Hell and retribution

[mindlight]

A great many European Christians do not believe in hell or explain as some kind of metaphor.

1) Is hell a real place/ state that the wicked can expect to go to?

2) if hell is real then is the ultimate character of Gods justice retributive.

3) are all other models of justice e.g preventative, deterrant, rehabilitation subordinate to the expectation of ultimate retribution for sins for those who do not repent.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

1) Is hell a real place/ state that the wicked can expect to go to?

I believe it's real, but not a in spatio/temporal sense. One does not "go" to hell; it is a state of being in which one is separated from the life of God.

2) if hell is real then is the ultimate character of Gods justice retributive.

I agree that this would be a logical and accurate conclusion. However, it does depend on the prior assumption of hell being characterized exclusively as retribution. I would personally disagree with that assumption.

The bottom line is this: if hell is retribution, then God is ultimately inept as a deity. God declared the creation "good", but hell declares an alternative narrative. An eternity of retribution is a blackmail on the goodness of God, for it forces God to eternally deny God's good purposes in creation in order to maintain a state of non-goodness. It also suggests that God is incapable of bringing about God's good purposes in creation, for there will eternally remain (within the model of eternal retributive "justice") that which is opposed to God by virtue of God's retribution against it. God's existence would then be irrevocably altered in order to accommodate the eternal existence of an opposition, which is fundamentally incompatible with God's eternal goodness and love. Such ends would further force us to reconsider our basic understandings of the nature of God's goodness and love; that is, if we can fathom such an existence for God under the auspices of God's retributive relationship to that which God has created, should we not further extend such characteristics to God as God is in God's own self-existence? That is, if a relationship of enmity and retribution is "acceptable" for God in relationship to the creation, surely this is because this is fundamentally what God is in God's own nature?

3) are all other models of justice e.g preventative, deterrant, rehabilitation subordinate to the expectation of ultimate retribution for sins for those who do not repent.

You are right in that a belief in justice-as-retribution would require such subordination. Personally, I think the only rational understanding of "justice" in regard to the divine nature of God is that of restoration. God's justice is accomplished, not in God getting a pound of flesh for the sins and rebellion of humanity, but rather in the setting-right of these wrongs. True divine justice is framed in God's proclamation of the "goodness" of creation, and is realized in the acts of God in salvation history to set right that which we have corrupted.

In such a frame of justice, hell cannot be retribution. Rather, it must take on a different role, that of working to restore and reconcile the creation to the creator. The sufferings of hell, I believe, will then be not of retribution, but of correction and discipline with a goal of restoration. It is the "scourge of love" in the words of St. Isaac.

 

[mindlight]

I believe it's real, but not a in spatio/temporal sense. One does not "go" to hell; it is a state of being in which one is separated from the life of God.



I agree that this would be a logical and accurate conclusion. However, it does depend on the prior assumption of hell being characterized exclusively as retribution. I would personally disagree with that assumption.

The bottom line is this: if hell is retribution, then God is ultimately inept as a deity. God declared the creation "good", but hell declares an alternative narrative. An eternity of retribution is a blackmail on the goodness of God, for it forces God to eternally deny God's good purposes in creation in order to maintain a state of non-goodness. It also suggests that God is incapable of bringing about God's good purposes in creation, for there will eternally remain (within the model of eternal retributive "justice") that which is opposed to God by virtue of God's retribution against it. God's existence would then be irrevocably altered in order to accommodate the eternal existence of an opposition, which is fundamentally incompatible with God's eternal goodness and love. Such ends would further force us to reconsider our basic understandings of the nature of God's goodness and love; that is, if we can fathom such an existence for God under the auspices of God's retributive relationship to that which God has created, should we not further extend such characteristics to God as God is in God's own self-existence? That is, if a relationship of enmity and retribution is "acceptable" for God in relationship to the creation, surely this is because this is fundamentally what God is in God's own nature?



You are right in that a belief in justice-as-retribution would require such subordination. Personally, I think the only rational understanding of "justice" in regard to the divine nature of God is that of restoration. God's justice is accomplished, not in God getting a pound of flesh for the sins and rebellion of humanity, but rather in the setting-right of these wrongs. True divine justice is framed in God's proclamation of the "goodness" of creation, and is realized in the acts of God in salvation history to set right that which we have corrupted.

In such a frame of justice, hell cannot be retribution. Rather, it must take on a different role, that of working to restore and reconcile the creation to the creator. The sufferings of hell, I believe, will then be not of retribution, but of correction and discipline with a goal of restoration. It is the "scourge of love" in the words of St. Isaac.

Interesting post and thanks for the commentary. So you believe that a temporary stay in hell could serve a rehabilitative purpose but that it would raise too many theological questions to believe in perpetual residence. But "the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever" and the devils stay does not seem to be temporary. I think a God of love has to maintain hell so that the freedom that is implicit in true love is real and realised. The main theme of hell seems to be its finality as the story of Lazarus and the rich man reveals. The gulf between heaven and hell seems unbridgeable.

 

[JackRT]

2) if hell is real then is the ultimate character of Gods justice retributive.

As human beings we are bounded in both time and place. That is to say, we are finite. On the other hand we think of God as completely unbounded. God exists outside of both time and space. God is present everywhere and at all times. That is to say, God is infinite. This is the orthodox theistic understanding of God. To compare the finite to the infinite is beyond our human comprehension. Even to compare a grain of sand to Mount Everest falls far, far, far short. All of this brings up a number of questions in my mind.

The first question being “How is it even possible for a finite creature to offend an infinite God?” Could a grain of sand offend Mount Everest?

The second question being “If it were possible for the finite to offend the infinite, would the infinite punishment of a finite creature be just?” I will attempt to craft an analogy. You are in a park enjoying a picnic lunch when you glance down and notice an ant crawling across your sandwich. You are offended. How do you react? You have a number of options. You could ignore the ant. You could brush the ant away. You could move to a different location. You could kill the ant. You could kill the entire ant colony. You could capture the ant and confine it and proceed to torture it for several weeks until it finally dies.That last option is quite inadequate as a comparison to hell because hell is infinite in duration whereas the ant can only be tortured for a finite length of time.

To me the concept of hell flies in the face of any concept of a just and compassionate God. Hell would seem to be an entirely human invention based on a vindictive concept of retributatory justice. Perhaps we have the wrong idea of hell. Perhaps we have the wrong idea of justice. Perhaps we have the wrong idea of God.I completely reject the concept of hell as it is traditionally understood in most Christian churches.

 

[Mediaeval]

The main theme of hell seems to be its finality as the story of Lazarus and the rich man reveals. The gulf between heaven and hell seems unbridgeable.

I've heard it reasoned that the rich man and Lazarus after death were in an intermediate state, since in neither case had Judgment Day yet occurred.

 

[mindlight]

I've heard it reasoned that the rich man and Lazarus after death were in an intermediate state, since in neither case had Judgment Day yet occurred.

The word used in the parable is gehenna not hades

 

[mindlight]

As human beings we are bounded in both time and place. That is to say, we are finite. On the other hand we think of God as completely unbounded. God exists outside of both time and space. God is present everywhere and at all times. That is to say, God is infinite. This is the orthodox theistic understanding of God. To compare the finite to the infinite is beyond our human comprehension. Even to compare a grain of sand to Mount Everest falls far, far, far short. All of this brings up a number of questions in my mind.

The first question being “How is it even possible for a finite creature to offend an infinite God?” Could a grain of sand offend Mount Everest?

Because its not a question of relative size but intention. I cannot threaten God with any credibility but by deliberate or blind refusal to live according to his ways I can offend Him. It is my intention to please Him but I know I fall short. He is prepared to forgive those who call on his mercy but not the those who do not.

The second question being “If it were possible for the finite to offend the infinite, would the infinite punishment of a finite creature be just?” I will attempt to craft an analogy. You are in a park enjoying a picnic lunch when you glance down and notice an ant crawling across your sandwich. You are offended. How do you react? You have a number of options. You could ignore the ant. You could brush the ant away. You could move to a different location. You could kill the ant. You could kill the entire ant colony. You could capture the ant and confine it and proceed to torture it for several weeks until it finally dies.That last option is quite inadequate as a comparison to hell because hell is infinite in duration whereas the ant can only be tortured for a finite length of time.

An ant is not made in the image of God. You make a lot from the scale of the difference between the infinite and the finite. But we do have a connection with God which is built in and also experienced. Our created design means we share attributes like love and reason. Also God became one of us and dwelt with us in our finitude. To the limits that he endured we can know Him. The gift of His Spirit and the fellowship pf His church further affirms this. So God can judge us relating to the cards we have been dealt. Since we have all sinned and know we fall short of his standards the logical response is to call on his mercy. But it would not be fair for God to give mercy to those who have not asked for it.

To me the concept of hell flies in the face of any concept of a just and compassionate God. Hell would seem to be an entirely human invention based on a vindictive concept of retributatory justice. Perhaps we have the wrong idea of hell. Perhaps we have the wrong idea of justice. Perhaps we have the wrong idea of God.I completely reject the concept of hell as it is traditionally understood in most Christian churches.

Your rejection is one thing. The reality of hell as described in scripture may be another. God cannot tolerate sin and imperfection but he does not want any of us to perish. He has set up a system by which anyone could be saved however vile their sins. But not all will call on his mercy. Should he force it on them?!

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Interesting post and thanks for the commentary. So you believe that a temporary stay in hell could serve a rehabilitative purpose but that it would raise too many theological questions to believe in perpetual residence.

I believe that it *does* serve a rehabilitative purpose. And as far as theological questions go, the "common" notion of hell as a permanent, eternal reality does create contradictions in a proper understanding of God as love and justice. The questions are raised because the nature of God's "justice" has been perverted over time and transformed into something that is completely alien to the nature of an immutable God.

But "the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever" and the devils stay does not seem to be temporary.

Personally, I tend to not put too much theological weight on the words of Revelation. While it cannot be discounted out of hand, interpretation must be--in my opinion--severely tempered by an understanding of the literary genre. For example, the same author speaks of dragons and great beasts arising out of the sea. The same author presents a picture of God as having corporeal form and existence. So then, if we are to take the words about the "lake of fire" as prescriptive regarding the reality of the afterlife, we must do the same with the other pictures and images which are presented. But of course, most interpreters do not do that. So why do we insist on adopting a different interpretive principle for this particular passage?

Secondly, regarding the "lake of fire" itself, it does not seem to be the same as the "hell" that is spoken of by other authors in Scripture. The "lake of fire" seems to denote destruction, not punishment, and the author of Revelations himself describes "hell" as being cast into the "lake of fire". So again, if we are speaking about "hell" properly, I think we should avoid conflating the two, especially if the words of Revelation are going to be interpreted in any manner of literality.

I think a God of love has to maintain hell so that the freedom that is implicit in true love is real and realised.

A temporary hell need not violate the freedom of love. In fact, it would actually be the highest expression of the same. There is no suggestion that God is "compelling" the individual in hell to do that which they do not desire to do. Rather, it is an acknowledgement of the relentlessness of divine love, a love which will not give up, even if it takes "forever" to win its prize. And in such a scenario, the individual's freedom is not diminished, for they are entitled to continue to resist the love of God to the utmost of their abilities. However, their ability is not unfettered, and they shall experience God's love as torment, for it *is* torment to willfully separate oneself from the love of God. It is also madness. As they are "scourged" by the love of God, the hope is that they will come to see--perhaps slowly, perhaps quickly, depending on the depth of their madness--that their existence apart from God is untenable and miserable. As they eventually "come to their senses" like the prodigal son, the love of God will be ever present, ever waiting to rescue them from their self-inflicted torment and to enfold them into the bliss of life everlasting.

God is patient, and will win out. Eventually hell will be emptied, and will itself cease to exist as the consummation of God's good purposes in creation are finally and ultimately brought to fruition.

The main theme of hell seems to be its finality as the story of Lazarus and the rich man reveals. The gulf between heaven and hell seems unbridgeable.

Well, if we are to give any weight to the words of Revelation, Christ has authority over death and hell. What is impossible for man (Lazarus and the rich man) is not impossible for the one who preached to the souls in prison.

Besides, sometimes "eternal isn't forever".

 

[Mediaeval]

The word used in the parable is gehenna not hades

The Greek has "hades" in Luke 16:23 (http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/luk16.pdf) but either way the rich man's "torment" was that experienced upon death and prior to the resurrection of the last day.

 

[mindlight]

The Greek has "hades" in Luke 16:23 (http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/luk16.pdf) but either way the rich man's "torment" was that experienced upon death and prior to the resurrection of the last day.

You are right about the word Hades and that this seems to be before the judgment.

In other places the bible talks about eternal fire and destruction:

2 Thess 1:9
Jude 7
Jude 12,13

 

[mindlight]

I believe that it *does* serve a rehabilitative purpose. And as far as theological questions go, the "common" notion of hell as a permanent, eternal reality does create contradictions in a proper understanding of God as love and justice. The questions are raised because the nature of God's "justice" has been perverted over time and transformed into something that is completely alien to the nature of an immutable God.

Maybe Luke 16:23 does give some possibility of hell being temporary. In that case maybe the Catholic doctrine of purgatory has some weight. If so it seems that Hades has a separation between those in Paradise and those in fire before the judgment. In Hades people have some kind of conscious existence but have not been finally judged. In that case would it be possible that by the time of the final judgment then most people in Hades would be pretty much fed up with pain and suffering and hoping for Gods mercy!! However they must wait till the judgment until that is the case as there is an unbridgeable gulf set between them and those with God. Also I am still not sure if Hades makes any difference to a persons eternal state but rather it is all about how they actually responded to God in their earthly existence.

Love cannot be forced on people and justice is in effect giving people what they actually ask for. So the possibility remains that people may refuse Gods mercy even after a time in such a purgatory, if it exists.

But either purgatory or eternal hell would fit a retributive model more easily than a rehabilitative one. Basically there is a consequence for sin. For those who have not accepted the price Christ paid for all of us there is only retribution. For the rest of us there is the character refining experience of pain and suffering as we burn off our sins with the ultimate understanding and hope that we are saved and expect to dwell with God forever.

Personally, I tend to not put too much theological weight on the words of Revelation. While it cannot be discounted out of hand, interpretation must be--in my opinion--severely tempered by an understanding of the literary genre. For example, the same author speaks of dragons and great beasts arising out of the sea. The same author presents a picture of God as having corporeal form and existence. So then, if we are to take the words about the "lake of fire" as prescriptive regarding the reality of the afterlife, we must do the same with the other pictures and images which are presented. But of course, most interpreters do not do that. So why do we insist on adopting a different interpretive principle for this particular passage?

Many of these words echo themes in the Old Testament. The phrase the smoke of their torment rises forever comes from Isaiah for instance. But it is clear that Revelation talks about severe consequences for those who defy God.

Secondly, regarding the "lake of fire" itself, it does not seem to be the same as the "hell" that is spoken of by other authors in Scripture. The "lake of fire" seems to denote destruction, not punishment, and the author of Revelations himself describes "hell" as being cast into the "lake of fire". So again, if we are speaking about "hell" properly, I think we should avoid conflating the two, especially if the words of Revelation are going to be interpreted in any manner of literality.

I am not sure annihilationism could be supported from scripture and most churches have always interpreted hell as an eternal state / place

A temporary hell need not violate the freedom of love. In fact, it would actually be the highest expression of the same. There is no suggestion that God is "compelling" the individual in hell to do that which they do not desire to do. Rather, it is an acknowledgement of the relentlessness of divine love, a love which will not give up, even if it takes "forever" to win its prize. And in such a scenario, the individual's freedom is not diminished, for they are entitled to continue to resist the love of God to the utmost of their abilities. However, their ability is not unfettered, and they shall experience God's love as torment, for it *is* torment to willfully separate oneself from the love of God. It is also madness. As they are "scourged" by the love of God, the hope is that they will come to see--perhaps slowly, perhaps quickly, depending on the depth of their madness--that their existence apart from God is untenable and miserable. As they eventually "come to their senses" like the prodigal son, the love of God will be ever present, ever waiting to rescue them from their self-inflicted torment and to enfold them into the bliss of life everlasting.

It is an attractive thought but not necessarily one that is incompatible with the notion of a purgatory AND an eternal hell. But there does seem to remain the idea of a hell where there are no second chances even if we allow for the possibility of Purgatory. The effect of knowing that such a place exists and the finality associated with it drives me towards Gods mercy. There is no way I want to go hell and nor would I wish it on others (even my worst enemies). But it is not unjust to suppose that a God of love may have to send people there who will not accept his love or will as the guide for their lives. In hell they have the freedom to be all the things God is not e.g. miserable, in pain , loveless, hopeless etc etc.

God is patient, and will win out. Eventually hell will be emptied, and will itself cease to exist as the consummation of God's good purposes in creation are finally and ultimately brought to fruition.

It is a nice thought but where is the biblical evidence for that. The devil and his angels for instance will remain in hell.

Well, if we are to give any weight to the words of Revelation, Christ has authority over death and hell. What is impossible for man (Lazarus and the rich man) is not impossible for the one who preached to the souls in prison.

Jesus preached to the souls of those who perished before the time of Noah not to all those in hades.

Besides, sometimes "eternal isn't forever".

The only way you could work that into some kind of meaningful phrase seems to me to be to suggest that we are in the presence of Eternity when we are with God and we are in some kind of more dimensionally limited temporal prison when we are not. But again where is the biblical evidence to defy a basic church doctrine here.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Love cannot be forced on people and justice is in effect giving people what they actually ask for. So the possibility remains that people may refuse Gods mercy even after a time in such a purgatory, if it exists.

They may, but I would argue that they will have to eternally contend against the love of God. In my opinion, even the strongest and most intractable of self-willed individuals will not be able to resist perpetually, for the "reward" of their self-will will be an ever-diminishing source of motivation.

But either purgatory or eternal hell would fit a retributive model more easily than a rehabilitative one. Basically there is a consequence for sin.

There is still a consequence for sin within a restorative, rehabilitative model. The difference is that the retributive model has no space for accepting (for whatever reason) that the consequence for sin can be anything other than an unchanging state of being. Given the relative insignificance of sin in relation to the infinite nature and goodness of God, I see no issue with seeing the consequence of sin as being temporary and ultimately restorative.

Love cannot be forced on people and justice is in effect giving people what they actually ask for. So the possibility remains that people may refuse Gods mercy even after a time in such a purgatory, if it exists.

They may, but I would argue that they will have to eternally contend against the love of God. In my opinion, even the strongest and most intractable of self-willed individuals will not be able to resist perpetually, for the "reward" of their self-will will be an ever-diminishing source of motivation.

Many of these words echo themes in the Old Testament. The phrase the smoke of their torment rises forever comes from Isaiah for instance. But it is clear that Revelation talks about severe consequences for those who defy God.

Indeed it does. However, as I mentioned before, the language--within the context of such a literary genre--should (IMO) be tempered in its interpretation. That is, if we do not give literal credence to God having a corporeal form, or women riding dragons (both of which are expressed in similar language by the same author), why should be choose these words about the lake of fire as objects of literal interpretation?

Love cannot be forced on people and justice is in effect giving people what they actually ask for. So the possibility remains that people may refuse Gods mercy even after a time in such a purgatory, if it exists.

They may, but I would argue that they will have to eternally contend against the love of God. In my opinion, even the strongest and most intractable of self-willed individuals will not be able to resist perpetually, for the "reward" of their self-will will be an ever-diminishing source of motivation.

I am not sure annihilationism could be supported from scripture and most churches have always interpreted hell as an eternal state / place

I'm not suggesting that it should be. I'm only pointing out the way in which the author seems to describe the "lake of fire", and why it is therefore perhaps inappropriate to conflate with the general notion of "hell".

Love cannot be forced on people and justice is in effect giving people what they actually ask for. So the possibility remains that people may refuse Gods mercy even after a time in such a purgatory, if it exists.

They may, but I would argue that they will have to eternally contend against the love of God. In my opinion, even the strongest and most intractable of self-willed individuals will not be able to resist perpetually, for the "reward" of their self-will will be an ever-diminishing source of motivation.

But it is not unjust to suppose that a God of love may have to send people there who will not accept his love or will as the guide for their lives. In hell they have the freedom to be all the things God is not e.g. miserable, in pain , loveless, hopeless etc etc.

Actually, it is unjust, if hell is the final story. Justice is not retribution; it is the fulfillment of God's purposes in creation. If God's purposes in creation are ultimately frustrated (for example, by there existing a portion of creation that exists in eternal opposition to the goodness of God), then God is ultimately "unjust", for God's intentions in creation are prevented from coming to fruition.

Persons in hell may have the freedom to be miserable, hopeless, and the like, but God equally has the freedom to love and pursue them eternally. It is my contention--and hope--that it is God's love which writes the final chapter.

Love cannot be forced on people and justice is in effect giving people what they actually ask for. So the possibility remains that people may refuse Gods mercy even after a time in such a purgatory, if it exists.

They may, but I would argue that they will have to eternally contend against the love of God. In my opinion, even the strongest and most intractable of self-willed individuals will not be able to resist perpetually, for the "reward" of their self-will will be an ever-diminishing source of motivation.

It is a nice thought but where is the biblical evidence for that. The devil and his angels for instance will remain in hell.

All things shall be subjected to Christ, so that ultimately God will be all in all. Unless the biblical writer is spinning tricks with words, the "all" must necessarily relate to the fulness of God's creation. God cannot be "all in all" if there remains eternally a portion of God's creation which is opposed to and separated from the love and existence of God.

Love cannot be forced on people and justice is in effect giving people what they actually ask for. So the possibility remains that people may refuse Gods mercy even after a time in such a purgatory, if it exists.

They may, but I would argue that they will have to eternally contend against the love of God. In my opinion, even the strongest and most intractable of self-willed individuals will not be able to resist perpetually, for the "reward" of their self-will will be an ever-diminishing source of motivation.

But again where is the biblical evidence to defy a basic church doctrine here.

What "basic church doctrine" are you referring to?