What the Bible really says about heaven, hell, judgement, death, and salvation

Please note that I’m including many of my scriptural references in the links — which are the underlined words throughout the article — so please be sure to click them as you go.

Before getting started, I should warn you that this is an extremely long and detailed article. It was necessary to make it as long as it is in order to cover every passage of Scripture that might be relevant to this particular sort of study of soteriology (which is the theological label for the study of salvation). I know that it will be tempting for those who are impatient to simply skim the article, or to just search for specific passages they want to know my interpretation of, but it’s very important that you read this article from beginning to end extremely carefully (as well as that you read the various scriptural references I link to carefully, and that you do so not assuming you already understand what they’re talking about) or else you’ll almost certainly miss an important detail which is necessary for you to be aware of in order to truly understand what the Bible teaches about this topic. I realize it may sound arrogant for me to say this, but there’s a good chance that carefully reading this article all the way through to the end will be the most important thing you’ve done in your life so far, at least from a spiritual perspective. And while you will almost inevitably feel discomfort when you read certain things in this article that contradict what you’ve been brought up to believe, please don’t give up part way through. Because even if you don’t agree with the conclusions I’ve come to after reading it all, it will still be worth it to read the whole thing, even if only to be better versed in what arguments might and might not work with those who believe similarly to me when it comes to discussions about heaven, hell, judgement, death, and salvation.

I should also say, I wanted to be able to reach all Christians with this article, at least all Christians who hold to Sola scriptura, and in order to reach both King James Bible Believers (sometimes also referred to as KJV-Onlyists) as well as Christians who aren’t fans of the way the KJV renders certain passages, I’ve used the King James Version of the Bible for all my scriptural references in this article, but I also look at what the original Hebrew and Koine Greek literally said in places where other translations might differ from the KJV as well, in order to demonstrate that Scripture in its original languages doesn’t contradict the conclusions I’ve come to at all.

When considering the meaning of passages in the Bible, it’s very easy to unintentionally read one’s preconceived theological beliefs into the passages (this is what’s known as eisegesis) rather than determining the actual meaning of the text in question through careful study (which is what’s known as exegesis). This generally occurs because one has heard people they trust tell them that certain doctrines are true, and if they assume their teachers can’t be mistaken themselves, they rarely bother to look into the context of the passages they’re considering, and will just assume the text they’re reading proves that the doctrines they’ve been led to believe in are indeed correct (as the old saying goes, a text read out of context is just a pretext for a proof text). Because of this, they’ll rarely bother to compare these passages to the rest of the Bible either, in order to make sure the doctrines they’ve been taught aren’t contradicting other parts of Scripture. But even when they do try to dig a little deeper, most people also tend to be unaware of the difference between the absolute and relative perspectives of certain things mentioned in the Bible, which means they aren’t aware that the same word or concept doesn’t always mean the exact same thing every time it’s used in Scripture, and this can lead to all sorts of confusion when trying to interpret the Bible as well. As an example of this important hermeneutical principle, we know from Romans 3:10 that nobody is righteous, and yet Luke 1:5–6 tells us that Zacharias and Elisabeth were both righteous, and the solution to this apparent contradiction is to realize that, from an absolute perspective, no mortal human has ever been truly or completely righteous on their own, but from a relative perspective, meaning compared to other people in this case, some people can be said to be righteous, because they’re more righteous than other people around them. As another example, Ecclesiastes 11:3 tells us that the rain comes from clouds, while 1 Kings 17:14 says that God sends the rain, and we can understand that both of these statements are equally true when we recognize that God is the ultimate origin of rain from an absolute perspective (since all is of God), even while the clouds are the origin of rain from a relative perspective. And so, with all that in mind, I’m now going to take you through a number of the passages that are most commonly cited when discussing the topics of heaven, hell, judgement, death, and salvation, looking at what they actually say very closely, so that we can determine what the Bible really teaches about these things, because it’s very likely that you’ve been taught some unscriptural ideas about what all of these words mean. As you read this article, please try your best to (at least temporarily) lay aside any assumptions you’ve already made about what these particular passages mean, in order to make sure you’re not letting any presuppositions colour your interpretations of the passages as we consider them.

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. — Matthew 18:8–9

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. — Mark 9:43–48

The most popular soteriology within Christianity is the idea that anyone who doesn’t choose to “get saved” before they die will end up suffering without end in an inescapable place called hell (sometimes also called the lake of fire), and these two parallel passages are among the most popular verses to quote in order to prove this doctrine. If you read them over closely, though, you should notice a distinct lack of having to choose to accept Jesus as one’s personal Saviour in order to avoid ending up in the version of hell that Jesus warned about in these passages (I say that because there are multiple different concepts and places referred to as ”hell” in the KJV, and they’re not all talking about the same thing), or anything else that most Christians assume one has to choose to do in order to avoid hell for that matter either, so they’re already pretty problematic for anyone trying to use them to defend the traditional doctrine, since the method of avoiding hell in these passages seems to be bodily mutilation (or at least doing whatever one can to avoid sinning, if we’re reading them figuratively) as the method of avoiding this hell fire. And if the most common soteriology is correct, neither bodily mutilation nor avoiding sinning can help anyone avoid the outcome most Christians believe is inevitable for those who don’t get saved before they die, because by the time someone has heard or read that warning they’ve already sinned at least once in their life (which guarantees them a one-way ticket to never-ending torment in “hell,” or at least in the version of “hell” that most of them believe in, if they don’t choose to do what most Christians believe is necessary to choose to do in order to get saved and avoid that particular “hell”), making this warning far too late for basically everyone. And so, this passage is already conflicting with the common soteriology of most Christians right from the beginning. (Unless, perhaps, you don’t believe in “eternal security” and believe one could lose their salvation, but the problem is, in most cases Jesus wasn’t talking to people who were “saved” yet, at least not according to the way most Christians understand the word “saved,” so there’s no way any of His listeners could have possibly understood Him to be talking about losing salvation, which means there’s no good basis for interpreting these warnings as simply being solely about losing salvation either.)

But that’s not all. There’s another factor here that almost nobody ever considers when reading these two passages either, and this is the fact that there’s nothing in the text which tell us anyone will actually remain in the hell fire Jesus warned about in those passages. Yes, they say that the fire is “everlasting,” but they don’t say that the time spent in said hell fire will be never-ending, and insisting that these two passages mean any humans will be trapped in said fire without end requires one to read their doctrinal presuppositions and assumptions into the text.

On top of that, even though Jesus called the fire “everlasting,” this doesn’t actually mean the fire can’t possibly ever go out. This might sound strange at first, but this comes down to the fact that the English terms “everlasting,” “eternal,” and “for ever” are figures of speech which almost never literally mean “without end” or “never ending” when they’re used in less literal English translations of Scripture such as the KJV. For example, in Exodus 21:6 we read about servants who choose to remain in servitude rather than going free on the seventh year, as was their right: “Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.” If we interpret ”for ever” (or the word עוֹלָם, which is the Hebrew word that “for ever” is translated from in this verse) as literally referring to a ”never ending” period of time, it would either mean that the servant (or slave) in question can never die, or that the servant will have to remain in bondage to his master without end, even after both of their physical resurrections in the distant future (as well as in any afterlife, if one exists, in the meantime, even if they both end up in different places while dead or after they’ve been resurrected and judged at the Great White Throne). Since I doubt anyone believes either of these options to be the case, I trust everyone would agree that the “for ever” in this verse is actually a hyperbolic translation which really means “for a specific time period, even if the end date (the time of the servant’s death) is currently unknown,” which demonstrates that when we see the phrase “for ever” in the King James Bible, we can’t just automatically assume it means “without end.”

Of course, some Bible versions do say things like “for life,” or “permanently,” rather than “for ever” in this verse, but at the very least, you have to admit that the Hebrew word עוֹלָם doesn’t literally mean “without end” or “never ending,” which means that just because we see “for ever” in an English translation of the Bible (or even “everlasting,” for that matter, which is also translated from the same Hebrew word in most places in the ”Old Testament” books), it doesn’t mean we should automatically assume it means “without end” or “never ending” either, which is really all I’m getting at here. And since the word עוֹלָם is translated as αἰών (which is a singular Greek noun that literally means “age”), as αἰῶνας (which is a plural Greek noun that literally means “ages”), and as αἰωνίων (which is a Greek adjective that literally means “pertaining to an age or ages,” or “age-pertaining”) in the LXX (also known as the Septuagint) — which is the earliest extant Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (meaning the books of the Bible that are generally referred to as the “Old Testament”) — it’s extremely unlikely that these Greek words suddenly began to literally mean “never ending” when translated as “for ever,” “everlasting,” or “eternal” in English from the Greek Scriptures (meaning the books of the Bible that are generally referred to as the “New Testament”) if they don’t literally mean “never ending” when they’re used to translate the Hebrew word עוֹלָם in the LXX. And so it stands to reason that “for ever,” “everlasting,” and “eternal” are almost certainly figurative terms when translated that way from those Greek words in the “New Testament” books as well, and not only when translated that way from עוֹלָם in the “Old Testament” books.

However, I have had people insist that, even if the word עוֹלָם doesn’t necessarily mean “never ending” in an ontological sense, the word should still always be understood as meaning something along the lines of, “it’s going to be like this for as long as the thing or person in question exists.” The problem is, that assertion ignores the fact that עוֹלָם was translated other ways which contradict this conclusion as well, such as when it was rendered as “of old” in Deuteronomy 32:7, and to insist that the word absolutely has to be rendered in a more “perpetual” manner would also mean that verse would have needed to be translated as saying something along the lines of “remember the days that never ended,” or “remember the days that we’re still experiencing,” instead.

But is there any basis for my assertion that the word עוֹלָם doesn’t necessarily mean “without end” anywhere else in the Bible, or are those the only examples? In fact, that this word doesn’t mean “never ending” can be seen in many places throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. For example, Isaiah 32:14–15 says: “Because the palaces shall be forsaken; the multitude of the city shall be left; the forts and towers shall be for dens for ever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks; Until the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest.” Unless we’re meant to believe that Jerusalem will be left forsaken and desolate and never recover or be inhabited again, as verse 14 seems to say, yet which we know won’t be the case, we have to interpret that “for ever” as meaning a specific period of time again, just as we had to do with the previous example. And, indeed, verse 15 tells us when that “for ever” ends, stating that Jerusalem will be left deserted “for ever,” until the spirit be poured from on high.

And those weren’t the only passages to demonstrate that it doesn’t mean “never ending.” We also read about the fact that the Aaronic priesthood will be “everlasting” in Exodus 40:15 (with “everlasting” also being translated from עוֹלָם there), yet we know from Hebrews 7:14–22 that the priesthood of Aaron’s descendants is to be replaced by Jesus Christ, who will be “a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec” (and we know from 1 Corinthians 15 that even this new priesthood which is said to last “for ever” is eventually no longer going to be necessary; in fact, while the believing descendants of Isaac will reign as “kings and priests” during the 1,000-year period of time commonly known as the Millennium, there won’t be any priests on the New Earth — after the Millennium ends — at all because there won’t be any need for them with no physical temple in the New Jerusalem).

Similarly, in 1 Chronicles 16:17 we read, “and hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,” which seems to tell us that the Old Covenant can never come to an end and be replaced by a New Covenant because it’s said to be “everlasting,” but we know from other parts of Scripture that there will be a New Covenant for those in the house of Israel and the house of Judah, and that their Old Covenant in fact began to decay when Christ died (and will indeed eventually vanish away entirely, if it hasn’t already). So we can see that “everlasting” doesn’t necessarily mean “never ending” or “without end” when we read that word in the King James Bible any more than “for ever” does.

The translators of the KJV also demonstrated quite clearly that they didn’t believe עוֹלָם means “without end” in Ecclesiastes 12:5, where they used the word עוֹלָם to say “his long home” when referring to the time someone who is dead spends in the grave. Since we know that everyone who dies will eventually be resurrected to face judgement (or enjoy salvation) one day, nobody could ever be resurrected from the dead if עוֹלָם meant ”never ending” (interestingly, though, some Bible versions actually do translate the verse to say “eternal home,” telling us that the word “eternal” can be just as figurative in those versions as it is in the KJV, unless we’re to believe there’s no resurrection of the dead).

And with all that in mind, because עוֹלָם is translated as αἰωνίων in places in the LXX, and αἰωνίων is generally translated as “everlasting” or “eternal” in nearly every Bible translation that isn’t super literal, including the KJV (such as in that passage in Matthew we began with, where Jesus spoke of “everlasting fire”), this means the word “everlasting” (not to mention “eternal”) should be interpreted just as figuratively in most parts of the English translations of the “New Testament” books as it is in the “Old Testament” books, since not only would it make no sense for a Greek translation of a Hebrew word which doesn’t literally mean “never ending” to literally mean “never ending” itself, but also because there’s already an entirely different Greek word which actually does literally mean “never ending” or “without end” used in the Greek Scriptures anyway, which is the word ἀΐδιος (with “everlasting” in Jude 1:6 and “eternal” in Romans 1:20 being the only two instance of this word being used in the entirety of the Greek Scriptures), and if God really wanted us to understand that the various other things which were said to be “everlasting” or “eternal” in less literal Bible translations actually are “without end,” He could have inspired this word to be used instead of αἰωνίων in those cases to make it obvious.

Now, I could go on and on with example after example of things that were said to be “for ever” or “everlasting” that eventually ended in the Bible, but I trust it’s obvious by now that the translators assumed those who read the Bible are able to understand figurative language, and that they never intended for anyone to believe that “for ever” or “everlasting” should be interpreted as meaning “never ending” or “without end” at all when translated from עוֹלָם, αἰών, αἰῶνας, or αἰωνίων. For those of you who haven’t figured it out yet, though, “for ever” is really just figurative language that refers to “an age,” or to “a seemingly long period of time with a definite beginning and end” — similar to the way we still use the phrase today when we say things like, “I was stuck in that line for ever” — and, outside of the cases where it’s translated from ἀΐδιος (or from other words in the Hebrew Scriptures which, similar to the Greek ἀΐδιος, actually do mean “without end”), “everlasting” and “eternal” generally just mean “pertaining to an age or ages,” or, to put it in simpler terms, “long lasting,” and so nearly everything said to be “everlasting” or “eternal” in the Bible eventually comes to an end, just like the candy we call an Everlasting Gobstopper does. These words are quite clearly being used as hyperbole in most parts of the KJV and other less literal Bible translations, meaning they’re exaggerated expressions used for the sake of emphasis, and are not meant to be taken literally at all.

Many Christians will want to disregard all of the above, though, and will insist that the Greek word αἰωνίων still has to always mean “never ending,” in spite of everything we’ve already covered, but they need to take a look at 2 Timothy 1:9, which includes the word αἰωνίων in the original Greek. I bring this to your attention because the KJV renders this verse as, “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” with the words “before the world began” being translated from the Greek words πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων. Now, these words are obviously a figurative translation, since the original Greek words literally mean “before times age-pertaining” (“before the ages began,” basically — the translators of the KJV often used the word “world” as a figurative synonym for ”age” or “ages”), but either way, I’m not aware of a single Bible version that uses the word “everlasting” in this verse (there are a few versions that translate it with variations of the word “eternal,” but this is obviously meant to be read figuratively too, since the word “eternal” literally means “without beginning or end,” and you can’t have a time before something with no beginning), so this verse proves that one just can’t insist the word αἰωνίων absolutely has to mean “without end.” But for the sake of argument, let’s say you’ve decided to use the word “everlasting” in your own personal translation of this verse. The problem is, you’re still stuck with the fact that the original Greek says “times” rather than “time” in this verse, and you can’t have more than one period of time that doesn’t have an end, yet each of those “times” would have to be “without end” if that’s what αἰωνίων literally means. So no matter how you look at it, the word αἰωνίων doesn’t necessarily mean “never ending” or “without end.” At this point, some will insist that the context of the passage dictates whether this word should mean “without end” or not, and while there’s no good reason to assume that it ever actually does have that meaning when it’s used in the Greek Scriptures (regardless of whether it was or wasn’t used that way in other Koine Greek literature in the first century), that’s still a good way to approach any word in Scripture, and as long as you take the whole of Scripture into consideration when determining the context (so as to not end up contradicting other parts of Scripture), definitely go ahead and consider the context for the time being since, as we analyze this and other soteriological passages which use the word, you’ll soon discover it won’t actually make any difference at all when it comes to supporting the traditional doctrine anyway, especially in those first two passages we’ve been looking at, where Jesus only says it’s the fire that is “everlasting,” and not the amount of time that one spends in said fire.

Not only did Jesus not say that anyone would remain in this “everlasting” fire without end, however, He also didn’t say that anyone would even be conscious or suffering there, and so anyone who insists that the people Jesus said would end up in hell fire in this particular warning definitely will be conscious, or will remain there without end, is eisegeting their preconceived bias and assumptions into the text rather than exegeting the truth out of the text. Of course, the fact that He didn’t say anyone would be conscious or suffering, or would be in there without end, doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t be. It simply means we can’t determine these things based on these two passages alone, since they just don’t say one way or the other, but we can look to other passages in Scripture to find out. And this is where the passage in Mark comes in handy, because it gives us the key to finding the answer to this question (the mention of the “undying” worm and unquenchable fire gives it away). You see, these warnings by Jesus were actually references to a prophecy of Isaiah which talked about carcases — meaning dead bodies — being consumed by worms and by fire on a physical planet in the future, not to ghosts of dead humans who are suffering consciously in an ethereal afterlife dimension.

Yes, it’s technically true that the “worms” won’t die, but that’s because the “worms” referred to there are actually just maggots (which is what the Greek word σκώληξ, translated as “worms” in this verse, literally means), and maggots are simply larval flies which go through a process known as pupation and grow into adult flies, so they won’t die while still in their larval, “worm” form, but will instead grow up and lay eggs so that there are then more “worms” to consume more of the bodies in this location. And I should also say, the idea that something or someone “would not die” is used in various other parts of Scripture as well, but they did still eventually die, so it’s important to realize that this phrase doesn’t mean the thing said to “not die” never will, just that this figure of speech means it won’t die before it’s supposed to.

And while it’s also true that the fire won’t be quenched, to “not be quenched” is simply an expression which means the fire burning something won’t be deliberately put out, not that the fire can’t eventually go out on its own when the fuel source has been consumed. So just because the fire is said to “not be quenched” doesn’t mean that the fire won’t go out once all of the corpses there have been fully burned up, just like other things Scripture says will not be quenched but eventually stop burning, including the fire on the altar which was said “shall ever be burning” and “shall never go out” but is no longer actually burning, which is another good indicator that an “everlasting” fire doesn’t necessarily burn without end, and which also tells us that the word “never” doesn’t necessarily literally mean “can’t ever” when it’s used in the Bible either.

Of course, the fact that Jesus was referencing a passage from Isaiah about carcases tells us that these passages aren’t talking about anyone who is alive or suffering consciously, at least not if we’re taking the passage in Isaiah that Jesus was calling back to in that warning at all literally (and I see no reason not to, especially since there wouldn’t be new moons and sabbaths in an ethereal afterlife dimension that people are suffering consciously in), which means that we have no reason to believe that anyone suffers in this particular hell fire at all, or that the fire burning the corpses will never actually go out. It also tells us that this isn’t a warning about a version of hell which people experience consciously after they die (if there even is such a place), since it’s simply referring to what happens to certain dead bodies here on planet earth in the distant future (this warning was all very physical). So if there actually is a place called “hell” that people end up in as conscious beings after they die, we can’t look to passages that talk about this particular “hell” to describe or defend its existence. And neither can we look to these passages to prove that anyone will remain in hell without end either, since these two passages don’t claim anything of the sort.

But what was Jesus warning us about, then? Well, He wasn’t warning us about anything, because He wasn’t talking to us to begin with (unless, perhaps, you’re Jewish). It’s important to remember that, while He walked the earth, Jesus wasn’t talking about “going to heaven” as ghosts after one dies, but was instead talking about the kingdom of heaven coming to earth, specifically to Israel, as prophets such as Ezekiel prophesied (and the kingdom of heaven will have clear geographical boundaries when it comes fully into effect, from the Mediterranean Sea on the west to the Jordan on the east, with the northern boundary at Hamath, and the southern boundary at Kadesh, and it will also contain a new temple with some pretty specific dimensions, as Ezekiel also described; and I trust it’s obvious that those are locations on earth rather than in heaven). Simply put, none of the rewards or punishments that Jesus either promised or warned His audience about had anything to do with an afterlife; they were all to be experienced right here on earth, even if some of them might not be experienced until after one has been resurrected from the dead. In addition, Jesus’ earthly ministry and messages were specifically to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” and not to Gentiles, as He told His disciples in Matthew 15:24. His death for our sins, burial, and resurrection on the third day aside, His earthly ministry was basically about confirming “the promises made unto the fathers,” which were primarily promises for the circumcision (meaning for Israelites) as Paul wrote in Romans 15:8. This means that basically all of the rewards and judgements Jesus spoke about — including His warnings about hell — not to mention the majority of the other teachings He gave, were pretty much only relevant to Israelites (with the judgement of the sheep and the goats being one of the only significant exceptions, since He specifically said it‘s a judgement of the nations in that passage, and that the judgement will be based on the way certain Israelites are going to be treated by Gentiles in the future, which makes this passage a rare case of a statement He made that doesn’t apply to Jews and other Israelites). This is also connected with the fact that the words “salvation” and “saved” have many different meanings in different parts of Scripture, which is something extremely important to be aware of. This is too big a topic to go too into depth on here (although I encourage you to use a concordance to dig deeper, since those two words have a lot of different meanings, depending on the context of the passage they’re used in), but to put it simply, during Jesus’ earthly ministry, the type of salvation that He and His disciples taught about primarily involved getting to live in the land of Israel during the Millennium (as well as to reign over the rest of the world from Israel, if they are included in Israel’s first resurrection, or are “overcomers” during the Tribulation), and to keeping the law perfectly because the New Covenant will have finally come fully into effect for the house of Israel and the house of Judah. This sort of salvation was primarily for Israelites (although Gentiles can technically enjoy this type of salvation as well, if they fear God and do works of righteousness, as evidenced by Cornelius), and required one to believe that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah (Christ), as well as the Son of God, but it also required things like repentance, among other works that include baptism in water in the name of Jesus Christ (and there are multiple other types of baptisms when it comes to this type of salvation as well, including baptism with — or in — the Holy Spirit, as well as with fire, among others), following the commandments Jesus taught His disciples during His earthly ministry, confessing one’s sins when one slips up (then also forgiving others who sinned against them), and enduring to the end (of one’s life or of the period commonly known as the Tribulation, whichever comes first), and not everybody will experience this sort of salvation because not everyone will get to live in Israel during the Millennium, although one day even Gentiles other than Cornelius and members of his house will be saved in this way because of Israelites and their rise to prominence in the future.

Paul, on the other hand, taught about different types of salvation in different places. He sometimes taught about the same sort of salvation that Jesus and His disciples were teaching (especially when he’s recorded as preaching to Jews in the book of Acts, as well as when he discusses the salvation of Israel in his epistles), but most of the time he was either referring to being given an immortal body, and enjoying sinlessness because of that immortality (which is what salvation will be from a physical perspective for those who are saved from an absolute perspective), or to experiencing that particular salvation (immortality and sinlessness) before anyone else, while reigning with Christ in the heavens (which is what salvation is from a relative perspective, at least in part, and which isn’t a reference to a place the dead can enjoy living, as I’ll explain a little later), since the citizenship of those he wrote to is in heaven rather than in the land of Israel where the citizenship of the people Jesus preached to is located. Those of us who get to enjoy this sort of salvation are simply those who truly understand what it means — and also believe — that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day (at least from a relative perspective; the salvation Paul wrote about technically applies to all humanity from an absolute perspective, and everyone will eventually experience this salvation from a physical perspective in the future as well, although “every man in his own order,” but I’ll get into what these aspects of the salvation Paul taught about mean later in the article, and will be mostly focusing on this salvation from a relative perspective for now). This obviously isn’t something that anyone to whom Jesus and His disciples preached during His earthly ministry could have believed since, at the time they were preaching to the inhabitants of Israel, not even Jesus’ disciples understood that He was going to die (which means this isn’t something that Jesus’ audience members had to believe is true in order to avoid the type of hell He was warning about, since otherwise Jesus and His disciples spent three years preaching basically useless messages, considering this would mean they didn’t once explain how to actually be saved from said hell fire, and even His disciples couldn’t have been considered to be saved until after His death and resurrection — contrary to what Luke 10:20 seems to imply — if it were a required belief to avoid this particular hell, since not even they believed He was going to die or be resurrected until after they saw it all finally happen). And, unlike the requirements for experiencing the salvation that Jesus and His disciples taught about, this kind of salvation is entirely apart from any works. In fact, even if we don’t have any works at all, we can still be justified, which means that faith without works is not dead for us. Just to add some further details about this type of salvation, baptism for those who enjoy this sort of salvation isn’t in water (since there is only one sort of baptism for us, which is by the Holy Spirit, into the body of Christ, including into what He experienced in His body, such as His death — as opposed to the various different types of baptism for Israel that I already mentioned — and so this baptism, or immersion, is quite dry), and while forgiving others is still recommended for us, it isn’t required for us the way it is for Israel since we aren’t under law or required to do good works in order to be saved when it comes to our type of salvation the way Israelites are when it comes to their type of salvation (or the way Gentiles are if they want to experience the sort of salvation Jesus spoke about), and, in fact, we can be saved right now despite the fact that Israel is not yet a light to the Gentiles as they one day will need to be for Gentiles to be led to salvation.

The differences between those various forms of salvation also tells us how important it is that one doesn’t confuse those referred to as the body of Christ with those called the Israel of God (the words “and upon” in Galatians 6:16 mean there are two separate groups of people being wished peace and mercy by Paul in that verse; there’s no reason to think that Paul was actually saying, “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and, oh yeah, these people are also called the Israel of God,” especially in light of everything else he’d just finished teaching in that epistle, which means there are two separate groups being written about there — the first group being “as many as walk according to this rule,” referring to members of the body of Christ, and the second group being those known as “the Israel of God”), or else they’re likely to misunderstand how those different types of salvation are “attained” as well.

And so, with all that being said, what was Jesus warning about here? Well, He was warning His Jewish audience about the possibility of missing out on enjoying living in Israel when the kingdom of heaven begins there during the Millennium, pointing out that they might instead end up as a corpse in a valley outside Jerusalem (known as the valley of the son of Hinnom, more often referred to now as Gehenna, which is a transliteration of the word γέεννα that this particular “hell” was translated from in the Greek Scriptures, since γέεννα is the Greek translation of גֵיא בֶן־הִנֹּם, which is what ”the valley of the son of Hinnom” was translated from in the book of Jeremiah; and so, combined with we’ve already learned from what Isaiah said about it, we can see that this particular “hell” will be here in this physical universe rather than in an ethereal afterlife dimension, and will in fact be located in Israel, at least to begin with) to be burned up and devoured by worms in rather than being buried under the ground, which is another element of the threats of hell Jesus warned of, I should add, since to not be buried under the ground after one dies is a great dishonour for all Jews, and would be a grave threat for anyone who heard His warnings, or so I’ve been led to believe. I should also say, some people claim that Jews refer to Gehenna in a figurative manner to speak of a realm in which people will be tormented consciously after they die, so as to support their argument that Jesus was using this particular “hell” as a warning about what those who don’t get saved before they die will experience while dead, but there are a couple problems with using this argument. First, whether or not γέεννα was actually used figuratively at times to refer to a negative afterlife realm during Jesus’ time on earth, there’s nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures to indicate it should be used that way, so to claim Jesus meant it that way wouldn’t be an argument based on exegesis of Scripture so much as it would be an argument based on extrabiblical Jewish mythology, which isn’t something anyone should be basing their theology on, nor does it seem like something that the One who corrected people for teaching extrabiblical theological concepts as truth by saying things like “have ye not read…?” and “it is written…” would do. And secondly, we already know that the punishment which takes place in this particular hell will be “experienced” by physical corpses rather than by ghosts in an ethereal afterlife dimension, which means it has to be referring to that actual valley in Israel, so it really wouldn’t matter if some Jews in Jesus’ time were mistakenly referring to the valley figuratively in that manner anyway, since this fact tells us that Jesus wouldn’t have meant it that at all. It’s also important to remember that Jesus didn’t speak English, so when He made those statements, His listeners didn’t hear the word “hell” come out of His mouth, but rather literally heard Him say “the valley of Hinnom,” which they would have (or at least should have) known is going to be a place of future judgement, and those who understood Scripture would have realized that Jesus was connecting the warning of judgement in the book of Jeremiah to the warning about corpses in the book of Isaiah, letting them know where Isaiah’s prophecy would take place (at least prior to the creation of the New Earth).

Everyone Jesus spoke to desperately wanted to enjoy living in Israel when the kingdom of heaven finally begins there (and we know that Israel is where it will indeed be located in the future because Jesus taught His disciples about the things of the kingdom during the 40-day period between His resurrection and His ascension, and yet, just before He ascended into heaven, when His disciples asked Him if He’d be bringing the kingdom to Israel at that time, Jesus didn’t correct them on their apparently confused question by asking them, “Did I not just spend 40 days explaining that the kingdom will be in heaven?”, or even, “Did I not just spend 40 days explaining that the kingdom began when I was raised from the dead, and that you’re already living in it, or, rather, that it already exists within your bodies?”, but rather just said, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power,” which means He not only didn’t tell them that the kingdom was already fully in effect — although from a certain perspective it had been present for as long as He walked amongst them since the kingdom was “within them” at that time, meaning within the midst of the people of Israel, in the Person of its Messiah and future King — He also didn’t correct their understanding that the kingdom was going to be located specifically in Israel, which are things they should have really already understood if He’d actually just spent all that time explaining what the kingdom was really about and that it wasn’t going to simply be located in Israel). This means the idea that Jesus’ audience members might be dead during that time period, or that they might even end up weeping and gnashing their teeth because they’ve been forced to live in figuratively “darker” parts of the world when the kingdom first begins in Israel instead, would be a grave threat for them indeed (the fact that Jesus said many will be coming from the east and the west to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven also tells us that this is a reference to the kingdom of heaven on earth, after those patriarchs have been resurrected from the dead, rather than a reference to heaven itself, as does the fact that one could “enter into the kingdom of God with one eye,” as Jesus stated; and the “outer darkness” can’t be referring to hell, at least not the hell we’re discussing now, because that particular hell will be within the borders of the kingdom of heaven since it will be in a valley inside Israel, so it makes sense that being cast into the outer darkness would simply refer to being exiled from Israel during the Millennium if one happens to be alive at that time).

And before moving on, if we’re to believe that encountering a fiery judgement means being tortured without end, one needs to ask not only why Jesus then wrapped up this warning with a statement that “every one shall be salted with fire” in the very next verse, but also why the references to fiery judgements throughout the Hebrew Scriptures pretty much all referred to fire purifying Israel and making things right, and never to any Israelites being tortured without end in said fire, as well.

But what about the lake of fire? Doesn’t the Bible say that unrighteous sinners will be tortured consciously in the lake of fire, and that none of them can ever leave that location? Well, let’s take a look at what the Bible says about the lake of fire to determine whether that’s the case or not.

And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. — Revelation 20:7–10

This is the only passage in the Bible that suggests anyone will suffer without end in a location specifically referred to as the lake of fire, and I trust you noticed that it’s only the devil, the beast, and the false prophet who are said to be tormented there “for ever.” Yes, Revelation 20:15 does say that “whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire” too, but you’ll notice that it doesn’t say these people will remain in it “for ever,” or even that they’ll be alive while they’re in it (much less that they’d be suffering), and to insist that they definitely will be alive or suffering, or even that they’ll never leave it, is once again eisegesis rather than exegesis. (That’s not to say they won’t, but just like the two “hell fire” passages we just looked at, we can’t determine whether or not they will based simply on what that verse alone says.) And, of course, even if the references to “the beast” and “the false prophet” in these verses were talking about humans rather than just evil spirits who will possess certain humans during the Tribulation, we already know that “for ever” seems to be best interpreted figuratively anyway, so there’s no good basis for simply assuming that any of these beings will never leave there either. That said, “the beast” and “the false prophet” in this passage really can’t be references to humans since the humans who will go by those titles will be cast alive into the lake of fire, which means the lake of fire is going to exist here on earth, not in another dimension that ghosts exist in. But regardless of where its location will be, mortal humans tend to die when they’re set on fire (and there’s nothing anywhere in the Bible to indicate that the humans who will go by these titles will be immortal, which they can’t be anyway, since immortality for humans is always connected with salvation in Scripture), so the reference to “the beast” and “the false prophet” who are being tormented in the lake of fire pretty much have to be talking about the spirits who possessed them rather than talking about the actual humans who will also go by those titles.

This also means that if the warnings by Jesus about hell we covered were a reference to the future location of the lake of fire (which most Christians believe them to be, and which I actually agree that those passages were indeed referring to), since Isaiah told us that only dead bodies would be spending time in there (at least as far as its human inhabitants go), we can say with quite some certainty that no humans in the lake of fire will be alive or suffering in there, at least not for any longer than it takes for someone to die after being set on fire (although this would fit with what we know; the lake of fire is called the second death for a reason — if the “second death” could somehow be interpreted as a reference to some form of torture, with one’s supposed “spiritual death,” whatever that means, actually being their “first death,” it should actually be called the “third death” since almost everybody who ends up there will have also died physically at some point prior to experiencing this fate, and if one’s “first death” is actually a reference to their biological death prior to being physically resurrected for the Great White Throne Judgement rather than to this so-called “spiritual death” so many believe in, the second death would just be more of the same as the first death, which is biological death — which tells us there’s no good reason at all to interpret the “second death” as referring to being tortured in fire, but rather that it should simply be interpreted as meaning to literally die a second time in said fire).

As for why I personally believe that the lake of fire will be located in the valley of the son of Hinnom in Israel (at least during the Millennium), there are a couple reasons. The first is because I’ve noticed that the passage almost immediately prior to the reference in Isaiah to the undying worms and unquenchable fire is a statement that implies this will take place at least partly on the New Earth (although we have to keep the “mountain and valley” aspect of prophecy in mind, since we know that Jesus’ warnings were about the time period known as the Millennium, even if Isaiah wasn’t aware of that fact), and it seems unlikely that there would be two places for burning corpses on the New Earth (a place called “hell” and a place called the lake of fire) after the Great White Throne Judgement takes place. And similarly, we know that “the beast” and “the false prophet” will be cast into the lake of fire during the Millennium (well, technically right before it), and the similar point that it seems unlikely there would be two places for burning corpses in Israel in during the Millennium would apply here too, and so it does seem that the valley which Jesus is said to have referred to as “hell” in the KJV will indeed be the future location of the lake of fire.

Now, some people will probably bring up the fact that this passage also says “and ever” after the “for ever” part of the verse, but if “for ever” just refers to “an age” (or “a long period of time with a definite beginning and end”), as we’ve now learned it does, “and ever” in the KJV would really just be an emphasis on that “for ever,” simply making that period of time mean a really long period of time, but still with a definite end. Yes, some try to assert that the “and ever” part makes the passages actually mean “never ending,” but that’s nothing more than an assumption they’re making. The fact that ”for ever and ever” is translated from εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων in the KJV, which is a Greek phrase that quite literally means “for the ages of the ages,” and the fact that the word “age” quite literally refers to “a period of time with a definite beginning and end,” also tells us just how literally ”for ever and ever” should be interpreted. And for those who want to insist that “age” should be interpreted as “never ending,” take note that it’s plural “ages,” not singular “age,” in the original Greek, and you can’t have multiple periods of time with no end (not to mention the fact that αἰώνων is also translated as “ages” elsewhere in the KJV in reference to specific periods of time, and in pretty much every other Bible translation as well, so to argue that this word should always be translated as meaning “without end” is obviously not something that any Bible translator agrees with). The literal meaning of this Greek passage indicates that this is likely a reference to the doctrine of the ages (which is too big of a topic to get into here, but it’s generally accepted by those who understand this doctrine that biblical history and prophecy spans five specific ages, and that these ages all eventually come to an end), meaning it’s probably talking about the final, and greatest, two ages, which are a combination of the Millennium and the final age on the New Earth, prior to the end of the ages (this is made even more evident by the fact that the LXX translation of 1 Kings 8:6 — εἰς τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων — has a similar grammatical construction and is translated as “the most holy place,” or even “the holy of holies” in some Bible versions). But even if we ignored all that and decided for no good reason to interpret “and ever” as somehow turning the figurative “for ever” into a literal period of time with no end, the fact remains that we have absolutely no basis for believing any humans will even be conscious in the lake of fire, and this reference only applies to the devil, the beast, and the false prophet anyway.

Before moving on to the next passage, however, I should also point out that, in addition to the fact that we have no basis for believing any humans will be conscious or suffering in the lake of fire, or even for believing they’ll never be resurrected from their second death to go live on the New Earth at some point, there’s good reason to believe that not every human judged at the Great White Throne will even end up in the lake of fire to begin with. This might sound odd to most Christians, but John’s statement about those whose names aren’t written in the book of life ending up in the lake of fire would seem to be entirely unnecessary if there weren’t going to also be some people judged at that time whose names are written in the book of life, especially if the judgement itself were going to prove that they deserved to end up in the lake of fire, as most Christians assume will happen. And remember, this judgement isn’t about whether one has “gotten saved” or not (although those who are saved will get to avoid it, of course). Instead, John tells us in Revelation that the judgement people will face at the Great White Throne is going to be solely about their works (this also means that they’ll be judged based on whether their evil acts “outweighed” their good deeds rather than whether their actions were sinful or not, since not only are “evil” and “sin” two entirely different things — unless you believe that animals can sin — but also because sin was taken care of some 2,000 years ago by Christ), and that only “the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” Most Christians will claim that “the unbelieving” being the second category of people who are said to end up there proves anyone who doesn’t “get saved” before they die will end up in the lake of fire, but since John said this judgement is based on works, if ”the unbelieving” referred to those who didn’t “get saved,” it would also mean that believing is a work, which I doubt most Christians agree is the case. The fact that “the unbelieving” is the second category rather than the first — in a list of different categories of people who end up there — also tells us just how unlikely it is that John was simply referring to those who didn’t choose to ”get saved” before they die, since if everyone who fails to “become a Christian” is guaranteed to end up in the lake of fire, the rest of the list would seem to be entirely unnecessary to begin with (although it’s true that, while those in the body of Christ can’t lose their salvation, those Israelites who are given the sort of salvation Jesus and His disciples preached about while He walked the earth do seem to be able to lose their type of salvation, so perhaps the rest of the list technically applies strictly to them, but either way, “the unbelieving” can’t simply refer to those who didn’t get saved prior to their death, because otherwise it wouldn’t even need to be included on the list to begin with, since it would go without saying based on the fact that they were being judged at the Great White Throne in the first place). The fact that he also says “all liars” will end up in the lake of fire, when every single human who has made it to the age where they can communicate has lied at some point in their life, also makes the rest of the list entirely superfluous, I should add, if it means that everyone who has ever told a lie will end up in the lake of fire, as most Christians claim (it stands to reason that this simply refers to those who make a lifestyle out of habitual lying, such as certain politicians or religious leaders, for example, since otherwise the rest of the list just wouldn’t have been necessary at all). And so, I would suggest that it’s probably only the worst of the worst who will end up in the lake of fire, with everyone else, likely including most of your loved ones, continuing on to live on the New Earth, albeit in mortal bodies (at least to begin with). But don’t worry, this interpretation isn’t teaching salvation by works for those who might get to avoid the lake of fire after being judged at the Great White Throne, at least not the sort of salvation Paul taught about, because those who would avoid the lake of fire at this judgement wouldn’t actually get saved at that time, since A) they missed out on living in Israel during the Millennium, and B) they aren’t going to be quickened (which means to be given life beyond the reach of death, meaning to be made immortal, never to be subject to the corruption and humiliation of mortality again) when they go live on the New Earth — at least not right away — so this isn’t the sort of salvation which Paul taught isn’t by works, because that particular salvation is all about being quickened. All that being said, even if everyone who gets judged at the Great White Throne does end up in the lake of fire, we already know that it’s only the spiritual beings known as the devil, the beast, and the false prophet who are said to remain in the lake of fire “for ever and ever,” or who are said to be suffering in it, so there’s no reason to believe that anyone whose name isn’t written in the book of life can’t ever eventually be resurrected from their second death the way they were from their first death, and then go on to live on the New Earth (whether in a quickened body or otherwise).

A picture of the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is where the “hell” that Isaiah and Jesus warned about is located, as it exists today in Israel, which means that one can visit “hell” (and the future location of the lake of fire) today while still alive. Photograph of “hell” taken by Mark Hodge.

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. — Daniel 12:1–3

Now, the events of this passage do take place at least partly around the time of the Great White Throne Judgement (at least the negative part of it), but all it says is that some people will be resurrected to shame and “everlasting” contempt (this also means that nobody is dead in this passage, since they’ve just been resurrected, so it can’t be talking about a hell one is in after they’ve died, if such a place exists, nor can it be talking about the lake of fire, at least not if they’ll be alive at this time, since no humans will be alive in the lake of fire), and shame and contempt aren’t even remotely close to the same thing as torture in fire (and we’ve already determined that the word “everlasting” generally doesn’t mean “never ending” in the Bible anyway, especially when it’s translated from the Hebrew word עוֹלָם as it is here, and there’s no basis for assuming it does here that I’m aware of, outside of preconceived doctrinal bias towards it having to mean that, of course).

Before moving on, though, this seems like a good time to remind you that not once did the Hebrew Scriptures ever threaten never-ending torture (much less torture in fire) while dead, or even after one is resurrected, as a punishment for breaking the Mosaic law, or even for sin in general. At most, they threatened physical death for certain capital crimes (or, in the case of Adam, simply to “surely die,” which is obviously a figurative translation in the KJV since Adam didn’t physically drop dead the day he sinned, and since the literal meaning of the Hebrew מוֹת תָּמוּת is actually “to die shall you be dying,” it should be pretty clear that this particular warning just meant he would gain mortality leading to eventual physical death, at least if we don’t want to descend into the realm of contradiction and even absurdity — and while some like to point out that the account of Shimei in 1 Kings uses the same Hebrew expression to try to argue that it actually does mean to die in some way on the same day, based on the distance between Jerusalem and Gath, and the maximum distance a person can travel in one day, even on horseback, it seems extremely unlikely that Shimei was actually put to death on the same day he went out there, so Solomon almost certainly simply meant that Shimei would know he was basically signing his own death sentence, beginning the process of his death the day he left Jerusalem). And even if this passage in the book of Daniel had actually said that certain people will be tortured in fire without end while they’re dead (which isn’t what it says at all), or even after they’ve been resurrected, there’d never been a threat of a never-ending conscious punishment before that passage, so there’s no good reason to assume it was suddenly being proclaimed here centuries after the giving of the Mosaic law when no Israelite had ever heard of it before, and when the readers of Daniel clearly couldn’t have possibly understood it to mean that prior to Jesus’ statements about hell anyway (presuming we ignored the context of the warnings we learned from Isaiah, of course). You’d think that, at the very least, God’s chosen people would have been given a warning about something as horrific as never-ending torture (in fire, no less), not to mention be told who would be experiencing such a thing or why, or how to avoid it, for that matter, prior to Jesus (or even prior to Daniel) supposedly doing so. The fact is, not only was no Israelite ever warned about it (at least not that we see in Scripture, and we need to base our doctrines on what Scripture says), nobody prior to Israel was ever warned about it either, at least that we’re told of. Not even Adam and Eve were warned about suffering without end in a fiery place if they sinned, much less anyone who lived from their time to the time Daniel was supposedly warned about it. And even if to “surely die” was referring to the so-called spiritual death that many Christians mistakenly believe in, there’s no hint of being tortured in fire without end in that expression anyway. I say “mistakenly,“ of course, because “spiritual death” is actually a completely unscriptural and meaningless term (at least outside of the fact that those in the body of Christ died with Christ when He died, but that isn’t what Christians mean when they talk about the “spiritual death” of sinners) since, if our spirits could die, we’d drop dead ourselves; and if the term is simply a metaphor, then it isn’t actually “spiritual death” so much as “metaphorical death,” and if Adam only died metaphorically, this can’t be a metaphor for being separated from God, as some assume, because “in Him we live, and move, and have our being,” as Paul explained, so to be separated from God would mean to cease to exist, if that were even possible at all, and it can’t be a metaphor for ending up in the lake of fire either, because Adam didn’t end up in the lake of fire on the day he ate the fruit, so there’s just no good scriptural basis for interpreting these things the way most Christians have been taught to interpret them.

Besides, as I already mentioned, the passage in Daniel is talking about a physical resurrection on earth anyway. It wasn’t referring to a spiritual existence in an afterlife realm while dead at all. The negative part of this passage is referring to those resurrected to life at the Great White Throne Judgement before they’re either sent to their second death — when they’re tossed into the lake of fire to die a second time — or to their time paying off “the uttermost farthing” on the New Earth (which is a whole other topic that most Christians aren’t familiar with at all), so it seems safe to say that this isn’t actually talking about what most people have read into it, and that we should move on to the next passage.

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. — Matthew 5:29–30

This is just an earlier telling of the same warning Jesus gave in Matthew 18 that we already covered. The reason I didn’t include it along with that passage is because this one doesn’t refer to the duration of one’s time spent in hell (or, more accurately put, the duration of the existence of this particular “hell,” since the other passage technically didn’t mention the duration of one’s time spent there either), but everything I already said about that passage applies to this one too, so there isn’t really much to add to those comments here, although perhaps I should point out that Jesus said “thy whole body,” so Jesus’ warning about hell can only be referring to something that happens to physical bodies in a geographic location here on earth rather than to ghosts in an afterlife dimension, which lines up perfectly with what we’ve already learned from that prophecy about carcases in the book of Isaiah and from that prophecy about the valley of the son of Hinnom in the book of Jeremiah that Jesus was referencing with this warning.

Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. — Matthew 5:21–22

Jesus said this shortly before the last passage we just looked at, but you’ll notice that he didn’t say anything about being conscious in hell, or being there without end, so the same comments apply to this warning as well.

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. — Matthew 18:6

This passage doesn’t actually mention hell by name, but it precedes one of Jesus’ suggestions that people mutilate their bodies in order to avoid hell, so I wanted to mention it because these verses all seem to suggest that if people either kill themselves (or allow themselves to be killed) after committing a certain type of sin, or mutilate their bodies in order to avoid committing certain types of sins, they can avoid being punished in hell, which really doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Christian soteriology, at least not the soteriology of most Protestants, as I already mentioned. The simple truth is, any Christian who doesn’t take the method of avoiding being punished in hell in these passages literally can’t take the rest of the passages literally either if they want to remain consistent. At the very least, they have no basis for using these passages to defend their soteriology.

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. — Matthew 12:31–32

Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. — Mark 3:28–29

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. — Luke 12:10

These are parallel passages that are all talking about the same thing, the so-called “unforgivable sin.” The first thing to note is that none of these passages mention either hell or the lake of fire, so any assertion that not being forgiven for this sin means being tortured in hell or in the lake of fire is simply an assumption one is reading into these passages based on their presuppositions rather than based on what Scripture actually says. It’s also important to note that the passage in Matthew tells us how long “hath never forgiveness” as mentioned in Mark will actually last, which is this “world” and the “world” to come, and the word “world,” in the KJV, doesn’t always mean “planet” or “earth.” In many cases, including this one, it’s another figurative reference to an “age” (it’s translated from αἰών here — which is a Greek word that literally means ”age” — rather than κόσμος, which is the word that ”world” would be more literally translated from if one was referring to the planet earth), meaning “a long period of time with a definite end,” or sometimes simply referring figuratively to the zeitgeist — or the specific “spirit” — of a particular age, and there are at least two ages or “worlds” to come still, as Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:7 (note the plural “ages” in this verse). This is made even more obvious when you look at the original Greek in these passages, since οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι in Matthew 12:32 literally means “it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is coming,” and οὐκ ἔχει ἄφεσιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἀλλὰ ἔνοχός ἐστιν αἰωνίου ἁμαρτήματος in Mark 3:29 literally means “has not forgiveness for the age, but is in danger of age-pertaining condemnation.” This means that, while someone who is guilty of this sin won’t be forgiven in this world/age, or even the next world/age, there’s nothing in these passages that says they won’t be forgiven during the world/age after that (which, as those who are familiar with the doctrine of the ages believe, will be the final world/age, beginning with the creation of the New Earth, after both the final rebellion against Israel and God by Satan and the “goat nations” living in the “outer darkness” at that time, as well as the Great White Throne Judgement, have taken place), not to mention after the final world/age has concluded (as all ages will have to do, based on the definition of the word “age”). Which makes sense, considering it’s literally only an “age-pertaining condemnation,” which means the punishment will only last for the duration of specific ages (this age and the age that is coming), but will end after those particular ages have concluded.

Not only that, none of those parallel passages actually mention what the sentence or punishment actually is. You see, as the literal meaning of the passage in Mark should make clear, “damnation” only means “condemnation,” and is simply the verdict, not the sentence; neither eternity spent in a place called hell or in a place called the lake of fire is implicitly meant by the word “damnation” — all it means is “a verdict of guilty” — and since neither hell or the lake of fire are mentioned in any of these passages, to read never-ending punishment in hell or the lake of fire into those passages without a good reason to do so is simply eisegesis. But even if we did eisegete hell or the lake of fire into these passages, we already know that there’s no basis for believing any human is conscious in the lake of fire, much less that they’ll remain there without end, anyway, so that doesn’t help the traditional interpretation either. Besides all that, though, even if “hath never forgiveness” actually meant they wouldn’t eventually be forgiven (which it doesn’t necessarily mean, since it’s simply a hyperbolic translation of οὐκ ἔχει ἄφεσιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, which literally means ”has not forgiveness for the age,” so it’s only until the end of ”the age” — which, as those who understand the doctrine of the ages know, is a term that refers specifically to the Millennium — that they’ll definitely miss out on forgiveness, which makes sense considering what we’ve learned about just how literally the word “never” should actually be interpreted in the Bible), people don’t necessarily need forgiveness. That might sound like a strange statement, but there are two factors to consider here. The first is simply that someone who is condemned doesn’t require forgiveness in order for a punishment to end, because even today when someone is sentenced to a certain number of years in prison, they still leave the prison once they’ve served their time, even if they are never forgiven (and to assume that the sentence of those who commit the so-called “unforgivable sin” is without end is also nothing more than eisegesis, especially since we already know it only lasts for the next two “worlds,” or “ages,” and all ages, by definition, eventually come to an end). But the second thing to consider is that there’s actually something even better than forgiveness, and that’s justification. Forgiveness implies guilt, and just means that the forgiver is overlooking the guilt of the one being forgiven by not implementing a penalty for their crime (and said forgiveness can be revoked as well), whereas justification means “not guilty” to begin with, or “declared to be righteous” (it’s sometimes well explained as, “just as if I’d never sinned at all”; and it’s important to note that justification can’t be revoked the way forgiveness can be — at least not the sort of justification Paul wrote about, anyway — and there’s no reason to believe that a “not guilty” verdict by God could suddenly become a “guilty” verdict), so even if somebody does miss out on forgiveness entirely, justification is far superior to it anyway, and that passage doesn’t even hint at the idea that they won’t eventually be declared justified. On top of all that, though, it’s important to point out that nobody actually takes this passage literally anyway, at least not the version quoted in Mark 3 in the KJV. How can I say that? Well, because it says, “eternal damnation” in the KJV, and the word “eternal” literally means “without beginning or end,” and I doubt Jesus actually meant their condemnation would have no beginning, so this means that at least one word in that passage can’t be interpreted literally, so we might as well be consistent with what we learned about “for ever” and “everlasting” and treat this word the same way we now know we should be treating those words (especially since it’s translated from the same Greek word — αἰωνίων — that ”everlasting” is generally translated from anyway).

But if the actual sentence for the damnation isn’t specifically spelled out in those passages, what is the punishment for the condemnation that these passages are referring to? Well, there were various reasons one might end up experiencing this sentence, but there was basically only one ultimate punishment that Jesus ever threatened His Jewish audience with: missing out on getting to live in Israel during the Millennial Kingdom. But as big and bad a threat as that was for Jesus’ audience (and it was a pretty major threat for them), missing out on getting to enjoy life in Israel for that 1,000-year period wasn’t the end. Jesus said that “the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” to the chief priests and the elders of the people, but that doesn’t mean the chief priests and elders won’t ever go into the kingdom of God. In fact, they indeed will, just not until a point in time after the first group has already done so (He said “before you,” not “instead of you”). Please note that I’m not saying they’ll have been forgiven at this point, though. In fact, I’m willing to concede that they probably won’t have been forgiven, or even saved, at this point. But that’s okay because, as we’ve already covered, one doesn’t need to be forgiven once they’ve paid the penalty for a crime, and the penalty for this particular crime was simply to miss out on life in Israel during the Millennium and nothing more, at least based on every other judgement passage that quotes Jesus talking about Israelites missing out on salvation (and this type of salvation primarily had to do with getting to live in the kingdom of God in Israel during the Millennial Kingdom; it wasn’t really about life on the New Earth, for the most part, although anyone who experiences this salvation will get to enjoy life in the New Jerusalem as well, of course). Most Christians read all of the warnings Jesus gave as meaning certain people won’t ever go to heaven, but the fact is that pretty much nobody Jesus spoke to will go to heaven anyway, because their destiny isn’t in heaven but is instead in the kingdom of heaven. The fact that it’s called the kingdom of heaven has confused generations of people, but it isn’t the same thing that Paul talked about when he taught that the body of Christ will enjoy life in heaven in the future. You see, the term “the kingdom of heaven” in the book of Matthew is simply a reference to the kingdom of God when it begins on earth, specifically in Israel (it really just means “the kingdom from heaven”), not a reference to the heaven the body of Christ will enjoy, and it definitely isn’t a reference to a place that anybody who is dead goes to, since you have to be alive to enjoy life in the kingdom of heaven on earth (not to mention in order to enjoy life in heaven itself, as I’ll explain a little later).

Basically, there are people who will get to enjoy the kingdom of God when it begins on earth shortly after Jesus’ Second Coming, in the next world/age (this would include the tax collectors and prostitutes Jesus spoke of, among others), which is the time generally known as the Millennium. But after the Great White Throne Judgement, during the final world/age (which will be the world/age after “the world to come”), the kingdom will be located (at least to begin with) in the massive city known as the New Jerusalem, and it’s during this world/age that people such as the chief priests and elders, as well as those who “hath never forgiveness” will get a chance to enter the Kingdom (which refers to getting to enter the New Jerusalem; it isn’t a reference to simply living on the New Earth). Not everyone will get to do so until they’ve paid off “the uttermost farthing,” however. But when they have, they’ll also get to enjoy life in the kingdom of God (even if they missed out on the salvation Jesus spoke about, since they didn’t get to live in Israel during the period of time known as the Millennium). This doesn’t mean the salvation we’re concerned with is through works, though, because this has nothing to do with the salvation Paul wrote about at all. Nobody who goes to live in the New Jerusalem after paying off their debt on the New Earth will be made immortal at that time, which is what the salvation Paul wrote about was largely referring to (although they’ll likely remain alive, thanks to the fruit and leaves of the tree of life, but they’ll need to continue consuming the tree’s fruit regularly in order to remain alive — presumably on a monthly basis, based on Revelation 22:2 — so this isn’t true immortality, and hence isn’t the salvation Paul taught about), so you can stop worrying about the idea that I’m teaching salvation by works here, at least as far as the salvation the body of Christ experiences is concerned.

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. — Matthew 13:24–30

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. — Matthew 13:47–50

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. — Matthew 25:31–46

I’m covering all three of these passages together because I believe they’re all talking about similar judgements which occur around the same time, if not just being different tellings of the same judgement, and I’ve never met a single person who disagrees, so it seems safe to do so.

If you read those passages over without taking the time to break them down, and ignore the fact that neither hell nor the lake of fire are mentioned by name anywhere in any of these parabolic prophecies, it’s sort of easy to see why people might assume they’re talking about true believers going to heaven and non-believers ending up trapped in hell. But before jumping to any conclusions, we should really look at them a little closer, beginning with the first passage. At the end of His explanation of this parable, Jesus says the angels “shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Now think about this carefully. If the kingdom of heaven is an afterlife location which people go to when they die, as most Christians assume, and only Christians can go to heaven, as most Christians also assume, then how can the angels “gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity” if they’re not already in the kingdom? If the kingdom were a reference to the heavenly afterlife most Christians believe the saved end up in, they’d have to already be saved, not to mention dead, so is this parable saying that some people will become sinners in heaven some time after they die and then be cast out of heaven into hell? Obviously nobody believes this to be the case, but this just tells us that, similar to when they bring up the other passages they assume are about heaven or hell but which never use those specific words, they aren’t thinking things through very carefully.

So we know this is taking place on earth, not in an afterlife realm (and that when we read about “the kingdom of heaven” in the Bible, it’s not talking about a place one goes to after they die, but is instead a term that refers to something here on earth, which, as we’ve already learned, is a reference to Israel during the Millennium), which means the next step is to determine the identity of the “righteous/just/sheep” and the “wicked/them which do iniquity/goats.” Now, most people will quickly say that the sheep, or the righteous, represent true believers, and that the goats, or the wicked, are everyone else. As for when and where all this takes place, very few people have ever even considered that question particularly carefully, but while neither hell nor the lake of fire are actually mentioned in any of these passages, if people are being judged and going into fire for eternity, it must be talking about the Great White Throne Judgement and the lake of fire, right? But wait… are there going to be any true believers judged at the Great White Throne? As most Christians are aware, but seem to forget when they read these passages for some reason, there won’t be any true believers being judged at that particular judgement (those in the body of Christ will have already been “judged,” so to speak, over 1,000 years earlier, at the Judgement Seat of Christ, and will have been living in the heavens for all that time, while those in the Israel of God will have been living on, and reigning over, the earth that they inherited for the 1,000 years before this occurs, and there’s no reason to think that either group would be judged after the Millennium ends, especially since most of them will have been made immortal at this time, and immortality for humans is always connected with salvation in Scripture; besides, believers within the body of Christ will likely participate in judging those at the Great White Throne Judgement — Christ is the judge at that judgement, and it would take a very long time for one person to judge every single human being who ever lived, even if one excludes all those who have been saved, relatively speaking, so it makes sense that the rest of His body will assist Him here  — and no, this judgement doesn’t take place outside of space and time, but rather takes place in our physical universe after the dead have been physically resurrected into mortal bodies, which should be more obvious than it is to some, considering the fact that it’s technically impossible for anyone who isn’t God to be outside of space and time anyway, as well as that nothing can occur without space and time, so nobody could experience being judged if they weren’t existing within space and time), which means the sheep can’t actually represent true believers at all, can they? Not to mention, there’s no reference to a resurrection in any of these passages, which would be necessary to occur if these are about a judgement of everyone who has ever lived. Instead, one needs to take a look at the verse in Matthew 25 which says it takes place “when the Son of man shall come in his glory,” and look at the context of the rest of the chapter, as well as the chapter before it, which makes it obvious that it’s talking about the time immediately after Jesus returns to the earth at His Second Coming, so these passages must be talking about a judgement which takes place on earth among the living (and not the dead) at the beginning of the Millennium, shortly after the Great Tribulation ends, rather than the Great White Throne Judgement which takes place 1,000 years after He returns.

But if every single human living on earth is going to be judged and sent to heaven or hell for eternity immediately after the Tribulation ends (which would seem to be implied by the references to “life eternal” and “everlasting punishment” if we’re interpreting the passage the way most Christians do, and ignoring the fact that the Greek phrases ζωὴν αἰώνιον and κόλασιν αἰώνιον literally just mean “age-pertaining life” and “age-pertaining chastening,” which are temporal terms, and which tell us that “everlasting” and “eternal” are just as figurative here as they generally are in the KJV), that just brings up other problems. For example, who is going to live on earth for the next 1,000 years and reproduce, as Scripture says will happen during the Millennium (as well as on the New Earth, after the Millennium ends and our current planet is destroyed)? The Bible teaches that those who have been made immortal will be like the angels and will no longer marry or reproduce at that time, and if all the non-believers are going to be sent to the lake of fire to die a second time at that point, with everyone else being given their immortality at that time, that doesn’t leave anybody else to fulfill the prophecies about the New Covenant, or even the New Earth, that are supposed to take place after the Tribulation ends. It also wouldn’t leave any Gentiles to fulfill the many prophecies about the nations during the Millennial Kingdom, not to mention the fact that none of them will be left to rise up against Israel at the end of the Millennium one last time, as Revelation tells us the nations will, if all the non-believers are cast into the lake of fire at this point.

Not only that, but hopefully you’re also now beginning to wonder why there’s nothing in there about the sheep “asking Jesus into their hearts” or “accepting Jesus as their Lord and Saviour” in these passages (not that either of those are scriptural ways to be saved), or even about them believing that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, and also why it seems like salvation appears to be dependent upon being just or doing good works rather than being said to be by grace through faith. Most people just brush those concerns aside, however, because they “know” these passages have to be talking about what they’ve always been taught by their religious leaders that they are, and decide to believe, even though it doesn’t actually say so in the passages, that the reason for salvation in these passages (especially during the judgement of the sheep and the goats) has to be figurative and has to be talking about works as the fruit of faith rather than good works being the actual cause of the sheep’s salvation as that passage says they are when taken literally (and then push the thought that “many non-believers do the very things Jesus seemed to say would result in everlasting life while many believers don’t” to the back of their minds and try to forget that fact as well), because if one were to read it literally it would become obvious pretty quickly that it just can’t be talking about what one has always assumed it is at all (although one is then also forced to push the thought that, “if the cause of salvation and damnation is figurative, then there’s no reason to believe that the actual reward and punishment, or even their durations, aren’t also figurative,” to the back of their mind as well, but most successfully do so). But even if this could all somehow be twisted into meaning the sheep are true believers who will go to heaven for eternity, and the goats are non-believers who will go to the lake of fire for eternity (or if we ignore the fact that this passage takes place on earth among the living and not in some afterlife realm among the dead), we already know from what we’ve previously covered that there’s no basis for believing that any human is going to remain in the lake of fire without end (and that there’s no reason to believe any human is conscious in it either), so mangling the passage in such a manner doesn’t actually help defend the traditional doctrine anyway (especially in light of the literal meaning of the Greek word translated as “everlasting” here).

But as for what these passages are actually talking about, in order to figure this out, one needs to first be aware of certain passages in the Hebrew Scriptures which are the key to understanding the true meaning of being in a furnace of fire, such as Deuteronomy 4:20 which says, “but the Lord hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day,” or Jeremiah 11:4 which says, “which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God.” Those are only two of the many references in the Hebrew Scriptures to being judged in a figurative furnace, as well as to being “refined in a furnace,” none of which refer to spending time burning in literal fire in an actual furnace, but are basically talking about time spent exiled in parts of the world that aren’t Israel (no Christian believes the ”furnace” part of the parable is literal anyway, and if the ”furnace” in the warning isn’t a literal structure with fire burning inside of it, it stands to reason that the “fire” in the figurative “furnace” in this warning isn’t literal fire either). And so, what the first two parables are actually saying is that there will be righteous Israelites and unrighteous Israelites when Jesus returns, and some will wail and gnash their teeth because they’ve been forced to live in parts of the world that aren’t Israel during the Millennium (these parts of the world being referred to parabolically as “the furnace of fire,” also referred to in other passages as the ”outer darkness,” which we’ve already learned can’t refer to the lake of fire, since it will be located in a valley inside the kingdom), unlike the righteous Jews who will get to live in Israel during the Millennium (which is where everyone who heard Jesus when He spoke wanted to live when the kingdom arrives on earth in the future). It’s actually very simple to grasp once you come to understand who Jesus’ audience was and what His message was all about, but when you assume He was talking about an afterlife for ghosts in another dimension rather than the life and death which physical bodies on this planet “experience,” and think He was directing His message to everyone rather than specifically to Israelites, it’s easy to get extremely confused about all of His sayings.

As for the parable of the sheep and the goats, this judgement simply refers to certain Gentiles of the nations (based on Jesus’ statement that “before him shall be gathered all nations”being cursed for not being a blessing unto the least of Jesus’ brethren during the Tribulation period, which this judgement takes place immediately after (Jesus’ “brethren” obviously being a reference to faithful Israelites, presumably those who will be taken into captivity during the Tribulation, and not simply to random people who are suffering), by being forced to reside in figurative “darkness,” far from Israel and her Messiah, during the Millennial Kingdom (since Israel is where the kingdom of heaven will be located when it begins on the earth, those parts of the world far from the light of the King and His kingdom will be in “outer darkness,” as we’ve already covered), and to other Gentiles of the nations getting to live in Israel during the Millennium as a reward for blessing the faithful Israelites who were persecuted during the Tribulation. We know from Zechariah 14:16-21 that those not living in the kingdom of heaven at this time will be “every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem” at the end of the Tribulation, meaning the Gentiles who didn’t support Israelites during the Tribulation and hence won’t get to enjoy “life eternal” in Israel at that time, but who didn’t die at Armageddon since they presumably weren’t a part of the army that gathered against Jerusalem there. This, of course, means that the fire prepared for the devil and his angels isn’t any more literal than the “furnace of fire” is either, but rather it’s simply a figurative reference to the parts of the planet outside the kingdom of heaven that these people are sent to live in (the parts of the planet that are referred to as a “furnace” for exiled Israelites at that time), since people living in those parts of the world — or at least their descendants who don’t get saved during the Millennium, one thousand years later — will give in to temptation by Satan to rise up against Israel one last time at the end of the Millennium (this is why the fire is referred to figuratively as “everlasting,” because it’s literally “age-pertaining,” in that it lasts for the entire age known as the Millennium, and so none of those Gentiles who are considered to be cursed will get to live in the kingdom of heaven in Israel throughout that entire age).

And don’t worry, this interpretation isn’t teaching salvation by works for us either, because this passage isn’t actually talking about the sort of salvation Paul taught about, since the “sheep” aren’t going to be quickened when they go live in the kingdom, at least not right away, so this isn’t the sort of salvation which Paul taught isn’t by works.

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. — 2 Thessalonians 1:7–10

This passage is obviously also talking about Christ’s Second Coming (compare the details of verse 7 here to the details mentioned in Matthew 25:31 if there’s any doubt in your mind), which means that what I’ve already written about “fire” in the last few passages I covered applies to this passage as well. Paul was simply pointing out the sort of punishment some of those who will be alive at the time Jesus returns will have to endure, and it’s just as figurative as when Jesus spoke about it. Besides, almost no Christian takes the word “destruction” in this verse literally (since most interpret this word as a figure of speech referring to being tortured in the lake of fire without end), and if that word is figurative and not literal, there’s no good reason to believe that the word “everlasting” before it is any more literal than it is (especially since we already know that it doesn’t really seem to be meant to be taken that way anyway).

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. — Matthew 10:28

Notice the word “destroy” there, which, just like the word “destruction” in the last passage, we have no basis for interpreting figuratively in the manner most Christians do (in the sense that to be “destroyed” somehow figuratively refers to suffering without end in the lake of fire). I’d argue that it makes far more sense to interpret it in a way that lines up with what Jesus was actually teaching throughout His earthly ministry: about the kingdom of heaven beginning in Israel in the future, and how to either get to live there during the Millennium or end up missing out on it at that time. With that in mind, I’d suggest that this verse is simply saying that Jesus’ Jewish audience at the time He gave the warning (along with those Israelites who live through the Tribulation) should not fear men who might kill them for their faith, because God will still resurrect them to live in the kingdom of heaven when it begins on earth if that happens. But if they die without that faith, on the other hand, God will not resurrect them at that time, which means they’d miss out on the greatest desire of their soul (this is what the figurative language of having one’s soul destroyed means), which for anyone listening to Jesus would have been (or at least should have been) to get to live in that kingdom when it begins in Israel in the future. Like Judas, it would have been far better for them to have died in the womb or in childbirth than to have been born at all, since babies who aren’t born are far more likely get to live on the New Earth than Judas or any of those who will be cast into the hell Jesus warned about are, at least during the final age.

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. — Matthew 10:32-33

This statement almost certainly has to do with who will get to be resurrected to live in Israel during the Millennium vs who won’t be, based on the last passage we just looked at (which was stated just moments before this one), and doesn’t tell us anything about what happens to anyone after the Millennium ends, so it doesn’t really help support any soteriological doctrine.

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? — Matthew 23:33

All this verse says is that the Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking at the time will be condemned to hell, although not until after the Great White Throne Judgement, since the ”hell” translated from γέεννα, which is the word Jesus used here, hasn’t even begun burning yet, and they won’t be resurrected until after the Millennium. It doesn’t say they’ll be in this particular hell without end, though, nor does it say they’ll be conscious while they’re in it (which we know from what we’ve already learned that they won’t be), so this really isn’t a helpful verse for anyone trying to teach never-ending torment in hell.

The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? — Isaiah 33:14

I’m sure it should go without saying, by this point, that the “devouring fire” and “everlasting burnings” can’t be referring to hell. For one thing, as we’ve already covered, nobody who heard or read this warning at the time it was given could have possibly interpreted it as referring to hell, since no location translated as “hell” in any version of the Bible had ever been described that way in Scripture yet, and this verse doesn’t even mention hell, so there’s no way anyone could have made a connection between this particular “fire” and any version of “hell” back then. So what was this talking about? Well, the first thing to note is that it’s a reference to specific sinners in a specific location — Zion — telling us that this is a judgement specifically meant for Israel, and the fire is simply a figure of speech for certain judgements of God against Israel. Why does God use fire as a symbol of judgement? Because the judgement comes directly from Him, and God Himself is referred to as a consuming fire (and I hope you don’t believe that God is hell, or the lake of fire, Himself, which He can’t be since we already know that that the lake of fire will be located in a valley in Israel). The Hebrew Scriptures are full of examples of this symbolism being used to refer to judgements of Israel, so to assume this one verse is a reference to the lake of fire is just reading one’s preconceived doctrinal bias into the text. But the question does remain, who among Israel shall be able to dwell in the “fire” when God judges Israel? Well, the answer to that question is given in the very next verse“He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil.” Those Israelites who walk righteously will be able to dwell among the fiery judgements themselves without being devoured, yet we know the righteous won’t be cast into the lake of fire, so it should go without saying that this verse was never talking about the lake of fire to begin with.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. — Matthew 7:13–14

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. — Matthew 7:21–23

Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last. — Luke 13:23-30

Of course, there’s nothing about hell or the lake of fire in these passages, but they’re quoted so often to defend never-ending punishment that I thought I should include them regardless. That said, based on everything we’ve covered so far, you should really be able to interpret these for yourself by now. But for those who do need an explanation, Jesus is simply talking about certain people who won’t be allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven, which just refers to Israel during the Millennium, because they’ve continued to sin during their lives (this also makes it clear that this isn’t a warning for members of the body of Christ, because there is no condemnation for us, and nothing can separate us from the love of God, not even sin, since where sin abounds, grace much more abounds). He isn’t talking about ghosts not being allowed to live in an ethereal afterlife realm called heaven when they die, and He likely isn’t even talking about unbelievers (I’d think that anyone who can do the things in His name that the people He was condemning were able to do are probably believers, but it wasn’t lack of belief He condemned them for anyway; rather, it was for their iniquity). Jesus’ statement that many “shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God” in the passage in Luke also confirms that this all takes place on earth. So, in answer to the disciple’s question, yes, there are few that will be saved, at least when it comes to the sort of salvation Jesus preached about during His earthly ministry. This doesn’t mean they can’t later experience the sort of salvation Paul taught about, though (especially from a physical perspective), because it’s an entirely different sort of salvation, which we’ll discuss in detail later in this article.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. — John 14:6

Like the last passage, this one doesn’t mention hell or the lake of fire either, but I thought I should quickly cover it as well. Aside from the fact that Jesus was talking to Jews in this verse, which tells us that it’s technically about the sort of salvation Israelites were looking forward to (which, again, involves getting to live in Israel during the Millennium, not “going to heaven” as ghosts after one dies), if anybody comes to the Father after the Millennium, it would still be “by” (or “through”) Christ.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. — John 3:16

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. — John 3:36

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. — 1 John 5:12

Every single Christian out there already interprets basically every part of these passages extremely figuratively, reading “going to heaven” into the word “life,” and “suffering without end in hell” into the word “perish,” for example. Based on everything I’ve written above, though, it should really be quite clear by now to anyone who has been paying attention that these verses are simply saying that those Israelites who don’t “believe on the Son” won’t get to enjoy life in Israel during the Millennium (and while it’s too big of a tangent to dig into the details of it right now, references to “the world” in the writings of John that aren’t talking about specific ages are generally, if not always, referring to “the world” of Israelites, not the whole planet or every human to ever live). And what does it mean for an Israelite to believe on the Son? Well, it simply means to believe that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah (or Christ) and the Son of God, as John also wrote in John 20:31 (and I trust you noticed the lack of having to believe that “Christ died for our sins in that verse which tells John’s Jewish readers exactly what they have to believe in order to have “life through his name,” and have figured out that this is because that particular belief wasn’t necessary to experience the sort of salvation Jesus spoke about during His earthly ministry, realizing that John certainly would have included it in that list of things they have to believe in order to experience the sort of salvation John was writing about if it actually was a necessary thing for his readers to believe in order to experience the sort of salvation he was writing about, since it wouldn’t make sense for him to leave out such a crucial detail of what his readers needed to believe to have life if that was the main reason he wrote the book, as he claimed it was in that verse).

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. — Romans 10:9–10

Similar to the above passages written by John, misunderstanding what Paul wrote in this passage has caused a lot of confusion and consternation among many people, and has also led to some pretty bad doctrines (such as “Lordship Salvation,” as just one example). As I’ve already said, however, there are different types of salvation, and different ways of experiencing “everlasting life.” Basically, anyone to whom God has given the faith to truly believe that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day will experience “everlasting life” in the heavens (rather than in Israel, which is where those who experience the salvation Jesus preached about will enjoy their “everlasting life”). This means that, while it isn’t the choice to believe in Christ’s death for our sins, as well as His subsequent burial and resurrection, that saves someone (our relative salvation is based on God’s sovereign election of those of us in the body of Christ long before we were even born, and has nothing to do with any decisions we make at all; which isn’t to say we don’t make decisions, but the decisions we make are all determined beforehand by a combination of our nurture and our nature — meaning the life experiences and genetics  that have caused our brains to be wired in the way that causes each of our individual brains to make the particular decisions they end up making — not to mention by God Himself), if someone does truly understand what it means, and also believes, that He did die for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, they are among those whom God has elected for membership in the body of Christ, and will get to enjoy “everlasting life” in the heavens after the event generally referred to as the Rapture. One thing you’ll notice that Paul didn’t say his readers did when they were saved (relatively speaking), however, is confess Jesus as Lord (or “confess the Lord Jesus”), and yet verse 10 of Romans 10 seems to make it clear that the salvation written about there is based on confession. Now, this doesn’t mean that Jesus isn’t Lord to us, of course, since we’re told elsewhere that He is, but His Lordship isn’t something Paul said his readers confessed at the time they were brought into membership in the body when he explained what they did when they were saved (nor did he say it’s something that they or we have to confess in order to be brought into the body; in fact, it’s simply having faith that he considers to be the important thing we do, as he makes clear all throughout the rest of his epistles, so there’s no good reason to take this one reference to confession being necessary for salvation that happens to be sitting in the middle of a series of chapters which were primarily about Israel and their salvation and applying it to us, especially when it would contradict everything else we know about our salvation).

Likewise, while Romans 10:9–10 says that someone who experiences the salvation that confessing the Lord Jesus and believing God raised Him from the dead brings will indeed believe God resurrected Jesus (just as those in the body of Christ believe), which means they would obviously also have to believe that He died (just as those in the body of Christ also believe), there isn’t anything in that verse about His death being “for our sins,” which is a crucial part of what we believe when we’re saved. The most important part of the belief connected to the sort of salvation Paul is talking about in Romans 10 is Jesus’ resurrection, not His death for our sins. It might not seem like it, but these are important distinctions between these two different sets of belief here.

As I’ve already alluded to, something we need to keep in mind is that Romans chapters 9 through 11 are primarily about Israelites (they aren’t 100% about Israelites, but Israelites are the main focus of those chapters, including in the passage in question), and Paul’s point about confessing and believing in that passage was connected to what Israelites have to believe in order experience the sort of salvation John wrote about, which is that Jesus is the Christ, meaning Israel’s  Messiah, and that He is the Son of God. This sort of salvation/“everlasting life” has nothing to do with the salvation Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 15, nor does it have anything to do with residing in the heavens during the impending ages, but is actually about getting to live in the part of the kingdom of God that will be on planet earth, meaning living in Israel  during the Millennium. Belief that Christ’s death was “for our sins” wasn’t a requirement for salvation in any message that Jesus or anyone else preached prior to Paul proclaiming that it was necessary to be believed to be considered a member of the body of Christ, and Jesus’ resurrection was only an important part of what they had to believe inasmuch as it proves He’s still able to be their Messiah because He’s no longer dead (with the confession part being connected to Him being the Son of God).

So don’t worry if you haven’t verbally spoken the words “Jesus is Lord” (especially if you physically aren’t able to speak and, as such, can’t verbally proclaim anything). One day you, and everyone else, will, of course (and remember, nobody can call Jesus Lord apart from the Holy Spirit leading them to do so). But in the meantime, the only way to experience the salvation Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 15 (at least from a relative perspective) is for God to choose to give you the faith to understand and believe what it means that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day.

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. — Matthew 18:3

Just like all the other passages we’ve covered, there should be no reason for me to point out that there’s no mention of hell or the lake of fire in this verse either, and I shouldn’t have to repeat that Jesus was simply talking about not getting to live in Israel during the Millennium when He said certain people would not enter the kingdom of heaven unless they’ve been converted, so I’ll just leave it at that.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. — Romans 6:23

This verse is extremely misunderstood, and is almost always taken completely out of the context of the rest of the section that it’s in, but just like the last few passages we covered, this verse doesn’t mention hell or the lake of fire directly, so one has to read the idea of never-ending torment in hell into the word “death” here if they want to continue believing in such a thing, which by now should be clear that there’s no basis for doing anyway, since the concept doesn’t even exist in the Bible to begin with, at least not in any of the passages we’ve looked at so far. As for what the verse is talking about, it would take a long study of Romans chapter 2 all the way through chapter 8 to really get into it, but to put it very simply, Paul is basically using this as a metaphor for the ongoing results of his readers continuing to allow sin to reign over themselves while they’re alive (“death” is just as metaphorical as “wages” is here, which is something that most Christians already agree with me on, even if they aren’t aware of what it’s actually referring to). What’s important to note is that Paul wasn’t talking about unbelievers in this part of Romans, but rather about members of the body of Christ who haven’t fully reckoned themselves to be dead to sin yet, meaning they’re still allowing sin to reign over them because they’re still having confidence in the flesh and are actively trying not to sin — which is what it means to “obey it in the lusts thereof,” since walking after the flesh is compared to allowing sin to “have dominion over you” because you’re still following the law, with walking after the spirit being compared to being free from law, which would include being free from any of the religious rules that some Christians insist we follow as well (the reason we don’t follow the Mosaic law isn’t because there’s anything wrong with the specific rules in the law themselves; the commandment against murder is not a bad rule, which means that it isn’t simply the specific rules in the Mosaic law we aren’t supposed to follow, but rather it’s religious rules in general that we aren’t supposed to follow, because trying to follow religious rules like the Mosaic law simply leads to more sin and death, and yes, this definitely includes the 10 Commandments, as Paul made clear by referencing the 10th commandment when he wrote Romans 7:7 as a part of his teaching that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be placed under any parts of the law at all) — rather than simply trusting that Christ will live the life He wants us to live through us, doing the things God wants us to do and avoiding the things God wants us to avoid Himself through us. Of course, he also contrasts this metaphorical “death” with the freedom of “eternal life” that one can experience instead, and this “eternal life” is just as figurative as the “death” in this verse is (I’ll get more into what “eternal life” actually means for Paul’s readers shortly, but it doesn’t mean what most Christians have assumed it does either, which should make sense considering how figuratively we now know we should be reading the word “eternal” in Scripture to begin with, not to mention considering how “eternal life” simply means getting to live in Israel during the Millennium when it comes to those who don’t experience the sort of salvation Paul primarily wrote about).

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. — 1 Corinthians 6:9–10

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. — Galatians 5:19–21

Inheriting the kingdom of God in these passages should not be confused with salvation, at least not salvation from an absolute perspective. Paul was writing to members of the body of Christ who were already saved, and who couldn’t lose their salvation no matter how hard they tried, so the inheritance here was simply about reigning with Christ. It couldn’t have been about salvation for those in the body of Christ because our salvation isn’t based on our actions — even if we stop believing in Him for some reason, He’ll remain faithful to us from a salvation perspective since He can’t disown, or deny, Himself, and the body of Christ is now a part of Himself. Now, it might be that we can lose out on reigning with Him by denying Him in order to avoid suffering, but either way, we still remain His body, and He won’t amputate and disown His own body parts, and body parts can’t amputate themselves either. So even if a member of the body of Christ doesn’t “inherit the kingdom of God,” they’ll still experience salvation from an absolute perspective. (Everything I wrote about Romans 6:23 also applies to these passages too, I should add, and reading the surrounding verses helps explain the context of these passages, but I don’t think there’s any need to add to this here since that’s a much bigger discussion.)

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. — Hebrews 9:27

While the context of the chapter this verse is in has nothing to do with what most Christians assume that particular statement means, the statement is still made, and Christians who believe in never-ending punishment love to quote it to prove their soteriology for some reason, so it has to be discussed. The problem with using this verse to prove never-ending punishment is we already know that many people will die a second time in the lake of fire, after they’ve been resurrected from their first death (and many people were resurrected throughout the Bible, as recorded in both the “Old Testament” and “New Testament” books, who later would have died a second time as well, unless you believe that Lazarus and everyone else who was raised from the dead throughout the Bible is still alive today), so whatever this verse means, it can’t be interpreted too literally. Also, just like many other passages we’ve covered, there’s no mention of hell or the lake of fire in this verse, and while we know that some people who are judged at the Great White Throne will end up in the lake of fire, not only do we now know that nobody will be conscious in it, we also now know that there’s no basis for asserting that anyone will remain in it indefinitely. And remember, being judged doesn’t imply that someone will be punished without end anyway. First of all, judgement can be a good thing, as many of the judgements of Israel mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures reveal. But second of all, many of the punishments based on negative judgements throughout the Bible eventually ended (or were promised to be reversed in the future), so we have no basis for simply assuming that doesn’t apply to the judgement referred to in this verse either.

These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. — 2 Peter 2:17

I’m not going to get into all the details of this particular passage, because it’s enough to point out that the sinners in question aren’t literally wells, nor are they literally clouds, and I doubt anyone believes that hell or the lake of fire are full of literal mist, so the “for ever” here should be taken about as literally as the rest of the verse (and about as literally as the other times it’s used in the Bible that we’ve covered as well), and we can’t really use this verse to prove any particular soteriology.

I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. — Jude 1:5–13

The everlasting chains in this passage don’t help defend any soteriology, because this passage tells us they only lock up the fallen angels until (“unto”) their judgement (although, interestingly, this is one of the only two instances in the entirety of the Greek Scriptures where the words “everlasting” or ”eternal” can be said to actually have been translated literally in the KJV, since the word “everlasting” in verse 6 is translated from ἀΐδιος, which actually does mean “never ending,” as mentioned previously). And the reference to Sodom and Gomorrha suffering the vengeance of eternal fire doesn’t help either because neither of these cities are currently still burning, and we already know that Sodom will also eventually be returned to her “former estate” anyway (and if Jude was just referring to the citizens of the city, Ezekiel 16:55 would then likely also have to be referring to its citizens). And as far as the “wandering stars” go, the lake of fire doesn’t seem like it could be described as a place of “blackness of darkness” (aside from the fact that it will be in a valley in the open air in Israel, underneath the sun and moon, the lake of fire would be anything but dark unless we aren’t taking the “fire” part of its title literally, and if one chooses to interpret the “fire” part figuratively, there’s no reason to interpret the supposed duration of the punishment literally either), and I’m assuming I don’t have to point out that they aren’t literally clouds or trees or waves or stars, which means we’re outside the territory of literalism to begin with here, which means we once again have no basis for interpreting “for ever” any less figuratively than we would these words either, nor do we have any way to use this passage to support any particular soteriology.

And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. — Revelation 14:9–11

This passage is obviously very figurative. It can’t simply be about being cast into the lake of fire after the Great White Throne Judgement because the lake of fire will be located in a valley down here on earth, not up in heaven where it would presumably have to be in order to be tormented in the presence of “the holy angels” and the Lamb, and even if it was about those who worship the beast during the Tribulation getting cast into the lake of fire after the Great White Throne Judgement, the lake of fire will be outside the New Jerusalem on the New Earth, not inside it where it would have to be for those words to make sense (plus, no humans will be alive in the lake of fire anyway, so the reference to torment here tells us it can’t be about that). As for what it means, I’d suggest that it’s simply extreme hyperbole about those who take the mark and worship the beast, and the intense suffering they’ll go through while still alive during the Tribulation for doing so, as described just two chapters later (but even if we decided to ignore all that, and twisted the passage into somehow actually being a reference to the lake of fire, we already know just how literally we should be interpreting things that are said to last “for ever” in the KJV anyway, so this really doesn’t help the traditional view either).

Whatever it does mean, though, that was quite literally the only passage we’ve looked at which even suggests that any human might be conscious while being punished ”for ever and ever” (since the only other passage to mention that particular “duration” in the KJV was referring to the punishment of spiritual beings, not humans; and unless one decides to read their theological assumptions into the text, in order to apply it to more people than are actually mentioned in it, this passage can really only be applied to humans who worship the beast and take his mark anyway, which is an extremely small percentage of every non-believer to ever live), and this is quite problematic for the traditional doctrine of never-ending torment in hell, because that’s it. No other passage I’m aware of that one might think is talking about the ”hell” known as the lake of fire implies that they’ll actually be alive and suffering while in said location, or even that they can never possibly be resurrected and leave it some day (although please correct me if I’m wrong and missed one, but please also first consider whether anything I wrote above would apply to it as well), so they don’t actually help defend the commonly held doctrine, and to interpret this one as referring to suffering consciously in the lake of fire makes no sense either. Think about it. Prior to John’s vision on Patmos, nobody would have ever had any scriptural reason to interpret any of the passages we’ve looked at as meaning that any humans would be conscious in the lake of fire — especially in light of what Isaiah wrote about carcases — or even that their corpse could never be resurrected from their second death after burning up in it, since no passage which mentioned either γέεννα or the lake of fire by name said anything of the sort. And so, somebody studying the Bible carefully from beginning to end who had never actually heard of the doctrine of never-ending torment in hell could not possibly come to the conclusion that any humans would be conscious or suffering while in the lake of fire, at least not before reaching this particular passage in Revelation. And if they‘re being honest with themselves and taking the rest of Scripture into consideration when they get to this passage, they’d realize it would make no sense to think it was referring to that either since no other passage we’ve looked at even hinted at such a fate, and because it would contradict everything else they’d already learned as well, which means that to use this one extremely figurative passage located near the very end of the Bible to reinterpret all the references to judgement that came before it in Scripture into meaning people will be suffering without end in hell ignores basically every hermeneutical principle I’m aware of, and would contradict too many key points we’ve already covered, so there’s just no good scriptural excuse for doing that.

This also means it’s time to begin reading the terms “for ever,” “everlasting,” and “eternal” in most parts of the Bible qualitatively and figuratively rather than quantitatively and literally, and give up on the idea that God is going to torture anyone (or allow anyone to be tortured) in fire with no end, as the tradition most of us have been brought up to believe teaches. This makes particular sense when we consider the fact that Jesus said having “life eternal” just means “that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,” which tells us that the term “life eternal” isn’t inherently referring to never dying anyway (at least for those He was ministering to during His time walking the earth).

This might sound like it means we won’t necessarily actually have lives that never end, if what I’m saying is true, but we don’t actually need verses about “life eternal” to tell us we’ll eventually be in a state where we’ll never die to begin with, because it isn’t verses about “everlasting life” or “life eternal” that promise us this anyway, but rather it’s verses about our impending immortality which teach us this fact. Of course, something almost no Christian seems to consciously realize is that most of them are already interpreting “everlasting life” and “life eternal” in a qualitative, figurative manner rather than literally, since most of them believe that all humans continue to live on without end after they die anyway, which means being given “everlasting life” isn’t required to live forever, at least according to the theology of most Christians, and hence it can’t actually mean to never die. Think about it, if we’re already “eternal” beings, as most Christians believe we are (all the while ignoring the fact that the English word “eternal” literally means “without beginning” just as much as it means “without end”), then “life eternal” or “everlasting life” can’t be talking about how long we continue to exist, since we’re all going to continue existing regardless of whether we have “life eternal” or not, according to the most common viewpoint. The fact is, almost all Christians already interpret terms like “life eternal” and “everlasting life” in a qualitative, figurative sense, and understand that it’s actually connected with salvation rather than simply referring to how long one continues to exist (even if they haven’t fully realize it until right now), but if they aren’t interpreting “everlasting life” or “life eternal” literally, there’s absolutely no basis for interpreting ”everlasting punishment” literally either. At this point it should be quite clear that, rather than interpreting it in a quantitative and literal sense, in order to remain consistent they actually should be interpreting “everlasting punishment” in a qualitative and figurative sense as well, one which refers to the manner of punishment they’ll receive rather than the duration of the punishment, especially since the only reference to “everlasting punishment” in the entire Bible is in the exact same verse that says “life eternal” (not to mention because we already know that this particular punishment simply refers to being forced to reside in the parts of the world known as the ”outer darkness,” meaning not being allowed to live in Israel during the Millennium).

Of course, the fact that we still have to “put on immortality” in order to fully experience salvation means we’re not inherently immortal or “eternal” beings, but few Christians ever really stop to think about these facts particularly deeply, and so they just assume we are inherently “eternal” and immortal (and as long as they continue to believe this, they have no excuse for also believing the Bible teaches a literal “everlasting punishment”). The simple truth, though, is that immortality isn’t something we’re born with; we have to be given immortality, and it won’t be truly given to any of us until a very specific time in the future. In fact, that immortality factor is another good proof that no human can possibly suffer in the lake of fire without end. How so? Well, consider these facts:

  • Immortality for humans is always connected with salvation in Scripture (only those who are finally experiencing salvation physically — in living bodies, with most of them having been resurrected from the dead first — will have “put on immortality,” or will have been made immortal).
  • Those who are resurrected for the Great White Throne Judgement haven’t been saved (from a relative perspective, at least), so they are raised as regular, mortal, biological humans.
  • Regular, mortal, biological humans who are set on fire burn up and die.
  • There’s absolutely nothing in Scripture that tells us God will keep resurrecting people in the lake of fire so they can die over and over again after they’ve died a second time (which would make the lake of fire also the third and fourth and fifth deaths, and so-on-and-so-forth, rather than just the second death).
  • Hence, nobody can be said to suffer in the lake of fire any longer than it takes to burn up and die one time, at least not without reading one’s assumptions into Scripture (which would be eisegesis, especially considering the fact that there are no passages which say any humans will suffer consciously in the lake of fire, but that only carcases will exist there when it comes to humans, as we’ve already determined).

The fact that immortality is what we’re still looking forward to discredits the idea of never-ending torment in any other version of hell just as much as it does never-ending torment in the lake of fire, I should say, because it means we aren’t immortal now, which also means that we can’t actually suffer while we’re dead (which means that the passages about hell which most Christians believe are talking about an afterlife have to mean something else altogether from what they’ve assumed). “Ye shall not surely die” might be the first recorded lie the devil told, but today it’s being taught as truth by many people in the Christian religion who are trying to convince us that death isn’t actually death at all, but is rather just a change in our state of consciousness (and, in fact, that death is really life, “eternal life” even, rather than an enemy that needs to be destroyed). Based on all the sermons where I’ve heard preachers say things like, “When your heart stops beating, you won’t actually die; instead, you’ll pass on to the next stage of your life, the place where you’ll spend the rest of eternity, and the location you’ll end up in from that point onward depends on whether or not you choose to accept Christ before you pass on to that final destination,” it’s clear they’ve forgotten that nobody remains dead, since there’s still a resurrection of the dead prior to the Great White Throne Judgement. But in addition to this, it also demonstrates that they’re unaware of the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures tell us the dead know nothing, meaning they aren’t conscious at all (many Christians will do all sorts of theological and mental gymnastics trying to prove that this assertion made in Ecclesiastes doesn’t literally mean what it says, but there had been no passages in Scripture prior to that one which said the dead are conscious, so there’s no basis for the idea that anyone who read this statement at the time it was written could have possibly understood that the writer instead meant the dead actually do have knowledge). Even in the Greek Scriptures, death is compared to sleep, not to being awake in an afterlife existence (the book of Acts didn’t say Stephen died and went to heaven, for example; while his spirit was returned to God — not as a conscious being, though, since our spirit is just the breath of life that generates a conscious soul while in a body and isn’t conscious itself, since it’s actually our soul that is our consciousness — Acts says that he himself went to sleep, not that he remained conscious), outside of one very figurative story in Luke, which has a meaning that so many who aren’t among the elect seem to be kept from understanding (although that was the purpose of parables, and so, presuming it actually was a parable, it seems it’s doing its job there), as I’ll discuss shortly.

Scripture says that David and others fell asleep — referring to their actual persons being asleep or unconscious in death — not that just their bodies decayed (or “saw corruption”) while they themselves remained conscious (when Scripture speaks of a person dying, it doesn’t just say their body died while they themselves continued to live; instead, it says they themselves have died, and that the location of their very person is now “in the grave” or “in the dust,” in the very same place that everyone ends up, including all animals as well, in fact). Similarly, bodily resurrection is likewise compared to waking up from sleep in Scripture, and not to a person remaining awake in an afterlife, before being returned to their body.

It’s important to remember that consciousness, at least for biological beings such as humans, can cease to exist, since one can be rendered unconscious by either going to sleep or by fainting or by being knocked out (and when someone is unconscious, they are no longer conscious, meaning they are no longer aware of themselves and their surroundings, which means their consciousness has temporarily ceased to exist, which is something I can’t believe I have to explain, but somehow many people I’ve discussed this with seem to miss this fact, so here we are), and if we can lose our consciousness under those common circumstances, with it ceasing to exist while we’re alive (which means we aren’t in a never-ending state of consciousness), there’s no reason to believe it could return after we die without a living and active brain to bring it back into existence the way our brains do when we wake up from sleep. To make this really clear, let’s say that somebody was sleeping, and hence had no consciousness existing at that point (and before someone brings up REM sleep and dreaming, the subconscious processes of a physical brain that cause us to dream while asleep aren’t the same thing as the consciousness we have while we’re awake, nor can the neurological processes that generate dreams occur without a living, biological brain; and one doesn’t dream the whole time they’re asleep anyway — in fact, we only dream about 20% of the time we’re asleep at night, so for approximately one third of our lives we aren’t conscious at all), or was even knocked unconscious with a hard object. If they were to suddenly die right then while unconscious (and this hypothetical person is not in a state of REM sleep, and hence isn’t dreaming in this scenario, just to remove any doubt), would their consciousness just snap back into existence at the point of their death? There’s absolutely no reason to think it would, and the idea that death can recreate a consciousness that had stopped existing (as would be the case if this happened) really makes no sense at all.

But getting back to Scripture, it’s also important to remember that the first time those in the body of Christ are said to meet the Lord is going to be in the air in our newly quickened bodies at the Rapture (or at the resurrection of the just, 75 days after the Rapture, for those in the Israel of God — and please compare the numbers in Daniel 12:11–13 to the numbers in Revelation 13:5 if you aren’t familiar with the 75 day difference, because this is an important difference that proves the Rapture takes place prior to the Second Coming), which is the point from when we’re said to finally “ever be with the Lord” (and not from a previous point such as our physical death, which would be when those in the body of Christ actually began to “ever be with the Lord” if the immortality of the soul were true). In fact, the blessed hope we’re told to comfort one another with is the expectation that the dead in Christ will eventually be resurrected and that all of us in the body of Christ (both those still living and those newly resurrected) will then be quickened and caught up to the Lord to finally go live in the heavens, not that the dead get to live happily with the Lord as ghosts in another dimension called heaven. (And the reference to “them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him” in 1 Thessalonians 4:14 is just talking about the spirits of the dead members of the body of Christ that had “returned to God” now coming back to rejoin their bodies, and isn’t meant to imply that they were already enjoying being “ever with the Lord” in heaven, since our spirits aren’t actually conscious — it’s our souls that are our consciousness, generated by a living brain, and so our soul can’t exist so long as our spirit is not residing within our physical body, keeping our brain alive.) It’s important to remember that the reason Paul even brought this up to begin with was to comfort those who had lost loved ones to death. If the immortality of the soul were true, he would have instead written something more along the lines of, “But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus are with Him now, enjoying the bliss of heaven, which is where you’ll go to ever be with the Lord when you sleep as well. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.”

Of course, Paul also makes it quite clear that the immortality of the soul can’t be true when he wrote“and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable,” as well as when he talked about all the dangers he faced while evangelizing, and pointed out that there would be no reason for him to do so if there were no resurrection from the dead since otherwise nobody could be saved, in which case he might as well just go live life without worrying about evangelizing. This wouldn’t be true if those who are saved go to another dimension called heaven when they die. The fact that we don’t is why he could make that claim, because without the physical resurrection we would have absolutely no hope at all because we would cease to exist forever (we wouldn’t even have the hope of existing as ghosts in another dimension called “heaven” with God, since those who died in Christ would have “perished,” or ceased to exist forever, according to this passage), which was basically the entire reason Paul wrote that chapter in his first epistle to the Corinthians to begin with.

This is also backed up a little further on in the same chapter when he said that “this mortal must put on immortality,” which tells us that we don’t inherently have immortality, as I’ve already mentioned (in fact, Paul is clear that Christ Jesus is the only human to currently have immortality — no, I don’t believe this passage was talking about the Father, since otherwise it would seem to mean that Christ Himself, as well as the angels and other spiritual beings, could die at this point, so it appears it has to be a passage about a human and how that human is the only human who is currently immortal), but only gain it when our bodies are quickened, which is not until after the resurrection of those in the body of Christ who have died, not from the time they died (or really from the time they were born, if the “immortality of the soul” were true).

In addition, we know that not only has David himself not gone to heaven, at least not as of the time Peter made that speech recorded in the book of Acts (which was after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, which means we have no reason to believe he’s ended up there since then either), but that nobody other than Christ Himself had either as of the time John wrote that assertion in his commentary in the book called the Gospel according to John (Jesus’ “red letters” quote should really end at verse 12 based on the fact that verse 13 says the Son of man was in heaven at that point, which we know Jesus wasn’t at the time He had that discussion with Nicodemus, so everything from verse 13 to 21 presumably had to have been John’s personal commentary on the topic, written after Jesus had left the earth; it’s important to remember that the book of John was a theology book rather than a history book and, unlike the Synoptic Gospels, used historical quotes of Jesus to prove theological points instead of being a historical record in and of itself the way the three Synoptic Gospels were), so it seems pretty obvious that heaven is only for those who have been quickened, and isn’t for those who are currently dead.

In fact, if people were to remain conscious after death, God would cease to be their God while they waited for their physical resurrection, since He is not the God of the dead, but of the living (even though, to Him, all are considered alive from a proleptic perspective, as was the point of this statement), which would make things strange for people in the supposed afterlife if they no longer had a God. Although, if the immortality of the soul were true, that would be a good explanation as to why the dead do not praise God, or even remember that He exists, since He’d no longer be their God while they were still dead (although the real reason the dead don’t praise or thank or remember Him, of course, being simply that they’re unconscious and can’t do anything while dead since they have no thoughts at all). Strangely enough, though, some Christians actually try to use this statement to support their view that the dead remain conscious, misapprehending Jesus’ statement to mean that the dead aren’t actually dead. If they just took the time to examine the context of the whole passage, however, they’d discover that it was really about the Sadducees, who didn’t believe in a physical resurrection in the future, trying to trip Jesus up with a question about who a hypothetical person would be married to after being resurrected from the dead during the impending Millennial Kingdom in the next world (or age) here on earth (and not about a ghost in an afterlife dimension and whether or not she’d have to be polygamous in that imaginary realm; it wasn’t the concept of an ethereal afterlife state that the Sadducees were trying to trip Jesus up on) in order to make the idea of a physical resurrection seem ridiculous, but Jesus turned it around on them by using the fact that the Lord could not legitimately claim the title of “the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” as Moses revealed Him to be, if the dead weren’t going to be physically resurrected someday, because He’s technically not the God of those who are currently dead, but is rather actually only the God of the living (which is where the figure of speech known as prolepsis comes in; prolepsis in Scripture is where God calls what is not yet as though it already were — when God makes a statement which tells us that something is going to happen, even if it hasn’t literally occurred yet in our time, we can still consider it to already be as good as done — so Jesus was saying that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will definitely be resurrected someday, because otherwise that proleptic statement about them would have been a lie since it would mean they would have ceased to exist when they died, and would never exist again).

The passage just can’t be read as saying they’re actually still alive in our time period. Verse 37 (“…that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush…”) makes it very clear that Jesus is talking about the fact that these three patriarchs would eventually be physically resurrected, not that they’re actually still alive in another dimension (He didn’t say, “that the dead are living in another dimension”; He said, “that the dead are raised,” referring to a future resurrection). Jesus’ whole point is that, if they aren’t going to be raised from the dead to live again, God could not be said to be their God, because He isn’t the God of the dead but of the living. If they were actually still alive in some afterlife dimension, God would still be their God, of course (and they could still thank and praise Him, contrary to what the book of Psalms says), but Jesus’ whole point was that, without a physical resurrection, He couldn’t be their God, since they’d be dead and would never exist again. Because they will be resurrected, however, God actually can be said to be their God, even if only from a proleptic perspective at present.

There’s just no way to read verses 37 and 38 as meaning anything other than Jesus saying that those who have “gone to sleep” are indeed dead and gone until their resurrection, because the only way that Moses’ statement about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could possibly be used as proof of the resurrection of the dead is if the three of them have ceased to live for the time being. If the three of them are actually still alive in an afterlife dimension somewhere, and if Jesus’ statement about God being the God of the living rather than the God of the dead was actually Him trying to prove the idea that God is still their God because they’re actually still alive somewhere, then the resurrection of the dead would be entirely unnecessary for God to be their God, and Jesus’ argument couldn’t possibly help prove a future resurrection at all, which means they have to have ceased to exist as conscious beings for the time being or Jesus’ entire argument proves nothing. (Of course, the parallel telling of this discussion in Matthew 22 makes it even more obvious, since Jesus is recorded in that book as saying“But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,” making it even more clear that this statement about God not being the God of the dead, but of the living, is entirely about the resurrection and has nothing to do with ghosts.)

And as far as dead “Old Testament” saints go, some people also try to use the appearance of Moses and Elijah on “the Mount of Transfiguration” to try to argue that the dead are conscious. But aside from the fact that this would make Jesus guilty of the sin of necromancy if He was talking to the ghosts of these two dead men (and Jesus never sinned, so it’s clear that this couldn’t have been what was happening there), we know that this was simply a vision to fulfill the prophecy made immediately before this passage because Matthew 17:9 outright tells us that it was simply a vision.

And speaking of necromancy, before someone tries to use Saul’s visit to the witch of Endor to prove the immortality of the soul, whatever the witch saw (remember, Saul didn’t see anything here), she described it as ”gods ascending out of the earth,” so this was far more likely to have been a spiritual being of some sort than actually being Samuel (although the way this sort of thing was performed back then, from what I’ve been led to understand, involved a witch looking into a pit and pretending to speak to the dead in the pit, so I suppose it’s possible that God temporarily resurrected Samuel from the dead in that pit, but that wouldn’t prove the immortality of the soul either since he wouldn’t have been dead while in that pit).

Those aren’t the only passages they misuse, though, to try to prove the immortality of the soul. For example, many like to also claim that Paul said, “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” Aside from the fact that this isn’t actually what Paul said at all (his actual words were, “We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord”), if you look at the context of what he said in the previous verses, and also remember that a physical resurrection in an immortal, glorified body is what Paul was, and the living members of the body of Christ currently are (or at least should be), looking forward to, you can see that he was figuratively comparing our current mortal bodies to earthly houses, and saying that he was looking forward to no longer being “at home” in his mortal body, but instead wanted to be at home in his glorified “house not made with hands.” When Paul talked about “houses” and “homes” in these verses, as well as when he referred to being clothed there, he was talking about physical bodies, with the “house not made with hands” being a reference to his future immortal body, not to him existing as a ghost in another dimension after he dies. And so, when he wrote that he was “willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord” (with “willing” there being a Greek word — εὐδοκέω — that literally means “desiring”), he couldn’t possibly have been talking about hoping he’d die so he would be with Jesus since he specifically wrote in verses 3 and 4 that he was not hoping for death at all (when he wrote that he wasn’t looking to be “naked” or “unclothed”), but rather that he was hoping to be given an immortal body, or to be “clothed upon” (“with our house which is from heaven,” as he explained in verse 2) so that “mortality might be swallowed up of life,” confirming that this whole passage is about mortal bodies vs immortal bodies rather than about existing as ghosts in an ethereal afterlife dimension, and that he simply meant he was looking forward to trading in his mortal body for his future immortal body, which won’t happen until the Rapture (at least for those of us in the body of Christ).

This is similar to the way they misuse Paul’s quote that, for him specifically at that particular time (it’s important to note that this verse isn’t talking about believers in general, but was about Paul’s unenviable circumstances when he wrote these words), “to live is Christ, and to die is gain,” to try to prove that he believed his death would bring him immediately to be with Christ, once again ignoring the context of the verses before these words, not to mention the verses after them as well. Of course, we’ve already determined that Paul was well aware of the fact that the only way he would “ever be with the Lord” was through resurrection (or through the quickening of his mortal body, if the Rapture occurred while he was still alive), not through death. As we already covered, Paul’s teaching was that, apart from resurrection, those who have died will have perished (which means they would have ceased to exist forever, based on what we’ve already covered), so we have to interpret this passage in light of that fact, and the context of the surrounding verses makes it pretty obvious that the “gain” Paul was referring to there would be a gain to the furtherance of the message he was preaching while in bonds, which his martyrdom would surely accomplish. I’ll admit, verses 22 and 23 aren’t the easiest for people today to understand (17th-century English isn’t something 21st-century people always find easy to grasp), and some people will assume that by, “yet what I shall choose I wot not,” Paul meant he hadn’t yet decided which option he was going to select, as if it was up to him. But whether he lived or died wasn’t actually up to him at all — it was up to the Roman government. Literally all Paul was saying there is that he wasn’t going to let it be known whether he’d personally rather continue living as a prisoner in bonds, which seemed to be helping the word to be spread more boldly, or whether he’d prefer to die and let his martyrdom help the cause even more than his state as a prisoner was doing, and that he was pretty much being “pressed between a rock and a hard place” either way (which is basically all that “in a strait betwixt two” means in modern day colloquialism), since his only options at that point appeared to be equally undesirable for him as an individual, which is why he then went on to say that he’d prefer a third option over either of the seemingly available two options, which was “having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better,” since, if the Rapture were to occur, he wouldn’t have to suffer through either of the two likely options but would instead get to depart the earth without dying, to “ever be with the Lord” in the heavens in an immortal body, which is a far superior option to living as a prisoner in a mortal body or to being put to death (he couldn’t possibly have been referring to dying and being with Christ in an afterlife when he wrote, “having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ,” since he’d just finished telling his readers that he wasn’t going to say whether he’d rather live or die, and that neither of the two likely options were particularly desirable — and remember, he’d already told the Corinthians that he didn’t want to be “unclothed,” meaning he didn’t want to die, but instead wanted to be “clothed upon” with the immortal body that he’ll only receive at the Rapture). Bottom line, there’s just no excuse for interpreting it in a way that contradicts the rest of Scripture, which the teaching that Paul would live on after his death and “ever be with the Lord” from that point rather than from the time of the Rapture does in spades. It’s easy to get confused about verses like this if you ignore the context (of both the surrounding verses, and of Scripture as a whole), but once someone comes to realize the truth that death is actually death and that “ye shall not surely die” is a satanic lie, they can then begin to interpret these passages in ways that are consistent with the rest of Scripture.

Christians don’t only misquote Paul in order to try to prove the immortality of the soul, however. Many also misquote Jesus, making Him out to have said, “If you die in your sins, whither I go, you cannot come.” This isn’t what Jesus said at all, though. He actually said“I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.” This was a proclamation of fact, not an if/then proposition, as many misunderstand it to be (it helps to notice the plural ”ye” in Jesus’ statement, since He was talking to, and about, the unbelieving Pharisees at the time, prophesying that all those Pharisees hearing that statement would indeed die in their sins and miss out on ”eternal life” during the Millennium). Now, yes, in a follow-up statement, He did say, ”I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins,” but aside from what I already pointed out (that the Pharisees Jesus made the first prophetic statement to would die in their sins), this doesn’t help prove the immortality of the soul either. All it proves is that certain people would die in their sins.

Likewise, they misread passages like Revelation 6:9–11 to defend the idea of the immortality of the soul as well, but if this passage were meant to be read literally it would mean that martyred ghosts are all trapped underneath an altar rather than enjoying life in heaven, and that these ghosts can wear physical clothing. This passage is obviously meant to be interpreted symbolically, with the “souls” of the martyrs no more literally talking to God than Abel’s soul was talking to God from the dirt in Genesis 4:9–10 (which would have been just as unusual a place for a soul to reside, if the immortality of the soul were true, as it would be for a soul to reside underneath an altar until its resurrection).

Some also attempt to argue that the reference to the Gospel being preached to them that are dead, as 1 Peter 4:6 mentions, means the dead must be conscious. At this point it should go without saying, based on all the passages we’ve already looked at, that there’s no question the dead are unconscious, so any passages one brings up to try to argue that they remain conscious have to be interpreted in light of the facts we’ve already covered, which means that the people mentioned in this passage who had the Gospel preached to them had to have still been physically alive at the time it was preached to them, meaning the Gospel was preached to them and then they later died.

However, the main passage they try to use to defend the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–31. This passage uses the word “hell” in the KJV, but it’s obviously about a whole other “hell” than the one where the lake of fire will be located, since that one is going to be a physical place in an actual valley here on earth, which means nothing about that “hell” can be applied to this one, and nothing about this one can be applied to it (it’s a whole other Greek word as well, being translated from ᾅδης, in this case, rather than from the word γέεννα that Jesus used when He spoke about the future location of certain dead bodies after the Tribulation, which also tells us that even if this passage were meant to be taken literally, it couldn’t be used to prove never-ending torment the way some Christians try to use it since Revelation 20:13 tells us that anyone who is in the version of “hell” translated from ᾅδης will be resurrected from the dead so they can be judged at the Great White Throne, and then possibly cast into the version of “hell” known as the lake of fire to die a second time, and since the ”hell” translated from ᾅδης will also be cast into the lake of fire, according to Revelation 20:14, and something can’t be cast into itself, we know that ᾅδης and γέεννα can’t possibly be the same thing). At the end of the day, though, all the passages we’ve already covered make it quite clear that the dead can’t be conscious, which means there’s absolutely no way Jesus could have possibly meant for this story to have been interpreted literally, at least not without contradicting the rest of the Bible (not to mention basic common sense about how consciousness works, as we’ve also already discussed). Besides, unless one believes that Lazarus was sitting inside Abraham’s chest, that there’s actually physical water and fire that ghosts can interact with (not to mention gravity that they’re subject to, somehow keeping them from floating over a chasm even though there’s no matter there to be affected by gravity) in this supposed afterlife dimension which Jesus is apparently unveiling to Israelites for the first time (remember, no passage of Scripture prior to Luke 16 had ever revealed such an afterlife — in fact, until Jesus told this story, anyone who based their theology entirely upon what the Scripture which was available to them at that time said would assume nobody is even conscious when they’re dead, as we’ve already learned — and, as I mentioned when I discussed the supposedly figurative usage of the word γέεννα, it seems extremely unlikely that the Person who corrected people for teaching extrabiblical theological concepts by saying things like “have ye not read…?” and “it is written…” would suddenly turn around and teach a concept of an afterlife that is not only found nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, but which also seems to contradict everything the Hebrew Scriptures said about the state of the dead), they’re already not interpreting this story particularly literally. Not to mention, if we did take it literally, we’d have to believe that the rich all go to a place called hell when they die, while the poor all get saved, since there’s literally zero indication in this story that Lazarus was a believer. The reason Jesus said Lazarus went to “Abraham’s bosom” seemed to be entirely because of his suffering as a beggar, not because He’d accepted Christ as his Saviour or anything like that — and likewise, the reason the rich man was said to be suffering in hell was because he got to enjoy good things during his life, not because of sin, or even because he rejected Jesus (there was no indication in the story that either Lazarus or the rich man had ever even heard of Jesus). The fact of the matter is, no Christians actually believe any of that, which means they’re already basically interpreting the story entirely figuratively to begin with, so they should really just finally acknowledge that it’s 100% figurative, since they already read it that way anyway (even if they haven’t realized until now that they’re doing so), meant to convey a message that had nothing to do with an afterlife at all, and everything to do with potentially missing out on getting to enjoy life in the kingdom of God when it begins in Israel, just like most of Jesus’ other warnings were about, especially in light of everything else we’ve covered about the state of the dead. Please note that I’m not insisting this is a parable, however (even though it almost certainly is one), because if I did, some Christians would argue that it can’t be a parable based on the fact that Jesus mentioned someone by name in the story, and because He’d never done so in any other parables before. And while this is a really weak argument with no hermeneutical basis that I’m aware of, rather than get into that whole debate I’ll just say, since we know that basically nothing Jesus said in this passage can be read literally anyway, parable or not, it’s still entirely figurative,  and leave it at that.

So, rather than going to literal afterlife realms called heaven or hell after we die, Scripture instead tells us that death is a return. The body returns to the dust (meaning to the ground), the soul returns to “hell” (since יָשׁוּבוּ רְשָׁעִים literally means ”the wicked return,” the phrase “is turned into” in Psalms 9:17 in the KJV is simply a poetic expression meaning “is returned to,” telling us one’s soul returns to some place or state referred to as ”hell” in this case; this verse just tells us that our consciousness returns to the non-existence from whence it came, which is all that most of the passages which talk about the dead going to the version of ”hell” translated from the Hebrew word שְׁאוֹל, as it is in that verse, are referring to, as well as from the Greek word ᾅδης, which is translated from the Hebrew שְׁאוֹל in both the LXX and the Greek Scriptures, such as in Acts 2:27, for example, which translates “hell” from ᾅδης in the KJV, and which is quoting Psalms 16:10 which translates “hell” from שְׁאוֹל in the KJV in that verse, and is also the Greek word translated as “hell” in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which also confirms that this story should be interpreted entirely figuratively — and before someone brings up the fact that this verse is talking about “the wicked,” keep in mind that it still tells us they’ll return to hell, which means they had to have come from there to begin with, so regardless of who this particular verse is talking about, it still means that the “hell” the dead end up in can’t be what most Christians assume it is because it means they’ve already “been there” before, figuratively speaking, meaning they didn’t exist at one time, and will return to that state of nonexistence again in the future), and the spirit returns to God who created it (although not as a conscious entity, since our spirits aren’t conscious on their own without a body; soul, or feeling and consciousness, is an emergent property of combining a spirit with a body, just like combining the colours yellow and blue creates the colour green — the spirit is our “breath of life,” but it doesn’t experience consciousness when it’s not inside a physical body).

This presents quite a dilemma for the traditional view, of course. If the soul of a dead person is existing consciously in an actual place called hell and the spirit is with God, does the soul of an unsaved person suffer in a fiery location while the spirit enjoys being with God in heaven? Remember, Scripture doesn’t discriminate between “saved” and “unsaved” spirits when it says they return to God upon death (to claim that only the saved spirits return to God is to read one’s presuppositions into the text). And what does that say about us if our spirit and soul can go to separate places but are both conscious (are we made up of two conscious beings that can be split up when we die, yet only one will be punished for sin in hell while the other is in heaven with God)? This is just one more reason why the traditional view makes no sense. Instead, it’s better to believe what Scripture actually says: that souls can actually die. On top of that, if those who are saved (relatively speaking) “go to heaven” as soon as they die, then death isn’t really an enemy to be defeated (and, really, destroyed) at all, as Paul told us it is, but is instead actually a friend finally bringing us to God (and causing us to “ever be with the Lord” before the time Paul said this would actually occur), with our eventual resurrection just being icing on the cake rather than being the actual cake itself that it’s supposed to be (the resurrection and quickening of our human bodies has become nothing more than a small side note in most of Christendom, when it’s what we’re actually supposed to be looking forward to).

There’s an even more important reason to reject the idea of the immortality of the soul, however, and that’s the fact that one can’t join the body of Christ while truly believing in the doctrine. You see, when Paul explained what it was that his readers believed when they were saved (and hence joined the body of Christ), he wrote that not only did they come to believe that Christ die for our sins, but also that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day. Now, every Christian out there will claim to agree that these words are true, but few of them actually understand what they mean, and can you really believe something you don’t understand? Yes, we all agree that the words that “Christ died for our sins” and that “He was buried” are true, but how many of us actually agree that “He was buried”? Most believe that His body was buried, but they also believe that He Himself went somewhere else altogether (most believe He went to another dimension called hell for those three days, even if it was in a part known as “Abraham’s bosom,” as a conscious being, although others believe He just went to a place called “paradise,” presumably referring to an afterlife dimension called “heaven,” rather than to hell). The problem is, Paul didn’t say that only Christ’s body died, he said, “Christ died”; and he didn’t say that only Christ’s body was buried while He Himself went somewhere else, he said, “He was buried,” which means that He Himself was placed in the tomb, not that He Himself went somewhere else while His body was placed in the tomb (“He was buried” is a passive statement as far as Christ’s person goes, so even if you believe that Christ Himself actually ended up in the tomb temporarily as a ghost, the wording of that passage can’t be interpreted to mean He followed His body to the tomb from the cross as a ghost, then went somewhere else from there after His body was buried, or even just remained in the tomb as a ghost for three days, because the way it’s worded tells us He had no involvement in being buried at all, other than passively having it happen to Him; so unless his pallbearers also had some sort of mystical object they used to drag Him into the tomb as a ghost after He died — which wouldn’t fit with what John 19:30 says, since it says He “gave up the ghost,” not that He became a ghost — it can’t legitimately be said that “He was buried” unless He was His body and nothing more at that point). Paul didn’t just randomly include the words “He was buried” in this passage for no reason (all Scripture is inspired by God, and every word God inspired to be written down is meant to be there, which means every word is there for a reason, rather than just being arbitrarily thrown in there by the human writer as would be the case if those who believe in the immortality of the soul were correct). If Christ’s (and not just His body’s) burial wasn’t a crucial part of what Paul said his readers believed when they were saved, he would have just written that “Christ died for our sins and rose the third day,” and left those particular words about His burial out altogether, since mentioning that fact would have then been entirely superfluous (not to mention deceptive, at least to anyone who takes the words written there seriously). There’s a reason that Paul included the words “He was buried” as something he claimed those who experience the sort of salvation he wrote about have to believe, and the reason is that we have to believe (which means we have to first understand) what those specific words actually mean.

And before someone tries to protest, saying that Jesus had the power to resurrect Himself, which means He must have been conscious, pointing out Jesus’ claim in John 10:18 that He had power to take His life again, the word “power” here is translated from the Greek word ἐξουσία, and it just refers to the sort of authority or legal right that someone “in power” has to have an action they wish to be completed actually be performed. Just because a king is said to have the power to tax the citizens of his country doesn’t mean he personally goes to every single citizen of the country and forces them to give him the money directly; it just means that he has the legal authority to expect they’ll pay their taxes (what Jesus said literally just meant: “I have the right to lay [my life] down, and I have the right to receive it again”). Likewise, when Jesus said in John 2:19 that He would raise His body three days after His death, it’s important to remember the fact that “He was buried,” and that any passage we read about His resurrection has to be interpreted in such a way that it doesn’t contradict this crucial part of what Paul said his readers believed when they were saved, which means that Jesus could only be referring to raising His body in the sense of getting up off the slab in the tomb after His God and Father resurrected Him from the dead (which is Who the Bible says actually performed the resurrection anyway). The context of this passage wasn’t about His ability to resurrect Himself to begin with. If you read the whole passage you’ll see that it was simply about how the fact that He wouldn’t remain dead would be a sign to the people who heard Him.

Of course, some will now ask, “But doesn’t 1 Peter 3:19 say that Jesus preached to spirits in prison while He was dead?” Well, no, it doesn’t. He didn’t preach to the spirits until after His body was quickened (which obviously couldn’t happen until after He was resurrected from the dead), as we can see from the verse before that one. But regardless, Peter said He was preaching to spirits, not to souls of dead humans. Since the spirits of dead humans return to God in heaven (just as Jesus’ spirit did when He died, which wouldn’t make much sense if it also went to hell), the spirits He was preaching to couldn’t have been humans, which means they must have instead been spiritual beings, exactly as Peter said they were. They weren’t the spirits of humans, but rather were the spiritual beings who sinned in Noah’s time by breeding with humans (and creating the giants who became mighty men of renown, also sometimes referred to as the Nephilim), and who were then locked up in yet another “hell” from the ones we’ve already discussed, because of their sin (this particular “hell” being translated from the Greek word ταρταρόω). Besides, all passages have to be interpreted in light of Christ’s burial anyway, so it goes without saying that any attempts to argue that Jesus was actually conscious while He was dead are nonstarters because of that fact alone, and that any passages we think might imply He was actually still alive have to be interpreted accordingly.

But is it really so important that we should care what Paul meant when he wrote that Christ died and was buried? Well, yes, very much so! It’s only when we realize that Christ actually died and was buried that we can truly appreciate His faith in going to the cross. You see, He knew that, unless His Father resurrected Him, He would have remained dead, and, as Paul wrote in Romans 3:21–23, this is the faith that ultimately saves us: “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ [not “by faith in Jesus Christ”; this is all about Christ’s faith, not our own] unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.” Unfortunately, because most Christians don’t actually believe that Christ truly died for our sins and actually was buried, instead believing that only His body did and was while He Himself lived on and went somewhere else altogether, none of these particular Christians can be said to be a member of the body of Christ yet, since they haven’t truly believed what Paul said those who experience the sort of salvation he wrote about will believe at the time they’re saved (at least from a relative perspective).

All that being said, if hell isn’t a “place” where unrighteous humans exist consciously after they die, then what about heaven? What and where is it, and how do we believers go there? Nearly everyone who believes in God has asked these questions at some point in their lives. The answers they’re normally given, unfortunately, are generally vague guesses or unscriptural assumptions, or simply statements insisting that we can’t know for sure. The truth, however, is that Scripture actually answers these questions for us, and the answer is so simple that I can actually show you heaven right now (or at least part of it). How? Well, let’s take a look at some of the passages of Scripture which tell us the answer to that question:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. — Genesis 1:20

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. — Matthew 24:30

So when we see the word heaven, we can see that it’s sometimes referring to the sky, where the birds and clouds are (the atmosphere, in other words).

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained — Psalm 8:3

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth — Genesis 1:14–17

As we’ve already determined, heaven is “above” us, but it isn’t only a reference to the atmosphere, but to outer space as well.

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. — Genesis 1:1

This tells us that there are only two overall “places” one can be: on earth, or in heaven. And if one is in the sky or in outer space, they’re not on earth, which only leaves heaven for them to be in.

And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. — Luke 24:51

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. — Acts 1:9–11

This also reaffirms that heaven is a reference to what is “up above” the ground we stand on. As we can see, after Jesus ascended up into heaven, the disciples were gazing up into the sky (heaven), as the angels also confirmed they were. So, simply put, if someone wants to see heaven now, all they have to do is look up at the sky.

Most people, of course, think of heaven as a place the righteous dead go to, but you won’t find any Scripture that tells you the dead go there (the truth is, only the living can go to heaven, at least in a conscious state, and those in the body of Christ will go there at the Rapture, and will finally “ever be with the Lord” there). That said, it isn’t a place you’d want to go right now in your current body (aside from a short trip there in a plane or a space shuttle), since one would need a quickened body that could survive and thrive out there if you were planning to stay long (because you’d suffocate from lack of oxygen, or freeze to death, or die from radiation poisoning out there in the heavens without an immortal body). It also isn’t the perfect, sinless place most people think it is, at least not yet, since the devil and his angels haven’t been cast out of the heavens yet, for one thing, and many spiritual beings there still haven’t been reconciled to God yet either (and you can’t be reconciled without first being alienated, by the way — and I should also add that “reconciled” means the parties on both sides of an estrangement or disagreement are at peace with one another), although it will be pretty great for the body of Christ when we have our new bodies that can enjoy it out there with our Lord as we fulfill our impending ministry to help reconcile the spiritual beings out there to God. This means, by the way, that Christians who like to claim that God can’t allow sin into heaven (which is not an assertion I’ve ever seen made in Scripture) seem to have forgotten that, if Satan needs to be cast out of heaven, it means sin has already been in heaven, as is also confirmed by the fact that the book of Job says he was there too (not to mention the fact that sinners travel through heaven in airplanes every single day). Similarly, the claim they often make that sin can’t exist in heaven because God can’t look upon sin is also an unscriptural one, since the words are actually, “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil,” with “to behold” in this verse simply being a poetic expression meaning “to look upon approvingly.” His omnipresence and the fact that He sees everything would make this a very problematic (not to mention contradictory) verse as well, if most Christians were correct about this (and I should point out that this is obviously referring to the sort of evil that falls under the category of moral evil rather than morally-neutral evil, since few people remember that not all evil is sinful, as I mentioned previously, and don’t realize that God actually takes responsibility for the existence of evil, and are also unaware of the difference between God’s preceptive will and His providential will, but I’ll leave it at that because this is a much bigger topic than we have the time to get into here).

This, of course, raises the question of where people got the idea that the dead go to a place called heaven from in the first place. There are a few reasons for this, but the main two are verses that refer to God being in heaven, as well as a misunderstanding of the word “paradise.”

Since we know that the body of Christ will go to the heavens, and also that people will be living with God in the New Jerusalem, most Christians have assumed that these references must be talking about a place the dead go, not realizing that these things both take place within the physical universe (the body of Christ goes to the heavens to complete a ministry there, but not until after they’ve been resurrected from the dead and/or quickened; and the New Jerusalem descends from the heavens/outer space to the New Earth rather than being a place anyone who is dead goes to). That said, yes, God indeed is in heaven. He has a throne room (which can also be referred to figuratively as “heaven”) and a throne somewhere out there in outer space, presumably in the New Jerusalem while it waits to descend to the New Earth, and it also seems likely that He manifests a part of Himself in some sort of manner that the spiritual beings there can perceive, but He ultimately transcends the whole universe at the same time.

As far as the second misunderstanding goes, paradise is a reference to a future state of the earth where the tree of life will be, both during the Millennium and on the New Earth, which makes sense considering there would be no need to eat from the tree of life in an ethereal afterlife dimension as a ghost. This means that Jesus’ statement to the thief on the cross about being with Him in paradise couldn’t mean what most Christians assume it to mean, because paradise doesn’t even exist yet (and anyone who wants to insist that Jesus was speaking about something other than a future state of the earth will need to provide some scriptural references with solid exegesis of those passages to prove that assertion — and before someone brings up 2 Corinthians 12:4, in light of everything we’ve just covered, this could only be a reference to Paul having a vision of the future splendours of the New Earth, and not a reference to the supposed afterlife dimension we’ve now learned there’s no basis for believing exists anyway). Since we have to interpret this verse in light of everything else we’ve just covered, based on the way it renders Jesus’ statement, we’re forced to interpret this verse in the KJV figuratively, meaning that, from the thief’s perspective, it would feel like the same day when he woke up from his sleep and began to live with Jesus in paradise, either in Israel during the Millennium, or on the New Earth (and for those who think it would mean that Jesus was being less than truthful by speaking figuratively here, ask yourself if He was also then being untruthful when He spoke figuratively to call Himself a door?). This is also confirmed by Jesus’ statement that He hadn’t ascended to the Father yet in John 20:17, not to mention the fact that we’re told His soul went to “hell” when He died (which we now know simply means that His consciousness ceased to exist when He died), not to heaven (or paradise), and if Jesus did not go to paradise on that day, the thief could not have been with Him there either, verifying that this could only be a prophetic statement about a time in the distant future when paradise begins on earth. (And yes, I know that Jesus had been resurrected when He made that statement about not having ascended to the Father yet, but it’s still not a statement He could have made honestly if He had ascended as a ghost, which we know He Himself didn’t do anyway.)

Now, there are those who actually agree with me on the topic of what death and paradise are, but who think this passage should still be translated differently. You see, some will point out that there are no commas in the original Greek, and tell us that Luke 23:43 would be better translated as saying, “Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise” (just like Paul used similar expressions in Acts 20:26 and Acts 26:2, not to mention all the times expressions like this were used in the Hebrew Scriptures, such as in Deuteronomy 4:2639–405:16:67:118:111199:3, and so on and so forth), simply meaning the thief would be with Jesus in paradise during the Millennium or on the New Earth in the future. That said, we don’t actually have to change the punctuation at all in order to understand what Jesus was getting at since, regardless of where the comma is located, we still have to interpret this verse in light of the rest of Scripture, which means that whether we move the comma (as some translations do) or leave it where it is in the KJV, the end result is the exact same either way, with the thief ending up in paradise with Jesus in Israel during the Millennium (or on the New Earth) no matter where the comma ends up (at least if we’re taking the rest of Scripture into consideration), so I’ll leave it at that.

The fact of the matter is, nobody mentioned anywhere in the Bible was ever recorded as looking forward to an ethereal afterlife state in a place called heaven, or as being afraid of being punished consciously in an afterlife realm called hell, nor had any Scripture prior to the story of the rich man and Lazarus ever even suggested that people would go to an afterlife realm to live happily or to suffer in while dead either (and the fact that the concept of an afterlife realm for ghosts wasn’t ever even hinted at in the Hebrew Scriptures should really tell you everything you need to know about the idea — although I should quickly mention passages which some Christians who don’t want to let go of this doctrine like to use to claim they do, such as Genesis 15:15 which says, “And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace,” but the second half of that verse tells us exactly what statements like this are referring to when it says, “thou shalt be buried in a good old age,” meaning they’re simply talking about physical death and burial; this is what’s known as a Synonymous Parallelism in Scripture, which is where the second part of a passage confirms what the first part says, using slightly different wording). What they were looking forward to was a physical, bodily resurrection in the distant future, so figurative passages such as that one, and symbolic statements such as those in the book of Revelation, have to be interpreted in light of this fact (when Job said“But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost,” and then asked, “and where is he?”, Job wasn’t wondering where the dead are residing while remaining in a conscious state, as some mistakenly assume, but was presumably just using a rhetorical question to point out that the hypothetical dead man no longer exists, since the next few verses make it very clear that he believed the dead are gone until their future resurrection). The story in Luke 16 wasn’t a new revelation to replace the scriptural doctrine of unconscious death until resurrection, so one has to figure out what it means without creating an entirely new theology that hadn’t ever even been hinted at prior to it in Scripture, which also means that any scriptural references to the dead in hell can’t be talking about a place any human will actually suffer in, and neither can any passages that talk about the lake of fire (at least they won’t be able to suffer there any longer than it takes for a mortal body to die in that fire). And so, the simple fact is, every single person who dies goes to “hell,” whether they’re a believer or not, at least to the “hell” translated from the Hebrew and Greek words (שְׁאוֹל and ᾅδης) which refer to the state of being unconscious because one is dead (when they’re not being used figuratively to refer to the grave, or even to entirely different concepts, of course). And only those who do understand and believe what it is Paul meant when he wrote that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, will get to go to heaven, but not until after they’ve been resurrected (presuming they’ve died before the Rapture, of course) and/or made immortal, because the only way for someone who is dead to go to heaven would be to put their corpse on an airplane or space shuttle, but they wouldn’t enjoy it particularly much (although this does mean that someone who has died can technically be in heaven and hell at the exact same time, not that they’d know they were in either “location”).

This also means that Enoch and Elijah didn’t go to live in heaven rather than dying either (at least not the same “level” of heaven that Jesus is now living in, which is presumably the New Jerusalem), contrary to the way Christians assume they did, since whatever happened to them can’t contradict what you’ve already learned from this article. Genesis 5:24 is not an easy verse to understand, but based on everything we‘ve covered so far, we know that Jesus is the only human living in heaven (at least in the part of heaven outside our solar system that certain humans will go to live in eventually), so they couldn’t have, which means that Enoch had to have gone somewhere other than heaven when he “was not” and was “taken by God.” The most probable explanation is that he was “caught away,” likely from a dangerous situation where he would have been killed, to live out the rest of his life in safety somewhere else, similar to the way Philip was “caught away” after baptizing the eunuch, which seems to line up with the fact that the book of Hebrews includes Enoch in a list of people who lived by faith while also saying that everyone in the list died. And it’s recorded that King Jehoram received a letter from Elijah after the time that Elijah was caught up in the whirlwind to heaven, so, again, based on everything we now know about who is in heaven, this means that Elijah pretty much had to have been deposited somewhere else on earth to live out the rest of his life in safety too, just like Enoch, and that he then also eventually died.

And with all that in mind, if anyone still believes in the doctrine of never-ending torment in hell, or in the immortality of the soul, it must mean they really want these things to be true and have chosen to continue to believe in them despite what the Bible says, because anybody being honest with themselves will have to admit that there’s absolutely zero scriptural basis for continuing to believe in either of these things after reading everything I’ve just written. I would be very interested in hearing how they justify their continued belief in these doctrines if they do still believe them at this point, though. As far as everyone else goes, however, we do still have to determine what the Bible teaches will ultimately happen to people who don’t get to live in the kingdom of heaven in Israel during the Millennium, or even those who don’t get to go live in the heavens when the Rapture occurs, so let’s take a look at some more passages to find that out.

The first passage to consider is 1 Corinthians 15:22 where Paul wrote that, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” and it’s important to know that being ”made alive” means to be made immortal, since it’s translated from the same Greek word that being “quickened” is translated from (and to be made immortal always refers to experiencing salvation when it’s talking about humans in Scripture, as we’ve already covered). Some Christians assume Paul was simply referring to being resurrected when he wrote that, but aside from the fact that “resurrection” is translated from an entirely different Greek word than “made alive” or “quickened” is — ἀνάστασις rather than ζῳοποιέω — we know that everyone Paul said will be “made alive” includes those who will never die, such as those who will still be living at the time of either the Rapture or the Second Coming , so being “made alive” obviously can’t be referring to resurrection since not everyone who will be “made alive” will actually die and be resurrected. This also confirms that the “for as in Adam all die” part of the verse has to be referring to being in a state of slowly dying, meaning being mortal, because of what Adam did, since not everyone will actually fully die (although the literal meaning of ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκουσιν being “for as in Adam all are dying” also helps make this clear to those who are aware of the tense in that verse in the original Greek).

As for who is actually included in the part about being made alive goes, it’s important to notice that this passage doesn’t say, “even so shall all in Christ be made alive.” If it had, one might be able to justify the idea that it only applied to a specific group of people (only those “in Christ”). Thankfully, that’s not how it was worded. Instead, the way it was worded (“for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”) lets us know that Paul was using a parallelism there to tell us that everyone affected by the action of the first Adam is also equally affected by the action of the last Adam, and completely outside of their own desire or will. Just as nobody had any say in experiencing the effects of the first Adam’s action (mortality and, in most cases, physical death — aside from the relatively few people who will experience the Rapture or Second Coming without having died — as well as sinfulness because of that mortality), they also have no say in experiencing the effects of the last Adam’s action (eventual immortality and sinlessness).

Of course, most Christians want to place the blame for our mortality, death, and sinfulness on each of us as individuals rather than on Adam, but that’s not what Paul taught. You see, Paul told us in Romans 5:12 that the reason humans sin is because we’re mortal/dying, and we’re dying because Adam sinned (“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”). Contrary to what pretty much all Christians have been taught, we ourselves don’t die because we sin. Only Adam and Eve died because they sinned — or, rather, began to die/became mortal because they sinned (yes, that’s what God’s warning to Adam, which is rendered figuratively in the KJV as “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” meant, as we’ve already covered). The punishment was that they gained mortality leading to eventual physical death, not that they “died spiritually,” as most Christians assume (an assumption that doesn’t answer the question of why they became mortal when they sinned, and eventually died, since if the threat was simply the unscriptural “spiritual death” so many Christians believe in, then mortality and physical death were entirely different punishments that weren’t actually covered in the warning God gave them at all, which would also mean that mortality and physical death can’t be consequences of our own sin, as most Christians assume they are, either). While it’s true that most Christians have interpreted the last two parts of this verse to mean “and so death passed upon all men because all have sinned” in order to preserve their doctrine that we’re ultimately to blame for our own mortality and death (and many Bible versions have even mistranslated it to say just that), aside from the fact that this would render the verse literally nonsensical (I can’t see any way that the phrase “and so death passed upon all men because all have sinned” can legitimately follow “wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin,” and still make any sort of sense at all, at least not based on any rules of English grammar that I’m aware of), if we die because we sin, the first part of the verse would also be entirely superfluous, and might as well be cut out of the verse altogether, since that part of the passage would tell us basically nothing about why we sin, making it entirely irrelevant (the words “and so” are connecting the clause in the second half of the verse to the part of the verse that came before it, which means that what was written in the first part of the verse has to be the reason for the clause that comes after those words, yet there’s no actual connection made between Adam’s sin and our death and sin in the verse if that clause actually means “because all have sinned,” since that places the responsibility on us rather than on Adam). I mean, let’s break it all down: A) Adam sinned (“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world”), B) his sin brought him mortality leading to eventual death (“and death by sin”), C) because of this, his mortality passed down to his descendants (“and so death passed upon all men”) and D) because of that mortality, all of us descendants of Adam have also sinned (“for that all have sinned”), giving us a nice unbroken sequence of causes and effects. But if we were to instead interpret the last two parts of the verse as meaning, “and so death passed upon all men because all have sinned,” we’ve suddenly lost the whole narrative, since this doesn’t tell us why all have sinned the way the literal reading of this verse does. “That all have sinned” because “death passed upon all men” answers that question, but reversing the order (making sin the cause and death the effect rather than death, or mortality, the cause and sin the effect) just makes a mess of the whole thing, leaving us with the question of why we sin, which was what Paul was trying to explain in the first place with this verse (and to quickly explain why mortality leads to sin, as the literal interpretation of this verse tells us it does, it’s simply because, while we can avoid sinning some of the time, being mortal makes us too weak to avoid sinning all of the time). In fact, if our sin actually was the cause, the verse should have actually been written as: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin… but wait… that really doesn’t matter at all, now that I think about it, since death actually passed upon all men because all the rest of us have sinned too, and this had nothing to do with that one man to begin with, so I don’t know why I even mentioned him in the first place.” And for those of you who are thinking that “Original Sin” is the answer to that question, this is a theological concept with no scriptural basis, which means it’s a nonstarter when it comes to this topic, since we have to base our theology on Scripture. On top of all that, though, I’m hoping by now you’ve noticed that Paul didn’t simply write “for all have sinned” here the way he did in Romans 3:23. Instead, he wrote, “for that all have sinned.” Missing a single word when reading a passage in Scripture, such as the word “that” in this case, can change everything and make you completely miss the point of the passage. Yes, one could perhaps be excused for thinking Paul meant “because all have sinned” if he had left out the word “that” in this verse (ὅς in the original Greek), and if one also hadn’t yet considered all of the above points we just covered. But he didn’t leave it out, and so “for that reason all have sinned” is the only thing Paul could have possibly been getting at in this part of the passage (making mortality the cause and sin the effect for humanity at large rather than the other way around), which means the only way to use the word “because” instead of “for” in this verse is to translate it along the lines of, “because of that [mortality] all have sinned,” which doesn’t help the idea that sin is the cause rather than the effect either. And so, I maintain that we should simply stick with what the KJV actually says here and interpret it accordingly (meaning that “death passed upon all men,” and “for that reason all have sinned”), giving us answers to both the question of why we’re mortal, as well as the question of why we sin, and also keeping the blame for our mortality, death, and sinfulness squarely where Paul meant for us to understand it belongs: on Adam.

This is also backed up a few lines later, in verses 18–19, when Paul told us that, just as judgement to condemnation came upon all men because of the offence and disobedience of one, and not because of their own offences or disobedience, righteousness and justification of life will also come upon all men because of the obedience of one, and not because of their own obedience — which would have to include obedience towards any commands to do anything specific in order to get saved, including commands to choose to believe anything specific, at least as far as salvation from an absolute perspective goes — telling us that only two people are responsible for our current and future states, the first Adam and the last Adam, and that we’re just along for the ride. (And for those who want to blame our mortality and death on our own sins rather than on the first Adam, I’d be curious to know what they believe the condemnation that came upon all men because of the offence and disobedience of one/Adam actually even is, exactly.)

Now, some like to claim that one has to first choose to receive the free gift, based on verse 17, but Paul didn’t say anything about it being a choice in that verse (the idea that receiving the free gift is a choice is an assumption that one has to read into the verse, since it just isn’t there in the text), and we already know that receiving something isn’t necessarily something one chooses anyway, as evidenced by how Paul told us he received thirty-nine stripes five different times. Since he would have experienced those lashes whether he first chose to receive them or not, it’s time to reconsider the idea that “receiving the free gift” is something one chooses rather than simply experiences apart from anything they have to do, because, aside from the fact that this would make salvation something they gained through their own obedience rather than because of the obedience of one/Christ, having to choose to receive it would also be something one had to accomplish in order to be saved, which by definition would make it a work one had to do in order to be saved, and the most difficult work one could ever do at that, based on the fact that so few are ever able to “choose to receive the gift” and “get saved” (at least as far as the traditional Christian understanding of what salvation is goes).

The reason most Christians insist that receiving the free gift has to be a choice (aside from simply never having considered the possibility that it might not be) is because they just don’t want to accept that condemnation and salvation (especially from an absolute perspective) could possibly be something we have no say in. You see, if our condemnation is based entirely on the action of one (Adam), as Paul said it was, then our salvation is based entirely upon the action of one as well (the last Adam), as Paul also said it is, rather than based (at least in part) upon a wise decision we ourselves made to choose to receive the free gift, and the pride of most Christians just won’t allow them to accept that as a possibility.

This all means it’s time to recognize that the idea of the salvation Paul wrote about being based at least in part upon something people have to do for themselves — even if what they have to do is something as supposedly simple as having to choose to believe the right thing — rather than being based entirely upon what Christ did for us is really something one must read into the text based on one’s preconceived idea that salvation depends on us and our wise decision to believe and/or do something specific rather than depends 100% on what Christ did. (This also means it’s time to stop ignoring the scriptural truth of election, although the thing almost everyone gets confused about when it comes to soteriological predestination is that it’s actually about when someone experiences salvation, not about if they get to experience it: although some people are chosen by God to receive a special, early experience of salvation — meaning they’ll experience salvation from a relative perspective, and not everyone will get saved from a relative perspective — Paul is teaching here that everyone will eventually experience salvation from an absolute perspective, even if not until the end of the ages.) This is another parallelism, something Paul seemed to love using to prove this particular point in various epistles, where the “all” and the “many” in the second part of a sentence have to be the same “all” and “many” in the first part or else the parallelism would fall apart.

Because of their lack of understanding of who (and Who) Paul is placing the responsibility for both our condemnation and our eventual salvation on, most Christians mistakenly believe that only those “in Christ” will be made alive/quickened (completely missing the significance of the order of the wording in the verse), but the whole point of the parallelisms in these passages is to make it clear that Christ has at least the exact same level of effect on humanity that Adam had, meaning Christ’s action changes the exact same number of people that fall into the categories of “all” or “many” that Adam’s action did. (And if Christ’s action doesn’t change the exact same number of people that Adam’s action did, it means that Adam’s failure was ultimately more efficacious than Christ’s victory was, making Adam and his sin more powerful than Christ and His death for our sins.)

If you’re still finding this confusing, Paul’s parallelism here can also be expressed mathematically: “For as in ax die, even so in z, shall x be made alive.” The set known as “x” is the exact same group (or number) of people in both clauses (with “a” and “z” being two different reasons for their two respective states at two different periods of time), not two separate groups of people who have to choose between Adam and Christ. In fact, since this is a parallelism, and because we know that nobody specifically made a conscious choice to “choose Adam” (I don’t recall ever thinking to myself, “I accept Adam as my lord and unsaviour,” which would have to be the case if we “even so” need to choose to “accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour” in order to be saved; and if it happens without our conscious decision to “accept Adam,” then, even so, our salvation would also have to happen without our conscious decision to “accept Christ,” since this is a parallelism), or chose to die “in Adam,” but rather that we were all simply born that way (remember, our condemnation to mortality, death, and sinfulness was entirely because of one/Adam, and not because of anything we ourselves did), this also means that, “even so,” nobody can choose to be “in Christ” either (if this verse meant that it’s up to us to choose to be ”in Christ,” it would mean that it was up to us to choose to be ”in Adam” first, which we already know isn’t the case, since we’re all born mortal). “All” (“x”) became mortal/dying “through Adam” or “because of what Adam did” (“in a”) rather than because of any choice of their own (our mortality precedes any choice of our own, and is in fact the reason we sin, as I was getting at previously, since otherwise newborn babies would be incapable of dying prior to their first sin and, at the very least, third-trimester abortions would be impossible to perform), and they will all (“x” again) also eventually be “made alive”/become immortal “through Christ” or “because of what Christ did” (“in z”) rather than because of any choice of their own. And the same applies to when Paul uses the word “many” instead of “all” in his parallelisms in Romans 5 as well (go ahead and put an x in place of the words “many” and “all” in the passages in Romans 5 to see for yourself). With this in mind, the only way the passage could possibly mean that only some people (believers) will be made alive is if the verse said, “For as in Adam only some die, even so in Christ shall only some be made alive,” or if it perhaps said, “For as in Adam all die, unevenly so in Christ shall only some be made alive” (the words “even so” there basically mean “the same way,” or “equally so,” telling us that the variable x has to be the same number on both sides of the words “even so”).

But why do so many Christians get confused by this verse? It’s due to a combination of the fact that they’ve misunderstood the various passages in Scripture about judgement and hell that we looked at earlier in this article — and are misinterpreting this and other Pauline passages about salvation in light of their misunderstandings of those judgement passages rather than interpreting those particular passages in light of this and other Pauline passages about salvation (since they don’t realize that the salvation Jesus spoke about during His earthly ministry was an entirely different sort of salvation from the one Paul was writing about here, they mistakenly assume that, because not everyone experiences that sort of salvation, not everyone will experience the type of salvation was Paul writing about here either) — along with the fact that this verse says “in” (“in Adam” and “in Christ”) rather than “through” or “because of” (which is what the word is talking about here). Since one can only be “in” one of two people at a time, positionally-speaking, this causes them to miss the fact that the word “all” is the exact same group of people in both clauses (referring to “all of humanity”). To be fair, “in” obviously can mean “inside” something, positionally-speaking (either literally or figuratively, depending on the context), but it can also mean “through (the action of)” or “because of” something or someone, and that’s clearly what Paul was getting at in this parallelism.

However, let’s pretend to forget all of the above, and assume for the moment that this passage actually is referring to being “in Christ” from a positional perspective rather than referring to our immortality being because of what Christ accomplished. Does that change anything at all about the end result I concluded it would culminate in (all humans eventually experiencing salvation from an absolute perspective)? Not even slightly. To put it simply, because this is a parallelism, we’d then be forced to read it as meaning: just as every human begins “in Adam” (and hence is mortal), even so every human will end “in Christ” (and hence will be made immortal). That said, when you consider the fact that the context of the chapter was resurrection and quickening, it’s pretty clear that Paul was literally telling us in this parallelism that even though “because of what Adam did all humans are mortal, even so because of what Christ did all humans will be quickened” (and to be quickened means to experience salvation from a physical perspective, finally enjoying one’s immortality, and hence sinlessness).

But while Paul tells us that everyone who experiences mortality because of what Adam did will also eventually experience immortality because of what Christ did, he also tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:23–24 that there’s an order to when each person will be “made alive.” Basically, there are three different groups of humans to be made immortal, and these three groups combined consist of all humanity (even though each group will be quickened in their own order).

The first group mentioned is “Christ the firstfruits,” which refers to the body of Christ (aside from the Head of the body, Who would presumably have to be excluded unless Jesus was also directly affected by Adam’s sin, which He wasn’t since He was amortal rather than mortal — that was kind of the point of the virgin birth, after all) being quickened at the time of the Rapture. The dead who will be resurrected, as well as and the members of the body of Christ who are still living, will experience this immortality when the Rapture occurs (the dead members of the body of Christ will be resurrected first, after which they and the remaining living members of the body of Christ will be “made alive”/made immortal), and will no longer sin from then on (because they’ll no longer be mortal). This event is God withdrawing His ambassadors from earth (as one does prior to declaring war) before the Tribulation begins, who then go on to fulfill their purpose in Christ in heavenly places.

The second group is “they that are Christ’s at his coming,” referring to those made immortal at the time of the resurrection of the just, at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom, 75 days after Jesus returns to earth and the Tribulation period has concluded (people such as “Old Testament” saints, for example, and those who died following the teachings that Jesus and His disciples gave). I should say, for a long time I assumed that everyone who gets to enjoy the sort of salvation Jesus spoke about, both dead and living, will be made immortal at this point, but I’ve since concluded that only those who were dead and who will be resurrected at the Second Coming will be made immortal at this time, while everyone else who gets to enjoy “everlasting life” in the kingdom of heaven in Israel will simply remain alive (at least to begin with) in what’s known as an amortal state (meaning not immortal, since being immortal means to be incapable of dying, but also not mortal, which means to be in the process of slowly dying, either) thanks to partaking of the fruit and the leaves of the tree of life on a monthly basis, and won’t be made truly immortal until the final order of quickenings is completed much later. As for why I’ve come to this conclusion, I’ll just quickly say that if the reward for “overcoming” by some of those during the Tribulation will be to partake of the tree of life, and if one needs to continuously consume its products in order to remain healthy and alive as Scripture appears to say, yet the quickening of the resurrected dead happens instantaneously and is irreversible, as is demonstrated by those in the body of Christ when they’re caught up in the air at the Rapture, it seems that there must two different methods of remaining alive on earth during the Millennium and beyond (quickening as the first method, and partaking of the tree of life on a regular basis as the second). With that in mind, I should also say that some like to group the body of Christ in with this order as well, and believe it applies to everyone who experiences the salvation that Jesus spoke about as well as those who experience the salvation that Paul wrote about — even if some are quickened three-and-a-half or more years apart from each other — and believe the first order is just speaking of Christ Himself. However, as I already mentioned, to do so would mean Jesus was affected directly by Adam’s sin, so placing the body of Christ in the first order rather than the second makes the most sense, and even more-so if I’m correct that only the resurrected dead members of those in the Israel of God will be quickened at the end of the Tribulation, which it would seem has to be the case for the reason I already explained, as well as because there wouldn’t be anyone left to fulfill the prophecies of righteous Israelites not only growing old but also having children in the kingdom and on the New Earth if every member of the Israel of God were quickened when Jesus returns (and considering the fact that the living members of the body of Christ are quickened at the Rapture, this is also more evidence that the Rapture is a separate event from the Second Coming). But that does bring up the question of when the rest of the members of the Israel of God will be “made alive”/made truly immortal, and the answer to this is found in the very next verse.

Of course, most people assume “they that are Christ’s at his coming” in verse 23 is the final group of quickenings mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15, but Paul actually speaks of a third and final (“end”) group to be “made alive” when he wrote “then cometh the end” in verse 24. It is technically true that the end of the ages is when this final quickening occurs, and this fact has caused most people to misunderstand Paul’s statement there to mean that he’d moved on from the topic of resurrection and quickening and had now begun discussing the end of the ages (or the end of the world, as others assume) instead. But Paul had not even hinted at any such topics in this chapter so far, yet had just mentioned an order of different groups of people to be “made alive” in the verse immediately prior to this one (when he wrote, “but every man in his own order”), so there’s absolutely zero basis for interpreting this statement as meaning anything other than Paul telling his readers that “then the end group of people from the ‘every man in his own order’ of groups of people will be made immortal” (and then going on to explain when this final quickening will occur). It would make no sense at all for Paul to go from discussing resurrection and immortality to suddenly arbitrarily discussing an entirely unrelated topic altogether — the triumph of Christ over His enemies, and the destruction of death, at a time long after the quickening of “they that are Christ’s at his coming,” with no connection to what He’d just been discussing at all — then to go right back to discussing resurrection and immortality again as he does a few verses later, so this is obviously still about the same topic, and is simply referring to the end of the order of “every man in his own order” to be “made alive.”

Another reason this can’t simply be referring to the end of the ages rather than to the final group to be quickened is his explanation that this “end” exists at the time when Christ has subjected all authorities and principalities and powers (referring to rulership by both humans on earth as well as spiritual beings in the heavens, including by evil ones) and gives up the kingdom to His God and Father, and that it occurs when all His enemies are finally put under His feet, and when the final enemy — death — is finally destroyed altogether. The problem is, if he was solely referring to a period of time in that statement, the way it’s written would mean it takes place immediately after the resurrection and quickening of “they that are Christ’s at His coming.” But we know from the rest of Scripture that there will still be enemies of Christ, as well as much more death happening, after that, so this can’t possibly be what he meant. Remember, there will be well over 1,000 years to go between the quickening of “they that are Christ’s at His coming” and the time of whatever “the end” is, when Christ finally does defeat all enemies and turns over the kingdom to His Father, since, at the very least, there is still a final, even if somewhat short and one-sided, battle between Him and those who consider Him to be their enemy a whole millennium after their quickening. In addition, we’re told in Isaiah 65 that there will still be death on the New Earth for a period of time after the Great White Throne Judgement as well (when it said, “There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed”), at least prior to the conclusion of the final age, also making the common interpretation impossible. (And for those who are thinking that Revelation 21:1–8 means there won’t be any death on the New Earth, a careful study of that passage should make it clear that this only applies to those who get to reside within the walls of the New Jerusalem, at least prior to the conclusion of the final age.)

And the references to death in this chapter can’t be talking about the supposed “spiritual death” that most Christians believe in either (and which some of them mistakenly assume the death in verse 22 is talking about; although if it was, then Jesus definitely couldn’t be included in the “firstfruits” reference, unless you believe He “died spiritually,” whatever that means, ”in Adam” as well), because verse 24 tells us that His enemies are subjected and death is destroyed at a point in time after “they that are Christ’s at His coming” have been quickened, not that they are subjected — or that death is destroyed — by that group being quickened (and remember, death is the last enemy to be defeated, yet there will still be more death and enemies continuing to exist long after the quickening of “they that are Christ’s at His coming,” including on the New Earth for a time). So if this part of the chapter is just talking about a so-called “spiritual death” (which we’ve already determined is a meaningless expression) rather than physical mortality, and it’s only talking about certain people being given some sort of “spiritual life” (or “going to heaven” after they die, which we now know isn’t even a scriptural concept, since only the living can enjoy heaven), the same problem applies because it tells us that the end of “death” doesn’t occur until after both “they that are Christ’s at His coming” are given immortality and all the rest of Christ’s enemies have been subjected as well. (Although, if there were such a thing as “spiritual death,” this would mean that eventually everyone else will also become “spiritually alive” when Christ subjects His enemies and destroys death, since if “death” in this chapter was simply a reference to the so-called “spiritual death” so many believe in, there couldn’t be any “spiritual death” left once Christ destroys it, long after “they that are Christ’s at His coming” have been “made alive,” which means that everyone left who is “spiritually dead” will become “spiritually alive” when death is destroyed as well.)

So, unless someone has a better explanation of what these verses are referring to, one that doesn’t contradict the rest of Scripture, it would seem this would definitely have to be talking about the final (“end”) group to be quickened, meaning the rest of humanity (including both those who are dead — meaning those whose bodies were burned up in the lake of fire at the Great White Throne Judgement, and those who happen to die on the New Earth during the final age — as well as those who are still living, thanks to having partaken of the fruit and the leaves of the tree of life to keep from dying, but haven’t been quickened yet, referring to those whose names were written in the book of life but who hadn’t already been quickened previously, as well as those, and the descendants of those, still mortal humans who didn’t join Satan and die during his final rebellion at the end of the Millennium), finally quickened after the final age is completed and Jesus’ reign over the kingdom comes to an end because He’s defeated all enemies (including death) and has turned all rulership (including rulership over Himself) over to His Father, and God is finally “All in all” (yes, in all, not just in a lucky few; if Paul had not pointed out that the “all” he was writing about doesn’t include God, people could then turn around and say that “all” doesn’t actually mean “all” because it obviously couldn’t include God, so it could then also exclude people who die as non-believers as well if it doesn’t actually mean “all,” but because Paul does point out that God isn’t included in the “all,” yet doesn’t mention anyone else as being excluded from the group, we know that everyone other than God is going to be included in the “all,” even those who die as non-believers — and for those who like to argue that “all” in this verse can’t actually mean everyone because of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 12:6, what I just wrote about “all” including everyone other than God tells us that it has to be referring to all sapient creatures other than God regardless, but that aside, there’s no good reason to assume that the “all” in chapter 12 isn’t talking about everyone anyway, and based on what the Bible says about God’s sovereignty, it almost certainly is).

This means, by the way, that people who use passages that seem to tell us Jesus will reign “for ever” to prove that “everlasting punishment” will also never end “because those passages use the same words” are actually basing their argument on an obvious misunderstanding since Paul is clear that His reign won’t be never-ending, but rather will only last until He’s defeated the final enemy, meaning He reigns for the final two ages, but stops reigning after they’re over (it isn’t necessary to know this, but καὶ βασιλεύσει ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰακὼβ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας in Luke 1 there literally just means, “and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the ages,” similar to how the Greek phrase αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶναἰώνων in Revelation 1 there literally just means, “to Him is the glory and the dominion for the ages of the ages,” referring to the greatest two ages — meaning the Millennial Kingdom and the final age on the New Earth, before even that final age comes to an end). This also demonstrates just how few people are aware that A) the passages which are translated as “everlasting” or “for ever” in the KJV have to be interpreted qualitatively rather than quantitatively based on this fact and the fact that Paul was clear that everyone will eventually be quickened, as well as that B) Paul saw much farther into the future than John did in the book called Revelation (John basically only saw into the beginning of the final age, whereas Paul saw all the way to the end of the “ages,” or “worlds,” after that final age concludes, as all ages, by definition, must).

And since many Christians often make a similar mistake when they try to insist that, “If ‘eternal damnation’ isn’t actually never ending, then ‘eternal life’ would have to come to an end as well, and we’d eventually die,” I’m forced to point out that they really aren’t thinking things through when they make this assertion, since we’ve already determined that the “for ever” words in the KJV have to be interpreted qualitatively rather than quantitatively (or figuratively rather than literally), so we have to assume they aren’t talking about how long one lives (or how long one is punished) so much as about the form or quality of the life and judgements they experience will be (and, in fact, most Christians already interpret this term figuratively anyway, as we’ve already covered earlier in this article). And so, just because one’s time experiencing “eternal damnation” will come to an end, it doesn’t stand to reason that anyone with “eternal life” will eventually die (or lose their salvation, at least from an absolute perspective), because it isn’t verses about “eternal life” that promise us we’ll live forever anyway, but rather it’s verses about our impending immortality which tell us we’ll never die (at least after our quickening), as I pointed out previously. So, when people are eventually resurrected from their second death in the lake of fire to be “made alive”/quickened (which they’ll have to be in order for it to be able to be said that death has truly been destroyed, since as long as death continues to hold anyone prisoner, death hasn’t actually been defeated or destroyed at all, but rather continues to be an enemy), members of the body of Christ will still remain alive, although not because of any passage that speaks of “eternal life” but rather because of passages that tell us we’ll already have been made immortal. Basically, when someone reaches the end of the figurative “for ever” or “everlasting life,” that particular aspect of their salvation (the relative salvation that only a few will ever get to enjoy) will be over, but they’ll still remain alive because they’ll have bodies that can’t die (or, if they’re among those who get to enjoy “everlasting life” in Israel during the Millennium, or perhaps on the New Earth, but haven’t been made immortal yet, they’ll finally be given immortality, along with everyone else). Similarly, the claim that “the everlasting God,” as He’s referred to in Romans 16:26 in the KJV, would eventually die if “everlasting” doesn’t mean “never ending” is just as misguided. This verse isn’t trying to tell anyone that God will never die. Everybody already knows that God is immortal. As Psalm 102:27 told us many millennia ago, His years shall have no end, and the idea that Paul would be trying to tell his readers something that everybody already takes for granted would just be silly. The fact that Paul said God’s power and divinity (“Godhead”) are eternal at the beginning of the same epistle, and used a Greek word (ἀΐδιος) that actually does literally mean ”without end” in that particular verse, also tells us just how redundant it would have been for him to have literally meant “never ending” here in this verse, since He’d have to be immortal for His power to literally be eternal. And so, just because “everlasting” isn’t a quantitative word in this verse in the KJV, it can certainly mean something very qualitative, even when it speaks of God (for those who haven’t figured it out yet, though, based on the fact that the original Greek αἰωνίου θεοῦ in this verse literally means “age-pertaining God,” we can interpret this as telling us that God isn’t simply existing outside of space and time, but rather that He’s the God Who is also close to — and is even involved with what happens to — those of us who live through the ages; and while some have insisted that this interpretation would then limit Him to being the God of just the ages, we’d have no more of a reason for reading that idea into the text than we’d have for reading the idea that being “the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” would limit Him to being the God of just those three patriarchs).

But in case anybody is still skeptical, Paul confirmed the salvation of all humanity beyond any shadow of a doubt when he wrote in 1 Timothy 2:3–6 that Christ Jesus gave himself a ransom for all. You see, when a ransom is fully paid, all those who are held captive are set free (unless the one paying the ransom has been lied to). So, if Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all humanity, as we know He did, and any humans at all are not “released,” so to speak, we’d then have to conclude that God has deceived His Son (which I trust nobody reading this believes to be the case). In other words, since Christ gives Himself a ransom for all, all must be saved, or else God and the Bible stand discredited as dishonest.

Please don’t confuse this passage as saying that Christ died in our place, receiving the penalty for our sins so we wouldn’t have pay the price for our sins ourselves, though, as many Christians believe He did (so long as we choose to believe He did so, they’d also claim). Of course, even if the idea that Christ paid the price in our place were a scriptural concept, it makes no sense that we would have to choose to believe He paid the price in our place in order for Him to have actually paid the price in our place (He either did or He didn’t, and our belief couldn’t change the fact either way), because if those who didn’t choose to believe it then had to pay the price themselves, it would mean God was double-charging, which would be most dishonest of Him (not to mention most unfair to His Son). That said, there’s absolutely nothing anywhere in Scripture which even implies that Jesus died in our place, or that He received the penalty for anyone’s sins so they wouldn’t have pay the price for their sins themselves. However, for the sake of argument, let’s say He actually did. If this was the case, and if ending up in the lake of fire without end was the penalty for our sins (whether consciously or otherwise), it would mean that Jesus would have to still be burning in the lake of fire. But since He never even set foot in the lake of fire to begin with (He couldn’t have, since it hasn’t even begun burning in the valley of the son of Hinnom, at least not as of the time this article was written), burning in the lake of fire couldn’t possibly be the penalty He took in our place. And if the supposed penalty He paid in our place was simply death instead, nobody who “got saved” would ever actually drop dead, which obviously isn’t the case. This also means the penalty couldn’t be never-ending “separation from God” (which is an impossibility, as we’ve already covered), since if it were, Jesus would also have to be separated from God at this point in time, and for all time, in order to truly “pay the penalty in our place.” So no, He didn’t die in our place, or pay any penalty for our sins in our place (and if you still believe He did, please point me to any passage that says He did). Instead, He died for our sins, meaning His death put away sin, removing sin from the equation altogether, fulfilling the type of the goat in the wilderness in the Mosaic law, and if sin has been put away, it’s no longer something anyone needs to worry about. You see, when He went down into the tomb, it can be said that He brought sin down into the earth with Him, and when He was resurrected three days later, He returned without that sin, and so sin is no longer being held against anyone anymore, regardless of whether they believe it or not, because Christ died for our sins, which is yet more proof that everyone will eventually experience salvation (although those relative few who believe and understand what it means that Christ died for our sins, and that He was buried and rose again on the third day, enjoy the additional benefit of freedom from religion, because they know there’s nothing they have to do, or even that they can do, in order to receive the benefits of what Christ did for us, since they’re aware that having to do any act at all would be a work performed in order to earn that gift, even if that act was simply having to choose to receive the free gift that Christ already gave us all).

That’s not all, though, because Paul also wrote, “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,” in Ephesians 1:13. How does that prove the salvation of all? Well, if you read it in the context of the whole chapter, and are also familiar with the different types of salvation mentioned in Scripture, you’ll notice that this section of the chapter (verses 3 through 14) is primarily about the blessings that God has purposed beforehand to literally lavish upon those (hath abounded toward us) whom He chose to become members of the body of Christ. Simply put, this section of the chapter is all about how God has predestined certain people to experience certain blessings in Christ, blessings which not everyone will experience. This isn’t Calvinism, however, since experiencing the blessings mentioned in this chapter aren’t about the salvation from an absolute perspective that everyone receives. It’s only those who are experiencing the salvation Paul taught about from a relative perspective that he was writing to in this passage, specifically the body of Christ.

And so when Paul wrote, “after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation,” he was saying that his readers had heard the word of truth, and, in what is essentially a parenthetical, explained what that word of truth they heard was: the good news (“gospel”) of their salvation. To put it simply, Paul wrote here that the good news they had heard was the good news of their already existing salvation, not the good news of how they could have salvation if only they did something specific (note that he didn’t write, “after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your potential salvation, although only you actually believed that gospel,” but rather that they had heard the good news about the salvation which was already theirs). The point here is that, because there is no included proposition in the text connected with the salvation they heard about, the good news they heard was a proclamation that they already had salvation (from an absolute perspective, which, as we know from his other writings, is the outcome of Christ’s death for our sins, and His subsequent burial and resurrection) prior to hearing about it. Simply put, Paul couldn’t tell them the good news of their salvation if they weren’t already saved.

Now, most people read this verse and assume that either the first part of the verse (“In whom ye also trusted”) or the last part of the verse (“in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise”) actually is a proposition about their salvation, and that they didn’t receive their salvation until they actually believed the supposed good news about how they could attain said salvation. But this is a misunderstanding due to not being aware of what the different types of salvation mentioned in Scripture are all about. All the first part of the verse is telling us is that they trusted Christ after they heard the good news of their already existing salvation which He’d already won for all of us (including them), and all the last part of the verse is telling us is that, after they trusted that Christ had already guaranteed (absolute) salvation for all of us because of what He accomplished through His death for our sins, burial, and resurrection, even before they believed it, they were then sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise (which is a part of their relative salvation, an earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession”). All that is to say, Paul’s little parenthetical in Ephesians 1:13 is simply telling us that “the good news of [their] salvation” was already a fact for them before they heard it, and after they heard about the salvation that was already theirs from an absolute perspective, they trusted Christ and were sealed with the Holy Spirit, and hence were also saved from a relative perspective (and were then awaiting their physical salvation, meaning the quickening of their mortal bodies, referred to here as “the redemption of the purchased possession,” which they’ll receive at the Rapture, and which everyone else will also eventually receive, although “every man in his own order,” as already discussed).

But even clearer than that example, Paul also wrote that God is “the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe” in 1 Timothy 4:10. And honestly, it doesn’t get any clearer than this, with Paul telling us that God will save absolutely everyone, even if those who believe this good news will get to experience a special level of salvation on top of that. If a teacher were to say at the end of the school year, “I’ve given everyone a passing grade this year, specially Lisa who got an A+,” we’d know that, while nobody else got an A+, they still all passed, since “specially” doesn’t mean “only” or “exclusively” (or “specifically,” as some claim, and those who think it does mean that should use a concordance to look up each time the Greek word μάλιστα that “specially” is translated from here is used in Scripture to see for themselves). In fact, if the word did mean “only” or “specifically,” the part of the verse that tells us God is the Saviour of all men would be a lie, because it didn’t say God is “the potential Saviour of all men, but really only of those that believe” (or that God is “the Saviour available for all men, although only actually the Saviour of those that believe”), but instead plainly tells us that He actually is the Saviour of all men, and to be able to legitimately be called the saviour of someone, you have to actually save them at some point, which means that, to be able to legitimately be called “the Saviour of all men,” God has to actually save all men eventually. Bottom line, if even one human fails to end up experiencing salvation by the end of the ages, Paul would be just as much a liar as that teacher would turn out to be if any of the students in Lisa’s class received a failing grade after telling them they’d all passed.

And as for those Calvinists who insist that Paul is only claiming “God is the Saviour of all kinds or sorts of men,” and that God only wants “all sorts of men” to be saved rather than actually “will have all men to be saved,” A) that’s clearly not what these passages say anyway (the words “kinds” and “sorts” aren’t there in the text), and B) they’re ignoring the second part of the verse where Paul says “specially of believers” rather than “specifically: believers” (if that’s what God really wanted Paul to get across without lying, you’d think He would have just inspired Paul to simply write, “the living God, who is the Saviour only of believers”), so they’re just reading their own preconceived doctrinal bias that not everyone will experience salvation into these passages because they have no other choice if they don’t want it to contradict their theological presuppositions, just as Arminians do in their own way.

All that is to say, this passage once again verifies that the soteriology of Paul throughout his epistles is indeed that every human who is affected by the curse will also be equally (if not more so) affected by the cross, even if it doesn’t happen to everyone at the same time (with believers getting a special, earlier experience of salvation, as well as potentially getting to rule and reign with Christ in the heavens, or perhaps getting to rule over the earth from Israel — depending on which sort of salvation they’re experiencing — figuratively referred to as “everlasting life,” or as “life eternal,” in the KJV and other less literal Bible translations).

And in the interest of coming to a conclusion at some point, I’ll try to wrap all this up by looking at another passage where Paul also used a similar sort of parallelism to the ones he used in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5, this time in the first chapter of his epistle to the Colossians, to tell his readers that all of the rest of creation will be reconciled to God as well. In fact, I don’t know how someone can read verses 15 through 20 of that chapter and not end up a believer in the salvation (and reconciliation) of everyone, although it seems most people somehow miss the fact that Paul is using a type of parallelism known as an Extended Alternation here — likely because they probably weren’t familiar with Paul’s consistent use of parallelisms throughout his epistles to prove the salvation (and reconciliation) of all humanity until they read this article — to tell us that the same “all” created by Him are also the same “all” that are reconciled to Him by the blood of Christ’s cross, and that this passage tells us that not only are all humans (meaning all the things created in earth, as mentioned in both verses 16 and 20) both created by and reconciled to Him, but all the creatures in heaven (as also mentioned in both of the same two verses, referring to a list of spiritual beings that overlaps with another list of creatures who are described in Ephesians 6:12 as being the spiritual wickedness in high places) are also both created by and reconciled to Him, and there would be no need to reconcile spiritual beings in heaven who weren’t first estranged, so it can only be the “fallen” spiritual beings in the heavens who are being reconciled, and if all of them are going to be reconciled, as Paul says they will be in that passage, we know that all the creatures on the earth will be as well, as he also says they will be in the same passage (and, again, reconciliation means that the parties on both sides of a conflict are now at peace with one another). But, if you’re having trouble with this parallelism, replace the word “all” with the variable x again in both verses 16 and 20 — in fact, do it in all the verses from verse 16 to verse 20 — and it should become clear what it means.

Now, some try to argue that verse 21 contradicts this conclusion, but that just means they aren’t reading the text very carefully, since A) it really should be obvious that the point Paul was making about the eventual reconciliation of all created beings concludes with the end of verse 20, and B) they somehow miss the fact that when Paul wrote, “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled,” he was simply saying his readers have experienced this reconciliation first. But since we’re not claiming that verses 16 to 20 say everyone has currently been reconciled in their minds yet anyway, the immediate reconciliation of believers doesn’t preclude the eventual reconciliation of everyone else he promised would eventually be reconciled as well. It’s also important to notice that it’s only in our minds that Paul says the alienation takes place prior to being reconciled, as well as to know that the alienation is entirely one-sided at this point in time, with religious humans mistakenly believing that God is their enemy because of their wicked works, not realizing that God is actually already at peace with everyone because of what He did through Christ, and that He isn’t imputing the trespasses of the world unto them at all — remember, while evil acts will be judged at the Great White Throne, sin won’t be, because sin has already been entirely taken care of by Christ — but is instead now asking those of us in the body of Christ to beseech the rest of the world to be reconciled to God, meaning to be at peace with God in their minds because He’s already made peace with them through of the blood of Christ’s cross, and to believe the good news of their already existing salvation because of what Christ did.

I realize it’s difficult to resist the temptation to insert words into Paul’s epistles that aren’t there, or even to change (or ignore) the order of the words in certain verses, but there’s just no justification for doing so, particularly when we consider the fact that there’s no scriptural basis for believing in never-ending punishment in the first place, as you should now be aware if you’ve read everything I wrote in this article carefully. Yes, there are passages which tell us that only believers will be “saved” or will experience “everlasting life,” but when we consider the qualitative/figurative meaning of those words (and understand the difference between the relative and the absolute when discussing salvation, not to mention recognize the difference between the many types of salvation mentioned in Scripture), we can come to understand that everyone who doesn’t get “everlasting life” (and who might even have to spend time in one or more of the various “hells”) will still eventually experience salvation in another way, even if not for a very long time after those who do get to enjoy “everlasting life” get saved. And so, even though some people will miss out on “everlasting life,” and might even end up in “everlasting” hell fire, we now know that they, and everyone, will eventually leave hell (whichever hell or hells they end up in) and experience salvation, thanks to God and Christ.

But the fact that not everyone gets to enjoy “everlasting life” is also something that should concern my readers, because there are certain qualifications for getting to do so. There are, of course, various types of “everlasting life” available to be experienced, depending on when one lives, anyway. You might get to enjoy the “everlasting life” that involves living in Israel during the Millennium if you happen to live through the Tribulation and take care of Israelites who are persecuted during the second half of it. This isn’t in an immortal body, however, although I think it stands to reason that whoever does get to enjoy this sort of “everlasting life” will likely be given access to the tree of life and will never die. The members of the Israel of God will also be given “everlasting life” in Israel during the Millennium (and will get to reign over the rest of the world from Israel), and those of them who died prior to — and are resurrected 75 days after — Jesus’ Second Coming will even be made immortal upon their resurrection (while those who “endure to the end” of the Tribulation will get to remain alive as amortals, thanks to the tree of life, although they, as well as those who helped persecuted Jews during the Tribulation, will eventually be made truly immortal too, at the end of the ages, along with everyone else).

However, there’s a final group of people who also get to experience “everlasting life,” and this entire group will get to enjoy it in immortal bodies (and these bodies will be even more glorious than the immortal bodies of those in the Israel of God). These people, of course, are the members of the body of Christ. This is an extremely small group of people, though, and technically only those relatively few people to whom God has elected to give the understanding of what it means, and the faith to believe, that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, can actually join it, because faith in what Christ accomplished is a gift from God (it isn’t only the salvation and grace that are referred to as being a gift in that verse; the faith clearly is as well, especially since there’s no way anyone could think grace could possibly be ”of yourselves,” considering the definition of grace, so the reference to the gift has to be referring primarily to faith), and even having to choose to believe all this in order to be saved would be a work we had to accomplish on our own, and would then make us our own (at least partial) saviours since, if we aren’t saved (referring to salvation from an absolute perspective) because of what Christ accomplished prior to having faith, it would mean Christ accomplished absolutely nothing that benefited anyone until they performed the final step of their salvation themselves, through their wise or righteous or humble choice to believe the right thing, whichever of those options it is you think is the source of peoples’ will to choose to believe the right thing that causes them to finally get saved (instead of their will to believe the good news of their already existing salvation because of what Christ accomplished coming from the Source that Scripture says it actually comes from). However, while whether we experience this sort of “everlasting life” or not isn’t something we ultimately get to decide for ourselves (nobody chooses what they believe; they either hear or read something and believe it, or they hear or read it and don’t believe it, and nobody can choose to force themselves to believe something that they think isn’t true, at least not without some serious self-induced brainwashing, likely requiring powerful drugs; and if they didn’t think it was true, why would they try to force themselves to believe it in the first place?), at some point in their life, anyone included in this group will have believed (which first requires actually understanding) all the elements of what it is Paul said that members of the body of Christ believe when they’re saved, which means God will have given them an understanding of, and belief in, the following facts before they die or before the Rapture occurs: 1) That “Christ died for our sins” means that sin has now been dealt with for everyone, and so nobody’s sins are being held against them at all anymore (good and evil works will still be judged at the Great White Throne, of course, but sin and evil are two entirely different concepts, as I’ve already mentioned, and should never be confused as being the same thing, although it is true that a lot of evil actions are indeed sinful), and everyone will eventually experience salvation because of this, and entirely apart from anything they do on their own at that, including even believing this good news. 2) That “He was buried” means He literally ceased to exist as a conscious being, and He Himself was placed in the tomb (and not just His body while He Himself went somewhere else). And 3) that “He rose again the third day” means, after spending three days truly dead, God resurrected Him into a physical (albeit “spiritual”) body, not that He simply now exists as a glorified ghost in another dimension (this final point was the whole reason Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15, after all, because some people had stopped believing in the physical resurrection). And so, if you’ve come to truly understand and believe the details I’ve just explained, then you can rest assured that you are indeed among the elect and have joined the body of Christ.

If you’ve made it this far and disagree with basically everything I’ve written, however, I’m sorry to say that there’s a good chance you’ll have to wait until the end of the ages to experience your own salvation, since you likely aren’t among those whom God has elected for membership in the body of Christ. But, just like everyone else, even you will get to enjoy salvation at that time (and if you happen to be alive at the time the Tribulation begins, maybe you’ll actually be among those who get to experience “life eternal” by being a member of the Israel of God, or perhaps even by helping the least of Jesus’ brethren at that time, instead). This also means that, if you want those of us who have come to understand and believe what I’ve written in this article to change our minds and believe what you do about the topics I’ve covered instead, you’re going to have to do a good job of breaking down exactly where I went wrong in my exegesis here. You can’t just expect those of us who have come to believe the doctrines I’ve covered in this article to take your word for it that they’re wrong simply because you say they are (and while it’s true that there are relatively few of us — although that could be said to be a good thing — there are at least a few thousand of us alive today who hold to the doctrines I’ve explained in this article), so you’ll have to actually do the work of explaining how we’ve misinterpreted all of the passages of Scripture that I’ve exegeted in this article in order to prove us wrong if you want us to change our minds and believe what you believe instead (which doesn’t mean just presenting us with various philosophical arguments, or appealing to our emotions, as Christians who don’t want to let go of their beloved doctrine of never-ending punishment tend to do when they realize they have no scriptural foundation for their soteriology, at least in my experience). So the ball’s in your court, but I’m not going to hold my breath, because thus far literally nobody has even attempted to refute the arguments I’ve laid out in this article (although a few people I’ve shared these interpretations with have been given the faith to believe the truth and are now in the body of Christ, and I pray that now includes you too).

But why did God seem to hide all this truth from so many, as seems to be the case when we consider the fact that so few people appear to be able to see much of it at all when they read their Bibles? To that I simply repeat Proverbs 25:2, in which we are told, “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter,” and then suggest that perhaps God did this to reveal the true nature of our hearts to us when we’re finally judged, so that we’ll be able to see just how evil our preferences for how others end up spending eternity can be. And your reaction to everything I’ve written above almost certainly will be used to reveal the truth about the state of your own heart during your years as a mortal here on earth to you at that time.