Does Hell = Death?

[Túrin Turambar]

This started out in a discussion on Hell over at TORC.

Basically, I always thought that Christian theology stated fairly unambiguously that those who do not accept salvation through Christ are tormented forever in hell (Traditionalism). While reading around for information for use in that thread, I’m starting to think that that interpretation is quite possibly wrong.

Basically, I think that Annihilationism (the idea that the souls of the unsaved are destroyed in a total and final death) is closer to the mark. This view is held, I believe, by Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and a number of evangelical Anglicans. The Traditionalist view is either supported only by a minority of verses, or else is the result of sloppy translation.

Firstly, what is Hell? Several different words are translated into the English ‘hell’. Leaving aside the Old Testament Hebrew Sheol, we have the Greek Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna. To quote from wikipedia, which in turn quotes from Jeff Priddy:

The religious and secular man's nightmarish ideas of HELL (that is, of a Christ-managed hothouse where sinners get burned forever) come to them compliments of ... careless translating ... the practice of ignoring separate Greek words.

In 2 Pet. 2:4, God chose the Greek word "Tartaros" (ταρταροω; English transliteration, "Tartarus") to identify the temporary abode of sinning angels. Tartarus holds spirit beings, not humans, and there is not a flame on the premises. The KJV and NIV translators (neither of whose versions have any influence in the expression of Eastern Orthodox doctrine) gave this specific Greek word the English equivalent, "hell".

In Matthew 5:22 (and in several other places), God chose a different Greek word, "Geenna," (English transliteration: "Gehenna") to name a valley on the southwest corner of Jerusalem where the corpses of criminals will be disposed of during the thousand-year kingdom. There are flames here, yes, but the flames cremate the dead (Is. 66:24), they don't torture the living. Most of humanity is not even alive to see Gehenna (Rev. 20:5), let alone be tormented there. The KJV and NIV translators gave this specific Greek word the English equivalent, "hell".

In Luke 16:23 (and in other places), God chose the Greek word, "hades", to describe the state of invisibility; in Greek, the word means "unseen". God uses this word often to describe a person's nonexistence in death: unless spoken of figuratively, a dead person doesn't see anything, hear anything, feel anything, know anything, do anything: hades. Flames, screams, pointy tails and pitchforks are conspicuously absent. All the dead "go" here, not just the wicked. The KJV and NIV translators gave this specific Greek word the English equivalent, "hell".

So, what does the New Testament say?

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in [or through] Christ Jesus our Lord.

In other words, according to this verse, the two outcomes for any soul are ‘eternal life’ or the opposite of eternal life, which the verse conveniently tells us is ‘death’. If you are being enternally tomented, then you are experiencing eternal life. This contradicts what Romans tells us here – eternal life is the gift of God. This is not the only verse which talks about this distinction.

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power

Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

But 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."

According to these verses, being cast into ‘the lake of fire’ results in destruction, not enternal torment. So what is hell, in that case? Most likely, the place where rebellious angels are punished:

10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The Devil and false prophet are tormented for ever and ever (or are they? There’s a possible mistranslation issue here – the verse could read ‘for aeons and aeons’ – see below). But here’s no mention of the sinners.

Now, what of the verses which say differently?

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

[…]

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

The lake of fire cannot both be ‘death’ and ‘eternal punishment’. I’m kinda stuck here because I don’t know what the original phrase was. The author here may be using the term ‘eternal punishment’ to describe total death, as someone who dies totally does not get to live in the Kingdom of God. Read with the verses I posted above, it seems that being cast into the lake of fire results in destruction for people and torment for spiritual beings.

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 hell [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.'

[…]

He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

This verse is odd because refers to ‘Hades’. It may also be a parable. This is the definate spanner in the works for my theory.

There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.

An odd one. I don’t know exactly what to make of it.

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."

This does refer specifically to those who go over to the antichrist, though, not sinners in general.

To add a few extra translation notes, I’ll save myself some effort and just quote wikipedia:

The Greek words "Hades" and "Gehenna" are sometimes translated into the word "hell", though the concepts are dissimilar. Martin Luther, for example, translated the word "Hades" five times as the German word for "hell" (Hölle) (for example Matthew 16:18), and twice as "the dead", twice as the "world of the dead", and once as "his kingdom" (all in German). "Gehenna" was translated by Martin Luther eight times as "hell" (for example: Matthew 5:22,29,30; 18:9; Mark 9:43,45; and so on) and four times as "hellish". In Norse mythology the underworld was a cold, monotonous place, which was commanded by the goddess Hel. The place was called Hel, too.

Newer translations of the Bible translate "Hades" or "Sheol" into the words "world of dead", "underworld", "grave", "crypt" or similar, but still translate the word "Gehenna" into the word "hell".

The word "Hades" of the New Testament is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Sheol" of the Old Testament (Acts 2:27, Psalms 16:10). What happens in Hades, or rather Sheol, Ecclesiastes tells us: "for in the Sheol, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom." (Ecclesiastes 9,10) and "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. " (Ecclesiastes 9:5; see also Psalms 89:49; 139:8; Numbers 16:30). "The Lord brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the Sheol and raises up. " (1 Samuel 2:6). The souls of all human beings are going to Hades, whether they believe or not (John 5:28-29; Job 3:11-19, 14:13; Ez 32:18-32; Ps. 31:17; Dan. 12:2).

Geenna (or Gehenna) is the name of an earthly place. It comes from Hebrew and means "Gorge of Hinnom (Ge-Hinnom)". This gorge can still be visited today near Jerusalem. In the time of the Old Testament it was a place where children were sacrificed to the Ammonite god Molech (2 Kings 23:10). That cultic practice was, according to the Old Testament, imitated by King Solomon in the 10th Century B.C.E. and under the leadership of king Manasseh in the 7th Century B.C.E. and in times of crisis until the time of exile of the Jews in Babylon (6th Century B.C.E.). The prophet Jeremiah, who condemned that cult strictly, called the valley the "gorge of killing" (Jeremiah 7:31-32; 19:5-9). Gehenna became later a central garbage dump, to stop the practice of child sacrifice. At the turn of the 1st Century C.E. the gorge was used also to burn the dead bodies of criminals after their execution. The image of burning dead bodies probably inspired Jewish, and later Christian theologians to translate that place into the word "hell".

The sea of fire after the last tribunal in Revelation 20:14 isn't translated into the word "hell", but sometimes gets the connotations of "hell". In that sea of fire are thrown the beast, the devil, the false prophet, and Hell (Hades) itself, along with evil-doers, according to Revelation 20:12-15. "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for aeons of aeons." (Revelation 20:10) Many people mistakenly assume "Ages of Ages" to mean forever, but Aeon is definitely a fixed length.

So, in the end, this is what we get:

There is an actual place which may be described as hell – Tartarus. It is for the devil and his angels. Normal people who die in their sins go to Hades – death. When someone dies, they sleep in their grave until they are ressurected for the final judgement. When they rise, they are corporeal – they have their bodies. Those whose names are in the book of life are given eternal life, while those whose names are not are cast into the lake of fire and thus destroyed.

This also resolves the so-called problem of hell. It is difficult to comprehend an all-loving God inflicting eternal punishment on people, especially when they cannot avoid sin (Romans 3:23 – “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of the Lord…”), an all-powerful God letting such a situation continue or an all-knowing God creating mankind and creating souls knowing that they will experience a brief life and then most will be tormented forever. Annihilationism is arguably more sensible – you can either accept or reject God, and that’s exactly what you get – live with him forever or die eternally. They are not punished for rejecting God per se.

This isn’t anywhere near complete – I’ve put it together by reading wikipedia and hunting for bible verses after all, but I think that it has merit. Opinions?

[JewelSong]

Interesting research! I think it is important to realize that the Book of Revelation is actually a political allegory - not meant to be taken literally. Either that, or John was on some really bad crack.

Theological students spend an entire semester on it, from what I hear!

[Túrin Turambar]

I’m surprised more people haven’t responded to this. It is pretty significant, after all. Don’t any of the ‘literal hell’ Christians have any response?

[Cerin]

It is certainly a less distressing idea, L_M, but there is quite a bit of scripture talking about eternal punishment. Also, I've always understood that 'made in God's image' means we are spiritual, that is, eternal beings.

[JewelSong]

I rejected the idea of "eternal punishment" when I was quite young. It seemed to me (and I still feel this way) that our lives are but an instant when held up against eternity...and there is nothing that we could do (or not do!) in that short a time that would warrant being punished forever.

It just...didn't make any sense. It still doesn't, so I don't believe it. It would mean God was cruel, petty and basically irrational. And I don't think God is any of those things.

[anthriel]

I just want to second Jewel's remarks about Revelation... I do think that John had been on that lonely island for a WHILE when he wrote that.



I'm no expert, but I understand that that particular book is a challenge to interpret, even by those who ARE experts.

[Cerin]

I believe God is loving, just and holy -- not any of those things you suggest, Jewel.

But you're basically saying the same thing you've criticized others for -- that God has to fit within the confines of your own understanding. What happened to unfathomable, unknowable, beyond the limits of our understanding, etc.?

[Túrin Turambar]

Annihilationists would argue that translating ‘made in God’s image’ to ‘having an immortal soul’ is imposing Greek ideas on Hebrew thought. What it would come down to is what ‘made in God’s image’ and ‘eternal punishment’ are translated from.

[JewelSong]

I believe God is loving, just and holy -- not any of those things you suggest, Jewel.

But you're basically saying the same thing you've criticized others for -- that God has to fit within the confines of your own understanding. What happened to unfathomable, unknowable, beyond the limits of our understanding, etc.?

I don't see how I am saying that, Cerin. I am saying that God is unfathomable, unknowable, beyond the limits of our understanding, etc....therefore I do not believe that God would be so petty and so small as to condemn a human to eternal punishment for doing - or for not doing - something in the miniscule time we are given here. That doesn't fit with "infinite" and "eternal" to me.

Of course, that is my own opinion - and also my own experience with God. Which admittedly is confined to my own understanding.

Jesus loves me and I try to follow what he said. The rest...I leave up to God.

[Cerin]

That doesn't fit with "infinite" and "eternal" to me.

That's what I meant. Because it doesn't fit to you, you dismiss it as impossible. So in that sense, you're restricting God to the limits of your understanding (that is, only the Biblical aspects of God that you identify as 'loving', 'kind', etc. can be accurate).

Don't mean to be argumentative.

[Lidless]

Wikipedia has some good articles on the problem of eternal punishment, explaining both sides of this issue.

While Hell has traditionally been regarded as a punishment for wrong-doing or sin in life, the problem arises primarily from the severity of the punishment, if Hell is indeed seen as eternal torture. However, the view of hell as "punishment" is not universal. For example, the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics see it as a condition brought about by, and the natural consequence of, free rejection of God's love.

The debate mostly focuses on whether God would want to allow a situation where some people are consigned to Hell forever. There is also the question of why an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God would create souls foreknowing those souls would end up in Hell.

Issues of Justice
Opponents of the doctrine of Hell claim that the punishment is disproportionate to any crimes that could be committed, an overkill. Humans can commit only a finite amount of sin, yet Hell is an infinite punishment, and common sense seems to suggest that few (if any) people deserve such punishment.

Against the alleged injustice of Hell, some theists have maintained that God is so infinitely great that any transgression against him warrants an infinite punishment. On this view, the correct punishment for a crime is proportional to the status of the wronged individual. Opponents of this view reply that the correct punishment is also proportional to the intentions and understanding of the wrongdoer.

Some (notably Jorge Luis Borges) have suggested that no transgression can warrant an infinite punishment on the grounds that there is no such thing as an "infinite transgression".

Some are of the belief that all human beings sometimes do things which are wrong. Christianity agrees with this view: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (Epistle to the Romans, 3:23). Arguably, punishing humans for a situation which humans cannot avoid is unjust.

A separate suggestion that might justify Hell is this: although no one crime warrants eternal punishment, sinful behaviour can continue in Hell, thus warranting an "extension of the sentence" that an individual must serve - and such extensions can continue on forever with each new sin.

There is a counter to this argument: Those assigned to Hell are destined to suffer there forever. For this to be justified, it must be inevitable that they will continue sinning eternally and continue to deserve further punishment. Hell becomes a futile punishment which cannot serve to prevent sin. Furthermore, if the sinners in Hell cannot avoid further sin they cannot easily be seen as responsible for their actions once they enter Hell.

However it can be argued that the previous point is a red herring, that Hell is not a disincentive to sin, but instead a punishment for it, and so arguing that the punishment is futile as a disincentive could be interpreted as a misunderstanding of the reason Hell exists.

Finally, it could be argued that humans are incapable of defining "justice" and that God alone can define "justice" and judge things as being just or unjust. If such a definition of justice is to be taken, Hell is justified solely by the fact that God defines it as just. This argument is mostly associated with the Reformed branch of Christianity and with its founder Martin Luther.

Hell as a choice
Mirroring similar discussions in the problem of evil, another argument goes that human beings are presumed to have free will, and although a benevolent God would prefer to see everyone saved, he would also allow humans to control their own destinies. This view opens the possibility of seeing Hell not as retributive punishment, but rather as an option that God allows, so that people who do not wish to be with God are not forced to be. C. S. Lewis most famously proposed this view in his book The Great Divorce, saying: "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'" Some believe that the choice for God must be made by an individual before he dies, but others don't see death as the end of one's chances to accept salvation. On the latter view, which seems suggested by Lewis, those in hell can get to heaven if they choose to accept God. On this view, in Lewis's memorable phrase, to the extent that the doors out of hell are locked for a person, they are "locked from the inside" — by the person's own continuing, willful choice.

Opponents of this view (such as Marilyn McCord Adams) claim that, even if Hell is seen as a choice rather than as punishment, it would be unreasonable for God to give such flawed and ignorant creatures as ourselves the awesome responsibility of our eternal destinies. In the view of Adams, God giving humans this choice is like an adult giving a child a loaded shotgun.

Jonathan Kvanvig, in his book, The Problem of Hell, agrees that God would not allow one to be eternally damned by a decision made under the wrong circumstances. One should not always honor the choices of human beings, even when they are full adults, if, for instance, the choice is made while depressed or careless. On Kvanvig's view, God will abandon no person until they have made a settled, final decision, under favorable circumstances, to reject God. But God will respect a choice made under the right circumstances. Once a person finally and competently chooses to reject God, out of respect for the person's autonomy, God allows them to be annihilated.

A question some have asked of those who defend Hell by appealing to human choice is whether humans truly "choose" Hell - if an atheist believed there was no God, would this count as a choice, or merely an honest mistake? At any rate, to whatever degree the will is involved in such a belief, and consequently to whatever degree one can be said to have chosen not to believe in the existence of God and/or Hell, it's hard to see how someone who does not believe that hell exists can be truthfully described as having specifically chosen to go to Hell. Since Hell is everlasting and torturous, it seems implausible that any informed, rational person would deliberately choose to endure it. Rather than claiming that the damned choose hell, those who defend hell by appeal to choice might do better to say merely that the damned make choices that result in their being in hell, even though they never specifically chose to go to hell.

Naturally, the idea of Hell as a just result of choice depends on a strong account of the degree to which one controls one's beliefs. If a person's actions and choices are the products of genes and environment, neither of which the person can control, Hell seems profoundly unfair. This problem is magnified for religions which claim to be the only path to salvation, since it is clear that which religion a person subscribes to is largely a result of the culture they are born in. Suppose, for example, that one has to be Christian to avoid Hell. Given that very few people born in Iran to Muslim parents become Christians, Hell would seem to punish such people unfairly.

Separate from the suggestion that one chooses one's eternal fate in life, many fathers of the church believed that upon death a soul will fully understand the good and evil of all its acts during life, and (if sinful) will in fact go to Hell voluntarily because it will deem itself unworthy for Heaven. Still, this fails to answer the question why a loving God creates souls which he foreknows will end up in Hell.

The argument from ignorance
As in the debate over the problem of evil, an option open to theists is to state that man is not perceptive enough to actually understand the "mind" of God, and cannot therefore conclude that the existence of Hell is unjust. The crux of this is that it is very possible that we do not understand the mind of God, and thus may not understand the reasons for the existence of Hell and therfore by contrast we can not fully understand the reasoning and then cannot learn from it making hell pointless.

The plausibility of such arguments are however lower than in the problem of evil. With regard to the question "why is there evil in the world?" there are at least candidate reasons why evil might serve some sort of useful purpose - for example, it might be character forming, or give humans something to struggle against.

With Hell however, most such purposes fall away. Hell clearly does not serve any interests of its residents. While one can claim that God has some good reason for Hell that we cannot fathom, this is, of course, a very unsatisfying response, even if correct.

Of course, many believe that humans can reach a fairly good understanding of the nature of God. For example, through reading scripture, a Christian may come to believe that God is "just and right" (Deuteronomy 32:4). At the very least, reconciling this belief with the apparent injustice of Hell requires a fair degree of faith.

My view? Not a surprise to anyone really, but there should not be so much ambiguity and confusion as to whether God exists, any god exists, in a world supposedly created and run by a loving divine parent. For a person to make a choice when there is many arguments on both sides of the fence, and to be consigned to an eternal hell if you get it wrong, well...some people suggest that this in itself if proof that there is no god, at least not an all-loving one, but that's for another thread.

And this leads on to Pascal's Wager: "Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is".

The extension is that if there is a Hell, the logical goal would be to choose the religion with the worst hell or the best heaven depending on how make choices (maximise return or minimise loss).

The only problem is that one does not actively and consciously choose a religion as you would an entree at a restaurant. It either happens or it doesn't. It is not a product of rational thought - it is one of faith.

My views ultimately are a faith in itself as I cannot make a 100% iron-clad argument against there being a god.

[JewelSong]

That doesn't fit with "infinite" and "eternal" to me.

That's what I meant. Because it doesn't fit to you, you dismiss it as impossible.

I guess it's possible. But I dismiss it as NOT loving, NOT just and NOT Holy.

So in that sense, you're restricting God to the limits of your understanding (that is, only the Biblical aspects of God that you identify as 'loving', 'kind', etc. can be accurate).

I believe that God gave me a brain to use...and to help me identify what is loving and just and holy. I do not believe that everything in the Bible is meant to be taken at face value, nor do I believe that everything in the Bible is free of error. The Bible was inspired by God, but it was transcribed by Man.

Let me put it this way, and perhaps be clearer.

The God I know, the Divine I pray to, is not so petty and so small as to condemn anyone to eternal torment/punishment/nothingness for not subscribing to the "right" doctrine of faith. Infinite, not limited.

[Cerin]

The God I know, the Divine I pray to, is not so petty and so small as to condemn anyone to eternal torment/punishment/nothingness for not subscribing to the "right" doctrine of faith. Infinite, not limited.

So it seems to me, then, that you are defining God for yourself (according to what you consider to be loving, etc.). Which, again, is what it seemed to me you were faulting others for doing (limiting the concept of God).

Or to rephrase according to your construct, the Divine I pray to is not so petty or small as to be defined by my understanding of certain concepts, or to be dictated to, regarding what is and is not acceptable treatment of the beings He created.

I trust that whatever transpires, it will be in accordance with true love and holiness (not necessarily with my finite human understanding of those concepts).

[JewelSong]

I trust that whatever transpires, it will be in accordance with true love and holiness (not necessarily with my finite human understanding of those concepts).

We are likely never going to agree on this.

God is the One who gave me my "finite" understanding of what holiness and true love is. Presumably so I could recognize it when I saw it and know that it was from God. I trust what God gave me, which is the power of thought and reason and a sense of right and wrong.

What you seem to be saying is that somehow, there could exist a kind of justice where people being punished forever by an infinite Being is okay. And that, because God is infinite, you can't presume to understand how that could be possible right now, but surely it will be okay in the end. That maybe true love and holiness includes eternal torment for some poor souls. You hope it doesn't, but that's not for you to say.

I understand what you are saying, Cerin and I understand what you believe and I believe you are sincere in your beliefs.

I just don't agree with them.

[Cerin]

Thanks for hashing that out with me, Jewel.