Hell: What Is It Good For

I have often been accused of beating a dead horse until it was unrecognizable. For fear of losing this reputation I have decided once again to speak on the topic of hell. The subject of the eternal place of fiery torment for those who haven’t accepted Christ was resurrected (excuse the pun) when Rob Bell wrote his book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. I do not intend to rehash anything here that I have discussed in previous blogs (to see those previous blogs see: Related Posts below). I am writing on the topic again because of the numerous debates I have had with people recently who are so certain the Bible is clear that when unbelievers die, they go to a place of eternal torment. I have decided to do some research on the Christian doctrine of hell and have made some interesting finds. And so I present the findings of this research today.

First off, there was not an official doctrine of hell until 500 years after Jesus’ death in 543 AD at the Council of Constantinople. Before that time, the early Church Fathers were mixed as to what hell was. Geoffrey Bromiley tells us in an article in his International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “Concerning [hell’s] nature, many early fathers, including the apologist Justin, and the Latin fathers Tertullian and Jerome, assumed a fiery hell. Origen, on the other hand, gave it a spiritualized sense, in which the emphasis fell on remorse and separation from God…Origen…introduced the possibility of a remedial hell that might form a final stage of reclamation even for demons.” Some of Origen’s (an early church father who lived from 185-254 AD) quotes worth noting are as follows:

“We find in the prophet Isaiah, that the fire with which each one is punished is described as his own; for he says, ‘Walk in the light of your own fire, and in the flame which ye have kindled’ (Is 1:11). By these words it seems to be indicated that every sinner kindles for himself the flame of his own fire, and is not plunged into some fire which has been already kindled by another, or was in existence before himself” (De Principiis II, 10, IV).

“And again, if, by means of many severe administrations of punishment, they are able at some future time to recover their senses, and gradually attempt to find healing for their wounds, they may, on ceasing from their wickedness, be restored to a state of goodness” (De Principiis III, 1, XXI).

From the first quote we can see that Origen did not believe in an actual hell, but saw hell as a place we create for ourselves when we engage in sinful behavior, as it makes life difficult for us. From the second quote we can see that Origen believes in a place of purification one who has rejected Jesus goes, where they can be restored because of the punishment they have endured. This is in line with the idea I discussed in Rob Bell, “Love Wins,” and the Universalist in which a punishment must be corrective and therefore cannot be eternal. So as one can tell, the doctrine of hell was not clearly spelled out to the early church fathers, and so there were many different theories to begin with, and it wasn’t until 500 years after Jesus’ death that one theory was picked as orthodox.

But what about the bible itself, doesn’t it say that when people die they will be in eternal torment? The answer to that question is “no.” Hell did not develop as a concept until the intertestamental period after the last book of the Old Testament was written, but before the first book of the New Testament was. When the Old Testament speaks of where the wicked will go after dying, it speaks mainly of Sheol. Sheol, translated from the Hebrew, means “grave” and is the place both the good and the bad go after they die. It was a place void of consciousness, as can be attested from Psalm 6:5, “For there is no mention of You in death; In Sheol who will give You thanks.” In the Old Testament, there is no hell, only Sheol. And Sheol is a place where consciousness does not exist. As the idea of the afterlife began to evolve, Sheol began taking on some aspects that make it seem like a possible hell, such as Daniel 12:2 which says, “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.” But any concept of hell such as we have today of a fiery, eternally conscious torment, placed in the Old Testament is wrong as it places a future idea into the minds of those in the past.

There are only a handful of places in the Bible that mention anything resembling an eternal torment: Daniel 12:2 (quoted above) and Matthew 25:46 which says, "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." I know that the phrases “everlasting contempt” and “eternal punishment” seem damning to my argument, but we often read our pre-set beliefs into passages such as these. We have been conditioned to believe in an eternally tormenting hell and so we simply read into passages like these that concept of hell. But notice they do not say “eternal torment.” When it says “eternal punishment” and “everlasting contempt” it is just as likely that these passages mean that the person who chooses to reject God will be eternally separated from him without consciousness. Essentially, they will eternally cease to exist. The punishment is not being aloud to live in God’s kingdom for all of eternity, instead of being sent to a fiery, tormenting hell. An article which discusses the original Greek in the Matthew passage can be found at "Eternal" Punishment (Matthew 25:46) is NOT True to the Greek Language and discusses that this is the only passage that has the two words “eternal” and “punishment” together, making for a compelling case against the idea of an eternal hell. He also mentions how the term translated “eternal” does not always mean eternal, and can simply mean an indefinite period of time. This makes for a more coherent belief in an all-loving God. It also makes for a more accurate reading of the Bible.

When you read in Scripture any of the passages that refer to a punishment for the wicked after death, you will see that not one of those passage indicates it is eternally conscious, leaving open the option that hell is a place where one can be restored, and for those who are passed the point of restoration there is the option of ceasing to exist for all of eternity. Any indication that hell is eternal, is read into the Bible because of tradition, and cannot be read out of Scripture objectively. Below are some passages that you can read on hell, and you can see for yourself that no indication of eternality can be found (Matthew 8:11-12; Matthew 13:41-42; Matthew 13:49-50; Matthew 22:12-13; Matthew 24:50-51; Matthew 25:29-30; Luke 13:27-28).

I want to end by explaining why I chose to write about this subject on a blog about engaging our society based on how Jesus engaged his. One of the things Jesus fought the Pharisees on was their strict adherence to certain biblical precepts that in the long run excluded people from the kingdom of God, and did not accord with God’s will (Matthew 23). I believe there are certain doctrines that Christians need to stand strong on without budging: the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the resurrection of Jesus, and so on. But there are other beliefs from which we do not budge that in the long run will exclude people from the kingdom of God. If the eternity of hell were something that was clearly in Scripture, I would say we need to adhere to the doctrine regardless of how wicked it seems. But the Bible is not clear. It is everything but clear. And since it keeps so many people away from Jesus, I think it is a doctrine we as Christians need to be prepared to scrap. We need to stop fighting people as if this is the sole doctrine on which Christianity rests, and do more to bring the doctrines of love and grace to the forefront. Who knows, maybe in the long run we will bring more people to Christ that way.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Related Posts:
http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2011/03/threat-of-punishment-or-promise-of-love.html

http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2011/03/rob-bell-love-wins-and-universalist.html

http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-christian-god-to-be-feared.html

http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/10/interacting-with-contemporary-church.html

http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/10/jesus-and-religious-leaders-in-bible.html

http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/10/manipulating-scripture.html

Charlie Sheen, the Grace of God, and Compassion of Jesus

Forgive me for riding on the coat tails of the recent spotlight Charlie Sheen was in. I realize that it has been two weeks or more since he held the attention of America as he seemed to spiral more and more out of control. But I thought this would be a great opportunity to illustrate the grace of God and compassion of Jesus in a contemporary setting. I am sure that Christians everywhere who were paying attention to the news looked at the life Charlie was living and in harmony shouted what a sinner he is. I am sure that in certain circles an abundance of condemnation and judgment were heaped upon him for his misdeeds.

But is this the biblical approach to how we should respond to Charlie Sheen? Looking at Scripture, Jesus spent his time with, and gathered his followers from those perceived to be the worst in society. It was scandalous that Jesus spent his time with adulterers and prostitutes. The Pharisees even asked Jesus' disciples why he spent time with such vile people. Jesus' response was classic, "those who are seek need the physician, not those who are well." It would later be understood that no one is truly well enough not to need a physician. Paul wrote, "all have sinned and have fallen short." Jesus spent time with these "wretched" people because they needed him. He did not avoid them because of what they did. Jesus befriended and showed love and compassion to these "worst of sinners" because no one else would.

But these people, you might object, repented of their sins, which is why he spent time with them, right? Actually, the answer is "no." These "sinners" only repented after Jesus showed them love and compassion. Let us look at the story of Zacchaeus from Luke 19:1-10. In this story, it was not until Jesus accepted an invitation from the tax collector to come eat with him, and it was not until Jesus had spent some time with Zacchaeus, that he agreed to give his ill gotten earnings back, and to give some to the poor. It was not a requirement that Zacchaeus repent before Jesus would accept his invitation. It was only when Jesus showed him love and acceptance without ulterior motives that the man repented.

That is interesting because in today's Church, we expect repentence to come before a person is accepted in. But it seems that in Jesus' day, acceptence came first, followed by repentence. Maybe that is why the Church is losing numbers today, we have things backwords. We expect people to change their lives, showing them judgment and condemnation, which does the counter of what we want by preventing them from changing their lives. We see someone like Charlie Sheen and critize and ridicule him, and then are surprised when he gets worse. If Jesus were around today, Charlie Sheen would be the one Jesus would be spending time with, showing love and compassion, even accepting his two "girl friends" into the fold, knowing that by showing him that love and grace, the true medicine of the physician, Charlie would find the healing he so desperately needs for his wounds. Meanwhile, I am sure that Jesus would reprimand many within the Church for being so condemning, and for not providing the much needed medicine of love, mercy, and grace.
Blessings,
-Brandon