I always enjoy reading your stuff. And when it comes to this post, I agree with much of what you’ve written. (I’m actually planning to explore the issue of hell - as it relates to evangelism - on my blog. So, I was intrigued by the subject of this post.) It seems to me, however, that much of your commentary on hell is so couched in historical and eschatological terms that it never breaches that which is “beyond the grave.”
I mean, let’s say we are to grant your construal of the doctrine of hell, it doesn’t answer the question of life after death, or, in your terms, after judgment. Sure, all this (historical/eschatological) judgment is going to take place on those who chose not to accept the gospel, but what becomes of them…i.e. beside physical death and destruction.
The discourse of “hell” (psychosocially speaking, anyway) is not so much trying to query into the exegetical and historical doctrine of hell, but rather an attempt to probe the metaphysical question of “what happens after you die?”
Is it your opinion, then, that Holy Writ speaks nothing of this sort of soulish, after death reality? Is everything so forcibly concerned with historcal judgment that it speaks no word to the situation of human lives/souls once they pass from this historical context?