"When we seriously reflect on the significance of such a hopeful and joy-inspiring vision of what the future holds for the righteous, is it reasonable to believe that the one who intends to create a world where “pain shall no longer exist,” and who intends to “make all things new” will, on the other hand, preserve a corresponding realm or co-existing dimension where the wicked will be kept alive against their will to be consciously tortured by fire throughout the endless stretches of eternity, without the remotest possibility of relief or cessation? What would be the benefit or purpose of this? And how would such truly harmonize with the spirit of God’s intention to ultimately “make all things new” through Jesus Christ?"`~Patrick Navas (who wrote a thoughtful essay on Revelation 20:10.. Google it.)
There are certain phrases and concepts many, if not most, Christians readily (and mistakenly in my educated opinion) use to cement and propagate eternal conscious torment. They then weaponize the mistaken dogma, managing to repel a probable outrageous number of conscientious questioners and objectors to such a traumatizing and unconscionable teaching. I don't think this is remotely excusable anymore given the widespread exposing of the dogma as ultimately and easily unbiblical. The reasoning used in a futile attempt to crystallize it is specious and often recognized as fundamentally desperate when pondered as profusely as it should very well be. Yes, information and tools are ubiquitous and poised for our consumption to aid in reaching a more accurate understanding of biblical revelations on the topic. I will here scrutinize some of the most commonly utilized phraseologies and idioms hellfire claspers, graspers, and proponents misuse. I shall do this in an honest attempt to set the wrong right and the upside down right side up. Our conscience and logic is God gifted, and I think to believe in the hellfire like that commonly preached in pulpits requires a denying of and a defying of those endowments, in spades!
Firstly, what is hell?
Gehenna, translated as hell in scripture, was the "Valley of the Sons of Hinnom" close to Jerusalem. It was frequently availed as a trash heap/garbage dump to dispose of waste and caracasses. Fire and worms assured that all the trash and corpses tossed there met their end as opposed to their conservation in unfathomable torments. So when Jesus spoke of Gehenna, he was painting a picture of irreversible and guaranteed annihilation and definitively not one of agonizing preservation. Surely Jesus wouldn't use a garbage heap where annihilation was the fate of whatever's thrown there to depict a place where the stark opposite of annihilation occurs! There were no screaming souls in Gehenna. It never would've entered Jesus's mind to talk about a place of destruction and then to assume his listeners would imagine it's a place where nothing can ever be destroyed. Senseless! Worms obviously communicate consumption and death and certainly not pain and agony while one lives on forever. They feed on perishable bodies, not bodiless immortals, as we'll talk about here.
But firstly, we'll contemplate the phrase "unquenchable fire." How is it used in the holy word of Yahweh? Examine:
"Say to the southern forest: 'Hear the word of the LORD. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am about to set fire to you, and it will consume all your trees, both green and dry. The blazing flame will not be quenched, and every face from south to north will be scorched by it." (Ezekial 20:47)
According to scripture, a fire that cannot be quenched "consumes." Not being quenched is a phrase used to connote that the flames will absolutely unequivocally burn without ceasing or going out until their job of destruction is assuredly accomplished! These flames do not preserve infinitely whatever they touch or inundate. Unless you somehow inexplicably and unreasonably believe the utterly eradicated forest is still burning unscathed in those unquenchable flames, trees proudly standing tall as they burn perpetually any way but down. If one were to go there right after such a dramatic event, would the trees still be standing up burning and never being consumed, or would the forest be destroyed and quite literally devoured? Will the fire have gone out? Scripture indisputably uses the phrase to explicitly denote utter and inescapable destruction, so to assign it the opposite meaning to maintain the traditional misuse is not apropos in the least! Further, inspect:
"Seek the LORD and live, or he will sweep through the house of Joseph like a fire; it will devour, and Bethel will have no one to quench it." (Amos 5:6)
Hmmm. Curiously, (okay, straightforwardly to be completely honest) ravenous flames devour. Nothing survives them! They do not infinitely preserve and keep whatever they engulf ceaselessly and magically intact, in some ruinous condition. Yet typically, Christian traditionalists wouldn't hesitate, due to deceptive tradition and powerful indoctrination, to assign this phrase with an irreconcilable and inconsistent meaning from the one scripture deliberately and explicitly articulates. It's neither sound nor remotely suitable to do so considering the doctrines that result from such unfathomable and egregious misuse. Also considering the fact that professed Christians should desire to use God's words how he does, and not assign them antithetical uses to accommodate mistaken, dangerous, and downright repugnant traditions of men. I use such strong language because the typical erroneous view of hell is necessitated by an unwarranted misapplication of scripture, accompanied by a sinister acceptance of the most horrifying and nefarious untruths imaginable. It has, in part, heartbreakingly resulted in some turning from God altogether and others not being interested in seeking him the first place. In some flying into cults or flying out of churches.
The New Testament authors do not have a brand spanking new understanding (the Watchtower called and they want their new light back, Christians) of the fate of the wicked. They borrow language from the OT authors, and that language's meaning and application is beautifully consistent. Examine:
"His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (Matt. 3:12)
I doubt anyone would dare to argue that the chaff doesn't represent the wicked here. Katakaio is the Greek word for "burn up" in Matt. 3:12 and it literally means to "consume wholly" or "burn up utterly!" Here, an eternal consumption whereby a bona fide devouring does not occur is unfathomable. Preservation eternally in a grievous state is not the author's intent nor logic's friend.
Simple questions, in summary:
1. What does unquenchable fire do to the southern forests in Ez. 20:47?
2. What would the unquenchable fire do to the house of Joseph in Amos 5:6?
3. What would unquenchable fire do to the wicked in Matthew 3:12?
4. Do you believe it?
In conjunction and alignment with texts like Matt. 3:12, fathom:
"Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act," says the LORD Almighty." (Malachi 4:3)
Traditionalists would have to presume that the wicked won't be ashes at all. Just their bodies. The wicked themselves will be anything but ashes according to most preachers. This is based on the lie that man can still breathe, think, speak and be awake when he's supposed to be dead. Nope. For one, this would mean that Christ didn't come to save men. Just their discarded bodies! This doesn't make ANY SENSE in quite a number of "let me count the ways."
Additionally, if the penalty for sin can never be paid in any definite length of time, then the implication would be that Christ didn't pay it because he isn't being eternally tormented consciously in terrifying perpetual flames. To suggest unrepentant sinners not exercising faith will be kept alive forever in fire to pay for their temporary sin is to proclaim that the penalty for sin is not what Christ underwent in the least. This is unreasonable and unscriptural. In Yah's holy word, a sinner's payment is relegated strictly to the day of the LORD, its' length of time, and not beyond. And God's entire cup of wrath against sin was poured out on Christ, was it not? Does he not punish then eliminate sin? Why would he want wickedness, chaos, and suffering around forever? I think the whole point of the kingdom is to have a world without any!
What about worms that never die? Well, much like the fire that never goes out does go out once it's job of annihilation is wholly accomplished, the worms likewise won't die till their job of consumption is completely finished. God is trying to communicate that nothing will prevent elimination of certain places and people when it is deemed necessary or just! There's no hindering it, and these tools of destruction aren't used to communicate preservation by any stretch of the imagination.
Thoughtfully observe, Mr. Berean:
"And as they go out, they will see the dead bodies of those who have rebelled against me. For the worms that devour them will never die, and the fire that burns them will never go out. All who pass by will view them with utter horror.” (Isaiah 66:24)
Wowza! Please take note of something quite astounding and telling in this passage. That being, that the worms and fire are on carcasses, and not on souls that supposedly cannot perish maintaining them infinitely! Yes, God uses "unquenchable fire" and "undying worms" as destruction tools for carcasses. And not as preservation tools for souls! Could anything possibly be anymore clear? The forests, chaff, and carcasses of the wicked are utterly consumed, and you won't find fire and worms embracing imperishable souls anywhere in all of scripture. That is apparently a myth. They're only used to prove that certain things ARE perishable and are the means to instigate and assure the process. Or to finish it.
But what about "eternal fire"? Behold:
"Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)
Compare to:
"God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and turned them into heaps of ashes. He made them an example of what will happen to ungodly people." (2 Peter 2:6)
So, again, obviously, eternal fire reduces to what? Ashes or a life of limitless torment? The punishment is becoming ashes, not what's widely propagated to be occurring in some other realm removed from them. Reduction to ashes and eternal conscious torment are not synonyms, and both are not assimilated simultaneously anywhere in the inspired word of God. In scripture, man is not a dichotomy or trichotomy. God breathed spirit, or animating breath, into Adam's nostrils and he became a living soul. So the soul is an entire person. Man doesn't exist in any other capacity.
The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are decidedly not still burning. It's probable that the term "eternal" is used to convey that the annihilation resulting from the fire is irrevocable and eternal. Final and irreversible. There will be no rebuilding for the debauched cities or resuscitation for the incurably wicked. Their unfortunate fate is eternal.
Similarly, scripture speaks of eternal destruction. To quote Steve Scianni from his wonderful essay "Everlating Torment Examined":
"Eternal destruction describes the permanent consequences of the destruction, not the duration of the destroying process. This sense is common when the word ‘eternal’ is paired with a ‘noun of action’ – for example, an eternal salvation, eternal redemption and eternal judgment (Hebrews 5:9, 6:2, 9:12); or an eternal sin (Mark 3:29), or an eternal fire (Jude 7). Neither the salvation, redemption, judgment, sin or fire are going to be eternally enduring actions, rather their results are what is meant as final and everlasting." (emphasis mine)
Right! There is not an "eternal saving process." Likewise, there is not an "eternal destroying process." There is a one time salvation and a one time destruction, eternal in consequence.
As yet another reasoning point, about the unrighteous, it is said:
"While they are saying, ‘peace and safety’ then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape” (1 Thessalonians 5:3)."
Scianni comments:
"The destruction will overtake them suddenly and by surprise, like a thief in the night, and like a woman seized by labor pains. Notice, it is the destruction that surprises them, showing once again that Paul understood the destruction to be a single event, not an endless state." (emphasis mine)
He also notes:
"The Traditionalist, then, who will not properly define the Greek word apollumi as a destruction, ruining or loss ‘to extinction’ but as something connoting a ruining to a ‘useless and lower quality of existence,’ has to explain the following: Matthew 2:13; 5:29, Mark 3:6; 9:41; 11:18; 12:9, Luke 17:27, 29, 21:18, John 10:10, I Corinthians 1:19; 15:18, Hebrews 1:10-11, James 1:10-11, and Revelation 18:14."
Yep! I highly recommending looking up those scriptures to grasp the true meaning of the easy word "destruction."
But what about "weeping and gnashing of teeth?" Consider:
"The wicked will see it and be vexed. He will gnash his teeth and melt away. The desire of the wicked will perish." (Psalm 112:10)
Here, is gnashing of teeth connected to unspeakable agony in flames, as a wicked soul gets safeguarded therein? Or is a picture of destruction yet again effortlessly detectable? If you melt, you aren't conserved. If you perish, you aren't imperishable! The gnashing isn't occurring with bodiless unkillable people. It's happening with perishable humans with bodies! Also examine:
"In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out." (Luke 13:28)
Additionally:
"When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him." (Acts 7:54)
So anger at adverse condemnation and judgment is the picture weeping and gnashing of teeth is attempting to paint. It doesn't say this anger goes on infinitely. According to a psalm, it ends in "melting away"..
Beyond even this, the bible makes it clear that God alone is immortal. (1 Timothy 6:16) He can gift eternal life to others, but it isn't inherent. It's said to be bestowed to only one of the two of these kinds: the righteous or the unrighteous. To suggest the condemned group intrinsically possesses what God alone does is your own idea, not God's revelation. God is not said to bestow the wicked what he does the righteous, with flames and worms added. Nor is it ever scripturally proclaimed that perishing means eternal agony! Being awake, thinking, and breathing in any capacity is not the definition of death. It's nonsensical. Death is an antonym to life, not a synonym, whereby those dead are awake thinking, breathing, and screaming. There is what should be an eye-opening predominant use of terms like perish, destroy, ashes, melting away, consume, etc. to depict the fate of the wicked! It boggles and blows my mind that people use these crystal clear literal terms figuratively and symbolically while they prefer to take symbolic passages literally. And outrageously outside their historical context mind you. Arbitrary impositions on what should be transparent kindergarten revelations are being liberally employed by traditionalists to disavow mankind's perishability.
But what about the symbolic book of Revelation and its, well, revelations? Scianni sharply notes in his meticulous and thoughtful essay:
"The genre is characterized by symbolism, cryptograms, visions, poetry, hyperbole, figures of speech, and metaphors.
Caution should then be taken to interpret the passages in light of the clearer testimony of the Bible, and not the other way around. That is, if the rest of the Bible in precise language tells us the fate of the unrighteous is death and destruction, we ought to bring apocalyptic texts into harmony with the unambiguous majority."
Keeping that logic intact, ponder:
"The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image.” (Rev. 14:11)
Also, :
“And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” (Rev. 20:10)
Lets establish an undeniable historical context. John borrows these symbols, this imagery, and his brow-raising language explicitly from Isaiah, where it is said about the wicked city of Edom:
"And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch,
and her soil into sulfur;
her land shall become burning pitch.
Night and day it shall not be quenched;
its smoke shall go up forever." (Is. 34:9, 10)
Let's practice unhindered intellectual honesty here. Do you think that John thought from Isaiah's revelations (that he inarguably borrowed his language from) that the wicked city of Edom would really be in flames, smoking rising, forever? If anyone visited that location today, would he find fire and smoke there, even though it is said explicitly that "night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever." Of course not! The fire and smoke have since long ceased. So if they did for Edom, then when the identical imagery is adopted for the wicked, the application should be consistent, should it not? These are obviously pictures of utter annihilation, unless you believe Edom is surviving in a smoky atmosphere and in ceaseless flames. To quote Scianni, again:
"Ages of ages is an indefinite amount of time finding its duration in connection to the object referred to. We might also recall the smoke rising ‘forever and ever’ in Isaiah 34 and Revelation 19:3 as denoting an indefinite but limited amount of time. Also, 2 Kings 5:27, Psalm 83:17, Matthew 21:19, and Philemon 15 are among numerous examples of the word ‘forever’ limited to the duration of the entity spoken of."
And Patrick Navas says in his wonderful essay on Revelation 20:10:
"That the expression often translated “forever and ever” (Rev. 20:10) is not to be taken literally (in the sense of ‘absolute, never-ending, eternal duration’) may be verified by the way the same expression is used in Revelation 19:3, regarding the destruction of “Babylon.” The text reads: “Once more [the great multitude in heaven] cried out, ‘Hallelujah! The smoke from her [Babylon the great prostitute] goes up forever and ever (eis tous aiõnas ton aiõnon).” —Revelation 19:3, ESV ..At this point it is extremely doubtful that any credible Bible interpreter would suggest that the literal city of Babylon’s destruction will result in real smoke literally ascending from the fallen city forever without end, as if there will always remain some place on the earth or in the universe where smoke perpetually rises from the ruins of an actual city into the endless stretches of eternity. The expression is, clearly, metaphorical, a picture of complete and final destruction, with the image of perpetually ascending smoke connoting the permanency and lasting memory of the city’s violent demise. This point is also verified by the expression found in the preceding chapter which says that Babylon “will be burned up with fire,” so that “the great city [will] be thrown down with violence, and will be found no more…” (Rev. 18:21, ESV). That is, the great city of Babylon, or whatever is represented by the city in John’s vision, will be completely removed from existence, never to be found again."
I also like what Navas has to say about the infamous lake of fire, from the same essay:
The “lake of fire” is, in fact, defined as “the second death” (Rev. 20:14; 21:8). Death and Hades are thrown into it; and we know this represents the point when death “will be no more,” “brought to nothing,” “destroyed,” “abolished”—completely and finally “swallowed up…” This suggests, again, that the lake of fire is a symbol of ultimate and irrevocable eradication, although it may very well involve the torment of persons thrown into it, for an unstated, unspecified duration, before bringing them to complete destruction. However, unlike the first death, frequently likened unto “sleep” in scripture, and which is experienced by all of humankind, the second death carries with it no stated expectation or hope of resurrection—no future “awakening.”
We cannot be inconsistent and proclaim the lake of fire eliminates death and brings it to nothing but does the striking opposite to the wicked because they supposedly just cannot be "brought to nothing." If your dogma requires inconsistent application of biblical revelations to be upheld, maybe it should be revised to fit God's usage of terms, phrases, concepts, and symbols.
God doesn't take too kindly to potentially stumbling ideas. If I was convinced as most Christians are of the reality that most of mankind will suffer sadistically and ceaselessly in flames that never ever go out, not only could I not stand the idea, but I couldn't fathomably live peacefully, righteously, and blissfully in Yah's kingdom while this atrocity is occurring to most everyone I've ever known and loved. That wouldn't even be possible because there is simply no such thing as righteous sadism. The two concepts are irreconcilable, truly. That's why we crave and need the kingdom in the first place. Because of the egregious suffering in this world. So if you propagate suffering immeasurably worse than what we've ever conceived even in this wicked world forever even after the kingdom has come, you're deceived and deceiving. It isn't supported either by scripture or the most basic instincts of common sense, righteousness, and compassion. Even the basest of human beings would be appalled by infinite widespread sadism of the sort hellfire would be, yet some Christians act as if it's sensical instead of traumatic and disturbing in the highest of orders! Quite frankly, it's blasphemy against our very creator to propagate and weaponize a false dogma that mischaracterizes him to the point of terror.
Misused building blocks for the hellfire dogma can all be taken out one by one, like a line of glistening flashing matching blocks in candy crush! Boom! Demolished. There is a welcome abundance of information to equip us in proper understanding. Let's take advantage and conform to God's truth, where terms like perish and ashes and destroy and kill can be truly believed without a wink. I highly encourage earnest and diligent further research on this topic. The integral reasons it should be perused thoroughly and meticulously should go without saying! Beneath the surface, the conscience qualms one should harbor if one believes in the traditionalist misuse of what Gehenna entails should be alarming, bubbling and boiling over like a neglected pot of water. Heed them and feed them the truth. Read John 3:16 like a child would and just believe what it reveals.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
What this text doesn't say is:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not have eternal agony in flames but have eternal life."
There are certain phrases and concepts many, if not most, Christians readily (and mistakenly in my educated opinion) use to cement and propagate eternal conscious torment. They then weaponize the mistaken dogma, managing to repel a probable outrageous number of conscientious questioners and objectors to such a traumatizing and unconscionable teaching. I don't think this is remotely excusable anymore given the widespread exposing of the dogma as ultimately and easily unbiblical. The reasoning used in a futile attempt to crystallize it is specious and often recognized as fundamentally desperate when pondered as profusely as it should very well be. Yes, information and tools are ubiquitous and poised for our consumption to aid in reaching a more accurate understanding of biblical revelations on the topic. I will here scrutinize some of the most commonly utilized phraseologies and idioms hellfire claspers, graspers, and proponents misuse. I shall do this in an honest attempt to set the wrong right and the upside down right side up. Our conscience and logic is God gifted, and I think to believe in the hellfire like that commonly preached in pulpits requires a denying of and a defying of those endowments, in spades!
Firstly, what is hell?
Gehenna, translated as hell in scripture, was the "Valley of the Sons of Hinnom" close to Jerusalem. It was frequently availed as a trash heap/garbage dump to dispose of waste and caracasses. Fire and worms assured that all the trash and corpses tossed there met their end as opposed to their conservation in unfathomable torments. So when Jesus spoke of Gehenna, he was painting a picture of irreversible and guaranteed annihilation and definitively not one of agonizing preservation. Surely Jesus wouldn't use a garbage heap where annihilation was the fate of whatever's thrown there to depict a place where the stark opposite of annihilation occurs! There were no screaming souls in Gehenna. It never would've entered Jesus's mind to talk about a place of destruction and then to assume his listeners would imagine it's a place where nothing can ever be destroyed. Senseless! Worms obviously communicate consumption and death and certainly not pain and agony while one lives on forever. They feed on perishable bodies, not bodiless immortals, as we'll talk about here.
But firstly, we'll contemplate the phrase "unquenchable fire." How is it used in the holy word of Yahweh? Examine:
"Say to the southern forest: 'Hear the word of the LORD. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am about to set fire to you, and it will consume all your trees, both green and dry. The blazing flame will not be quenched, and every face from south to north will be scorched by it." (Ezekial 20:47)
According to scripture, a fire that cannot be quenched "consumes." Not being quenched is a phrase used to connote that the flames will absolutely unequivocally burn without ceasing or going out until their job of destruction is assuredly accomplished! These flames do not preserve infinitely whatever they touch or inundate. Unless you somehow inexplicably and unreasonably believe the utterly eradicated forest is still burning unscathed in those unquenchable flames, trees proudly standing tall as they burn perpetually any way but down. If one were to go there right after such a dramatic event, would the trees still be standing up burning and never being consumed, or would the forest be destroyed and quite literally devoured? Will the fire have gone out? Scripture indisputably uses the phrase to explicitly denote utter and inescapable destruction, so to assign it the opposite meaning to maintain the traditional misuse is not apropos in the least! Further, inspect:
"Seek the LORD and live, or he will sweep through the house of Joseph like a fire; it will devour, and Bethel will have no one to quench it." (Amos 5:6)
Hmmm. Curiously, (okay, straightforwardly to be completely honest) ravenous flames devour. Nothing survives them! They do not infinitely preserve and keep whatever they engulf ceaselessly and magically intact, in some ruinous condition. Yet typically, Christian traditionalists wouldn't hesitate, due to deceptive tradition and powerful indoctrination, to assign this phrase with an irreconcilable and inconsistent meaning from the one scripture deliberately and explicitly articulates. It's neither sound nor remotely suitable to do so considering the doctrines that result from such unfathomable and egregious misuse. Also considering the fact that professed Christians should desire to use God's words how he does, and not assign them antithetical uses to accommodate mistaken, dangerous, and downright repugnant traditions of men. I use such strong language because the typical erroneous view of hell is necessitated by an unwarranted misapplication of scripture, accompanied by a sinister acceptance of the most horrifying and nefarious untruths imaginable. It has, in part, heartbreakingly resulted in some turning from God altogether and others not being interested in seeking him the first place. In some flying into cults or flying out of churches.
The New Testament authors do not have a brand spanking new understanding (the Watchtower called and they want their new light back, Christians) of the fate of the wicked. They borrow language from the OT authors, and that language's meaning and application is beautifully consistent. Examine:
"His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (Matt. 3:12)
I doubt anyone would dare to argue that the chaff doesn't represent the wicked here. Katakaio is the Greek word for "burn up" in Matt. 3:12 and it literally means to "consume wholly" or "burn up utterly!" Here, an eternal consumption whereby a bona fide devouring does not occur is unfathomable. Preservation eternally in a grievous state is not the author's intent nor logic's friend.
Simple questions, in summary:
1. What does unquenchable fire do to the southern forests in Ez. 20:47?
2. What would the unquenchable fire do to the house of Joseph in Amos 5:6?
3. What would unquenchable fire do to the wicked in Matthew 3:12?
4. Do you believe it?
In conjunction and alignment with texts like Matt. 3:12, fathom:
"Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act," says the LORD Almighty." (Malachi 4:3)
Traditionalists would have to presume that the wicked won't be ashes at all. Just their bodies. The wicked themselves will be anything but ashes according to most preachers. This is based on the lie that man can still breathe, think, speak and be awake when he's supposed to be dead. Nope. For one, this would mean that Christ didn't come to save men. Just their discarded bodies! This doesn't make ANY SENSE in quite a number of "let me count the ways."
Additionally, if the penalty for sin can never be paid in any definite length of time, then the implication would be that Christ didn't pay it because he isn't being eternally tormented consciously in terrifying perpetual flames. To suggest unrepentant sinners not exercising faith will be kept alive forever in fire to pay for their temporary sin is to proclaim that the penalty for sin is not what Christ underwent in the least. This is unreasonable and unscriptural. In Yah's holy word, a sinner's payment is relegated strictly to the day of the LORD, its' length of time, and not beyond. And God's entire cup of wrath against sin was poured out on Christ, was it not? Does he not punish then eliminate sin? Why would he want wickedness, chaos, and suffering around forever? I think the whole point of the kingdom is to have a world without any!
What about worms that never die? Well, much like the fire that never goes out does go out once it's job of annihilation is wholly accomplished, the worms likewise won't die till their job of consumption is completely finished. God is trying to communicate that nothing will prevent elimination of certain places and people when it is deemed necessary or just! There's no hindering it, and these tools of destruction aren't used to communicate preservation by any stretch of the imagination.
Thoughtfully observe, Mr. Berean:
"And as they go out, they will see the dead bodies of those who have rebelled against me. For the worms that devour them will never die, and the fire that burns them will never go out. All who pass by will view them with utter horror.” (Isaiah 66:24)
Wowza! Please take note of something quite astounding and telling in this passage. That being, that the worms and fire are on carcasses, and not on souls that supposedly cannot perish maintaining them infinitely! Yes, God uses "unquenchable fire" and "undying worms" as destruction tools for carcasses. And not as preservation tools for souls! Could anything possibly be anymore clear? The forests, chaff, and carcasses of the wicked are utterly consumed, and you won't find fire and worms embracing imperishable souls anywhere in all of scripture. That is apparently a myth. They're only used to prove that certain things ARE perishable and are the means to instigate and assure the process. Or to finish it.
But what about "eternal fire"? Behold:
"Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)
Compare to:
"God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and turned them into heaps of ashes. He made them an example of what will happen to ungodly people." (2 Peter 2:6)
So, again, obviously, eternal fire reduces to what? Ashes or a life of limitless torment? The punishment is becoming ashes, not what's widely propagated to be occurring in some other realm removed from them. Reduction to ashes and eternal conscious torment are not synonyms, and both are not assimilated simultaneously anywhere in the inspired word of God. In scripture, man is not a dichotomy or trichotomy. God breathed spirit, or animating breath, into Adam's nostrils and he became a living soul. So the soul is an entire person. Man doesn't exist in any other capacity.
The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are decidedly not still burning. It's probable that the term "eternal" is used to convey that the annihilation resulting from the fire is irrevocable and eternal. Final and irreversible. There will be no rebuilding for the debauched cities or resuscitation for the incurably wicked. Their unfortunate fate is eternal.
Similarly, scripture speaks of eternal destruction. To quote Steve Scianni from his wonderful essay "Everlating Torment Examined":
"Eternal destruction describes the permanent consequences of the destruction, not the duration of the destroying process. This sense is common when the word ‘eternal’ is paired with a ‘noun of action’ – for example, an eternal salvation, eternal redemption and eternal judgment (Hebrews 5:9, 6:2, 9:12); or an eternal sin (Mark 3:29), or an eternal fire (Jude 7). Neither the salvation, redemption, judgment, sin or fire are going to be eternally enduring actions, rather their results are what is meant as final and everlasting." (emphasis mine)
Right! There is not an "eternal saving process." Likewise, there is not an "eternal destroying process." There is a one time salvation and a one time destruction, eternal in consequence.
As yet another reasoning point, about the unrighteous, it is said:
"While they are saying, ‘peace and safety’ then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape” (1 Thessalonians 5:3)."
Scianni comments:
"The destruction will overtake them suddenly and by surprise, like a thief in the night, and like a woman seized by labor pains. Notice, it is the destruction that surprises them, showing once again that Paul understood the destruction to be a single event, not an endless state." (emphasis mine)
He also notes:
"The Traditionalist, then, who will not properly define the Greek word apollumi as a destruction, ruining or loss ‘to extinction’ but as something connoting a ruining to a ‘useless and lower quality of existence,’ has to explain the following: Matthew 2:13; 5:29, Mark 3:6; 9:41; 11:18; 12:9, Luke 17:27, 29, 21:18, John 10:10, I Corinthians 1:19; 15:18, Hebrews 1:10-11, James 1:10-11, and Revelation 18:14."
Yep! I highly recommending looking up those scriptures to grasp the true meaning of the easy word "destruction."
But what about "weeping and gnashing of teeth?" Consider:
"The wicked will see it and be vexed. He will gnash his teeth and melt away. The desire of the wicked will perish." (Psalm 112:10)
Here, is gnashing of teeth connected to unspeakable agony in flames, as a wicked soul gets safeguarded therein? Or is a picture of destruction yet again effortlessly detectable? If you melt, you aren't conserved. If you perish, you aren't imperishable! The gnashing isn't occurring with bodiless unkillable people. It's happening with perishable humans with bodies! Also examine:
"In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out." (Luke 13:28)
Additionally:
"When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him." (Acts 7:54)
So anger at adverse condemnation and judgment is the picture weeping and gnashing of teeth is attempting to paint. It doesn't say this anger goes on infinitely. According to a psalm, it ends in "melting away"..
Beyond even this, the bible makes it clear that God alone is immortal. (1 Timothy 6:16) He can gift eternal life to others, but it isn't inherent. It's said to be bestowed to only one of the two of these kinds: the righteous or the unrighteous. To suggest the condemned group intrinsically possesses what God alone does is your own idea, not God's revelation. God is not said to bestow the wicked what he does the righteous, with flames and worms added. Nor is it ever scripturally proclaimed that perishing means eternal agony! Being awake, thinking, and breathing in any capacity is not the definition of death. It's nonsensical. Death is an antonym to life, not a synonym, whereby those dead are awake thinking, breathing, and screaming. There is what should be an eye-opening predominant use of terms like perish, destroy, ashes, melting away, consume, etc. to depict the fate of the wicked! It boggles and blows my mind that people use these crystal clear literal terms figuratively and symbolically while they prefer to take symbolic passages literally. And outrageously outside their historical context mind you. Arbitrary impositions on what should be transparent kindergarten revelations are being liberally employed by traditionalists to disavow mankind's perishability.
But what about the symbolic book of Revelation and its, well, revelations? Scianni sharply notes in his meticulous and thoughtful essay:
"The genre is characterized by symbolism, cryptograms, visions, poetry, hyperbole, figures of speech, and metaphors.
Caution should then be taken to interpret the passages in light of the clearer testimony of the Bible, and not the other way around. That is, if the rest of the Bible in precise language tells us the fate of the unrighteous is death and destruction, we ought to bring apocalyptic texts into harmony with the unambiguous majority."
Keeping that logic intact, ponder:
"The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image.” (Rev. 14:11)
Also, :
“And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” (Rev. 20:10)
Lets establish an undeniable historical context. John borrows these symbols, this imagery, and his brow-raising language explicitly from Isaiah, where it is said about the wicked city of Edom:
"And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch,
and her soil into sulfur;
her land shall become burning pitch.
Night and day it shall not be quenched;
its smoke shall go up forever." (Is. 34:9, 10)
Let's practice unhindered intellectual honesty here. Do you think that John thought from Isaiah's revelations (that he inarguably borrowed his language from) that the wicked city of Edom would really be in flames, smoking rising, forever? If anyone visited that location today, would he find fire and smoke there, even though it is said explicitly that "night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever." Of course not! The fire and smoke have since long ceased. So if they did for Edom, then when the identical imagery is adopted for the wicked, the application should be consistent, should it not? These are obviously pictures of utter annihilation, unless you believe Edom is surviving in a smoky atmosphere and in ceaseless flames. To quote Scianni, again:
"Ages of ages is an indefinite amount of time finding its duration in connection to the object referred to. We might also recall the smoke rising ‘forever and ever’ in Isaiah 34 and Revelation 19:3 as denoting an indefinite but limited amount of time. Also, 2 Kings 5:27, Psalm 83:17, Matthew 21:19, and Philemon 15 are among numerous examples of the word ‘forever’ limited to the duration of the entity spoken of."
And Patrick Navas says in his wonderful essay on Revelation 20:10:
"That the expression often translated “forever and ever” (Rev. 20:10) is not to be taken literally (in the sense of ‘absolute, never-ending, eternal duration’) may be verified by the way the same expression is used in Revelation 19:3, regarding the destruction of “Babylon.” The text reads: “Once more [the great multitude in heaven] cried out, ‘Hallelujah! The smoke from her [Babylon the great prostitute] goes up forever and ever (eis tous aiõnas ton aiõnon).” —Revelation 19:3, ESV ..At this point it is extremely doubtful that any credible Bible interpreter would suggest that the literal city of Babylon’s destruction will result in real smoke literally ascending from the fallen city forever without end, as if there will always remain some place on the earth or in the universe where smoke perpetually rises from the ruins of an actual city into the endless stretches of eternity. The expression is, clearly, metaphorical, a picture of complete and final destruction, with the image of perpetually ascending smoke connoting the permanency and lasting memory of the city’s violent demise. This point is also verified by the expression found in the preceding chapter which says that Babylon “will be burned up with fire,” so that “the great city [will] be thrown down with violence, and will be found no more…” (Rev. 18:21, ESV). That is, the great city of Babylon, or whatever is represented by the city in John’s vision, will be completely removed from existence, never to be found again."
I also like what Navas has to say about the infamous lake of fire, from the same essay:
The “lake of fire” is, in fact, defined as “the second death” (Rev. 20:14; 21:8). Death and Hades are thrown into it; and we know this represents the point when death “will be no more,” “brought to nothing,” “destroyed,” “abolished”—completely and finally “swallowed up…” This suggests, again, that the lake of fire is a symbol of ultimate and irrevocable eradication, although it may very well involve the torment of persons thrown into it, for an unstated, unspecified duration, before bringing them to complete destruction. However, unlike the first death, frequently likened unto “sleep” in scripture, and which is experienced by all of humankind, the second death carries with it no stated expectation or hope of resurrection—no future “awakening.”
We cannot be inconsistent and proclaim the lake of fire eliminates death and brings it to nothing but does the striking opposite to the wicked because they supposedly just cannot be "brought to nothing." If your dogma requires inconsistent application of biblical revelations to be upheld, maybe it should be revised to fit God's usage of terms, phrases, concepts, and symbols.
God doesn't take too kindly to potentially stumbling ideas. If I was convinced as most Christians are of the reality that most of mankind will suffer sadistically and ceaselessly in flames that never ever go out, not only could I not stand the idea, but I couldn't fathomably live peacefully, righteously, and blissfully in Yah's kingdom while this atrocity is occurring to most everyone I've ever known and loved. That wouldn't even be possible because there is simply no such thing as righteous sadism. The two concepts are irreconcilable, truly. That's why we crave and need the kingdom in the first place. Because of the egregious suffering in this world. So if you propagate suffering immeasurably worse than what we've ever conceived even in this wicked world forever even after the kingdom has come, you're deceived and deceiving. It isn't supported either by scripture or the most basic instincts of common sense, righteousness, and compassion. Even the basest of human beings would be appalled by infinite widespread sadism of the sort hellfire would be, yet some Christians act as if it's sensical instead of traumatic and disturbing in the highest of orders! Quite frankly, it's blasphemy against our very creator to propagate and weaponize a false dogma that mischaracterizes him to the point of terror.
Misused building blocks for the hellfire dogma can all be taken out one by one, like a line of glistening flashing matching blocks in candy crush! Boom! Demolished. There is a welcome abundance of information to equip us in proper understanding. Let's take advantage and conform to God's truth, where terms like perish and ashes and destroy and kill can be truly believed without a wink. I highly encourage earnest and diligent further research on this topic. The integral reasons it should be perused thoroughly and meticulously should go without saying! Beneath the surface, the conscience qualms one should harbor if one believes in the traditionalist misuse of what Gehenna entails should be alarming, bubbling and boiling over like a neglected pot of water. Heed them and feed them the truth. Read John 3:16 like a child would and just believe what it reveals.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
What this text doesn't say is:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not have eternal agony in flames but have eternal life."
Do you know John Schoenheit or John Lynn?
ReplyDelete