HELL
Here we touch the awful part of our study. In Christ's great drama of
the Judgment those on the left hand are passing out into the darkness,
and we see them no more. In that darkness there seems no ray of hope.
So far as we can learn, it means irrevocable ruin and loss. In spite
of God's love and pain for them on Earth and in Hades, they seem at
last to have destroyed in themselves everything of good, and so placed
themselves beyond possibility of restoration for ever. The judgment
has clearly the ring of finality. There seems nothing more to be said.
And so, with pain in our hearts responding to the pain of the Father,
we are forced to leave them in the darkness and mystery in which
Scripture enshrouds them.
This is, I think, all that can justifiably be said. The reticence and
reserve of Scripture forbids any definite doctrine of Hell.
And this is all that would have needed to be said if men had kept to
that reticence and reserve of Scripture, and to all further
questionings contented themselves with the answer that the Judge of all
the earth will do right. But they have not so contented themselves.
It is hard to blame them. For beyond the main facts about the doom of
the impenitent there are here and there through the Bible many
tantalizing hints perplexing and difficult to reconcile with each
other, but very tempting to follow out. By emphasizing certain of
these and ignoring or dwelling more lightly on certain others which
seem to contradict them, men have formulated definite doctrines about
Hell, differing widely from each other but each with apparently strong
Scriptural support. This is only what may happen in any department of
study. The strict rule of evidence in any enquiry is that all the
facts must be studied and that no theory shall be accepted as entirely
trustworthy while any of the evidence remains unaccounted for.
There are three theories which hold the ground to-day, each of them
seemingly with much evidence in its favour, but each of them seriously
unsatisfactory as conflicting with other evidence.
(1) The theory of Everlasting Torment—that every soul which has missed
of Christ shall be plunged into a Hell of torment and sin for ever and
ever, growing worse and worse and lower and lower through all the ages
of Eternity.
(2) The theory of Universalism—that in the ages of the far future
through the stern loving discipline of God all men shall at length be
saved.
(3) The theory of Conditional Immortality—that all souls who fail of
Eternal Life shall be punished not by Everlasting Torment, but by
annihilation and the loss of God and Heaven for ever.
At first sight it seems almost impossible that such conflicting
theories could be formed out of the same Bible. But a little
consideration of the evidence and of the power of prejudice and
preconceptions in estimating evidence makes it easier to understand.
The main trend of all Scripture teaching is that it shall be well,
gloriously well, with the good, and that it shall be evil, unutterably
evil, with the wicked. That there is a mysterious and awful malignity
attaching to sin—that to be in sin means to be in misery and ruin in
this life or any other life—and that sin persisted in tends to utter
and irretrievable ruin. No arguments about the love and power of God
to save to the uttermost can cancel the fact of the free-will of man or
the plain statements of Scripture confirmed beyond question by the
loving Lord Himself as to the awful fate of the finally impenitent.
But running through all this dark background of Scripture is a curious
golden thread of prophecy that evil shall not be eternal in God's
universe. One turns to it perplexed with wondering hope. For however
fully Conscience recognizes the righteousness of a terrible retribution
for sin, there is in all thoughtful minds a shrinking from the thought
that Evil shall be as permanent as Good in the universe of the All-holy
God—that any evil power can exist unendingly side by side with Him and
unendingly resist Him; that Hell and Heaven, Satan and God shall
co-exist for all eternity. This is almost unthinkable to thoughtful
men. It is a Dualism repugnant to all our ideals of God. And this
golden thread, running through the Old and New Testaments alike,
confirms this thought, in its dim vision of a golden age somewhere away
in the far future—away it would seem beyond the dark vision of
Hell—when evil shall have vanished out of the Universe for ever and
"God shall be all in all" (1 Cor. xv. 28)—when there shall come "the
times of the Restoration of all things which God hath promised by the
mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began" (Acts iii. 21).
Naturally there is danger of people emphasizing strongly either one of
these trends of Scripture and gathering certain proof texts according
to their own prejudices and preconceptions of what ought to be. "The
way in which some people read their Bibles," says Mr. Ruskin, "is like
the way in which the old monks thought that hedgehogs ate grapes. They
rolled themselves over the grapes as they lay on the ground and
whatever first stuck to their spikes they carried off and ate." If the
grapes are of various kinds as are the passages of Scripture we cannot
judge thus of the taste of the vintage. To get the true taste of the
grapes we must press them in cluster. To get the true meaning of
Scripture we must study the whole trend of Scripture. Before we can
accept any doctrine from separate passages of Scripture we must assure
ourselves that it is in harmony, not only with other passages but also
with the ruling thoughts which run through all Scripture, God's
unutterable holiness, God's awful hatred of sin and stern denunciations
of doom against the impenitent, God's love, God's unchangeableness,
God's reasonableness and fairness, and the mysterious golden thread of
hope which runs through all.
Now we glance as briefly as possible at the three theories referred to.
The theory of Everlasting Torment and Everlasting Sin.
This theory keeps with Scripture in asserting the fatal and irrevocable
result of unrepented sin—but it goes beyond the reserve of Scripture
in defining that result and so defining it as to impugn the character
of God. It teaches that all who are condemned in the Judgment are
doomed to a life of endless torment, in the company of devils—forsaken
of God. Millions of millions of ages shall see this punishment no whit
nearer to its end. It must go on for ever and ever and ever.
It takes perhaps a child's or a woman's heart to realize the horror of
that thought. I remember as a child reading a Sunday-school book that
helped me to realize the meaning of this "for ever and ever in hell."
I was to imagine a huge forest, and a tiny insect coming from the
farthest planet and biting an atom out of one of the leaves, and
carrying it away to his home, the journey taking one thousand years.
Then I was to imagine the ages that must elapse before that whole leaf
was carried off. Then the stupendous time before the whole tree would
be gone. Then, as my brain reeled at the thought, I was to look
forward to the carrying away of the whole forest, and from that to the
carrying away of the whole world. Then came the awful sentence in
italics, Even then eternity would but have begun. I suppose God will
forgive the people who wrote that book for children if they repent, but
I don't feel much like forgiving them. I can remember still lying
awake in the night and crying as I thought of the lost souls in Hell as
my poor little brain reeled at the thought of the journeys of that
wretched insect and of those whom God kept alive to suffer for ever and
ever and ever.
Then as one grew older came the further horror that these "lost" are
kept alive not only to suffer but to sin everlastingly. They are to go
on increasing in sin for ever and ever and ever in the universe of the
All-holy God. One tests this by the ruling thoughts of Scripture. One
thinks of God's holiness. One thinks of the golden thread of hope.
One wonders what it means that Christ came to "destroy the works of the
devil"[1] and to destroy the devil (bruise the serpent's head[2]) and
how one day "God shall be all in all" if straight opposite for all
eternity shall be Satan's Kingdom of misery and sin. Surely Christ has
not failed! And yet—and yet—what shall we say? And what shall we
say of God's fatherhood? Shall we say as some do that as Judge He must
do cruel things which as Father He would shrink from? God forbid! The
Judge and the Father are one. Men would never use such sophistry about
the character of God if it were put into plain words. "Ye must ken,"
said a godly old Scotchman, "that the Almighty may often have to do in
His offeeshial capacity what He would scorn to do as a private
individual!" I quote this not with flippancy but with stern
indignation. That is baldly what such sophistry means.
Clearly one who insists on this doctrine ought at least to be
absolutely certain that Scripture leaves him no escape from it. Now
the conclusion which a thorough study of the question leads to is
this;—that Scripture nowhere definitely affirms that the sufferings of
the lost shall not be everlasting, and nowhere definitely affirms
that they shall be everlasting.
Even that if it be true is some relief. We should no longer be forced
to believe of God what Conscience declares to be unworthy of Him. But
is it true? I can already see the Bible turned over for the dark array
of texts beginning with "He that believeth not shall be damned," "How
can ye escape the damnation of Hell?" "These shall go away into
everlasting punishment," etc.
Let me explain.
If we examine the Bible carefully we shall find that, while there are a
great many clear proofs of the certainty and awfulness of Hell, the
proofs of this theory of Everlasting Torment are not much to be
depended on. Practically they can all be gathered into three groups.
In the first the chief word is DAMN or DAMNATION.
In the second the chief word is HELL.
In the third the chief word is EVERLASTING.
It is not too much to say that if these three sets of passages were
removed from the Bible nobody would think of believing in everlasting
torment. Now let me make the assertion straight out—There is no word
in the original language of the Bible that at all justifies the use of
either of these words in the meaning that we have attached to it—and
therefore the Revised Version of the Bible has practically swept them
all away.
§ 1
Take first the words Damn, Damnation which convey to us the idea of
doom to a Hell of never-ending torment and never-ending sin. The
original word conveyed no such idea to our Lord or the Apostles. It
conveyed no such idea to the translators of the Authorized Version.
When they translated it Damn and Damnation they did not at all mean
what we now mean.
There are two Greek words, krinô which means simply to judge, and
kata-krinô which means to judge adversely, to condemn, and it is
sometimes the first and sometimes the second of these words which is
translated "Damn." Why is it so translated? Surely the translators
did not think so evil of God as to believe that He could never judge a
man without condemning him and that He could never condemn him except
to everlasting torment. Not at all. They had no thought of this. The
English word "damn" at that time had no such awful meaning as has grown
into it in our day through the wide-spread influence of the theory
which I am criticizing. It simply meant what the Greek word meant. I
find an interesting illustration of this in the Wycliffe Bible in the
passage about the woman taken in adultery. Jesus saith, "Woman, hath
no man damned thee?" "No man, Lord." "Neither do I damn thee." That
is to say the English word Damn at that time only meant "condemn."
But words are dangerous things if not carefully watched, owing to their
tendency to change their meaning as a language grows. A new, darker
meaning has grown on to the English word since. Once an innocent word,
it has now become dangerous and misleading. Therefore, the Revisers
have swept it away, and the words damn and damnation have now vanished
entirely and for ever out of the pages of the English Bible.
Unfortunately the public do not read the Revised Version.
With this explanation I ask the reader to turn back to his Bible. In
our sense of the word did our Lord say, "He that believeth not shall be
damned"? Most certainly not. He said that he should be condemned
for wilfully disbelieving, but He did not say to what he should be
condemned, nor for how long. I should condemn you for doing a selfish
act, but that would hardly mean sending you to endless torment. Did He
say that those who had done evil should rise to the resurrection of
damnation? (1 John v. 29). No. He said, "to the resurrection of
judgment." (See R. V.) Did St. Paul say, "He that doubteth (about
eating certain meats) is damned if he eat"? (Rom. xiv. 23). Did he
say that a church widow should have damnation for marrying again? (1
Tim. v. 12). Of course not; the word only means judgment or
condemnation. There is no thought at all in it of this endless Hell as
the Revised Version has plainly shown. So we see that at any rate all
these texts about "damnation" can no longer be used in proof of
everlasting torment and everlasting sin.
§ 2
Something similar is true about the texts whose chief word is "Hell."
The word "hell" occurs eighteen times in the Authorized Version. Once
it is a translation of a Greek word Tartarus (2 Peter ii. 4) cast down
to Hell to be reserved "unto the Day of Judgment." That certainly
was not everlasting. Five times it is a translation of the word Hades
whose meaning we already know, and which certainly did not mean
everlasting. The other twelve times it is a translation of the word
Gehenna used by our Lord, and no scholar with the least regard for his
reputation would dream of stating that our Lord certainly meant it to
convey the idea of endlessness. It was the name of a horrible valley
outside Jerusalem where things were cast out to be burnt, to keep the
city pure. The Jewish prophets took the word as a metaphor to express
the fate of wicked men. From it they drew their images used by our
Lord of "the worm that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched"
(Mark x. 46). To be in danger of Gehenna was to be in danger of a
hereafter doom suggested by this dread place.
Our Lord simply took up the vague Jewish word and did not define it.
What exactly had He in His mind when He used this word? This is a
question of terrible importance. He certainly meant something very
stern and awful. He seems to indicate also something final and
irrevocable. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that He
meant to convey the idea in our minds of a vast prison, in which the
souls of the lost are pierced through with agony for ever and ever.
You ask, How can I know what He meant? How could I know what
Shakespeare meant by a certain word? I should read up all the books
and letters of Shakespeare's times in which the word occurs, and
whatever it commonly meant to the people of Shakespeare's time I should
accept as being what Shakespeare meant. That looks sensible, does it
not? Well, a very interesting investigation has been made by various
scholars. They have examined all the existing Jewish writings where
the word Gehenna was used from 300 B. C. to 300 A. D. Then they have
examined the Jewish Talmuds which run on to the fourth and fifth
century. A modern English scholar, Dr. Dewes, says (Plea for a New
Translation, p. 23): "Every passage has been carefully examined which
is quoted in the works of Lightfoot, Schoetgen, Buxtorf, Castell,
Schindler, Glass, Bartoloccius, Ugalino and Nork, and the result of the
whole examination is this: there are only two passages which even a
superficial reader could consider to be corroborative of the assertion
that the Jews understood Gehenna to be a place of everlasting torment."
I give a few specimens from the Talmuds. "Gehenna is ordained of old
because of sins." "The ungodly will be judged in Gehenna against the
day of judgment." "The ungodly shall be judged in Gehenna until the
righteous shall say of them, We have seen enough." "The judgment of
the ungodly is for twelve months." "Gehenna is nothing but a day in
which the impious will be burned." "The sinners … shall descend into
Gehenna; at the end of twelve months the body shall be consumed and the
soul burned up and the wind shall scatter it under the feet of the
just."
The reader sees, of course, that the vague Jewish opinions have no
authority for us except to help us to get at the meaning of our Lord
when speaking to Jews about Gehenna. We may assume that He used their
familiar word in the sense in which they would naturally understand it.
They certainly would understand Him to proclaim some terrible doom,
probably also an irrevocable doom. But can any one affirm that they
must have understood Him to mean endless torment, in the face of this
evidence—and its powerful confirmation by the greatest of all modern
Jewish students of the Talmud, Emanuel Deutsch. "There is no
everlasting damnation in the Talmud" (Remains, p. 53), and again,
"There is not a word in the Talmud which supports the damnable dogma of
endless torment" (Conversation with Mr. Cox, Salvator Mundi, p. 72).
The American Revised Version has very wisely removed the word Hell
altogether on account of the misleading associations connected with it.
It substitutes the word Gehenna, leaving the reader to ascertain its
meaning. The English Revisers have retained the word Hell and put the
word Gehenna beside it in the margin. I think this was a pity, as it
will be hard for the ordinary reader to dissociate the word Hell from
the theory which has unwarrantably grown on to it. But at any rate I
think we may safely say that no reader who understands the position
will ever again use the texts in which our Lord speaks of Hell to prove
the absolute certainty of the theory of Endless Torment and Endless
Sin. So vanishes another group of the proof texts for this theory.
§ 3
Now take the group of texts with the word "everlasting." It is surely
significant that the Revisers have completely removed this word also in
every case and substituted for it the word "eternal," a less definite
word and which in scholarly usage means rather the opposite of
temporal—that which is above the sphere of time and space—that which
belongs to the other world. At any rate the fact that they have
removed it in every case shows that the word "everlasting" did not seem
to them a correct translation.
There is only space for a brief explanation. The original word is the
adjective aiônos (aionios) (Eng. aeonian), coming from the noun
aiôn (aion) (Eng. aeon), an age, an epoch, a long period of time.
This noun cannot mean eternity for it is repeatedly used by St. Paul in
the plural "aeons" and "aeons of aeons." As we speak of great periods
of time, "the Ice Age," "the Stone Age," etc., so the Bible speaks of
"this age" (aeon), "the coming age" (aeon), and "the end of the age,"
etc. These aeons or ages are thought of in Scripture as vast periods
past, present and future in which the Divine purpose is working itself
out, e. g., God's purpose is the purpose of the ages (aeons) (Eph.
iii. 11). Christ's name is above every name not only in this age
(aeon) but in that which is to come (Eph. i. 21). "That in the ages
(aeons) to come He might shew," etc.
From this noun, then, conies the adjective aiônios (aionios)—aeonian
which may be defined "age long" or "belonging to the ages," etc. Any
Greek scholar will assert unhesitatingly that of itself it does not
mean endless or everlasting. Sometimes, as when applied to God, it may
be thus translated but only because the meaning is inherent in the noun
to which it is applied. The word aiônios of itself would not
positively prove the endlessness of God. This adjective when applied
to any thing or any state of being cannot of itself be used to prove
its endlessness.
It is worth notice too that in the Septuagint Greek Bible, the version
usually quoted in the Gospels and Epistles, this word aiônios is
frequently applied to things that have ended, e. g., the gift of the
land of Canaan, the priesthood of Aaron, the kingdom of David, the
temple at Jerusalem, the daily offerings, etc. When the noun always
means a finite period and the adjective is applied both to that which
is ended and to that which is endless it would surely be poor
scholarship if the Revisers allowed the word "everlasting" to remain as
its translation, or if students of theology should argue from it the
endlessness of anything. To which we may add that there are Greek
adjectives and phrases which do definitely mean "endless" and which
are never used in the Bible of men's fate in the Hereafter.
Be it observed that all this does not prove that the punishment of the
future ages may not be everlasting. It only proves that Scripture
nowhere asserts unmistakably that it must be so. It simply asserts
that it is aeonian.
The thoughtful advocates of Everlasting Torment are of course aware of
all this. But they honestly feel that in spite of the indefiniteness
of the adjective, our Lord has fixed His meaning beyond question in the
one passage that has become so famous as the great proof text in this
controversy, "These shall go away into aeonian punishment, but the
righteous into aeonian life" (Matt. xxv. 46). Very reasonably they
say, "If the word asserts everlastingness in the one case it must also
in the other." The answer is that the word of itself cannot assert
everlastingness in either case. If this word were our only proof of
everlasting life then everlasting life would be a doubtful matter. But
the everlastingness of that life like the everlastingness of God is
evident all over the Bible quite apart from this. The words here
simply tell that the one shall go into the aeonian life and the other
into aeonian punishment, i. e., that the one shall go into the life
of the future age and the other into the punishment of the future age
without exactly specifying the duration of either.
I quite feel that the close connection of the words suggests at least
the probability that one is as lasting as the other. Yet even that
consideration is weakened by asking if people are willing to apply it
to St. Paul's statement, "As in Adam all die even so in Christ shall
all be made alive" (the context suggests eternal life). I would
point out, too, that a somewhat similar verse is in the Septuagint
Bible of our Lord's day in Hab. iii. 6, where the (aeonian) everlasting
mountains were scattered before God, whose ways are (aeonian)
everlasting. Yet it does not prove that the one is as endless as the
other. And in Rom. xvi. 25-26 the mystery hid in the (aeonian) times
"before the world began" is now manifested according to the command of
the (aeonian) eternal God. But the age "before the world began" is
ended.
At any rate I must leave the matter here. I have no space for fuller
statement. If any man feels that a world of increasing sin and awful
torment growing no nearer to its end after millions and millions of
ages does not disturb his conscience or the thoughts of God which he
has learned from the whole trend of Scripture this text will probably
weigh strongly with him in spite of all that I have said. But to him
who is tortured by such a thought of God and yet feels that Scripture
binds him to it, it must surely be some relief to feel that even in
this great bulwark text of Everlasting Torment our Lord only asserts
that these shall go away into the aeonian punishment or chastisement[3]
whatever that may mean.
Reluctantly, impelled by a sense of duty, I have dealt with this theory
more fully than with the others. Should any godly people fear that I
am lightening an awful deterrent to sin let me say what long experience
has taught me of the danger of this common theory.
It is making sad loving hearts whom God has not made sad and making
earnest Christians, who feel forced to believe it, perplexed about the
love and justice of God and the prophecies of the final victory of good.
It is forcing into the background the true and awfully solemn teaching
about Hell which ought to be prominent in all our pulpits. When men
cannot see any possible reconciliation between the doctrine of God's
love and their doctrine of Hell they are very apt to find an easy way
out. "We cannot reconcile them," said a young layman to me one day,
"therefore we drop out one of them—Hell." Do not be shocked at it.
Many besides my young layman are unconsciously doing it. Nowadays more
than ever we, clergy, are teaching much about the love of God. But
nowadays more than ever we are holding our tongues about Hell. We know
the horrible idea which Hell commonly conveys. Therefore we keep it in
the background trusting that our hearers will leave it there during the
sermon on God's love. But they do not, and so we are very unconvincing
about both doctrines.
Again, this common theory of Hell is so unreasonable that it has lost
its power as a deterrent. No teaching from which Conscience revolts
can long hold its power over men. The rough common sense, the rough
moral sense of careless men makes them reject it and treat it as a
subject of jest. When men can stupidly laugh together over jests about
hell-fire, when the devil is presented as a clown in the pantomime it
indicates something very wrong in the teaching. No doctrine has any
real hold on the crowd when they can lightly jest about it. And
because of their unbelief in this false notion of Hell they are ceasing
to believe in any Hell at all—ceasing to believe in that awful real
Hell which is taught in the Bible and of which God is giving some men
foretastes even in this life.
And this false notion of Hell tends to shake men's belief in the
reality of Heaven. For if the redeemed could enjoy their bliss in
Heaven, knowing that myriads are existing for ever and ever in endless
suffering and still worse in endless sin, one feels that they have
grown so selfish and opposite to Christ that they have no business in
any heaven.
We dare not leave out the love of God and we dare not leave out the
doctrine of Hell. Both are certainly true. Therefore they must be
capable of reconciliation. The reconciliation must not come in
ignoring Hell or believing in a kindly, good-natured God who does not
judge severely about moral character and who only cares that His child
should stop crying and be happy. We are having too much of this
sentimentalism nowadays. It is a miserable misconception of that awful
holiness which is "of purer eyes than to behold iniquity." It would
never explain the need of Christ dying on the cross to put away sin.
Whatever reconciliation we find here or hereafter it must have at
bottom God's unutterable hatred of sin but also God's unutterable love
and pain over every sinful soul which He has made. This theory of
Endless Torment and Endless Sin certainly does not appear to satisfy
this test, and it has in addition to face the stern revolt of Reason
and Conscience.
The theory of Universalism, i. e., that all men shall at length be
saved.
This opinion is based on the more hopeful side of Scripture that we
have referred to, but it ignores or explains away what contradicts it
in the darker and sterner side. If one could forget that, it would be
the most inspiring of all the guesses that have been made. As
presented by its best exponents, such men as Allen and Jukes and Cox,
it is wonderfully attractive and at first sight seems to satisfy many
of the conditions of the problem. It takes account of a just and awful
retribution for every sin, and takes account also of the mysterious
hope in the Hereafter which runs through the Bible. It believes that
the power of God has infinite resources and that the love of God has
unwearying persistence and that no soul can ultimately resist such
resources and such love. Even Hell itself it deems God's final effort
when all other means have failed.
The reader who thinks there can be no possible excuse for such a theory
should glance at a few of the passages quoted in its favour:
"God who wills that all men should be saved" (1 Tim. ii. 4), and "who
wills that all men should come to repentance" (2 Peter iii. 9). And
this will or determination of God is "immutable" (Heb. vi. 7).
Again, "Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the Prince of this
world be cast out, AND I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto
Myself" (John xii. 31, 32). "All flesh shall see the salvation of
God" (Luke iii. 6). "His grace bringing salvation to all men" (Titus
ii. 11). "We trust in the living God who is the Saviour of all men,
especially of those who believe" (1 Tim. iv. 10). "He is the
propitiation not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the
whole world" (1 John ii. 2). "He was manifested that He might
destroy the works of the devil" (1 John iii. 8) [and destroy the
devil (bruise the serpent's head) Gen. iii. 15]. "He shall overcome
the strong man armed (the devil) and take away his armour and divide
his spoils" (Luke xi. 21, 22). "He was manifested to put away sin by
the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. ix. 26). "God hath not cast away His
people whom He foreknew … and so all Israel shall be saved" (Rom.
xii. 25-33). "The times of the Restoration of all things which God
hath promised by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world
began" (Acts iii. 21). "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall
all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the
first-fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's at His coming. Then
cometh the end … when all things have been subjected unto Him[4]
… then shall the Son also be subjected unto Him that put all things
under Him that God may be all in all" (1 Cor. xv. 22-29).
One can see how the constant study of such passages should lead men to
an enthusiastic hope and lead them to study less carefully the stream
of darker teaching that seemed to conflict with these. Whatever may be
said against the advocates of Universalism we at least owe to them a
clearer emphasizing of the mysterious hopefulness of Scripture as to
the final triumph of good.
But with deep reluctance one is bound to assert that the advocates of
Universal Salvation to a great degree ignore or explain away
unsatisfactorily much of the sterner side of the Bible. For amid all
its hopefulness there is a steadily persistent note in Scripture,
stern, awful, sorrowful, which seems impossible to reconcile with
Universalism. There are clear and repeated assertions that some men at
any rate will not be saved. It is St. Paul, the author of so many of
those hopeful Scriptures quoted, who tells us "even weeping" of men
"whose end is destruction" (Phil. iii. 19), and of those whose fate
shall be "eternal destruction from the presence of God" (2 Thess. i.
9). It is the loving Christ Himself who said of one of His apostles,
"It were good for that man if he had not been born" (St. Matt. xxvi.
24).
We are warned back too by the tendency of character to grow permanent.
And when we are told that God "willeth all men to be saved," and that
God can do everything, we are forced to ask, Can God do contradictory
things? Can God make a door to be open and shut at the same time? Can
God make a thing to be and not to be at the same time? Can God make a
man's will free to choose good or evil and yet secure that he shall
certainly choose good at the last? One longs to believe that
Universalism should be true, but to believe it we must ignore much of
the evidence of Scripture.
The theory of Conditional Immortality, i. e., that all souls who fail
of Eternal Life shall be punished not by Endless Torment, but by
Annihilation and the loss of God and Heaven for ever and ever.
This is another conjecture framed to escape the difficulties of the
former two. It would be consistent both with retribution for evil and
also with the final victory of good. That in the mysterious nature of
things when the malignity of sin becomes incurable, a soul rotted
through with sin might ultimately die out of existence; this opinion is
at least allowable as a conjecture to escape from the theory of Endless
Torment and Sin. It would in a real sense be an everlasting
punishment, being an everlasting loss of Heaven and God. But it too is
founded only on part of the evidence, on such texts as "The gift of God
is eternal life," "He that hath the Son hath life," implying that
immortality is a conditional thing granted only to those who are saved,
and such texts as "eternal destruction from the presence of God," and
the idea of utter annihilation in such passages as "burn up the chaff
with unquenchable fire." There is much in favor of it but there is
much in Scripture which makes it difficult to accept it. And it
contradicts straight out the wide-spread Christian belief in the
essential immortality of the soul (though that belief also needs to be
examined). At any rate it cannot claim authority as a theory of future
punishment.
These are the only conjectures offered us to solve the difficulties
connected with Final Retribution. We find them all unsatisfactory. We
have reached no definite doctrine of Hell. With the evidence at our
disposal it seems impossible to do so. The failure of all attempts at
reconciling the seeming contradictions of Scripture must suggest to us
that the solution of this problem is beyond the range of our present
powers. At any rate it is beyond the range of our present knowledge.
Surely it is wise and reverent to think that this points to some
dealing of God beyond our human ken which will one day reconcile all
the difficulties.[5] Our little guesses do not exhaust God's
possibilities. Some day we shall find the answer in that land where we
shall know even as we are known. And when we find it we know it will
be consistent with our highest thoughts of God. I like to think that
it is those who have grown closest to Christ in sympathy for sorrow and
pain and who unlike us, know all the facts of the case, who are
represented as joining in that glad shout hereafter, "Hallelujah!
salvation and glory and power belong to our God, FOR TRUE AND RIGHTEOUS
ARE HIS JUDGMENTS." Leave the manifestation of this to God. A wise
old man once said, "God has a good deal of time to do things between
this and the other side of eternity."
This then is the conclusion of the whole matter. A return to the
reserve and reticence of Scripture. But with this result of our study,
that we feel no longer forced to believe of God that which Conscience
declares to be unworthy of Him. We are set free to believe that the
Judge of all the earth will do right—that Hell as well as Heaven is
within the confines of His dominion—that evil shall not last for ever;
that in spite of all its conflicting evidence the trend of Scripture
moves towards the golden age, the final victory of good.
Thus we leave it.
In our final vision of humanity in Christ's great drama of the
Judgment, those on the left are passing into the outer darkness and as
they pass the curtain falls behind them and we see them no more. We
know not what is passing in that outer darkness where there is "weeping
and gnashing of teeth." We have no grounds to believe that any soul
there is being born again through sorrow and shame, that any spoiled
and deformed life is being remoulded in that awful crucible of God.
But as we watch the awful shadows of that outer darkness, there comes
beyond it on the far horizon the quivering of a coming dawn. For that
age of God's Gehenna is to have its end, and far away the day will dawn
for which the whole creation groaneth and travaileth together; when
evil shall have vanished out of the universe for ever; when death and
Hell, the evil and the Evil One shall be cast into the lake of fire;
when "at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in Heaven and
earth, and under the earth" (in the world of the dead). "And every
tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the
Father." "Then cometh the end," says St. Paul, "when Christ shall
deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father, when all His enemies
shall be subjected unto Him. And when all His enemies have been
subjected unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subjected unto
Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."
That is what shall be. One day, somewhere in the far mysterious future
the "purpose of the ages" shall be accomplished. Evil shall have
vanished out of the universe for ever and God shall be all in all. One
day again it shall be as at the creation when "God looked on everything
that He had made and behold it was very good." How? We know not and
we need not know. We need not be able to assert dogmatically how He
will accomplish His purpose. We need not be able to assert that all
men shall be saved or that all who are not will be annihilated. But we
must be able with trustful hearts to assert God's love and God's power
and the final abolishing of evil, even though we can only do it with
the poet's vagueness:
At last I heard a voice upon the slope
Cry to the summit, "Is there any hope?"
To which an answer pealed from that high land,
But in a tongue no man could understand,
And on the glimmering summit far withdrawn
God made Himself an awful rose of dawn.
[1] 1 John iii. 8.
[2] Gen. iii. 15.
[3] kolasis—chastisement, correction, punishment (see Greek Lexicon).
[4] The same Greek words are used of His enemies' subjection to Christ
as of Christ's subjection to the Father suggesting that it would be of
the same kind.
[5] In other antinomies of Scripture, e. g., Man's free will and
God's foreknowledge, we have to take refuge in a similar belief.