A new member posted a question in For New Christians that can't be answered there.
He noted that people make very convincing cases for annihilation, eternal torment, and universalism.
I share the concern, but I think there's a reason: The New Testament gives multiple views on judgement, and many of them aren't literal. This should be a clue that perhaps what is actually going to happen is something we wouldn't understand.
My summary
My reading of the second death (based on Jewish usage and the obvious meaning) is that it is probably destruction, though I don't think that's certain. I think you can unify Paul's views with the end of the Revelation if you assume that not many normal humans end up in the lake of fire, but only those who are so inalterably opposed to God that they're effectively part of the "powers" that Paul's picture shows as being destroyed. Paul's picture seems universalist. Once the powers that oppressed humans are destroyed, everything else is "in Christ." The powers in his view are primarily supernatural, but it's not impossible that they include some humans.
Jesus uses such a variety of images that it's hard to pin down just what the literal meaning is. He certainly speaks of varying rewards and punishments. But I don't think there's anything that is unambiguously eternal punishment. (Mat 25 depends upon what "eternal" means. I think it's often not literal.) It may be that the Synoptic Gospels, Paul, and John simply don't agree. But I think it's barely possible that the punishments in the Gospels aren't eternal torment, in which case the Gospels could be consistent with Paul interpreted as I've interpreted him.
This is equivalent to N T Wright's view in Rethinking the Tradition, in which most people end up with Christ, but some are effectively destroyed.
I have to say though that I'm not entirely sure that Jesus' teachings in the Synoptic Gospels can actually be understood as consistent with Paul's. Reading Jesus' stories of judgement as not indicating eternal punishment seems like the most hopeful way of understanding them as consistent.
He noted that people make very convincing cases for annihilation, eternal torment, and universalism.
I share the concern, but I think there's a reason: The New Testament gives multiple views on judgement, and many of them aren't literal. This should be a clue that perhaps what is actually going to happen is something we wouldn't understand.
My summary
- Paul in 1 Cor 15 and elsewhere seems to advocate universalism.
- John 12:31 ff suggests something like 1 Cor 15. God overthrows the powers that oppressed humans. Once he does that, all are drawn to Christ.
- The Revelation advocates either annihilation or torment, depending upon how you understand the second death
- Jesus certainly describes judgement, but it's not clear whether it continues forever, and a number of his statements are obviously non-literal.
My reading of the second death (based on Jewish usage and the obvious meaning) is that it is probably destruction, though I don't think that's certain. I think you can unify Paul's views with the end of the Revelation if you assume that not many normal humans end up in the lake of fire, but only those who are so inalterably opposed to God that they're effectively part of the "powers" that Paul's picture shows as being destroyed. Paul's picture seems universalist. Once the powers that oppressed humans are destroyed, everything else is "in Christ." The powers in his view are primarily supernatural, but it's not impossible that they include some humans.
Jesus uses such a variety of images that it's hard to pin down just what the literal meaning is. He certainly speaks of varying rewards and punishments. But I don't think there's anything that is unambiguously eternal punishment. (Mat 25 depends upon what "eternal" means. I think it's often not literal.) It may be that the Synoptic Gospels, Paul, and John simply don't agree. But I think it's barely possible that the punishments in the Gospels aren't eternal torment, in which case the Gospels could be consistent with Paul interpreted as I've interpreted him.
This is equivalent to N T Wright's view in Rethinking the Tradition, in which most people end up with Christ, but some are effectively destroyed.
I have to say though that I'm not entirely sure that Jesus' teachings in the Synoptic Gospels can actually be understood as consistent with Paul's. Reading Jesus' stories of judgement as not indicating eternal punishment seems like the most hopeful way of understanding them as consistent.