In parts one and two I laid out the various words and images employed by the writers of the New Testament. From this diversity I think we can deduce that the doctrine of hell was still in flux and being developed. Despite this varied presentation by the New Testament writers, most Christians seem to gravitate to the idea of an eternal punishment, usually of the fire variety. Perhaps the influence of Dante’s Inferno has had more effect on our understanding than the Bible has. Or perhaps preachers like Jonathan Edwards, with his images of a God dangling us like a spider over a fire as found in his sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” has been taken at face value as the Biblical doctrine of punishment. Either way, I believe that many Christians are ill informed when it comes to hell. Before I get accused of succumbing to modern cultural pressures or political correctness, the following conclusions are, in my opinion, biblically based and theologically sound (but of course we all think that).
Personally, I don’t believe in hell, at least not how the concept is formulated by most people with whom I speak. Don’t get me wrong – God is holy and God is just; but God is not cruel. The offense of sin must be punished. But isn’t that what Jesus took upon himself? And now, after people reject God I believe they get what they request – they do not participate in the divine presence that we call heaven. The punishment received by those who have not been redeemed lies in the absence of God rather than some torturous existence. There is not further torture. Otherwise I believe God turns into vicious, malevolent dictator. God becomes the abusive father who tortures his own child and justifies it by saying that he was teaching the child discipline and not to screw up anymore. Again, there is appropriate punishment for rejecting God, but torture does not fall into this category.
In addition, it seems that the New Testament writers were doing more than just describing the nature of hell. Perhaps there is more to hell than just locating it as a place of eternal fire or eternal punishment or eternal darkness or eternal nothingness. I don’t see them using scare tactics or selling “fire insurance.” Usually they only employed the concept of hell when there was a moral failing on the part of the culture that caused extreme suffering to the faithful followers. Especially as we look at Revelation (and other apocalyptic literature), the writer uses this hellish imagery to not to describe what hell is, but to offer encouragement to the faithful through the promise of vindication. John tells his readers to keep the faith and let God handle those who persecute and mistreat them. Regardless of the difficulty of their situation, faithful followers can be reassured that God is in control of both the righteous and the wicked.
So what is left? Well, annihilationism (or some form of it) has its appeal especially in light of the passages that place certain people in darkness or outside of God’s presence. This doctrine also allows for divine judgment while maintaining God’s love. As F. F. Bruce writes, "annihilation is certainly an acceptable interpretation of the relevant New Testament passages ... For myself, I remain agnostic. Eternal conscious torment is incompatible with the revealed character of God.” (Letter from F. F. Bruce to John Stott in 1989, as quoted in John Stott: A Global Ministry, 354). But, this doctrine, like others, has few references from which to make a strong case.
So, whether it is annihilationism or eternal darkness or something else, I do not think it is a torturous existence. But one thing I do know, the nature of “hell” involves the lack of God’s presence and is to be avoided at all costs. Should we scare people into believing? I don’t think so. Because the good news is that we can attain a better existence – not that we can avoid a worse one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I've been thinking about you comparison. The kingdom is not a pearl and hell is not a lake of fire.
The thing that is problematic for me is the difference in clarity. No one would walk away thinking that the kingdom is actually a pearl. No one thought he meant that the kingdom was spherical or shiny. Everyone would understand the reference was to the value.
Conversely, these descriptions of hell could be taken much more literally. What we are supposed to understand from the metaphors (if that's what they are) is much harder to surmise.
And certainly no one would say, "The kingdom is not a pearl, therefore, there is not really a kingdom."
And you act like it would be wrong to use the idea of hell to scare people, but isn't that just what Jesus was doing in Matthew 10:28?
Shannon – you make good points. First, let me reiterate that I don’t dismiss “hell”, but would like to see it nuanced. Because you are right – the concept is clearly found in the NT, but one must really evaluate what it looks like. Something I should have mentioned is that many scholars believe that Jesus is drawing upon a popular Jewish folk tale that had roots in Egypt about a rich man and poor man whose lots after death are completely reversed. Here it seems that Jesus is tweaking it teach this particular audience by utilizing stereotyped characters -- rich man, poor man, and Abraham.
And perhaps there is a level of scare tactic involved, but I don’t think that means it is to be taken literally. Because if you take this story literally, then I believe you will be forced to take the entire thing literally. Will we in heaven then be able to see those in hell who are being tormented? How do you reconcile that with Revelation 21:4:
“Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away.”
It would seem hard to imagine a place where we see loved ones being tormented and yet be devoid of mourning and crying.
Also, the rich man is indicted for not being kinder to Lazarus. A lack of charity is the ‘sin’ that sent him to ‘hell.’ And Lazarus was just a poor beggar who suffered. Spiritual evaluations are not drawn. Should we then eschew all wealth and emulate such a lifestyle so we can go to heaven?
Maybe there is a middle road in utilizing this story so that there is a level of parable and a level of literalness. I am open to hearing it, but currently I see it as an either/or situation. It is either a parable and intended to be taken figuratively to make Jesus’ point or it is a clear depiction of what hell is like and thus also what heaven entails.
PS – thanks for the sharpening, as that is what this whole site is about anyway.
"From this diversity I think we can deduce that the doctrine of hell was still in flux and being developed." Once again I thoroughly disagree with the whole phrasing of this statement and it's implications to biblical inspiration.
And wouldn't, as I believe was alluded too earlier, the total absent of the presence of God by definition be torturous?
Were not the plagues of Eygpt torturous? Or the plague of vipers? Or drowning in a flood?
I just don't think God's JUST punishment even if considered torturous by some of our standards is equivilent to unfairness on God's part. I don't think any of the above consequences of rejecting God seem unjust even if some think they are tortuous. As a matter of fact I think you could say Jesus was tortured for sin, why should those who refuse to accept his sacrifice suffer less?
I also think our whole modern aversion to the concept of hell as eternal punishment comes from our loss of the seriousness of sin and the holiness of God. Instead of accepting the scriptural teaching on eternal punishment and letting it lead us to a deeper understanding and awareness of the relationship between sin and holiness and the harsh reality of the consequences of our fallen state we instead can find ourselves making sin out to be simply a bother and grace cheap.
Well, I'm not sure how literal to take the Lazarus story. But I would have no (more) problem reconciling Revelation 21:4 if all of it is literal. First, there is plenty about heaven that I can't imagine, this is just one more thing. That whole argument always seemed weak to me.
I have no idea how a complete end to mourning could be. I trust it will, but that whole idea is hard to imagine.
Barry –
First, regarding inspiration, we are going to disagree about that. But, I am interested to know what conclusions do you draw from the diversity in the presentation of the concept of hell? Mine are that the concept is still being developed. So how do you reconcile the different words, images, and understandings?
Secondly, of course God has punished people throughout the Bible. It is God’s right and I was not trying to imply unfairness even if God was using a punishment that we might consider torturous. But those were temporary punishments. There was always an ending point. Even Jesus died on the cross – and it ended. But an eternal punishment does not seem to line up with these sorts of examples. If you want to suggest that everyone who denies Christ will themselves be crucified at then end, then I would accept that. But I don’t think they will be crucified for eternity.
Thirdly, I couldn’t agree with you more when you say that our modern society suffers from a “loss of the seriousness of sin and the holiness of God.” My goal is not to diminish God’s holiness nor is it to cheapen grace or Christ’s sacrifice. I am not a universalist nor am I close. People will have to reckon with God and there will be consequences for denying that God. But I suppose for me the debate is what those consequences will entail.
Shannon – I would say that we should take the Revelation passage figuratively, just as we do the Luke 16. There are elements of truth that both passages convey. There are elements of hope and encouragement that both contain. But I believe there is less literalness than we like to assume.
Enjoying the conversation Sam.
"But, I am interested to know what conclusions do you draw from the diversity in the presentation of the concept of hell?"
Once again I think hell is an abstract idea for us (not for God) that is impossible to put completely into human terms. It is yet to come as is heaven which makes human language and concepts insufficient for description. So what you have is the various biblical writers guided by God into various descriptions that give us the principles we need to know. In my opinion, that principle is that there is eternal conscious separation from God which is horrible if we decided to go our own. I think that principle is very clearly stated.
SIDEBAR: Would you also say heaven is not eternal because it too is mentioned in various and often conflicting ways and earthly rewards are short lived? Or that that concept was still developing?
I think if we accept the principle, we don't need to do all the gymnastics that some seem to do to "make sense" of the different descriptions. I think Shannon hit it on the head, if you just take the common sense meaning of much of this everything comes together
pretty consistently.
I think we do see Jesus suffered completely (fully) if not eternally (set in time) because the whole concept is the grace of God, found through the sacrifice of Christ, cuts off off the eternal suffering we should face. The eternal consequences of our sin would go on eternally without Jesus stepping in on our behalf and rescuing us from our condition.
I think two things prevent some from accepting the principle.
1) It just seems to simple and those of us with a scholarly bent just have a hard time accepting simple answers to something that we think should be more complex. I think the Bible was meant to be understood by the common reader as well as studied deeply by more scholarly types. But, I think those in the scholarly vain need to keep the former as a high guiding principle.
2) We don't like the idea of eternal punishment. It rubs us wrong. It doesn't feel fair. So we try to find ways to work around it. This results in all the theological gymnastics. I'll admit, it sometimes FEELS wrong to me too. Yet, intellectually I think it fits. Eternal rebellion requires eternal punishment just as eternal grace required an eternal sacrifice. I go back to my warped sense of the seriousness of our rebellion and the holiness of God that messes up my feelings. In those times where I truly have a heart held understanding of the seriousness of my sin, I find I agree with God that eternal conscious punishment is perfectly valid if not necessary.
I've read all three posts on the definition of "Hell". I must say that I've never thought so much about the topic until now. With my background (Baptist, very conservative) I was raised to believe in the clear separation of Heaven and Hell. Heaven being a place of utter peace and joy; Hell being a place of final damnation and unending suffering.
I've never thought of God holding us over a flame (Hell) like a spider - coercing us into his way. I feel He speaks to us and convicts us, making us aware that we are sinners. Knowing we are sinners, He shows us that we have two places to end up. He also shows that there is a way to end up in Heaven - Jesus - and leaves the choice to us. Much in the same fashion that someone who speeds knows they're breaking the law and that a ticket is waiting for them. All they have to do to avoid the ticket is stop speeding.
Sam, you and I had a short conversation about this last week. During that conversation, I pointed out that I feel God is just and he gives both reward and punishment according to his will. I used the things that happened with Moses and pharaoh. God, through Moses, told pharaoh what he needed to do - "Let my people go." Pharaoh refused. Did God simply remove pharaoh from his presence? No, he punished pharaoh and his country in several harsh ways - including the death of his son.
Personally, I see God as the ultimate father figure. He teaches us what is right, He wants us to do right. He warns us when we do wrong. If we continue to do wrong, He punishes us. This doesn't mean the He doesn't love us. Doesn't mean He wanted to harm us just for fun. Doesn't mean He's being cruel to us. We simply refuse to listen and that costs us in some way dear to us. (And it's not like God hasn't given us many chances either - looking at all the mistakes ever since the apple and He still loves and desires us. That's an awesome thought!)
I guess it comes down to our view of "fair" or "just". But there's a weakness in that - it's "our" view and not God's. I believe we can get a decent idea of what God feels is fair - simply by reading the Bible - but I don't believe that we can fully comprehend everything that is in God's mind.
But I have to say one thing: Why would God give us a glimpse of what's to come if it wasn't to be some kind of warning? Why would the book of Revelation even be in the Bible if it wasn't there to teach us something?
Now I personally take to the passages from Revelation describing a lake of fire to be literal. The King James version (forgive me...) puts it this way:
"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 20:10
Earlier in the chapter this "lake" is also called a "bottomless pit", which the NIV translates to "Abyss". A bottomless pit filled with fire and brimstone where the souls of unbelievers will suffer eternal pain and anguish - that's what I believe Hell to be.
Now is this where God wants us to end up? NO!!!! That's why Jesus died for us.
Which brings me to my second point.
In this post you say: "The offense of sin must be punished. But isn’t that what Jesus took upon himself?"
I believe that Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice and atonement for our sin - everyone's sin. In doing so, Jesus provides a path for EVERYONE to make it to heaven. But it's our choice to take that path. Jesus didn't suffer the punishment of each our sins on the cross, he just paid the price for them. He became the sheep's blood on the alter. Through Him, those that believe are forgiven of their sins - all their sins. But that still leaves the sin of the unbelievers. That sin will be paid for in Hell.
All of that being said. I must mention one other fact. When I was young - probably about 11 - the thing that scared me more than anything was when I thought about death. It wasn't that I'd end up in Hell, it wasn't that I'd die in a horrible way.
No, what scared me was the fact that I couldn't comprehend what being dead would be like. The thing that sticks with me to this day is - When I'm dead, what would the absence of EVERYTHING feel like?
Think about that for a second - not knowing that you're breathing, not being able to think, not feeling the air on your skin, not seeing the light. Complete and utter nothingness. The thought still brings chills to me.
Was this God convicting me? Was this God saying to me, "My son there is another way."? I believe so. I knew then, and know now, that I want to end up in God's presence when my life is over.
If the lake of fire is to be taken literally how can it also be a place of utter darkness?
And to already answer for all the anihilist out there: the so called lake of fire is just for satan and his minions not for people.
I think Kevin's view of the very literal hell is the opposite end of the purely figurative spectrum.
However, I do think those with the literal mindset seem to grasp the principle behind everything a little bit better. Maybe that's intended.
Post a Comment