What the Bible Really Says (and Doesn’t Say) About
Hell
By Bill Lenhart
Let me preface this article by stating unequivocally
that I believe in the hell of the Bible. Christ said that God can destroy both
body and soul in Gehenna, and I believe it. This article is not being written to question
the reality of hell, but to point out the very real possibility that the
traditional teaching on hell is just that…a teaching that puts more weight on
tradition than on Scripture. Hell is not
being questioned – the nature of the hell commonly being taught is. Is hell just hot enough to blister and
torment the condemned, or does the Bible describe one that is so hot that it
turns one to smoke and ashes? I think the Bible’s answer to this question just
might surprise you!
Not long ago I came across a
very thought-stimulating article on the internet by Keith Stump (“The Battle Over Hell,” http://www.wcg.org/lit/prophecy/hell-frames.htm ) regarding
the ever-thorny topic of hell. His article
served as a reminder that, although traditional Christianity does seem to have
most of its doctrinal ducks in a row, it certainly does appear to have a few
ugly ducklings mixed in with the flock – the doctrine of a hell that tortures
forever being one of them.
Mr. Stump’s article got me to pondering once again, with a bit of
perplexity I must admit, as to how the standard teaching in support of an
ever-torturing hell ever made its way into the everyday set of standard Christian
beliefs. Scripture is clear that there is a hell, and that it will cause
those who must face it a period of much anguish and torment. But the nature
of that hell as taught by traditional Christianity needs to be called into
question, as it has little in common with what the scriptures actually say on
the subject. How could a teaching that,
to even the most casual observer, appears to go totally against the nature of a
loving God (and even against normal every day mercy and compassion), and that
is based on such vague scriptures ever get such a foothold in Christian
dogma?
Admittedly, Dante had his influence in the formation of the doctrine,
but where are the modern-day Bible scholars, with their penetrating insights,
when you need them? When was the last time this doctrine was thoroughly
gone over with a fine-tooth comb? Is it possible that the current view
most of Christianity holds regarding hell could be false? Most of
Christianity would be quick to reassure us that they indeed have and teach the
truth regarding hell, and that eternal torment is actually a good and just
thing! But can they back up these assertions with unassailable scriptural
proof? I think not.
Sure, I’ve read the standard time-worn argument that God in his wisdom
must have deemed this as the appropriate punishment for such a heinous sin as
rejecting Christ’s sacrifice: that rejecting the greatest of all sacrifices
demands the greatest of all punishments. But all too often eternal
hell-fire adherents use this argument as a proof
of an ever-torturing hell, when in actuality it is at best just a rationale to somehow excuse what appears
to most thinking people, including many Christians, as extreme sadistic
overkill.
For example, Lee Strobel in “The Case for
Faith” devotes an entire chapter to the subject of an ever-tormenting
hell. He attempts to rationalize why eternal torment is acceptable, but the
few scriptures he references in no way provide any real proof of this type of
torturous hell. He merely confirms what
we already knew – God will punish the wicked with destruction. Of
course, “destruction” means something quite different to torturing hell
advocates than it does to the average person…something that they can’t quite
prove from the scriptures. Even Lee admits that of all aspects of
mainline Christianity, this teaching gives him the most discomfort (and for
good reason, I might add).
In another example of wasted effort, John Blanchard, in his book
“Whatever Happened to Hell,” does his level best to “maintain biblical truth” through
298 pages of text, but instead seems more intent on preserving tradition than
on examining biblical evidence regarding the nature of hell. Because of presenting nothing of any real
substance, and failing to address both sides of the issue openly and fairly, Blanchard
only ends up preaching to the choir. He, and all other fired-up
ever-tormenting hell proponents, don’t seem to realize that they are much like
chickens deceived into nesting on wooden eggs: they may cackle and strut all
they want, but I firmly believe that the object of their affection will do
nothing in the future but disappoint them.
Not a Core Doctrine
Though some portray the issue of hell as central,
history tells another story.
According to Keith Stump in “The Battle Over Hell” (see web address at the beginning of this
article), “the doctrine of hell evolved long after the core doctrines of the
historic Christian faith were established. The views of the early Church
fathers about hell were far from unanimous. It took the Christian community
hundreds of years to come up with a consensus on the issue. The majority view
-- that hell is a place of eternal fiery torment -- emerged only after a long
debate within the Church.
“By the Middle Ages, the concept of a fiery underworld
had become a dominant element in people's minds. To the medieval faithful, hell
was a place of suffering and despair, of wretchedness and excruciating pain.
“The medieval Church used fire-and-brimstone rhetoric
to its fullest to keep believers under control. The Church considered hell a
useful prod to piety, a strong incentive to refrain from evil.
“Though criticism was raised by some churchmen against
the overdramatization of hell, the brutal imagery of
medieval theology tended toward ever-more-vivid portrayals of hell's horrors.
And nowhere were those horrors so dramatically depicted as in The Inferno,
the first part of The Divine Comedy, an epic poem by the Italian author
Dante Alighieri (1265-1321).
“The Inferno
records Dante's imaginary travels among the damned. His purpose was to warn his
readers that reward or punishment would surely meet them hereafter.
“According to Dante, hell is divided into nine rings
or circles, descending conically into the earth. Within this multi-leveled
chamber of horrors, souls suffer punishments appropriate to their sins.
Gluttons, for example, are doomed to forever lie like pigs in a foul-smelling
sty under a cold, eternal rain of filth and refuse. The lustful -- driven by
their passions during this lifetime -- are forever whirled about in a dark,
stormy wind.
“Although the fruit of Dante's fertile imagination, The
Inferno is generally in keeping with the theology of his age. His picture
of hell as a gigantic concentration camp -- a nightmarish place of eternal torment
presided over by Satan -- became fixed in the popular imagination. It continues
to represent the thinking of some Christians to this day -- and of some critics
of Christianity who mistakenly assume that Dante's frightful imagery comes from
the Bible.” (end of quote)
Is God Actually That Sadistic?
Based on all that the Bible tells us regarding the nature of God and his
all-consuming love and concern for every creature, even the fallen sparrow,
common sense should tell the proponents of an ever-torturing hell that this
doctrine somehow just doesn’t ring true. That God would have such a plan
for some of his creation – to suffer endlessly - a teaching based on just
a handful of vague scriptures, should give every torturing-hell proponent
reason to pause and re-evaluate. Let me demonstrate what I mean by the
following possible scenario:
Suppose you read in the newspaper one day that the police had just
discovered a case of severe animal cruelty in a home in the suburbs of your
city. It had just come to their attention that a man had been torturing
his pet Boston Terrier in a cage in his basement for
the past 2 years. Faint muffled howls and yelps had been heard in the neighborhood for many months, but only recently had anyone
been able to pin-point where those tormented cries were coming from.
The police questioned the dog’s owner, a gentle appearing man … a
slightly balding widower, somewhere in his early forties. He was
exceedingly sorry that his dog had been causing a disturbance in the neighborhood, but not bothered in the least by what he had
been doing to his dog. Just what had he been doing to his hapless canine,
you might be asking? He had been keeping the animal in a metal cage next
to the gas water heater and furnace, in a small basement room that was not well
vented, and therefore stiflingly hot.
Further, the owner confessed that he had been giving the dog little food
or water over the past two years; basically just enough to keep it alive.
On weekends and evenings, when not at work, he would occasionally drop in on
the poor skeletonized creature and reach through the bars with a soldering iron
and sear a welt on the dog’s skin through its pelt of matted, dirty hair.
Other times he enjoyed watching the dog moan and drool with hunger as he held a
piece of fried chicken or pizza just beyond the famished animal’s reach through
the cage’s bars. The dog’s resultant plaintive cry was no doubt what the neighbors had been hearing all these months.
When this story hit the local paper and the TV news, there was a public
outcry. PETA wanted this man tried and sentenced to multiple years in
prison, and letters to the editor decried that such an atrocity could have
happened in their city. Letters and phone calls were received by the
local animal shelter inquiring whether the animals in the shelter were by
chance being abused. Public outcry in general was for this man’s head to
roll for his unconscionable treatment of a helpless dog.
Why, oh why, you may be wondering, did this man stoop to such a
despicable act as to torture this poor defenseless
creature? And why for such an extended period of time?
Upon further examination, it came to light that the Boston Terrier
had been bought as a puppy for the owner’s young child after the death of the
mother. The father had been assured by the pet store that this breed of
dog was indeed very gentle, and would not harm his small son.
Although the terrier had always exhibited a gentle nature, one day while
the father was outside getting the mail and the boy was alone with the dog but
for a moment, the dog for some inexplicable reason turned on the small child
and got a death grip on the boy’s throat, killing him.
The father was inconsolable. The dog was to be disposed of at a nearby
animal shelter, but at the last minute the grieving father had a change of
heart (or perhaps a hardening of the heart) and decided to keep the pet.
The rest of the story (all of which I fabricated) you already know.
Should the dog have been destroyed, or should it instead have been kept
alive to suffer for the enormity of its misdeed? After all, the owner,
who had provided all the sustenance and love the dog could ask for, had lost
his only son to a creature that had apparently not appreciated its blessings
and could no longer ever be trusted. Should the dog’s owner be sent to prison
for this horrendous treatment of the dog, as even an animal does not deserve to
be tortured? Or, as I mentioned above, was the owner justified in taking
revenge on the dog as it had certainly earned some extreme punishment by the
extreme nature of its crime?
Few people would ever suggest that this creature, which admittedly had
forfeited its right to live, should be made to suffer horribly for a few years
for its terrible misdeed. Most would agree, I believe (Christians and
atheists alike), that death was indeed a fitting enough punishment. But
strangely, there are many walking about that would consider God consigning
mankind to a similar or even worse torment as not worthy of even a raised
eyebrow. Go figure!
Clark Pinnock, in his “The Conditional View”
(of hell) chapter in William Crockett’s “Four Views on Hell,” agrees that “The
traditional view of the nature of hell does not cohere well with the character
of God disclosed in the gospel; at least it must make one think twice before
concluding that hell spells everlasting conscious punishing.”
He further states that “Our moral intuition agrees with this. There is a powerful moral revulsion against
the traditional doctrine of the nature of hell.
Everlasting torture is intolerable from a moral point of view because it
pictures God acting like a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting
Auschwitz for his enemies whom he does not even allow to die. How can one love a God like that? I suppose one might be afraid of him, but
could we love and respect him? Would we want to strive to be like him in
his mercilessness ? (emphasis
mine) Surely the idea of everlasting
conscious torment raises the problem of evil to impossible heights.”
John Stott, in “Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal Evangelical
Dialogue”
(if evangelicals elected a
pope, it would be John Stott; Billy Graham calls him “the most respected clergyman in the world today”) seems to agree: “I
find the concept (of eternal torture) intolerable and do not understand how
people can live with it without either cauterizing their feelings or cracking
under the strain.”
The Abortionist and Child-Killer – Our Friend in
Disguise?
The current Christian thinking on hell is that only
relatively few who have ever lived will escape a tortuous hell, as the bulk of
the Chinese, Indians, Asians, Jews, etc. over the ages have not known, or
accepted Christ as their savior. One does not
even need to go to the scriptures to prove that this doctrine of eternal
suffering in hell is terribly, terribly flawed, and does not stand up to
scrutiny.
If indeed this teaching were correct, and if most of those who have ever
lived are doomed to excruciating torment for ever and ever, then I propose to
you that anyone who could have prevented this from happening, to even a few,
would have been doing mankind a tremendous service. And I think you would
have to admit that the abortionist, and those who kill
very young children fit very nicely into this category, thank you!
Personally, I would much rather have been aborted or to have died as a young
child, and gone automatically to heaven, as most churches teach would happen, even
at a lower heavenly status, than to take the chance of being tortured unrelentingly
for eternity.
Therefore, it would appear that the abortionist and child-killer is
actually mankind’s best friend. Every unwanted baby girl killed by her
parents in China over the centuries is now in heaven (or awaits the
resurrection, and will be in the Kingdom – whichever theory you happen to favor), and was actually wonderfully blessed to be
murdered, rather than to grow up in a Christless
society, and ultimately face eternal torture. And by this same reasoning
no doubt every one of the millions of pre-born babies that have been
unmercifully and painfully aborted in the United States since the Rowe v. Wade
decision are now in heaven; whereas many most likely would have been facing
everlasting torment had they not been terminated in the womb.
If the current doctrine on hell is correct, then what I have just said
is also correct. If my proposition above is flawed, then so is the
current torturing-forever hell doctrine. There is no way around it.
If you have found one, please let me know.
Eternal Torment – Fall-back
Position for the Non-Thinking?
It has become blatantly obvious over the years that there is very little
in the Bible to use as an unshakeable foundation for such an extremely
polarizing and sensory-wringing teaching as an ever-tormenting hell. The
fact is that the Bible does indeed speak of “hell” (hades, gehenna, etc). But all too many Christians have
complacently defaulted on the Bible’s admonition to “prove all things,” and
have instead allowed the current teaching of an ever-torturing hell to develop
over the centuries a life of its own far in excess of what the scriptures would
warrant.
How did things get into this sorry state, where a doctrine that has so
little in scripture to support it, portrays God in such a terrible light, and
yet has become widely accepted as unassailable gospel? The Greek doctrine of immortality has had a
very decided effect on theology that developed regarding the nature of
hell. This is a good example of the
occasional hellenization of Christian doctrine. The concept of souls being naturally immortal
has distorted the interpretation of the biblical texts about hell. It almost forces one to expand destruction at
God’s hand into endless conscious torment, for if souls are naturally immortal,
they must necessarily spend a conscious eternity somewhere. It is this belief in natural
immortality rather than biblical texts that drives the traditional view of the
nature of hell as everlasting conscious punishment and prevents people from
reading the Bible literally.
The Bible, in spite of what some would say, seems clearly
to refute that we possess any form of eternal life. Ezekiel says clearly that
souls die: "The soul who sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4, 20; see
Romans 6:23). Jesus warns in Matthew 10:28 that God can destroy both soul
and body in hell.
Men cannot have immortality unless God gives it to them. Paul writes, "For
the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus
our Lord" (Romans 6:23). In I Cor.
15:53 he tells the saints, "This corruptible must put on incorruption and
this mortal must put on immortality." God will give "eternal life to those who
by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and
immortality" (Romans 2:7). If we already had immortality, why should
we put it on or seek it?
Only God has immortality. He is, Paul writes to Timothy, ". . . the
blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has
immortality" (I Tim 6:15-16). John
says of the Word, "In Him was life" (John 1:4), meaning as Creator of
all things (verse 3), He had life inherent. Jesus affirms this in John 14:6, "I am
the way, the truth, and the life." Men
must go through Him to receive eternal life. To assume that we already
have some sort of eternal life, even if it is in a condemned state, is not
scriptural.
According to Clark Pinnock, “Belief in the
immortality of the soul has long attached itself to Christian theology. There has been a virtual consensus that the
soul survives death because it is by nature an incorporeal substance. This assumption goes back to Plato’s view of
the soul as metaphysically indestructible, a view shared by Augustine, Aquinas,
and Calvin. This concept has influenced
theology for a long, long time, but it is not biblical.
“The Bible does not teach the natural immortality of the soul; it points
instead to the resurrection of the body as God’s gift to believers. God alone has immortality (I Tim 6:16) but
graciously grants embodied life to his people (I Cor. 15:21, 50-54; 2 Tim
1:10). God gives us life and God takes
it away. There is nothing in the nature
of the human soul that requires it to live forever. The Bible teaches conditionalism:
God created humans mortal with a capacity for everlasting life, but it is not
their inherent possession.
“Immortality is a gift God offers us in the gospel, not as an inalienable
possession. This soul is not an immortal
substance that has to be placed somewhere if it rejects God. If a person does reject God finally, there is
nothing in biblical anthropology to contradict what Jesus plainly taught—God
will destroy the wicked, body and soul, in hell. Once this is seen, a person is free to read
the Bible on hell naturally and straightforwardly.”
Pinnock further points out that Augustine
did much to popularize the belief in the endless conscious torment of body and
soul in hell, and this thinking has dominated the Christian imagination for
over a millennium. As this belief allowed the church to play on human fear to
bring souls to God, it was probably not questioned and tested as well as it
should have been.
He continues: “A careful study of the scriptures regarding the nature of
hell leaves the reader with a strong general impression of final, irreversible
destruction, of closure with God. As the
Bible’s language and imagery is so powerful in that direction, it is surprising
that more theologians have not picked up on it.
Scripture uses the language of death and destruction, of ruin and
perishing, over and over again when it speaks of the fate of the
unrepentant. It uses the imagery of a
fire that consumes whatever is thrown into it; images of fire and destruction
would suggest annihilation. One receives
the impression that “eternal punishment” refers to a divine judgment whose
results cannot be reversed, rather than to the experience of endless torment (eternal
punishing).
“There are many good reasons for questioning the traditional view of the
nature of hell, but the most important reason is the fact that the Bible does
not teach it. Contrary to the loud
claims of the traditionalists, it is not a biblical doctrine. It is a bit annoying to be told that no
biblical case can be made for the annihilation of the wicked when it is the
traditional view that most needs proving.
Let the reader judge the true situation.
The Bible gives a strong impression to any honest reader that hell
denotes final destruction, so the burden of proof rests with those who refuse
to believe and accept this teaching.”
(Short Pinnock quotes are used occasionally
throughout the rest of this article without credit)
Thankfully, the past few decades have seen a gradual awakening in some
sectors of Christianity as to the flimsiness of the eternal hell-fire
doctrine. Many church pastors choose to label those who will not make it
into eternity with God as “being eternally separated from God.” This is
indeed a valid way of putting things, as no matter whether one believes in
eternal suffering or just plain annihilation, one would indeed be “eternally
separated from God” if condemned.
I felt that Mr. Stump’s article was so well-done and thought-provoking,
that I e-mailed a copy of it to about 50 or 60 of my closest friends – most of
them Christians (but not with a Worldwide Church of God background). I
wrote the following cover-letter e-mail, to which I attached the Stump article:
Hi all,
I just read a very
interesting article on that ever-thorny topic of hell. This is a subject
I have studied rather intensively off and on over the years, and I find that
this article rings very true... to me, at least. I think the issue of
hell is one that deserves careful reconsideration by Christianity as a
whole. In fact, I believe there is somewhat of an underground push to do
just that. But all too often, certain topics become “off-limits” for
further examination, to the oft-times ultimate embarrassment of all
Christians.
Doctrines can and do change
over the centuries, based upon re-examination of the facts. Just look at
the doctrine of the secret rapture, for example. It made its first
appearance in Christianity in the early 1800’s! Many Christians have
thought that this has always been a basic bedrock belief. Not so! And how about the 3 competing doctrines regarding Christ’s return?
The current popular teaching of pre-millennialism (the belief that Jesus will
physically reign on the earth, at some point in the future, after his second
coming) is a relative newcomer to Christianity, if you consider the last 2000
years as a whole.
Amillennialism (the belief that Jesus will not reign on this earth,
but is already reigning from heaven and in our hearts) holds the honor of being
the doctrine of choice for the majority of Christianity for the longest span of
time for the past 20 centuries! Shocking? Yes. Although it could be
debated just which of the 3 doctrines is correct, this is just a reminder that
Christianity should never allow itself to refuse to re-examine doctrinal issues
now and again.
I hope you find the attached
article interesting and thought-provoking. Keep in mind that the doctrine
of the nature of hell is NOT a core Christian belief, and that we should never
let it, or any other non-core belief separate us from other believers in
Christ.
Take care,
(Bill)
I got pretty much the
response to this e-mail that I expected: almost none, with the little bit that
I did receive being negative. Actually, I received a total of two
responses; both of which took me to task for my stand which differed from the
standard Christian teaching on this subject. The first respondent
admitted that he hadn’t read the article at the time of his response, but had
just glanced over it, and “knew” that it was off base, and wanted to set me
straight as a Christian brother (in love, of course).
The second response came
several weeks later from someone in my small group from church. He
e-mailed me an article that he had cut and pasted, which apparently he felt
knocked the legs out from under the position I had taken on this subject. This
was the same person, by the way, who vehemently denied that “tithing” might not
be a new covenant teaching – that is, until his wife read my article on that
subject and admitted it had changed her opinion (and probably his, if truth be
known…see article on tithing at www.members.tripod.com/whistler4truth). These responses are why I wrote this article.
As I read over the article he
e-mailed me (“Is There Really a Place Called Hell?” by Steve Rudd), I was struck by the shallow reasoning and research
that this article embodied. Was this the best shot my friend could take
at annihilationism? Was this, by chance, the
same quality of reasoning that had gone into the formation of the doctrine of
eternal torment over the centuries?
For example, let me lift one
of the most powerful paragraphs out of the heart of this article, and then let
us carefully examine it:
“Furthermore, the reality of hell is clearly seen because Christ
clearly taught it. He once said, "And if thy hand offend thee, cut if off;
it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go
into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched" Mark 9:43. And, in
giving a picture of future judgment, the Lord represented himself as saying to
those on his left hand, "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" Matthew 25:41.
“We should not hesitate to say that we believe every statement
that Jesus ever made to be a true statement. These statements that he made
about a literal hell of torment cannot be dismissed as inconsequential to our
study. There can be no doubt that there is a real hell, for Christ taught it.
This doctrine is not, as some have suggested, from men; but it is from God and
is clearly taught in the Scriptures.”
Let’s ask a few hard
questions of this paragraph of “proofs” of eternal punishment:
1. Does “go into hell, into the fire that never shall be
quenched" prove that man shall suffer forever in fire? I
think most of us are aware that a fire that is not extinguished or “quenched”
will eventually burn itself out, and will not burn eternally.
2. Does "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels" prove that those thrown into
that fire will not be burned up, but will suffer? I think
not. And could not the word “everlasting” just as easily mean
“age-lasting,” just as the “everlasting” covenant of circumcision with
Abraham’s offspring eventually ended when that particular age came to an end?
3. “We should not hesitate to say that we
believe every statement that Jesus ever made to be a true statement”. True
statements are only as true as the understanding of their real intent or
meaning. For example, when Christ was questioned about what fate would
eventually befall the apostle John, he replied, “What is it to you if he should
linger until I return again?” Those who thought John would live until
Christ’s 2nd coming totally misinterpreted Christ’s statement.
Christ was known to speak in ways intended to misdirect the listener.
4.
“There can be no doubt that there is a real hell, for Christ taught it.”
This is very true. Actually there are 3 hells referred to in scripture:
(1) the grave [where all go], (2) the place the condemned await final judgment
[see Lazarus’s “rich man” below], and (3) the place of final destruction [gehenna fire]. None of them can be proven to be used to
torture or punish mankind forever.
How About “Lazarus & the Rich Man”?
A favorite scripture used by
many to try to justify the teachings of an ever-torturing hell can be found in
the parable about Lazarus and the rich man in Luke, chapter 16. Verse 22
– 23 states:
22So it
was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The
rich man also died and was buried. 23And being in torments in Hades,
he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Many
try to say that this is not a parable, but more of a statement of fact. As L. Ray Smith points out in his very
insightful article,
Lazarus and the Rich
Man - A Scriptural
Journey Through the Intriguing Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man:
“Unfortunately, the parable
of Lazarus and the Rich man has become a sort of theological passport to the
annihilation of hundreds of plain and exact verses of Scripture. Next to the
gross error in translating the Greek aion (a
period of time with a beginning and an end) into an English eternity (no
time at all, neither having a beginning nor an ending), I know of no
greater misrepresentation of any section of scripture than this parable.”
“… Jesus spoke in
parables throughout His whole ministry. In Matthew chapter 13 we are given
seven different parables. No parable is literal or historical. The second we
make a parable literal, it ceases to be a parable. Jesus spoke ONLY in parables
(not true life or historical stories) among the masses of people who followed Him
wherever He went.”
“…Parables are not to be taken
literally. They are to be understood "figuratively." The real meaning
is not in what they literally say, but in what the symbols and figurative
language represent. That’s why they are called "parables." This is
axiomatic!”
“From what is literally stated in the
parable about these two individuals it is hard to find condemnation or praise
for either party. We know for sure that the Rich man is in a state of
condemnation and that Lazarus is in a state of consolement,
but there is nothing in the narrative to tell us why this is so.
If taken literally, this parable
consists of statements that are illogical, unscriptural, contradictory, and
impossible. But, when we understand the symbolism of this parable, it opens up
our understanding to God’s dealing with all peoples on earth! We must know the
real identity of these two individuals before we can know that their treatment
is a just treatment based on their lives and based on God’s grace.” (end of quote)
To make a long story short, Mr. Smith
puts together a very scripturally sound argument that the rich man in the
parable represents the Jews, and Lazarus represents the Gentiles. It is a rather long but interesting article,
full of research and scriptures, far and away the best explanation of the
parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man that I have ever read. To read the full length article yourself, see article #39, “Lazarus & the Rich Man – the
Parable Explained” at www.members.tripod.com/whistler4truth
But perhaps the scripture that hellfire
proponents might refer to that appears to be the hardest to explain is Rev
20:10.
“The devil, who
deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and
the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night
forever and ever.”
At first blush, this scripture would
appear to state that the supposedly flesh and blood beast and false prophet are
to be tormented day and night forever, along with the devil. This would
deal a serious blow to the teaching of annihilationism.
Note that the word “are” is in italics. This denotes that this word did
not actually appear in the original texts, but has been added in an attempt to
give the scripture clearer meaning.
John W. Ritenbaugh,
in his “Five Teachings on Grace,” explains: “ In
English grammar, such silent verbs take the same tense as the verb in the main
clause of the sentence. The translators ignored this rule, however. The primary
verb of the sentence, "was cast" (an aorist verb usually translated
as simple past tense), demands that the silent verb should be "were
cast" (past tense) to agree with the plural subject, "the beast and
the false prophet."”
Thus is becomes apparent that this
scripture should actually read, if grammatical rules
had been followed:
“The devil, who
deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and
the false prophet were cast. And they will be tormented day and
night forever and ever.”
Or, as the New
English Bible so aptly puts it:
“and the
devil, their seducer, was flung into the lake of fire and sulphur,
where the beast and the false prophet had been flung, there to be tormented day
and night forever.”
This gives credibility to our contention
that no human being will ever suffer eternal pain, for the fact that the beast
and false prophet “were cast” into the lake of fire at some previous point in
time cannot be used as proof that they are still alive and suffering. The
scriptures could now be said to fully support our belief that the beast and
false prophet were incinerated when Christ returned and cast them into the lake
of fire (Rev 19:20), with the devil having been cast into the lake of fire at
the end of the millennium approximately 1000 years later.
But wait! One small problem still
remains. What about the word “they” in the sentence “And they will
be tormented day and night forever and ever”? How could a singular devil
be referred to as a plural they? Doesn’t this destroy our whole
theory of annihilationism?
Actually, the answer to this little
conundrum is very simple. A parallel verse in Matthew 25:41 states that
sinners will be cast into "the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and
his angels." John Ritenbaugh explains:
“"The devil" is used in a
figure of speech called metonymy. Technically, it is "the use of the name
of one thing for that of another of which it is an attribute or with which it
is associated." More simply, one part of a thing represents the whole.
Thus, "the devil" represents in himself all of the
group we call demons, devils, fallen angels, angels that sinned, etc.”
By the way, how can anything, physical
or spiritual, “be tormented day and night forever” when “day and
night” will no longer exist once the New Jerusalem comes down out of
heaven? Rev 22:5 tells us that there will be no night, and that there
will be no sun, for the Lord God will be our light. This scripture alone
hints that “everlasting” only means age- or era-lasting as it is used in
Revelation.
This shows that the lake of fire's
primary purpose could be for the eternal torment of demons, but it will also be
used as the means of execution for the wicked among humans. While men will be
completely annihilated, the unkillable demons will
simply suffer. Some would argue that this is in error – that the
Bible is clear that some will suffer eternal punishment. True, the Bible
does definitely teach eternal punishment, but it makes no mention of
eternal punishing.
Other
“Tricky” Scriptures
Rev 14:9-11 This speaks of
those persons who worshiped the beast and received its mark as being “tormented
with burning sulphur in the presence of the holy
angels and of the Lamb.” It further states
that “The smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who
worship the beast…”
While the text does state that the smoke
(the product of something being incinerated) goes up forever (possibly as a
memorial), it does not say that the
wicked are tormented forever. It merely
states that they have no relief from their suffering as long as the suffering
lasts, but does not say how long it lasts.
There may well be a period of suffering before oblivion, but not
unending. The Bible is very clear in its
teaching that there will be a second death, which means just what it appears to
mean … death, not some form of life.
Mark 9:48 Regarding those cast into gehenna, Jesus states: “Their worm
does not die, and the fire is not quenched.”
Some think that this implies everlasting conscious suffering. But it does not imply it if you go back to
the imagery of Isaiah 66:24 from which the phrase is drawn. Here the dead bodies of God’s enemies are
being eaten by maggots and burned up.
The fire and worm in this figure are destroying the dead bodies, not
tormenting conscious persons. By calling
the fire unquenchable, the Bible is saying that the fire is not quenched until
the job is finished. The tradition
misreads this verse when it sees everlasting suffering in it.
I realize that there are a few other
scriptures that proponents of eternal suffering like to refer to. Every
scripture in the Bible that seems to support eternal suffering can be
explained. You might want to get a copy of Edward Fudge’s “The Fire That
Consumes” and do some further study on this topic.
We have tackled, and I believe, pulled
the stinger out of the traditionalist’s main bedrock scriptures to support
eternal suffering. Thus I would strongly contend, that
after a bit of study and examination, all scriptures can be brought into a
harmonious relationship with our assertion that God is a very merciful,
non-vengeful being, just as the Bible has been trying to tell us all
along.
Some would argue that annihilation isn’t
really punishment, as the condemned would be getting off scot-free through
death. But isn’t it strange that when a killer in the United States is on
death row, and faces the gas chamber, all of a sudden capital punishment
is just too cruel and extreme for the crime, and is considered “cruel and
unusual punishment” by some. Few seem to think that the killer is getting
off “scot-free” who is about to be annihilated from among the living.
Strange, isn’t it?
Carefully consider this: Being
destroyed eternally, which means that
it will never be reversed … that it is a permanent condition, is indeed a
horrible fate to face. Especially once one has had a chance to be in the
presence of God and marvel at the love and joy that emanates from his presence
– a presence that one could have basked in for eternity. But now only
destruction awaits, and indeed there will be weeping
at what might have been, and gnashing of the teeth at the prospect of being
vaporized forever. Those facing this fate will not be considering
themselves as getting off scot-free, trust me on this!
The Bible speaks of judgment day as
being “more tolerable” for some (such as the residents of Sodom) than for
others, which would seem to indicate that some may experience more pain or
punishment than others before their final destruction. Perhaps God will make those who deserve
greater punishment, such as Hitler, certain of the Pharisees, etc., to witness
the destruction of others, up close and personal, before their own turn finally
arrives. Or perhaps God will let each
condemned person personally mentally and physically experience the pain and
anguish they have caused each and every individual they have ever wronged. If this were the case, I imagine Hitler would
have to be kept alive for quite a few years (if “years” still exist) of intense
suffering before being incinerated!
But perhaps we’re jumping the gun a bit
on just who will eventually be condemned.
Is There a Plan for the Lost?
To quote from Keith Stump in “The Battle Over Hell” (quote extends to next topic):
“Are non-Christians synonymous with the incorrigibly wicked?
Are those who died without accepting Jesus enemies of God?
The need for a more precise definition of the damned
is indicated -- and may well point to a solution to one of the more stinging
objections to the concept of hell. The issue would seem to come down to how and
when the damned are defined.
Such considerations have prompted some theologians to
suggest that a dead but unsaved person may yet avoid the final fate of gehenna fire if he never had a
full and unhindered opportunity to know and accept Jesus Christ during his
physical lifetime. In other words, such an opportunity might yet be provided
prior to the final judgment!
Might it be possible that their decision of faith, or
non-faith, might take place in the realm of death?
In his novella The Great Divorce (1946), C.S.
Lewis observed that God's purpose for humanity is salvation, not damnation, and
he suggested that God may have a plan to save even the lost.
"I do not think that all who choose wrong roads
perish," Lewis wrote, "but their rescue consists in being put back on
the right road."
Is God powerless to put people back onto that right
road merely because their physical lives have ended? Is it too much to say that
God's grace might extend even beyond the grave?
Might it not be possible that God will yet give all an
opportunity to believe and repent -- even after death? And that many will then
recognize Christ as the deepest longing of their soul, and, at last, know and
accept him?
Hell -- whatever its character -- makes considerably
more sense if those who end up there are only those who, with full knowledge,
willfully and deliberately reject God. And if that's the case, the alleged
unfairness and cruelty of hell vanishes! No longer is hell a case against
Christianity!
Only willful, continuing refusal to respond to God's
grace and mercy can condemn an individual. God will send no one to hell unless
they force him. Sadly, it appears that some will not accept the grace of God
(Matthew 25:46; Revelation 19:20; 20:10,15). Some will
refuse to face the evil of their lives and repent.
As C.S. Lewis summarized: "Any
man may choose eternal death.
Those who choose it will have it. There are only two kinds of people in the
end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in
the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell,
choose it."
One of the main objections to the Christian concept of
hell is the undisputed fact that the vast majority of humans have died without
ever hearing the gospel and accepting Jesus Christ. Presumably they are -- or
will be -- consigned to hell forever as a consequence.
Are the billions who did not accept the gospel before
they died eternally lost? Are billions consigned to eternal flames because no
missionary reached them before they died?
Putting it another way: Would God establish a
salvation methodology that the vast majority of humans could not meet and then
condemn them to eternal punishment because of it?
God’s plan includes all of
his children. Somehow, someway, every
person will have a full opportunity to hear the gospel and repent. The justice of God demands it!” (end of Stump quote) |
The
Conclusion of the Matter…
I think Pinnock,
in his The Conditional View chapter
of Crockett’s “Four Views of Hell” summarizes nicely what I believe to be a very
accurate view of the current situation regarding the various teachings on the
nature of hell:
“I conclude that the traditional belief
that God makes the wicked suffer in an unending conscious torment in hell is
unbiblical, is fostered by a Hellenistic view of human nature, is detrimental
to the character of God, is defended on essentially pragmatic grounds, and is
being rejected by a growing number of biblically faithful, contemporary
scholars. I believe that a better case
can be made for understanding the nature of hell as termination—better
biblically, anthropologically, morally, judicially, and metaphysically.
“But whatever hell turns out to be like,
it is a very grim prospect. Though annihilationism makes hell less of a torture chamber, it
does not lessen its extreme seriousness.
After all, to be rejected by God, to miss the purpose for which one was
created, to pass into oblivion while others enter into bliss, to enter
nonbeing—this will mean weeping and gnashing of teeth. Hell is a terrifying possibility, the
possibility of using our freedom to lose God and destroy ourselves. Of course, we do not know who or how many
will be damned, because we do not know who will finally say No to God. What we do know is that sinners may finally
reject salvation, that absolute loss is something to be reckoned with. I do not think one needs
to know more about hell than that.
“In the current situation, given the
difficulties that attend the traditional view of the nature of hell, I think it
is possible that changing our view would
be a wise step. Rather than threatening
the doctrine of hell, it may actually preserve it (emphasis mine). The fact
is that the tradition of everlasting conscious torment is causing more and more
people to deny hell altogether and accept universal salvation in order to avoid
its sadistic horror; on the other hand, the view of the nature of hell that I
am proposing does not involve sadism, though it does retain belief in the
biblical category of the second death.
“In any case, the objections to the
traditional view of the nature of hell are so strong and its supports so weak
that it is likely soon to be replaced with something else. The real choice is between universalism and annihilationism, and of these two, annihilationism
is surely the more biblical, because it retains the realism of some people
finally saying No to God without turning the notion of hell into a
monstrosity.” - Pinnock
If we would stop trying to make God fit
into an ogre costume of our own design, and actually teach only that which can
be proven positively from the Bible, one of the greatest objections of both
Christians and non-Christians alike to Christianity could be defanged and
booted out the back door. One of the greatest horrors of those who fill
the mental hospitals of the world is the belief that eternal hellfire is their
destiny. What a shame that so many millions over the centuries have
suffered mental anguish over a theory of eternal torment that will no doubt
someday be shown to be totally bogus. Personally, when I learned what I feel certain is the truth about
the nature of hell, I experienced some of the greatest peace and joy, and
increased love and admiration for God that I have ever known. It was as
if the giant missing piece of a puzzle regarding the character of God had
finally been found!
Churches that adhere to and actively
teach the doctrine of an everlasting tormenting hell could be equated to a
wrestler adopting the wrestling style of competing with one arm tied behind his
back. It’s rather hard to do your best when you deny yourself the use of
one of your best attributes. And one of Christianity’s best attributes is
its message of the all-consuming love and mercy of God.
But this truth is severely weakened, and
sometimes destroyed, when we inform the potential convert that, “Oh, by the
way, if you don’t accept this love from God, he has a little bit of torment set
aside, just for you, that will make living in a concentration camp seem like a
walk in the park. And I almost forgot to mention, that torture will last
for eternity unending.”
Thus, traditional Christianity’s gospel can
be boiled down to it’s quixotic essence, which
is: “God says to love him, or you will be tormented and tortured
forever.” Imagine living with parents who told you that they demanded
this kind of love from you as a child or you would be tortured. It would
have stifled all the joy and security in your heart, and put unimaginable
pressure on you to perform. It would
certainly not have fostered love and trust between you and your parents.
And it can have the same effect in our relationship with God. If ever there was a doctrine from hell (no pun
intended), this would have to be in the running for first place!
Mainline Christianity should, at the
very least, be willing to admit that when it comes to God’s handling of man’s
condemnation, annihilation is a very real possibility, instead of just raising
its hackles and digging in its heels to defend a teaching that has not been
revisited for centuries. And if traditional Christianity isn’t willing to
reexamine the nature of hell as taught, as Pinnock
points out, it may eventually become, under the weight of its own error, an
extinct teaching in most churches, replaced by the unbiblical teaching of
universal salvation.
But I prefer to look at this issue in a
positive light. I believe the day is coming
when the truth on this subject will burst out of the wraps that have
constrained it all these years, and liberate Christianity from a doctrine that
has had the effect of covering its light with a basket. Perhaps the
changing of just this one doctrine will loosen the power of God to work in a
way that has not been seen upon this earth for nearly 2000 years! God speed that day!
~\~\~\~\~\~