“Come on, Snuffy, forget about the flowers.”  Jared Duncan instructed his grandmother’s Collie as she tried to sniff through one of the flower beds at the local park.  The dog glanced up for a moment as if to acknowledge Jared’s command and then returned to sniffing the flora.
      “I guess what Snuffy wants, Snuffy gets,” Tyler, Jared’s cousin, put in.  The boys were walking the dog for their grandmother who had to tend to some errands that had been overlooked in the few days since Pop, the boys’ grandfather, had suddenly passed away.  The cousins graciously offered to take Snuffy for her daily walk so that she could get in her exercise.
It was a bright day out with large, puffy white clouds extending across the sky as far as the eye could see.  A slight breeze bristled through the trees of the city’s main park as children played on swing sets and families picnicked on blankets.  Jared and Tyler were heading toward the part of park that was a walking trail for people with their dogs.  Soon, they arrived at the trail and found it, surprisingly, clear of other pet owners.
      “Looks like we got the trail all to ourselves today.”  Jared said as he guided the dog onto the dirt trail.  Snuffy, though perturbed that she had been separated from the flowers, now turned her nose toward the novel smells of plants along the dirt path.  As they began walking, Jared playfully punched Tyler in the arm.  “So, have you fully digested our talk on the Old Testament and universalism?”
      Tyler nodded eagerly.  “Yes, and I have gone back through some of the passages you shared with me.  I’m still shocked that in all the time I’ve gone to church that I’ve never seen those verses before.”
      Jared laughed.  “Well, to be honest with you, you probably have seen them before, but what often happens is that they get explained away to avoid their obvious universal scope in talking about the restoration of all creation – or – they are read in light of the verses that talk about utter destruction coming upon evildoers instead of the other way around.”
      “Makes sense.”  Tyler commented.  Jared had returned from college for the boys’ grandfather’s funeral several days earlier and since the night of the wake, the two had been in a dialogue about the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation, the Christian doctrine predominant in the early church that taught that following post mortem correction for those who practiced evil in this life, all will be saved.  Tyler looked over at Jared as his cousin pulled the dog out of a bush in which she had tangled the leash.  “So, what about the New Testament?   I’ve heard my pastor say that Jesus talked more about Hell than he did about heaven.  Why such an emphasis on Hell if everyone is going to be saved?”
      Jared, having successfully untangled the dog, chuckled.  “Jesus talked about Hell twelve times and he does so in highly metaphorical language (Bell, 2011, Klassen, 2001).  It’s a common myth that he talks about Hell more than heaven.  He talks about money more than he talks about Hell.  There is more mention of fish in the gospels than there is about Hell.  Jesus talks most about the Kingdom of God and, unfortunately, that gets equated in today’s church with ‘going to heaven when you die’ when that is not what the term originally meant.”
      “Then, why do people say that Hell is mentioned more often?”
      “I honestly can’t tell you.  It’s a myth that someone started somewhere and it just gets repeated among Christians.  I hear people say that all the time and used to believe it myself at one point.”
      “Wow,”  Tyler said aloud.  “It’s amazing how easily these myths get passed along unquestioned.”
      “Heel!” Jared commanded the dog.  He then looked up.  “It’s all because we as Christians expect other people to do the research for us instead of doing our own and, many times, even some pastors get lazy.  However, on the more negative side, there are many people whose theology is supported by such ideas, so they just keep on repeating them no matter what evidence they are shown that they are incorrect.”
      “Okay, so Jesus mentions Hell only 12 times,” Tyler summarized.  “But that still means there’s a Hell.”
      “Of course.  Hardly any Christian Universalist will tell you there’s no Hell.  The disagreement is over its nature, its purpose, and its duration.  What you will see in the passages in which Jesus talks about Hell and in other passages where he mentions judgment, the Old Testament themes of refinement and purification continue to run through them (Beauchemin, 2007).  Never does Jesus say that Hell is eternal, but at the same time, he doesn’t make it sound like a country club picnic, either.”
      “I’m aware of that from what I read the last time I skimmed through the gospels.”  Tyler reached into his back pocket and pulled out a mini-Bible he could reference as he and Jared talked.
      “The first point I want to make,” Jared said, “is that Jesus’ references to Hell are the first mention of the concept in the Bible.”
      Tyler nodded.
      “There may have been references to post-mortem judgment alluded to in the Old Testament, but none that came right out and said it, besides the one passage in Daniel 12 which doesn’t mention Hell.  So, think about it like this:  Why would God wait thousands and thousands of years to reveal the fate of the wicked?  If Hell is the worst fate that a person could possibly encounter, then why was He not screaming it from rooftops all the way back in the Garden of Eden?”
      Tyler shrugged.  “Can’t say I have an answer.  From what we talked about at the pizza shop last time, it didn’t seem like the Old Testament had any clearly formed view of the afterlife, just a future resurrection that developed in later Jewish theology in Daniel, like you said.”
      “Right.  So, the point is, again, how could God, being the loving Savior that He is, leave out such a critical piece of information such as the fate of the wicked across 1000 years of Old Testament revelation, only to first start talking about it when Jesus came on the scene?  What about the millions who were born, lived, and died before that point?  Do you mean to tell me that He would wait until this point in history to suddenly spring it on everyone that an eternal torture chamber awaits those who are evil?”
      “And on top of that, to then only talk about it twelve times in his whole ministry.” Tyler added.
      “Exactly.  The Law of Emphasis in biblical interpretation says that the amount of times a theme or subject is stressed demonstrates the importance of that subject to the author.  For example, the first half of the book of John covers about three and a half years of Jesus’ ministry while the second half of the book covers just the final week of Jesus’ ministry.  Obviously, for John, to devote half of his gospel to that last week conveys to us the importance of the events of that week to his purpose for writing.  Likewise, since the synoptic authors, Matthew, Mark, and Luke devote so little space to the topic of Hell, it wasn’t obviously something that was that pertinent to them in their own writings.  And, if the purpose of the gospels, as some Christians tell us, is to teach us how to be saved, then how could the fate of Hell be included so few times?  As a matter of fact, it is astonishing how few times it’s mentioned throughout the New Testament at all for something that is literally the obsession of so much fundamentalist and evangelical preaching on how to “get saved.” 
      Tyler sighed.  “Okay.  One thing at a time.  I agree that Hell is not mentioned in the Old Testament and I agree that it seems like it doesn’t get that great a deal of attention even in the teachings of Jesus.  I also agree that it doesn’t seem like it’s a big deal.  However, like I said, it is mentioned and so it has to play some role, right?”
      “Sure.  Let’s examine the gospels and see what exactly Jesus taught about Hell, “Jared replied.  “Then we can start to piece together the oddity of Hell’s absence from the early Christian preaching in Acts.”
      “Absence of Hell?”  Tyler queried.
      “Yes.  In all the sermons recorded in Acts by Peter, Paul, Steven, and others they never mention Hell as a consequence of rejecting Christ.  They talk about judgment, but never refer to Hell.”
      “Which means it’s really important for us to understand what Jesus was talking about when he taught on the subject,” Tyler added.
      “Right.” Jared nodded.  “It will inform us as to what the early New Testament preacher’s thought about the subject of judgment.  Let’s start in the earliest Gospel written – Mark.  I’ll make it easy for you.  Jesus only mentions Hell once in this entire gospel.”
      “Only once?”  Tyler could barely believe it.  “I guess I see what you mean about emphasis.  If the Gospels are meant for us to understand how to be saved, like my pastor says, then how could he possibly only mention Hell once?”
      Jared laughed.  “You’re catching on.  Let’s look at that one passage.  Look up Mark 9:42-48.”
      Tyler flipped through his Bible until he came to the passage which he read out loud.  “Kind of scary.”
      “It is scary and the passage is emphasizing the reality of God’s judgment for those who cause others to stumble with their sins.  However, think about it like this.  Does God want you to pluck out your literal eye?  Does God want you to cut off your literal hand?”
      “Well, of course not,” Tyler smiled.  “That’s taking it too literally.”
      “Exactly!”  Jared exclaimed.  “And that’s the problem.  This whole teaching is a metaphor for God’s judgment.  Think about it some more.  Does Jesus mean to say that some people are going to enter into life – the resurrection into the age to come – without one eye and without one hand?  Of course not!  It makes no sense to take it literally.  And so, if the body being talked about is not literal, then why would we think the fires of “Hell” are literal?  You can’t have it both ways.  You can’t pick and choose what parts you’re going to take literally and what parts you’re going to take metaphorically.”
      “So, the image is just a representation of judgment?”
      “And a vivid one.  The word for Hell in Greek is gehenna, which is the translation of the Hebrew, ‘Valley of Hinnom.’  It is a section of Jerusalem on the south and west sides of the city that was a city dump where fire constantly burned the garbage and a disgusting worm that was hard to kill infested the place.  It was a perfect analogy for judgment.”
      “Nasty.” Tyler cringed.  “I mean it sounds a lot like a real Hell.”
      “Sure does, but notice in the passage that Jesus never said anything about it being eternal or unending.  And, as a matter of fact, the fires that used to burn there burn no longer.  Today, it’s a beautiful garden that anyone can visit.”
      “Oh yeah, right,” Tyler laughed.  “I can just imagine inviting my friends to go to Hell with me.”
      Jared chuckled.  “They probably wouldn’t be surprised you were going there.”
      “Shut up!” Tyler shouted, punching Jared in the arm.
      Snuffy looked up, suddenly interested in what the commotion was about.  After determining there was nothing over which to be concerned, she went back to sniffing the trail in front of her. 
      Tyler took in a deep breath and sighed.  “You can see why people think that it’s eternal.  Jesus seems to be issuing the strongest warning possible and exhorting extreme measures to make sure you enter ‘life.’”
      “I totally see what you’re saying,” Jared said as he redirected the dog back onto the path.  “But ask yourself this question.  We used this example in our last talk.  If someone who smoked was at risk of developing cancer, wouldn’t the most effective warning be a picture of lungs corroding from lung cancer?”
      “Sure.”
      “Well, that’s what’s going on here.  Jesus is saying that Gehenna is going to be so bad that you should get rid of any sin in your life that could help you avoid it and enter into God’s life, but there is no implication that Gehenna is unending.  Just because a person will eventually enter God’s kingdom doesn’t mean there won’t be Hell to pay on the way there and, if that’s the case, the God of love in Christ would most certainly sound the alarm!”
      “This is all difficult for me to take in, Jared.”
      “I understand.  When I first started wrestling with this stuff I felt like my whole world was falling apart.”
      Tyler nodded.
      “The truth is that once you become a Christian Universalist, there’s no going back to the Bible or church the same way ever again.  Once you know the truth of universal reconciliation you start to sense a power in the gospel that you know deep down inside you it currently lacks.  You lose the shame that you had in sharing it with people because you were embarrassed by the idea of an eternal Hell – one that, if you were honest with yourself, you couldn’t fully bring yourself to believe in anyway.”
      Tyler nodded again.  “I guess it’s just like I’m learning all these things about the Bible that were right in front of me this whole time, but I completely missed it.  What else am I missing?”
      Jared laughed.  “Your whole life is going to be spent answering that question, cuz.  I’ve been on a journey through several different areas since I accepted the truth of universalism.”
      Tyler sighed.  “Your arguments are very persuasive, but I think I still need a more holistic case to be made in a few other areas and a bunch more questions answered before I can say I’m convinced.”
      “Sounds fair to me.  Why don’t we continue our discussion by moving along to Luke.  It doesn’t get better for those believers in a literal Hell there either.  Hell is only mentioned three times.”
      “Amazing,” was all Tyler could muster.
      Jared continued.  “In Luke 12, Jesus is warning the disciples to be aware of those that would cause them spiritual ruin.  He tells them not to fear those who can only harm them physically, but the ones who can cause them both physical and spiritual harm.”
      Tyler scratched his chin as he looked at the passage.  “It seems that Jesus is saying that God is the one who can destroy them spiritually and physically in Hell.”
      “I know at first glance it seems that way, but he’s actually referring to the Pharisees.  Again, if Gehenna is a place of judgment and spiritual ruin, the warning is to avoid people who could potentially make one’s path end there.  Just two verses later, Jesus tells them not to fear God, because He has the very hairs on their head numbered and will take care of them.”
      Tyler raised his eyebrows and nodded.  “Yeah, it kind of doesn’t make sense to tell them to run around afraid God is going to send them to Hell and then comfort them a second later that God is looking out for them.”
      The boys both laughed.  Jared kicked a rock off the path and said, “It’s another use of the word ‘Hell’ in a symbolic way.  Again, it’s not avoiding the fact that there is real judgment and ruin ahead for those who follow the spiritual example of the Pharisees, but it doesn’t say anything about an endless torture chamber.”
      “What about the judgment on the cities in Luke 10?  It seems like he’s threatening them with Hell there.”
      Jared held up a finger.  “But – the Greek word is hades and so, in typical Old Testament fashion, Jesus is threatening them with the same death as the other cities – destruction in this life, or, perhaps, spiritual ruin in the next age.”
      Tyler smiled.  “Good point, but – How do you explain the third reference in Luke 16 in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus?”
      Jared smiled back.  “There’s no difference here, except that, again, Jesus uses the word hades for Hell instead of Gehenna.  Hades was the Greek word used to translate sheol, the Hebrew word for ‘the grave’ when the Jews wrote the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.  So, we should keep in mind that Jesus is going more with that idea than Gehenna here.”
      “Does this not refer to Hell, then?”
      “It’s most certainly talking about a fate of judgment after death, that’s for sure, but it’s an allegory and not meant to be taken literally.  Again, think about the folly of doing that.  Can people in Hell communicate with people in Heaven?  Would a cup of water really ease the rich man’s suffering?  Is there literally a gulf between Heaven and Hell (Klassen, 2001)?  Does the parable even mention Heaven as we think of it or does Abraham represent something that had to do with the place of Jewish blessing as described in the Old Testament?  Do you see the problems with the literal approach?”
      “So, what is it referring to, then?”
      “This parable is another warning to the Pharisees – and I think you’re beginning to see the pattern of these warnings going toward religious people – that their place of privilege and the poor people they ignore will be reversed in the age to come.  They get all the religious stuff right, but ignore the spirit of the law in helping those who are less fortunate than they.  It is a parable rich in allegory.  If you read the next verse after the parable you’ll see that the Pharisees were furious and set out from that point to kill Jesus.  They knew that they were the focus of that parable and their reaction proves it.”
      “So, many of these Hell passages are directed at the religious leaders, warning them that their moral correctness was not going to get them into God’s kingdom, but that their so-called pure life really wreaked of stinking garbage and was a farce in God’s eyes.  They kept the legalisms of the law, but ignored the real law of Christ – that of loving your neighbor, all the while claiming that they were the ones who were holy and right with God,” Tyler concluded.
      “Exactly!  Religious hypocrisy was far worse to Jesus than the supposed sins the Pharisees were always condemning.  They were the ones headed for spiritual ruin and judgment, not the ‘sinners.’  Jesus said in Matthew 21:31, ‘Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.’  Notice, He said ahead of you, not instead of you.  Jesus foresaw a time when even the Pharisees would enter the Kingdom.”
      “Hmmm,” Tyler mused.  “I never saw that before.  I always just assumed that the Pharisees were going to Hell and that’s it.”
      “They are going to Hell,” Jared explained.  “The point is that the prostitutes and sinners will enter the kingdom in the age to come and then, after enduring the chastisement of Hell, the Pharisees will be repentant and join the rest of them.”
      Tyler laughed.  “Okay, so we’ve gone through Mark and Luke, a total of four passages out of twelve about Hell and you’ve pretty clearly explained the meaning.  I think the biggest thing that jumps out at me is that you noted how Jesus never mentions these Hell judgments to be unending.”
      “Not one single time.”
      “So, what’s left?”
      “Matthew and John.  John’s easy.  There are no references to Hell in the book of John.”
      Tyler stopped walking.  “Hang on a minute, I can’t agree with you there.  Isn’t the book of John all about how to get saved?  John states in 20:31 that the book was written to convince people that Jesus was their savior so that they could be saved eternally by believing.”
      “Let me go back to something I said earlier.  I am making a distinction between Hell as it is translated from the words gehenna and hades.  There are words that talk about judgment in John such as ‘perish’ and ‘death.’  However, the word Hell itself does not appear anywhere in the book.  Do you not think it strange that the book you say is written to convince people to believe in Jesus does not mention Hell one single time?”
      Tyler heaved a sigh and then said, “Yes, if I were writing it then I would have included it, but John may have just used words that were equivalent.  Take John 3:16 as a perfect example.  It says that Jesus was sent that we might believe in him so that we would not perish.  Then, two verses later it says that those who don’t believe are already condemned.  What else could that mean, but Hell?”
      The boys came to a large, fenced-in grassy opening where other dogs were running around without leashes.  Several pet owners sat on benches located at various gate openings around the pen and watched their pets interact with others and have fun.
      “Perfect,” Jared said.  “A doggy play pen.  Come on, Snuffy.  Why don’t you get some exercise with your own kind?”  The boy led the dog to one of the openings to the pen, unhooked Snuffy from the leash and let her run.  Snuffy took off in a strong charge and joined a small group of dogs in the middle that were playing with a ball.  “That’ll keep her busy for awhile.”
      The boys walked over and sat down on one of the benches.  Jared restarted the conversation.  “I believe that all sinners are condemned to Hell.  Those that haven’t believed in Jesus – which simply means to follow Him as Lord in a life of loving others – are condemned in their selfishness.  They perish or are destroyed.  This harkens back to the Old Testament position on the fate of sinners.  They die, which is what perish means.  The contrast between life and death in the gospel makes clear that those who do not follow Christ are walking in darkness and if they continue to walk that path, then they will perish, lose their life physically and have no part in the resurrection to the age to come.”
      Tyler put a hand up.  “Hold it.  Have no part in the resurrection to the age to come.  Where are you getting that from?”
      “That’s what ‘eternal life’ literally means.  Zoe aionios in the Greek means ‘age-enduring life’ or ‘the life of the age to come.’  Jesus is promising them God’s life, which is eternal in that it comes from an eternal being, that leads up to and culminates in the life of the age to come.”
      “So, you’re saying that the word ‘eternal’ is translated wrong?”
      “In one way, yes, in another, no.  It’s correct to say it’s eternal since it’s God kind of life (Talbott, 1999), but it’s incorrect to say that it’s eternal in that it is referring to endless life, because that is not what the word actually means.”
      Tyler scratched his head as he watched Snuffy do a somersault in an effort to get at the ball that was bouncing between the dogs.  “I have to say that I’m skeptical about that.  It seems a bit of a stretch to say that Jesus is not talking about how to go to heaven when you die and that the whole book is translated wrong.”
      “Understandable.  However, you have to remember that from the Jewish perspective, they were not concerned with ‘going to heaven when you died.’  They were concerned with participating in the Messianic Age to come.  One must be resurrected or ‘born again’ into this age with a new resurrection body.  This was the reward of the faithful as taught in the Old Testament.  These people were not worried about going to heaven when they died, rather they were concerned with being part of the resurrection of the righteous into this kingdom age of peace and harmony.  I’m not saying that the whole book is translated wrong, just that the full meaning of that word doesn’t come through with the word ‘eternal.’  I’m not the best at explaining the languages thing.  I have a buddy, Rob, at school who’s graduating with a Religious Studies degree and he knows both Hebrew and Greek fluently.  Why don’t we take a ride up there later this week and talk to him about it?  He’ll make it a lot clearer than I can.”
      Tyler nodded.  “That would be cool.  I love understanding the original languages.  We’ll have to agree to disagree on John for now until we talk to him and I see what he has to say.”
      “Fair enough.  Ready for Matthew?”
      Tyler held up his bible triumphantly.  “Already got my spot.”
      “Shoot.”
      “Okay, it says here in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church.”
      Jared nodded.  “Which is true.”
      Tyler looked at his cousin, a little confused.  “What do you mean?”
      Jared leaned forward on the bench and looked at Tyler.  “Jesus used the word hades twice in Matthew.  This is one of them.  He is saying that the gates of Hell or death will not prevail against the church that is alive in Christ.  Hades is that translation of sheol which means the grave.  The church will ultimately triumph against the gates of death.  Hell will have no power against those in Christ and will not keep them from the age to come.”
      “Okay,” Tyler continued, “So that’s not really talking about Hell the way I’m used to thinking about it.”
      “Right.  It’s a promise of victory over death and destruction, not a prediction of judgment.”
      Tyler seemed satisfied with this answer.  After pointing out Matthew 11:23, Jared instructed him that this was the parallel passage to the Luke one where Jesus pronounced judgment on the cities and that He again used the word hades to indicate destruction and death, not endless judgment.  The same was shown for Matthew 5:29-30 where Jesus used gehenna as a symbol of judgment for those who lived unrighteously.
      “What about when Jesus threatened Hell to the person who called someone a fool in Matthew  5:22?”  Tyler asked. 
      “Turn to Matthew 23:17,” Jared replied.  “Read it out loud.”
      Tyler turned to the passage and read:  “’You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?’”  The boy looked up and smiled.  “I see where you’re going with this one.  If Jesus said that anyone who calls another a fool is going to face Hell, then He is guilty of doing it Himself in calling the Pharisees fools.”
      “Exactly,” Jared smiled.  “The passage isn’t meant to be taken literally.  There was no process in Israel like the one he describes in the passage.  It’s meant to be a warning against judging your brother hypocritically, which is why it is aimed at the Pharisees.”
      Jared expanded his thoughts when describing Matthew 23:15, 33 where Jesus pronounces judgment on the Pharisees by calling them sons of Hell.  This was a warning to the Pharisees that those who practiced hypocritical religion that burdened others and led them astray would face the judgment of God (Klassen).
      Tyler closed his Bible.  “Wow.  That’s all of them.  And none of them teach an endless torment or eternal conscious punishment.”
      Jared let the realization settle in.  After watching the dog run in circles chasing her tail, the boy spoke up.  “This understanding you’ve come through also helps explain why not one time in the entire book of Acts do any of the apostles threaten anyone with unending Hell for rejecting the gospel.  Judgement, for sure, but eternal punishment, no.  They understood the judgments in the same way Jesus did: fierce, but encompassing only a certain period of time, which is why they never talk about it being unending.”
      Tyler ran his hands through his hair.  “What about in Paul’s epistles?  Doesn’t he say anything about it?”
      “Nope.  Not one time does he talk about endless punishment for the wicked, although he talks about them being worthy of death and judgment in several places.  Not only does he not mention endless punishment, but the word gehenna does not even appear in his writings.  As for the other authors, James talks about the tongue being set on fire by gehenna, surely a reference to the spiritual condition of the untamed tongue and Peter mentions tarturus which was believed by the ancients to be a holding place for fallen angels.  Of course, there’s always the lake of fire in Revelation, but this is likely metaphorical, especially in light of everything we just studied.  Besides, my friend will have more to say about that when we go up to school later this week.”
      Tyler was in shock.  He had been attending a church that taught eternal Hell throughout the New Testament and now, in examining those passages specifically, he found no such thing.  Even if ‘perish’ in John meant judgment, there was no passage indicating the punishment was permanent.  Jared whistled and called the dog who obediently returned to him.  He reattached the leash and the boys starting making the trek back.
      “Okay,” Tyler continued. “If there is no teaching of endless Hell in the New Testament, then where are the passages that talk about universal salvation?”
      Jared smiled.  “I thought you’d never ask.”  He grabbed the Bible from Tyler and opened to Colossians 1:19-20 which says, “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross (italics added).”
      “I remember reading that passage in Sunday school,” Tyler said.  “Believe it or not, someone in the class asked a question about that very verse which says Christ will be reconciled to all things.”
      “What did the teacher say?” Jared wanted to know.
      “He said Christ will reconcile all things to himself that want to be reconciled to him.”
      Jared shook his head.  “You see, this is what I’m talking about.  Where does he get that out of this passage?  The text says that all things ‘whether things on earth or things in heaven’ will be reconciled to Christ.  This passage is not only universalistic in that it includes all people being reconciled to God through Christ, but it speaks of the whole creation being renewed and returned to the way God intended.  It’s a powerful passage.”
      “Yeah, I guess what that guy said isn’t in there.”
      “Do you see how these universalist verses get explained away without any contextual justification?  People have a preconceived notion that Hell is eternal and so they reinterpret these clear universalist passages to fit with their idea of eternal conscious torment.”
      “What else you got?”  Tyler asked.
      Jared turned to Romans 5:18-19 which says, “Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”
      “I’m not sure how that can be any clearer,” Tyler commented.  “One trespass brings condemnation to all people and one righteous act brings justification for all people.  Disobedience made everyone sinners and obedience made everyone just.”  He scratched his head.  “Couldn’t this just be referring to Christians, though?”
      “The parallelism doesn’t work if you say that it’s only speaking of Christians. “ Jared answered.  Like you said, the same ‘all’ that were condemned were justified.  And verse 16 says this, ‘But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!’  You see that?  He says, ‘How much more.’  God’s grace overtakes the sin of Adam and swallows it up.  Take a look at this passage from 1 Corinthians 15.”  Jared read verses 20-28, ‘But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.  For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.  For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.  But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.  Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.  For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.  The last enemy to be destroyed is death.  For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. ²⁸ When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.’
      “Wow, that’s one packed bunch of verses,” Tyler exclaimed.
      “I want you to notice a few things about this passage,” Jared said as he again pulled the dog out of the weeds.  He held the Bible with one hand and the leash with the other.  “It says that Christ has been raised from the dead and that he is the firstfruits of those who have ‘fallen asleep,’ or died.  Then he states that since death came through a man, then so does the resurrection.  Now, check this out.  He says, ‘For.’  This is an explanatory verse to the previous ones.  Watch and see the same parallelism that is in Romans.  ‘As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.’  Paul is saying that everyone is going to take part in this resurrection and he goes on to name the order in the next couple of verses.  When he says, ‘then comes the end,’ grammatically that can mean, ‘then comes the last.’  Either way you translate it, it’s talking about the last group of people to be raised from the dead at the end when God puts all things under Christ’s feet.”
      “But the passage says that those in Christ will be made alive, not everyone.” Tyler disputed.
      “The Greek is an adverbial clause, meaning that it’s explaining how everyone will be saved, not delineating a particular group as opposed to another.  Remember the parallelism.  It has to match.  All died in Adam, all are resurrected in Christ.  The passage says that God will destroy all authority against Christ and put all things under his feet.  This doesn’t make it sound like there’s going to be a literal Hell with billions of people burning and in defiance of Christ.  Death cannot be defeated as the last enemy if billions are still spiritually dead.  He says that the goal of all this is to make God ‘all in all.’  If even just one person is not saved then God is not all in all.  All means all, plain and simple.”
      Tyler was deep in thought.  It certainly seemed like there were some straightforward universalist passages in the New Testament.  This being true, in combination with no mention of Hell in the Old Testament and no eternal judgment mentioned in the New Testament, made the Biblical argument for universalism seem pretty solid.  He had to admit, for the first time, that he was beginning to be persuaded by Jared.
      “You’re slowly winning me over.”
      The boys laughed and Jared said, “Try this one on for size.  This is a famous one.  Philippians 2:9-11.  ‘Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.’”
      “Hmm,” Tyler wondered.  “Couldn’t that passage just be talking about God subjecting everyone to having to confess that Jesus is Lord, even if they refuse to trust him as savior?”
      “We reviewed the passage this is quoting in the Old Testament and the context of the passage there is one of universal victory.  This victory does not come by forcing people to confess Jesus as Lord when their heart does not truly acknowledge him as such.  Do you really think God’s ego needs to force his enemies to admit defeat and falsely acknowledge Jesus as Lord?  This is a cry of salvation and worship and the word ‘acknowledge’ (‘confess’ in many translations) in the Greek means that.  Also, in Romans 10:9-11 it says, ‘If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. ¹¹ As Scripture says, Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.’  To declare Jesus as Lord is salvation.  It says that God’s goal in this is not to put people to shame when they confess this, but to save them.  Besides, we know from 1 Corinthians 12:3 that no person can acknowledge Jesus as Lord from their heart without the Holy Spirit.  Finally, it says in 1 Timothy 2:4-6 that God wills the salvation of all people and 1 Timothy 4:10 says He is the savior of all people.”
      Jared also shared with Tyler the following verses:  1 John 2:2; Revelation 5:13; Ephesians 1:8-10; Romans 8:19-22; 11:32; Matthew 13:33; John 17:2.
      “I have to say that I’m kind of blown away right now,” Tyler remarked as the boys approached the entrance to the park.
      “It’s amazing how much it’s there in black and white, but people have this eternal Hell filter on their eyes that doesn’t allow them to see the universal scope of salvation,” Jared added.
       The boys climbed in the car with the dog in the back.  Tyler was deep in thought as Jared pulled the car out of the parking spot and began heading back to their grandmother’s home.  Suddenly, a verse popped into Tyler’s head.
      “Hey, wait a minute.”
      “What’s that?” Jared asked, a bit surprised.
      “What about Matthew 25:46?  I forgot about that one.  My pastor preached on it a few weeks ago.  It says that some go into eternal life and others go into eternal punishment.”
      Jared smiled.  “I think I’ll leave that one for my friend, Rob, to explain when we get up to school in a few days.  I think you’ll be quite surprised at what he has to say about it.”

TO BE CONTINUED…

References

Beauchemin, G. (2007). Hope beyond hell: The righteous purpose of God’s judgment. Olmito, TX: Malista Press.

Bell, R. (2011).  Love wins:  A book about heaven, Hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived.  New York:  Harper Collins.

Klassen, R. (2001). What does the bible really say about Hell? Wrestling with the traditional view. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

Talbott, T. (1999). The inescapable love of god. Universal Publishers.

I’d like to do 60 days myself, but I need to monitor how my body reacts.  I will be juicing with my new juicer starting in the morning and imbibing the “mean green” juice drink four times a day.  It is made from kale, spinach, cucumber, celery, green apples, and ginger root.  It will provide me with all the vitamins and minerals I need each day (less the B vitamins for which I will need to take a supplement).  After I’m done with my juice fast, I will be eating a 100% raw vegan diet with the occasional cooked vegetables.  I am posting this here to share my journey with you.  I will do periodic updates during the juice fast and let you know how my body is reacting.  I also want to fill you in on how it affects me spiritually.  Again, this is not just some fad diet, but a lifestyle change toward holiness of body.  I want to be public about this, because I want to be held accountable.  Now that I know that all of my dear readers are aware of what I’m doing, I am spurred on even more to succeed and, perhaps, to inspire you, too.  Wish me luck and say a prayer for me as I undertake this huge change in my life to better my health and spirit!

Yours,

Thomas

There are three ways to bring about conformity: compliance, identification, and internalization (Aronson, 2008).  I will briefly discuss each of these and give an example.  Compliance “describes the behavior of a person who is motivated by a desire to gain reward or avoid punishment” (pg. 35).  If a mother hopes to convince her teenage son to clean his bedroom, she may promise him use of the family car on the weekend so that he can go out with his friends.  On the flip side, she may threaten him with the punishment of grounding for the weekend if he does not clean his room.  In either case, the son will be driven to comply with his mother’s request by the desire to obtain the reward or avoid the punishment.  This form of social conformity contains an element of power (Aronson).  The mother is using her power to inflict pain or grant blessing in order to attain compliance in her son.  Identification “describes a response to a social influence brought about by an individual’s desire to be like the influencer” (pg. 35). Aronson notes, “In identification, as in compliance, we do not behave in a particular way because such behavior is intrinsically satisfying; rather, we adopt a particular behavior because it puts us in a satisfying relationship to the person or persons with whom we are identifying” (pp. 35-36).  Identification is at work when a daughter admires her mother so much that she wishes to be like her.  She then imitates or takes on the behaviors of her mother such as speaking to people a certain way or having a certain manner with children.  The motivating factor in this case of conformity is the daughter’s liking for her mother.  The daughter most likely has not thought through the beliefs and actions of her mother to determine a reasonable basis for adopting them; she adopts them to resemble someone she likes.  The final way to conform, internalization, is when we take inside of us a particular belief or behavior for the purpose of being the right kind of person or simply to be right (Aronson).  Returning to the mother-daughter illustration again, if the daughter is convinced that her mother represents the right way of living and the right way of believing, then she will internalize those behaviors and beliefs and “integrate [them] into [her] system of values” (pg. 37).  In this instance, the daughter adopts the mother’s behaviors and beliefs not just because she likes her, but because she believes her mother is right in living and believing in such a way.

Identification and Internalization produce behaviors and belief systems that are more enduring than compliance, with internalization being the most durable.  In identification, our liking or respect for a person moves us to mimic their behavior or adopt their beliefs because it makes us just like them.  The issue is the attractiveness of the person (Aronson).  With internalization, we truly make those behaviors and beliefs our own because experience has taught us, either directly or through another person, that those ways of behaving and believing are right or the most beneficial to ourselves and others. Here, the issue is one of credibility (Aronson).  

So, what’s wrong with compliance?  The problem is that in complying with a demand or request out of fear of punishment or the attainment of a reward “the person’s behavior is only as long-lived as the promise of reward or the threat of punishment” (pg. 35).  The issue in compliance is one of a person exerting power over another (Aronson).  As long as the punishment is looming or the carrot is dangling at the end of the stick, you can be sure person will conform.   However, if the carrot disappears or the threat evaporates, then the person will return to doing what they want and what comes natural to them.

The application of these insights into social conformity to a life of Christian discipleship provides us with a model of what works and what doesn’t.  As I said at the beginning of this post, the church has a near obsession with trying to scare people into doing things that they would not otherwise do.  Often guilt is used as a form of psychological punishment to those who might transgress a moral law that a preacher or denomination deems to be God’s will.  Sometimes, the threat is more overt in that preachers and teachers will warn of God’s retribution and punishment in our lives when we don’t do the things He has (supposedly) commanded.  And then, there’s the ultimate admonishment, the threat of all threats, the terror to replace all terrors:  “If you do not do what God wants (either through behavior or belief), then when you die, He’ll send you to hell.”  This is the supernatural gun to the head threat.  “God loves you and desires a relationship with you and invites you to partake of his love, but if you don’t then he’s going to blow your soul’s head off.”  Nice, huh?

This is why the conservative church is becoming more of a laughing stock in this country.  It is not due to some prophesied apostasy.  People are waking up to the manipulative and coercive approaches to getting people to “obey.”  The problem is not a populace that is repulsed by the life that Jesus offers, but with a church leadership ensconced in moralism and legalism, that holds to a form of Godliness, but denies its working power (2 Tim 3:5).  The power of life change in the gospel is through identification with Jesus Christ, because you’ve come to like who he is and love the God He represents.  You have an internalization of the lived experience of God’s love in your own heart.  You see the compassion and kindness that Jesus shows to the lost, weak, and marginalized and you identify with his heart and seek to become like him in ministering to these same social outcasts.  And, as you experience the love of God poured out in your heart, you are changed and internalize this love to become someone loving yourself (Rom 5:5, 1 Jn 4:8, 16).  This is law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:2), the royal law of Love (Rom 13:8-10; James 2:12).  Transformation happens from the inside out as we build a relationship with Jesus in the Spirit and internalize His love for us.

If we continue to conform out of compliance, then we will never experience the abundant life Jesus promised to those who believe in Him (John 10:10).  Furthermore, we will never truly be changed.  Once we realize that the threatened punishments aren’t befalling us or that the health and wealth promises of reward are not landing in our bank account, then we will abandon the faith, disillusioned and demoralized, and return back to a life absent an experience of the love of God.  It goes to show that a god who flaunts his power to manipulate and force people into doing what he desires is, in the end, unable to bring about the change for which the gospel calls.  Any god that would scare you or threaten to harm you if you don’t perform the way he asks is not worthy of worship.

I would encourage you to examine yourself and ask, “Why am I doing what I’m doing?”  Is it because you love Jesus and want to be like him and trust Him as your teacher and guide?  Is it because you’ve had a life-changing and healing experience of God’s love in your heart that you hope to bring to the lives of other people?  Or, is it because you are afraid that God’s going to be angry and “get ya” either in this life or in hell afterward if you don’t do it?”  This is why I submit that Universalism is the only solution to getting the terror out of our religion once and for all.  If we realize that God corrects us when we make mistakes and that He will train us and guide us into a wholesome spirituality throughout this life and the one to come, it removes the fear that paralyzes us and prohibits us from truly changing. 

God loves everyone just as much as He loves Jesus (John 17:23b) and he is committed to bringing salvation and the fullness of life to all (Rom 5:18-19; Col 1:16-20).  The guilt-mongers and Pharisees in our ranks may continue to try and scare us into obedience, showing it to be a path to avert destruction, but we will continue to promote obedience as a prescription for finding life free of any temporary or  eternal  divine existential threat.  Punishment doesn’t work because it can’t change the heart.  Only God’s love can and that’s why we embrace it.

References

Aronson, E. (2008). The Social Animal.  New York: Worth Publishers.

This scenario plays itself out countless times in churches all across the nation and, indeed, the world. It has been an especially important part of evangelical Reformed traditions for centuries. It was a big part of the revivals of the 18th through 20th centuries. One only think of a Billy Graham crusade to envision the hundreds, even thousands, who come forward at the playing of “Just As I Am” to pray the prayer that will ensure them a post-mortem heavenly home. This is the tradition I grew up in and I have many fond memories of the services in which I played a part in seeing people come forward to make a commitment to Christ. The fervency and passion with which people plan these services and outreach events testifies to their love of people who are not Christians, hoping to bring them good news of forgiveness and eternal life.

However, as I have morphed in my Christian journey over the past few years, the issue as to what exactly a person is being saved from has been no minor issue. Many people ask “Are you saved?” The question in response then becomes, “Saved from what?” Oftentimes, it is assumed in American culture that people know what this means, but the truth is that when you ask people what it means to “be saved” you get as many responses as you do people you ask. Typical answers will be that a person is being saved from hell, sin, God’s wrath, the antichrist, poverty, a sad life, a life without meaning, poor self esteem, or demonic possession. By far, the most common understanding is that a person is being saved from going to hell when he or she dies. This is usually the idea evangelists and pastors have in mind when they induce altar calls. Being saved is almost as confusing as the term “born again,” another term for which numerous answered are garnered. With all this attention and theological focus on the idea of being saved, we should come to understand what the Bible means by the term “salvation” and what it means to be saved.

Salvation as Deliverance and Healing

What does the word salvation mean? The Hebrew and Greek words used for “salvation” in the Old and New Testaments means “deliverance.” It is also translated as “heal” in some places, especially in the Gospels where Jesus healed and delivered people from demonic oppression. The salvation or deliverance to which an author is referring is always determined by context. Thus, one can be saved from just about anything. Common salvations or deliverances in the bible are from enemies, troubles, death, fears, diseases, judgment, and demonic activity. Strangely, nowhere in the bible does it literally declare that one is saved or receives salvation from “hell.” This is not strange to me, I should say, being a Christian Universalist, but it is strange that nothing approaching this language is used in scripture given how much preachers talk about it. It makes one wonder how much of these popular doctrines are based on actual scriptural language and how much is based on theological Reformed tradition. The close connection of healing with deliverance shows that in certain contexts, whatever scripture is referring to as salvation is akin to being delivered from a disease or affliction of some sort. We will see as we progress that the concept of healing in Christian salvation is inherent to the concept of what we usually refer to as being saved.

Jesus as Savior and the Atonement

Having answered the question of what the word salvation means, we turn now to the savior Himself. Jesus Christ is proclaimed the savior of the world (John 4:42; 1 Tim 4:10; 1 John 4:14). He is the one who is seen as performing the work of salvation. This is done through what is called the atonement. The atonement or “at-one-ment” is the work in which Jesus brings together two parties who are separated for some particular reason. It is an act that breaches the wall of division between the persons or groups involved. Here’s what we can say with certainty. This is what all Christians in all of history and in all denominations agree on. The parties that need to be reconciled are God and humanity. That much is certain. The reasons for the separation between them and its necessary remedy are the subjects of great debate among theologians, though, in reality, there are only variations of three major views. If we are going to determine that from which we are saved, then we have to briefly review these three theories.

1. Ransom Theory (Christus Victor or Recapitulation) – Irenaeus and the other church fathers talked about how Jesus paid a ransom to deliver (save) mankind from its bondage to the “powers.” These powers included sin, death, and the devil (Aulen, 1933/2003). This salvation was tied directly to the incarnation of Christ. Jesus is seen as recapitulating human nature in his incarnational life, death, and resurrection. All of humanity fell subject to bondage to sin, death, and the devil in the fall of man by Adam’s sin since Adam was mankind’s representative, much like a congressman would be the representative of a particular congressional district. The decision he or she makes affects the whole district. The decision Adam made affected the whole human race. Jesus, however, succeeded where Adam failed. His perfect obedience to come to earth and be subjected to the powers of sin (in his flesh), the devil, and ultimately death recapitulated or summed up what humanity was meant to be originally and reversed the decision of Adam which subjected man to bondage by forging a new humanity that ultimately triumphed over the powers of bondage in the resurrection. Thus, Jesus made atonement between God and man by bringing mankind out of bondage to those things that kept man from God. In this view, man is understood to be reconciled to God, being rescued from those things that have kept him from his Creator. God is not necessarily seen as an offended party, but the one who heals (there’s that word again) the broken relationship between Him and mankind and liberates man from the powers that hold him in bondage and keep him from that relationship. In doing so, he heals man’s soul through the transformation into holiness (health). Without question, this was the predominant, basically universal view of the atonement for the first thousand years of the church. It is the classical or original view of the atonement (Aulen).

2. Satisfaction Theory – Anselm of Canterbury in the eleventh century is often credited with fully formulating the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement, though the seeds were planted in Tertullian, Gregory, and Cyprian in centuries before (Aulen). This theory is based on the Latin system of penance, where a person would earn merit to cancel out offenses against a given party. It is the first appearance of a legal idea in the doctrine of atonement. Again, the two parties involved are God and humanity, except that this time, instead of a loss of familial relationship as in the Ransom Theory, the idea inherent in Anselm is that a legal debt of honor is owed to God because of man’s sin against Him. Jesus performs atonement, the bringing of the two parties together, by offering himself as a sacrifice on the cross to satisfy the demands of God’s offended justice and pay the debt. His perfect life qualified him to give up his life to satisfy the demands of justice. Again, this idea is based more on the Latin penitential system where one does penance to satisfy the offended party. Jesus’ death is an act of penance that brings glory to God and restores the honor that man defrauded Him through sin. Since Christ’s act of sacrifice was more than a normal one, it earned an overflow of merit with God, merit that is transferred to believing Christians and thus earns salvation for them, repaying their personal debts to God (en.wikipedia.org). Fundamentalist and evangelical believers hold to a variation of this theory, the penal-substitutionary atonement theory, where instead of restoring honor to God and earning us the merit needed to repay our debt to God’s honor, Jesus receives the rightful punishment of sin which is death in our place. This latter theory is John Calvin’s and the Reformers’ reshaping of the Anselmian doctrine (en.wikipedia.org).

3. The Moral Influence Theory – Peter Abelard was nearly a contemporary of Anselm and he fashioned his theory in response to the Anselmian doctrine. His belief was that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was the greatest act of love the world has ever seen where God gave up his life to demonstrate the depths to which he would go for us. The love that Christ demonstrated through his sacrificial death and, indeed throughout his life, influences us to live a moral life in the same light out of thanksgiving for that love. Abelard eschewed the idea of substitutionary sacrifices and the legal aspect of the atonement. Christ saves us by influencing us by his love to live a life pleasing to God. This theory of atonement is popular among liberals who shun the violence of the substitutionary theories and reject the so-called “mythology” of the Ransom view (Aulen, 1933/2003).

The determination of which of these theories of the atonement is correct will answer our question of what exactly Jesus saves us from. I believe, in weighing the historical, traditional, biblical, and logical arguments, the evidence points most clearly to the Ransom view.

The Second Adam Saves Humanity from Sin, Death, and the Devil

The wonderful thing about the Ransom view is that it tells a dramatic story. It is the story of God’s supreme creation, humanity, as represented by the first man, Adam, being taken captive by the powers of sin, death, and the devil by a willful act of rebellion against God in Eden. Mankind is thus enslaved to these forces, with all those after Adam subjected against their will. Even Adam was himself deceived. This bondage to these evil powers wreaks havoc and destruction among the human race and sickens men’s souls. God’s heart is moved with compassion and His son Jesus offers to pay the price (the ransom – see Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim 2:6; Heb 9:15) by descending to become a man, wrestle with sinful temptations, the devil and his minions, and give up his very life in a sacrificial act of death that obeyed God to the very end. He was the conqueror of these powers by not giving into temptation (Heb 4:15), by casting out and resisting the devil’s attacks, and by triumphing over death through the resurrection. Through this incarnational victory, as man, God in Christ, as the second and last Adam, begins a new human race that lives in victory over the powers of sin (Matt 1:21: 26:28; John 1:29; Acts 5:31; 10:43; Rom 5:19; chap 6; 2 Cor 5:18, 21; Gal 1:4; Col 1:14; 1 Tim 1:15; Heb 2:17; 10:12; 1 Pet 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 3:5; Rev 1:5), death (Acts 2:24; Rom 4:25; 5:18; 1 Cor 15:22; Heb 2:14), and the devil (John 10:10; 12:31; Acts 10:38; 1 Cor 15:24-25; Phil 2:10; Col 2:15; Heb 2:14; 1 John 3:8) by participation in Christ through the Holy Spirit. This salvation results in the healing of our hearts from the scars of our previous bondage and in the healing of our broken relationships with God and others.

So, when someone asks, “Saved from what?” you can reply, “sin, death, and the devil.” When we say a person is saved, we speak eschatologically, or from the perspective of the end of the ages when all is accomplished. Our salvation is accomplished in Christ, but it is being worked out in our individual lives daily (Phil 2:13) and awaits future consummation. Please note that there is no salvation or deliverance mentioned here from hell. The majority of the early church did not envision a place of eternal torments and believed that just as Adam’s one act of disobedience brought death on all mankind, Christ’s one act of obedience brought salvation upon all mankind (Rom 5:18, 19; 1 Cor 15:22). Christ’s atonement was as effective as Adam’s fall. God desires the salvation of all people (1 Tim 2:4) and will work all things out according to this will (Eph 1:11). He will reconcile all things to himself (Col 1:16-20) and heal all of creation.

While the teaching that Jesus died on the cross to “pay the penalty for my sin” gets much approbation in conservative Reformed circles, it is not the historical teaching of the church. As a matter of fact, that particular variation of satisfaction theory is less than five hundred years old. The satisfaction view also engenders the problem of God being a vindictive deity who demands blood before He is willing to forgive (is it really forgiveness if punishment must still be had?). It also disregards the motif of healing as a central part of salvation, being encumbered by juridical views of man’s relationship to God. The moral influence view sees the atonement as purely psychological. There is some justification to this view in the effect it has on the believer (motivation for faithfulness to love God and neighbor). However, it falls short in that it fails to deal with the ontological problems of sin and death and the very real dominion of Satan in earthly affairs and people’s lives. Only the Ransom view provides for a victory by God in man through the incarnational victory of Christ, one that extends to all humanity, especially those that believe (1 Tim 4:10).

When a person commits themselves in faith to following their representative, the Lord Jesus Christ, signifying this faith in baptism, by renouncing the old life (in Adam) and choosing to participate in the new (in Christ) they are baptized by the Holy Spirit into mystical union with Christ in which the Spirit works out within them the very life and victory of Jesus over the powers. It is the life and victory of Jesus being repeated and experienced in the life of individual believers, together forming a community of loving people who seek to serve each other in sacrificial love. This is the body of Christ, the physical manifestation of the new humanity now that Christ has ascended to the Father’s right hand. God’s love defeats the powers of sin, death, and the devil in our lives (see Boyd [n.d]).

I am happy to report that I am saved. I renounced (repented) of the old way of selfishness and bondage to sin, death (both an experience and an event), and the devil and have declared faithfulness to Christ Jesus in order to participate in his life of victory over those things that once held me in bondage, a life filled and driven by the love of God for me. Have you done the same? Have you been saved? I am confident that after reading this article, you can answer that question either way.

References

Aulen, G. (1933/2003). Christus Victor: An historical study of the three main types of the idea of atonement. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

Boyd, G. (n.d.). The “christus victor” view of the atonement. Retrieved from http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-jesus/the-christus-victor-view-of-the-atonement/

Satisfaction Theory of Atonement (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved May 7, 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement

The St. Petersburg Times’s political tracker Politifact did some research on these three specifically listed signs and found that, contrary to Graham’s claim, the number of wars and famines have decreased while the number of earthquakes has stayed relatively stable. For example, Cormac O’Grada, a professor of economics in Ireland gave a lecture last year in which he maintained that the number of people who died from famine to had decreased markedly between the nineteenth and twentieth century. He estimated that while nearly 70 million people died in famines in the twentieth century, nearly 50 million people died of famine in India and China alone between the years 1870 and 1902. Regarding the number of wars taking place globally, the Politifact article states, quoting the Uppsala Conflict Data Program in Sweden, that in the early 1990s there were 50 armed conflicts taking place around the world, while in 2009 there were only 35. According to my calculations, that’s a 30% decrease in the past twenty years. So much for the build-up to Armageddon. Finally, in reference to the number of earthquakes, Politifact reports the U.S. Geological Survey data to indicate that the number of earthquakes has remained steady since 1900. The difference nowadays is that we have thousands more reporting stations and technology that allows us to track earthquakes and report them with greater speed. In other words, while the total number of earthquakes reported over the past century has gone up, it is not because there are more earthquakes actually taking place, but because we have more of an ability to track them when and where they do occur.

With evidence that is demonstrably clear, why do conservatives continue to claim the data supports their end times theories? I think the answer to the earthquakes sign has already been adequately explained. They probably find support for the wars and rumors of wars sign in the number of people who died from armed conflict in the twentieth century compared with the previous centuries. Hundreds of millions of people were killed in the two world wars alone, nevertheless all the other wars of the twentieth century. However, this is not an increase in wars, but a testimony to the incredible destruction of advanced weaponry that was unveiled in the last century. If anything, the trend has reversed itself. Smarter weapons and better technology has allowed nations in recent decades to conduct wars with low casualty counts both among both civilians and military personnel. While I’d like to see that number be zero, there is something to be said for the decrease in destructiveness. However, you want to view it, there is not an increase in the number of wars. The claim about famine is baffling to me and I must admit that I don’t know where they’re getting that from. It’s possible that it’s just bad information.

This is yet another example of where evangelicals and fundamentalists are on the wrong side of the facts. They are on the wrong side of the facts when it comes to creation vs. evolution. They are on the wrong side of the facts on what causes sexual orientation and statistics relevant to the gay community and the gay “lifestyle.” And while I am morally opposed to abortion myself, they are on the wrong side of the facts as to the health consequences, frequency, and funding of abortion. Not only this, but in this post, a reproduction of an article about evangelicals and history, they have been on the wrong side of historical social debates going all the way back to the time of slavery.
The question must then be asked, “How can they so consistently get it wrong?” The answer is found in the erroneous doctrine of biblical inerrancy and the subconscious doctrine of infallible interpretation on the part of theologians, pastors, and laypersons. Biblical inerrancy is the doctrine that the scriptures are perfectly accurate in all that they affirm including scientific and historical details. This doctrine is not a historical teaching of the church, but evolved out of the modernist controversies of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries where science was beginning to step on the toes of some traditional Christian understandings of the world. Some Christians overreacted to these events and, instead of engaging the modernists in dialogue and reexamining their understanding of the Bible with humility and openness to the Spirit, proclaimed the Bible to be inerrant as an ultimate theological trump card over the facts as discovered in the real world. In other words, it doesn’t matter if science has provided convincing evidence of evolutionary progress. The Bible says God did it in six literal days and so that’s the way it is – end of discussion. It doesn’t matter that gay people didn’t choose their sexual orientation and that many loving couples devote themselves to each other for a lifetime. The Bible says it’s an abomination and so that’s the way it is – end of discussion. And so, it doesn’t matter that the evidence that the signs of the times are pointing in the wrong direction. The Bible says that wars will increase in the end of days along with earthquakes and famines and so that’s what’s happening – end of discussion. What this amounts to is a squeezing of data into a form that fits a preconceived theological belief. But the real problem is not even inerrancy so much as it is this subtle subconscious belief that one cannot be wrong in their interpretation of the Bible. Of course, they will all pay lip service to the fact that they could be wrong, but none of them honestly think they could be and so this endless cycle continues where Christians stick to outdated and erroneous interpretations of the Bible by disengaging their minds and refusing to deal with reality because they believe that their inerrant book, infallibly interpreted says it.

Franklin Graham may believe that he sees the signs of the second coming appearing all around him, but, unfortunately for him, that is factually inaccurate. I too hope the coming of the Lord is soon and I believe in the physical resurrection of the dead and Christ’s physical return to earth. However, I also know when to reexamine my beliefs when they don’t match up with the data, history, tradition, or the experiences of many faithful people who live and believe very differently than me. I also believe strongly that God is not going to destroy this world in an angry tirade, but, in keeping with the thinking of the early church, I believe that God loves this world and His entire creation so much that instead of annihilate it, He is going to redeem it. That may piss off the hell, fire, and brimstone fundamentalist who can’t wait to see the neighbor that laughs at him for being a Christian be engulfed in the flames of God’s coming wrath and be tossed into a literal lake of fire, but that is just evidence of an ugly heart that fails to reflect the redeeming love of our Creator. So, while I look forward to the return of Christ, I don’t think there is any evidence that the time we’re living in is much different than any other. Even so, “[c]ome, Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22:20b).

This quote from the back of the book gives a great introduction to Bell’s thinking:  “God loves us.  God offers us everlasting life by grace, freely, through no merit on our part.  Unless you do not respond the right way. Then God will torture you forever. In Hell.  Huh?”  His contention is that this presentation of the gospel really makes it bad news for the majority of people.  Could there be some other way of understanding this difficult subject?  He begins the book by talking about how the Bible seemingly presents a contradictory and confusing picture of “salvation” and “forgiveness.”  Bell is a master of setting up the question to issue a power-packed response that goes right to the heart of the issue, even if it’s not popular with the experts. He is trying to demonstrate that the Bible is dealing with many different themes when it talks about salvation and forgiveness.  He moves on to the subject of heaven and makes the correct argument that heaven has been misconstrued to be some place in the “sweet bye and bye.”  He argues that this perspective has done damage to the world, because we tend to see heaven as our home and ignore social ills and suffering in this life.  He maintains that heaven is going to be on earth in the “age to come.”  The Biblical writers didn’t think of “forever” in the way we do, but in terms of a series of ages.  The heaven to which we are usually referring is the experience of the age to come.  Then he talks about the reality of hell.  Bell teaches that it is a very real experience, but that it is overplayed since Jesus only talked about it half a dozen times compared to the emphasis put on it in modern Christianity.  He argues that God’s judgment and punishment are for the correction of the sinner and not for punitive retribution.  This is an accurate interpretation of the Matthew 25 passage where Jesus talks about kolasis aionian, the “age-enduring correction” and not “everlasting punishment” as it is translated.  Bell also covers topics that address the issues of God getting what he wants in the redemption of humankind, the “us vs. them” mentality, God’s desire to save all of creation, and the process of salvation being through a kind of dying.  He ultimately talks about a trust in Jesus being a response of “Yes” to God’s love and that this is not something we do one, but many times over and over.  God’s love is an active force in the universe looking to redeem all of creation.  He contents the gospel is better news than we have imagined and the scope of God’s love is wider than we could ever hope.

I loved this book.  It was easy to read, written in straight-forward, laymen’s terms.  This is a book that I think all young people should read.  I think it will help to answer their questions about heaven and hell and the fate of their loved ones and friends who may be of different religions or of no religious faith at all.  Ultimately, anyone would enjoy this book and, though Bell maintains that he’s not a universalist, it is a great introduction to the Christian, Biblical universalist position that still takes the issue of judgment and correction of sin seriously.  I wish Bell had gone all the way and asserted belief in universalism, but, as is typical of this generation of leaders, they try to avoid the dogmatism of past generations which has become a huge turn-off in today’s post-modern age.  Despite this, I think we can see the direction in which Bell leans.  I also wish that Bell had been a bit clearer on the theology of beginning a relationship with God and the ultimate goal of deification, however the book had a specific scope and that was to show how God’s love ultimately triumphs among humanity and that all of his purposes, including judgment and displays of his anger, are born in love.  Bell believes that the end of the human story is one where love prevails and not hate, indifference, or elitism.  To that, I can say a hardy “Amen!”  I’d say this is a must-read.  Get your hands on a copy today!

With all of this focus on His glory, some may wonder whether God has a self-esteem that is unmatched.  The term self-esteem is itself neutral.  It means the evaluation of one’s personal worth or value.  One’s self-esteem can be high or low.  Of course, one’s evaluation of his self-worth is not always accurate, so it’s important to include the point that one’s self-evaluation, high or low, must be accurate, otherwise it’s delusional.  What about God?   Does He break the heights of the “self-esteem meter?”  It seems like a silly question, but, it’s a psychological fact that any truly loving person must have a good self-esteem.  Yet, as we’ve said, many people think that God has too high of a self-esteem.  Certainly, God values Himself as a Being of infinite worth.  Is God proud or cocky for doing so?  Is He self-obsessed?   In the Isaiah passage we looked at before, it kind of sounds like God is obsessed with getting the credit or is worried about His reputation.  It doesn’t sound like someone who has a very positive self-esteem and we know that people who do not have positive self-esteem can become narcissistic.  Is God like this?  Now, most people who feel that He is would never admit to anyone (or even themselves) that they feel this way about God.  I mean, who is man that he should accuse God of being arrogant? 

But this is a serious problem, because, as we said earlier, 1 Corinthians 13 says that love is not proud, it does not boast, and it isn’t obsessed with its personal rights to the detriment of others.  If God is love, then He is none of these  things.  How do we square this with passages like the aforementioned, which clearly seem to indicate that God seems adamant about not giving up His glory?  Let’s begin answering this question by defining our terms.  True, humble glory is the manifestation of an object’s beauty or greatness for the benefit or enjoyment of those who behold it.  The joy of the glorified person is in the blessing of its glory to others.  Thus, if God has a humble glory, it is the manifestation of God’s beauty or greatness, not for His own ego, but for the good of those who experience it.   He would not find joy and satisfaction in getting His ego stroked, but in our experiencing the manifest beauty and greatness of being in relationship with Him and our enjoyment of Him and His blessings (and, of course, any love freely offered, not demanded,  in return).  Does this definition of humble glory describe God?  Can we say that God has this humble glory (the opposite of pride) when He is so intent on assuring that His glory is not compromised?  How can God, or anyone for that matter, manifest His glory without it being all about Him?  How can it be humble for anyone to glorify himself?

Psychology can be of great help in understanding this mystery.  Since we are made in God’s image, His Person(s) function relationally the same as we do.  Object relations theory sheds light on how objects (or persons) relate to one another.  The theory posits that as one’s ego (self) begins to form, he develops internal relationships to different objects (persons).  These relationships with persons (both the “self” and others) that a child forms determine the relationship patterns he will exhibit in later relationships in his life.  If a child has positive, loving relationships as he grows up, then he will love both himself and others.  If he has poor, unloving relationships as he grows up, then he will be self-destructive and selfish toward others.  Why does it work this way?  The person who feels loved, or valued, in his relationships with other people comes to love and value himself as having intrinsic worth.  We all crave being valued.  When we are loved, we conclude that our being valued means we are persons of immense worth and we direct the valuing love other others have for us toward our “self.”  When we fail to attain love in our relationships, then we conclude that our not being valued means we have no inherent worth.  However, this does not make the desire to feel valuable go away.  The result is that people then engage in behaviors, both good and bad, in order to elicit from others the praise or attention that will make them feel loved (at least temporarily).  Thus, the person with low self-esteem will be destructive and self-centered while the person who sees himself as one of great worth will act from altruistic and others-centered motivations.  They are not trying to gain self worth through those actions, because they already have it as a result of being loved.

How does this apply to God and His glory?  It works in a similar fashion, but, as with anything else with God, it works perfectly.  In the Trinity, each person of the Triune God lovingly values infinitely each other person.  Those other members receive that love and internalize it.  Since each member of the Trinity loves the others perfectly and receives love perfectly from the others, their internal self-images are ones of infinite worth (a result of being loved – i.e. each loves Himself because He is loved by the others).  The consequence of their own personal self-esteem need being met is that they are free, because of this love, to lovingly value the other members of the Trinity infinitely and selflessly.

This mutual, perfect valuing and seeking of the goodness and happiness among the members of the Trinity is the essence of love.  All that flows from infinitely valuing another person is called love and this love manifests itself in many ways.  This mutual perfect love provides that each member of the Trinity feels fully loved and, as a result, loves Himself.  We said a bit earlier that when a person feels loved to the full and lovingly values himself (he has good self-esteem), then he is free to lovingly value others self-less-ly!  When his need for positive self-esteem is met, a person is free to express his gifts, talents, and personality toward others (i.e. glorify himself) so that those on the receiving end who experience him in these ways may be blessed.  The person’s sharing himself with others is for their benefit and not to boost his faulty self-concept.  It works the same with God.  He is free to display the beauty of who He is (the glory of His love) in all the earth to every person for their good, because His own needs for self worth are met within the Trinitiarian community. 

Someone may object:  “Aren’t you boasting when you show yourself off?  Let me ask you this:  are you boasting when you show someone something good that you did, like having painted a beautiful nature scene?  That would be a form of glorifying yourself.  If you did it to bless the other person so that they could rejoice in the beauty of the art you produced, then it wasn’t arrogant.  It would be arrogant if you did it with an attitude which says, “Look at me!  See how great of a painter I am and (unspokenly) that  you’re not?”  In that case, it’s done out of a lack of self-esteem.  You don’t value yourself enough, so you try to make yourself feel valuable by making yourself out to be better than others through showing off something you did.  That is pride – falsely valuing yourself higher than other people because, in reality, you feel you are worth less than them.  Bragging about how much better you are than someone else is boasting.  It is the exaltation of self at the expense and devaluing of another person. 

What God is doing is the former.  He is showing Himself off so that everyone else can get in on experiencing the beautiful expression of His loving attributes.  Our experiencing His love and goodness is what happens when He glorifies Himself and our receiving those things from Him is that which brings Him pleasure.  His ego’s self-esteem is not at stake, because He is perfectly lovingly valued within the Trinity.  He has no need to seek positive esteem elsewhere, because it is met within Himself.  This enables God to display the beauty of who He is to everyone on their behalf.  His love, in the form of goodness, beauty, faithfulness, justice, and peacemaking, is all for the benefit of those that receive it and not for God’s own self-esteem boost!  God is not glorifying Himself because He is trying to prove how much better than everyone else He is!  He is doing it to bless the objects of His love.  This love for His creation is purely selfless.  The unselfish manifesting of all his actions, thoughts, and feelings in the life of His creation has an inherent beauty to it.  Thus, this humble glory (beauty) of who He is shines forth in those things. 

God never boasts, “See what I can do and you can’t?”  Could you imagine how petty of a deity He would be if He were like that?  You’ll never hear him say, “I’m more important than you, so it’s my way or the highway.”  Instead, He says, “Let me show you the glory of my faithfulness so that you might feel wanted even when you mess up.”  He says, “Let me show my glory by fighting for your justice so that I can defend the dignity of your being human.”  He says, “I will demonstrate my glorious power in healing and restoring your weary soul.”  The sad thing is, however, that many people do not understand God and His glory like this.  They believe in the fundamentalist god that is arrogant and condescending towards them and they are taught that they are “supposed to” love this god.  On the contrary, this view of him as being self-obsessed makes it difficult not to resent him.  Who likes people who are always out to prove how much better they are than you?

But think about it.  Is this low self-esteem and narcissistic god not exactly the opposite of the God pictured in Jesus?  Jesus doesn’t show up on a lightning bolt and threaten everybody into conformity by showing off his omnipotence.  He shows up as a humble baby, born in a stable, demonstrating the glory of a God who would humble Himself to become like one of His creatures.  Only a secure God could do something like that.  The other thing the apostle writes in 1 Corinthians 13 is that love does not insist on its own rights.  It gives them up in order to bless others or wherever others might benefit.  This is another form of selflessness that is manifested in God’s glory.  Philippians 2 talks about how Jesus did not see being God as something to be clung to as if to assert His right “to be God,” but that he willingly humbled Himself to be a servant of all.  He didn’t use His power as God to serve Himself or give Himself an unfair advantage, but to meet the needs of other people.  He used his power to heal and deliver from affliction.  He used his omniscience to teach and guide the lost.  He gave up the right to use all the attributes of His divinity so that He could walk among us and show us the true heart and face of God.  This humble attitude, born of a God who is secure within Himself, is ultimately displayed on the cross.  This, my friends, is the glory of God!  The glory of God is that He selflessly loves others by expressing these attributes in relationship with them. 

Remember that it is only because of the love of the members of the Trinity for each other within the Divine Community that God’s own need to be loved and to love Himself is met.  Without being needy in any way for affirmation or self-esteem (having an infinite quantity of both), the only other reason for displaying his loving attributes is for the good of other people.  God’s defense of His glory (see the Isaiah verse again) is not for the sake of His ego, but because, when it is mocked or misrepresented, people might misunderstand who our wonderful God is and fail to experience the fullness of His love for them.  If that were to be the case, then those people would miss out!  Think about your own experience.  When you have failed to behold the glory of God’s love for you, what has happened?  You are stuck with the idolatrous image of god who is stingy, heady, and selfish.  Your failure to see the glory of God hurts you!

So to answer one of the first questions we asked:  no, it’s not “all about Him” as you hear many Christians say.  It’s about all of us.  If it were only about God, then God has a major ego problem.  His glory wouldn’t be all that glorious since it is self-seeking in nature.  If God doesn’t really love you for your own good without the motive to get something in return, then He doesn’t really love you.   His “love” for you would just be fishing for a compliment to boost his own low self-esteem.  This motivation is hardly worthy of praise and love in return.  It’s flat out selfish.  Does God want to be loved and praised?  Sure he does, just as we do.  He desires our love in return, for this is what living in a loving relationship with Him is all about.  Reciprocal love is necessary for a true, intimate relationship to exist.  He doesn’t need it (or us for that matter), but he does want it – a closeness of heart that He desires with us being the result.  In summary, God glorifies Himself for our good!!  Seeing the glory of God liberates us, fulfills us, grows us, makes us whole (holy), and, fittingly, results in loving worship in return.

So you can let go of your image of God as being some self-crazed megalomaniac and replace it with the true one of a humble God who displays His glory in loving us unconditionally.  If you struggle with an image of God where He is self-obsessed and is not really into loving you for you, but so that He might be thought of as a great guy, then you can lay that aside as a lie that has kept you in bondage.  Realize that every time God seeks to show His glory it is so that peace, justice, love, and goodness can be manifested in the lives of all people and in the creation itself.  A loving God could do nothing else.  The glory God shows is humble and that’s what makes it glorious.