Why do we believe this? (CH2PT3)

I became motivated to do a study on Hell. I couldn't believe what I found. What I find so interesting about the topic of hell these days is that just about every church has a position on it and even preaches from the pulpit how important belief in hell really is, but for the most part hellfire and damnation preaching as completely faded from our modern religious environment. Apparently only belief in hell is now important and whether or not you are actually afraid of it is another issue. But there is a clear neurosis in Christianity concerning the issue of hell, and for all the attention it receives, I was surprised as just how little the Bible actually teaches about it.

The word "hell" only exists 14 times in the New Testament. Out of those, 12 are found in the Gospels. The Gospels, which came twenty to thirty years after the Epistles were written, contain the information which largely contributes to our understanding of hell. Paul never mentions it. In the book of Acts it is non-existent. If Jesus preached about hell it was a message that was not carried on by his first believers. And in the book of John, the fourth Gospel, the word "hell" is absent as well. There is also the literal fact that the word “hell” is not actually translated from the word found in our available manuscripts.

Hell is itself an insertion into the Bible. The word for “hell” is Gehenna. Gehenna actually means “Valley of Hinnom”. It is an actual place located just outside of Jerusalem. So when Jesus is speaking of hell, he is actually speaking of the Valley of Hinnom. Now it can simply mean that this valley came to be the symbolic representation of a spiritual reality called hell. But that is not literalism. 

These realities are facts. We cannot get around them. Anyone who wants to take seriously the reality of hell must face the fact of how little the Bible actually speaks about it. In the three Gospels in which "hell" is mentioned, Mark speaks of it three times. In all three the meaning is the same: it is better to cut off a part of your body that causes sin then to go to hell (Mark 9:43,45,47). Matthew mentions it seven times, the most for any Gospel writer. Three of those mentions mirror Marks original statements (Mat. 5:29,30 18:9). Matthew also says that if you don't forgive you are in danger of hell (Mat. 5:22). He says that hell will destroy the soul (Mat. 10:28). And the two remaining verses refer to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees as being worthy of hell (Mat. 23:15,33). Luke only mentions hell, twice. In one of those mentions Luke repeats Matthews teaching that hell will destroy the soul (Luke 12:5). And in the last mention hell is used in a parable (Luke 16:23).

If we gather these findings what we have are five unique teachings in the entire body of the New Testament concerning the reality of hell, and here they are:

1. It is better to cut off a piece of your body that causes sin then to be sent to hell.

2. If you don't forgive someone who wrongs you then you are in danger of hell.

3. Hell destroys the soul.

4. The hypocrisy of the Pharisees is worthy of hell.

5. Hell is a place of torment.

Out of these five teachings only two of them are descriptive, meaning that there is more in the Bible

warning about what sends us to hell then there is telling us what hell is like. And we have two conflicting descriptions. So the scant evidence we have which describes hell is not consistent. If hell destroys the soul then it would seem that there would not be torment. In this conflict we have two mentions of hell destroying the soul and only one mention of hell as a place of torment. Luke 16 is our pericope of interest, which is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

In this parable a rich man is sent to hell and calls out to Abraham for relief. All he asks for is a glass of water to relieve his suffering, but Abraham cannot help him. Now if we are going to read this parable literally, and not pick and choose which is important and not important about this story. Hence, if we are going to be serious about the reality of hell then we have to consider certain problems that exist in the parable in reference to hell.

The first problem is that there is no mention of eternity in this parable. The rich man is in torment that is for sure, but there is no mention that his torment will be for eternity. This seems a trivial matter, because the parable does go to great lengths to ensure that one cannot cross from one side to another, from the side of peace where the righteous are to the side of torment where the sinners are. But this only ensures that for the amount of time a sinner is in hell he is unable to cross over from one side to another. Now this problem can be solved by looking at other references to hell that do tell us hell lasts for eternity.

The second problem is that there is no mention of God. The rich man does not call out to God for relief from his torment. He calls out to Abraham. There is one major problem with this. Hell is a place of judgment. It is God who judges people and sends them to hell. If anyone were to cry out for relief they would cry out to God. Abraham was the one called out to because Abraham looked after the righteous in the place of the dead. It was a place called Abraham's bosom, and it was the place for Abraham's children. Now this problem can be resolved if we find supporting evidence to suggest that hell exists and is inhabited before the judgement of God. But once the judgement happens people leave the place of the dead and the righteous go to be with God in heaven, or the New Earth, and the sinners get thrown into hell.

The third problem is that Abraham calls the rich man, "son". This word in the Greek is indicative of a personal and intimate familial relation. It is not a general word for "child" or "youngster". In using this word Abraham is all but saying that this rich man deserves to be in Abraham's bosom. Remember why it is called "Abraham's bosom". To call this man his "son" indicates that a mistake has been made. But this could only be seen as a mistake if we assume that what this man deserved was the punishment of hell. This problem can be resolved if we find evidence that suggests undeserving people will be sent to hell, or if we find that evidence that suggests another use for punishment in the place of the dead.

In the Bible the after-life is not such an easy thing to piece together. How do you distinguish between Sheol, Hades, or Abraham's bosom? I feel confident in asserting that in the first century Jews were just as confused about the after-life as we are today, but in there literature there were common themes that became adapted into the Gospel literature. There was a place of the dead, and it separated the wicked from the righteous. The wicked were punished in the place of the dead for a rehabilitative purpose. People were purified through torment and then allowed to live in peace. Or they were tormented and then annihilated. Or they were simply annihilated. The New Testament affirms this place of the dead in both the Gospels (Mat. 16:18) and in Revelation (Rev. 1:18). The place of the dead is where people wait to be judged by God. We also have evidence which suggest rehabilitation is possible in the place of the dead. Paul mentions those who are baptized for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15. And Peter mentions those in the place of the dead who were preached at by Jesus when he went into the under world (1 Peter 3:19). Now, Peter's reference is directly connected to those who died in the flood and this serves his point of tying in the flood with Christ's baptism, as in saying that God's act of redemption undoes the punishment of the flood. Thus, we can speculate that if Jesus went to preach to those in the place of the dead to win them over to Christ then why would he stop? After all, would this not be one of the reasons the Bible says that Jesus and the church holds the keys to Hades?

So while, I do not think after-life redemption is an actual teaching in the New Testament, in that we do not have enough evidence to suggest that this is a normative belief. I do think that we can consider it as a real possibility. Thus, since it is possible for after-life redemption to exist then it must also be possible that what Luke 16 is really referring to are the conditions that exist in an place of the dead where redemption is possible. This idea resolves all the problems found in Luke 16, and would also remove it from the list of the 5 teachings found in the Gospels concerning hell, which would mean that the only descriptor we have of hell is for annihilation.

But it is not as simple as that. In reality there are only two verses in the Bible that support the traditional claim that hell is a place for eternal conscious torment (ECT). What is most striking about this fact is that these additional descriptors do not in fact mention the word "hell". By this mere fact alone, it seems convincing that when the New Testament was written the authors felt most comfortable identifying hell as annihilation then as ECT. Given that the only direct mentions of hell that we have describe it as annihilation, and the ones that describe it as ECT are indirect at best, as you will see. This doesn't tell us what is right or wrong about hell, but it is significant. And it is important to note that the teaching about hell being annihilation only rests on two verses as well. I believe that the evidence will show that a comparison between the two will make the teachings about hell being annihilation to be more direct and clear, while the teachings about Hell being ECT are more vague and indirect.

In Matthew 25 there is a parable about the sheep and the goats. The meaning is clear the sheep go to eternal life to live in the Kingdom of God forever, and the goats go to eternal punishment (Mat. 25:46). Now what seems clear is that in this case, the word eternity is applied to both in the same sense. Hence, the duration of eternal life is the same as the duration of eternal punishment. But in a technical fashion the word punishment does not preclude execution, though I admit that this is a weak analogy. Often times the common use of the word punishment refers to some form of conscious torment. Thus, I concede that a prima facie reading of Matthew 25 is more supportive of ECT then annihilation, but at the same time a prima facie reading of Matthew's and Mark's "soul destroying" supports annihilation rather then ECT. I have heard others say that a soul's destruction would last for eternity, since the soul is an eternal being. This is just as much speculation as referring to eternal punishment as annihilation.

But there is one thing that is certain. When Jesus is actually teaches about hell he speaks of the soul's destruction and when he wants to speak about ECT he has to use indirect parables which do not really make it clear if it is ECT that is being taught.

In Revelation 20:10 we are told that Satan, the Anti-Christ, and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire and they suffer torment forever and ever. These are the only people that the Bible says suffer this fate. So if we are going to read the Bible literally then we are only permitted to believe that in reality only three people suffer the fate of hell that traditional fundamentalists believe in. The Bible never says that others who are thrown into hell suffer the fate of these three people and there are are at least two other references to people being thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15 21:8). None of those verses make descriptions for ECT. Now it is reasonable to conclude that since Satan, the Anti-Christ, and the false prophet are being tormented for all eternity then so would everyone else thrown into the lake of fire, but if the Bible can provide evidence for why these three are given such treatment in hell then we could reasonably assume that hell could be something else for everyone other then these three.

In Revelation 20:10 it uses a very specific formula, "They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Now most Westerners wouldn't notice, but the phrase "day and night" is unique in the Jewish calendar because Jews measure time from night to day. Thus, we are not exactly looking at what can be called a sequential or temporal paradigm. The first, "day and night" reference is in the book of Genesis after the flood. It marks the unveiling of God's New World to Noah. In the Old World the earth was covered by a canopy which made it impossible for the inhabitants of this world to see the sun or the moon and thus to measure day from night. So a reference to "day and night" in the Jewish mind was not necessarily to refer to a sequential order of time, but rather to refer to an unveiling of New Power that governed Reality. The Old Powers, Satan, the Anti-Christ, and the false prophet were responsible for all our torment on earth. Satan was our accuser. The Anti-Christ was our deceiver. And the false prophet was our corrupter. Thus, it is fitting that to recognize that in this Reality governed by the Power of God these three are the ones who will suffer and be tormented rather then the other way around. Their existence is unique in the Biblical narrative, thus we can easily conceive that their punishment will be unique, too. But that is not all. The word used in "forever and ever" can also simply mean the passing from one age to another. It does not necessarily bear the marks of being infinite duration. Thus, I think a fair rendering of Revelation 20:10 could say, "The tormentors, who tormented us, will be tormented in the passing of the age to the Reality powered by God."

Now there is one last reference worthy of note, and it is one from the Old Testament. This reference in the Old Testament is not one concerning hell, but one concerning judgment. But it is a very fitting verse, because in many ways it makes the ideas about hell in the New Testament seem justified or grounded in the Old Testament. The verse is Isaiah 66:24, "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." This verse speaks of an unquenchable fire, which when applied is the same fire in the lake of fire. It is mentioned other times in the New Testament as an eternal fire, both in Matthew 18:8 when Jesus says to cut off your hand and in Matthew 25 in the parable of the sheep and goats.

Now when a fire is done or quenched what is left is ash. Thus, a quenchable fire always leaves remains. There is always something left over. If we imagine an eternal soul being burned by a quenchable fire it is very easy to think of that soul burning for all eternity. The fire would literally have an endless fuel source. But the image presented to us in the Bible of "eternal fire" is not one of a fire that can be fueled infinitely. But it is a special fire. A fire that can completely consume that which it burns. It is unquenchable. Meaning that there is nothing left. There are no remains. This image of a fire is different. It would also be able to completely extinguish an eternal soul. The soul would not be an endless fuel source, because this would be a fire that needs no fuel source. The soul would simply vanish, or be annihilated in such a fire.

So if we include the other verses mentioned which give us a wider exposure to what is commonly thought to be teachings on hell we have...

6. Hell is eternal punishment.

7. Hell is eternal conscious torment.

8. Hellfire is unquenchable

All 8 of these teachings are not consistent with one another. The last three give us some good descriptions of hell, but are only gained through non-literal means. In the Bible there are only three literal people who experience ECT. 

Now, I have given you my interpretations of the corpus of Biblical evidence that exists for the reality of hell, but here is the rub. This is not a literal interpretation. I have taken some privileges. In Matthew 25 the literal understanding does lead us to conclude ECT, and also in Revelation 20:10. I think it is persuasive to give priority to verses which for all intents and purpose seem to be more direct and clear then verses which seem to be vague and indirect, but I cannot say that this denotes literalism. In fact, it seems to be only useful once we abandon literalism. Just the same, Hell as ECT represents a departure from literalism as well.

The reality is that literalism does not help us determine the reality of hell. It gives us two very real possibilities, and we have to use our own intuition from there. But if we are to use our own intuition then what is the point of literalism? If literalism cannot provide a unified, consistent, and singular picture of reality then do we have the right to promote it?

In one case, our literal understanding of the Bible provides no justification for a very common and popular act of the Church, and in another case a literal reading of the Bible provides no solution to a very real problem in the Church.