Answering the Toughest Questions About Heaven and Hell, page 10
Douglas J. Moo, a New Testament professor at Wheaton College, believes that the disputes and arguments among Christians on the many aspects of hell and judgment can be condensed into two basic issues:
The New Testament clearly teaches and everywhere assumes that after death God will punish in “hell” those who refuse to trust in Christ in this life. But evangelical Christians disagree over two matters: the nature of punishment in hell, and the duration of the punishment.1
We think Moo’s classifications will help us drill down on the “Is hell a divine torture chamber?” question. But before we go there, we want to review the three most popular views of hell among Christians. The limited space in this book (and the limited knowledge in our brains) prohibits us from giving all of the nuances and variations of each view. Our intent is to review the basic principles of each view and to highlight the main points of difference among them.
Traditionalism
This is the hell that you’ve heard so much about. Traditionalism follows the historical orthodox view of hell to which most Christians adhere (even though some of them struggle with it, as we discussed in chapter 6). In looking for a concise definition of this view, we like the definition used by theologian R. C. Sproul: “Hell, then, is an eternity before the righteous, ever-burning wrath of God, a suffering torment from which there is no escape and no relief.”2 But that description is so succinct that it leaves off what is implied: Hell is the appropriate punishment for all those who reject God’s offer of salvation to avoid the punishment. In addition to the elements of eternality and suffering, this view includes other key components:
Everyone has an immortal spirit that lives on in a conscious state for eternity after their physical death.
Everyone will live for eternity either in the presence of God (heaven) or separated from God (hell).
Your eternal destination is determined by the choice you make during your lifetime. You either associate your identity in Christ (making him the central focus of your life), or you reject salvation through Christ and find your identity and purpose elsewhere.
Hell is final and irreversible. After physical death, there is no second chance to change your mind.
By its detractors (the proponents of the two views discussed below), traditionalism is often called “eternal conscious torment,” or simply the ECT view. That label is not incorrect, and the detractors prefer this terminology as a way of contrasting their views of hell (which contain little or no suffering or punishment). Traditionalists are certainly up-front about the everlasting torment and agony in their view, but they are quick to point out that the horror of hell is actually a demonstration of God’s love. (We suspect you are rolling your eyes at the last sentence. If not, you probably didn’t read it closely enough. But read on; we think this reasoning by the traditionalists makes sense.)
Here’s how traditionalists read the Bible. God does not delight in people being in hell. In his love for humanity, God wants everyone to be spared from it, so much so that he allowed his sinless son, Jesus, to be tortured and crucified upon the cross, so that his death could pay the penalty for the sin of all people. In a spiritual sense that no one can comprehend, that pain, agony and horror Christ suffered on the cross was magnified and intensified by the weight of the sins of all humanity. Traditionalists point to the Scriptures declaring that Christ endured the pain of the eternal suffering that we deserved in hell so that we could be spared from it and be freed to spend eternity in God’s presence. The Traditionalists contend that it is impossible to understand the depth of Christ’s love for us unless we know the horror of the penalty of hell that he voluntarily endured for us.
Annihilationism
Annihilationism is a Christian belief that holds to the position that God annihilates unsaved sinners at death (or at the judgment day, or after a “proportionate” time in hell). Whatever day it is, when it comes . . . zap, and you’re outta here. Disintegrated. Dissolved. Melted like the Wicked Witch of the West being doused with a bucket of water. “This sounds harsh,” you say. “But it is just the opposite,” says the annihilationist. If you were an unsaved sinner, which would you rather endure following your earthly demise: suffering punishment for eternity, or being instantly decomposed?
With respect to “saved” sinners, annihilationism follows the traditional biblical view that after death they go on to celebrate living with God for eternity. For this reason, sometimes a slight variation of annihilationism is referred to as “conditional immortality” or “conditionalism,” the condition being that humans are only potentially immortal; you gain immortality if and when you become a Christian during your lifetime.
Annihilationism has always been a minority view, but it is gaining in popularity. (You can understand why unsaved people prefer this view instead of the traditionalist position of everlasting agony.) But of course, the rise in the popularity of this view is from Christians, many of whom are relieved to have an interpretation of the Bible that gives a more satisfactory result on one of Christianity’s hot-button issues. As we discussed in chapter 6, a contemporary trend in Christianity downplays the holiness and judgment of God, for the sake of taking a more singular focus on his loving nature. With hell being politically incorrect (what with its judgment, damnation, and all), annihilationism has solved the problem by finding God’s love so great as to obviate the need for hell. Proponents of annihilationism posit that immediate annihilation is more compatible with the notion of a loving God.
We are not suggesting that annihilationists have thrown out the Bible and made stuff up. Their camp includes sincere Christians with a desire for biblical scholarship (just like the traditionalists). However, the annihilationists read certain verses in Scripture to reform hell from the “everlasting” traditional view to an instantaneous destruction, which makes the penalty for sin more proportional to our sense of justice:
The annihilationists exegete the word death in hell and judgment verses to mean instantaneous disintegration. In their view, when Romans 6:23 says “The wages of sin is death,” it means a one-and-done extinction—nothing prolonged, nothing eternal.
Similarly, when end-times verses refer to destruction, this is not a prolonged, unending suffering in hell. Rather, destruction means a terminal point in time.
Regarding references to eternal (as in the Matthew 25:46 description of “eternal punishment”), annihilationists claim that such passages only mean punishment at a time in the future—in “the age to come” and does not mean “everlasting.”
The exegesis of the annihilationists is exclusive to their own camp. As traditionalist Douglas Moo points out, destruction in end-times texts does not necessarily mean “cease to exist,” but can instead mean “cease to be what one once was,”3 as in “the situation of a person or object that has lost the essence of its nature or function.”4 As you might expect, traditionalists believe that a term like eternal actually means “everlasting.” They cite verses like Matthew 25:46, where Jesus says, “[The wicked] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Everyone agrees that eternal life means “everlasting life” (as in “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” from John 3:16 NKJV). Consequently, the traditionalists argue that Jesus also intends that eternal punishment means “everlasting punishment.” Annihilationism has nothing “everlasting” about it.
Universalism
This is the view that says everyone will be saved. While this view has been around at least since the third century AD, it had very little traction until the 1800s and is now adopted by some prominent scholars and many others. The view is growing in acceptance, but it is still very much a minority position. The doctrine of universalism has been characterized as follows:
At the heart of this perspective is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence. The love of God will melt every hard heart, and even the most “depraved sinners” will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God.5
Under this view, Christians still go directly to heaven. And the unsaved still go to hell, but only temporarily. So it is okay if you don’t become a Christ-follower during your lifetime, because in your postmortem eternity, you’ve got a second chance (or chances) to respond to God’s love. In the meantime, you are stuck in hell with all of its concomitant agony. As theology professor J. I. Packer explains universalists’ view of hell:
It is a rough reality, a house of correction as well as a place of conversion; it is the milieu in which the perverse and deluded come to their senses, and to that end it needs to be dreadful, as Jesus in particular stressed that it is. It is a kind of purgatory for those—that is, the totally Christless ones—whom official Roman Catholicism would not admit to purgatory.6
There are hybrid positions under the umbrella of universalism:7
Non-Christian universalists (more often called pluralists) believe that any and all religions are equally effective as to salvation—other faiths besides Christianity can get you to heaven.
Hopeful universalists follow traditional biblical doctrine of heaven and hell, but it is their hope that God won’t be such a stickler on the rules, like the verse that says, “Turn to me now, while there is time” (Joel 2:12 NLT). They are hoping he’ll eventually save everyone.
Dogmatic universalists are sticking with the Jesus-is-the-only-way-to-be saved doctrine, but they believe the Bible clearly teaches that everyone eventually gets to heaven.
Traditionalists find the Bible’s references to everlasting judgment, and the absence of any “second chance” verses, to be objections that the universalists can’t explain away.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION
Are you drawn to one of these three views more than the other two? Why?
Can you critique each view, mentioning strengths and weaknesses of each position?
How important is biblical support in determining the validity of a view of hell?
We didn’t forget that we promised to explore the two categories of disagreement among Christians on the subject of hell (as mentioned by Douglas Moo). Now that we have reviewed traditionalism, annihilationism, and universalism, our job is a little easier, as you will see.
The Nature of the Punishment in Hell: It Still Depends on Whom You Ask
Remember that list of Bible verses at the beginning of this chapter? Those descriptions portray hell as being horrific. In fact, they are so dreadful, one has to wonder if the descriptions are only metaphorical instead of literal.
In the traditional view, some hold tight to the position that the biblical descriptions are literal and mean exactly what they say. But it seems that the majority position is that the biblical descriptions of hell are metaphorical. This later group points to the fact that the Bible gives conflicting descriptions: Hell is a “place of darkness,” yet it is a place of “fire” (2 Peter 1:17 and Matthew 25:41). As both fire and darkness together seem incompatible, contemporary scholars read the biblical descriptions of hell as metaphors. But don’t get too excited about that. Just because the terms are metaphors doesn’t mean that the underlying concept is fanciful or nonexistent. The same scholars believe that in metaphors used by Jesus and others there was no terminology sufficient to describe the degree of the horrors in hell. In other words, the reality of hell is probably even worse then the metaphors.
For annihilationists, the “Figurative or literal?” question also applies. Remember, under their reading of Scripture, it is all about actual destruction (which they take very literally). But for the universalists, this becomes an almost irrelevant question. Everyone goes to heaven and everyone escapes the everlasting part of punishment. For those who need a little time in “interim” hell to change their minds about God, their punishment will be literal but equally temporary.
The Duration of the Punishment in Hell: This, Too, Depends on Whom You Ask
This is going to be easy:
Traditionalism: Everlasting means everlasting.
Annihilationsim: Poof! and you are destroyed.
Universalism: Only as long as it takes you to change your mind.
A Picture of Hell as Painted by Jesus
If you are going to ask for information about hell, we think Jesus is the definitive go-to source on the subject. His most comprehensive description of hell is found in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–31. Before we dissect that passage, we need to insert a preface about parables.
The parables of Jesus are fictional stories, but that does not mean that they are void of truth. To the contrary, Jesus used these metaphorical stories to illustrate truth to those who wanted to hear it, and to obscure the message from those who were opposed to it. As John MacArthur has said, “The parables are tools in which Jesus taught and defended the truth.”8 The points of the parables are always consistent with gospel truth, but the reader should not get distracted with the narrative details that are nonessentials to the overall truths and which are not intended to be an extension of the analogy. (For example, in the parable you are about to read, don’t get distracted by angels carrying Lazarus or Lazarus dipping his finger in water. The point to notice is that Lazarus is in heaven and the rich man is in Hades. And for your sake, we are using a translation that refers to “Abraham’s side” instead of other translations that refer to “Abraham’s bosom.”) Finally, as MacArthur reminds us, Jesus “was not inviting His hearers to interpret the stories any way they liked.”9
The parable you are about to read is the third in a series of three parables that Jesus presented, all dealing with the same principle: The decisions you make during your lifetime impact your destiny after death. Think on that principle as you read the parable.
The rich man and Lazarus
“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Luke 16:19–31
What this parable teaches about hell
Here are just a few of the many truths that can be drawn from this parable. We’ll begin by talking about the type of life that ends up in hell:
1. Separation from God in the afterlife is determined by ignoring God during one’s lifetime. What was it about the rich man’s life that resulted in his going to Hades after death? It wasn’t the fact that he was rich (Abraham was very rich during his lifetime). It wasn’t that the rich man ignored religious traditions (to the Jewish audience that heard this parable, it was assumed that the rich man participated in the rituals of his Jewish faith). The answer can be found in the description of the rich man and the contrasting description of Lazarus.
The rich man was opulently, extravagantly, excessively wealthy—from the fine linens he wore to the daily luxuries he enjoyed to the palatial estate in which he lived (as evidenced by the gate at which Lazarus lay every day).
Contrast that to the beggar Lazarus. He was starving daily, wishing for just a crumb from that rich man’s table. Realize that the rich man personally knew Lazarus (he called him by name in the conversation with Abraham); he probably walked by him every day, never giving Lazarus one of those crumbs; he wouldn’t even attend to the open sores on Lazarus’ body. The sin of the rich man was having an identity and core values that had nothing to do with God and everything to do with himself. He lived for “today” with no regard for his “eternal tomorrow.” He was oblivious to God’s passion for loving others.
2. Heaven and hell exist; they are the only options in the afterlife. They are both eternal and final. As Abraham told the formerly rich man, there is no crossing over. There is a permanent, irrevocable separation between heaven and hell. There is no end to either of them.
3. Hell doesn’t change the sinful predispositions of the unsaved. Isn’t it fascinating that the former rich man appears to be as pompous and obnoxious as he must have been in life? Now in Hades, he is still bossing people around. He wants Lazarus to be his servant (telling Abraham to send Lazarus to Hades with water, and to send Lazarus as a messenger to the rich man’s brothers). Notice that the rich man never expresses a word of regret or repentance. In fact, he doesn’t even ask to be released from Hades. The self-centered, self-absorbed identity he had in life has not dissipated. Just as James Moriarty had his own form of hell, the rich man’s hell may be the fact that he has to live with himself for eternity. Theologian C. S. Lewis made a similar comment about the nature of hell:
