From (almost) the beginning of the Bible to the very end, the Bible is a book about judgement. The idea that judgement might come functions in the obvious way: to scare sinners. But it is also paradoxically comforting for angry people. It is especially comforting to those who are angry over the injustice they see in the world.
Two examples from the beginning and end of Scripture come to mind, and they both involve unjust loss of life. The first example comes from the beginning of the Bible: Genesis 4. Here, Cain murders his brother Abel. What does Abel do in response? Well, clearly he is not able—to do anything, that is. Or is he? God contradicts our normal understanding of what dead people are capable of when, in verse 10, he speaks to Cain with these terrible words: “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground”. He then proceeds to punish Cain for his sin. This is not good news for Cain. But it is surely comforting to Abel, who according to Hebrews 11, continues even to this day to look forward to a heavenly reward.
(Not everyone takes Genesis literally, of course. But this is a mistake, since other parts of the Bible also confirm the ability of the dead to speak with great clarity, even making reference to this very incident. So Hebrews 11:4 says of Abel, “And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks”. Two verses later, the writer to the Hebrews comments, “And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (v. 6). So it seems that the ability to speak after death is one of God’s rewards for those who trust him. It may be that God is the only one who hears them, but that should be enough for us.)
The second example comes the other end of the Bible—from Revelation 6, where those Christians who have died for the cause of Christ call out for vengeance and are comforted by the idea of God’s justice (I discuss that here).
There is one more example of how God’s judgement comforts dead people who have suffered injustice, and it’s very important. As Jesus dies on the cross, he quotes the words of Psalm 22: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”. This is clearly a Psalm of judgement where the psalmist recognizes that he is surrounded by “dogs” and “evildoers” who, by the psalm’s end, have been frustrated in their desire to hurt and to harm the faithful servant of God. In turn, the servant sings praise in the congregation to the one who rescued him.
The Lord Jesus was comforted on the cross by the thought that his heavenly Father would save him from wicked people. He was not just comforted by that comforting thought, he was comforted by God himself who, three days later, raised him from the dead, thus answering his prayer.
Indeed, the fact that God answered Jesus’ prayer by raising him from the dead is also the comfort we have—that, like Abel and the saints of Revelation 6, our angry prayers for injustice to come to an end will be answered. When? On the day when the risen Lord Jesus comes as the Saviour of his people, and as the avenger against those who rejected his rule when he first came to earth. In Paul’s words:
This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering—since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.
To sum up: the idea that God will judge people and cast them into eternal destruction—hell—for all eternity is a great comfort to anyone who is angry about injustice. Those of us who teach the gospel or tell it to others have a wonderfully comforting message of damnation that will bring hope to all who put their trust in God. The more we speak of it, the more comfort we offer.
UPDATE: Welcome to those who are visiting from Ben Myers’ blog. If you want to see some related posts, begin with this post on ‘Preaching Hell to Depressed Teens’, and continue on to the other links in that post. This issue is not unimportant, and will repay prayerful homework.
Thanks for all your hard thinking and praying about this double-edged subject, Gordon!
“Those of us who teach the gospel or tell it to others have a wonderfully comforting message of damnation that will bring hope to all who put their trust in God. The more we speak of it, the more comfort we offer.”
I expect that this message will be jarring to hearers… how do you go about saying this in a loving and uncensored way?
Honoria, I would say that the best thing to do is to pray for a right heart and have a go! And, not to be surprised that no matter how well we think we’ve managed to do it, people will still get angry and upset with <i>us</i>, and say that we’ve been wicked and unloving and manipulative for even raising the subject.
The hard part about that, of course, is that they will sometimes be right. The right thing to do then is to apologize and keep right on going. Our personal fumbles and mistakes shouldn’t stop us from telling the truth. One of the kindy teachers at my daughters’ school repeats the mantra ‘Mistakes are your friend!’ Annoyingly, I think she’s right.
The other thing is that sometimes, we will be getting it right and <i>still</i> come in for criticism. I think that’s part of the cost of discipleship. If we keep the gospel in front of us, though, God will enable us to see just how great the reward of counting that cost will be—not just for us, but for those dear friends who will be saved and comforted when they believe the gospel we tell them.
I think you are on to something here. This is a major emphasis in my forthcoming book. Much of Christian culture defines forgiveness as a feeling, and encourages people to process injustices by not feeling bitter.
However, biblically, injustices are dealt with by trusting in God’s justice (see for instance, 2 Timothy 4:14) or Psalm 37). Rather than saying, “It’s okay.” We are to say, “God will sort it out.”
In terms of the first question from Honoria, this truth is best taught from a passage like Romans 12:9-21. (1) Love. (2) Don’t take revenge. (3) But, leave room for the wrath of God. There we have an emphasis on love and also not taking matters into our own hands. But, also on the justice of God.
These are points I made in a column following Virginia Tech. (See, http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2007/05/05/forgiveness-and-virginia-tech/
An understanding of eternal punishment is a foundational way people are encouraged when hurt by the unrepentant.
“The Lord Jesus was comforted on the cross by the thought that his heavenly Father would save him from wicked people.”
This statement is flatly contradicted by the Gospels. “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” doesn’t sound to me like “Father, the knowledge that you will subject these sinners to eternal conscious torment is really comforting right now.”
Grace, Grace, God’s Grace
Grace that is greater than all my sins!
Perhaps we should carefully rethink our position on hell in light of the Gospel before preaching to angry and judgmental people. After all what does such a person need? Retribution or reconciliation?
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire” (Matt. 5.22, ESV)
“And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell” (James 3.6, ESV)
Marvelous, infinite, matchless grace,
Freely bestowed on all who believe
All who are longing to see His face,
Will you this moment His grace receive?
Enjoy, ron
Bill, I think it is too much to say that it is “flatly contradicted.” While it is true that Jesus was gracious to those who crucified him – – he certainly had an attitude of grace – – Peter reminds us that rather than retaliate, Jesus entrusted himself to him who judges justly (1 Peter 2:21-25). Jesus did rest in the justice of the Father.
See also, http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2008/02/15/didnt-jesus-forgive-unconditionally-on-the-cross/
Ron – – I agree, the attitude of angry people must be that of grace. So far as it depends on us, we should live at peace with all people. Whatever someone has done to offend us, pales in comparison to what we have done to offend God.
Still, this doesn’t preclude us resting in God’s justice.
Bill, I’m aware of Jesus’ prayer that those who wanted him dead might be forgiven, and indeed the Roman centurion who acknowledged ‘Surely this man was the son of God’ might be a good example of this (I say might, because we are not sure what happened to the centurion). But I’m not sure how I see this <i>contradicts</i> the comfort anticipated by Psalm 22—any more than the reality of final judgement (and our sense that it is good, right and proper) contradicts the idea that God doesn’t desire the death of a sinner (Ex 18:32).
Ron, thank you for the reminder of grace; what I’ve attempted to show is that retribution and grace are not opposed, and that retribution carries with it great grace for those who have suffered wrong.
And as with my response to Bill, I would have to say that I see no contradiction in desiring that the wicked be judged, and also believing that it would be far better if those wicked people repented and received forgiveness (which doesn’t remove judgement, of course, so much as place it upon the Lord Jesus).
“The Lord Jesus was comforted on the cross by the thought that his heavenly Father would save him from wicked people.”
“This statement is flatly contradicted by the Gospels. “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” doesn’t sound to me like “Father, the knowledge that you will subject these sinners to eternal conscious torment is really comforting right now.” “
HA! OWNED!
Re: “The Lord Jesus was comforted on the cross by the thought that his heavenly Father would save him from wicked people.”
In addition to what’s already been said above:
Jesus wept over Jerusalem.
Jesus endured for the JOY set before Him. Following from that I would venture to say that means Jesus was comforted for the JOY that was set before Him– rather than the fact the Father was going to judge the wicked and send them into hell.
Jesus said that the Gospel would be preached beginning AT Jerusalem (to the very people who crucified Him!).
God does not wish that any should perish but all come to repentance.
God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
Re:
“To sum up: the idea that God will judge people and cast them into eternal destruction—hell—for all eternity is a great comfort to anyone who is angry about injustice. Those of us who teach the gospel or tell it to others have a wonderfully comforting message of damnation that will bring hope to all who put their trust in God. The more we speak of it, the more comfort we offer.”
Should we really be comforted that others are going to burn in hell for eternity? God has not treated us as our sins deserve. Why should we take comfort when he treats others as their sins deserve while He has not treated us as we deserve?
God wanted to wipe out the idolatrous Israelites and make a new nation. Did Moses take comfort in that? No. And not only that, like the Lord Jesus, Moses interceded for Israel that they might be spared.
While he was being stoned, did Stephen take comfort that his murderers would be judged? No, he was comforted as he looked unto Jesus, commended himself to Jesus and was fully assured he would be with Jesus. We also see that Stephen prayed that his persecutors might be forgiven.
If we take comfort that others will burn, do we truly understand the depth of our own sin and the cost of the blood Christ shed for our salvation?
We also don’t know if those who have wronged us or those who have committed injustices might one day trust in Christ and be saved. On such a day will we rejoice along with the angels when those lost sheep are found, or will we stand outside the party sulking and inconsolable since they’re not burning in hell (consider Jonah after the Ninevites repented or the eldest son after the prodigal son returned home)?
Is comforting the angry really to be our highest aim? Are we not take them (ourselves) to a higher realm as taught by Christ in the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:43-48) and lived out by Christ in the flesh. Should we not seek to present them (ourselves) perfect in Christ so they (we) might pray along with Christ, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” It’s not easy–frankly it’s flat out impossible apart from the working of the Holy Spirit–but that’s the real Gospel we are to incarnate. Freely we have received, freely we are to give. Matthew 18:23-35. We are to forgive as the Lord has forgiven us. We cannot sincerely pray “Lord, Jesus Christ have mercy on me, a sinner” without intending to extend that same mercy to others.
Hi Norman and Karen,
Yeh, I was scratching my head when I first read Gordon’s statements. God’s priority is to extend grace – he’d much rather save than judge.
And that shows in the parable of the Tenants (Matthew 21:33-46). The Tenants refuse to give the Landowner his dues. So the Landowner sends messengers to them, but the Tenants beat and kill. He sends more messengers and there’s more violence. The Landowner is still not deterred – so he send his Son to them. So much grace from the Landowner! But the Tenants respond by deliberately killing the heir so they can keep the land.
‘“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”’ Jesus asks (v. 40).
‘“He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied’ (v41)
The answer is so blindingly obvious. After so much grace rejected and so much evil, the Tenants get what’s coming to them…
Notice who gives this answer. It’s the chief priests and elders, Jesus’ opponents in this conversation. And to fulfill this parable, they promptly plot and carry out Jesus’ murder.
Jesus tells this parable himself. He explains how right and good it is that the Father should avenge his death and repay the rejection of enormous grace. Even his enemies feel the rightness of his answer that they say it themselves.
This is the sort of falderal that was certainly torn from a moldy tome, resting in a dark corner of the malnourished library of lunacy, a wing of the cathedral of the insane, buried deep within the wretched bowels of a perfectly logical hell.
Just because you pray a lot doesn’t mean you are praying for the right things, or that you are in Harmony with God. I believe this article serves as a perfect example of what NOT to hope for. It’s veiled vengeance, revenge, and retribution and completely dismisses the core tenet of Christianity: Love that heals, Love that elevates, Love that fulfills, Love that completes, Love that includes, and Love that fulfills our wildest hopes and desires – NOT the fulfillment of a particular concept or objectification of the desired condition.
<i>This is the sort of falderal that was certainly torn from a moldy tome, resting in a dark corner of the malnourished library of lunacy, a wing of the cathedral of the insane, buried deep within the wretched bowels of a perfectly logical hell.</i>
<i>Very</i> nicely put, Mykel. I might rip it off at some stage.
More seriously, one difficulty with your view (and there are several) is the evidence to the contrary in the passages I cited. For example, the saints in Revelation 6 who are praying for justice are heard and comforted by God with the assurance that they will receive what they are asking if they are patient. No divine rebuke for their misplaced desires and failure to love their enemies.
There is a sort of knack for interpreting evidence anywhere in the Bible:
Read it in the context of Jesus Christ, Love Incarnate, fully God and fully human at the same time.
One proclivity towards interpreting evidence is the assumption that just because the evidence exists, it not only proves, but generates AND sustains the condition as an absolute.
But to quote T.S. Eliot:
“The wounded surgeon plies the steel
That questions the distempered part
Beneath the bleeding hands we feel
The compassion of the healer’s art
Resolving the enigma of the fever chart.”
I might try reassessing all that evidence through that lens and see what you find.
Very Best,
Mykel
Mykel –
I’m sure what you’re saying is very deep and profound. But I for one can’t make head nor tail of it, let alone detect any cogent argument. Can you explain in plain language that us simple folk can understand?
Hey Ian,
Well, I will do what I can.
Any logic “system” is exactly that – it’s a set of rules that are erected in the valiant (or malicious) attempt to predict what should happen should certain conditions are met.
Computers work only because we tell the computer what to do. Example of code, which is rooted in logic:
IF condition (A) = True
THEN
Do This
And That
And The Other
ELSE /~meaning condition (A) is NOT true~/
Do Nothing
END
The particular challenge with any sort of theology is to describe the operation of the system of “God” in terms of the evidence that has manifested itself. As the appearance of evidence changes, there is the attempt to abstract out of that evidence a particular pattern. From that pattern, there is a natural tendency to determine what “rules” govern the repeatability of not only the evidence, but the pattern itself. (We call this stability and determinability.)
But what happens when evidence appears that somehow violates what we have grown accustomed to? There’s nothing in memory to compare it to – and it seems very foreign, or it doesn’t belong.
What are the possibilities? (This is the short list)
Deny the existence the evidence ever manifested itself. (Jesus wasn’t God and Man, but was man only who kind of acted like a deity.)
Attempt to fit the evidence into the logical structure – i.e., explaining that particular event in terms of the previous evidence. (See above)
Reexamine the evidence based on this new manifestation of reality and attempt to come up with a new way to describe the previous data so that the new data is somehow congruent.
What happened when Jesus died on the Cross, hmmm? They wrapped him up, and placed him the Holy Sepulcher. People were sad, upset. Magdalene was crying, fiercely grabbing onto Jesus’ feet, pleading not to die. (Go look at images of the Pieta, or otherwise known as “The Deposition From The Cross” – Magdalene is holding onto Jesus, even after he died.)
People were still very sad. Jesus was dead.
But………………wait a minute. Lo’ and behold!
Three days later, Jesus is NOT in the tomb. Where did He go? If you read the later part of Jesus’ life, after the Passion, there was the Resurrection, The Ascension, The Glorification and then finally, the Divinization.
Jesus violated the pattern of death and was ALIVE again. In the FLESH.
What?!?!?
Huh?
Wow.
What does this MEAN?
And while Jesus’ flesh is glowing from an inner light, the Divine Fire of Love, people are mesmerized. Jesus’ resurrection violated what people had expected, and for some, wanted. The presence of Jesus in the flesh somehow violated (it really didn’t violate, it transcended, just like He did) the human logic used to describe His previous “time” before His death on the Cross.
But what did the people without faith do? They attempted to shove that whole experience down into terms of what they had experienced before. (Anthropormorphizing God – downward transcendence, and it only happens in one direction.)
And if that didn’t work, they embellished the logical structure or added on fascinating explanations for the manifestation of Jesus’ resurrected flesh that didn’t include the validity of all the previous data, or conveniently explain away the difficulties of explaining it *all* in the first place.
The whole idea is this – moving from an absolutist, objectifying theology, to a mystical theology, where everything isn’t all figured out on what is presently available in terms of “evidence” or what one would consider to be evidence. Besides, it can get cumbersome really quick to try to “cover all the bases” with an infinite set of rules that generate more and more rules.
It’s about adopting, and having faith in something, that transcends logic, that transcends reason, that transcends emotion, that transcends feelings, intuitions, locutions, enlightenments, etc., etc.
For if God is not mystery, then He is not God, and can be figured out, experienced, manipulated by the machinations of the human mind, and ensnared by compartmentalizations of logic. (No trap here.)
Jesus gives a very simple instruction to his disciples to avoid all of this anxiety and confusion:
“Keep yours eyes on ME.”
I’m pretty sure there was something else in there about prayer too, but it’s sort of fuzzy, as I haven’t figured out how prayer works yet, but I am making the sincere attempt to do it.
Gee, that’s so much clearer. You’ve certainly “transcended logic” for me.
“For if God is not mystery, then He is not God”. Perhaps if God is not mystery it is because he has revealed himself.
<i>“‘For if God is not mystery, then He is not God’. Perhaps if God is not mystery it is because he has revealed himself.”</i>
Heh, well, it wasn’t intended as a lure to a logical trap, but, alas…
The assumption there is this:
<b>Perhaps</b> (This is a word that allows us to entertain possibility)
<b>If</b> (The word to initiate the rule.)
{We’re now at the inception point of entertaining a particular rule.}
<b>God is not mystery</b> {The proposition of a condition that God is no longer mysterious; he’s perfectly ascertainable)
{{anticipation of the REASON why this condition is PERHAPS true}}
Here it comes…
<b>God revealed Himself</b> (The satisfaction of the condition through reveal-ation)
So putting it all back together:
God is no longer mysterious because He revealed Himself in some manner.
Well, God is no longer mysterious? So, if God revealed Himself as a bush, enveloped in a contained inferno, He is no longer mysterious because he’s a bush on fire? That’s God?
Well, what happened in the New Testament? In the Old Testament, he was a burning bush, and in the NEW Testament, he apparated (he did walk on water, after all, didn’t He?) as a Man, Jesus Christ. What about the mystery of God as the burning bush, the inPLANTation (remember having faith the size of a mustard seed, hmm?
)versus the mystery of God in the flesh, the inCARNation?
What abour rewording it all to say. . .
The burning bush, the Incarnation, dispelled the mystery about the <i>presence</i> of God, but not God Himself?
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. The possibilities are truly endless.
Point is this: Faith in a logical structure has to take belief IN the logical structure itself to even work (and sometimes it works really bad) – the logical structure can’t generate or validate the presence of faith – it takes it as a given.
Faith THAT the logic even works perfectly can’t prove logically faith is real – faith is the invisible piece that keeps the whole logic structure from disintegrating, but by a strange artifact, reinforces the validity of the logic system, and then by proxy, reinforces faith.
It’s like the mobius strip – wherever you are on the Mobius strip, you’re topologically (topo-LOGICALLY; speaks to orientation and position – language similar to physics) on the same “plane”, EVEN though in order to have the Mobius Strip work, you need a thin piece of paper, which has two sides…
The paper is twisted in the middle, connected at the ends, and voila – two surfaces unite to become one. And if you were a hamster that ran on the mobius strip forever and ever, as long as you stay ON the surface of the Mobius Strip, you’re safe in never ending up on the wrong side of the strip, because there is no wrong side – there is only ONE side, even though to create the Mobius Strip, you needed a two sided piece of paper.
Though, I admit, I have never seen a piece of paper that started out with only one side. That would be very weird.
Though if (invitation into possibility) you were a hamster of eternity, the thought may enter your brain, after seeing all the other hamsters run in the same infinite loops, that … is it possible to get off the Mobius Strip? Where do you go? Do you even know? Do the other hamsters know?
So, imagine you are on the Mobius Strip and your orientation is that so that you are always congruent to the path inscribed by the surface of the strip itself…and then…you decide to turn 90 degrees and run right off of it…
What happens????
Ah, that’s the unknown, because you never ran that way before. It’s entirely new. You changed course, but you were still running.
I could go on and on, but then I run the risk of generating infinite possibilies that just float in the nebulae of the imagination, that never come to pass, or are even real. And, besides, imagine how much time you need to entertain every single possibility. You would need a lot of eternity.
Much of this may not be helpful at all. But back to the original idea behind praying for such things this Blog Post is advocating: why even choose to entertain the probability or possibility of hell as a soothing sauna for violators of “turn the other cheek” – those who are guilty of even thinking/feeling a BAD thing (anger) about others?
Aren’t we saved by grace? Don’t we believe in that? For everyone? If not, well, something may be terribly wrong.
May I propose another interpretation of all the passages?
The early fathers of the church held that God, as a good father, does indeed punish his children but only for their betterment. Punishment with not change of change is sadism.
So yes these wicked ones will suffer hell – and remain face to face with a God who still loves them and asks them to drop all their claims about not needing God, about how they can do it “on their own” and admit they have made a big mess of their lives and others, and have nothing-nothing-nothing to show to God as work done in His name to build the Kingdom of heaven up.
And yet God does not stop loving or inviting them to repent.
So what better justice is there in eternity than for the last sinner to admit his need for God and come, empty-handed, into the company of all of the others of God’s creation. For such to bow the knee willingly before our beloved Christ is a better justice than for that soul to not be kneeling before Christ as his King.
Is heaven thus heaven until all are there? I think not.
Blessings.
Ann
While I am drawn to the moving and poetic manner in which Ann writes, I am unaware of the Scriptural warrant for repentant people being released from hell and coming to the company of heaven. I’ve always read passages referring to the Lord “punish[ing] his children but only for their betterment” as (here, I’m thinking specifically of Hebrews 12) actually referring to his discipline, which seems very different than punishment. I’m willing to admit my knowledge of the early fathers needs informing, but from my current perspective, the thought owes more to Lewis’ “Great Divorce” perhaps?
Is there any insight for this discussion to be found in Revelation 18:20, where saints, apostles, and prophets are invited to rejoice over the judgment of Babylon?
It seems that this passage is inviting the saints to see the love and tenderness of God towards them, manifested in his severity towards their enemies.
Re: Judgment
There’s a particular challenge in my estimation with how “judgment” is viewed, especially in the context of the current interpretation of the Tenets of Christianity. (Literally, Christ-Like)
Judgment in today’s popular mode of thinking is to determine what is “wrong” with a particular condition for the PURPOSE of isolating and removing the condition. You see this happen almost exclusively in the “practice” of “man’s laws” – judgment is passed, the bad thing is isolated and removed away from everthing else.
Well, if you believe that Christ is Supreme Healer, The Healing Fire of Love, etc., etc., what is the purpose of judgment then?
The purpose to judge, is to heal – that’s a different mode of approaching something than what we are used to. Jesus judges to determine not only WHAT to heal, but HOW to heal and WHEN to heal, and WHERE to heal, and WHY to heal.
Only God knows these things – it’s the integration of all these dimensions of discernment fused with the integrated being (namely US) to KNOW …
(which means to possess – read Song of Songs – it’s a great illuminary read to learn how love knows even when it is not carnally present)
To KNOW … what is best for us.
I can’t think of a better being than God to know what is good, true and right IF I truly have faith that Jesus has got my back.
Instead of trying to determine the path along a series of points or points of absolute divergence, why not just be open to God on God’s terms and let Him do what IS best, hmmm?
Why all this business of praying for souls to be soothed and calmed in a raging inferno of hell because they were angry or got angry? Why not pray for the mind, heart and BEING of God to fulfill US so that we come to KNOW a way, a knack to love others, hmmm?
Again, “Keep your eyes on ME.”
It’s pretty straightforward. It’s about trust versus faith in a bizarre artifice of attempting to cover all the bases. We really DON’T know the way.
But God certainly lets us entertain all the possibilities only to show us the true way. So it’s not that I so much condemn or want to throw away these sorts of theologies – they are useful and purposeful. They are <b>very</b> illuminating.
Trust IN God, versus trust ABOUT God. Completely different proposition.