Nonconformist Chronicles

Hell and Hades (Hell, part 10)

The story of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar is often cited as proof for the conscious torment of the damned (Luke 16:19-31). In this parable of Jesus, a beggar is laid at a rich man's gate. The beggar is hungry and in poor health. The rich man ignores the beggar's plight.

When the two men die, the beggar is carried away by the angels while the rich man goes to a place of torment. That place is translated "hell" in both the KJV and NIV, but the Greek word is not the common Greek word for hell, which would be gehenna. The rich man is said to have gone to Hades, simply the realm of death.

In Hades, the rich man is in agonizing fire. He can see Abraham far away and so he begs Abraham to send Lazarus to bring a drop of water to cool his tongue. Abraham, however, reminds the rich man of this reversal of fortunes from the previous life and insists that a great chasm has been fixed between the place of comfort and the place of torment. No one can cross over from one side to the other. 

The rich man has five brothers on earth and asks that Lazarus be sent to warn them of what is in store for the unrepentant. Abraham responds that if Moses and the prophets have not persuaded sinners to repent, nor will someone who rises from the dead convince them.

The point of the story is clear. Our final state in the after-life is conditioned upon how we live in the here-and-now. Once we are sent to either comfort or torment, it is too late to change the outcome. Fortunes or hardships in this life are not necessarily indications of God's favor or disfavor.

The reference to people who already have the Scriptures, and would not repent if someone was raised from the dead, alludes to the Pharisaical types who will refuse to acknowledge the resurrection of Jesus. So the bottom line is repentance evidenced by good deeds.

The parable's intent is not to address our speculation about the afterlife regarding whether the dead are conscious, everlasting torment, or what happens between death and final judgment. This is likely a fictional story based on Greek and Jewish folklore. The whole point is a call to repentance in light of coming judgment.

Some conclude that Hades must be the intermediate state between physical death and judgment day, like a holding tank for disembodied spirits until the Lord returns to raise and judge the dead. To use the parable for such conclusions is to miss the entire point and make the story say more than it does.

So this passage really adds nothing to a systematic study of the afterlife, except to insist that how we live our lives has consequences in the next life that are irreversible. We should believe the gospel and repent before it's too late. That is the point.  

Hell and Revelation (Hell, part 9)

If you've been following this series, I apologize for yet another long hiatus. Balancing the blog with deadlines involving my job and family commitments is not always easy. So we'll review a bit before moving on.

We've been considering the conditionalist arguments that hell is not a place of unending conscious torment, but that unrepentant souls will finally go out of existence after a time of punishment. The argument is that immortality is conditioned upon faith in Christ and that unbelievers will perish or be destroyed (John 3:16; Matt. 10:28).

Old Testament Scriptures are employed to demonstrate that neither undying worms, nor unquenchable fire need last forever. Moreover, the Greek word translated "eternal" is often applied to objects that are not never-ending, such as the Jerusalem temple and the Levitical priesthood. And finally, it is questioned whether eternal conscious torment is consistent with a loving God or with the restoration of all things.

How does all of this square with passages in Revelation which are often cited as proof that hell is indeed never-ending, conscious torment? Revelation 14:10-11 speaks of the outcome of anyone who worships the beast:

He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image...

Then there is Revelation 20:10:

And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

So do these verses prove never-ending conscious torment? Not necessarily. 

First, in regard to those who worshiped the beast, the smoke of their torment is said to rise for ever and ever. But this was also stated in regard to the smoke from Edom's destruction in Isaiah 34:10. We know that since the desolation of Edom the smoke is not continuing to rise. The language figuratively suggests the permanency of Edom's judgment. As Edom will not be restored, nor will those who have worshiped the beast. The judgment is final and conclusive.  

Second, there is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast. This too, could be figurative language, suggesting that there is no rest for the wicked, day or night, for as long as the punishment lasts.

If we are to take these statements about smoke rising forever and no rest day or night literally, would it not be consistent to take the entire passage literally? This would include the part about the torment taking place in the presence of the lamb and his angels. Will Jesus and the angels be about the task of fanning the flames of hell throughout eternity or are the wicked cast outside of Christ's presence?  

Nor do we take the descriptions of the lamb or the beast literally, as if they were literal animals. It is curious that some who would take these statements supposedly identifying the duration of hell quite literally, do not take the references to the duration of Christ's reign (1000 years) literally, although it appears in the same chapter. Revelation consists of highly symbolic language and we should be very cautious about building foundational doctrines on figurative literature.

Third, the devil, the beast, and false prophet are said to be tormented forever. According to Fudge, the beast and the false prophet are not individuals, but institutions. The beast is a politically corrupt institution, while the false prophet represents a religiously corrupt institution. This passage foretells the demise of these institutions. How can institutions be tormented forever? 

Fourth, even if all those mentioned (devil, beast, false prophet) are individuals who are tormented "for ever and ever," we've already discussed the language of "eternal" which doesn't necessarily mean never-ending. The adjective form is aionios, which often modifies Old Covenant institutions in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. The noun form, aion, is often translated "age" in the New Testament as when distinguishing this age from the age to come (Matt. 12:32). So the word is not so much about duration of time as it is a referene to the age in which an event will occur. Will it happen within time or outside of time?  

Forms of the word aion are used in Revelation 20:10 to translate the phrase "forever and ever" of which the literal translation is "into the ages of ages." So the devil, beast, and false prophet will be tormented into the ages of ages. This doesn't necessarily mean forever, but perhaps for a very long time or in the coming age that exists when time is no more.

I have still not considered the conditional immortality view in light of the rich man and Lazarus in Hades. I'll do this next time and it may be the final post in this series. That is, unless someone wants to open a new can of undying worms. :-)  

Where Does Hell fit into the New Order? (Hell, part 8)

Creation awaits a final redemption through which it will be "liberated from its bondage to decay" (Rom. 8:21). The dwelling of God will be with people. There will be no more death, mourning, crying, or pain. God will make all things new (Rev. 21:3-5). There will be no more curse (Rev. 22:3). God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).  

A renewal of creation is coming, but is it totally successful if heaven and hell co-exist throughout eternity? Clark Pinnock reasons that with the traditional view of hell, "the new creation turns out flawed from day one." If there is no more pain and all things have become new, how can there be a corner of the cosmos in which burning and torment last forever? If all the cosmos has been united under God, how can there remain pockets of rebellion? 

If God sustains life, how can any life be sustained outside his presence? If God is all in all, how can anything exist outside his presence? As LaGard Smith writes,

With the universe destroyed, and death and Hades along with it, the souls of the wicked would have no place to exist except in the presence of God. That is, unless, they are extinguished forever.

Since hell is by nature outside the presence of God, and since it appears that nothing is outside his presence in the new age, it is argued that at some point hell must come to an end. Perhaps there is reason to take the destruction of body and soul in hell more literally (Matt. 10:28). Hell is utter destruction. 

Is the only true justice really the never-ending torment of immortal souls? Justice is said to be carried out in capital punishment, but we don't argue that inmates must be endlessly tortured for it to be real punishment. Is immortality truly conditional?

Perhaps the best argument for conditional immortality is the book by Edward William Fudge entitled, The Fire that Consumes. The book details all of the arguments mentioned in this series of posts. It also includes an exposition of every New Testament reference to hell, the Old Testament background, hell's treatment in the early church fathers, pseudipigraphal and apocryphal literature, and much much more.  

In response to whether the conditionalist view endangers faith, Fudge offers the following quote from H. Constable's 1886 book, The Duration and Nature of Future Punishment:

Does it imperil our faith in God? What attribute of his is attacked? His love! Is it part of love to inflict eternal pain if it can be helped? His mercy! Is it part of mercy to never be satisfied with the misery of others? His holiness! Can justice only be satisfied with everlasting agonies? No; we do not endanger faith. We strengthen it, by allying it once more with with the divine principles of mercy, equity and justice. It is the Augustinian theory that endangers faith, and has made shipwreck of faith in the case of multitudes, by representing God as a Being of boundless injustice, caprice and cruelty.   

Is Hell Never-ending? (Hell, part 7)

I grew up assuming that hell was a never-ending torture chamber where immortal souls scream and writhe in constant agony and torment. William Crockett (who holds a metaphorical view of hell's horrors) cites Nels Ferre who insists that if the traditional view of hell were true, it would make Hitler "a third degree saint, and the concentration camps...picnic grounds." (See the book, Four Views On Hell).

Conditionalist Clark Pinnock says that the traditional view of hell portrays God as "a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for his enemies whom he does not even allow to die."  Pinnock's reply to the charge that sentimentality drives the conditionalist, asks if perhaps hard-heartedness might be driving the immortalist position. He says that "Everlasting conscious punishment is a huge stick that some people do not want to give up." (Also in Four Views on Hell). 

Everlasting torment has definitely been a weapon of control in efforts to modify human behavior. Some ask how a hell that is not forever could possibly deter sinful behavior. Unless people think hell is forever, what reason do they have for being good? This argument is based upon presumed human responses as opposed to the revelation of Scripture. It does not settle the matter of hell's duration in the least. It is an argument from human reasoning, just as a conditionalist argument based solely upon sentimentality would be from human reasoning. Only the biblical data matters.

Moreover, it is far from being a given that belief in never-ending torment deters sin in any way. I've known plenty of folks who believe in a never-ending hell, but continue to live unrepentant lives. There are also conditionalists who live repentant lives. Behavior modification has less to do with one's view of hell and more to do with one's view of God.

I believe that love for Christ will go much farther in deterring sin than whatever view one holds regarding hell's duration. As F. LaGard Smith suggests in his book, AfterLife, perhaps the primary purpose for hell's existence is not to serve as a deterrent, but as an assurance of ultimate justice. 

Summary of the Conditional Immortality Viewpoint (Hell, part 6)

We've established that immortalists believe in hell as the conscious never-ending torment of immortal souls. Conditionalists, however, believe that immortality is conditioned upon faith in Christ and that unbelievers won't exist forever in hell, but will finally be destroyed.

Immortalists often accuse conditionalists of trying to make hell seem not so bad. They believe that sentimentality drives the conditionalist argument which supposedly seeks to downplay the severity of a loving God.

But as we have seen, the conditionalist argument is not driven by sentimentality, but by biblical data:

1) Conditionalists cite passages in which the unrepentant perish or are consumed and destroyed (John 3:16; Matt. 10:28; Heb. 10:27).

2) Conditionalists consider Old Testament antecedents for the New Testament descriptions of hell in which neither undying worms nor unquenchable fire lasts forever, but only until the wicked are consumed (Mark 9:48; Isa. 66:24).   

3) Conditionalists insist that the Greek word translated "eternal" does not necessarily mean "never-ending." Objects or beings labeled "eternal" are those which last into the next age where humans face either eternal life or annihilation. "Eternal" can denote the irreversible or unending result of an action (Mark 3:29; Heb. 5:9) or it can refer to a very long time (Exodus 29:9; 40:15).

So there we have a summary of the conditionalist viewpoint which is not based upon sentimentality, but on an alternative understanding of some key Scriptures. So the arguments are not based on some lame attempt to reconcile a loving God with the doctrine of hell. The arguments take Scripture seriously and make some good points that are worthy of consideration.

But when all the dust settles, the question remains: Is it consistent for a loving God to send humans to never-ending conscious torment? Come back tomorrow (yes, I said tomorrow) and we'll explore that question.   

Does "Eternal" Necessarily Mean "Never-Ending"? (Hell, part 5)

In contrasting the immortalist and conditionalist views of hell, we see that immortalists believe that all human souls are immortal and will spend a consious eternity in either heaven or hell. Conditionalists, however, believe that the notion of souls being indestructible by nature owes its prominence to Greek philosophy and not to Jewish or biblical data.

Conditionalists view immortality as conditional. Only believers are promised ever-lasting life, while unbelievers will perish (John 3:16). Both the body and soul of an unbeliever will be destroyed (Matt. 10:28). Unbelievers will be consumed by fire (Heb. 10:27). Conditionalists further demonstrate that the language of unquenchable fire and undying worms originate in Old Testament texts where the language refers to temporal judgment that does not last forever (Mark 9:48; Isa. 66:24). 

But what about the language of eternal fire? Does this not imply that unbelievers will burn forever in conscious torment? A favorite proof-text for the immortalist position is Matthew 25, where verse 41 speaks of eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Then we have a contrast between eternal punishment and eternal life in verse 46. The immortalist argues that if the life mentioned here is never-ending, then the punishment would also be never-ending since the word "eternal" modifies both.

But where did we get the notion that eternal means never-ending? At times, "eternal" seems to denote the unending or irreversible results of an action. When Jesus mentions an "eternal sin" he obviously doesn't mean that the sin is being committed forever, but that its results are irreversible (Mark 3:29). The consequences will not be reversed in this age or in the next.  

The author of Hebrews used "eternal" to modify salvation, judgment, and redemption (Heb. 5:9; 6:2; 9:12). This doesn't mean that that the acts of God which accomplish salvation or punishment will be going on forever, but that the consequences of these actions extend into the next age.

The same Greek word translated "eternal" in the New Testament was used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) in reference to institutions that were definitely not intended to last forever.

The Old Testament speaks of an eternal Aaronic priesthood (Exodus 29:9; 40:15), the Passover as an eternal ordinance (Exodus 12:24), and of Solomon's temple as God's eternal dwelling place (1 Kings 8:3). Christians view none of these institutions as lasting forever, but as having been superseded by the New Covenant. Yet the same Greek word is used in regard to these institutions that was used in reference to eternal fire.

So the word that is sometimes translated "eternal" does not necessarily mean forever, but "for a very long time" or "until God wills it to end."  The same word is translated various ways in the New Testament, most notably by the term "age," as this age is contrasted with the age to come. It may refer to when (as in what age) something is going to happen, but not necessarily denote how long it will take place.  

So when Jesus spoke of "eternal punishment" contrasted with "eternal life," he might not have been talking about the duration of these objects, but about their nature. So the word "eternal" does not refer to how long the punishment or the life lasts, but rather refers to the quality of these items. The life or the punishment exists within another age, within a realm that exists outside of time. In that realm beyond time some will be consumed while others will be granted life. It stands to reason that since this life is the opposite of death or perishing, that the life will be ongoing. It is not conclusive that the punishment will be never-ending, but that it takes place in a realm outside of time.

Any questions? 

Unquenchable Fire and Undying Worms (Hell, part 4)

The conditionalist view of hell does not view souls as immortal by nature, but everlasting life is strictly conditioned upon belief in Christ. One either believes in Christ or one has no hope of everlasting existence.

How does this square with Jesus' description of hell as a place of unquenchable fire and undying worms (Mark 9:48)? When Jesus spoke of these things he was citing Isaiah 66:24. The context of Isaiah 66 speaks of God's temporal punishment of an unrepentant nation. They'll be invaded by their enemies who will leave the streets full of dead bodies. The fire is not quenched and the worms do not die until both have devoured the carcases which litter the streets.

So unquenchable fire need not refer to a fire that burns forever, but to a fire that will not go out until it has served its purpose. No one can put out a fire that God starts. The fire Isaiah mentioned did not burn forever, but no human could quench it. Nor did the undying worms live forever, but they lived long enough to devour the flesh of human corpses in the aftermath of war.

This is the vivid word picture Jesus chose to warn about God's final judgment. The language of "hell" itself is a word picture not meant to be overly literalized. "Hell" is translated from the word "gehenna" which refers to the Old Testament Valley of Hinnom, a valley south of Jerusalem where human sacrifices were made to the pagan god Molech (Jer. 7:31) . By the time of Jesus this valley was a big garbage dump where refuse and dead animal carcases were cast off. The stench was terrible and some scholars say a fire was kept burning there at all times (i.e., an unquenchable fire).

Who can say how literally to take this description of final judgment? Surely no one expects the unrepentant to be thrown into a garbage dump south of Jerusalem. While we don't take the location of gehenna literally why do so many take the unquenchable fire and the undying worm so literally? 

And just for the record, the immortalist / conditionalist debate is not about taking hell literally or metaphorically. Some conditionalists take the fire and worms quite literally. The debate is not so much about the nature of hell, but its duration.

Yet as to the nature of hell, who can say what it is really like and who wants to test their theory? Jesus used the most graphic word pictures to describe it. But it certainly means death in some sense, whether one takes that to be non-existence or eternal conscious torment.

In hell there is no way back to hope. Hell is beyond the worst scenario anyone can imagine. One is truly cast off because of continued rejection of God. Many choose to neglect God in their lives. God doesn't force compliance. If your answer is "no" he will accept that decision. Those who consistently reject God's presence in this life will be cast off for eternity.

Hell and Immortality (Hell, part 3)

The traditional view of hell could be called the "immortalist" position. Immortalists believe that when humans die physically their souls, or spirits, live on eternally. Immortalists believe that there is an essence of humanity that cannot be extinguished and that it will live on forever in either heaven or hell. The argument goes that in hell immortal souls will suffer unending torment. According to the immortalist, everyone has eternal life, but the real question is where one chooses to spend it.

In contrast to the immortalist position is the conditionalist position. Conditionalists hold that eternal life is conditioned upon whether one comes to God through faith in Christ, including all that faith entails. Believers in Jesus are promised everlasting life, but those who do not believe will perish (John 3:16). Jesus warned that both body and soul can be destroyed in hell (Matt. 10:28). Jesus contrasted the way that leads to destruction with the way that leads to life (Matt. 7:13-14).

So the choice, according to conditionalists, is destruction or life. Those not meeting the condition for eternal life will literally be destroyed in hell. Fire will consume them (Heb. 10:27). A period of punishment may precede their final annihilation. The duration of that punishment is unknown, but it will not be unending torment in which souls burn forever. It is argued that a God whose justice can only be satisfied  by sentencing souls to eternal torment would be sadistic. Even the American penal system is humane to the point that capital punishment only includes death, but not torture.

Conditionalists contend that the immortality of the soul is not guaranteed in the New Testament, which is obviously Jewish literature. The immortal soul idea is a western notion popularized by Plato and is at odds with the Jewish view of holistic resurrection and judgment of the entire person. While some conditionalists do believe that while the soul, or spirit, survives physical death, the soul's final destiny is pronounced on the day of judgment when there will be a resurrection of both the wicked and the righteous.   

If God is Loving, Why is there Hell? (Hell, part 2)

Some ask how we can serve a God who would send anyone to hell. How does a believer respond to this?

First, I would say that hell is not so much God's choice, but something humans choose for themselves. God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), but he respects our free will by allowing us to choose life or death. Since God is the sustainer of life, to reject him is to forfeit eternal life for the alternative of a second death.

While God is all powerful, he imposes a self-limitation by endowing us with freedom of choice. God loves us beyond imagination and wants us to spend eternity with him. But in giving us free will, God takes the risk that we might not love him back. We are not programed, like robots, to love God because true love must be given freely of one's own accord. Those who refuse to love God, demonstrating it by their lives, remain outside his life-sustaining presence for eternity.   

A hyper-Calvinist doctrine which insists that some are simply predestined for hell would indeed make God the orchestrator of what F. LaGard Smith calls "a divinely manipulated puppet show." This removes human choice and leaves everything up to God, which would indeed suggest that God wills that some go to hell. The free will of humans to choose their own destiny is the only way to really make sense of hell.

Second, a perfectly holy God has no alternative but to be perfectly just. Have you ever been outraged by injustice? Suppose that a murderer goes free or the parents of an abused child take a perpetrator to court, but do not get justice. These cases make us angry because of the innate sense of justice that I believe has been instilled within every human being (although some choose to suppress it). Most of us agree that a just punishment should fit the crime. God dispenses justice upon all sin.  

Some would argue that while punishment in hell might be appropriate for the Hitlers and Mansons of the world, isn't the permanence of hell a bit extreme for the "regular, everyday, garden-variety" sinner? That shows how little we understand about sin. While we are appalled by some sins, all sin is an affront to God's holiness. Sin is disobedience and rebellion against our Almighty Creator. He made us and showed us what is right, but we've stubbornly refused his offer to guide our lives.

No one has to choose hell. God has sent Jesus to show us the way back to him. Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty our sins deserve. To accept him as Savior is to receive the benefits of his substitutionary death. This means we accept him not only as Savior, but as Lord of our lives. While we are never perfected in this life, we press on toward what our baptism symbolizes in Romans 6. We die to an old way of life and we are raised to live a new life in Christ.  

Going Through Hell (Part 1)

My life isn't going badly right now. The title of this post refers to going through a study on hell, which I've been doing for several months now. So I thought I'd bounce some of this off my blog readers.

Here is the question that is always raised: How can we reconcile the doctrine of a loving God with the doctrine of hell? How could a truly loving God subject human creatures to unspeakable torment in a fiery furnace where the worm does not die and where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth?

There has been much discussion on the use of torture in our world. Even the use of torture upon terrorists by military personnel is a topic of heated debate. Can we follow a God who decrees torturous punishment that many of us would consider deplorable if practiced among ourselves? Isn't hell at least as bad as Guantanamo Bay?

Some conclude that they simply cannot follow a God who would send anyone to hell. Others reason that since God is loving, hell must not exist. Retired Episcopal Bishop, John Shelby Spong believes that hell is an invention of the religious. He isn't far off the mark when he says that organized religion has always been in the guilt-producing control business.

I agree that too many have thought that the only way to keep people out of hell is to scare the hell out of them. We all know about hellfire and brimstone preaching, right?

I'm almost more impressed by the consistency of those who reject the God of Scripture because they cannot come to terms with hell than I am with those who would merely dissect the Scripture accepting only what is most palatable. To follow the God of Scripture is to admit that hell is real. It's all part of the package.  

But what is the nature of hell? Why would a loving God sentence anyone to that awful place? Is it really a place? How literal is some of the language of hell in Scripture? And are some of our notions about hell more informed by Plato and Dante than they are by the Bible?

We'll address these and other questions as we go on. In the meantime, what are your thoughts?