From my limited experience in my 60+ years of observing life under the sun – there is no ture justice in this world system through which we traverse (David laments this fact in Psalms 37 and 73), but the writers of the scriptures continually point to the end – where God will one day perfectly balance all of the scales, and humanity will experience living in true justice throught the ages. That day is not yet here, and I personally do not believe those that reject Christ in this day are literally living in hell in the here and now any more than His followers are living in heaven in the here and now.

Meanwhile, those who have accepted Jesus’ offer and who now belong to Him are to practice His justice in this world system as a witness to others that His Kingdom has indeed come. Matthew 25:34-36 gives us a clear picture of His justice.

“I tell you whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God. But He who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God.”

It is interesting to me hat in the second sentence it does NOT say, “the Son of Man will disown.” It says, “But He who disowns me before men will be disowned.”

What if the disowning is self perpetuated?

I think this gets to the heart of the problem in the story. Where does the problem reside? Is it in God or humanity. And the story consistently reveals, at least to me, that the problem is in us. So what if judgment is continuous self rejection?

This doesn’t invalidate the cross. It continues to reveal the problem. What if the final judgment is God declaring who we really are and as some would say, us rejecting that judgment? That is hell to me. And it doesn’t just take place int he afterlife. It takes place right here and now.

Geenna was a physical place where unclaimed bodies (usually crimnals, etc.) were dumped and burned. What didn’t burn was eventually consumed by ‘the worm’. A nasty place indeed. But by keeping Jesus statement in context, I don’t think the literal geenna is what He is referring to. Once dead, a mortal can not threaten you with anything. Where he throws your body wouldn’t be of any further consequence to you. So He must be speaking of something beyond this life, and (as I see it) by inference it is a punishment that only God has control of.

Just a few verses later Jesus says “I tell you whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God. But He who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God.” Same context. There is some sort of divine rejection inferred here. Whether temporal or eternal is not indicated.

Even later in the chapter, He says in verses 47 & 48 “That servant who knows his master’s will and … does no do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.” The context of these two verses is the return of the master – which I believe is reference of His second coming, not as the Suffering Servant, but as the Triumphant King. Here I see what I believe to be a clear reference to degree of punishment.

Finally, at the end of the chapter He syays “As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way, or he may drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the offices, and the officer throw you into prison. I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” I don’t know how else to interpret this except that those who have not been reconciled in this life are somehow going to be required to pay their own debt in the next. Again, there seems to be a degree of punishment inferred. I cannot imagine it as eternal, but I am not the judge.

The entire chapter seems to be addressing temporal vs. eternal values, and God’s justice regarding them.

I will say this however, we should all die (to self) for our enemy if we are to follow Christ. And, by God’s grace, I have had to do this often. Jesus tells us to take up our cross DAILY and follow Him. I believe that is to offer ourselves as a living sacrifice in order to establish and expand the presence of his Kingdom.

Love does not insist on its own way.

Simple statement with profound paradox!

If one subscribed to the conviction of being “in Christ”, then one is called to die for Him daily – in every choice we face.

If one subcribed to the conviction of ’scripture alone’ then one would go to the gallows or the fire rather than bow to the supreme authority of tradition.

If one held the conviction that the Bible is for every man – even the common ‘laity’, one would die for the purpose of translating/publishing it for the masses.

If one held to the conviction of his wedding vows, and his place as provider for his family, one would die for his wife and children.

If one held to the conviction that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was an endowment of the Creator, one would die to either gain or preserve them.

Each of these convictions can be (and, in my case, are) derived from doctrine (biblical principles). Tens of thousands died to protect my right to openly hold them. I was willing to die for the right of my children and grandchildren to openly hold them – or to openly hold any convictions they choose.

I do not see ‘doctrine’ as a pejorative term at all. I see ‘dogma’ (arrogantly holding/enforcing an opinion)as the real danger to the liberty we have in Christ. As Grace’s last post suggests, wrestling with doctrine can be healthy. As long as we’re wrestling, there is little danger in turning it into dogma. But, I am convinced that there is some doctrine that is firmly established as essential to the Christian faith, and is to be used as the foundation upon which we are to stand as we wrestle with the non-essential doctrines. I call these ‘convictions’. The problems arise between ‘denominations’ because they cannot fully agree as to what and how much ‘essential doctrine’ they push into that foundational statement.

I have opinions about God’s wrath and judgement, and eternal hell, and who’s ‘in’ and who’s ‘out’ – and I continue to wrestle with them. But I wrestle from the foundation of my convictions. One of those convictions is the authority of God’s Word. I will gladly debate my opinions. I will openly listen to opposing views. But if those views are derived from human philosophy, mystical writings, or other religious writings, in my world view, the Word of God trumps them. But I am still willing to die for the right of others to choose their own world view and its sources. In the big picture – that’s exactly what Jesus did.