Over the last year I attended two series of Bible talks at a local church and found them really good; so when I heard the same speaker would be doing a series on “The Second Coming” I arranged to go. And sadly I’ve ended up disappointed. The talks turned out to be based on what I think of as the “Left Behind” version of Jesus’ return, so-called after a series of books a few years back which fictionalised that view.

The basics of the Second Coming are simple. History is not going to go on forever; when the time is right, or it could also be expressed as ‘ripe’, there will be a final divine intervention in human history. Jesus, now in heaven, will return, and this will be followed by the ‘Last Judgement’, the ultimate resurrection, and the remaking of the universe from its present form, marred by sin, to a perfect state for the eternal life of God’s people.

Superficially ‘Simples’ as the meerkat says. But during my teens I became aware of a view of the ‘Second Coming’ which is far more elaborate than the simple scheme outlined there. I found it frankly confusing, and I know I’m not the only one. At University I learned more about the whole business, and after a few years, I concluded that this more elaborate view is in fact deeply flawed.

In outline, the alternative view is that Jesus may literally return ‘at any minute’; but it won’t quite be the end. He returns initially for the purpose of taking his Church away from the Earth, and everyone else will be “left behind” whence the title of that book series. This event is known as the ‘Rapture’ of the Church, from the original meaning of that word as a ‘seizing away’. While the Church, as Bride of Christ, enjoys a wedding feast with Jesus, the world will undergo seven years of ‘Tribulation’ under the ‘Antichrist’ also known as the ‘Man of Lawlessness’.

Exact details of what happens during the Tribulation depend on whose interpretation you follow. It seems that the period will offer a last chance to repent and follow Jesus – and to be persecuted by the AntiChrist for it! In early versions it was expected that in the upheaval after the Rapture there would be a massive return of Jews to Israel, and a Restoration of the Temple – but also massive conversion of Jews to Christianity. Since 1948 the Jews have of course had a national state in Israel and that detailed expectation has been necessarily revised.

At the end of the seven years Jesus will return to the Earth again, bringing the Church with him, defeat the AntiChrist and establish an earthly kingdom for a thousand years – the “Millennium” – but apparently this, though all kinds of wonderful, is not yet a perfect kingdom and at the end of that time there will be a final revolt against Jesus’ rule, a truly final battle, and then at last the Judgement, the doom of the wicked, and the new heavens and earth…..

As I understand it, there have always been those who, inspired by chapter 20 of the book of Revelation, have expected a future earthly ‘Millennium’. Sometimes they see it as happening after Jesus’ return, a view known as ‘Pre-Millennialism’; sometimes as a golden age before Jesus’ return, a view known as ‘Post-Millenialism’. And although there’s some vagueness about it, I think that many took the Christianisation of the Roman Empire in the fourth century CE as in some way ‘ushering in’ the Millennium, and that some of the discontent that led to the Reformation was based on the fact that clearly if that had been supposed to be the Millennium then a thousand years later it hadn’t quite met expectations….

But the particular view described above, with the ‘Rapture’ and the seven-year ‘Tribulation’ before the Millennium – as far as I can find out, that is actually quite a recent novelty, unheard of before the early nineteenth century CE. It goes back only to a movement started by a Church of Scotland minister called Edward Irving, and one particular associate of his, John Nelson Darby, an early leader of the ‘Brethren’ denomination.

When Irving came along, the Second Coming was something of a neglected doctrine in the Church of Scotland; and that was because the predominant view there was ‘Post-Millennial’, the Millennium as an earthly golden age not yet begun or maybe only just beginning, culminating with the Second Coming which therefore wasn’t going to happen for about a thousand years. And Irving realised, I think rightly, that this just didn’t match the biblical presentation of constant lively expectation of Jesus’ return, and he began preaching instead in terms of Jesus possibly returning ‘any minute now’; and as his ideas developed he was introduced to ‘Pre-Millennialism’, particularly as found in a book by one ‘Rabbi ben-Ezra’ (in reality a Jesuit called Manuel Lacunza), which Irving translated.

The stir Irving created led to great interest in biblical prophecy and its interpretation with ‘prophetic conferences’ being held to discuss the matter (though don’t think of the conferences as huge public events – often it was a small group, for example the ‘Albury’ conferences held in the house of minor aristocrat Henry Drummond). And it was here, I believe, that a major misstep was made.

Irving, as I said, had been preaching the expectation of a very much ‘any minute now’ return of Jesus. But as the ‘prophetic students’ studied, they came up with prophecies which on the one hand had not been fulfilled, but which didn’t seem to belong in the expected Millennium after Jesus returned. It appeared that if these were to be fulfilled, then the Second Coming couldn’t be ‘any minute now’, some of these prophecies would literally take years to happen. And the group/movement were so hyped up I don’t think they gave much thought to the idea that they might change their expectation – they needed, or thought they needed, an interpretation that allowed the prophecies to be fulfilled but also allowed them to keep the exciting notion that Jesus’ return was only a breath away. The solution to which they kind of muddled through was this idea that Jesus initially would come simply to take the Church away, leaving everyone else behind for several years during which these otherwise – in their view anomalous – prophecies could be fulfilled.


As I see it, they had actually created themselves an artificial and unnecessary problem, and came up with an artificial and unnecessary solution which rapidly spiralled out of control.

The mistake they made is quite subtle. They confused the idea of  always being ready  for the return of Jesus with the idea that they must expect it literally any minute – and they were so determined on this point that they actually neglected Biblical indications that it was “not necessarily so”….

If they had calmed down and thought clearly they might have realised that they were in a situation much like that which had faced the Thessalonians during the New Testament era. There Paul had to write to a church which had gone a bit OTT on the Second Coming, even to the point they thought it might perhaps already have happened. And Paul’s response then was to tell them that there were in fact prophecies that still needed to happen before Jesus could/would come. You must first see the ‘man of lawlessness’ he tells them – til then, scale back to ‘amber alert’ so to speak. And so the Thessalonians would be in a position on the one hand of being aware and expectant about the Second Coming – but at the same time not actually expecting it any minute, knowing that ‘red alert’ was only needed if a figure appeared on the world stage who appeared to be possibly the ‘man of lawlessness’.

And the nineteenth century prophetic enthusiasts could in theory have taken a similar position on the unfulfilled prophecies they had found. That they would wait, and expectantly watch, for those prophecies to be fulfilled before the return of Jesus, while not expecting Jesus absolutely any minute. OK, they might also reasonably accept there was sufficient uncertainty both about their interpretation of prophecy and their interpretation of world events that they might say “If we’ve somehow misunderstood the situation Jesus may nevertheless return any minute, and we need to be ready in terms of ‘making our calling and election sure’ so that we will indeed be caught up to meet the Lord, we won’t turn out in the end to be faithless”. But the point is they wouldn’t need an interpretation that demanded expectation of an ‘any minute now Coming’ and forced them to find a special time and place for the unfulfilled prophecies to come to pass.

But they didn’t. Partly I feel sure simply because expecting the Coming at any minute had become such a strong belief they weren’t willing to give it up. But to be fair to them, also because some calculations they’d done from particularly the book of Daniel had led them to believe that the early nineteenth century would see Jesus’ return; I think it has to be said that looking back from two hundred years later, they definitely got that wrong! And as I pointed out above, at least one of their ‘post-Rapture’ predictions, Israel’s return to “the Land” has happened not only without the Rapture but as of now at least seventy years before that still awaited event. Contrary to the then expectation, there has in fact been plenty of time for all of those prophecies to be fulfilled – but to be blunt, they simply wouldn’t have believed you if you’d told them two centuries would pass and still no Rapture! To my mind this point alone calls for those early nineteenth century ideas to be reassessed….


I expect I’ll be coming back to this issue. But for now, apart from the problem of its its novelty just a few of many biblical points on why I think this nineteenth century idea was wrong.

The ‘Left Behind’ idea depends on reading the book of Revelation in a particular way; essentially reading it as a ‘chronologically continuous’ account of events. That is, after the introductory ‘Letters to the Seven Churches’ section, what John sees in his visions just follows in sequence – the events of the first vision are followed by the events of the second vision, then the third vision and so on….

During the talk I was of course looking up Bible texts as we went; and at one point I was looking up the Millennium passage, Revelation 20, and my eye caught a footnote in my version (the ‘Berkeley’ version). The footnote was commenting on Rev 20; 3, which reads

“(the angel) hurled (Satan) into the abyss, which he shut and sealed above him, so that he might lead astray the nations no more until the thousand years are completed….”

and the footnote said

“The nations had been destroyed just previously ([i]in Rev 19; SL[i]), if we are to take these events in chronological order; but that would be a serious mistake”.

And I have to agree. ‘Taking the events in chronological order’ produces nonsense. And I don’t believe John was talking nonsense. So interpreting in chronological order is a mistake, clearly indicated as such by the biblical data. But, to be blunt, ‘interpreting Revelation in chronological order’ is the only reason to believe in a future distinct Millennium, whether ‘pre’ or ‘post’ in relation to Jesus’ return. But in that case the whole early nineteenth century prophetic enterprise was based on a ‘serious mistake’ and we should at least treat it with extreme caution!!

Taking Revelation as a whole, I tend to a view similar to the American theologian William Hendriksen; that obviously John had his visions in a chronological sequence, but the visions are related in a different way, broadly what is sometimes referred to as ‘parallelism’. The visions refer in different ways from different angles to (approximately) the same period/thing. Whence the way ‘the nations’ can be destroyed in one chapter but back in the next!

Construed like that, Revelation 20, the Millennium chapter, is like the brief ‘recap’ of what was seen before, brief because this is the point at which the book moves on, beyond the age of the gospel and onwards to the new heavens and new earth and the final restoration of all things. On this basis the battle of Rev 20 is in fact the same battle as ‘Armageddon’ in the previous chapter.

Another thing I find biblically questionable is the way that Rapture enthusiasts portray a ‘second chance’ to those who are ‘left behind’. I Thessalonians 5 says

1 Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5 You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. 6 So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled.

1 Thess 5:1-6 (NIV)

I can’t see how Paul could be much more emphatic – the “Day of the Lord” will come suddenly on the unbelieving world, and they will not escape. The idea that Jesus will return and then there will be seven years’ worth of a ‘second chance’ just doesn’t seem to fit. Sometimes the ‘left behind’ people will try to tinker by saying, for example, that this refers to the return of Jesus after the Tribulation. But look at v4 – Paul is clearly talking about the same day for both believers who are caught up to be with the Lord and unbelievers who are not – ‘this day’ will not surprise the Thessalonian believers like a thief, if it happens in their time; but that means the believers must be there on that day, not removed seven years earlier by a Rapture. This is not a thing you can have both ways.

I entirely agree that IF there is to be a seven-year period after the Rapture, during which, for example, the Jews will receive Jesus at last, it is hardly reasonable that a loving God will refuse such conversion to others. But this is not really an argument from the Bible, it’s almost an argument against, denying the statement that the coming of Jesus is the last chance, the reckoning the ungodly cannot escape.

And for me, another major cause of concern is Israel. I think I’ll have to come back to this, but the two problems are

  1. That the ‘Left Behind’ or ‘Dispensationalist’ scheme tends to treat “Israel/the Jews” and “The Church” as almost completely disconnected, sometimes with the church era almost presented as a ‘Plan B’. And I have to say that I just don’t see it like that. To me, right from the start with God’s promise to bless the nations through Abraham it is a plan to save the world, Jew and Gentile both. To prepare for the revelation of salvation through Jesus, things were for a time focussed through Israel as Abraham’s physical descendants, but as I read it once Jesus has come those Gentiles who have faith become adopted into Abraham’s family and ‘the Church’ is continuous with ‘Israel’, one people of God not two separate peoples. Indeed in the Greek Septuagint OT the ‘congregation’ of Israel is called the ‘assembly/ekklesia’, the same word that is translated ‘church’ when it appears in the Greek NT. I believe Tyndale translated ‘ekklesia’ as ‘congregation’ in both Testaments; but the ‘King James Version’ preferred ‘Church’ in the NT as that better suited James’ idea of a ‘top-down’ authoritarian state church.

  2. That the ‘Dispensationalist’ view finds it very important to their idea of prophetic fulfilment that Israel must once again be a nation in the ‘Promised Land’, and thus those of Dispensationalist persuasion support the modern nation of Israel. Which in turn means supporting the considerable warfare and mutual provocation in the Middle East. That worries me in lots of ways. One is that Christians who are concentrating on the politics of Israel aren’t concentrating on the arguably far more important job of leading Jews to Jesus. And the other is that I see a rather fundamental contradiction between Jesus’ message of ‘turning the other cheek’ and the necessary war and fighting and dominating others that is involved in creating and upholding the ‘kingdom of this world’ which is the 21st century Jewish homeland….

I’ll have to come back to this last point in future; this post is already too long….


More on Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Christian relations to the State

As promised I’m listening to Lloyd-Jones’ sermons on Romans 13, although it’s taking a while – finding time to concentrate on sermons nearly an hour long can be tricky. From the latest one I picked up a few points where I again somewhat disagree with Lloyd-Jones (and I would remind you again that me disagreeing with Lloyd-Jones is rare).

First was a passage in which he spoke rather as if Paul’s Romans 13 was almost the only full expression of these ideas. But in Paul it’s just one chapter in a longer exposition of many basic Christian ideas.  So for me, though Romans 13 is certainly a key passage, Peter in his first epistle actually says much more, gives more detail, than Paul in Romans, and I think it’s a good idea to see the two passages together.

Apart from simply using as much of the biblical teaching as possible, getting the widest biblical view of the topic, Peter’s letter has a further key element for an issue that arose later; supposedly the Roman Catholic Church claims special authority as the ‘successor of Peter’. Yet ironically, if you follow Peter’s actual words, much of it contradicts the way the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church before the split between RC and Orthodox) dealt with the state through history. Which of course raises some questions on how much the Catholics can truly claim succession to Peter….

Secondly, though, Lloyd-Jones takes up the idea of ‘subjection to’ the state that Paul expresses, and he says rightly that this can’t mean we must always obey the state, the ‘powers that be’. And quite rightly Lloyd-Jones quotes Peter’s words from Acts 5, about how Christians must ‘obey God rather than man’. But he then I think makes a significant slip; he speaks in terms of being ‘subject to the state’ EXCEPT when we must ‘obey God rather than man’.

And I want to say no; we must actually as the text says ‘be subject’ full stop. NO EXCEPTIONS!! And I think the slip here is common, made by many; it is the slip of equating ‘be subject to’ with simply ‘obey’. As I see it, we are to be subject but in different ways – when we can, we obey; but when we find it impossible to obey, we still remain ‘subject’, we still don’t ‘resist’ in a sense of military rebellion or the like. We disobey, and if the state chooses to punish us for it, we accept the punishment – as Peter, Paul, and indeed Jesus himself did; Jesus in his unjust death, Peter and Paul later in their martyrdom for the faith….

The trouble with trying to make an ‘exception’ to subjection to the state is that although it sounds very reasonable, it’s hard to keep it as a minor exception. Ian Paisley and others in Ulster advocated a similar ‘exception’ and effectively it ‘ate up’ the rule it was supposed to be an exception to. It pretty much ended up as being subject to the state only if the state did what you wanted. Where Paul was ‘subject’ to the state of an emperor like Nero and willing to accept eventual martyrdom at the hands of Nero’s Rome, the Ulstermen ended up basically rebelling against a democratic state that simply wanted them to respect the rights of others who disagreed with them – and indeed compared that democratic state to Nero or Hitler…. And Ulster Catholics, also on the ‘Constantinian’ side of the argument, took similar views, making a bloody clash inevitable.

One common way to justify the exception at least in the days of kings and emperors was to try to distinguish between the ‘office’ of king which you had to respect, and the individual holding the office, who, in effect, didn’t have to be respected and obeyed if he wasn’t doing the job properly. That kind of reasoning leads to very hair-splitting legalism which basically comes to attempting to justify rebellion. The idea I’m advocating, of distinguishing between ‘subjection’ and ‘obedience’, allows the different option of being always subject and never rebelling, while still, when required, obeying God rather than man and so risking martyrdom. That avoids all the dubious legalism and also the essentially selfish and fractious attitudes which accompany such reasoning.

In the same sermon Lloyd-Jones dealt with questions about capital punishment – the death penalty. I’m going to have to go into that one sometime in future – for now I’ll shove it on the back burner and think it over.

A Matter of Debate – “Who Would Jesus Shoot?”

First off, sorry for a recent bout of inactivity on this blog.  Hopefully there’ll now be quite a few new posts in the next few weeks.   For now, just to draw your attention to an interesting debate that took place last year, related to many of my regular themes….

A Matter of Debate – “Who Would Jesus Shoot?”

Alarmingly, if you Google up that phrase “Who would Jesus shoot?” you’ll find a lot of people – mostly American – who seem to think Jesus would be happy with shooting people. Particularly, of course, in the context of warfare. That’s why the phrase was chosen as the title of a debate in the autumn of 2014 between Canadian Mennonite theologian Tom Yoder-Neufeld and the Oxford Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology Nigel Biggar. Tom is of course a pacifist; Biggar has written books defending ‘Just War’ theory and regularly lectures on it.

To hear the debate – sorry there doesn’t seem to be video available – go to this link;

Tom and Nigel approach the issue in quite different ways. That in itself says something. In conventional understanding I’m not sure there was a winner; but I understand that Nigel was admitting he’d need to rethink some of his positions. Anyway, have a listen and let me know what you think….

While Tom was in the UK for several weeks he spoke all over the country including one session for the Cheshire/Greater Manchester Anabaptist Group, where he did a session based on Ephesians, on which he has written a rather good commentary.

“Penal Substitutionary Atonement”

This interpretation of the Atonement, of how Jesus’ death deals with our sins, has been under fire recently , and I can see why, but I also think we still need it.

Before starting on ‘PSA’, I want to firmly register that although it has been a very prominent interpretation of the Atonement, it is not the only one by a long way, and I don’t regard it as the most important. In many ways the Atonement, and the way God has made it known to us, is a ‘one off’ thing – and the Bible uses all kinds of pictures from our more everyday world to describe it; none of those pictures fully describes it, and many of the pictures have subsidiary aspects that shouldn’t be pushed too far. For example, one picture is of Jesus ‘paying a ransom’ for us; especially in some of the things meant by the Greek word, it’s a good picture – until someone pushed it too far and saw it as a ransom paid to Satan, as if he were entitled to be paid to release us! For me, I think the most satisfactory picture of atonement, with fewest problems, is ‘debt’ and the forgiveness of debt. We should also remember, by the way, that the Atonement isn’t just about payments and satisfactions – it’s also about reconciliation, and an action on God’s side that challenges us to seek that reconciliation, that change in our relationship to God.

PSA can be caricatured. It can look as if God is like some human tyrant who has made rules and decided to enforce them with an arbitrary penalty of death – then the human idiots break the rule, and somebody has to die or God will lose face, so Jesus gets arbitrarily killed so we don’t have to be…. The version of PSA used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses can sound very much like this caricature, as by rejecting Jesus’ divinity they have also rejected many other possible views of the Atonement.

That is why I prefer the picture of ‘debt’; there is nothing arbitrary about the penalty of debt – it’s “You owe it – you should pay it”. And in the context of debt, there’s a very real cost to be met by whoever clears the debt, whether that is the debtor himself or a kind friend who pays in his stead, or whether the creditor forgives and by so doing, faces the cost of the debt himself.

If you have seriously considered the nature of sin (though I’ll pass over that discussion here) you will have realised that being a sinner does effectively mean that you owe God your very life. You’ll also have realised that ‘the wages of sin’ is death not in an arbitrary way but because sin kills/destroys in you the kind of life that lives in God’s way. It is ‘soul-destroying’.

In the Old Testament this was depicted in the practice of sacrifice, in which the sinner ‘paid for his sins’ by the sacrifice of an animal which ‘substituted’ for the sinner himself. In an era before money, and with sacrifice the ‘common currency’ of religions, making a sacrifice dramatically demonstrated the need for the sinner to pay his debts, and the idea that the debtor owed his life to God. Many probably didn’t fully realise it, but in the context of a creator of the universe as opposed to the more limited gods of paganism, God didn’t need the sacrifices, it wasn’t a case of for instance feeding a hungry god. As prophets reminded Israel, the animals were already God’s animals, so even in the Old Testament God in fact symbolically supplied the sacrifice as a generous act of forgiveness. We should by the way note that in most ancient cultures there wasn’t a sharp line between the religion and the justice system that we observe in a modern pluralist culture; for example, the Roman ‘throwing criminals to the beasts’ in the arena was considered a religious sacrifice as well as an act of justice.

Old style justice used ‘penal substitutes’ more than a modern justice system which thinks in much more individualist lines. Family members might be held accountable for each other, for example, or communities for members of the community – even in capital crimes. So through most of history before and since the time of Jesus’ earthly life, human justice systems contained many examples of ‘penal substitution’, voluntary and otherwise, which as examples of substitution seemed suitable pictures of Jesus’ substitutionary self-sacrifice for us . The point is that as with other parables and images in the Bible, the bit that illustrates our message may be accompanied by other aspects of that human activity which are less helpful, so you don’t say “It’s exactly like…” you say “It’s a bit like this aspect of an everyday human situation….”

To take a rather obvious example, when Jesus called fishermen among his first disciples, he told them that as they followed him they would become ‘fishers of men’ – but I’m pretty sure he never intended the metaphor to be pushed to the point that his followers would be catching men for food!

With such caveats, I think we might still use the ‘Penal Substitutionary Atonement’ imagery, simply to convey the idea of Jesus standing in our place to suffer what otherwise should legitimately have fallen on us, while ‘majoring’ on other imagery. Two examples from older criminal justice systems do survive in the modern world and may be useful imagery. One is from the notion of ‘bail’, when someone else ‘stands surety’ for you and will pay the penalty in your place if you default. Another is simply the notion that when you have done something criminal and a fine is declared an appropriate penalty, if you haven’t the means of payment a relative, friend or other generous person may of course pay the fine for you.

In many circles ‘PSA’ is regarded as not just ‘AN image’ but THE major theory of atonement. I think that is wrong, it would be better that we should use it only as one partial image of atonement. If taken as THE doctrine, it has problems, whence the recent challenges. But why did it come to seem so important? Having thought about it I’ve concluded that it has to do with the ‘state church/Christian country’ issue.

On the one hand, the state isn’t necessarily very concerned about God himself – to them the purpose of having a state religion is the way it provides support and motivation for the laws of the state, encouragement to be good citizens (indeed rulers would often be cynically exploiting a state religion they didn’t themselves take seriously). That’s why the state would punish religious deviance – it wasn’t just seen as a difference of opinion but as an attack on the state’s moral foundations. With Christianity being wrongly used as a state religion, the state’s concerns influence and unbalance the way atonement is presented.

On the other hand, there would be a temptation to interpret the divine justice in terms of the human rather than the other way round, to use features of human justice to actually define God’s justice rather than merely to be an image. So you end up describing God’s dealings with the unsatisfactory aspects of the human imagery, portraying God as actually like the more tyrannical kind of human ruler, with somewhat savage and arbitrary penalties and with laws like ‘the laws of the Medes and Persians’ that he can’t set aside.

There’s more to be said about this, but I think it will be better in part 2 of my item about ‘Hell’….

The Curious Incident of the Woman Taken in Adultery

I’ve recently seen some very superficial interpretations of the text I discuss here, and thought it was time I put these thoughts out.  In the original essay of some 12+ pages I discussed a couple of other issues and left one of them a bit unfinished – I’ll probably come back to those later in the year….

John 8; 1-1

Early in the morning Jesus went (2) back to the Temple and as all the people came to Him, He sat down and taught them. 

(3)The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in the act of adultery and, placing her in the centre, (4) they said to Him – they were talking to test Him so that they might trump up a charge against Him – “ Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery.  (5) Now Moses ordered in the Law to stone such as she, so what do you say?” 

(6) But Jesus stooped down and wrote with his finger on the ground, (7) and as they kept on questioning Him, He raised Himself and told them, “Let the sinless one among you throw the first stone at her!” (8) Stooping down again, He wrote with His finger on the ground.  (9) But they on hearing it went away conscience-stricken, one after the other, beginning from the oldest to the last, until Jesus was left alone with the woman as she stood there. 

(10) Jesus raised Himself and asked her, “Woman, where are your accusers?  Has no one condemned you?”

She said (11) “No one, Lord!”  So Jesus told her, “Then I do not condemn you either.  Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

It’s certainly a striking story, and the broad outline of the meaning is clear.  But do we perhaps see it a bit superficially – even take it a bit for granted?  Let’s go through it looking a bit deeper ….

The first thing we may miss is that this is effectively a court scene.  We tend to think of rabbis as the equivalent of Christian ministers, conducting services, preaching, running the synagogue, and so on.  Today this is largely true, but even now there is some residue of a rabbinic function that was more important in New Testament times.  The rabbi was a judge with legal authority in the Jewish community.  We see a hint of this in an episode when a man came to Jesus with the request “Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me!”  On that occasion Jesus refused jurisdiction, and made the incident the occasion for words about avoiding greed.  But in fact he really could have acted as a judge as requested; and in this case of adultery, a life-and-death case not serving personal greed, he takes a different attitude.

The point is that when the scribes and Pharisees put this woman in front of Jesus they weren’t just asking for an opinion; they really were in effect putting her in the dock.  Therefore when Jesus eventually said, “… I do not condemn you …” he was not expressing a mere personal opinion;  had he condemned the woman it would have been the equivalent of a judge passing sentence – and the unfortunate woman would have been stoned to death by her accusers.

The Motives of the Accusers

The woman’s accusers had, I think, two motives; one more-or-less good, the other very bad indeed.  The sort-of-good motive is simple – the woman had sinned, she had been caught in the act, they had a straightforward concern that justice be done according to divine law.  We’ll come back to that one in more detail later.  But somewhere along the way the accusers slipped into a far worse motivation – they realised Jesus was nearby, and that they could use the case to make trouble for him.  After that they may still have professed a concern for justice, but the reality was that they were using the woman for other ends altogether, which was an unjust and unfair thing to do.

How would this make trouble for Jesus?  I think they saw a neat ‘catch-22’ in the situation, whereby whatever Jesus did he would lose.  If he said the woman should be stoned, then stoned she would be; and Jesus, as the rabbi who gave that judgement, would be in trouble with the Romans who reserved death sentences to themselves.  (Remember we know that from Jesus’ own trials and death, when the Jewish leaders handed him over to the Romans).  A Jesus executed by the Romans over an illegal death sentence would – so they thought – be discredited as Messiah. As a bonus, if Jesus chose that way, he would appear harsh and unforgiving to the ‘tax collectors and other sinners’ who followed him.  I don’t think they particularly wanted that outcome, however; the other option probably looked both better and more likely.

In this second option, they thought that a Jesus who associated with ‘tax collectors and other sinners’ would let the woman off – and thus would discredit himself by flouting the law and denying justice to the aggrieved husband.  A Jesus who rejected God’s law would be as useless a Messiah as a Jesus executed for breaking Roman law ….  Note that if this was their preferred option, the scribes and Pharisees had little respect for the law themselves – they didn’t care that the guilty woman was likely to escape justice, so long as they hurt Jesus as a result.

They must have thought the scheme foolproof.  Jesus couldn’t wriggle out of this one – support divine law, he was in trouble with the Romans, and probably with the ‘tax-collectors and sinners’ among his supporters; reject divine law, or refuse to pass judgement on so clear a case, and he would lose all Jewish support.  Let’s see how Jesus deals with it ….

He writes on the ground!  All sorts of suggestions have been made about what he wrote – but we don’t know.   One plausible suggestion is that the word used here is not the simple Greek word for ‘write’, but a more specific word which could mean ‘set down a record against’, and that Jesus was writing down the sins of the accusers, or at least key words that would bring their sins to mind.  Whether or not that is true, in the short term, he seemed almost to be ignoring the situation, and we can see some of the effect of that on the accusers.  They press Jesus harder, and in the process commit themselves more deeply to their demand for an answer – whatever other purpose the writing on the ground has, it forces the accusers towards seriousness.

Then he stands up to deliver his verdict.  And it isn’t quite as usually represented; by implication, he agrees with the woman’s accusers, and with the law – she is guilty, she is to be stoned.  But he doesn’t say it that way; instead he takes the guilty verdict for granted and goes straight to an instruction which challenges the accusers’ own righteousness – “Let the sinless one among you throw the first stone at her!”   I’m not sure if, having been effectively appointed judge, Jesus had a positive authority to give orders about how the execution was carried out.  It would I think be appropriate;  a stoning was meant to be solemn and orderly, not just a vicious mob throwing stones any old how;  for example, Deuteronomy 13; 9ff gives the duty to the prosecution witnesses to cast the first stone in cases where someone tempted people to idolatry in ancient Israel.

But in any case, this instruction really put them on the spot.  Having pressed Jesus so insistently for his judgement, they can’t now ignore it – that would be to defy the law they had themselves invoked, the rabbinic judgement on which they had been so insistent.  And he has given them no way of making trouble for him, as they intended, but has put them in a catch-22 of their own!  Whoever picks up that first stone to execute the judgement is claiming to be ‘without sin’.

Now with our stereotypical ideas of ‘scribes and Pharisees’ we might think that they would find it easy to claim to be without sin.  Surely they were the very people who thought themselves above ordinary ‘sinners’?  Well they were, but by that very fact they were unusually sensitive about sin.  On an everyday basis, they might be snooty about their goodness compared to others – but internally they were picky about their own standing as well, constantly watching themselves.  They would be punctilious in making sacrifices for their sins, and so would be well aware of their sinfulness.  Even the modern equivalent of Pharisees will rarely claim actual sinlessness – unless they’re insane….

Furthermore, these were ‘scribes and Pharisees’ – the experts on the scriptures.  They would have known what Paul knew, that ‘All have sinned and come short of the glory of God’.  And like the former Pharisee Paul, they could have quoted the scriptures that prove it, texts like …

They have corrupted their behaviour and made it abominable.  There is none who does right. 

The Lord looked down from heaven upon the descendants of man to see if any were acting wisely, seeking after God. 

All have turned aside; together they have become corrupt. 

There is none who does good, not even one.

(Psalm 14, repeated almost exactly in Psalm 53)

If the scripture says all are sinners, then to claim to be sinless would put them in defiance of God and his word – just like the charge they had hoped to bring against Jesus by their trap!  They could not dare make that claim.

As we saw earlier, possibly Jesus’ writing in the dust may have been a further reminder of their sins.  Whatever, they were conscience-stricken and one after another they backed off.  The text tells us the oldest backed off first.  They of course had longer experience and basically more sin.  Younger members of the group might have been more hot-headed, but they couldn’t act ahead of their elders in such a matter.  Again, the legalism of the Pharisees trapped them.  And seeing those elders conscience-stricken would have forced the younger ones to think hard – if these revered experts could not claim to be sinless, who could?

And of course, having backed off, they weren’t in any position to make trouble for Jesus – they had received their chosen rabbi’s judgement and failed to carry it out!  But what of Jesus who gave the judgement?

The Injustice of Jesus’ Forgiveness?

When they’ve all gone Jesus looks up again; he is alone with the woman.  “Where are they?  Is nobody accusing you?”  She responds, “No one, Sir”.  And Jesus says, “Neither do I condemn you.  Go, and do not sin again.”

And here is actually a problem; he clearly knows she has sinned, he is the rabbi called upon to judge the matter, he has actually just given a guilty verdict and authorised a stoning – how can he now ‘not condemn’?  True, on a technicality there are now no accusers – but there is something profoundly unsatisfactory in the idea of Jesus, the arch-anti-legalist, opposer of mere verbal technicalities, and the exponent instead of serious morality, deciding such a matter on what looks very like a technicality.  Has he no respect for God’s law either?  At the time the woman is probably too grateful to even really think about that side of it – but when she reflects later, with the heightened sense of her sinfulness which this encounter must have brought, surely it’s going to occur to her that she didn’t deserve to be forgiven, and how can any rabbi legitimately do what Jesus did?  Consider this also, though of course it would not have been obvious to the people at the time – there was one person present who was not hindered by Jesus’ judgement that a person without sin should cast the first stone – Jesus himself.  He could himself have carried out the verdict that the sinless one present should throw the first stone.

We should perhaps look at her sin.  Adultery is no longer a crime in our society and is often even portrayed favourably in films and books.  Many in our culture tend to regard it as a minor infraction.  Even in Christian circles we have I think lost some understanding of how bad it can be, because it can seem to be only about a brief pleasure with no longer-term consequences.  Of course we see the element of deceit and betrayal, but also, thanks to Jesus’ generous attitude to ‘tax collectors and other sinners’ we at least understand that sexual sins are not as terrible as the spiritual pride of the Pharisees.

In biblical times it was serious at a practical level too, because there wasn’t the kind of efficient contraception now available.  The adulterer was all too likely to father a child.  Think about that – in addition to the deceiving of the husband this is also fraud, it is theft.  The adulterer who gets away with it gets his child raised at another man’s expense.  In many cases, the betrayed husband’s family inheritance could go to the adulterer’s child, and not to the husband’s true children or other blood relatives – again effectively a theft.  And the adulterous woman is an accomplice to that theft and fraud, that possible hijacking of her husband’s family property for her lover’s child.  This isn’t only about a brief pleasure or the devilish deceit; it’s also potentially a serious criminal infringement of the rights of the husband and his family.  How can Jesus let her off on a technicality?  He has escaped the trouble his enemies had planned for him – but has he done so at the expense of righteousness and justice?

In fact this raises a question other opponents of Jesus had raised; look at Mark 2, the story of the paralysed man whose friends dropped him through the roof to Jesus …

And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”  Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak thus?  It is blasphemy!  Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

And that is the point – Jesus is God and can forgive sins; he doesn’t just let the adulteress off on a technicality, he forgives.  Only God can forgive sins against himself, and only God can possibly forgive us when someone else we’ve offended can’t or won’t (in this case the husband), because only God is so far above us yet also so intimately involved in his world and responsible for it that He can do that justly.

So I think, as what scientists call a ‘thought-experiment’, we can rightly imagine the following;

At some time down the line this woman would hear that the strange rabbi who saved her from stoning had been crucified.  At first this may have worried her – did this mean that he’d been sinful and that now God’s judgement had shown Jesus’ judgement to be invalid?  But then she would have heard of the resurrection which vindicated him, showed him to have been right; and she would have heard that his death was a sacrifice through which sins were forgiven, and she would have realised that on that basis her sins had been paid for, and that was the basis on which Jesus had been able to speak those words of acquittal.  She hadn’t been let off on a questionable technicality; she had received, directly from God, a truly loving and costly, but also just, forgiveness ….

Jesus’ forgiveness is not a mere ‘letting-off’ which is indifferent to the harm resulting from sin.  It is a costly forgiveness.  Consider for the moment an example of how forgiveness works among men.  If somebody throws a brick through your window, they owe you a window; if you fully forgive them, they won’t pay for the replacement window – you will bear that cost.  God’s forgiveness of us is similarly costly – the price was the death of Christ on the cross.  God became ‘incarnate’ as a man in order to accomplish that forgiveness; though the Bible also makes clear that the price was more than just the crucifixion of one man for a few hours.  A passage in Hebrews, for example, implies that the earthly crucifixion was merely the visible ‘tip of the iceberg’ of a virtually infinite sacrifice made in a ‘heavenly Temple’ of which the earthly building in Jerusalem was but a shadow or analogy

[*  For fluency here I had relegated some aspects of the ‘Atonement’ to a ‘Part Two’ not posted here but hopefully coming later]

When Jesus said “I do not condemn you” to the woman, he basically meant “Although you won’t understand it straight away, I will pay the price of your sins.  I will suffer the equivalent of your deserved stoning, so that you can not only go free in this world but also be reconciled to God now and forever”.  And he also makes that offer to us today, calling us to repent of our own sins and trust in his sacrifice for forgiveness and reconciliation to God.  Further he calls on us, having been reconciled to God ourselves, to take that message of forgiveness to others.

But as we know, all too often that message has been preached in a way more reminiscent of those Pharisees – or of the Harry Potter character Argus-“I-want-to-see-some-punishment”-Filch.  Christians have preached about sin harshly and self-righteously, giving an impression of thinking themselves wonderful good guys condemning terrible sinners. How do we preach about sin and not be like the Pharisees?  Again, that’s in the rest of the essay, hopefully ‘coming soon….’

“Don’t Spoil the Story!”

If you go back in the blog archive to January 30th 2013 You’ll find an item about the Nativity story, explaining how the traditional story of ‘no room at the inn’ is a misunderstanding based on a mistranslation of a word which primarily means a ‘guest-chamber’.   Recently I was discussing this and got a rather unexpected reaction – as my heading has it, “Don’t spoil the story!”

OK, I’m sympathetic, that image of the pregnant Mary turned away from the inn to give birth in a stable is dramatically powerful.  I’ve been trying to rewrite the story as the Bible actually tells it, and it ain’t easy to make it so exciting.  BUT….

For me, the problem has to do with the other group who don’t want us to ‘spoil the story’ in this way – the atheists.  They don’t want us to tell the story the biblical way, they want us to carry on telling the story the traditional way; not because they’re bothered about the drama, but because that version of the story plays into their hands and provides them an opportunity to mock and deride our faith.

In early days – 1500 years or so ago – it probably seemed just a ‘strange foreign thing’ that census officials in the east would send a man back to his ancestral home to register, even though he might have no current connection with the place.  Modern interpreters are not so … er … racist … about other people’s customs, and have largely fully realised that the situation is actually absurd.  Yes, people went back to their home city; though few would need to go far, few people would have left their birthplace and family lands to begin with.  They didn’t go back because of a far off ancestral link, but because that was still the current family home, even if they were among those few who had been taken elsewhere by business and similar reasons.  Having made this point, the atheists will then say that the absurd story is only being told because Jesus ‘had to be’ born in Bethlehem to fulfil prophecy – it’s been made up for that reason.  At the same time all too many Christians haven’t caught up yet and go on thoughtlessly repeating the absurd story, and the essentially wrong nativity plays go on perpetuating it.

After you’ve read this, just have a look on the web and see how many atheists are using the absurd ‘no room at the inn’ story to mock the nativity in general.  It may seem sad to spoil the drama for the five-year-old; but what when that child grows up and as perhaps a thirteen-year-old is faced by atheists and agnostics all to ready to explain the absurdity and mock him for still believing it, and the mockery is not just from school-friends   but from prominent figures like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Fry?  If then he finds no better attitude from adult Christians than “Don’t spoil the story!” – well far less than that has turned people aside from the faith in the past, and if he never realises that the inn story is wrong, and the actual biblical story perfectly sensible at that point, he is all too likely to continue to regard the faith as discredited and not worth further investigation.

The basic answer to this one is very simple;  Jesus is “The Way, the Truth and the Life” and his people should be telling the truth about His birth, not risking people’s souls for the sake of ‘not spoiling the (untrue version of) the story’.  

“God Doesn’t Believe in Hell ….”??

I was a bit tired in church that morning, but when that came up in the dramatic sketch I definitely paid attention, and to the follow-up comment which implied that if there was a hell God would be some kind of sadistic torturer.  Did the pastor really believe that?   And if so, had he really thought it through?

Now look, ‘Hell’ is a pretty emotive subject – and easy to make fun of.  Please understand that in defending the idea of Hell I’m not defending any and every version or representation of the concept.  To start with, I’m only concerned with the version in the Christian Bible.  I’m not going to defend the beliefs of other religions; that’s up to their adherents. 

Nor do I necessarily defend every version of Hell that purports to be Christian or derived from Christian beliefs.  Hollywood and comic-book Hells may be great fun – or sadly just excuses for porn and sadism – but need not be taken seriously.  The same applies to many of the great paintings of Hell – even by masters like Michelangelo or Bosch.  At a more literary level, Dante’s Inferno is a brilliant flight of fantasy, but is perhaps more a satire of Florentine politics than a useful guide to infernal geography.  I’m a great admirer of CS Lewis, but his portrayal of Hell in the opening of ‘The Great Divorce’, though an original one that will give you serious food for thought, is merely a literary device or extended metaphor and Lewis himself didn’t pretend otherwise.  

I certainly reject any idea of Hell which portrays it as needless torture for the sake of it, or of God sadistically enjoying such torture.  I don’t believe God either causes or allows needless suffering;  if God tells us there is a hell, then I trust him that it is fair and just and necessary that it is so, and that when all is clear to us in the next life we will understand it as perhaps we can’t from our present perspective. 

Furthermore, we should always remember that both Heaven and Hell are outside our everyday experience, so accounts of them in human language are likely to be metaphors, similes or analogies based on our everyday experience.  For Heaven we get images of banquets, of pleasant fertile lands – and the infamous harps could quite properly be translated into modern terms as “Heaven is like the best ever rock festival”! 

Such images if taken too literally can seem contradictory.  Hell, for example, can’t be literally both everlasting flames of fire and outer darkness.  We need to think about the images a bit and take the main point without being too distracted by the details from this world. (Images can even differ with culture; in another context we Mancunians can find it difficult to understand how the Bible treats rain as a blessing – but then Manchester isn’t exactly an arid land as Israel can be!  And while I said I wouldn’t bother much with other faiths, it’s interesting to note that in the Germanic mythology which gave us the English word ‘Hell’, Hell was always thought of as frozen over!  But make the cultural adjustment and you get the same underlying point made.) 

For example, the image of Hell as ‘outer darkness’ is generally in contrast to the banquet image of Heaven – all bright lights and feasting and celebration inside, while outside are people who have been excluded (and through their own stupid fault at that, not because anyone else wanted to be nasty to them) who can only look on from the ‘outer darkness’.  

The ‘Fire’ images for Hell come from various sources.  One is the usual Jewish word of the time for Hell, ‘Gehenna’ in Greek, in Aramaic/ Hebrew ‘Ge Hinnom’ the Valley of the Hinnom Brook.  Having become ritually defiled in the past by human sacrifices, in New Testament times Gehenna was basically the Jerusalem rubbish tip, an eco-disaster of bonfires and maggots ‘where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched’.  I’d suggest that as an image or analogy of Hell, the fire bit is secondary to the notion of disposing of rubbish in an appropriate place, where the fire is about cleansing rather than torture.  Probably the best known of other fire images is the ‘lake of fire’ in Revelation;  best guess is that this refers to some volcanic phenomenon which John came across in his exile;  again, John’s actual use of the image is about destructive cleansing rather than torment.  Other fire references bear similar interpretations. 

But there is another point to make; just because something is portrayed by figure of speech and analogy doesn’t mean that it can be disregarded as trivial.  The point of an analogy is that in important ways it is like the thing it describes.  If a concert is described as a ‘musical banquet’, you’d be unhappy to get just one brief tune on a penny whistle for your money!  The fire and maggots of Gehenna may not be literal descriptions of Hell; but anyone who uses such imagery should be describing a reality at least that awful, not something just trivial.  And we aren’t talking about just anyone here; this is the Word of God. 

So OK, I’m not defending the pictures of hell as literal; but I am saying the pictures are nevertheless meaningful and serious.  Whatever dishonest games humans may get up to[i], surely God doesn’t do the equivalent of warning us with images of a ravenous tiger if in reality what he ‘believes in’ is more like a fluffy toy bunny! 

I’ll come back to ideas about Hell later;  but first I want to make a slightly different point, following from that last paragraph,  In effect, if God ‘doesn’t believe in Hell’, why does he tell us so much about it in the Bible?  Also, contrary to what many people think, the Bible doesn’t present a ‘gentle Jesus meek and mild’ who wouldn’t even mention Hell, preaching a gentle message later distorted by disciples.  What we actually get is a Jesus who uses the words for Hell more than anyone else. Of the two words Hades and Gehenna, nearly half the uses of Hades in the NT, and almost all the uses of Gehenna, come from the mouth of Jesus.  And it is also Jesus who uses many of the other images which we would use in relation to Hell, images of loss of the soul, outer darkness, exclusion from God and payment of debt. If language means anything at all, Jesus certainly ‘believes in Hell’! 

So what do we make of this?  If God the Father doesn’t believe in Hell, how could God the Son, who was with the Father even before the creation of the world, manage to miss this crucial information?  Or is it that God the Son, Jesus, also doesn’t believe in Hell, but chose to threaten us with it as a kind of ‘bogeyman’ even though he knew this would be lying?  Did God the Father actually tell the Son to lie in this way?  Or are we perhaps actually saying that we don’t believe Jesus is God anyway and that he was just making a human error on so important a matter (on which we lesser beings somehow know better???!!)?  The first few of those options are nonsensical enough; the fourth basically destroys the whole gospel, because atonement through Jesus’ sacrificial death just doesn’t make sense except in terms of a divine Jesus.  A God who forgives us not at his own expense but at the expense of an innocent and uninvolved third party is a total travesty.  All of these options are destructive of the credibility of the Christian faith because they depict a God unworthy of faith and trust. 

The trouble is that this crosses the line that really must not be crossed; not a merely academic line or a trivial human ‘party line’, but the line beyond which everything unravels despite the best intentions.  On one side of that line is the simple proposition of taking the Bible seriously; on the other side of that line, the Bible is not taken seriously and instead people substitute their own opinions, what they prefer to believe.  

You’ll note I say taking the Bible ‘seriously’ rather than ‘literally’; that’s deliberate, because in the wake of modern hyper-fundamentalism[ii] the word ‘literal’ is open to misunderstanding.  What I mean by ‘seriously’ is something like the following quote from William Tyndale, which shows pretty clearly what the Reformers meant by the technical term ‘in the literal sense’, which was a long way from dumb wooden stupid literalism. Quoting it from Tyndale also shows how it is a traditional view – it can’t, for example, be accused of being a modern interpretation devised to get round Darwin!   Anyway, here is Tyndale …. 

“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way.  And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way.  Nevertheless the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.”  (my boldening … SL

What Tyndale is getting at is that the Bible isn’t just a flat boring statement of the truth; rather it is ‘truth in 3-D’ stated dynamically through historical events and through figures of speech and other literary devices, enhanced by divine (and human) artistry.  And as he says, in that phrase ‘as all other speeches do’, this isn’t something unusual – in our own small way, we humans (‘sub-creators’ as Tolkien would say) do the same thing in our merely human words, enriching them with metaphor, poetry, etc.  This is what human language is about.  We generally don’t have great problems in working out such figures of speech etc. in human works – it’s the same with God’s Word.  OK, as with human works in other languages, of different cultures, of long ago times, we here and now need to be a bit cautious in interpreting the Bible; but we can still work out the key underlying ideas with considerable confidence.  

The trouble is, sometimes we don’t like what the Bible tells us – the plain ‘literal sense’ in Tyndale’s terms that remains even when we have unpacked the metaphors and so on.  There is then the temptation to substitute something we find ‘more reasonable’ – or just more comfortable, more congenial to our selfish wishes.  At that point, we have stopped taking the Bible seriously, and we are letting our opinions govern the Bible rather than the other way round.  

I have no real problem with the guy who aims to take the Bible seriously; he may be more literal in interpretation than me, or less, but we’re both concerned with serving the word and the God who gave it.  I have considerable problems with anything that amounts to “We know better than God” – and in light of the biblical evidence for what God does believe (or rather, know), and how strongly he warns us of the danger we are in, saying that “God doesn’t believe in Hell” is a serious case of (supposedly) “knowing better than God”. 

The trouble is, if we don’t take the Bible seriously when dealing with issues about Hell, the cure is worse than the disease.  At first it seems great, it’s certainly cosy and comfortable and the kind of answer people prefer.  But in the end, it just destroys Christianity itself.  

What the Bible actually teaches….

Well, an outline anyway!  I’ve already hinted at quite a bit of this in the explanations given above of biblical imagery, and we should be prepared to use that flexibility in explaining the teaching.  Not only is this better interpretation to begin with, it will make us think harder about the meaning and honour God’s Word more.   We will also care more about our hearers, and that includes demonstrating that care.  All too often our preaching of Hell can indeed sound sadistic, with the crabby viciousness of Harry Potter’s Argus-“I-want-to-see-some-punishment”-Filch, as if we were gloating about people frying for their sins; we need to know and do better than that.  There is a reason why ‘hellfire preaching’ has a bad reputation…. 

One of the first things we need to do is to teach people in the church; explain the old meanings, the contexts from which the original imagery came.  Put ‘hellfire’ in its proper place for church people to understand before we do too much preaching to the general public.  That will include widening our scope; we should not only deal with the passages that actually mention Hades or Gehenna, or the well-known images of fire and darkness, we must take in other passages about the consequences of sin and give them full weight

In seeking what we might call a positive image of Hell there are three ideas we will keep coming back to – love, justice, and choice.  

The key issue about Hell is not the fire, but the justice; 


In Paradise Lost, Milton depicts Hell as a place with locks on its gates; but the locks are not locks placed there by God to keep the devils and sinners in, they are locks and bars applied by the devils to keep God out.  OK, it’s really a hopeless attempt – if God wanted to break into Hell, could the devils really stop him?  But it makes the point that there is a tradition in which Hell is chosen by sinners, they actually prefer Hell.  CS Lewis also hints at such ideas in various places in his writings; even points out that for the unrepentant sinner, Heaven would effectively be Hell – the very things that make Heaven enjoyable are distasteful to the sinner.   Is there scriptural backing for such a notion?  

Yes, there is; we find the idea in John’s Gospel.  As is often the case in John, it’s not absolutely clear whether these are the words of Jesus himself, or John’s meditations upon the meaning of Jesus.  In chapter 1, John talks of Jesus as the Light, the true Light coming into the World – and of course Jesus said of himself “I am the Light of the World”.  But then in John chapter 3, look what follows one of the best-loved verses in all of scripture

For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.  For God sent his Son into the world not to condemn the world but to have the world saved through him. 

He who believes in him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is already condemned, because he has disbelieved the only-begotten Son of God.  And this is the sentence, that the Light has come into the world, and people have loved the darkness more than the Light: because their deeds were wicked.  For everyone who practices evil hates the light and keeps away from the light; else his activities would be exposed; while one who practices the truth, wants light on it, so that it will be perfectly clear that he is working in union with God. 

Though the word is not used, this is as much a passage about Hell as any dealing with Hades, Gehenna, or fire and brimstone.  God is light; Jesus is light:  if a person rejects the light, what is left for them?  The whole Creation is God’s; Jesus is the Word through whom it was created; every purpose and meaning of the world goes back to God, all the value of the world is from Him.  What is there if a person attempts to live without God, against the grain of the whole creation?  Well, whatever there is, darkness would seem to be a good image for it, if perhaps a bit too positive, with a bit too much actual somethingness about it….  Existence in that darkness cannot be good or happy; just preferable, from the sinner’s self-centred viewpoint, to giving up rebellion and admitting the truth of God. 

It is a terrible Hell of ultimate deprivation; but note that it is not at all an issue of divine sadism or similar.  This Hell is self-inflicted and not at all what God wants for people.  But how is this Hell to be avoided if, in effect, God can only offer light and light is the one thing the sinner cannot stand, cannot accept, and indeed absolutely runs from?  How can it be unjust if, in effect, God gives the sinner what he so insistently wants?  Those who cavil against God are inconsistent here; they complain at being ‘cast into Hell’, yet they also complain at any idea that they should be forced to change, that they should be refused their selfish will; the will, ironically, to run from and reject Heaven, the will to choose the darkness and deprivation which is hell.  They do their best to put God in a no-win situation, but in the process they condemn themselves.  They are like drowning men who fight against the only rescuer. 


Love – well, ‘love’ is what people plead against hell; how can a loving God ‘send sinners to hell’?  But those who use that argument are often conceiving of ‘love’ as a vague sentimentality.  The Bible doesn’t say that God is gushing fuzzy sloppy sentiment – it says in Greek that “God is agape” which is certainly the ultimate in unselfish and undeserved love – but it is also the ultimate in caring love; GOD CARES!  A God who doesn’t care would be a real problem. 


From the mid-1800s, as humanity seemed to be in a state of inevitable progress, it could seem harsh that God should punish sin.  Hell became unpopular, ‘enlightened’ people dismissed the idea.  But after a century that has seen two World Wars, the Holocaust, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Moors Murders and other serial killers, and recent terrorism and wars, I’m detecting a change, a hardening.  This isn’t old-style fundamentalists wanting to bring back old-style hell; this is ordinary people expressing a concern for justice, with a mix of motives – not always ideal, but I think ultimately well-founded.  

Perhaps the clearest current issue arises from the ‘Moors Murders’; in these crimes one Ian Brady and his lover Myra Hindley abducted, mistreated, and killed several children, burying the bodies up on Saddleworth Moor in Lancashire; sadly one boy’s body remains unfound, and is now likely to remain so, since time has changed things so that Brady, who concealed the body, can no longer identify the site.  

Later Lord Longford took an interest in Hindley, who could be regarded as less guilty than Brady because she was clearly under his influence and arguably led astray by him.  Eventually Longford claimed that Hindley had repented of her crimes and converted to Christianity.  He campaigned to have her released; and as might be expected, failed – there was little likelihood of a person so notorious being released precisely because of the notoriety (sadly less deserving but less notorious people may well have been released since.  Also if released she would clearly have been in danger of murder by vigilantes; and giving her a protected identity could have put others at risk of being attacked due to mistaken identity).  What is interesting to us is the public reaction …. 

The unwillingness to see her released is I think understandable; and there were reasons for it besides questions of forgiveness.  But I meet a lot of people who can’t believe that God himself could forgive Hindley; and believe that any ‘conversion’ was just a pretence in hopes of release.  On that latter point they may of course be right; Hindley wouldn’t be the first to put on finding religion to try to fool a parole board.  But could it be real?  Could Hindley be truly converted and could God forgive her despite her crimes?  I have to say yes, that truly is possible.  The hymn sums it up well – “The vilest offender who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives”.  Jesus himself said that all sins can be forgiven except ‘blasphemy against the Holy Spirit’, and the context shows that sin to be a sin of the self-righteous religious such as the Pharisees, a sin where the guilty wouldn’t even want to be forgiven because they don’t think it is a sin; very different matter to even the worst murders of more earthly motivation.  Hindley could certainly potentially be forgiven; and we can’t easily judge if that forgiveness actually occurred.  

But of course such forgiveness would not be just a glib ‘letting-off’; God’s forgiveness comes only with true repentance and faith, and therefore a true change in the person forgiven.  The Hindley who we hope we may meet in heaven will not be the evil woman who committed the crimes, or the weak woman overborne by her infatuation with Brady.  She will be a changed person who has truly faced up to what she did, is truly sorry for it, and truly wants to be a different person, and with God’s help will have changed day after day following her conversion into that different person.  Further, she will appreciate the cost of her forgiveness; she will know that this is no simple let off, but a costly sacrifice…. 

I have seen Richard Dawkins a few times now on television, and read in his books, asking the question “Why can’t God just forgive?  Why did it need the death of Jesus?”  And the short answer, of course, is that there is no such thing as ‘just forgiving’, and to speak of it that way devalues both human and divine forgiveness.  

The essential of forgiveness is simple – if someone does harm, then in justice he should bear the cost of righting that wrong.  If instead the wronged person chooses to forgive, then the person who did the harm will not pay that cost, the cost will be borne by the wronged person.  Put it in more concrete terms –suppose some yob chucks a brick through your window.  That yob should pay for the harm he has done, not only the price of the glass but also the cost of all the inconvenience he will have caused.  If you choose to forgive him, he won’t foot that bill – you will!  And as you contemplate the bill, you won’t be regarding it as ‘just forgiving’ in the glib way that Dawkins suggests.  For you, forgiving will be costly.  That is the need of the death of Jesus – that it is, essentially, God forgiving at His own cost, and revealing it to us in our history. 

If God has forgiven Myra Hindley, it has cost the sacrifice of Jesus; and in turn, that sacrifice will not have been made for a Hindley who remains evil afterwards.  But the converse is true; for the person who refuses to repent of their sin, justice means they should pay the price of their deeds.  It can’t be just that anyone else should pay while the sinner remains determinedly sinful.  The sinner’s choice of the dark is also a choice to pay the price of sin. 

[And with this now just over five pages long, I’m calling a halt and posting it; I hope to come back to this issue and complete some of the thoughts involved.  Feedback welcome on ‘as far as it goes’, but also remember it’s incomplete….]

[i] In model railway exhibitions we sometimes avoid the stern ‘Do not touch’ by using humorous notices like ‘Danger 12,000 Millivolts’ – which sounds drastic but of course is simply another way to express the perfectly safe “12 Volts”.  In such a hobby context, this is fine; but I seriously doubt if descriptions of Hell in the Word of God should be regarded as similar triviality!

[ii] In case this description seems confusing, I should point out that I have actually read quite a few of the original ‘Fundamentals’ – I even have one of the volumes on my own bookshelves.  They are mostly not dumb wooden literalism but serious scholarship taking a view similar to that of Tyndale below.  The kind of people we think of as ‘Fundamentalists’ would actually find much of ‘The Fundamentals’ to be too liberal for them!