I have a better question for you.
Why is Revelation, an apocalyptic writing, THE most metaphorical work in the NT, and essentially one huge parable, is interpreted literally?
I have no idea why the ECT crowd interprets it literally. John did not say these were “literal” visions. And even tho they say its all literal, most know ALL of it isn’t. They know there isn’t a literal woman sitting upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 
They know that is not literal. I just cant understand how they seem to know that, yet make the Lake of Fire to be a literal fire. 
As for me, i do think a small portion of Revelation is literal, like i believe in a real man being the antichrist and people taking the mark of the beast in their right hand, not being able to buy or sell. Those things are literal to me, but outside of that, i don’t think too much is. I am still not sure if the new heaven and earth is literal or not. I’d like to think it is and i dont see going by other scriptures why it wouldn’t be… 
As for the plagues and angel pouring out their vials, I’m really not sure on that. I suppose some of it could really be natural disasters or nuclear bombs perhaps.
I’ve met people who took the entire thing literally. I asked about “what was up with the locusts and all?” and this guy went on to explain to me how they’re probably something like God’s helicopters. The guy takes the Bible literally from start to finish and is a YEC. Go figure.
I’m half-undecided as to whether Revelation hasn’t already occurred. We had the corrupt Church, people being murdered for not following it. We had wars, the Bubonic Plague…
The lake of fire is defined as the second death, and then it simply says “if anyone was not found written in the scroll of life, he was cast into the lake of fire” A very quick way to die, and all evil obliterated. From the unsaved perspective, they live a short life, die, appear before the White throne, are judged according to their acts, and then put to death by being cast into the lake of fire, and raised to life. It is not long drawn out. God gets it out of the way quickly for the unbeliever. Yes, I believe the lake of fire is as literal as the second death. An unbeliever dies twice, and death is not life according to the scriptures.
To me it seems clear that the LoF is an answer to the Bronze Laver that stood outside the Tabernacle. We are today cleansed by the washing of water of the word (and the Word), but if we refuse that gentle ablution, there is a harsher method available. I was just reading in Ezekiel today about how Jerusalem would become a smelting furnace with the metals melted in its midst and the dross removed, to purify God’s people from their violence and perversion. Not only that, but Jerusalem itself – the land, apparently – must be purified as it was defiled by its inhabitants. It is a pot so spoiled by filth that it must sit on the fire and be scorched until the scale is burned up and it is cleansed.
So . . . not a nice picture. But Abba had offered Judah the easy way and they had refused to let go their unfaithfulness and violence. Note they did not literally go into a furnace of fire; they went to Babylon, those who survived. The fire is a metaphor for purification and the brimstone for healing (though unpleasant) medicine. I would be surprised if the LoF is in fact anything other than the very presence of our Father, which the reconciled will find so pleasing and desirable, but the unreconciled will desire to avoid at all cost – until they are healed.
Just my opinion, of course, and others will disagree to one extent or another. Naturally I think I’m right 
Otherwise, I’d change my mind!
Love, Cindy
“And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment”
— Hebrews 9:27
It seems clear to me that humans only die once. The “Second Death” is then an “Other” Death. A different kind of death. A spiritual death or some other sort perhaps (because we’re already spiritually dead, I suspect it’s the death of Adam. Because not everyone finishes that process in this life, I suspect that we all, save the overcomers, must finish this death in the Lake of Fire). This second literal death, which your Concordant ilk, like Zender, tend to fancy, seems awfully redundant and trivial. What’s the point of putting someone to sleep momentarily? Your thoughts?
The unbeliever will not be conscious of the second death. From their standpoint they will be cast into eternal bliss. How is that redundant and trivial? In fact it seems trivial and redundant to judge a sinner at the white throne, and then to continue his ordeal for an entire eon. Remember the lake of fire does not burn out death, it is death. It is also the death of Christ that will save those who stand before the White throne, not their own suffering or purification process. I like what A.E. Knoch had to say “It has been pressed that the lake of fire is a purging process, a disinfecting agency, calculated to rid the sinner of his sin and make him fit for God’s presence. This, of course, is the purgatory of Roman Catholicism, with little modification” (The Unveiling of Jesus Christ)
‘WE ARE ALL BROTHERS’ refers to Hebrews 9.27 “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgement” I would just ask what is the context of this passage? Is it not referring to the 'high priests? Also it can be argued that there is nothing in the word ‘once’ hapax to imply there won’t be a second time. Paul says in Phil 4.16 “you send once and twice to my need”
God bless!
Thanks Puddy. Please let me know if I sound antagonistic. I just want to tease out your idea because I can’t quite make sense of it. You said the unbeliever won’t even be conscious of this second death. Presumably this means they are put to death, and immediately revived? What do you think is the purpose of this death — what does it affect in the lives of the unbeliever? Is faith and repentance unnecessary for their ultimate restoration? Or is their restoration “decreed” by God, as per monergism?
I don’t quite understand the problem with “the purgatory of Roman Catholicism” (in the modern and reformed sense — little ‘r’). I don’t accept purgatory because it is a historical tradition in the western church, but nor would I reject any belief because it’s used by the Roman Catholic church. That seems equally odd.
No, Hebrews 9 is referring to the role of the High Priest (Christ) to atone for our sins. 9:27 is to note that because we face death and judgement only once, there is no need for Yeshua to offer up himself more than once for our sins. It seems strange that we would actually die twice, but I haven’t really thought this stuff through.
Hebrews 9.27 from the Concordant version “And, in as much as it is reserved to the men to be dying once, yet after this a judging…” seems to point to the actual high priests. Yet we know for another reason the passage isn’t saying all human beings will experience death. In These. 4.15 we read “For this we are saying to you by the word of the Lord, that we, the living, who are surviving to the presence of the Lord…” So it is clear not all men will die.
Concerning the casting of unbelievers into the Lake of fire, they are likely to be under the jurisdiction of the second death for a very long time. I believe the final eon ‘new heavens and new earth’ lasts for thousands of years. Yet from the perspective of the unbelievers, since they are dead, they will not be aware of the passage of time. In the scriptures death means death. In religion, death means life. When Christ responded to the Sadducees, he very quickly shut down their argument. The Sadducees denied a physical resurrection Matt. 22.23 and as far as I am aware only held to the writings of Moses. So Christ responded with the appropriate scripture to prove the resurrection. “Now concerning the resurrection of the dead, did you not read that which is declared to you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” Ironically, religion turns this passage on it’s head, and twists Christ’s own words to prove 'life after death Yet the context is the resurrection.
In conclusion since the dead are non existent, and unaware of time, the only experience between this life and an eternity of bliss for the unbeliever is the white throne judgement. It will be at the white throne that they will be judged according to their acts, but it will also be where they learn about the love of God. Yes, they will experience chastening, but they will finally understand who God is, and will believe in his goodness. To God be the glory!
Without getting all exegetical on you, Puddy (which I’m too tired to do just now), my first response to this is that it is ME who is being punished in this scenario. (That’s assuming I make it in amongst the elect, of course, which I really, really hope I will . . .)
But . . . if I do, it is I and those with me and us, who will be deprived of the company of loved ones who didn’t make it; they won’t know anything and they won’t suffer, missing us, because they won’t exist. It is we, in addition, who are deprived of the company of loved ones whom we have yet to meet, although we probably won’t feel that quite as acutely.
What’s more, Abba suffers from the absence protracted of children He loves, and that is no small thing as you will know if you are a father and have any imagination at all. These will wake up in glory, much welcomed and much loved by all, instantly perfected (at least from their perspective) by the power of God, and having no work to do in order to grow into the image and likeness of Christ. Those who did run the race will receive the reward of being in the presence of one another and of God for that extra swath of time, but mixed with the sorrow of missing beloved ones. I think the missing ones get the better end of the deal here. No suffering, no work toward sanctification, no knowledge of anything they may be being left out of.
They just wake up like Snow White after a long nap and are carried off to the castle in the clouds. Granted, they’re not the bride (if I understand your beliefs well enough – via Zender). But still – they didn’t want to be amongst the bride (or they would be) and are guaranteed to still be perfectly content, even if with less than they might have had in intimacy with God. I dunno. It seems kind of bitter-sweet to me. If you’re right, of course I still want to be amongst the bride, because HE is worth that. But still, it will be sad.
I hope you’re wrong, and that there will be some point to them being missing, and perhaps that we might be engaged in helping them in some way, urging and teaching and leading them home. That would be so much better than just hanging around, all of us including our Abba and our Lord and the dear Holy Spirit, missing them and longing for them for ever so many years, and with nothing to do to help them but . just . wait . . . .
Yes. This thought makes me sad. :’(
Hey Cindy
I really appreciated your heart filled words, as I think will every reader. Certainly believers do not have to agree on every detail. It may interest you to know that there is a Concordant believer with a completely different interpretation on the subject. His book is Called ‘Journey to and through the second death’ I am thinking I should drop this discussion for awhile… Also I am not a follower of ‘Martin Zender’ I like him on a personal level, but I wish he wasn’t so hard hitting. His viewpoint on what constitutes a believer is not something the concordant publishing concern even advocates. You may enjoy a few of their articles on the subject. ‘What is a believer’ and ‘believing and understanding’ Let us rejoice in a loving God, that is working out the best in each of our lives. I will say, you must be a very kind and loving nurse.
Actually just for the sake of accuracy, I have no idea of where Phil Scranton stands with the rest of the Concordant teaching. Sometimes people change a whole host of beliefs, so I was being abit presumptious. (did I spell that correctly?) When I use the term Concordant believer, I am not saying people with differing opinions are not saved. Okay I am done rambling…
Hi, Puddy
I didn’t mean to scare you off – but I’m with you on the discussion thing – regarding these fine points, at the very least. We can’t truly KNOW how things will fall out. IMO, scripture isn’t that specific, and we have to trust God to do the best thing (and I think we’ll agree that He CAN be trusted), so no worries.
But we are always hashing things out here (most of the time in a friendly manner, though some of the boys can play a little rough from time to time) and sometimes persuading one another and other times being persuaded – and often agreeing to differ. We still love one another, so don’t be afraid to share your views and also to ask questions, if only to get multiple perspectives on a subject you’re already pretty sure about. It’s always helpful to know where other brothers and sisters stand and why, even if we may think they’re mistaken.
Love in Jesus,
Cindy
Hey Cindy
No you didn’t scare me off, and I am already missing the debate and discussion. I tried switching over to politics, but… politics, shmalitics. I appreciate you be-friending me on this site. Sometimes I just get tired of my own voice, and sometimes am low spirited.
your friend,
puddy
Politics! 
Hubby is desperately trying to see what people think about the debate. We’re on satelite internet, so not enough bandwidth to watch. Whew! Yes, this is far more interesting.
G’day folks,
I have been thinking about this LoF subject. Now I find this useful discussion going on. It seems to me that the LoF relates to the nature of God himself. One way or another anything unworthy is going to be toast. Only God is eternal. All the rest finds is begining and end in Him. We shall be changed, says Paul, in the twinkling of an eye. Judgment for us all one way or another. Am I on the right wavelength on this? One of my favorite hymns follows - A Universalist Anthem! ChrisB
Souls of men, why will ye scatter
Like a crowd of frightened sheep?
Foolish hearts, why will ye wander
From a love so true and deep?
Was there ever kinder shepherd
Half so gentle, half so sweet,
As the Savior Who would have us
Come and gather round His feet?
There’s a wideness in God’s mercy,
Like the wideness of the sea;
There’s a kindness in His justice,
Which is more than liberty.
There is no place where earth’s sorrows
Are more felt than up in Heaven;
There is no place where earth’s failings
Have such kindly judgment given.
There is plentiful redemption
In the blood that has been shed;
There is joy for all the members
In the sorrows of the Head.
For the love of God is broader
Than the measure of man’s mind.
And the heart of the Eternal
Is most wonderfully kind.
Pining souls! come nearer Jesus,
And oh! come not doubting thus,
But with faith that trusts more bravely
His huge tenderness for us.
If our love were but more simple,
We should take Him at His word;
And our lives would all be sunshine
In the sweetness of our Lord.
Frederick W Faber
Great hymn, Chris. Is it sung to “Ode to Joy”? It could be. I was hearing that as I read it.
I love the 9th. I love Beethoven. Certainly the ode to Joy fits eu perfectly.
I have a slightly different take on this… I understand the LoF as indeed literal, but in a past tense. I see the LoF fulfilled in the Ad70 destruction of Jerusalem [a literal event] where and when all the symbols of the old covenant world met their ultimate end, i.e., the Temple / Priesthood / Law etc all ended. The great conflagration of that time engulfing the entire City, literally going up in a sea of flames; finally then being razed by the Romans as per Jesus’ prophesy [Mt 24:2].
Thus as I understand it, the LoF was never about post mortem realities at all, but rather “the end of the world” i.e., the old covenant world.
Hi Davo and fellow Brisbanite, Question, Was not the revelation of John thought to be penned after ad 70? it does not read like history to me but maybe I am missing some point. Chris