Hell – Pursuit of Percipience

The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.
Jesus Christ

The New Testament gospel is quite straight forward:

The kingdom of God is at hand.
God’s anointed one, the flesh-and-blood-man Jesus, has defeated death by his own death and resurrection. This is an event that happened in history.
This resurrection is available to all who put their faith (trust and loyalty) in Jesus.
There is a coming judgment where the wicked will be cast out of the kingdom of God.
All of this will happen within the first generation of Jesus followers.

The linchpin of this gospel is the resurrection of Jesus. Without that, there is no gospel.

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised, and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (NRSV)

It would seem, then, that the best way to convince someone to embrace Jesus would be to convince them of the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus is an event that happened in real history; therefore, it is falsifiable.

For now, let’s ignore the New Testament’s eschatological expectations (No. 5 above) and assume the kingdom is still at hand, and that there is still a future resurrection and judgment. The role of the evangelist remains valid and important. What is the message of evangelists most heard today?

In my own experience, I usually hear two messages (or a combination thereof):

If you don’t put your faith in Jesus, you will die in your sins and go to hell. If you do trust Jesus, you will go to heaven.
If you give your life to Jesus, you will have purpose and meaning in your life.

But never do I hear: “Jesus Christ, a flesh-and-blood man, rose from the dead, and I can prove it (or at least sufficiently convince you of it).”

Again, it would seem that convincing people of Jesus’s resurrection would be a far more effective method of converting people to Christianity than the other two messages provide. Why don’t modern evangelists focus on Jesus’s resurrection then?

Many evangelists assume the resurrection rather than argue for it. Especially in Western societies, the resurrection of Jesus is an already familiar idea. It sits in the corner and is almost ignored. The evangelist often skips over it and jumps directly to the more familiar message—forgiveness of sins, salvation, heaven, purpose, escape from hell, etc. The resurrection remains a foundational background rather than the subject in the foreground.

I am currently reading Dale C. Allison’s The Resurrection of Jesus. It is clear from the book that convincing someone that a first-century man literally rose from the dead is a demanding intellectual task. To do so requires a deep dive into ancient sources, the dating of texts, eyewitness testimony, empty tomb traditions, Paul’s experiences, historical methodology, and the probability of miracles. Most evangelists are not trained historians, and many in their audiences are not interested in detailed historical discussions. It is easier to ask, “Do you feel empty?” or “Do you need forgiveness?” than to spend hours examining historical texts—which, in the end, will probably not be that convincing. Allison admits that the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is insufficient on its own.

A shift occurred in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Whereas early Christianity focused on Christ’s victory over death, his resurrection, and the kingdom of God, modern revivalists shifted the focus toward a personal relationship with Jesus, inner transformation, individual salvation, and personal testimony. The modern new believer is more likely to exclaim, “Jesus changed my life,” rather than, “God raised Jesus from the dead and the age to come has begun!”

Many Christians have only a vague understanding of resurrection. If you ask the average churchgoer, “What happens when you die?” they will most likely respond, “Believers go to heaven when they die. Non-believers don’t.” Resurrection is not prominent in modern Christian thought, and therefore is not prominent in evangelism.

Finally, fear and personal benefit are more persuasive. A modern person can be more easily convinced to fear judgment and hell, and to hope for meaning and purpose, than to be convinced of a 2,000-year-old historical claim, which is extremely difficult to believe.

The simple fact is that the Christian gospel evolves to match its time and place—it is a cultural artifact.

Maybe then it is not so surprising that most who believe in Jesus’ resurrection, however exactly they understand it, have as little need for modern historical criticism as birds have for ornithology. When Christians, on Easter Sunday, greet each other with the acclamation, “Christ is risen,” the expected answer, “Christ is risen, indeed!” is not a statement about investigative results. … Although ignorance should not be the mother of devotion, true religion nevertheless involves realms of human experience and conviction that cannot depend upon or be undone by … historical doubts, probabilities, and conjectures…
Dale C. Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus, page 365

Missionary (M): You have sinned against God and are under His wrath. Hell awaits you.

Chinese Man (C): Oh my! Please tell me: What is sin?

M: Sin is an offense against God. It is falling short of His standard.

C: How can I measure my sin? What is the standard?

M: The standard is God’s law.

C: Please show me this law so that I can know how to live up to God’s standard.

M: You are incapable of following the law perfectly and will never meet God’s standard. You must trust another to do so for you: a perfect Man who never sinned, and whose righteousness can be imputed to you.

C: That’s sounds interesting, but I don’t quite understand. Please, show me this law first so that I can see if I am capable of following it myself.

M: Here, I have a copy of the Old Testament in the Chinese language. In there you will find the law I speak of. I will leave it with you. I will be back to visit your village in two months. Please read it before I return and I will answer all your questions.

***Two Months Later***

M: Have you read the book I gave you?

C: Yes, all of it. I am confused though and have some questions.

You said that I had sinned against God according to the law found in this book. But, what I see in this book is that the law was a covenantal law between a God named Yahweh and a people named Israel. I am not in that covenant. How can I be guilty of breaking a law I was never under? That is like saying I am guilty of breaking laws in a country I’ve never visited.

Also, assuming I actually am under this law, you said that I could not keep it even if I tried. But, in the story of this book, Yahweh fully expected the people to be obedient, and when they were disobedient He disciplined and punished them. If they repented and turned back to Him, He forgave them. If they were obedient, He blessed them. You said I needed to trust in the perfect righteousness of another, but I don’t come to that conclusion from reading this book. If I were an Israelite, I would try my best to follow the law, and if I failed I would confess my failing, turn back to Yahweh, and trust he would forgive me. Where does it say that I need to trust in the righteousness of another?