Salvation, Part Three: Whither Hell?

The words "eternal, conscious torment" are not biblical. They are an extrapolation from Jesus' metaphorical use of Gehenna (the valley where trash was burned), from burn and fire vocabulary in some of the parables, and from "eternal fire" and "lake of fire" references in Jude and Revelation. Somehow the belief that hell is a place of eternal, conscious torment has become a litmus test for orthodoxy in evangelical circles. Very few pastors and theologians have had the courage to question the doctrine, most notably John Stott late in his life. (He became an annihilationist.)

McLaren does a wonderful job of tracing the historical development of the concept of hell in The Last Word and the Word After That. Many evangelicals will probably be relieved by much of what he says. Hell is not a notion that most Christians embrace willingly. They are pushed to the position by pastors and teachers who insist it is part of the package. What if it's not?

Lewis was apparently not comfortable with traditional teaching about it either. At the end of The Last Battle, the dwarves are in the stable, sitting in a circle grumbling about their fate. "The dwarves are for the dwarves," is their refrain in the midst of Armageddon. When judgment comes, they are left to their own ruminations. The feast (wedding supper of the Lamb) that Aslan has provided looks like straw to the dwarves. They are unable to see with eyes that have been conditioned to recognize the kingdom. Their kingdom is narcissistic and self-created. It is the antithesis of agape. Aslan leaves them in the stable, swathed in self-pity and self-indulgence, to spin off into eternity. That may be as good a picture of hell as we have.

The end of the story isn't neat. Nor are McLaren's conclusions. He deconstructs traditional notions of hell, but he only hints at alternatives. Agnosticism is warranted at this point. We simply don't know what will happen. However, the idea of God as the kind of being who would sentence men and women to eternal, conscious torment seems to militate against everything that Jesus represents. Yes, I believe he will judge, but that doesn't mean hell as traditionally conceived is part of the equation. Seventy years of unmitigated evil do not warrant an eternity in a George Foreman grill. It's simply a perverse notion.

There are alternatives. Hell really is a place of fire, but it's temporary, and the fire is for purification, which would imply that even those in the fire can eventually be "saved." Those who choose not to follow God's story can simply be snuffed out at judgment. Perhaps they are not even resurrected. Perhaps the fire destroys them—fire is of course metaphorical here again. Universalism, conditional exclusivism, annihilationism—there are alternatives. We need to hear that.

Next time, judgment.

Comments

[Whisky Prajer]

I'm enjoying these meditations, Greg - thanks. I'm a little surprised, however, to read that you love Hoegaarden White. That's one wild-tasting brew, man.

[Bruce]

Greg,

For a long time I have thought that what makes hell hell is that it is a place where God is constantly extending his love and grace to those who constantly reject it and refuse it.

The only exit would be reconciliation to God or annihilation. Reconciliation is impossible without accepting God's love and grace. Annihilation would mean that God gives some up to the nothingness that is at the core of their being. There are passages that talk about "God giving some up," but their context is not related to eternity.

[Monk-in-Training]

Interesting thoughts, Greg. How do you seperate Jesus' discussion Ghenna and the Lake of Fire? What is, the Lake of Fire, and how is it used? I think Hell as a concept has long been overlooked, it is too useful for conservatives to frighten people into the Church.

[Jon]

I'm sorry to keep going back to the Bible...but could you please explain your interpretation of Luke 16:19-31 (parable of the rich man and lazarus)?

I know it does not speak of eternity. But Jesus definitely paints a picture of a fiery,concious torment that doesn't end in annihilation.

Personally, it seems pretty unfair that the guy has to be tormented in Hades just because he had a good time on earth, while Lazurus luxuriates in Abraham's bosom as a reward for enduring his painful life. What lesson do you think Jesus was trying to teach here? And are we to dismiss the picture of Hades as a "visual aid" in telling the story?

Hell really is a place of fire, but it's temporary, and the fire is for purification, which would imply that even those in the fire can eventually be "saved."

Verse 26 seems to refute this as a possiblity. (depending, of course, on whether it is a "truth" being used to teach, or a fiction to demonstrate a principle.)

[Dr. Mike Kear]

Greg,

I certainly agree with your statement, "Agnosticism is warranted at this point." In "The Problem of Pain" C. S. Lewis takes the "agnostic" path as he leaves the door wide open for something other than an ever-burning hell. In my own journey I have considered the annihilation, reconciliation/universalism, and eternal torment theories. The only one I cannot reconcile with the God I know, is eternal torment.

Peace,
Mike

[Kevin Powell]

Jon,

I think the story of the rich man and Lazarus was a parable about the perils of personal greed at the expense of the weakest around us, not a description of Hell itself.

Greg,

Great post. You're absolutely right, the emphasis on hell as eternal torment for those who haven't accepted/received (fill in the formulation here) Christ, is a mis-reading of scripture.

My understanding of classic protestantism is an emphasis on New Creation/New Jerusalem, where the dead are raised and live the life that God has intended from the Beginning.

kgp

[Jon]

Kevin,

I think the story of the rich man and Lazarus was a parable about the perils of personal greed at the expense of the weakest around us, not a description of Hell itself.

What peril is it describing, if not "you better be nice in this life, or you're going to suffer in the next?" Sounds like a warning about hell to me. Are you saying it's a warning against judgement for greediness, but not an accurate description of that judgement?

[greg]

Jon,

Along with Kevin I'd like to affirm that it's a parable. McLaren plays with this text too, and I like where he goes. The language of hell was used in Jesus' time to control and to create insiders vs. outsiders, much the way it is used in fundamentalist (and some evangelical) circles today. Jesus simply turns the language around and uses it against those who seek to be in control, who seek to create outsiders. To be effective, a story does not have to be "true" in the referential sense.

MiT,

I can separate their discussions because they are separated by most of the NT writings. They are not in the same context. Building a case for eternal, conscisous torment relies on the worst kind of hermeneutics, same as dispensationalism: grab various verses from across Scripture and build a case. I dare say I can build a case for whoring with that methodology.

I think it's the Revelation that says the lake of fire was created for the devil and his angels. Since I don't believe in the be-horned one, I'll assume it has to do with the destruction of evil as a concept. Those who dwell in the kingdom no longer choose evil. They have willfully chosen the Lamb. Evil, as personified in a devil, is destroyed.

[Mike]

Greg,

Interesting thoughts. The universalist and annihilationist ideas seem to be more in line with a loving God than eternal torment. Some universalists contend there is no word for "eternal" in Greek or Hebrew. Rather, in Greek, most translations for eternal are from "aionian," which means "age-lasting." Therefore, the Lake of Fire would represent an age-lasting, or finite, judgment which amounts to rehabilitation or purification as you suggested. A couple of interesting universalist sites are http://www.tentmaker.org, which includes a video of the site's author appearing on Lee Strobel's "Faith Under Fire," and http://www.bible-truths.com/, on which the site's author posts letters where he refutes hellfire sermons by the likes of John Hagee and Dr. James Kennedy. He also offers a universalist explanation of the rich man and Lazarus.

[Joe Kendrick]

I thought the lake of fire was the end result for Satan and his followers. Which by the way you didn't mention anything about Satan.

[Joe Kendrick]

I thought the lake of fire was the end result for Satan and his followers. Which by the way you didn't mention anything about Satan. But to quote CS Lewis on Satan, "The problem Satan is we either give him too much attention or not enough." And my favorite that used in a paper, "In all his grander, Satan is still an ass."

[greg]

Joe,

I did mention him. Read my comments.

[Zossima]

One of the major criticisms of any alternative view of hell by "literalists" is that the "justice" of god would not be satisfied if "everybody" or even if anybody who did not consciously "accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior" got in. I do think we've got to address that (which you may be doing tomorrow, so forgive me if I jump the gun). My response to that ideas of justice as merely punitive are wholly Western and very American. We see all throughout Scripture reconciliation and restoration in God's justice, whether restoration of the guilty or restoration of the victims. Moltmann is big on justice for the victims and restoration of the perpetrators in his recent book In the End, the Beginning.

I've also been thinking about the truth & reconciliation commission in South Africa as a model for justice. Obviously, it was flawed, but could God's judgment be a perfect version of this? Might the glory of the risen Christ invite truth and offer embrace? And for those who choose, there is life apart from God? I don't know. I agree that it is good to be agnostic, but it's inevitable to speculate, too.

[Joe Kendrick]

sorry, i usually skip the comments

[Resident Atheist]

Lewis's comment about Satan could be applied equally well to sweeping conspiracy organizations like the Illuminati. Sure it sounds crazy, but by not believing in them you're giving them precisely what they want.

It's one of the things I grit my teeth and wish he hadn't said. I had a friend in college who was a C.S. Lewis fan who went through several nervous breakdowns on her way out of fundamentalism because she was convinced that her doubts about irrelevant things like Biblical infallibility were the result of Satanic temptation, and that she was giving Screwtape's counterpart power over her by not immediately rejecting the things she desperately needed to think about and resolve. It's not fun to exist in an environment that leads you to surrender authoritative control over your inner life to some guy who wrote a book.

[Caleb]

The other day I noticed a footnote in my HarperCollins Study Bible (which generally has very illuminating windows on biblical scholarship) which said Gehenna was a valley near Jerusalem famous as the site of pagan fire rites (like those attributed to the worship of Moloch in the Hebrew Bible). I had always heard Gehenna described as a trash dump, too, but this other possibility got me thinking.

When Jesus declares in the Sermon on the Mount that Pharisees and teachers of the law would be subject to Gehenna, perhaps in part what he's saying is that people who were taking for granted that they were a part of God's kingdom are in danger of being thrown as far outside that kingdom as possible -- so far they might as well be worshipping a pagan god. I'm not sure this interpretation is the right one, but it would fit with the general description of judgment throughout the Bible as a matter of being "inside" or "outside" a certain fellowship (cf. the "outer darkness" where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth"). We fixate on the fire as a metaphor for physical pain, but it may have been understood in its contemporary context as a reference to false worship (cf. offering "strange fire" as a form of infidelity in the historical books).

I'd be interested in getting feedback on this reading. Like Greg, I think that the idea of "conscious, eternal torment" is extrapolated from Scripture (and often from only a few verses whose literary style is clearly allegorical or metaphorical) instead of being explicitly stated there. Nonetheless, I'm wary of my own desire to blunt the force of verses that are, frankly, supposed to be frightening and prophetic (even if the challenge they lay out for disciples of Jesus is not meant to override the promise of grace). All I'm saying is that this is a hermeneutical area in which our own desires can produce all kinds of red herrings -- in either direction (I suspect that some people, horrifying as it is to say, wouldn't mind thinking that so and so will be thrown into everlasting lakes of fire).

As for the Lazarus and rich man story, I do think that for allegories to work, they have to have some contact with reality -- but this is a difficult case because Jesus is telling a parable about something about which none of his listeners have real experiential data. Nonetheless, for those who think there is literal description going on in this story, where do you draw the line? Do you think a real part of the eternal reward for Christians is sitting around all day on Abraham's breast? I tend to think, instead, that that image was primarily intended to indicated "insidership" for a man who would have been viewed by the rich man as "outside." Turning to other parables, do you think that those who are not cast out really will wear white robes all the time and spend a lot of time sitting at tables eating meals with people from the east, west, south, and north? I don't know exactly how to parse the metaphorical from the real in these stories, but I'm simply asking why, given all of this imagery, you can be so sure that this particular image in this particular story is literal, while the others are not.

[Monk-in-Training]

Greg,
I am very interested in this conversation and enjoying your viewpoints. How do you deal with this verse?
Revelation 20:15
and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
This seems to go beyond the "devil and his angels" you mentioned above.

I can build a case for whoring with that methodology.
I am certian you could, but I have to tell you, I laughed so hard when I read this, people in my office think I am crazy! (perhaps they know something...)

[Travis]

hell raises an interesting question: were there no hell to shun nor heaven to gain, how many of us would still find the Christian faith meaningful and worth following? - would we, like Luther, assert that, if there is no afterlife, then God is irrelevant? - or would we embrace the kingdom ethic all the more and work to bring Christ's vision of peace and love (hope that doesn't sound too hippie-ish) here and now?

I say, afterlife (both heaven and hell) be damned, I'll follow Christ - am I the only one who finds it rather odd and unfortunate that so many see and define Christianity primarily as a religion that shows the way to salvation in an unknowable and uncertain life beyond death?

(of course, if the fire-and-brimstone God is real, I shall probably be sodomized by demons in agonizing flames forever - still, that's better than having to share heaven w/ Hagee, Dobson, W., and their ilk)

[Dino]

Travis,

I think I understand your point (that the way of the Kingdom is a good model to follow even if there is no promise of the afterlife), but the Christian faith is more than about just the ethics of the Kingdom it is about the promise of resurrection and renewed life....it is about redemption (I realize this is a loaded word and needs interpretation, but certainly we can agree that it is a strong motif within the New Testament even though there are various views as to its meaning).

I have to be honest if there is no possibility of resurrection or redemption than I am not sure I would be a Christian or want to follow Christ...what hope would there be in this life or the lifeafter (if one believes there is one)?

I think Paul said if there is no ressurection then our faith is vain anyway...to me that would mean while it would be admirable for someone to live out the ethics and way of life Jesus asked us to follow, it would still be pointless none the less if there is no ressurection...at least that is my read on Paul's argument. What do others think?

[greg]

Dino,

In the sense that living a kingdom ethic ultimately leads to crucifixion in some form then you are correct. To follow it is foolish if there is no resurrection. Death for the Gospel's sake if the Gospel has promise only for this life is vanity. That, I believe, is the point of Paul's argument.

[Anthony]

To further the point about the resurrection. The issue has been raised that if there is no resurrection then this whole deal is pointless. I agree. But what needs to be remembered is that Jesus' resurrection opens up a new creation where people can experience a foretaste of God's resurrection/renovation of the cosmos. Resurrection is not entirely something relegated to the future in Paul's thought. We have been raised with Christ "now". We can experience a whiff of the beautiful world God is cooking up. I remember as a child in Alabama when my grandmother would cook a serious southern down home meal. I mean collards, turkey necks, chitlins, cornbread (not the jiffy kind), black-eyed peas, and a used jar of kool-aid. I remember sitting at the dining room table in anticipation due to the smells coming out of the kitchen. Then she would tease me with a small taste of greens or black-eyed peas on a spoon. It was a foretaste of a coming banquet. That's how I see resurrection. Jesus' resurrection and our living through our baptisms and enjoying the Eucharist and in engaging in gospel projects is our taste of the future bounty yet to come.

[greg]

Anthony,

Your point is well-made and taken. I've made similar points on here a few times in the past. The community is the herald and foretaste of the kingdom. Part of the Church's sickness is her lack of identity as resurrection people and her deficiency in living the "social ethic" that is the kingdom, to steal from Hauerwas.

[Anthony]

Amen. Thy kingdom come...Thy will be done...on Earth...as it is in Heaven.

[Travis]

Greg,

sorry to have taken the discussion astray from your original theme

still, I must say that it truly saddens me that so many believe that the Christian faith is vanity if there is no resurrection - just because Paul believed this does not mean that we must accept it - are we followers of Paul or of Christ? - yes, Christ spoke of the afterlife, but this was not the primary focus of his life and teachings - there is so much that is good, true, beautiful, and meaningful (and not in the least vain) in the Christian faith that has nothing whatsoever to do w/ the afterlife that it seems to me to be the worst type of reductionism to say that, if there be no resurrection, the Christian faith is vanity

additionally, as none of us knows what happens after death, it is entirely possible that death is simply annihilation, in which case your faith (if you truly believe it is vain if there is no resurrection) is, at this very moment and on your own terms, vain - thus, you are conceding the anti-Christiain position that the Christian life is vain if there be no resurrection, which seems to me to be patently absurd

[eddie]

I think this discussion can be summed up in a paraphrased conversation I saw Triumph the insult Dog have:

Triumph: Does Hell Exist?

Person: Well, blah blah... Universalism, conditional exclusivism, annihilationism.. blah blah..

Triumph: NO! THE CORRECT ANSEWER IS "WHO GIVES A SHIT"!!!!

The existence of hell is not important. It means nothing to the Christian faith.

that is all. Good day!

EDd