Emerging Africa

The doctrine of hell within Christianity is a sticky one, with many views defended vigorously as ‘the truth’ about the afterlife.

But, is the Bible really THAT clear about the here and after? If it was, why are there so many opposing views?

First, let me say what sparked my research into this topic over a year ago: truth. I am happy to accept that hell is eternal conscious torment for those who never knew Christ in this world (or, didn’t even have the chance to know him) if that is indeed the TRUTH. But why, oh why, does that not sit so right with me? Is this an emotional response to a hard truth? No, I don’t think it is. I think it’s because my Bible doesn’t line up precisely with this view.

What? It doesn’t? Well, how many of us have studied this subject to see what the Bible REALLY DOES say? And not assume that everyone has got their interpretation right?

The first thing that I found in the Bible is that nowhere does it mention damnation for those who never had the chance to know Christ – who were not presented with an opportunity. But it doesn’t say that they’re going to heaven either. It simply remains silent. Are we not arrogant to assume either way as ‘the truth?’ Perhaps it is best left up to God to judge each person’s actions (which the Bible DOES say.)

The second thing I found is that Revelations seems mighty confusing about whether those outside of the New Jerusalem were experiencing eternal death or simply not allowed inside to experience the joy of God. Firstly, it says that they’re thrown into the lake of fire – along with hell. Rev 20:14. Then it says that they’re also ‘outside’ the New Jerusalem as though they were actually alive. Also, a quick word search shows that ‘hell’ should be translated rather as ‘hades’ according to the original translation. ‘Hades’ is the place of death. So, death and the place of death are thrown into the lake of fire? What does that mean? And where else is the word ‘hell’ mistranslated? EVERYWHERE. Jesus uses the word ‘Gehenna’ which was a real place where people would burn all their rubbish outside the city– where the smoke never ended. Paul sometimes used ‘Tartarus’ which was the Greek idea of a prison in the afterlife (I might be corrected here) and the old Testament and other places in the new testament use ‘hades’ – the place of the dead. Why so much confusion?

Delving into history was next, only to find out that the Hebrews never had a real ‘theology’ on hell up until round about Jesus’ time. Before that, a large portion of the Hebrews believed that when you died you died. Reading the old Testament it seems to line up with this – that either you died, or went to the place of the dead. But that was it. I also found that in Early Christianity there were 6 schools of Christianity in Antioch devoted to the Biblical Universalism teaching, 1 school devoted to Annihilationism and 1 school devoted to eternal conscious torment. Why was no one labeled a heretic for believing something different? Even the Church Father Origen, who believed in Biblical Universalism, was not condemned as a heretic for believing that. His teaching on the ‘pre-existance of souls’ was condemned as heresy. (Do a google search on ‘Prevailing universalism’ and read the document.)

Back to the Bible – how can it say that in Is 57:16 that ‘he will not remain angry forever’ when in fact he is going to put people into hell for eternity and forever remain angry with them? How can 1 Cor 13 say that ‘love always prevails’ when in fact it won’t prevail. These are some of the Bible verses that don’t line up with the common understanding of hell.

Here’s what I think: there are a number of theories, each VERY WELL backed up biblically. The annihilation / conditional immortality theory (that God annihilates the wicked, puts them out of existence) is backed up very well by the Bible. Did you know that ‘gnashing of teeth’ is not used in the Bible as a passage to show fear, but rather anger? Check it out. All the other places it’s used in the Bible show anger. When Jesus uses it, we’ve immediately assumed he means immense fear. But it’s never used anywhere else like that – why would Jesus change the meaning? What if, he is saying that those who rejected Him as their King have rejected the Kingdom. And when these people – in the next age – see the rewards and joy they could have had, they will be angry and upset with God about the whole thing – gnashing their teeth at him, or weeping bitterly about their decision. (See stuff from Edward Fudge – do a google search on Edward Fudge or on conditional immortality.)

Next, biblical universalism. Also very well backed up by the Bible. I never thought it would be, and was scared to divulge into it. Do you know what the root word for ‘eternal’ is? It could either mean ‘eternal’ or it could mean ‘ages.’ And ages lines up very well with the rest of the Bible – Paul speaks about the ‘next age’ (1 Tim 6:19; Eph 1:21.) If the next life is an ‘age’ how long is it? The word in greek actually means ‘a period of time that cannot be measured’ (see strongs definitions.) This can swing both ways – eternity (it cannot be measured) or a ‘period of time’ (ie, it has a beginning and an end but we don’t know its length.)

Biblical universalism teaches that people will go to hell- for a time, and for correction. It will be a way of God bringing them back to Him.

Historically, the early Christian creeds don’t mention any specifics about hell – in fact, I don’t recall seeing it anywhere in the Nicene creed. The focus appears to be LIFE, RECONCILIATION, not punishment. That doesn’t mean punishment isn’t there, but what it means is that our evangelizing ought to be about the life offered, not the death awaiting. For death is what causes all kinds of sin. Even those going to hell, and know it, say ‘well, I get to enjoy life now so I’m going to enjoy it as much as I can.’ I believe the fear of punishment encourages sin, more than it prohibits sin. It’s not a good motivation not to sin anyway!

Does the Bible seem to support one particular view? No, I don’t think it does. And that has been my conclusion: we’re all mighty arrogant to think we know anything about what the afterlife is really like, and even how things are going to work. Do we really think that in the next age God has no work for us to do? What if he still wants to continue his mission of loving all people and reconciling everything? What if we’re being trained in this life for the next life – to bring those in hell – even angels – back to Him? What if we’re not? How do we know? We don’t. We aren’t supposed to. God hasn’t made it clear. What he has made clear is this: there is life never-ending in God, in Him, in Jesus. That Jesus has died to reconcile and restore all things. That there IS an age to come, and AGES to come, but no eye has seen or mind understood what God has in store in the next life. How do we live our lives as if they’re all true? What if it’s eternal conscious torment? Then it’s important we live the Great Commission and the Kingdom. What if annihilationism is true? Then it’s important we live out the Great Commission and the Kingdom. What if Biblical Universalism is true? Then it’s important we live out the Great Commission and the Kingdom. If anyone says ‘why should we? Because they’re all going to heaven anyway,’ I’d have to say ‘Are you freakin crazy?? Do you know what hell is like – even ten minutes of it? What if it is so full of horror and terror, what kind of person wants to even see people go through ten minutes of utter terror??’

Our motive is love and Kingdom and going to the nations, no matter what hell is really like or how long it lasts. I think God has been deliberate in keeping it a secret – it’s not our business to know now. Now, we’re charged with a mission to spread the gospel to all nations. That needs to be our focus – to spread the message of LIFE and Kingdom. Not the message of punishment and torture. Not the message of ‘my theology is better than yours,’ (which is like saying : God has given me more knowledge than you… does this sound recognizable? Sounds Gnostic to me.)

Paul charges us not to get mixed up with the meanings of words (2 Tim 2:14.) Perhaps we shouldn’t. I mean, it’s great to talk about these things and wrestle with these things and we should do that. Nothing in the Bible tells us not to (it seems to encourage it.) But we do ourselves no favors by insisting my understanding of the word ‘eternal’ is more right than yours and because of that we can’t be in the same ministry. Perhaps we should just put it aside and get on with the job of discipling the nations.

Ryan