by Norman Walford 10th January 2014
I had a serious shock a couple of months ago when a Christian friend of many years’ standing whom I have always held in high regard started dropping hints that he was moving in the direction of Christian Universalism—the doctrine that says that all men without exception with eventually be reconciled to God, that the penalty for sin is not everlasting.
I confronted him with the question So do you think that Jesus Christ himself believed in Universalism? and after some prevarication he replied that there might indeed be some hints and suggestions in that direction. In response I’ve taken a few hours out to go through Mark, which I generally regard as the archetypal gospel narrative to see what ‘hints and suggestions’ might come out. Any trawl through a segment of the Bible undertaken with a specific question revolving in your mind will always yield fascinating and often surprising results, and for me this was no exception. This is what I found.
In the first box here I’ve listed the passages from Mark’s gospel—all familiar ones—that struck me on a straight read-through as being relevant to the question in point, which can really be equally phrased as Did Jesus Christ believe in Hell?
|
The first thing that struck me looking at these passages is just how little mention there is of Hell (Gehenna in the Greek original). In Mark it’s only found in one passage [9.43-47]—three mentions [43, 45 and 47] which all say essentially the same thing. Comparing Matthew and Luke, we find that Luke who is a gentle soul has left this rather inflammatory passage out altogether. His only mention of Hell elsewhere is of God having the authority to throw people into Hell [Luke 12.5]. It doesn’t say he actually uses it, just that he can. Matthew seems much happier with Hell than the others. He includes both these mentions, plus a few more [5.22, 23.15, and 23.33].
And that’s it (for the gospels). Quite surprising really—at least is was to me. I had expected a bit more. And as for the rest of the New Testament—there’s even less. Paul never uses the word. Acts never uses the word. James uses it once in an unrelated context. Essentially nothing. This is in marked contrast to the Koran, by the way, which goes on and on about Hell, eternal fire, eternal punishment and so on. 77 mentions of Hell in the Koran altogether. But in the New Testament not. It seems the New Testament writers prefer to talk about the positive side of life, not the negative.
So where does this take us? Jesus says very little about Hell but what he does say is quite strong. It is however worth remembering that the scariest bits of it—the worm that doesn’t die and the fire that is not quenched—are Jesus quoting directly from Isaiah 66. In Isaiah it seems to be a battlefield metaphor—the aftermath of a great battle in which the corpses are either being piled up to be burnt or else being left to rot (worms, maggots and so on). The fire in Isaiah is the fire of disposal rather than the fire of torture. Still nasty but not as bad as it could be.
A note on GEHENNA and HADES
|
The second theme that comes out of Mark is the theme of punishment or condemnation [12.40 and 16.16]. This is judicial punishment, as for a crime committed, as we might speak of being ‘condemned to death’. It is contrasted with being saved—either you are punished/condemned, or you are saved. Punishment can be either temporary like prison, or permanent as in a death sentence—no question of making you a better person there. In 12.40 Jesus suggests that some may be punished more severely than others—difficult to know quite what to make of that. Does it just mean that some are more culpable than others?
The third theme in Mark [3.29] is the eternal sin that is never forgiven. This is disturbing. If it’s never forgiven, presumably there is never reconciliation. This also brings in the question of what exactly is meant by eternal. Nowadays it usually means something that goes on and on, through time, indefinitely with no end. However it can also mean something more like ‘outside time’. The Greek word actually translates more literally as ‘in the age to come’, less time-focused than we usually think of it. Having said that, the statement ‘shall not be forgiven in the age to come’ still seems to have a certain finality about it.
I think my Universalist friend is drawing some comfort from the repeated phrase with God all things are possible (10.27, 12.35). This he takes to mean that if God wants to he is capable of reforming and sparing everyone; and if he is a kind, loving God he would wish to do that, and since he can he will. I don’t really buy this argument. This is the ‘If I were God I’d do things differently’ argument that comes up in all kinds of contexts in Christian discussions. I’m not God, I don’t know much of what God is like, but I know that he’s not much like me. Every day I am confronted by the reality that things that are trivial to me are hugely important to him, and vice versa. I can never safely predict his reactions to anything, still less assume that they will mirror my own.
Jesus explores this argument in 14.35—God, you can do all things; so you can spare me this ordeal and do it another way if you so choose; so do it! Then he quickly recognizes the dead-end he’s heading into and backs off. No human brain, even that of the incarnate God, is in a position to pass rational judgment on God’s choices. Jesus backs off, and we have to do the same.
So where does all this take me?
- Probably to a conception of Hell a lot less clear-cut than I might have imagined, stretched somewhere between the Jerusalem municipal rubbish dump and a shadowy underworld borrowed from Greek mythology.
- There’s a lot less about Hell than I thought there would be, but it’s still there and—if Jesus is to be believed—its somewhere we do well to avoid going to at all costs.
- There’s talk of punishment and of destruction but not of torture—certainly no indication of a God in any way taking pleasure anyone’s pain, which I find comforting.
- As to whether Hell has a finite end or goes on forever—I suspect it’s the wrong question to ask, presupposing as it does a continuation of the current space-time continuum into the age to come, which is far from certain.
- I haven’t found anything to actively support my friend’s doctrine of Universalism which I suspect owes more than a little to a combination of wishful thinking and a kind heart.
- But in the meantime I feel a lot better about the whole thing than I did before.
- For a long time now I’ve gone to extreme lengths to avoid using the word Hell where humanly possible, particularly in conversations with non-Christian people. I much prefer to talk about separation from God or exclusion from the Kingdom which I think portray the reality in a more helpful way. My brief study leaves me feeling fully vindicated in this, and in fact I think I will try and avoid the word even more from now on.
Follow this link to Pharisee Church website for my complete blog archive
Preview my book How to Survive in the Pharisee Church and Other Questions for Confused Christians
Why would Jesus make such a sacrifice if all of humanity could ultimately be reunited with the Father anyway? Why all the fuss? Why would it take such a drastic act of God Himself to fix what was broken in the garden of Eden if eventually, we all end up back with Him anyway?
I noticed that you didn’t mention the verse in Revelation in this brief study you’ve posted that speaks about those who take the mark of the beast being cast into the lake of fire and the smoke of their torment rising up for ever and ever.
What do you make of that one?
I absolutely agree with you Steffie. I guess they might argue that the death of Jesus was still efficacious, but just more broadly so, for all humanity. that’s not what I believe, by the way, just what I think a Universalist (which I’m not!) might say.
I’ve tried to stay focused here specifically on ‘What did the earthly Jesus think and say about it?’. Now I’m starting to think about ‘What did Paul think and say about it?’. After that Revelations (perhaps).
Yes, I sort of worded that as if I presumed you believed those things, of course your blog doesn’t give that impression at all.
I’m in exactly the same situation as you found yourself in though, so this topic is a new one for me and it baffles me to no end. Something I respect quite highly in the faith has come down hard on me for believing in eternal damnation and when I shared the quote from Revelation, he didn’t have a response, hence why I was hoping to pick your brain about it. 🙂
Also, if we believe the Bible to be truth, then can rightly separate the words written in it as belonging to Jesus or Paul or John?
If all Scripture really is breathed out by God and that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, then isn’t it all God’s Word, regardless of who the mouthpiece was?
Just a thought.
That’s about six new subjects for my list of things to write about!
For now suffice to say that if the Bible says one thing fifty times and another thing once or twice, I think its reasonable to suppose that the one is more important than the other. If we give them equal weight we can get into a lot of imbalance and trouble.
The Bible does talk about Hell and it does talk about the lake of fire and sulphur; but I was surprised how few times.
I think you’ll find the only ones who it specifically says are tormented for ever and ever are the beast, the false prophet and the devil. The others are just thrown in. But I’d have to check on that . . .
Should we read that into it though or can it not be assumed by way of practicality and context that being thrown into a lake of fire that will torment even satan and his angels will be a pretty painful place for human souls to be as well?
Eh, it’s obviously not worth fighting with anyone over but I love searching for the truth in God’s Word. It’s always an adventure. 🙂
It certainly is (an adventure).
One thing is clear is that Jesus said it’s something we should do everything we possibly can to avoid ending up in. It’s a bad place.
Amen to that.
Good thing to discuss. Another reason to go check out Martin Zender, whose eschatology I don’t agree with, but most all else…yes. And…down to earth !
First religious mistake….thinking the lake of fire is hell. Study it . Try ” b4u2c” on Hub pages, and read his excellent article, “The Destiny of Unbelievers.”
Second….common sense response, which religious people “sigh” upon hearing, because it doesn’t fit their true religious needs which are all based upon wrong traditional teachings. That is simply, why would you consider that God, who is love, would FOREVER burn and torment anyone? I bet YOU wouldn’t do such, even to an animal if you have any decency about you. But, God would do such? If you believe that, you don’t really “know” God. You know religion. Come out of that thinking.
Hell is a purifying concept, place or thing. It is meant for the totally rebellious, like satan and his buddies. ( fallen angels ) The scriptures only intimate that folks will go to “hell” for a period of time ( eonian ). You want a good thing to consider . What about satan….the TRADUCER . ( which is what satan really is …look it up in a literal version of the Bible …..the Traducer is in your mind, a conduit of YOUR thought life.)
Will satan go to hell “FOREVER ?” How can you consider that what God made as they are, and some vessels of dishonor, nevertheless, God made as such; He will consign to eons of eons of torment. The only way out of that dilemma of consideration is that the hell concept is TIME related. And quite frankly, it. Even then is a hard saying. Paul’s answer was actually a bit harsh…. ” what you O’ man will question God? He is the potter, you are just clay. He can do what He wants!” Yeah, I got that Paul, but the Potter made me this way! And I have a soul and spirit. And if He can just toss me in ” Ghenna” for ” eternity” after making me this way, seems ” not right” to me, even though I am just “clay.” Kind of falls short of love to me, ” Mr. Calvin.”
The information age is amazing…..these subjects so available now, when in the past, I never even considered that my traditional teachings were in error. Of course, you STILL have to be willing to step out of bondage to religious tradition and possibly believe.
Like many things the more you look at it the more angles you find. I agree the resources available now are fantastic – we all now have a full theological library at our fingertips in our living rooms. Will that get us closer? I hope so, but rather doubt it! I had a quick look at Zender – its quite long.
Norman,
A clergy friend put it this way: “Hell is exists. It is a terrible place. But luckly there’s nobody there.” Because Jesus paid the price for ALL.
If you do a second study about that, I think you’ll find a lot more biblical material than you did about Hell. Or indeed than you’d find about Heaven either 🙂
David
I’m looking at Paul right now.
I’m looking at it for next week.
Pingback: Universalism – Did Paul Believe in Hell? | PhariseeChurch
I’ve been enjoying your posts.
In Luke 16:19-31, Jesus presents a parable which seems to indicate a conscious existence in a “place of torment”, for those who will not hear Moses and the prophets, rather than a termination of consciousness or some type of universal reconciliation.
Thanks Mike.
As you point out, it’s a parable. That is, an imaginary story designed to make people think a bit. To my mind therefore it can’t be taken as a literal description of actual circumstances. I don’t particularly take the description of the poor man being carried away by angels as being literally what actually happens. And neither of the rich man tormented in hades. Perhaps Jesus is using the kind of idioms that were prevalent in the popular culture of the time and were immediately understandable to the listeners. The theology of the rich all going to hell and the poor all going to heaven is likewise not to be taken literally.
So, I can’t say that it’s not, but neither can I say that is, so it doesn’t to my mind settle the issue.
I’m well aware however that a lot of readers would agree with your interpretation!
Norman
Well, I believe I pretty much said what you are saying, about six weeks ago. Except more specifically. That was that there IS a hell during the next eon, in which sin will be
” burned ” out of folks who refused the free offer of Christ in this eon. And they WILL bow the knee to Christ Jesus in this time frame, BECAUSE GOD IS SOVEREIGN AND HE DOESNT NEED NOR WILL HAVE ANYONE SPEND ETERNITY IN TORMENT, as some ( Catholics and their sister, Prostestants ) would desire. Google
” reconciliation ” and read all the scriptures regarding this belief. Religion has men tormented for ” eternity ” for sin, not God. God is God, and way too awesome and big to fail at ANYTHING, including man’s refusal to believe. If that were the case, than God would NOT be God. I don’t understand why folks don’t see or receive this about a sovereign God. So, be a believer and you will rise in the FIRST resurrection. Be a rebel, and you will “sleep” until the second resurrection, and judgment.
I hope you’re right Jim.
One reasonable explanation of “Gehenna” I saw was that it always referred to the corpse-pit where the flames were kept burning and worms kept eating dead flesh, and if you weren’t saved then when you died your body went there and that was the end of you, full stop. No “eternal torment”, just the end of life and the consumption (by fire and worm) of your dead body. Salvation meant there was something more.
I absolutely agree.
Fire can symbolize a number of things. It can of course be an instrument to inflict pain, but it can be other things as well such as disposing of of dead bodies.
The bit about the worms etc. Jesus is quoting from Isaiah 66. In Isaiah 66 it seems to describe the aftermath of a battle in which the dead bodies on the battlefield are either piled up and burnt to get rid of them; or left to rot.
There’s no suggestion in that quote that the bodies are sentient.
I think the torture thing probably comes from the lake of fire in Revelation. But this is difficult to to interpret – after all it says that death and Hades will be thrown into the lake of fire, whatever that might mean. I tned to take it as more symbolic than literal.
Norman