Chapter 21 – The End

*The text below has been revised and included in Suprised by Hell.

I hope this journey has not given you the wrong impression. We have spent a lot of time on one topic, but that doesn’t mean it is central to the Christian faith.

Karl Barth (1886–1968), who some consider to be the greatest theologian of the twentieth century, said, “I do not believe in universalism, but I do believe in Jesus Christ, reconciler of all.”[i] So was Barth a universalist? That question has stirred much controversy. Barth denied it, but some believe his theology naturally leads to ultimate reconciliation.[ii]

His statement, however, reminds us of where we should place our focus, “in Jesus Christ.” And that corresponds with how the first preachers declared the good news as well as the affirmations in the early creeds. Instead of describing heaven or hell, the original proclaimers urged people to repent and be reconciled to God through Christ. From the beginning, the Christian faith has been centered on the God of love revealed in Christ not a particular theory of final judgment.

My Discoveries

Here are a few of my discoveries mentioned in previous chapters.

• The first preachers didn’t talk about heaven and hell in the book of Acts.
• Annihilationism can be supported with a simple biblical argument.
• Eternal conscious torment became the standard view of hell, due in part to Augustine’s influence yet it is based on fragile biblical evidence.
• Many in Augustine and Basil the Great’s time believed afterlife discipline would be temporary.
• The Greek word translated “hell” is Gehenna. Almost all the New Testament references to Gehenna come from Jesus. And Gehenna was an actual valley adjacent to Jerusalem. While some of Jesus’ references to Gehenna may include an afterlife meaning, they do not include the concept of duration.
• Many church fathers taught that Christ descended to Hades and preached good news to deceased humans. They also affirmed that, at a minimum, some were released from their state of imprisonment.
• Scripture frequently describes divine judgment in remedial terms.
• Christian thought has included a strand of universalism since the early centuries espoused by respected leaders.
• The early creeds don’t say anything about the nature of hell.
• Asserting that hell exists and identifying who will go there are not the same thing.
• Paul has given us several key statements with a universal vision. But his letters also include exclusionary statements. Fitting both concepts together is not easy.
• If Paul was a Christian universalist, he was not one who expressed apathy about others or fatalism about the future.

Personal Reflection

This is a complex topic, partly because the biblical data is ambiguous. I understand if Bible readers don’t see a universal conclusion. I can’t blame anyone if they have not been captivated by the vision of God being “all in all.” After all, Paul clearly says that some will not inherit God’s kingdom.

I do encourage Christians to study and think carefully before accepting eternal conscious torment as a biblical option. In comparison with the other views, the evidence for ECT is meager at best. If you disagree with ECT, keep in mind that while you may be in the minority now, you may have been in in the majority if you had lived in the early centuries as Augustine and Basil acknowledged.

In some sense all believers should be hopeful universalists. Since God wants all to be saved, shouldn’t we desire and pray for that breathtaking outcome?

In my view ultimate redemption makes the most sense of the most biblical data: God’s purpose in creation, God’s desire to save all, God’s ability to accomplish what he desires, the universal affirmations of Christ’s triumph, the universal praise and reconciliation of all things, the remedial nature of judgment, and Christ’s descent to Hades.

For Christian universalism to remain biblical, though, it must be Christ-centered and it must include a postmortem correction process. As we have seen, this process will probably be painful, and perhaps even horrific. Additionally, believers who affirm ultimate redemption must be active and prayerful as we saw from Paul’s life and teachings. Without these elements, Christian universalism will morph into pluralism, where everyone enters heaven regardless of belief or behavior, Christians neglect to proclaim the good news, and Christ is not the Savior of the world. It is hard to find the right label for this view—perhaps active and prayerful Christian universalism.

But some ambiguity remains. The biblical evidence for ultimate destruction is not weak. And we are small time-bound creatures trying to peer into eternity.

C. S. Lewis

Near the end of Lewis’s The Great Divorce, the narrator tells George MacDonald,

‘In your own books, Sir,’ said I, ‘you were a Universalist. You talked as if all men would be saved. And St. Paul too.’

MacDonald replies,

Ye can know nothing of the end of all things, or nothing expressible in those terms. It may be, as the Lord said to the Lady Julian, that all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well. But it’s ill talking of such questions.

MacDonald continues by explaining that we see everything through the lens of time so we cannot leap straight into eternity and see the final end of all things without losing our sense of freedom. And freedom is “the deeper truth” because “it is the gift whereby ye most resemble your Maker.”[iii]

Julian of Norwich

“Lady Julian” is a reference to Julian of Norwich, who was an English anchoress or recluse. She claims that on May 13, 1373, when she was thirty years old, Jesus Christ gave her fifteen revelations or “shewings” of love. These shewings occurred successively from about 4 p.m. until 9 p.m. with the sixteenth and final shewing occurring the following evening.

In the thirteenth revelation, containing fourteen brief chapters, Julian says that Jesus told her: “It behoved that there should be sin; but all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.”[iv] (“Behoved” means that sin played a necessary role.)

A couple chapters later, Julian expresses confusion: How could all be well when sin has caused so much harm? She writes:

And to this our blessed Lord answered full meekly and with full lovely cheer, and shewed that Adam’s sin was the most harm that ever was done, or ever shall be, to the world’s end; and also He shewed that this [sin] is openly known in all Holy Church on earth. Furthermore He taught that I should behold the glorious Satisfaction: for this Amends-making is more pleasing to God and more worshipful, without comparison, than ever was the sin of Adam harmful. Then signifieth our blessed Lord thus in this teaching, that we should take heed to this: For since I have made well the most harm, then it is my will that thou know thereby that I shall make well all that is less.

Later, in the same revelation, she explains, “For like as the blissful Trinity made all things of nought, right so the same blessed Trinity shall make well all that is not well.” She then affirms the Catholic Church’s official teaching on final judgment:

And in this sight I marvelled greatly and beheld our Faith, marvelling thus: Our Faith is grounded in God’s word, and it belongeth to our Faith that we believe that God’s word shall be saved in all things; and one point of our Faith is that many creatures shall be condemned: as angels that fell out of Heaven for pride, which be now fiends; and man in earth that dieth out of the Faith of Holy Church: that is to say, they that be heathen men; and also man that hath received Christendom and liveth unchristian life and so dieth out of charity: all these shall be condemned to hell without end, as Holy Church teacheth me to believe. And all this [so] standing, methought it was impossible that all manner of things should be well, as our Lord shewed in the same time.

As an anchoress, Julian would have made certain vows to uphold the teaching of the Church and she would have lived in a little house attached to a church so it is not surprising that she expresses the official view of judgment. And yet, she struggles to reconcile that teaching with the revelation she received. If the traditional view of hell stands, how can all manner of things be well? She continues:

And as to this I had no other answer in Shewing of our Lord God but this: That which is impossible to thee is not impossible to me: I shall save my word in all things and I shall make all things well. Thus I was taught, by the grace of God, that I should steadfastly hold me in the Faith as I had aforehand understood, [and] therewith that I should firmly believe that all things shall be well, as our Lord shewed in the same time.

How can all things be well if many “shall be condemned to hell without end”? Julian doesn’t receive a specific answer, but she hears, “That which is impossible to thee is not impossible to me.” As a result, she believes she must hold to the Church’s teaching and the revelation that “all shall be well.”

She then mentions “the Great Deed” of our Lord, which is currently beyond our ability to understand:

For this is the Great Deed that our Lord shall do, in which Deed He shall save His word and He shall make all well that is not well. How it shall be done there is no creature beneath Christ that knoweth it, nor shall know it till it is done; according to the understanding that I took of our Lord’s meaning in this time.

In the end the Lord will accomplish this great deed that will make all things well, but how he will do it is a mystery.

Was Julian a Christian universalist? Throughout the book she qualifies many of her statements leading readers to think she is focusing on a select group. For example, “pain is passing and shall be brought to nought for them that shall be saved.”[v] However, her key phrase—“all shall be well”—is all-embracing so I think it’s safe to see a universal conclusion. But it’s important to note that Julian doesn’t explain exactly what this means or how God will accomplish it so she leaves us with a mysterious universalism.

Purposeful Ambiguity

Throughout this book we have seen degrees of ambiguity in Scripture and other literature. It’s worth asking, is there a purpose to the obscurity?

Let’s do a quick thought experiment: If we had perfect clarity, if the Bible said, “every single person who has ever lived will be saved and will enter God’s kingdom,” how would we respond? Imagine also if Scripture did not even have one warning, only guarantees of universal bliss from the first page to the last. What would we do? I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). We would sit back and relax, wouldn’t we? Would we even care about right and wrong?

The obscurity gives us hope and motivation. Imagine holding up a crystal and seeing different images on each side. On one side we catch glimpses of light from what looks like a universal kingdom. A turn, however, reveals images of loss and destruction. The possibility of missing out on the celestial city of joy seems real.

There’s no point in complaining about this ambiguity. These are the perfect ingredients to help us grow spiritually. The universal kingdom inspires hope and love for all while the warnings motivate us to pursue the light and encourage others to do the same. If Scripture is inspired by God and our hearts are sincere, when we read, we see what we need to see. But is there clarity beyond the fog?

God our Father

Much of this comes down to our view of God. Who is God? God is our Creator, Sustainer, Protector, Judge, and King. But who is God primarily to us?

While God is only called “Father” a handful of times in the Old Testament, when entering the New Testament we encounter an explosion of references to God as Father. Jesus calls God “Father” 17 times in the Sermon on the Mount. For example:

• “That you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Matt 5:45)
• “Your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (6:8)
• “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name” (6:9)
• “Look at the birds of the air . . . your heavenly Father feeds them” (6:26)
• How much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (7:11)

In John’s Gospel God is called Father more than 100 times. James says, God is “the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows” (1:17). God is many things, but he is primarily our Father, a Father of pure light and love.

If God is our Father, what does that mean for the question of hell? J. W. Hanson observes:

The talismanic word of the Alexandrian fathers, as of the New Testament, was father. This word, as now, unlocked all mysteries . . . Holding God as Father, punishment was held to be remedial, and therefore restorative, and final recovery from sin universal.[vi]

Similarly, William Barclay concludes:

If God was no more than a King or Judge, then it would be possible to speak of his triumph, if his enemies were agonizing in hell or were totally and completely obliterated and wiped out. But God is not only King and Judge, God is Father – he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family forever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. The only victory love can enjoy is the day when its offer of love is answered by the return of love. The only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God.[vii]

“All in All”

In addition, our conclusion comes down to depth perception. How far into the future are we looking? Some church fathers believed 1 Corinthians 15 provided the deepest biblical view into the future. In particular,

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (vv. 20–28)

Notice the process: Christ’s resurrection, Christ’s return, the resurrection of his people, Christ putting all his enemies under his feet, then the handing over of the kingdom to God the Father, which is called “the end,” “so that God may be all in all.” This sounds like the grand finale. What about those who don’t belong to Christ? Paul is writing to believers in Corinth so that is not his focus, but some believe they are included in “all will be made alive” and “all in all.”

In On the Soul and the Resurrection, Macrina expounds on this vision:

For while our present life is active amongst a variety of multiform conditions, and the things we have relations with are numerous, for instance, time, air, locality, food and drink, clothing, sunlight, lamplight, and other necessities of life, none of which, many though they be, are God,—that blessed state which we hope for is in need of none of these things, but the Divine Being will become all, and instead of all, to us, distributing Himself proportionately to every need of that existence. It is plain, too, from the Holy Scripture that God becomes, to those who deserve it, locality, and home, and clothing, and food, and drink, and light, and riches, and dominion, and everything thinkable and nameable that goes to make our life happy. But He that becomes ‘all’ things will be ‘in all’ things too; and herein it appears to me that Scripture teaches the complete annihilation of evil. If, that is, God will be ‘all in all’ existing things, evil; plainly, will not then be amongst them; for if any one was to assume that it did exist then, how will the belief that God will be ‘in all’ be kept intact? The excepting of that one thing, evil, mars the comprehensiveness of the term ‘all.’ But He that will be ‘in all’ will never be in that which does not exist.

At the end of her discourse, Gregory of Nyssa says the Teacher (his sister Macrina) was sick in bed and he feared that her sickness would take a fatal turn so he felt the need to question her further on the resurrection. After replying at length with a biblical defense of the resurrection, Macrina says,

His end is one, and one only; it is this: when the complete whole of our race shall have been perfected from the first man to the last,—some having at once in this life been cleansed from evil, others having afterwards in the necessary periods been healed by the Fire, others having in their life here been unconscious equally of good and of evil,—to offer to every one of us participation in the blessings which are in Him, which, the Scripture tells us, ‘eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,’ nor thought every reached. But this is nothing else, as I at least understand it, but to be in God Himself; for the Good which is above hearing and eye and heart must be that Good which transcends the universe. But the difference between the virtuous and the vicious life led at the present time will be illustrated in this way; viz. in the quicker or more tardy participation of each in that promised blessedness.

Let’s not be “tardy” in participating in the “promised blessedness” and let’s urge others to join on time. The vision of a universe filled with God—a God much better and greater than we could ever imagine—should fuel deep hope and fervent prayer for the salvation of all, including ourselves.

—————–

[i] From Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts (Fortress, 1977). Quoted in “Karl Barth’s Rejection of Universalism,” PostBarthian.com, accessed September 23, 2017, http://postbarthian.com/2016/08/18/karl-barth-rejection-of-universalism.

[ii] Roger Olson, “Was Karl Barth a Universalist? A New Look at an Old Question,” Patheos.com, accessed September 23, 2017, www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/03/was-karl-barth-a-universalist-a-new-look-at-an-old-question.

[iii] Lewis, The Great Divorce, 141.

[iv] All quotations from Julian of Norwich, Revelations of Divine Love, ed. Grace Warrack (Digireads.com, 2013).

[v] Seventh revelation

[vi] Hanson, 32.

[vii] Barclay, 65–67.