ANyone have any suggestions on good, no, the best resources that outline either side of this exclusive/universal tension view of hell?

Metaphor generally isn't so difficult to understand especially when the topic is glaringly obvious. His disciples denseness aside, Jesus's teachings about "I am the bread" and "I am the truth and the light", "I am the living water" were also metaphorical and highly poetic, and yet we have no problem understanding what Jesus was saying or implying. What is your problem with his teachings about hell?

Jesus spoke about hell a lot. Rather uncomfortable topic for a loving savior to be chatting up if you ask me, but yet he did. We cannot dismiss that, and we must be prepared to give an answer for that topic. Trying to "soften" the topic of hell, or trying to "redefine" Jesus teachings on hell places you in jeapordy of leading people astray.

And lastly, "Some people thinking I’m going astray" which pretty much sums up my thoughts about your version of "seeking the truth."

If Jesus language about hell was about the destruction of the temple then 4 of the 5 points above are superfluous. 2000 years of Christianity has missed the point entirely in thinking that hell was a postmortem state.

Any idea who the "many people" who believe this are?

I am both very impressed and pleased with Brian's five suggestions. It is also very encouraging to see Brian progressing towards a "fulfilled" view of eschatology which often leads to a "comprehensive reconciliation" position where we can comfortably contemplate the possibility that the "judgment" and "hell" language used by Jesus is in fact mostly related to the horrific events surrounding the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 67-70.

Kudos to Brian for being so open to such a preteristic understanding of scripture and for respecting the cultural and historical context of passages that are so often abused by modern theologians.

Here's my reason for having a soft spot in my heart for Brian McLaren:

***After all, my opinions aren’t worth two cents compared to what the Scriptures actually say.***

He seems to embody the kingdom vision he so capably espouses. Granted, my information is limited, still, based on my observations, his life reminds me of Micah 6:8, "He has shown all you people what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

I personally feel that Brian has a heart for a deep, substantial connection with the spirit of Jesus' teachings and is leading the way in making that connection.

I know that many people find greater comfort in literalism and the safety of socially reinforced interpretation - and that's fine for them. However, there are some of us who need to hear a voice like that of Mr McLaren.

I'm personally very inspired and appreciative of his sensitivity, sincerity,and earnest search for the heart of the teaching.

For those who think McLaren's ideas are heretical, I can only say that we should hope everyone with mistaken theology was as eager to seek the truth and to follow Jesus as he is.

I resonate very much with what McLaren is saying here, but he does seem to show a preference for the gospels--few of his scriptural references have come from the epistles, and he constantly turns us towards "what Jesus says about hell."

But the entirety of the New Testament is an apostolic witness, and the gospels shouldn't hold more theological sway than any of the rest of the New Testament. To claim that what Jesus says in the gospel is more authoritative than what Paul says in his epistles is to ignore the historical facts about how the gospel texts came to be, and how the canon was assembled. Both parts carry the weight of apostolic teaching.

I don't think McLaren's view are irreconcilable with the epistles, but his arguments would be stronger if he drew more evenly from the entire NT.

I recently spent the day with my brother, wife and 2 friends, Japanese sisters, here in Japan. One of the sisters got a phone call: 'Grandma just died.' The sister I teach with and know well asked: 'What do you think about death?' I shared with her what I have been learning about God's heart: 'He is just, and he is love. Your Grandmother will experience both upon meeting him.' I also shared with her about Christ (which she and many Japanese have yet to hear) and how He is God's revelation of truth and love, and whose blood was shed for our forgiveness. Although I shared that it is in Christ that we are saved, I also told her that some people, like her grandmother, may have never heard of Christ and his sacrifice, yet that does NOT exclude them from His love and forgiveness. Thus, I COULD NOT say that she is going to heaven or hell with certainty, but I COULD tell her that she should not worry because, again, she is with God, and he is just.

Thank you God that your judgement is not like ours.

3 years ago I would have been answering differently, more along the lines of: 'Well, if your grandmother believed in Jesus then she is in heaven, and if not then she is in hell', with strain in my heart. That's what I had been taught, yet I didn't seek God about these things. Now I am just beginning to know, experience, and see how much deeper, wider, and un-boxable is the love of God in Christ Jesus!

If your answer to my friend's question about her grandmother might have been something like 'If she believed in Jesus then she will be accepted into heaven, but if not then she will be sent to hell' (of course, you must take into account I live in Japan, not America), then it is my prayer that you seek the Father on these things, to know His heart and be prepared to respond to questions and situations that don't fall into simple categories. What Brian appears to be grasping is that we (particularly American evangelicals) focus more on WHO is in and WHO is out, and in doing so we abandon God's love and power which is so much greater than the boxes we put them in.

I have read McLaren's New Kind of Christian trilogy and his posts here. Let me first say, that I do appreciate the willingness for McLaren to seek the Scriptures about what Jesus said about Hell. However, that chart he proposes in his book, "The Last Word and the Word After that, is completely bogus (I have seen it). By not including "judgment" in that chart he has completely changed the Bible's view of God's justice.
Read John 5:28-30 28 "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, 29 and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment (NASB).
If this is not simply John's way of referring to Hell then I really wish he would include an explanation of what "a resurrection of judgment" is referring to.
Lastly, I have often wondered why McLaren avoid's the rest of the NT as well. If Jesus language is so metaphorical and convoluted, then why not look at the epistles? While they do bear the marks of the culture that formed them, they still communicate clear directives and even eschotology (2 Thess). I wish McLaren would look at the apostle Paul "in a fresh light" because he doesn't seem to be giving his life for purely social justice. He was an apostle to the Gentiles and both 1 and 2 Timothy remind us that he was after preaching the Word of Christ and that "judgment" awaited those who rejected the message.
Still waiting for something believable from McLaren.

When Paul talked about 'those who are perishing', who was he talking about if not those who had never heard and would be condemned to hell if they didn't have a chance to hear and believe? I applaud Brian's sincerity. I honestly do believe that we shouldn't be afraid to question anything we believe, but I fear for the future of Christianity in our culture if we begin to teach that 'everything's gonna be alright.'

Dear Brian,

I would like to apologize for my some of my criticism toward you in the second part of this series. Namely, I criticized your claim to be following in the footsteps of the Reformers by examining Scripture. I didn't know you'd be submitting another post detailing more your arguments from the Gospels.

With that said, your arguments concerning metaphoric language of Jesus in relation to hell are thought-provoking. It makes me reexamine Jesus' language, and it reminds me that Jesus was preaching eternal life in the here and now. But, I still think you're allowing the temporal aspects of "eternal life" swallow up the eternal and postmortem aspects. To say that Jesus and the apostles had little concern for the after life I believe is wrong. But, it would benefit the church to consider the "already" aspects of the kingdom of heaven, which Jesus clearly intended.

I think this discussion continues to reveal something about each one of us, and if we tune into the prophetic sense, I think we'll see it. Eric N. seems to have pegged it head on--our real concern here is to be seen as A) right and B) justified by an authority.

look at American politics, education, and economy and you can see it fairly clearly-everything our nation stands for is based on being right and being justified.

this is why we ignore the context of Scripture, I believe. this is why we make first century Jews out to be Platonist mystics with a fully developed theology of afterlife as a postmortem transcendent state. did you know there were men in the Diaspora who believed that you were resurrected in Jerusalem, so if you were buried anywhere else you rolled underground back to Jerusalem to be resurrected? That's more than likely the reason for the Grecian widows in Acts 6. I don't think this is consistent with what we apparently assume about what 1st century Jews believed.

The best suggestion from part 3: read Bruggemann and Wright. Some have suggested that if McLaren had read Paul, he would think differently. Pick up Wright's treatise on Paul...I think we might all think differently...

to the dialogue...

I decided to do some research on eternal judgment and reward in first century Jewish thought. Through my reading, it seems to me when McLaren tries characterize Jesus' teachings on hell in light of a Hebraic "end and rebirth of the Jerusalem/Temple/sacrifice-centered world" perspective. However, this goes against most research on last-after-death thought in the first century.

In fact there was indeed (in some circles) a individualistic view of judgment and hereafter surrounding a person's adherence to the Law. "Life After Death in Early Judaism" by C.D. Elledge was very helpful in this.

What makes McLaren's position even weaker is the fact that there was no unified tradition or thought on the after life in the first century. As we know from Scripture, the topic was much debated (Acts 23:6-7). So, to say life-after-death is foreign or even minimized in Jesus' teachings would be wrong. We know that the concept of bodily resurrection and judgment was very influential on the religious consciousness of the first century. Jesus in his teachings on the final judgment (Matthew 25) mirrored and utilized this consciousness.

Very insightful thoughts from Brian. Let me also say to anyone commenting to indeed LOOK at the possibilities. This is more of an invitation to dialogue than to determine right from wrong.

Theologically, there is much more to say about the subject of hell. Me personally, from a ideology standpoint think that its important to not give 'hell' more power or equal power to the reasons people SHOULD want to be saved. For many, being saved is merely a way to escape the final jugdment... and why shouldnt be? Right? When we empower 'hell' we weaken the true reasons for wanting to be redeemed.

There is no fear in Love, I don't think God's desire is to scare people into the Kingdom

Isn't it time for this inferno to burn out? Same old stuff.

John 14:6-exlusive, narrow and limited? Absolutely!

Perhaps this is a big misperception on my part, but it seems that Bryan's treatment here regarding hell, eternal life and what Jesus was concerned could be perceived as treating Christ's atoning work as less than all-sufficient and complete. What was the point of His suffering if the eternal destiny of humankind was not of primary importance to Christ?

Thank God for His sovereignty, I'll trust Him with how this will all play out. In the meantime got enough to keep me busy trying to live the "abiding life" that will hopefully meet the needs of others, default to love and help some people encounter Christ.

I think the Gospels display the life and teaching of Jesus, and the rest of the NT is a record of how Paul and others attempted to live out the teachings of Jesus in practical ways.

Brian also offers a most humble and caring response to some violent and unChristian behavior from his critics. Even if he is wrong doctrinally, his ability to respond with God's love is more profound and fitting.

We have turned the Bible into nothing more than a series of doctrinal statements. Some has to agree with our understanding or they are forever cast from Christianity. The Early Church issued creeds as boundaries for belief. Doctrines varied greatly.

i am encouraged by brian's thoughts. i had to give up the concept of an eternally-punishing God and a hell of eternal torment to save my own sanity. i also had to give up my concept of an inerrant bible and look to my experience as an equivalent revelation of God. neither of these was easy to do, having grown up baptist, having gone to seminary to answer a "call", having known evangelical reformed theology like the back of my hand. Jesus is the Word in John 1, not the bible that was assembled three hundred years later. i am beginning to think more that what was judged on the cross was *sin* and not the *sinner*. to me, this makes romans much clearer - a book, frankly, that is the ultimate treatise on what Jesus' death meant.

and a book, oddly enough, that doesn't mention hell at all.

Kevin ->"I decided to do some research on eternal judgment and reward in first century Jewish thought."

I love this, it makes my heart soar, and it gives me encouragement. When I read that someone has decided to "research" a question I get excited because as far as I'm concerned they're the only ones who have something of value to share.
Now that is "seeking the truth."

Good job Kevin, keep it up!

This doctrine Mr. McLaren advocates was prophesied by Paul in 2 Timothy 4:3. Of course people want to hear that everything will be okay no matter what but this is not what the bible teaches. You have to interpret scripture by scripture because all scripture is inspired by God. Jesus' teachings on hell and judgment need to concide with John's writings in Revelation 20 and other pasages.

God's justice and love meet at the cross. The payment was made for all (2 Cor 5:14-15, et. al.) but its man's response to believe In Him or not. (John 3:16-18) If we accept his love and forgiveness we will experience a relationship with Him for all of eternity (John 17:3) But if we reject his payment, we stand condemned and seperated from his love. It's man's choice to live now and forever under His justice or His love.

I have to point out something here concerning McLaren's idea of what is "metaphorical" and what the church taught and confessed for 2000 years...

"I think about John 6, for example, where Jesus talks about people eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and then says his flesh and blood are real food and drink. They take his statements non-metaphorically and concretely, and they miss the point."

Note that Jesus didn't explain himself any other way, but after his disciples left him he turned to the twelve and did what? Explained what he really meant? No! He said, "what about you? Do you want to leave too?" Did he chase down the dispiples and say, "hold up, wait let me explain"... No. He let them go because it is hard teaching, and they couldn't bear it. But Peter said "where would we go? You have the words of eternal life".

I'm sorry, Brian McLaren, but Jesus was very serious. If the apostles had it wrong, whether it was the eucharist or hell, or justification, Jesus had 40 days after his resurrection to correct them... and plenty of time after that as well.

The judgement is real, it's going to happen. Jesus will come back to judge both the living and the dead. You can say I'm being dogmatic if you want, but I can easily counter that you are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

I am very sympathetic with Brian's project and his thinking. However, I think he could make things easier on himself. He seems to be constantly apologizing for his position, when what he should do is throw the burden of proof on the other side. That is, he doesnt have to try to demonstrate his "wild" thesis, he merely has to point out that the Bible says that unsaved people are going to hell exactly ZERO times. Whenever the topic of hell comes up, it is in the context of moral failure. So be emboldened, Brian, because you're not the one who has to advance a wild thesis.

All of this is great discussion. It excites me when people ask the kind of questions McLaren does. It's so easy for us to simply assume things as we've been taught them without truly wrestling with what the Scriptures have to say. Like McLaren points out, an accurate understanding of things like genre is crucial for us to grasp the message that the biblical authors are making.

I have been wondered from time to time if our understanding of hell is correct. Not because I don't see it in Scripture so much. More because of the arguents I hear pastors, teachers, and other Christians asserting in its defense. Much of them are paper-thin. And most of the rest simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

However, it still seems to me that concepts behind eternal judgment are necessary to so much of the logic and rationale of NT. Why the fervency for evangelism? Why the joy of the resurrection? Life now is so overwhelming and strenuous, and eternal life is an exhausting thought...even eternal life in God's presence. I'm speaking from my human perspective right now (which is all I have to work with at the moment), but anihilationism simply sounds much more peaceful. I hope you hear where I'm coming from (but probably not). Basically I'm saying...that if all this thrust and joy and excitement and motivation for evangelism and eternal life with God and the resurrection ... then it seems necessary for the heaping mounds of judgment references and fire/brimstone and hell to be "literal". And that probably is the most natural way to understand them...as I see the genre.

As far as God goes, McLaren asks in part one of this blog series something to the effect of whether our God is a God of Love or a God of Love AND Hate. Here he asserts that "God is love. God is gracious. God is just. God is holy. And these things are never in tension, but are always perfectly integrated." Isn't love for good parallel to hatred for evil. If an God possesses a characteristic of hatred or wrath for sin, isn't that a result of his "always perfectly integrated" loving and yet just nature? Isn't hell or eternal judgment or absense from God or whatever we choose to call it--isn't it a result of offending our "always perfectly integrated"-yet-entirely-so-inconcevably-complex-God?

And since when do we sinful dregs deserve anything other than punishment? Isn't that why we call salvation a peculiar act of grace?

...way too long...but hopefully thought provoking...

another thing that i think people miss in matthew 25:41 is the criteria for the judgment being handed out. the ones supposedly cast into eternal fire are ones that did not feed the hungry, visit those in prison, etc etc. it says NOTHING about having been saved or having professed Christ as Savior, or having followed the Romans road, or having accepted Jesus, or having "invite[d] Jesus into your heart." if we are going to get down to brass tacks, the division here is one of works - good works vs bad works. don't read your theology back into what Jesus is saying - begin to question yourself if the heaven/hell, saved/unsaved, Christian/non-Christian divisions are valid, and what they are based upon. faith only? doesn't seem to read that way here.

more heresy can be found at escroll.blogspot.com...

I find it interesting that while it is clear that Brian is clearly pursuing the truth in a manner that moves away from some of our modernist assumptions that all his critics seem to do (in this feedback section and elsewhere) is claim that Brian errs in that he doesn't read scripture through a modernist interpretive grid. Of course he doesn't! That's the whole point! He knows that his view of Hell differs from our modernist grid- but that's what he's questions- the modernist grid.

Before you claim that Brian ignores the rest of the NT in favor of the teachings of Jesus- remember that Paul and others were the worshippers and followers of Jesus- not his interpreter. I know this leads some to some uncomfortable questions about how should "read scripture in light of scripture" but again- this is yet another one of our interpretive assumptions that we need to re-consider.

Let us be clear: Brian is not trying to ignore the Biblical teaching- he is trying to get to the heart of it by applying tools such as genre awareness.

It is high time that people stop thinking that literalism is "being biblical". What Brian is helpfully pointing out is that often our literalism gets in the way of our ability to "be biblical" about a certain topic.

Step back people. Step way back. Back far enough to see the lens you see through. Question the lens- not just the picture in front of you.

Mike Rucker,

If the division is one of good works vs bad works then give it up. We are all going to Hell.

Mat 25:31-46 is about our response to Jesus and His messengers, not about our taking care of the poor.

The last word on Judgment is Revelation 20:11-15. The passage is very clear that that there are books(plural)and the book of life(singular). The criterion for judgment in the books is "according to what they had done as recorded in the books."(verse 12)Again in the next verse it is repeated, "each person was judged according to what he had done." The chapter ends with the solemn words, "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life(singular), he was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation is a book of symbolism. But as C.S. Lewis once remarked something to the effect that if words in the Scripture are symbolic then the reality behind them is too harsh to describe literally.

Richard Dennis Miller,

you know, i think that's what i was taught in seminary, too. but maybe we're coming at the passage and reading theology into it?

v31 - Christ returns with ANGELS.
v32 - nations are gathered and divided.
v34ff - reward/punishment given based on...?

pretty straightforward. kind of follows the previous parable's method of handing out rewards.

read what darren says a couple of comments above about taking off the glasses through which we look at things - sometimes images are larger than they appear... :)

http://escroll.blogspot.com

I'm almost getting a kick out of the interaction between Rucker and Miller. One's interpretation of Matt 25 (just like much of the Bible) is going to depend heavily on how you understand inerrancy and so on. If you are verbal-plenary-fully-inerrant-and-authoritative in your approach, then you have a need to systamatize your theology and HAVE to read theology into the likes of Matt 25. However if not, then it is possible for Paul in Romans and Jesus in the Gosples to disagree. Discussion is beneficial and sharpening, but as we interact with each other's perspectives, we must realize that our presuppositions change everything. Rucker shouldn't be surprised (and I don't think he is) that Miller is reading theology into Jesus' words. Yet maybe those of us holding to inerrancy can allow our understanding of scripture to be sharpened by the challenges posed by those who disagree.

So ... Let the discussion flow.

Mike Rucker

I don't think you're reading theology into anything. I think you're reading ideology into scripture. Where will you spend eternity and how do you know?

rmiller64@triad.rr.com

Mike Rucker (above) wrote that Romans never mentions hell.

It seems like he's arguing from silence that hell is a non-issue in Romans. But isn't chapter 1 and 2 all about Paul convincing his readers of the certainty of judgment for all who do not flee to Christ alone? He's convincing his readers of the total depravity that can only be reversed by simple faith in the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe.

Note that in Paul's mind tolerance is a trait of God, but one that does not remove the reality of literal end of time judgment (and hell?):

"Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?"

"But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God." (Rom 2:4-5)

Tolerance and Hell. Can't throw off either one without misrepresenting the gospel.

Fundamentalists miss the tolerance (McLaren, et al are right here).

Liberals miss the "stored up wrath" (ie hell).

God help us stay out of both ditches and meet in the middle with humility, patience, and fear.

Brian Mclaren's questioning of the existence of a literal hell is not exactly blazing a new trail. The Jehovah's Witnesses haven’t believed in a literal hell since their arrival on the scene in the early 1900s, nor have the non-evangelical churches that became the ecumenical movement of the 1950's and 60's. Brian is simply this generation's version of a pastor who never knew what he really believed before he took to the pulpit. Brian’s belief in his unbelief seems very strong.

Brian's problem is that Brian's God is no bigger than Brian's own mind. His level of reasoning is based on God having to think just like he does, yet Jehovah said, "my ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts" Isaiah 55:8. And again in 1Cor. 1:20, “where is the wise, where is the scribe, where is the skillful debater of this age? God made the wisdom of this world foolish, did he not?”

Why is someone who grew up in an “evangelical” church and is 50 years old and has had this much time to invest in searching the scriptures so completely confused?

Keep asking questions, Brian. Scrutiny polishes the truth, making it shine all the more brightly for having withstood the test. That uneasiness you feel when examining "traditional" doctrine is God's blessing of discernment in you. He has given you the gift to know when you aren't hearing the truth and to keep searching until you find it. It is there, but most have just stopped looking. They are too afraid of offending our Father. Trust me - it can't be done.

For those that insist that eternal hell or annihilation is the deserved destiny of our brothers and sisters who "choose" to reject God I have one thought.

"If you believe that anyone who KNOWS God could choose to reject Him, then YOU do not KNOW God.......yet."

Our Father, in His infinite mercy, grace, and love, will wait as long as it takes, and do whatever it takes, for you to finally know Him. In His amazing wisdom you were designed to find complete fulfillment only in Him. You were made to love and be loved. By His design. Get over the whole preoccupation with "free will," it is His will that designed you that way, His will that is leading you on this journey of life (it's a lesson, not a test), and His will that WILL be done.

By all means, don't just believe me. Believe the scriptures:

"There IS nothing that can separate us from God's love."

"Jesus WILL draw all men to Him."

"Jesus IS the Savior of the world."

As we are all God's children - Thank you, Father!

If someone could help me on this one question I would greatly appreciate it. How does the Emergent Church handle the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16? I admit, there are several metaphors in the parable. However, one thing is not: the point of the story is what happens to the two men after they die. I would like to hear your take on this. Thanks.

Actually Scott, I believe if you examine the context of Luke 16 where this passage if found what you'll notice is that the passage is about:
1) The love of riches--see 16:14
2) The hard-hearts of the Pharisees--see 16:16, 29