children of God) by loving their enemies. This implies that God also loves his enemies. What does it mean for God to love his enemies? I explore that question in a bit.

Third, Jesus’ insistence that we pray for those who curse and persecute us: In Matthew’s account, Jesus instructed followers to pray for those who persecute them because doing so will make them “children of” God and “perfect” like God, which suggests that God’s perfection involves him showing compassion towards his enemies. In Luke’s account, Jesus told followers to do “good” things for those who hate them, “bless” those who curse them, and “pray for those who mistreat” them. We should do to others what we would want them to do to us. We see a similar attitude in Paul’s letter to the Romans (12:14): “Bless those persecuting you; bless, and curse not”.

Fourth, Jesus’ suggestion of non-partiality: Jesus described God as “making the sun rise on the bad and the good, and causing rain to fall on the just and the unjust”. This suggests that God does not show partiality.

God is chrestos to the poneros?

Fifth, Jesus’ note that God is “chrestos to the poneros”: Earlier I quoted Luke 6:27, in which Jesus implied that God loves his own enemies. However, there is more to the passage that leads me to my fifth line of commentary. In verse 35, Jesus said that if we love our neighbors then we “will be children of The Most High [i.e. God], because he is chrestos to the poneros”.

This is perhaps one of the most overlooked and/or underappreciated verses in the entire Bible. The words “chrestos” and “poneros” should be given some attention. Thayer describes the adjective “chrestos” as “opposite to harsh, hard, sharp, bitter...” and “kind [and] benevolent”. Most relevant for our discussion is the fact that first century Greeks understood the word as conveying a “healer”. This fits with the word’s usage in the New Testament. In Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus is recorded as saying:

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is chrestos, and my burden is light

Here Jesus implies that his “chrestos yoke” brings rest and lightens heavy burdens. In 1 Peter 1:1-3 we read:

put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation – if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is chrestos.

Here we see that “putting] away all malice” is synonymous with being “chrestos”. Similarly, in his letter to the Ephesians, Paul wrote (4:31-32):

Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

And be ye chrestos one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.

Here Paul asserts that being “chrestos” involves dropping malice. He implies that being “chrestos one to another” requires being “tenderhearted” and “forgiving one another”. He says we should be chrestos to each other because “God for Christ’s sake has forgiven you”. In his denunciation of hypocrisy among the Romans (2:4) Paul asks them if they are unaware that God’s chrestos nature “is meant to lead you to repentance”.

From these uses (and others that could be examined), we see what the word “chrestos” conveyed. We see that God is a healer of/ tenderhearted/ benevolent/ towards the “poneros”, which we now turn our attention to.

“Poneros” was (and still is) a standard Greek word for wicked people. For example, Matthew 6 records Jesus telling others about The Lord’s Prayer (v 9-13):

Pray then like this:

   ^“Our Father in heaven, hallowed is your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from ho poneros.”

Regarding this passage, Daniel Wallace (Ph.D. Dallas Theological Seminary) says:

Although the KJV renders this [as] “deliver us from evil,” the presence of the article indicates not evil in general, but the evil one himself. In the context of Matthew’s Gospel, such deliverance from the devil seems to be linked to Jesus’ temptation in 4:1-10: Because the Spirit led him into temptation by the evil one, believers now participate in his victory.[13]

In Matthew 5:39, quoted earlier, Jesus told people to not violently resist the “poneros”. Finally, in Matthew 7:17-18, Jesus is recorded saying:

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt [Gr. sapros] tree bringeth forth poneros fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth poneros fruit, neither can a sapros tree bring forth good fruit.

We can see the force behind “poneros” from these examples. It clearly refers to God’s enemies, and these are exactly the ones that God is “chrestos” towards. Hence Paul’s note to the Romans (5:6-8) that

while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly [Gr. asebes]. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person - though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die - but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Jesus’ ministry and sacrifice contradict idea that God has a hateful attitude towards the “ungodly”. These are the precisely the people that Jesus died for. At the very least, this seems to rule out the idea of God vengefully punishing people for their beliefs, which are un-chosen and are culturally influenced.[14] “Poneros” typically refers to those who choose sinful behavior, while beliefs are not chosen. If God is chrestos to whose who deliberately engage in wrongful acts, then surely he is chrestos to those with un-chosen perspectives that happen to disagree with Christianity (atheists, Muslims, Hindus, etc.).

“God is Love”

Finally, our last point in our discussion of agape is the idea that God somehow is agape, as suggested in John 4:7-16 (NIV, emphases added):

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. 
      God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

Towards the end of the passage the author suggests that any person who does not love will receive “punishment”, which was translated into English from the Greek word “kolasis”. I discuss “kolasis” later on, but in the meantime I simply note that the word frequently had connotations of correction, so whoever does not love must be corrected. Hence the author also says that those who do love “will have confidence on the day of judgment”. In other words, what will really count on the Day of Judgment is whether the person loved, and not whether they had accurate beliefs before dying. The author cites Jesus’ sacrifice as an example of what it means to “love”.

Next we move onto the idea that “God is love”, so if you experience love then you experience God in some way. There is a similar description earlier in chapter 1: “This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.” Here the author says that God “is light” in the sense that “in him there is no darkness at all”. So later on when he describes God as love, perhaps we should conclude that “in him there is absence of love at all”. Consider a similar statement that was not included: “God is generosity”. In order for God to be generosity, he could never act in a way that is not generous. So at the very least, it appears that the author is saying that God’s actions reflect agape, so that anything God does must be compatible with agape. But what exactly does that mean?

Aside from the author’s point that Jesus’ sacrifice was an example of agape, he also uses the same word to describe God’s love for Jesus (3:35) and Jesus’ love for Lazarus (11:5). And although they occur in other gospels, I suggest that we can extract some principles of agape from Jesus’ teachings in Luke and Matthew.

Love produces mercy. God is love, so God is merciful. At this point we must ask whether it is merciful for God to forcibly impose endless misery on people for any reason, including having inaccurate beliefs about God. We must ask whether it is merciful for God to impose endless punishment that has no remedial purpose. Nobody is suggesting that punishment is never necessary, but the goal of punishment should be correction and rehabilitation, otherwise the punishment is not merciful. If a criminal is capable of being rehabilitated, then rehabilitating that criminal would be the merciful thing to do. If ED prooftexts can be reasonably interpreted as remedial punishment, then that interpretation should be preferred. Indeed, later on I show that the prooftexts can be interpreted that way, and that some of them even implicitly presuppose that view.

Further, Paul describes some of the attributes of agape in Corinthians 13 and Romans 13:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

For we know in part and we prophesy in part,

but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

[Romans 13:8]  Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow-man has fulfilled the law.

The commandments, “Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not covet”, and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: Love your neighbor as yourself.

Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

It is worth noting what Paul has to say about agape. He says that it is kind, patient, unfailing, keeps no record of wrongs, and does no harm to its neighbor. Particularly noteworthy is the idea that “love does no harm/ill to its neighbor” in Romans 13:10. The word translated as “harm” is “kakos”, which is also used in Jesus’ parable to describe the rich man’s treatment of Lazarus (Luke 16:25). If God loves everybody (including his enemies as Jesus suggested), and if love excludes kakos, then God will not demonstrate kakos towards any person. In other words, God will not treat anybody (not even his enemies) the way that the rich man treated Lazarus. This is significant because the rich man refused to help Lazarus, even when Lazarus was begging. The rich man turned his back on those needing healing, but God never will.

Given what we have learned above, we must ask whether God can love people while simultaneously imposing endless misery on those same people. I submit that the answer is a resounding “no”. ED proponents may have another point to make. They point out that while God is love, he is also just and must execute justice. However, that objection is very problematic because it presupposes a particular definition of “justice” without explaining why we should accept that definition. Why should we think that endless misery is more just than a remedial punishment that rehabilitates people? Rehabilitation is more merciful than endless misery and should be the preferred option.[15] As Talbott argues, justice and love are two sides of the same coin, and not mutually exclusive concepts that God must choose between when dealing with unrepentant sinners.

If all of that is true, then what should we think of God’s “hate” for Esau? It is important to bear in mind that sometimes “hate” is used hyperbolically. For example, Jesus said that we need to “hate” our own parents and siblings in order to follow him (Luke 14:26), an idea that would explicitly contradict his other teachings if we take it literally. Given the above evidence that God loves everybody, we have no reason to think that God ever fails to love anybody (including Esau). If God loves even his enemies, as Jesus suggested, and if Esau was/is an enemy, then God loves Esau. Also, the word translated as “hate” can just as easily refer to “quarantine” or “set apart from” or “left aside”. It does not always convey a hateful attitude (in our modern sense) towards the recipient. This makes sense when we remember that in the context Esau represented a nation, not an individual. The nation was left aside, but not necessarily outside the range of agape.  

Insights from the Parables

[Not added yet]

The Blessedness of the Redeemed

Christians have always worried about the fate of their loved ones. They wonder whether anybody they love will go to hell forever. Ironically, that may itself an argument against ED.

In Revelation, the disciple John describes the earth being transofmred into New Jerusalem. Of relevance here is John’s description in chapter 21 of the emotional health of the residents about (v 1-4):

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.

He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

Here John says that after Earth has been transformed, there will be “no more... mourning or crying or pain”. People will be in bliss/ peace. This is an important point when considering the nature of God. Christian philosophers Thomas Talbott and Eric Reitan have argued that the blessed in heaven could never be happy or at peace with knowledge of the damned, and therefore nobody is ever really damned forever.^[16]

If Christians really believe that John’s Revelation is true, then they must ask themselves some tough questions. I ask the reader to recall that Jesus requres people to love their neighbors (including their enemies) as much as they love themselves (because doing so will make them like the Father, who is “chrestos to the poneros”). Now consider the conventional idea of hell: that of endless/ceaceless misery for its recipients. Now recall that everyone is our neighbor, including our enemies. So then what should we do and how should we feel if one of our neighbors experiences ceaseless misery?

Being happy in misery is an oxymoron. If I am happy, then I am not miserable. And if I am miserable, then I am not happy. The two states/conditions are mutually exclusive. If I am in heaven, then I am not in hell. And if I am in hell, then I am not in heaven. The two states/conditions are mutually exclusive. Therefore, if I love my neighbor as myself, and if my neighbor is miserable (in hell), then I am also miserable (in hell). If my neighbor is miserable but I am not, then I do not truly love my neighbor as myself, something that Jesus requires. If I love my neighbor as much as I love myself, then I could not be any more happy with my neighbor in misery than I would be with myself in misery. I would not be happy with myself in misery, and likewise, if I love my neighbor as much as I love myself, then I would not be happy with my neighbor in misery either. This is a bit like quantum entanglement on a spiritual level. Misery in one causes misery in the other, regardless of the distance between them.

But then, if our neighbors really experience hell (endless misery), how can we ever be free from sorrow as John’s revelation predicts?

There have been a few attempts to answer this question from the perspective of ED. For example, some authors have suggested what Talbott calls the “labotomy” option: Either God will erase our love for the damned, or he erase our awareness/memories of them altogether. Both of proposals have major difficulties. The idea that God will erase our love for the damned contradicts Jesus’ explicit teachings on love: That we should love our own enemies as much as we love ourselves (with no qualification), that God loves his own enemies as much as he loves himself, and that God is a healer of the lost. Talbott offers two objections to the view that God will erase our memories.[17] First, it would mean that God’s “victory” over sin and evil is really just a hoax. And second, memories of our loved ones stretch far back and play a role in our personality. For example, memories of our Earthly parents. If my parents were damned, and if I were to forget about my parents altogether, then I would lose decades worth of memories about specific events. The record in my brain would not be a coherent whole because large pieces would be missing. The missing pieces could be replaced by false memories, but that would then make God a liar.

But perhaps there are other explanations. John Sanders, professor of Philosophy and Religion at Huntington College in Indiana, suggests that God can transform us without erasing our memories of the damned or our love for them.[18] He acknowledges the role of relationshipos in shaping who we are; specifically, he talks about his beloved wife. He tells us that he has trouble with the notion that there will be no marriage in New Jerusalem (something that Jesus seems to say in all three synoptic gospels). Sanders wonders how he will be happy while possessing knowledge that he is no longer husband to his wife, something that would presently cause great misery. He concludes that although God will not erase his memories, God will nonetheless “bring about a change in my identity such that I would not be unhappy in no longer being husband to my wife.” He goes on to ask, “if God can accomplish this for me regarding my marriage then why could God not accomplish it in the case of a loved one who permanently turned away from God’s love?” Moreover, Sanders suggests that our misery is often self-centered. He says, “The grief I would experience over the death of a loved one is pretty much for what I would miss” (his emphasis).

It seems to me that Sanders has failed to offer a compelling critique. Now in one sense the grief of the redeemed may be self-centered because we must love each person as much as ourselves. However, this actually counts against Sanders’ argument. Logically, he could not be happy and miserable at the same time, so if he were damned to experience hell (endless misery) himself, then he would not be happy about it. But likewise, if he loves his wife as much as he loves himself, then he would not (and could not) be happy if he had knowlegde of her enduring endless misery. This is what Talbott means when he says that love ties peoples’ interests together in a special way, and this is the type of love that Jesus demands from us (something we acquire as we spiritually mature). Moreover, in purely self-centered grief, the person is concerend only about his own needs. But in this case, the person is concerned with the needs and wellbeing of the damned.

What about his misery over no longer being husband to his wife? That is an understandable and human response that I sympathize with, but it is not an argument against Talbott’s proposal. God could change our mental wiring so that we no longer desire romance/eroticism, which would then amount to a change in the kind of love we experience (i.e. romantic love), but that does not entail a reduction in non-romantic love. We will still have non-romantic (platonic) love for our neighbors, and we will love those neighbors as much as we love ourselves – which brings us back to the question of how we could simultaneously love our neighbors as ourselves and posssess knowledge of their eternal misery. Sanders has not answered that question at all, and the problem remains just as strong.

Perhaps there is another option. A reviewer for an early draft of this chapter wrote to me and said:

Curiously, I’ve experienced an emotion which I called “joyful sorrow”, the emotions that the prodigal son experienced when he returned to his father and was accepted. They may not be mutually exclusive – at least in the short term.

However, notice John’s actual wording. He says that there will be “no more” sorrow, “no more” pain, and “no more” tears. He says that God will “wipe every tear”. These descriptions imply the total absence of sorrow and the presence of total peace. The Principle of Blessedness says that the truth of ECM would mean that the blessed in heaven have, at the least, a mix of happiness and sorrow (sorrow over the damned in hell), but this would surely contradict John’s wording.

If we view the nature of God as Jesus portrayed him (searching relentlessly for the lost coin, embracing the emotionally distant, etc), then we should conclude that God is always willing to embrace people. As I argue later, divine “punishment” is really the means by which people are healed/cleansed/purified/rehabilitated. If that is true, then we have good reason for believing that everything will eventually be wonderful – to the point that there will be no mourning, no sorrow, no pain, and no tears. 

Limits of Divine Compassion

This next argument is brief and aimed at the idea that God himself imposes the endless misery on those in hell. Recall again that, according to Jesus’ implications, God loves his own enemies. And Paul describes what real love entails (love is kind, patient, does no harm to its neighbor, never fails, and is “greater” than faith). When those things are put together (and when the details are fleshed out, as they partially were earlier), then problems arise for the view that God would force endless misery on someone.

But this problem gets deeper. If we view God as greater than humans in all categories that matter, then we would have to include compassion and forgiveness (which are products of love): God is more forgiving and more compassionate than any human being. And yet there are people in this world with undying compassion for others – people that would never give up on anyone no matter how far they have fallen. Is God less loving and less compassionate than those people?

The Roman Catholic theologians Dennis, Sheila, and Matthew Linn argue that we become like the God we adore. If we adore an unforgiving and cold God, then we are more likely to become unforgiving and cold ourselves. If we adore a God who refuses to embrace people that have sincerely changed, then we are more likely to become just as cruel. On the other hand, if we adore a God who embraces all people, no matter how far they fallen, then we are more likely to accept people. If we a adore a God who will do whatever it takes to heal and transform the hearts of the wicked, then we are more likely to emulate such compassion and patience.

Of course, compassion and patience do not entail the acceptance of destructive behavior (e.g. murder and rape). Instead, compassion compels us to do whatever we can for the perpetrator’s best interest while doing whatever we can to protect others from harm. If rehabilitation for a serial killer is possible, then we should rehabilitate him. We are limited in what we can do, but God can work with any tainted or broken psyche. If God can, then God will. I join the Linns in suggesting that “God loves us at least as much as the person who loves us the most”, and the person who loves us the most could never reject us forever.

Problems with the notion of self-damnation

Given what we saw above, it seems highly unlikely that God would impose endless misery on any persons. At this point, some may appeal to free will and argue that endless damnation is self-imposed by stubborn humans. They suggest that some people can never be happy in God’s presence and would be miserable no matter what. That is a good approach when attempting to reconcile God’s character (revealed through Jesus) with the perceived reality that some will endure endless misery. However, this approach has several problems.

First, the free will defense still results in the conclusion that some of our neighbors will endure endless misery. This brings us back to John’s revelations about a new world where God’s people have no sorrow and no pain – not simply a mix of sorrow and joy.  The free will defense of ED does not address the question of how Christians can be content with the damnation of their neighbors while simultaneously loving those neighbors as themselves. Unless and until that question is answered, the free will defense of hell will continue to fail.

Second, the free will defense of ED simply assumes ED to be true and attempts to explain how it could be true. Aside from the fact that many of the ED prooftexts themselves presuppose a Universalist understanding of hell (see chapter 3), there appears to be a number of passages that explicitly teach universalism. So appealing to free will really seems to be begging the question, rather than an actual argument. It assumes that some people really will damn themselves forever. But why should we think that?

Third, the very idea of freely chosen endless misery seems incoherent, as Eric Reitan and Tom Talbott have extensively argued. Here is a very short summary of their arguments: In order to be a free moral agent, a person requires a certain degree of rationality, which in turn produces self-preservation. If the Christian view of God is correct, then God is the source of ultimate happiness, so that rejecting the full revelation of God (as opposed to rejecting a particular portrait of God) “naturally” results in misery. But nobody with sufficient self-preservation would deliberately and perpetually choose misery over their own happiness (especially if that happiness is unsurpassable). Such a “choice” would reflect a lack of rationality, which in turn means that the person is not truly free. God would have to restore their freedom, at which point they would (eventually) choose to embrace him.

With that being said, let us assume for the sake of argument that people can freely reject God forever. We still face an obstacle in assuming that God would even allow such irreparable harm in the first place. But why should we assume that? ED proponents may point out that God allows people to harm themselves during their earthly lives, so why not allow it to continue into the next life? That argument has two problems. First, the suffering that occurs on Earth is not irreparable because earthly life is not all we have, which means that there is always a chance for restoration in the next life. And second, suffering on earthly life is rarely self imposed in a totally free manner. Even in the cases when it is freely self imposed, it is only temporary and not consistent. If people were to consistently and chronically harm themselves then it would be a reflection of underlying mental illness. ED proponents may argue that eternal damnation is both self-imposed and a reflection of mental illness. But if that is the case, then it is not the type of freedom that should render the persons as morally responsible. They would need healing and restoration, which God can offer. ED proponents may suggest that the mentally-ill damned will reject God’s medicine, but why should we think that God would honor their “choice” to remain in their state? It is akin to an un-medicated paranoid schizophrenic who mutilates himself. If such a person rejected the offer of medicine, we would be justified in forcing the medication on him.

Fourth, a somewhat speculative Biblical case can be made that a time will come when all personal agents freely bow to Jesus. In Philippines 2:9-11 Paul seems to predict a time when every person will freely bow to Jesus and confess his lordship:

 God has highly exalted [Jesus] and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Several things should be said about this passage:

a) The word translated as “confess” is used to convey a voluntary action in every other usage, and it most commonly refers to giving praise in the New Testament and in the Septuagint. Paul says that the confession will be “to the glory of the Father”. But could the Father really be glorified by a fake or forcibly imposed acknowledgment?

b) Paul says that nobody can confess Jesus’ lordship without the Holy Spirit (Corinthians 12:3), which suggests that these persons also have the inner workings of the Holy Spirit.

c) Perhaps most interestingly, the passage specifies that the personal agents include those that are “in heaven, on earth, and under the earth”. Who are these personal agents that are “under the earth”? The wording appears to suggest that the agents are angels, humans, and angels that are presently fallen. 

However, there is a potential problem with using Philippians 2:9-11. The passage uses the aorist subjunctive, which usually implies possibility and not certainty. One could argue that the personal agents may or may not bow to Jesus and confess his lordship.

If God will not forcibly impose endless hell on anyone (because it is contrary to his nature and character), and if humans cannot choose endless hell in a truly free manner (because the concept is incoherent and because it contradicts John’s revelations), then why should we think that anyone will endure endless hell? And yet, there are passages that appear to teach ED, which I discuss next.