There is no Hell (Moved)

[Daniel9v9]

Before anyone here goes off on another poster and insists that others are not doing "good exegesis" and are being lazy and inconsistent, I think you need to supply your Hermeneutical and/or Exegetical citations------i.e. provide a list of the scholarly sources you're drawing from by which you're making your evaluation and applying your own method of interpretation ...

I don't mean to contend with you, but I for one think some of your interpretations are all too easily assumed on behalf of ECT. Sure, they might apply on some aspects of the texts we read, but it might not apply across the board.

I also think there is some vagueness and ambiguity as to how the nature of "Hell" was understood among the New Testament writers. There may even be some diversity among the New Testament writers in their interpretations----Paul, Matthew, John, Peter, etc----which lends some credence to all of three of the positions we're contemplating today.

As far as I'm concerned, "Hell" is a BIG (?)

Sure, thing. I serve in the Lutheran Church as a Bishop, so historically, that means I follow in the steps of the Lutheran Reformers, and before that Augustine and Chrysostom. As such, the principles I hold to are as follows:

1. A passage of Scripture is always to be taken in its plain, natural and literal sense, unless there is something in the text itself, or in the context, that clearly indicates that it is meant to be figurative.

2. A passage is never to be torn from its connection, but it is to be studied in connection with what goes before and follows after.

3. Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture, the dark passages are to be compared with the more clear, bearing on the same subject.

4. We can never be fully certain that a doctrine is Scriptural until we have examined and compared all that the Word says on the subject.

5. We have to respect the distinction between Law and Gospel, neither confusing nor separating the two. Likewise, and closely related, we have to respect the distinction between Justification and Sanctification.

6. The Old Testament is the foundation of the New Testament, and the Old Testament is read through the New Testament.

7. The Bible should be read Christologically! All of Scripture ultimately points to or culminates in Christ. God's Word is, generally speaking, not about us but about Christ. It does contain direct application for us, but typically, it is indirect through Christ. All doctrines that are void of or minimise Christ should be disregarded. Christ crucified is the heart and centre of everything.

Now, regarding hell and damnation, I do not agree with you that there is diversity among the NT authors about how they understood it, rather, they employ different expressions for the same thing. All of which, taken together, point to some existence apart from the mercy of God. If you're of the view that the NT authors meant different things or had different interpretations or ideas, then I'm afraid we can't come to an agreement, because I understand the Scriptures to be God's Word, not merely that they contain God's Word, as Higher Critics do. And furthermore, hell and damnation are also described by Christ Himself. So while we can't know the exact nature of hell, we can understand it to be severe and painful from what our Lord says alone.

Quite frankly outside of Revelation, I don't see those verses ruling out annihilation at the final judgment. Some even seem to support it such as Matthew 10:28. Some of the verses you used are ones that are "cherry picked" to support the theory of annihilation. While I don't necessarily believe in it myself, I do believe it can't be easily dismissed. In Matthew 25:46, you talk about the contrast to eternal life, but wouldn't that amount to the opposite of life, which is death? If a person is alive to be punished for eternity, doesn't that mean they'll be alive for eternity ie have eternal life?

Well, let's take a look at this:

Why should we disregard what Revelation says? Even though Revelation is a symbolic book, when it says that for those who are condemned "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night", what does the symbolism mean if not eternal suffering? As mentioned above, we should let Scripture interpret Scripture, and when we cross-reference the lake of fire, we find that the fire is eternal (Matthew 25:41). Why is the fire described as eternal if the suffering is not eternal? And especially in light of what our Lord says, which indicates suffering.

If our Lord calls damnation a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, which is connected to "second death", "fire", "darkness", "a place where the worm does not die" etc. What does He mean by it? What does He mean by weeping and gnashing of teeth? If it's merely a symbol, what exactly is it a symbol for?

My point here is twofold:

(1) If we agree that the Holy Bible is God's Word, as opposed to merely containing God's Word, then we should take into account everything it says about a subject.

(2) If we read everything the Bible says about hell and damnation, it simply does not say annihilation. It describes something eternal or fixed, and terrible and unknown to us, using different expressions. But taken together, we can form some idea of what it is: Namely, an existence apart from the mercy of God. This is particularly clear in our Lord's parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22.

To your question regarding Matthew 25:46. We can think of it in two ways: First of all, our Lord does not say "eternal death" but "eternal punishment". The dictionary I'm looking at describes the word as "penal infliction, punishment, torment". You can look up κόλασις [kolasis] by yourself if you like.

Secondly, even if Christ were to say "death" and not "punishment", this would also be correct in the sense that the Bible does describe damnation as death, only that it's qualified in Revelation 20:14 and in our Lord's parables, which describes a reality that is not annihilation.

The bottom line is that if we take everything God's Word says about hell and damnation together, the theory of annihilation is not plausible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure, thing. I serve in the Lutheran Church as a Bishop, so historically, that means I follow in the steps of the Lutheran Reformers, and before that Augustine and Chrysostom. As such, the principles I hold to are as follows:

1. A passage of Scripture is always to be taken in its plain, natural and literal sense, unless there is something in the text itself, or in the context, that clearly indicates that it is meant to be figurative.

2. A passage is never to be torn from its connection, but it is to be studied in connection with what goes before and follows after.

3. Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture, the dark passages are to be compared with the more clear, bearing on the same subject.

4. We can never be fully certain that a doctrine is Scriptural until we have examined and compared all that the Word says on the subject.

5. We have to respect the distinction between Law and Gospel, neither confusing nor separating the two. Likewise, and closely related, we have to respect the distinction between Justification and Sanctification.

6. The Old Testament is the foundation of the New Testament, and the Old Testament is read through the New Testament.

7. The Bible should be read Christologically! All of Scripture ultimately points to or culminates in Christ. God's Word is, generally speaking, not about us but about Christ. It does contain direct application for us, but typically, it is indirect through Christ. All doctrines that are void of or minimise Christ should be disregarded. Christ crucified is the heart and centre of everything.

Now, regarding hell and damnation, I do not agree with you that there is diversity among the NT authors about how they understood it, rather, they employ different expressions for the same thing. All of which, taken together, point to some existence apart from the mercy of God. If you're of the view that the NT authors meant different things or had different interpretations or ideas, then I'm afraid we can't come to an agreement, because I understand the Scriptures to be God's Word, not merely that they contain God's Word, as Higher Critics do. And furthermore, hell and damnation are also described by Christ Himself. So while we can't know the exact nature of hell, we can understand it to be severe and painful from what our Lord says alone.

Just a citation of your source would have been sufficient, but thanks for spelling it out anyway.

I'll guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, and for me, that's ok.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Well, let's take a look at this:

Why should we disregard what Revelation says? Even though Revelation is a symbolic book, when it says that for those who are condemned "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night", what does the symbolism mean if not eternal suffering? As mentioned above, we should let Scripture interpret Scripture, and when we cross-reference the lake of fire, we find that the fire is eternal (Matthew 25:41). Why is the fire described as eternal if the suffering is not eternal? And especially in light of what our Lord says, which indicates suffering.

If our Lord calls damnation a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, which is connected to "second death", "fire", "darkness", "a place where the worm does not die" etc. What does He mean by it? What does He mean by weeping and gnashing of teeth? If it's merely a symbol, what exactly is it a symbol for?

My point here is twofold:

(1) If we agree that the Holy Bible is God's Word, as opposed to merely containing God's Word, then we should take into account everything it says about a subject.

(2) If we read everything the Bible says about hell and damnation, it simply does not say annihilation. It describes something eternal or fixed, and terrible and unknown to us, using different expressions. But taken together, we can form some idea of what it is: Namely, an existence apart from the mercy of God. This is particularly clear in our Lord's parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22.

To your question regarding Matthew 25:46. We can think of it in two ways: First of all, our Lord does not say "eternal death" but "eternal punishment". The dictionary I'm looking at describes the word as "penal infliction, punishment, torment". You can look up κόλασις [kolasis] by yourself if you like.

Secondly, even if Christ were to say "death" and not "punishment", this would also be correct in the sense that the Bible does describe damnation as death, only that it's qualified in Revelation 20:14 and in our Lord's parables, which describes a reality that is not annihilation.

The bottom line is that if we take everything God's Word says about hell and damnation together, the theory of annihilation is not plausible.

I didn't say Revelation should be disregarded, I said that it's an exception. And "the smoke of their torment" is an odd phrase. The author then says they'll have no rest day or night, when he also said there would no longer be day or night. So questions pop up.

Fire and darkness, don't go together since fire is the source of light, starting with that ball of fire up in the sky we call the sun. So perhaps Jesus was talking about something else. I think it's possible some of what he said that is associated with hell, is actually about the destruction of Israel which came about within the generation of when Jesus gave those parables. Similarities can be noted in what was said by Jeremiah and Ezekiel etc before the Babylonians overthrew Israel and destroyed the temple the first time around.

I'm familiar with the word kolasis as I've been exploring the subject of hell off and on for many years. The point is, eternal punishment via torment, has to include eternal life. Yet there's all those passages that directly contrast eternal life with death. In this world people are either sentenced to life in prison or they're sentenced to be put to death. It's not both and they're not one in the same. And the Bible says far more about death vs eternal life, than eternal life in torment vs eternal life. Now I'm not saying that's proof of anything, but it does bear consideration.

This is one of my favorite lectures on the subject of hell:

 

[Daniel9v9]

Just a citation of your source would have been sufficient, but thanks for spelling it out anyway.

I'll guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, and for me, that's ok.

Well, if you're interested in a historical witness apart from the Scriptures, then how about the words of Polycarp, who was likely a disciple of the apostle John. Polycarp when he was about to be martyred said:

"You threaten with a fire that burns only briefly and after just a little while is extinguished, for you are ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and eternal punishment, which is reserved for the ungodly."

So, you are free to disagree, but this is how Polycarp understood God's Word, and he died sometime between AD 155 - 160, so he was in much closer proximity to the apostles than we are. You can also find other references that concur with this among the other Apostolic Fathers. I can recommend the Apostolic Fathers by Michael W. Holmes if you're interested.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Well, if you're interested in a historical witness apart from the Scriptures, then how about the words of Polycarp, who was likely a disciple of the apostle John. Polycarp when he was about to be martyred said:

"You threaten with a fire that burns only briefly and after just a little while is extinguished, for you are ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and eternal punishment, which is reserved for the ungodly."

So, you are free to disagree, but this is how Polycarp understood God's Word, and he died sometime between AD 155 - 160, so he was in much closer proximity to the apostles than we are. You can also find other references that concur with this among the other Apostolic Fathers. I can recommend the Apostolic Fathers by Michael W. Holmes if you're interested.

Are you taking into consideration that Polycarp was talking about being put to death?

 

[Daniel9v9]

I didn't say Revelation should be disregarded, I said that it's an exception. And "the smoke of their torment" is an odd phrase. The author then says they'll have no rest day or night, when he also said there would no longer be day or night.

Fire and darkness, don't go together since fire is a source of light, starting with that ball of fire up in the sky we call the sun. So perhaps Jesus was talking about something else. I think it's possible some of what he said that is associated with hell, is actually about the destruction of Israel which came about within the generation of when Jesus gave those parables. Similarities can be noted in what was said by Jeremiah and Ezekiel etc before the Babylonians overthrew Israel and destroyed the temple the first time around.

I'm familiar with the word kolasis. I've been exploring the subject of hell off and on for many years. The point is, eternal punishment via torment, has to include eternal life. Yet there's all those passages that directly contrast eternal life with death. In this world people are either sentenced to life in prison or they're sentenced to be put to death. It's not both and they're not one in the same. And the Bible says far more about death vs eternal life, than eternal life in torment vs eternal life. Now I'm not saying that's proof, but it does bear a lot of consideration.

This is one of my favorite lectures on the subject:

Yes, but as I pointed out before, the fire spoken of in conjunction with damnation affects incorporeal beings, which implies something that is unknown to us, only using language that we are familiar with. It does not say that the creatures who are subject to hell are free of its pain or oblivious to it, but quite the contrary, that they weep, gnash their teeth and are tormented. What does Jesus mean by this if not suffering?

God's Word explains what it means by eternal life and eternal death, for it talks about what life in Christ is and what the second death is. And we find it expressed very clearly in Daniel 12:2, where it says: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." That is, both the just and the unjust awake, but that there's a division and two different destinations or states that await them.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Are you taking into consideration that Polycarp was talking about being put to death?

Yes, that's exactly the point. Here you have an extremely early witness about to die, and he draws a contrast between earthly fire with bodily death, and eternal fire with condemnation. He's basically telling his accusers: "You can burn me and I'll die and will be with the Lord, but God will burn you forever and you will die without seizing, lest to you repent and believe in Jesus."

 

[Ceallaigh]

Yes, but as I pointed out before, the fire spoken of in conjunction with damnation affects incorporeal beings, which implies something that is unknown to us, only using language that we are familiar with. It does not say that the creatures who are subject to hell are free of its pain or oblivious to it, but quite the contrary, that they weep, gnash their teeth and are tormented. What does Jesus mean by this if not suffering?

Once again, I think it's possible that when Jesus was talking about weeping and gnashing of teeth, he was prophesying about what Rome did to Israel. That's why I said that it's interesting to compare some of what Jesus said to what was said by Jeremiah when he prophesied about what Babylon did to Israel.

God's Word explains what it means by eternal life and eternal death, for it talks about what life in Christ is and what the second death is. And we find it expressed very clearly in Daniel 12:2, where it says: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." That is, both the just and the unjust awake, but that there's a division and two different destinations or states that await them.

First of all, don't you find it interesting that Daniel 2:12 is one of only two verses in the entirety of the Old Testament that is used to support the view of eternal torment? Let's examine what's being said. Judas, even though he's long dead, is still held in shame and contempt 2000 years later, and probably will be forever relatively speaking. So I don't see how Daniel 12:2 completely rules out annihilation. The only other verse out of the entire Old Testament that's used to support the view of eternal torment is Isaiah 66:24. However he starts off saying "And they shall go forth and look upon the corpses of the men", so it's about those who are dead rather than alive. He says their worm worm does not die and their fire is not quenched, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the corpses themselves are alive. How can they be corpses and also be alive? It bears questioning.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Yes, that's exactly the point. Here you have an extremely early witness about to die, and he draws a contrast between earthly fire with bodily death, and eternal fire with condemnation. He's basically telling his accusers: "You can burn me and I'll die and will be with the Lord, but God will burn you forever and you will die without seizing, lest to you repent and believe in Jesus."

Perhaps what he said compares to Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

 

[The Liturgist]

Balderdash! A parable explains something unknown/not understood by comparing it to something, known/understood. Every parable example given is something which has happened or could happen. No fairy tales or tall tales. At some time in history a shepherd searched for lost sheep and found a lost sheep. At some time in history a woman lost and searched for lost money, etc.

Absolutely. You know @Der Alte I absolutely love the exegesis you do on this forum.

 

[The Liturgist]

Same ol' UR arguments, I post my response. I don't need to and I don't reinvent the wheel every time. The difference is I support everything I say with scripture not supposition. Your assumption "fits in just fine" does nothing to disprove anything I posted.
IIRC Jesus mentioned death 17 times. When Jesus meant death, He said death. When Jesus said "punishment" He did not mean death and His immediate audience would NOT have understood it as death. One of the ECF, Justin, I think, said something like "It is not punishment unless they are conscious to experience it." But nice try. And OBTW the definition I give for aionios kolasis, is the same as the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible. See my "archived post" above.

Indeed.

 

[The Liturgist]

That would be Annihilationism. Only one of three biblical choices for the final judgment.

I don’t believe Annhilationism is supportable. The only two Scriptural interpretations that seem valid are Calvinism and non-Calvinism. I myself lean towards non-Calvinism, which requires me to reject Universalism because the one thing God cannot do is force us to love Him.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Indeed.

UR and annihilation are conflicting views. Therefore how can a recycled default response to UR fit the view of annihilation?

 

[Ceallaigh]

I don’t believe Annhilationism is supportable. The only two Scriptural interpretations that seem valid are Calvinism and non-Calvinism. I myself lean towards non-Calvinism, which requires me to reject Universalism because the one thing God cannot do is force us to love Him.

Universalism and annihilationism are not the same thing at all. All of the universalists I know of are vehemently against the view of annihilation. And of course annihilation completely rules out the possibility of the universalist view of eventual reconciliation.

So what do you see wrong with annihilationism without the erroneous comparison to universalism?

 

[The Liturgist]

UR and annihilation are conflicting views. Therefore how can a recycled default response to UR fit the view of annihilation?

Because annhilationism and universalism are both eschatological errors, and are refuted by the same set of scriptures. Its not unlike how Arianism and Docetism are both refuted by John 1:1-17, although to be clear I don’t believe annhilationism or universalism are departures from Nicene Christianity or impediments to salvation, since we see a belief in something like universal apokatastasis in Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Isaac the Syrian, and most of the East Syriac fathers of the Church of the East. Rather, I regard these as errors one can make while still being a devout Christian.

I also think it is extremely unfortunate that the Universalist Church merged with the Unitarians, because the result of that is that there is no longer a Trinitarian or even explicitly Christian denomination for people who believe in UR, since most UUA parishes now are explicitly post-Christian, even those which historically were Christian, for example, Arlington Street Church in Boston with its beautiful stained glass windows of our Lord.

 

[The Liturgist]

Universalism and annihilationism are not the same thing at all. All of the universalists I know of are vehemently against the view of annihilation. And of course annihilation completely rules out the possibility of the universalist view of eventual reconciliation.

Indeed, to be clear, I am not saying they are the same thing, but rather that they are refuted by the same texts.

That being said I myself have great empathy for Universalists like Dr. David Bentley Hart. However, I believe the majority opinion of the Greek and Syriac fathers that being in the presence of God while hating Him would be torture, since God is a consuming fire, and thus God banishing those who do not willingly love Him to the Outer Darkness is an example of His infinite mercy. However, in failing to reciprocate God’s love, as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware wrote, it hurts us, because we are excluding ourselves from infinite joy.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Balderdash! A parable explains something unknown/not understood by comparing it to something, known/understood. Every parable example given is something which has happened or could happen. No fairy tales or tall tales. At some time in history a shepherd searched for lost sheep and found a lost sheep. At some time in history a woman lost and searched for lost money, etc.

Ah but the story of the lost sheep and the lost coin aren't really actually about a lost sheep or coin are they? So then why should it be supposed that the Rich Man and Lazarus is actually about hell? As for the reality of the places described, there's Hades and then there's Abraham's bosom. Which can also be translated as Abraham's pocket. So was Lazarus actually in Abraham's chest cavity or in his pocket? And if the rich man's state in Hades is eternal, does that mean Lazarus will be in Abraham's chest or pocket for eternity?

 

[Daniel9v9]

Once again, I think it's possible that when Jesus was talking about weeping and gnashing of teeth, he was prophesying about what Rome did to Israel. That's why I said that it's interesting to compare some of what Jesus said to what was said by Jeremiah when he prophesied about what Babylon did to Israel.


First of all, don't you find it interesting that Daniel 2:12 is one of only two verses in the entirety of the Old Testament that is used to support the view of eternal torment? Let's examine what's being said. Judas, even though he's long dead, is still held in shame and contempt 2000 years later, and probably will be forever relatively speaking. So I don't see how Daniel 12:2 completely rules out annihilation. The only other verse out of the entire Old Testament that's used to support the view of eternal torment is Isaiah 66:24. However he starts off saying "And they shall go forth and look upon the corpses of the men", so it's about those who are dead rather than alive. He says their worm worm does not die and their fire is not quenched, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the corpses themselves are alive. How can they be corpses and also be alive? It bears questioning.

Once again, God's Word clearly connects weeping and gnashing of teeth with condemnation as expressed as "fire" and "darkness", which again is expressed as "death", "destruction", or "second death". It's only possible to arrive at annihilation if we read some of these in isolation. But if we read them all together, they form a larger picture.

The afterlife in general is somewhat veiled in the OT, but our Lord expresses it very clearly in the NT, and we'll do well to understand the OT in light of what Jesus says.

Perhaps what he said compares to Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

I'm confident he would agree with that, for that is what the Scriptures teach. However, (1) God's Word also qualify what it means by it, and (2) that's not the language Polycarp is using. He's comparing material fire and short pain with a different kind of fire that is eternal and reserved for the ungodly.

Here are a couple of other early church quotes that concurs with what Polycarp professed:

Clement: "And this is why the divine judgment punishes a spirit that is not righteous, and loads it with chains." And: "For if we do the will of Christ, we will find rest; but if we do not — if we disobey the commandments — then nothing will save us from eternal punishment."

Ignatius: "Such a person, having polluted himself, will go to the unquenchable fire, as will also the one who listens to him."

Tertullian: "After the present age is ended [God] will judge His worshipers for a reward of eternal life and the godless for a fire equally perpetual and unending."

Furthermore, if we take into account everything God's Word says about hell and damnation, we can understand it as a continuous and neverending or fixed dying. It's also worth noticing that Jesus says "body and soul" and not only "soul", which implies a resurrection to damnation. And again, if we cross-reference this with the place where the "worm does not die" and the fact that death itself is conquered, along with our Lord's other statements that there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, and what Revelation says that they will be tormented forever, we get a fuller picture of what this means. Anhilitaion, then, is not plausible.

Even in the Athanasian Creed, we confess: "And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire."

 

[Ceallaigh]

Because annihilationism and universalism are both eschatological errors, and are refuted by the same set of scriptures. Its not unlike how Arianism and Docetism are both refuted by John 1:1-17, although to be clear I don’t believe annhilationism or universalism are departures from Nicene Christianity or impediments to salvation, since we see a belief in something like universal apokatastasis in Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Isaac the Syrian, and most of the East Syriac fathers of the Church of the East. Rather, I regard these as errors one can make while still being a devout Christian.

I also think it is extremely unfortunate that the Universalist Church merged with the Unitarians, because the result of that is that there is no longer a Trinitarian or even explicitly Christian denomination for people who believe in UR, since most UUA parishes now are explicitly post-Christian, even those which historically were Christian, for example, Arlington Street Church in Boston with its beautiful stained glass windows of our Lord.

The scripture being used was Matthew 25:46, and the argument was that kolasis doesn't mean "age" but rather means "eternal". However annihilationism agrees that kolasis means "eternal". So that argument simply doesn't apply here. Annihilationism is not "the same ol universalist argument", it's actually rather quite a different argument which completely rules out universalism. So I think we should use arguments that apply to annihilationism, rather than posting repeated inapplicable arguments that apply to something that's off topic.

I have known and known of many Christian universalists over a period of 14 years, and none of them have ever belonged to or attended "the Universalist Church". Christian universalism is just a singular view held by those who are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and (most denominations) Protestant.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Once again, God's Word clearly connects weeping and gnashing of teeth with condemnation as expressed as "fire" and "darkness", which again is expressed as "death", "destruction", or "second death". It's only possible to arrive at annihilation if we read some of these in isolation. But if we read them all together, they form a larger picture.

The afterlife in general is somewhat veiled in the OT, but our Lord expresses it very clearly in the NT, and we'll do well to understand the OT in light of what Jesus says.

"Death" "destruction" and "second death" are all words/terms that are synonymous with annihilation.

When we read them all together as all applying to a single thing, then that's what we are going to see and nothing else.

But I think it can also be viewed as Jesus coming as the last prophet and judge of Israel. I think Jesus had a lot more to say about their impending fate than just saying not one stone will be left atop another. It makes more sense to me that Jesus had a great deal to say about the final bloody fiery destruction in the style of prophets like Jeremiah.