The latest Grove Biblical booklet is Death and ‘Hell’ by Paul Marston, and addressed the burning question (!) of what happens when we die, and the nature of death and hell. He begins by exploring why this is such an important question, theologically and pastorally.
This booklet considers two distinct questions: (i) what happens immediately after death, and (ii) what happens at the final judgment to those who have remained unrepentant. Why are these important issues to think about?
Immediate post-death experience may well be something on which you have wondered at some point. Are dead friends and relatives conscious and able to see us? What will the immediate post-death experience be like?
The second issue, the final end for the unrepentant, should concern us all. It reflects on the nature and character of God himself. Does God, as some believe, consign all who die without faith, including for example Hindu children who never heard of Jesus, to unending suffering without hope? This is so horrendous a picture that, if they believe it is what Christians teach, some may refuse even to consider faith. Also, some Christians may be anxious about much loved close relatives and friends who died without faith. Are these eventually to suffer an unending torment without hope, and can we really be happy in a heaven believing that this is so?
Many Christians believe that those who die enter an intermediate state to await resurrection and final judgment, and that hell is the final destiny of the determinedly unrepentant; but they differ on what these involve. This booklet looks at this on the assumption that Christian doctrine is not based ultimately on tradition nor on what we want to be true, but on the teachings of Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament. This should be determined by well-established principles of biblical interpretation. Different biblical genres (such as parable, apocalyptic, poetry and statement) require different approaches. Cultural and semantic backgrounds may help us to understand what the various New Testament writers meant by the terms they used. We also assume that New Testament teaching is consistent, even when different writers may use different modes of expression.
Jesus and his apostles believed that what we call the Old Testament was inspired, or ‘God breathed’ (2 Tim 3.16). However, divine revelation was progressive, and some ideas in the Old Testament are partial and expanded in the New. Nevertheless, concepts and language in it (and in the Greek translation of it called the LXX or Septuagint in use in the first century) can help us understand what New Testament writers meant by their terms.
The Developing Overall Jewish Perspective
The Old Testament assumed that at death everyone went to sheol, a place of gloom and darkness where there was no remembrance of God, proclamation or praise (Job 10.21; 26.5; Ps 6.5; 30.9; 88.11; 115.17). Any existence was shadowy or minimal. In most of the OT there is no specific indication of any future resurrection. Its only clear reference to a future resurrection is in Dan 12.2: ‘And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.’ This is generally dated to the second century BCE.
From this time Jewish writings outside the Protestant canon also speak of a resurrection from sleep in sheol. The second-century BCE book of 2 Maccabees (7.14) indicates there will be a resurrection to life for the righteous but not for the wicked tyrant. The fragments called Pseudo–Ezekiel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls took Ezek 37 to imply both national restoration and a resurrection of the Jewish righteous. The Scrolls themselves have few references to a resurrection, but 4Q521 says God ‘will heal the slain and the dead he will cause to live’ and 4Q418 that all those who ‘will endure forever, those who seek the truth will awaken to judge the wicked.’ None of these speak of a conscious life in sheol.
The exception to this pattern is in the visionary apocalyptic work of 1 Enoch, in which ‘Enoch’ (whom Gen 5.24 says ‘walked with God, and was not, for God took him’) has various dreams and visions. The book’s apocalyptic style makes it hard to determine how much was intended as literal, and it is sometimes contradictory. In sheol in 1 Enoch the ‘souls’ are put into one of three or four ‘hollows’ (22.2,9). Either just three are dark and one lit up with a spring of water, or all four are dark (22.2). The description seems confused, and the sufferings of the sinners in their hollow are only until the day of judgment. But ‘paradise’ would not be a good description of the hollow for the righteous, the body-soul dualism is Greek, not Hebrew, and the picture reflects Greek and Orphic mythology not Hebrew sheol. 1 Enoch does describe a kind of paradise garden with symbolic trees, including the one which led to expulsion from Eden (25–32), but ‘no mortal is permitted to touch it till the great judgment’ (25.4). This is not a present paradise for the righteous dead.
Unlike some Greek thought (eg Plato), Jewish thinking pre-Jesus did not suggest immortality of the human soul. Other religions had either extinction or immediate judgment at death and no future resurrection so Jewish belief in a future resurrection ‘differed significantly from other popular conceptions of the afterlife in antiquity.’ Moreover, by the time of Jesus belief in a resurrection was common amongst Jews generally (and not just the Pharisees). Sheol (translated as ‘Hades’ in Greek), was just a place where the dead awaited a resurrection to judgment. Apart from 1 Enoch, Jewish writings implied no conscious suffering or bliss in sheol.
Overall New Testament Post-Death Pattern
Jesus and his apostles were Jewish, and reflect the general pattern of waiting in sheol/Hades for a resurrection and final judgment. Death is not extinction but a kind of sleep (Matt 27.52; John 11.11–13; Acts 7.60; 13.36; 1 Cor 15.18; 15.20; 1 Thess 4.13; 4.15; 2 Pet 3.4), and at some point in history there will be a resurrection to a final judgment (Matt 10.15; 11.22,24; 12.36; Acts 17.31; Rom 2.16; 2 Pet 2.9; 3.7; 1 John 4.17). Everyone will be raised and judged (John 5.28–29; Rom 2.5–8; 2 Cor 5.10–11; Rev 20.12–13). Judgment in that day will be according to what a person has done, though for Christians this does not mean clocking up good works but living a life in harmony with God, receiving undeserved forgiveness through the death of Christ, and living out that relationship in righteous lifestyle (1 John 3.7). The righteous (those in right relationship with God and their neighbour) will have eternal life, but the unrighteous condemnation.
In this booklet we will explore the NT teaching on (i) the experience of those awaiting the resurrection, and (ii) what happens to the determinedly unrepentant at the post-resurrection final judgment.
In Chapter 2, Paul addresses the first question, and spends time especially on Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16, and whether that tells us anything about the immediate post-mortem experience. He then turns to the larger question of final destiny, and whether or not the New Testament supports the idea of ‘eternal conscious torment’, which has been a feature of Christian teaching down the ages.
Options and Advocates
Some Christians believe that in the end the love of God will prevail and everyone will be redeemed. Usually this is based on very general verses, such as Eph 1.10, and philosophical considerations rather than detailed exegesis. Two more common beliefs are held especially by evangelicals arguing from more detailed biblical exegesis. One is that hell involves endless torment without hope, and the other that the judgment of the determinedly unrepentant will lead to ultimate destruction, meaning that they cease to exist. This is the understanding advocated and explained in this booklet based on what the New Testament actually says.
Our focus will be on the NT teaching, but it may be useful first to note the general Jewish background on the issue at the time of Jesus. The Old Testament itself says absolutely nothing about any unending suffering, speaking only of destruction. Daniel 12.2 speaks of some arising to everlasting shame and contempt, but there is nothing about unending torment. What of pre-Jesus apocryphal Jewish writings? In 2 Maccabees the tyrant is told only that for him there will be no resurrection to life (2 Macc 2.13). The Dead Sea Scrolls have no unending suffering. 1 Enoch says the sinful and oppressors will be destroyed (1 Enoch 1.9; 10.12-16; 45.6), for example: ‘As straw in the fire…they will burn before the face of the holy…and no trace of them will be found’ (1 Enoch 48.9). In the Book of Judith (c100 BCE) the heroine ends her triumph song promising that those who ‘rise up against my people’ will suffer fire and worms at judgment day and ‘weep in pain forever’ (heōs aiōnos; Judith 16.17). There is, however, doubt whether this final phrase means literally ‘forever’; a similar phrase in Matt 28.20 is usually rendered ‘until the end of the age.’ Fire and worms, as we will see, indicate destruction of those dead or expiring.
There seems then to be no evidence that any school of Jewish thinking pre-Jesus had a doctrine of unending torment. The post-Jesus 4 Maccabees inserts it in a Platonic/Stoic reworking of the martyrs’ stories in 2 Maccabees, but this is in a later period as Hellenization increased. Josephus was also part of this Hellenization and does not accurately describe earlier Jewish views.
Our doctrine comes from Scripture, not from any commentators. Nevertheless it is interesting to note what was taught by two of the earliest Christian teachers, who spoke the language of the New Testament.
Justin Martyr (c 100–165) wrote of the eventual ‘destruction of the whole world’ when ‘wicked angels and men shall cease to exist’ because they misused their free-will. Irenaeus of Gaul (c 130–200) taught believers would receive ‘length of days forever and ever’ but anyone who rejects God deprives himself of [the privilege of] ‘continuance for ever and ever.’ So continuance for ever and ever is a gift of God, and those who reject God will not receive it but cease to exist.
More recently, the Church of England’s Doctrine Commission report, ‘The Mystery of Salvation,’ stated in 1995: ‘Hell is not eternal torment, but it is the final and irrevocable choosing of that which is opposed to God so completely and so absolutely that the only end is total non-being.’ Similar understandings of hell as destruction have been advocated by a number of distinguished recent biblical scholars known as conservative/evangelical in their theology, for example John Wenham, J Stafford Wright, John Stott (and F F Bruce wrote to Stott expressing sympathy), Ernest Lucas and David Wilkinson.
So what does the New Testament really teach?
Paul then goes on to explore carefully the language of death and judgement in the New Testament, especially the teaching of Jesus in the gospels, and the phrase ‘eternal destruction’ and what that might mean. A whole chapter is given to the ‘parables of outer darkness’ in Jesus’ teaching, and another to the Book of Revelation and its language of judgement. With such a careful survey, Paul offers a robust account of what the New Testament says about the destiny of the unrepentant who do not believe.
I think this booklet is a really important contribution to this very significant question. You can buy the booklet, post free in the UK or as an e-booklet, from the Grove website here.
Paul Marston is a retired university lecturer and published author. He has written a longer book on this subject which you can find on his website here.
Buy me a Coffee
This is a truly excellent article which employs the principles of biblical theology (which pays special attention to the social and literary context of the original author and their intended readers) to engage with an important subject about which confusion abounds. I have bought Paul’s book on the strength of it.
you can tell us at a later date what his conclusions are, as this article seems to consist of asking questions rather than answering them.
Some believe that the eternal fate of the angels is different to that of humans if we consider that they are not embodied, and these passages might suggest such?: 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6; Rev 20:10 — and Hebrews 2:16–17:
‘For surely it is not [fallen] angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore, he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.’
However, I am not (yet) fully persuaded by that view.
I have word searched this article for ‘Original Sin’ and ‘Romans’. There are no matches on either. If, as I believe, Romans 5:12-21 teaches that we all face God’s condemnation from birth onwards, that doctrine has a big bearing on whether all the unsaved face God’s eternal retribution on the day of judgment.
Phil Almond
Phil,
“Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.”
Deuteronomy 24:16
See also: 2 Kings 14:6; Ezekiel 18:20
I do not think Paul would contradict this clear OT teaching? And many (most?) evangelical Bible scholars who have specialised in Romans now question that traditional teaching — including Douglas Moo and Tom Schreiner.
Colin
Lets have a debate on Romans 5:12-21 please. I dont think the OT passages you quote disagree with what I see as the clear meaning of the Romans 5 (and other) passages which prove the Orginal sin doctrine.
Phil Almond
Colin
“Adam is a type of Christ (14b)
Yet the typology functions mainly by way of contrast. For Adam’s transgression is not like Christ’s gift (15a),
For many died through Adam’s transgression (15b), while conversely the grace of God was lavished on many through Jesus Christ (15c).
The result that obtained from Christ’s gift is dissimilar to the result that obtained from Adam’s sin (16a).
For Adam’s one sin brought condemnation (16b),
While Christ’s gift covered many transgressions and brought righteousness (16c).
How do we know that Adam’s sin brought condemnation? We know this because death ruled through the transgression of the one man Adam (17a),
And conversely we know that Christ’s gift brought righteousness because those who receive the gift of righteousness through the one man, Jesus Christ, will reign in life (17b).
Therefore (concluding the comparison introduced in v.12) just as the transgression of the one man Adam, brought condemnation to all people (18a),
So also the righteousness of the one man, Jesus Christ, brought about the righteousness that leads to life for all people (18b).
Let me restate verse 18: Through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners (19a) while through the obedience of the one man many were made righteous (19b).”
(Tom Schreiner’s Romans Commentary page 282-283 summary of 5:15-19).
I dont agree with some of Schreiners exegesis of Roman’s 5:12-14 but his comments above on 5:18a show that he viewed Adam as a ‘special case’ unlike your comments on Deuteronomy Kings and Ezekiel. has he changed his mind?
I will give a view on Moo’s exegesis later.
Phil Almond
‘18 Therefore, as condemnation came to all people through the trespass of one man, so did the righteousness that leads to life come to all people through the righteous act of one man. For just as through the disobedience of the one man were the many made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one will the many be made righteous.’
Douglas Moo Summary of the Reign of Grace and Life (5:12-21) page 314
Has he changed his mind?
Phil Almond
I believe that everybody ends up in either the New Jerusalem or a lake of fire, each experienced eternally. Annihilationism is a net win for the sinner, for you could have a good time sinning and then just cease to be. I accept that there are open questions about what happens to, say, a fertilised ovum that fails to implant, but children are made holy by the faith of their parents (1 Cor 7), until they cease to be children. The OT faithful are saved by their faith, which is credited as righteousness (as with Abraham in Genesis 15). Even those who have never heard of Israel or Christ have what it takes to know that there is a moral creator and that they are sinners (Romans 1).
Fire destroys. So how can people ‘exist’ in the Lake of Fire?
Fire destroys the material but not the spiritual, and we are raised with spiritual bodies (1 Cor 15:44). The eternal nature of the fire is as explicit as ancient Greek rhetoric permits in Revelation 14:11, “from the ages to the ages” in literal translation.
But Scripture nowhere teaches the inherent immortality of the soul.
Ian,
“But Scripture nowhere teaches the inherent immortality of the soul.”
Yes. Thus Gen 6:3 where spirit us ‘ruach’. Instone-Brewer comments:
‘The Bible restricts the word ‘spirit’ [Hebrew = ruach, Greek = pneuma] to humans, God, and angels. In contrast, ‘soul’ (Hebrew = nephesh, Greek = psuchē) is used for humans and animals, but not for God or angels’ : David Instone-Brewer, Science & the Bible: Modern Insights for an Ancient Text (Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham, 2020), 158.
Edward Feser’s newest book is called ‘Immortal Souls’. It’s a philosophical rather than theological work.
Maybe worth checking?
2 Cor 5 suggests an intermediate state.
Remember also that Jesus said with reference to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: ‘He is the God of the living, not the dead.’
How do we understand Lazarus in Luke 16?
What about Revelation, Ian?
What do you think will ultimately happen to Satan?
Doesn’t (Matt 25:46) imply the immortality of the soul? How can you qualify ‘eternal punishment’ without also qualifying ‘eternal life’ when they appear in the same sentence?
From Mark 9: It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’
All English translations of 1 Cor. 15 are misleading. Paul does not distinguish between matter and spirit as we do in the modern world; following a Cartesian (mis) understanding. Anciently, bodies and spirits were both made of ‘stuff’, but stuff that was differently composed. A spiritual body is not a bodiless body nor a soul. Paul usually, though not always, makes a sharp distinction between ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’, as here.
Every langauge appears to have two words, distinct in meaning, for the immaterial aspects of a human. IUnEnglish these are soul and spirit. I am not convinced that ther is 1:1 correspondence between these words and the two words in Hebrew and the two words in Greek. I agree that it isn’t easy.
Hi Anton,
“But children are made holy by the faith of their parents” — but I do not think this is what Paul is saying in 1 Cor 7:14. Instead, I suggest he is addressing the teaching of Deut 23:2 and ‘mamzer’ children of mixed marriages being ‘unclean’ — and Ezra’s instruction to the men of Judah to divorce their non-Jewish wives (Ezra 10:11). And in light of this it seems Paul has been asked about ‘mixed marriage’ (believer/unbeliever) in the church age, and he answers:
v.14 “For the unbelieving husband is made holy [hagiazō = clean] because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy [hagiazō] because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean [akathartos], but as it is, they are holy [i.e., contra the Mosaic covenant].”
hagiazō has a semantic domain which includes the concept of being ritually ‘clean’. Under the MC ‘unclean’ families would be excluded from the congregation. The fact that Paul in the same verse employs akathartos as the antithesis to hagiazō supports the contention that ‘clean’/’unclean’ (not saved/lost or holy/unholy) is Paul’s meaning throughout the verse —akathartos appears to have a narrower semantic domain and in this context it seems to demand the translation ‘unclean’ as in most Bible versions.
Anton – Re 1 Cor 7:14, in other words, both mixed and unmixed marriages are valid marriages and while the latter not encouraged the children of them are not unclean.
indeed it has nothing to do with salvation of a partner or children. Yet more verses from Paul that have been misunderstood for far too long.
‘Now if the lost should suddenly be annihilated, that annihilation would be no punishment’. Is the death penalty no punishment then? Most humans view it, the ending of life, as the ultimate punishment.
To those who late-date Daniel, as above, may I recommend the scholarly rebuttal by Paul Lawrence of Liverpool University in Bible and Spade magazine, vol.28(1) pp4-11 (2015).
Is it online?
If so then it is behind a paywall. I can scan my copy and email it as an attachment to you if you wish, Ian.
Indeed, many scholars date all of Daniel to 6th century BC. So much nonsense is written and believed.
What happens when we die? I presume our physical atoms lie scattered until God scoops them up together again which brings us back to consciousness. But, if we exist in some form separate from our body, we are outside space-time and therefore simultaneously in the same state as Adam, Eve and everyone who has ever died. I prefer the former. I don’t think it helps to speculate. The save are inside the New Jerusalem, everyone else is outside. From the inside the walls are golden and transparent, from the outside the walls are look and feel like walls of fire ever advancing.
I can’t evaluate this article, since all of the argument has been cut out…
Not sure what you mean?
Interesting booklet that I think will be well worth studying. Thank you
In an episode of ‘Morse’ the murderer flees only to crash his car which explodes. ‘Oh, no!’ says atheist Morse, ‘He’s got away with it’.
I read this Grove booklet with much interest. I take no pleasure in the finite life of a sinner resulting in an unending penalty of eternal suffering. Equally the idea of wicked despots (so prevalent in the news recently) dying comfortably in their beds only to be awoken at some future judgement date to face a sentence of instant annihilation also seems to fly in the face of justice.
I was more happy with the ‘destruction’ idea that seemed to rule out any idea of future reincarnation and a second bite at redemption.
In the end we may just have to trust a Righteous God who does not make mistakes.
This is difficult theology.
Yes, trusting is a challenge.
Jesus and his apostles were Jewish, and reflect the general pattern of waiting in Sheol/Hades for a resurrection
and final judgment. {?}
Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16, Is an account of life post-mortem, obviously depicting two states. The suggestion by some that Jesus was only recounting a folk legend is risible,
It is an insult to the veracity of our Saviour who knows the end from the beginning.
Secondly there is no mention of “Today you will be with me in Paradise” in this piece.
Jewish concepts of Paradise can be found @ http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11900-paradise
And Sheol @ /jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13563-sheol
What is most important to note is that all will face an appointment with God at the appointed time,
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent:
17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
In the West it is broadly asserted in many disciplines that we have very much sanitized the idea of death.The Scriptures however do not, and ought to be properly taught and due warnings given.
Perhaps pastorally one might ask,”Why do you want a Christian funeral? might open a door.
“Many Christians believe that those who die enter an intermediate state to await resurrection and final judgment”
Many, but possibly not most. It wasn’t until my father died that I realised just how much of a minority I was in following this particular belief. The high end of the Church seem to persist in strongly stating the belief in an intermediate state (hence, “May they rest in peace, and rise in glory”), but the idea that people die and then immediately pop up in heaven is pretty widespread everywhere else in my experience.
‘Hell is not eternal torment, but it is the final and irrevocable choosing of that which is opposed to God so completely and so absolutely that the only end is total non-being.’
Fascinating (and encouraging) that this came from the CofE Doctrine Commission. I can see the theological sense: if God is not only the creator, but the sustainer of all life (Colossians 1) then an eternal living torment requires God to sustain it, but if sin is cutting you off from God, then you get death not living torment.
Indeed.
Re intermediate state — I think although many cite verses such as 2 Cor 5:8, rather than going straight into the presence of Christ, death could be like having a general anaesthetic (five times so far for me) — when you awake, unlike when you awake from sleep, there no consciousness of elapsed time. You magically go straight from anaesthetic administration to the recovery room.
Yes, l think general anaesthesia is a good analogy. I have tried several times when having general anasthesia to pinpoint the exact instant when ‘ l was going under’ to no avail. In fact, the last time l had a general anaesthetic l remember thinking at the time that l wished they would get on with the op and start the process only to find myself in the recovery room! There is no sense of time even though the op took several hours. It is not like sleep nor is there dreaming.
Incidently l believe that doctors do not know exactly how anaesthesia works on the brain and l think there is much research into that and the nature of human consciousness and what it is.
I remember going under. The cold feeling of something surging up my right vein in my neck….–‐——–
Im not sure of the difference between normal sleep and becoming unconscious from an anaesthetic. Surely in normal sleep you also cant remember when exactly you fell asleep nor do you experience the passage of time consciously?
PC1, I think that in normal sleep there is some kind of perceptive internal clock running in the brain. In dreams particularly vivid ones, there is a perception of time within the dream. Often you may wake up saying” I had this dream where I was doing … ” indicating a temporal perception of some form that occurred when you were asleep. Most dreams fade from memory quite quickly though.
In general anaesthesia, there is no dreaming or temporal perception. Your consciousness appears to go from the start of the operation to awakening instantaneously with nothing in between.
As I said, it is not known exactly how general anaesthesia works, but I think it gives insights into the nature of consciousness and what being conscious actually means.
You might also like to read this which asserts that consciousness creates an arrow of time by which we perceive past present and future although events may not necessarily happen like this in ‘reality’
https://www.psy.lmu.de/gp/people/leitung/maier/time_and_consciousness1.pdf
Chris, I’m interested to read the pdf link later. My view is this; consciousness of sin created the ‘arrow of time’. By sinning Adam felt regret and feared the future. God promised a resolution which set the clock ticking. Before sin entered the world there was no need to worry and therefore no concept of time. It’s like being on holiday as soon as it starts one is aware that it will end. Even sucking a sweet has the same effect….probably why animals don’t savour their food. Adam bolted his food. Set savored his. Whatever we feel when eating in the New Jerusalem it will be completely different. I can’t imagine.
I am astonished by how many Christians believe that of we are good then we go to Heaven when we die (well, less surprised by RC Church) but by people from Reformed Churches.
quite a few people who comment here believe your ultimate destination really does depend on us not God’s grace, so Im not surprised at all.
Article here
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277260962300103X#:~:text=Contrary%20to%20common%20belief%2C%20consciousness,and%20perception%20of%20the%20environment.
Chris,
Re: anaesthesia article link – interesting!
I must admit Colin, just before l have a GA l always commend my spirit to God. Its such a strange experience!
Different biblical genres (such as parable, apocalyptic, poetry and statement) require different approaches. … The Old Testament assumed that at death everyone went to sheol, a place of gloom and darkness where there was no remembrance of God, proclamation or praise (Job 10.21; 26.5; Ps 6.5; 30.9; 88.11; 115.17).
Biblical poetry is not, like most western poetry, the heightened expression of imaginative fiction. Much of it consists of statement, as is implicitly recognised by the citation of the passages in Job and Psalms.
Job 26:5 – The verb here is ‘writhe’, not ‘tremble’, sometimes used to describe labour in childbirth. The verb seems something of an odd man out, as Sheol is more commonly pictured as a place of sleep, i.e. no consciousness. However, the context of the entire chapter and also most of chapters 27-28 is the structure and workings of the physical world, so perhaps the sense is that the place where the spirits of the dead reside convulses, much as the mountains in Job 26:11 tremble at their Creator’s rebuke. The same verb appears in Job 15:20, describing the fate of the wicked (according to Eliphaz) but, so far as I can see, in this life, not the next (similar to Job 27:13-23).
In most of the OT there is no specific indication of any future resurrection. Its only clear reference to a future resurrection is in Dan 12.2.
No, this is wrong. There are dozens and dozens of clear indications. On pp 300-303 of When the Towers Fall I list more than sixty, not counting repetitions. Daniel itself has four.
Judgment in that day will be according to what a person has done, though for Christians this does not mean clocking up good works but living a life in harmony with God, receiving undeserved forgiveness through the death of Christ, and living out that relationship in righteous lifestyle (1 John 3.7). The righteous … will have eternal life, but the unrighteous condemnation.
My comments here are:
(i) The Bible says that the righteous (i.e. those whom Jesus has made righteous) rise on a different day from that when everyone else rises.
(ii) The righteous will all rise on the same day. They do not each have their individual resurrections on the day they die.
(iii) They are judged (their lives reviewed) and rewarded for their good works, forgiven for their bad ones.
(iv) Everyone else is judged for their good works and for their bad. Their good works will be commended and their bad ones condemned, and they will have to pay for the bad ones.
(v) We need to be careful with the words ‘judge’ (krinein) and ‘condemn’ (katakrinein) as the English words can be ambiguous, especially in Christian discourse. In John 3:17f the verb is ‘judge’, not ‘condemn’, and Jesus means that whoever believes in him will not go through a judgement process where there will be a penalty for wrongdoing. katakrinein simply means adversely judge, find guilty. It does not specify the nature of the penalty (i.e. we should not assume extinction/temporary or eternal torment). When Paul says that ‘whoever doubts is condemned’ (Rom 14:23), he does not mean that the person is destined for hell.
(vi) In my opinion, and I think it is consistent with Scripture, at the general resurrection many, after they have suffered the just punishment for what they have done wrong, will rise to eternal life. The final fate of the wicked will be extinction.
Eternal torment in hell is a damnable doctrine.
“In the next place, do not have the edge of this truth taken off by those who suggest a hope that though you may be punished for a time in the next world you will ultimately be destroyed and annihilated. Now nothing in nature ever has been annihilated yet, and it would be a new thing if you should be. I am not about to argue the point this morning, but I pray you do not let the terrors of the wrath to come be taken off by that idea, for even supposing it to be true, yet those who teach it tell us that there will be a limited but a very fearful punishment; they still agree with the teaching of the text, that “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” If I knew that I should be damned for a day, I would labour to escape from it; but to be damned for a thousand years will be terrific indeed, and it would still be true that “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” I dare not, however, hold out to you the hope of annihilation while the Bible contains such words as these. “These shall go away into everlasting punishment,” — everlasting! The word is precisely the same as that which is applied to heaven, and though I shall be told that this is an old argument, I reply that this is the very reason why I use it. Be it for others to invent novelty; we count that the old is better. If that passage does not teach the eternity of punishment, neither does it teach the eternity of reward.
It is to be always punishment too — always punishment. Now if the lost should suddenly be annihilated, that annihilation would be no punishment; it would be a boon to be sought with tears. It would be the cessation of all punishment, for how can they be punished who have ceased to be? The punishment spoken of is said to be everlasting, and everlasting it will be! In the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, the first chapter and seventh and ninth verses, we are told that such men shall be punished with eternal destruction. Some lay hold upon the word “destruction” as meaning annihilation, but it is eternal destruction. Annihilation is done at once and done with, but this destruction lasts on for ever. It is eternal destruction, and then it is explained; “eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his power;” therefore to be for ever banished from the glory of God and shut out from every source of hope is the destruction here meant. There is a very terrible passage in the twentieth chapter of Revelation where in vision John speaks concerning the condition of lost spirits.
If you read the tenth verse speaking of Gog and Magog, it says, “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” I do not know what the words for ever and ever can mean, if they do not mean for ever and ever. Yes, cries one, that torment is for the devil. Very well, why do not you sympathize with the devil as well as with men? Is not there as much reason to sympathize with fallen angels as with fallen men? But our Lord has said that the same punishment which awaits Satan will befall the impenitent, for he says, “Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels;” and in the last verse of the twentieth chapter of Revelation we find, that whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire, that same place into which death and hell were cast. This fire will not cause annihilation; for in Rev. xxi. 8 we are told that certain sinners, such as the “fearful and unbelieving, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.” How can those have a part who have no existence? To have a part in that fire is the second death.
When Jesus speaks of the fire of hell, he does not say that annihilation is effected by it, but speaks on this wise: “shall cast them into a furnace of fire, there shall be (not annihilation, but the signs of. conscious misery) weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth.” Now I am not going fully into this subject, but I can only say this much ; if our Lord and his Spirit intended to make us believe that there would be a worm that never dieth, and a fire that never could be quenched, and did mean to teach us that there was a punishment for sin which would last for ever, I do not know what other words could have been used; and I do pray you, dear friends, whether you think so or not, be on the safe side; for even if it were but a thousand years only, think what that must be. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, even if you could get out again; but when it comes with the solemn sanction, as I am persuaded it does, that you never will escape from those hands, oh, why will ye die? why will ye die? Look, look to Jesus, and find eternal life in him. Beware lest you be “wandering stars, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.””
https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/future-punishment-a-fearful-thing/#flipbook/
…which immediately poses the central biblical question: is God just in his judgements? How can one lifetime of sin deserve an eternity of torment? This is not a philosophical question; it is a central biblical question, one taken up precisely in Rev 16.
Ian
I see how Rev 16 stresses that God is just in his judgments but not how Rev 16 addresses ‘How can one lifetime of sin deserve an eternity of torment?’ It depends whether we have grasped the terrible truth about the enormity of sin. To do that we have to face all that the bible says about sin – both actual and original sin.
Phil Almond
I don’t believe it’s for us to question His unsearchable judgements, but we can be sure the Judge of all the earth will do right. Questions raised against His judgements are answered with another: “who are you, O man…?”. The magnitude of sin is manifested in the price paid to take it away.
The only valid question we can ask is, “what must I do to be saved?” To which we have the most wonderful answer that could be given.
All very timely as I have drawn the short straw in our Advent series and am preaching on judgement on Sunday. Sadly the book is yet to arrive but I have just downloaded Paul’s longer book, currently £2.35 on Kindle.
I have read the artricle and comments very quickly, and may heave missed it, in which case apologies, but I don’t see any discussion of the nature of language. Most of what we have on the eternal state of both the righteous and the unrighteous is couched in metaphors which point to realities which lie beyond current human experience. And the metaphors, in seeking to convey these realities, push in differing directions. How, for example, can the unrepentant be subject to both a blazing furnace and outer darkness, how can they experience the second death and gnash their teeth, how can they be thrown both into a lake of fire and onto the city rubbish dump? It is examining the nature and purport of these metaphors that has taken me away from a previously held belief in eternal torment to a (tentatively held) annihiliationist position.
It is now some years old, but the Evangelical Alliance report, The Nature of Hell, is still worth a read, although some readers from either perspective may find it too open-ended.
Yes, I think that is a great question. I do address that up front in my commentary on Revelation, including on the relevant passages.
Oh, and commiserations…except that our culture absolutely loves judgement!
Im pretty much convinced by the annihilationist position. But that doesnt mean the time between raised for judgement and that judgement being executed is essentially simultaneous. The ‘wailing and gnashing of teeth’ (often viewed as sadness but more likely anger towards the Judge and their ultimate fate) occurs when people are excluded from the presence of God, hence outer darkness, and then at some point actual destruction from existence. To be able to wail and gnash one’s teeth by definition means a time interval is required. Though it may be a short time period.
My view is that this area is fraught with difficulties. Alan references the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke16:19-31. It has the rich man ‘in torment’. One up for the “eternal torment” folk. It clearly does not support a final judgement after a general resurrection, when the books are opened and people judged on their deeds. In fact, one has to stretch to see there any judgement of this kind at all. According to the words given to Abraham, the differing states of the two men is simply a reversal of their state when alive (see also Luke 1:53).
Then Lazarus is not described as being “in heaven” in contrast to being “in hades”. He is not with God, but with Abraham, “far off” from the rich man. The interesting detail is that there is water. Joel Green in his commentary makes a link, which I am chuffed to say I made independently, with 1 Enoch. Paul Marston gives the link. One of the ‘hollows’ has pools of water.
So, it seems that the most likely background for this story is the view of the afterlife which is expressed in 1 Enoch (and 4 Ezra 7, according to Green). It does not seem ridiculous to me to think that Jesus has taken a story from this context and subverted it to his own ends. In particular, the original might well have expressed the common view that riches were a blessing, which would then continue into the afterlife.
The preceeding context has Jesus talking of not being able to serve God and Mammon, to the annoyance of the Pharisees who loved money, and talking of the permanence of the law. So we have a summary story which illustrates the fate of the rich, but also the sufficiency of the law. “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”
To what extent does Jesus teach within the world-view of his hearers?
incidentally, you highlight one of the strengths of the booklet, which is Paul Marston’s familiarity with the literature, including 1 Enoch.
It ought to be common ground that doctrine should not be based solely on parables (one normally has in mind precisely this one when the issue crops up), because parables are often stories and for best effect stories can have their own shape and logic. So the lack of focus here on when the described states occur, or for how long, should not determine the doctrine of other passages that do focus on them.
That the parable does not describe a final judgement is neither nor there. Evidently a judgement is implied, because Luke 16:25 explains why, as a matter of justice, the rich man is where he is. Luke 16:25 also implies that Lazarus is with Abraham because he had a raw deal in life – i.e. not because of any saving faith. But as a matter of doctrine that does seem consistent with other scriptures, including Luke 1:53, which you quote.
The NT does not teach that the saints go to heaven at death, except temporarily. They live on a new earth (where there will still be water – but I would hesitate to impute any general significance to the water in the parable). The rich man is definitely in Hades, which is under the earth (sensu dry land/landmass/crust), and now a waterless place, because it has been engulfed by fire. Other scriptures indicate that it is not a place of meltingly high temperatures until the end. Some of the engulfing magma flows up to the surface – hence the Vale of Hinnom west of old Jerusalem (= Gehenna) becomes a ‘lake of fire’, a blazing furnace, where the body will be destroyed but the soul will experience physical-like anguish, just as if it were still bodied.
The rich man is suffering his punishment for caring only about himself. We are simply not told how long the punishment will last, only that there is an unbridgeable divide between the two places or states. Other scriptures suggest that the sentence will be finite (e.g. Luke 12:59).
“The rich man is suffering his punishment for caring only about himself. ”
Except that the text does not say that. ‘Abraham’ says
“in your lifetime you received good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.” (Luke 16:25, NIV)
There is absolutely nothing about what either person did or did not do. It is simply a reversal of circumstances. To see punishment for sin in this story seems to me to be an imposition from outside.
“There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table.” These opening details are not gratuitous – they explain why the rich man ends up where he does. His wealth was not itself objectionable, it was that he spent it only on himself, even in the presence of a sick and destitute beggar. If you insist on ascetically refraining from all inferences, it is inconsistent to say the parable (1) supports the doctrine of eternal torment and (2) does not support a final judgement after a general resurrection.
yes I think Jesus is using a commonly heard idea, but amending it to, for example, remind his hearers that riches will not save you nor are they a sign of being blessed by God. And I dont think such a parable/story can be used to justify the traditional view given that Abraham’s bosom was ‘paradise’ which is not heaven!
I wonder if the members of this fine blog will indulge me in a flight of fancy akin to C. S. Lewis’ fantasy ‘The Great Divorce’?
‘See, I will create new heavens and a new earth’ (Is 65:17)
‘…the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. (Mk 13.25)
WHAT IF these verses are telling us that at the end time our Universe will become a Duoverse with no means of transport between these two realms (Lk 16:26)?
One realm will be populated by all those who have rejected God’s salvation. A realm of everlasting regret (Matt 25:46a) or perhaps a realm that will be destroyed ultimately (Gal 6:8). A realm under God’s wrath where levels of misery are determined by an individual’s previous wickedness and sin (Matt 11:22).
The other realm will be populated by God’s ‘born again’ children saved by ‘Christ’s blood’ (Rom 5:8), an eternal realm (Matt 25:46b) full of love, worship and praise. A realm where our ability to enjoy it will be governed by the treasures we have stored up there (Matt 6:20). A realm of glory where, in the words of John Balchin, ‘there will be no sin neither will there be any inclination to sin’.
If that is what is like to be in Glory, what will it be like not to be there?
Does the Church of England have a doctrinal position on Hell (as everlasting torment due to eternal separation from God) – or has it adopted either ‘universalism’ or ‘annihilationism’ as its official belief?
I ask because so far as I can tell there is still a requirement from the BCP to recite communally the Saint Athanasius Creed at regular periods during the liturgical year. If this remains, has it amended or removed this clause:
Where one agrees with the “The Mystery of Salvation” (1995) is in rejection of penal substitutionary atonement. It restates the view of the 1938 Commission that “the notion of propitiation as the placating by man of an angry God is definitely unchristian”.
It also observed that “the traditional vocabulary of atonement with its central themes of law, wrath, guilt, punishment and acquittal, leave many Christians cold and signally fail to move many people, young and old, who wish to take steps towards faith. These images do not correspond to the spiritual search of many people today and therefore hamper the Church’s mission.” Instead, it recommended that the Cross should be presented “as revealing the heart of a fellow-suffering God.”
Rather depends what you think everlasting fire means, doesn’t it?
@Bell
Indeed it does. The traditional Christian view has always been that it symbolises an everlasting state of separation from God suffered by those who reject Him in life through their free will. [See Mark 9:47–48, and Revelation 14:11, for example].
Has the Church of England joined the ranks of the Unitarian-Universalists, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the Christian Scientists, the Religious Scientists, the New Agers, and the Mormons, in rejecting or modifying the doctrine of hell so radically that it is no longer has any real meaning?
In his 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II wrote that too often “preachers, catechists, teachers . . . no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell.” Concerning the reality of hell, the pope says, “[T]he words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel he speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Matt. 25:46). [But] who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard.”
The wages of sin is death (Romans 6) not a tormented life.
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).
I understand that to mean that sin results not just in bodily death but also eternal separation from God, or “spiritual death,” i.e., the ultimate penalty of sin. On the other hand, union with Christ leads to deification (theosis), the restoration of the Divine likeness that humanity lost and restoration with God. We become, “partakers of the divine nature.” (2 Peter 1:4)
As we read in the Parable of the Prodigal Son: “This son of mine was dead and is alive again.” (Luke 15:24)
Not ‘instead’, Jack, but ‘as well’ (and ask why God is suffering). The atonement is multi-faceted.
@ Anton
I don’t believe there is any room to believe hat Jesus was punished by the Father in place of sinners to satisfy the demands of justice by a wrathful God. Rather, it was a voluntary self offering by the Son. There’s a big difference!
The Reformed notion of penal atonement is a misreading of Scripture, and a bastardization of the Cross.
It is, at best, a severe truncating of the Gospel. All notion of God’s love is stripped out. That’s a huge problem given that Jesus himself places God’s love for the world front and centre when he explains the Gospel (John 3). And it stops short of the resurrection, without which you completely lose the point of what’s happening (1 Corinthians 15).
But as Ian has pointed out elsewhere, God showed his love by giving up his Son. He was ‘made sin’ for us. Substitution is clearly a very important part of the atonement, even if there are other facets.
you’re completely wrong.
You think a penal sacrifice intended to satisfy some sort of imagined Divine wrath/bloodlust pleases God?
The Incarnation and Passion of Christ is a manifestation of the Father’s love rather than His wrath, as John 3:16 says: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
Christ offers the perfect Sacrifice to the Father through His total self-sacrifice, and it is done out of love. Charity, not wrath, is the lens through which we understand Christ’s sacrifice. This is also how David explains God’s desire for sacrifice in Psalm 51:16-17:
For thou hast no delight in sacrifice; were I to give a burnt offering, thou wouldst not be pleased. The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”
A penal sacrifice to satisfy Divine wrath doesn’t please God. Charity and repentance does, and that’s the epitome of Good Friday. In love, Christ reconciles us to the Father. In love, the Father delights in His Son’s selflessness on the Cross, and accepts it as a satisfaction of the debt incurred by our sins.
H J I have studied Reformed theology (not uncritlcally) over many years and have yet to see any reference in more scholarly circles to “Jesus was punished by the Father in place of sinners—–.” What I have seen are expressions such as : ” Jesus *bore the punishment in the place of sinners*who merited divine judgement”. Or do you reject the concept of judgement for sin?
You accuse such theology as a “misreading of Scripture!”. Where is your evidence to the contrary?
Permit me to mention the Following: ” God made him (Jesus) who had no sin,*to be sin* so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21).” The late CK Barrett makes the following observation :” He (Jesus) came to stand in that relation to God , which normally, is the result of sin, *estranged from God and the object of his wrath!”
Secondly, ” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law *by becoming a curse for us ” – i.e. in our place [see Deuteronomy 21:23].
Finally, perhaps the OT key to all of this: “Yet it was the will of God to crush (bruise?) him (the suffering servant) ; for he has put him to grief, when his soul makes an offering for guilt (Isaiah 53: 10).”
@ Colin
I’d say your quote from the late CK Barrett just about verifies my summation of Reformed theology as: “Jesus was punished by the Father in place of sinners—–.”
Barrett states ”He (Jesus) came to stand in that relation to God , which normally, is the result of sin, *estranged from God and the object of his wrath!”
As I understand it, the doctrine holds that, on the cross, Jesus was taking the place of all of mankind, became estranged from God, and was punished by the Father. In so doing He endured the wrath and punishment we deserve because of our sins.
Jesus was neither estranged from God (He is God and this sets the Trinity against itself), nor was He the object of the Father’s wrath (He was innocent and without sin (so you make God unjust). God did not punish Jesus on the cross. It’s also a misunderstanding of “wrath” and of “sin”.
R.C. Sproul (1939-2017) explained Reformed theol0gy thus:
God is good and just because He violently and wrathfully punished His innocent Son?!
John MacArthur describes the wrath inflicted on the innocent Christ this way:
God executed Jesus for all our sins!
An unfortunate turn of phrase John, “Drawn the short straw” Perhaps waiting for a book on the subject to help in your dilemma might indicate a prior lack of rigorous study or interest in the matter.
The time is short!
Writes Paul [1COR.7] to a fractious church,so many disputes, divisions and competing opinions. [No change there then]
So many inconsistencies, even contradictions, and so much which denied the Lord, that it was as though he became utterly wearied of it all cried out in protest against using so much time and energy on the quibbling and carnality of God’s people.
He felt that he could not afford the time which he was having to give to the negative task of admonishing, correcting and remonstrating.
He wanted to get busy with the positive matters of life in the Spirit, and groaned at the sheer waste of time produced by the internal conditions at Corinth. there is no time to spare for the many unimportant and time-wasting differences and disputes which beset the Church and dissipate its energies.
There is something far more important on hand. The Lord’s interests demand that we have done with all that has no eternal value and get on with the real business of life, which is the bringing in the kingdom and of the King through the preaching of Repentence.
Of the future state I have no view on, but with father Aabraham I can only agree,
“Shall not the Judge of all the world do right”? Most speculation is a waste of energy and time.
And it is a distraction form our purpose to warn men and open to them the gates of the Kingdom.
James 5:8-9
You, too, be patient and strengthen your hearts, because the Lord’s coming is near. / Do not complain about one another, brothers, so that you will not be judged. Look, the Judge is standing at the door!
I had hoped that it would be clear from my post that I know where I stand and have come to it after a long period of reflection and study – so much so that some years ago I was invited to write an article for Youthwork magazine on Hell.
Short straw may have been a little tongue in cheek – but given that it is sandwiched between Jesus’ return last week and new heavens and new earth next week it certainly feels like it. And let’s be honest it is a difficult and painful topic. A brief survey I conducted last week in preparation revealed that while all the 24 people who responded (about a third of the adult congregation) all strongly agreed or agreed with the statement ‘I long to see justice in the world’, the response to the statement ‘I feel comfortable with the idea of final judgement’ was much more open with 8 disagreeing.
Full of way too many errors, alas. John Stott did not “advocate” ultimate destruction, he held it tentatively according to his own words because he knew well that tradition very clearly holds a different view.
‘the most natural way to understand the reality behind the imagery is that ultimately all enmity and resistance to God will be destroyed. So both the language of destruction and the imagery of fire seem to point to annihilation.’
That was Stott’s position.
Not correct the way you stated it.
In a 1988 work entitled Essentials in which he engaged in a dialogue with David Edwards, John Stott went into print with his understanding of hell for the first time. Dr. Stott suggested that the impenitent will finally be destroyed, claiming to hold his position “tentatively.” The reference may be found in David L. Edwards and John Stott, Essentials (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1988), pp. 313-320.
To quote further: “I am hesitant to have written these things, partly because
I have a great respect for longstanding tradition which
claims to be a true interpretation of Scripture, and do not
lightly set it aside, and partly because the unity of the
world-wide Evangelical constituency has always meant
much to me. But the issue is too important to suppress, and
I am grateful to you for challenging me to declare my
present mind. I do not dogmatise about the position to
which I have come. I hold it tentatively. But I do plead for
frank dialogue among Evangelicals on the basis of Scripture. I also believe that the ultimate annihilation of the
wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically
founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment. ”
Others can judge what Stott came to believe based on these words, even if he wasnt prepared to fall out with other evangelicals over the question, but I think his conclusion is pretty obvious.
For anyone interested in the annihilationist view, I recommend some of the articles at the ‘Rethinking Hell’ website.
Did Jesus descend to hell?
Thursday and Friday was His descent into hell. Saturday was a day of rest. Of sleep. He (the Father) gave His Beloved sleep. Thus fulfilling the psalmist prophecy about Jesus.
It is in the creed, so, yes. BUT there is a problem.
The word translated “hell” in the OT in some older translations comes from a word, Sheol, which has a wide lexical range, in the center of which is something like “place of the dead.” So I prefer he descended to the dead, as in the creed on the right here–https://www.rca.org/about/theology/creeds-and-confessions/the-apostles-creed/
The key question is what does this mean and there is quite a lot in the tradition and some in the NT about what that might mean.
Yes, His descent from Glory ended in death. Where the dead know nothing.
But, when the sky rolls back like a scroll, the anaesthetic wears off, we all stand before our creator, then what?
I think it is impossible from then on to die. When the king enters the barracks all rise. Who would be able to sit back down again and snooze? He is Life. Who could be dead before Him.
Sure, but is it a real place inhabited by the dead , conscious or annihilated and empty? Was Jesus the only one there?
How does that fit with the Old Covenant scriptures? Are they of a piece with the New Covenant scriptures?
And why did he descend there?and did he do anything there? Doesn’t the totality of scripture attest that there are God’s eternal purposes, that are contingent consequences, outworkings, of his nature and attributes. What are they?
Hi Geoff,
The concept of hell is described using metaphors . Whatever the reality is we can’t comprehend it. There will be no golden cube or a lamb with seven eyes to greet us. These are metaphors for something beyond our wildest dreams. Jesus was in hell hanging on the cross. That was hell. He died and was dead. He did not go down into another dimension and harrow ‘hell’. At this moment in time we are alive and all the dead are dead. Jesus was in the tomb over the Sabbath. A day of rest. He rested from His labours. Every Sabbath that ever was pointed towards the chiastic centre of history, that day The Lord of The Sabbath rested.
There is yet one more Sabbath to come. When history ends.
I still think reading the Bowls of Wrath is best understood as reprise of the Passion. It’s both what will happen to unrepentant sinners and a retelling of the passion from the Holy Spirit’s pov.
So, there is no hell….not yet.
Are you not confusing hades and gehenna?
Hi Anton, I replied but my computer lost it…in a nutshell- Hades: the place of the dead…where the dead know nothing. Gehenna: the rubbish tip outside the City of God where there is mourning for the one they pierced. If annihilation comes after that then Gehenna is some sort of conscious mid-way point?
Perhaps one should remember that the word ‘hell’ itself comes from a proto-German word ‘haljo’ which means, according to Wikipedia, “a concealed place”, and hence “the underworld”. The Anglo-Saxon word ‘helle’, attested back to around 725, means “the netherword of the dead.” I think in the Germanic world-view only warrior who died in battle made it to ‘Valhalla’, which has its analogue in the Greek/Roman Elysium (perhaps a cultural device to get people to fight.) So, ‘hell’ was originally like ‘hades’/’sheol’.
The Latin version of the Apostles’ Creed has Jesus “descendit ad inferos”. I’m guessing that the word ‘inferis’ is related to the word ‘infra’, meaning ‘under’.
It seems to me that the development of the meaning of ‘hell’ as a place of eternal torment is a mediaeval development.
So, are you asking if Jesus decended to the place of the dead, or to a place of eternal torment?
So it’s really, real, Steve.
What did he do there, and why was it necessary for Him, as fully man, fully God?
And why was it so important that he spoke, warned, about it more than anyone in the scriptures? (The fullness, the terminus, of God’s settled opposition, wrath, to evil.)
Is hell annihilated now? Is it empty, a mere blast furnace for (un?) conscious annihilation or contain ‘undestroyed’ worms (Isaiah)?
Who gets to define what is evil and its universal and eternal significance?
BTW, general anesthetics was probably one of the biggest post operative tests of faith,…a subjective unconscious nothingness. In visual terms – total darkness. Yet the objective realty was that I was alive.
And for believers the objective spiritual reality is the presence of God in that place (psalm 139 and elsewhere).
Not only that, in our union with Christ we have already died in him and been raised with Him, even now, with Him there.
Ephesians 1 -2.
I would be interested to know the reference for J. Stafford Wright being an annihilationist. In ‘What Is Man?’, 2nd ed., p 152f, he declines to adjudicate on the matter.
To partly answer my own question: John Wenham (Facing Hell, p179) mentions Stafford Wright as one of several staunch evangelicals who, back in the 1950s, shared a belief in ‘conditional immortality’. It may be that Stafford Wright, like John Stott and Wenham himself, muted his views for a while at least, out of a desire to keep the peace.
This is a fascinating discussion. But coming at it slightly obliquely I suggest that it concerns issues that are absolutely of the first order – among others , the purpose of the incarnation, the nature of Christ’s sacrifice, the very nature of God, the Trinity, the eternal destiny of every person who has ever lived. These are truly first order issues about which we need to agree if we are to remain in the same church. It is curious therefore that Scripture does not speak with a single, clear and consistent voice so that there is no ambiguity and we can all agree. So, how do we manage to disagree well and continue to respect those we disagree with as brothers and sisters in Christ when the differences are so deep and profound? Is this not a dangerous compromise of the truth?
I think people of Jesus’ and Paul’s day were so seeped in mythology it was quicker and easier to use known language to describe the afterlife using metaphorical language everyone could grasp…and communicate on to their peers. “Flee the flames” is easier to say than, ” The firebrigade are on their way. Please walk to the nearest exit, do not use the lift. do not take anything with you. etc”
To me anihilationism engenders belief in pergatory
I dont see why Steve. Annihilationism is the alternative view to everlasting, conscious suffering/torment. Purgatory is about purification, so that at some point you are able to enter heaven (it reminds me of the ending of Lost). I dont see why annihilationism would lead someone to that belief.
I misunderstand the meaning of purgatory.
If there is annihilation that people are sentenced to after the realisation of what they are excluded from then the period between resurrection and execution is the time I’m talking about. As time has ended how long does he period of mourning the One they pierced last? If it’s outside of time then it’s eternal. Logic breaks down . I feel both mourning and annihilation should be in side the same brackets. Both true and mutually contradictory.
@ Steve
Purgatory is a process of purification before entering God’s presence. If anything, annihilationism precludes such a process. Why purify a person just to annihilate them?
I am wondering if any of you good folk have read John Blanchard’s ‘Whatever happened to Hell?
ISBN 0-85234-303-5 and if so what you thought of it?
No, but I walked along Oxford Street Saturday. Does that count?
yes hopefully shopping will be outlawed in the next life.
Years ago. Still have it somewhere.
How about unravelling 1 Peter 3:18-20 anyone?
And 1 Peter 4:6
These verses are in the Bible to shut vain speculation up. I’ll shut up now. I may be that Christ revealed Himself to those who perished in the flood as vindication that their punishment was just. Not to save some of them. I don’t know.
I think there does exist a theology of the structure and topology of the afterlife in the Bible that was very clear to both the OT and NT writers and wasn’t a mystery to them, which for various reasons, has become obscure to us today. Afterlife passages like those in 1 Peter (and similar), are rarely preached on, glossed over, or even ignored by contemporary evangelical exegesis.
To unravel it all requires a knowledge of ancient Jewish and Greek conceptions of the afterlife, the correct use (or misuse ) and translation, of terms like ‘sheol’ ‘gehenna’, ‘ hades’, ‘hell’ ‘the abyss’ and ‘paradise’, together with a correct understanding of how the atonement is supposed to work plus – a conception of what consciousness is, makes for a heady theological mix.
Yet I think it is worth the effort. As Tim has pointed out in an earlier post, what we are discussing here is of fundamental importance to the gospel we preach.
Here is a possible starting point
https://ghostsghoulsandgod.co.uk/2023/04/harrowing-of-hades-or-hell/
Matt Arnold’s book is also worth reading as well. He also describes how notions of the afterlife in other ancient cultures such as the Egyptians and Assyrians and their motifs also overlapped with contemporary Jewish thought and how it evolved. Some interesting stuff also, about the various spiritual beings we meet in the Bible.
Thank you Chris, you’ve stepped in just in time!
It really does need shaking down. I’ve never thought about 1 Peter before, I suppose I just assumed he was making a point by quoting some lost book for effect. But reading it again leaves me feeling Peter actually believed Jesus preached to the dead in hades. Where did he get the information if not from Jesus Himself?
Good point Steve. I would imagine that following the years after Jesus resurrection and especially the influence of the apostle Paul and the revelations of the Holy Spirit, these ideas began to take shape in the early church, and we see them in the letters that were written that touched on these areas as the atonement of Jesus became more fully understood.
From my interactions with him online, I am not persuaded by Arnold’s approach at all.
Can you give us your reasons please Ian?
Arnold may not have got it all right, but here is another starter for 6 . A curious passage occurs in Jude 1.6. It is thought that Jude got this information from the book of Enoch and refers to the so called ‘watchers’. Enoch of course is not regarded as canonical, but Jude evidently thought that it was source of valid knowledge.
We discussed the book of Enoch here some time ago. Preachers always stick with Paul because his teaching appeals to the Western mind.
I’ve just read the Arnold article. Persuasive extrapolations but I’m loath to unpack the few scriptures to do what he’s done .
But still, I like to hear something that isn’t as logical as Romans …it appeals to my sense of wonder.
We disagree on much that is primarily within the HTB-style evangelical take-over of the Church of England. This is where we have much disagreement.
I also take a stance that it’s best to try and dig deep back into the original contexts of the Christian faith, including using texts from the intertestamental time to give context for the New Testament teachings. I argue that the Bible wasn’t written to us 21st Century folk, in our language and cultural imagery, but was written to ancient folk in their language and cultural imagery / customs etc. As such, we need to read the Bible through the mindset of the original writers in their individual times and places, rather than a modern post-Reformation mindset. However, I also believe the Bible’s overarching message of redemption is timeless, cultureless and not geolocation-bound.
This is our departure from agreement.
We still agree on the basics of the Christian faith however.
Matt, thanks for commenting. I would be interesting to know what you disagree with about the ‘HTB style’? Sung worship that young people can engage with? Clear, engaging preaching? Offering a way in to explore faith? A culture of invitation?
‘we need to read the Bible through the mindset of the original writers in their individual times and places, rather than a modern post-Reformation mindset.’
Well, that is the bread and butter of good scholarship, and something that I engage with every week in my commentaries on the lectionary readings. So I am unclear why you think this is an area of disagreement…
I have never heard discussion of the afterlife in a detailed way within HTB circles or really in any other evangelical churchmanship. It seems to me that only the CoE makes reference to Jesus descending to the dead in its creeds.
Matt, I’m not sure what Ian takes issue with you precisely, but I am certain he recognises the fundamental importance of contextual understanding and how this has conceptually developed if we are to interpret these passages correctly in our modern age.
Incidentally, I was surprised to learn when reading your book that the Cof E does retain officially appointed clergy who specialise in deliverance ministry. Can you or Ian confirm that is in fact, the case? Does the CoE have a process by which this is initiated?
I actually found your book quite compelling to read and it cleared up a number of misconceptions I had, particularly the references to the ‘Divine Council’ and the conceptual development of the term ‘Sheol’.
I have just returned from a visit to Stonehenge – no, not the winter solstice event! There is an interesting museum there that describes how neothitic man buried their dead with a descent to the Earth and the idea of a reawakening in the light. This is 3500 BC so they must have got these ideas from somewhere.
We dwell so often in Pauline theology Peter’s letters seem by comparison slightly quaint. Is there a balance to be had?
to be fair to Paul, most of the NT is written by him so…
Yes, dwell in the gospels for our theology first and read Paul after to see how he brilliantly develops his theology for new contexts. And I’m not sure that Paul can be described as all that logical. Sometimes preachers seem to prefer Paul to the gospels, especially if their chosen approach is expository preaching.
Thank Chris.
More could be added even from a couple of commentaries in my possesion as biblical exegesis.
I recalled correctly, the only person I’ve heard preach on this passage, was DA Carson either at Spring Harvest of Keswick too many years ago, now. It was more likely to be Keswick.
As you mention below, Jude is brought into the mix as is Genesis.
Some time could be spent abstracting and collating the commentaries and their main strands but it is well beyond my ‘pay grade’ even though the scripture is relevant to the topic of the article.
Hi Geoff. Well I’m glad its being discussed here. I have never heard it talked about in Baptist circles!
As far as I know, Jesus descending into hell (later changed ‘to the dead’) is only affirmed in the Anglican creeds. Not sure about the Catholic or Orthodox ones.
Happy Jack might be able to enlighten us.
Good one Geoff, !!!
I do know this. When we die we are not just reduced to a heap of ashes. Something happens. We enter another dimension and thus all the subsequent theological discussion. I think God reveals himself to us while we are here on earth in so many different ways. There is so much good and wonder in the world, along with the evil. Why was Christ put to death? Maybe it was to show us that goodness will be opposed brutally crushed here and that one can only expect peace righteousness and joy in the after life?
Maybe it was to show the utter depths of depravity mankind is capable of when overtaken by the evil force of Satan. I do remember Christ asking to be spared this suffering from God the Father which was not forthcoming. Maybe someone can give me a reason for this. I do believe God is love, just, all knowing, merciful and all things good.
Thanks. There are lots of explanations for why Jesus died in the NT. Jesus says he came to ‘serve, and give his life as a ransom for many’ (Mark 10.45). Paul says that ‘He died for our sins, in accordance with the Scriptures’ (1 Cor 15.4).
The options are:
Universalism
Annihilation of the unsaved
Annihilation of the unsaved after a limited period of retribution
Eternal retribution of the unsaved
Phil Almond
I believe the Bible is clear that the unsaved face eternal retribution from God, not annihilation before or after limited retribution since both those are victories for those who knowingly spend their lives in sin.
Phil Almond
Except that that is not what the biblical texts appear to say.
Ian
We disagree about that.
On another matter when are going to start a discussion on Original Sin, Article 9 and Romans 5:12-21?
Phil