In the old testament there is a jewish concept of sheol. A place where the souls of the dead go to await judgement. It is a sort of timeless limbo and all souls go there except the few who were caught up to heaven by God (i.e. Elijah). But what of the new testament?
Jesus refers to hell in several parables:
The rich man and Lazarus.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=16&version=31This parable is probably the closest thing to describing the common view of hell. but should we really take Jesus' description of hell in this parable as a literal description? I think not. We should read the parable for what it is. It is saying that the things we do in life, have eternal consequences, and we will not be give an oportunity to repent after we pass from this life.
The parable of the talents& the parable of sheep and goats.
The first parable is one of stewardship and responsibility for the things God gives us on earth. At the end of the story there is the part about punishment for mismanagement and refers to weaping and gnashing of teeth.
The parable of the sheep and goats is actually a direct parable about the final judgement. Here God says that those who do not show charity will have eternal punishment.
I use these verses because they seem, at first glance, to be the most supportive of the doctrine of eternal torture. But all of these references come from parables which we know to be metaphors and not actual literal descriptions of hell. But we have a book which gives us a good description of the judgement and condemnation of sinners.
Revelations 21: 5-8
5He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."
6He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
6He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
Jesus says directly here that the words are trustworthy and true. Sinners will be thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
This pesky part about the second death throws a great big wrench into the doctrine of eternal torture. It can not be maintained. Even here on earth the most severe form of punishment we inflict on law breakers is death. Jesus is saying here that the punishment for unrepentent sin is the death of our immortal souls. And what more gruesome way of dying can there be than to be burned alive in a lake of fire.
But there is hope for our souls. Through Christs' death and resurection he has conquered death. He has become Lord and king of the earth and has the power to forgive us our sins and redeem our souls for eternal life with him.
6 comments:
Jesus surely knew and didn't clarify that his parables were tying into Greek thoughts of after-life.
I can't say that you are wrong--and I hope you are not. I was thinking about it last night --and prayed to the Lord that Hell would not be everlasting --that He might consider just letting the wicked or the unbelieving cease to exist. But the Bible has a lot of support for a resurection of all the dead,judgment and punishments (AND rewards, actually.) Though Christians usually think of squeaking through Peter's gates as reward enough.
The 2nd death is a more appealing idea than eternal torment, that's for sure --especially considering our view of God's mercy.
Extreme and total liberalness, however, tends to say mercy should be given to all (except Christians) whether or not they are sorry --no punishments or negative consequences at all for anyone for any reason--on this earth or later.
We are all fortunate for the reprieve Jesus is willing to give every sinner who repents and asks Him to forgive us.
Hoy Mr. Apologist.
This is a very important subject to me. I have for most of my life accepted hell as eternal torment but within the last few years of my life, this view has provided part of the basis for some very hard rethinking of other views of mine that I held.
I still think that hell as a place of eternal torment is still possibly the most faithful interpretation of scripture but this is something that I need to study more. I actually do see the problem of the notion and it honestly doesn't make sense to me that punishment for anything in life should last eternity. I won't go into how my thinking in other related areas have changed due to the sober possibility of an eternal hell, but I have just a few observations to point out.
I believe there is a passage in Revelations or elsewhere that speak of the flames of Sodom and Gomorrah smoldering for ever. Since this is figurative language, it does make one realize that the language about an eternal hell may also be similarly figurative. Against this notion is the possibility that there are scripture passages where an eternal life with God is contrasted with an eternity in hell. But I don't know what those passages would be.
An anhilationist once suggested that the the the punishment of damnation was indeed eternal given that if one ceases to exist, that's kind of a permanent situation. So ceaseless eternal conscious agony is not the only way punishment can be eternal.
An interesting observation that universalists make is that the gates of heaven in revelation never close. (and these would be universalists who believe in damnation, but that hell is more like purgatory.)
There are a couple of books on the topic written by philosophers. I'd like to check them out but they are expensive and would join a huge pile of unread books that demand my attention as well.
One is by Jonathan Kavanvig who suggests a model of hell that is not based upon retributive punishment. IT's titled "The Problem of Hell".
http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Hell-Jonathan-L-Kvanvig/dp/019508487X/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204359431&sr=8-12
Charles Seymore wrote the other one, "A Theodicy of Hell" which is a defense of a retributive Hell but is supposed to be significantly different from the classic view of hell.
I only know of these books but I don't know much of either view espoused.
Unfortunately, both of them are kind of expensive.
One thing, CA --about the parables being merely about earthly outcomes? Jesus did preface these accounts saying, "The Kingdom of God (or Heaven) is like this...."
I don't think you can be certain that he's only talking of earthly outcomes regarding good stewardship --or the fact that we can't undo our sins once we die. We agree He's saying these things have eternal consequences. You're saying the Hell as described need not be eternal suffering --but that is what is described.
We hope it is a big threat to motivate us to choose the right path--that God would not allow eternal torment.
Hey Rob, Fancy meeting you here.
I think you should perhaps reread the new testament before coming to the descision that eternal damnation is the most faithful interpretation. After my own re-reading of the NT I came to the conclusion of annhilation. It is very important, as you well know, before entering into philosophy and reason to have the basic assumptions of our arguments well established. If your thinking on eternal damnation has caused rethinking on other subjects I think it is very important for you to spend some time making sure your initial assumption of damnation is correct.
Also I found another interesting passage, thanks to a link by mudrake in barbs' blog, that lends support to the annhilation theory, by Jesus. i.e. Mathew 10:28
Barb,
Unless I misunderstand you, you are trying to say that Jesus is talking about the kingdom of heaven in his parables and thus have both earthly and heavenly meanings. What you fail to see is that the kingdom of heaven is here, on earth. Jesus' death and resurection made him Lord and king of all the earth. For now God's kingdom is exhibited only in his followers. However, some day soon he will come back and establish his eternal reign over everything. Thus it is fallacy to presume a seperation between heaven and earth for the earth shall be remade by God and will become heaven. See revelations.
Your second point is that the eternal damnation view provides us with a powerful tool of fear to bring people to salvation. In his book the prince, Machiavelli rightly points out that human beings are motivated in two ways, through fear and through love. He of course promotes the use of fear for motivation and expouses on the ways it can be used. Jesus on the other hand asks us to use Love as our primary motivator. The two commandments for christian living prove this point. Love the lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Machiavellian tactics should have no place in our christian walk, nor the mission to spread the gospel to all the world. The ends do not justify the means, for if the proper means are not used the ends shall not be achieved.
[i]If your thinking on eternal damnation has caused rethinking on other subjects I think it is very important for you to spend some time making sure your initial assumption of damnation is correct.[/i]
I admit I need to look these things over and sometime I would like to sit down and go over all of the passages about hell. Do you know of any lists to make such a study easier?
The conclusions I came to on the basis of eternal damnation are only more emotionally important on that basis. They are still important and logically sound on the view of annhilation. They are quite sound given the purgatory like view of some universalists but they are not as important.
Post a Comment