Edgework

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known (I Corinthians 13:12, KJV).

Like the Apostle Paul, we do well to acknowledge that when it comes to eternal matters we face various degrees of mystery. Yes, we have been given sign posts but they point toward a future that we only see “through a glass, darkly.” Claiming to have it all figured out is not a viable option because some mysteries remain hidden in God.

Many early church fathers held firmly to the notion that God was concerned about all people and was at work among them all. Origen, especially, taught a restoration of all things based, at least in part, on I Peter 3:19-20 and 4:6 which state that Christ entered the realm of the dead, presumably between his death and resurrection, to proclaim the gospel there. Origen held that these passages imply that there is hope for at least some decision making after death.

However, Augustine’s more severe gospel became the norm beginning in the fourth century and it served the new church/state set up very well. Not only could this dual power structure punish you physically for deviant belief or behavior, it could consign you to eternal torment. So this is the route by which the doctrine of hell became the cornerstone of Christian theology. For many it remains that way.

The question we need to ask ourselves is whom to trust more, those church leaders following on the heels of the early church, or those who came after the church/state synthesis? Is it not reasonable to suppose that earlier theologians might have had the best understanding of the message of the gospel as revealed in Jesus Christ?

It should not surprise us that there is a revival of early Christian thought emerging in many Christian circles today, even within evangelical churches. Might that be because the post-Christian society of today has a lot of similarities to the pluralistic communities in which early Christians lived? In any case, many Christians today are also coming to realize that the gospel really is more about good news than bad news. The late Clark H. Pinnock was one of the pioneers in this movement within evangelicalism. He stated the following:

“Let me say at the outset that I consider the concept of hell as endless torment in body and mind an outrageous doctrine, a theological and moral enormity, a bad doctrine of the tradition which needs to be changed.  How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness whose ways include inflicting everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been?

Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards, and by the gospel itself . . . Surely the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is no fiend; torturing people without end is not what our God does.”

For many evangelicals, such a bold assertion is shocking, indeed! To them a literal approach to biblical interpretation leads to belief in hell for most of humankind. But is such literalism warranted? In 2 Timothy 2:13-15, Paul speaks of the Scriptures as being “inspired” and “useful,” not inerrant in a literal sense. Even Jesus did not consider it important to get his quotations from the Old Testament precisely correct. Only 51 of 122 are exact quotations. What mattered to him was the thought projected by the text, not verbal and literalistic precision.

Is it possible that literalism is not as useful a tool for biblical interpretation as some have claimed? It seems to me that literalists find it very had to be consistent. Even the most conservative scholars recognize hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point), parable (a story to teach a lesson) and apocalyptic literature (fantastic imagery) to be legitimate vehicles of revelation.

Does anyone really believe that a man should literally pluck out his eye if he entertains lustful thoughts (Mathew 5:29)? Or that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19 – 31) depicts an accurate description of an eternal hell? Literalists usually overlook the fact that in the story the rich man is in torment because of the way he treated the poor, not because of his lack of faith in Christ.  And really, should we suppose that those living in heaven have a window on the torment of those in hell – and that they can communicate with each other?

What do literalists do with the many “cosmic redemption” passages we have discussed earlier? In my experience they are basically ignored. But how can one be a true literalist if this method of interpretation applies only to some passages and not to others? I understand that most biblical positions carry with them some “problem” texts. But it is more difficult to find “interpreted” meanings of the cosmic redemption passages than those which seem to imply eternal torture for the many.

In his book, “What the Bible Really Says About Hell,” Randy Klassen states the following:

“This tradition of emphasizing a literal interpretation of the Bible is what has supported the doctrine of a literal hell. Once we are freed from this restrictive tenet we will be able to recognize the passages on hell as important warning passages that teach a truth which must be taken seriously but not literalistically. Consequences of rejecting God’s grace are fearful, but the picture of sinners being roasted over an open flame for all ages belongs in the caricature section of the local tabloids, not in the doctrinal statements of Christian churches” (p. 79).

Is it possible, that after we have done our homework, we will find the notion of hell, as most evangelicals think of it, not to be a viable and sustainable Christian doctrine?

I suspect we will have to answer in the affirmative.