Board index ‹ Heaven and Hell

[Freddy Johns]

Paul never uses the Greek words translated "hell" and there is no eternal torment in the fires of hell in Paul's Christianity. This was a later invention.

Although he never mentions hell there is a strong doctrine of victory over death ("Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" from 1 Corinthians 15:55). In 2 Thessalonians 1:9 we see the idea of everlasting destruction for those who do not accept Jesus but, again, equating this with eternal torment in the fires of hell (as opposed to death and dust and therefore separation from God) is a later invention. In Paul's mind the ungodly will be destroyed but Christians will be given eternal life. Paul was a Jew and, thus, would have had no conception of a place of eternal hell fire and torment for the dead which us nowhere to be found in the Old Testament/ Hebrew Bible. What Paul taught was that by being a disciple and true follower of Christ you will be in the good graces of God and have LIFE, even after death.

[jimwalton]

First of all, just because Paul doesn't use the terminology doesn't mean he doesn't believe in the doctrine. Remember that Paul was often writing to Gentile audience, and the terms about hell are Jewish concepts.

The "everlasting destruction" of 2 Thes. 1.9 is the same doctrine as the doctrine of hell. It's a punishment for those who don't know God and who are disobedient (1.8). It's a being shut out from the presence of the Lord (1.9). These are all doctrinal statements matching the teachings about hell as being exactly that (far more than being fire). You seem to think that because the term isn't there the doctrine isn't there. But since the word "Trinity" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible, that can't be a convincing argument. "Eternal destruction" is the fate of unrepentant sinners (Mt. 7.13; Jn. 17.12; 2 Peter 3.7), and it includes, as is obvious, everything opposite of eternal life.

Paul often (about 15 times) also speaks of the wrath of God. Romans 9.22 specifically ties the wrath of God with the destruction of sinners. He also teaches that those who believe in Jesus Christ are not to be recipients of God’s wrath (Rom. 5.9; 1 Thes. 1.10; 5.9). In Galatians 1.8-9 Paul speaks of those who reject the gospel as being eternally condemned. So also Galatians 6.8, as an opposite of eternal life. In Romans 2.8-9 he specifically aligns as opposites eternal life (7) and "wrath." Philippians 1.28 and 3.19 teach that non-Christians will be destroyed. 2 Thes. 2:10 says, "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

No, according to the Scripture you are wrong. Paul speaks very much and strongly about hell. But hell isn't fire. Hell is not "One Fire Tortures All." Fire is just the image of untold suffering, which is what one will experience when separated from God. We have strong hints that there are different degrees of punishment in hell (totally unlike the different levels of hell as in Dante's Divine Comedy, which is not Scripture), something not possible if the issue is real fire. Fire was Jesus's imagery to speak of the agony of separation from God.

But it almost sounds like you are contending that by destruction Paul meant annihilation, not torment in being separated from the presence of God. Is that correct?

[Spiderman]

> and the terms about hell are Jewish concepts.

one of the terms the NT uses is hades, which definitely existed in greco-roman mythology.

[jimwalton]

You're right, but Paul doesn't use the term Hades.

Hades, as I'm sure you know, was the abode of the dead in Greek thought. Jesus uses "Hades" I think 3 times, and Peter used it twice (early in Acts), but Paul never uses it. The abode of the dead in Greek thought was just a dismal place, if I understand it right, and not a place of torment, as Jesus spoke of it, or a place of destruction, as Paul spoke of the afterlife.

[Spiderman]

yes, but the point is, they had a term their greek speaking audience would have understood.

[jimwalton]

Yes, and since it was a Greco-Roman concept that was different from anything Paul wanted to express, I can easily see how he would avoid the term to avoid confusion. Jesus was speaking to Jews, so they would hear the term "Hades" in their cultural and theological context. Paul was speaking to Gentiles, and didn't want to create confusion by using a word that would mean something different to them than he intended by it. Paul's avoidance of the term is not to say he didn't believe in eternal punishment for unbelievers. He was clear that there was such a thing, and that's what coincides well with Jesus's (Christianity's) teachings.

[Spiderman]

> Jesus was speaking to Jews, so they would hear the term "Hades" in their cultural and theological context. Paul was speaking to Gentiles, and didn't want to create confusion by using a word that would mean something different to them than he intended by it.

we don't have any reliable teachings of jesus. and the gospels were also written for foreigners, in greek.

[jimwalton]

> we don't have any reliable teachings of jesus.

That's a radical opinion, and not one that I share. There are several reasons to believe we have the reliable teachings of Jesus.

1. We have access to plenty of stories, midrash, religious wisdom, and religious teachings, but these teachings of Jesus have a consistently different tenor to them, especially his parables. They are without parallel and peer.

2. They depart from common Jewish thinking at the time, not something we would expect Jewish commoners to manufacture.

3. The message was socially and politically both radical and dangerous. This was no game.

4. There is never any indication from any ancient source that these teachings are in doubt as having come from a Galilean named Jesus.

> the gospels were also written for foreigners, in greek.

Being written in Gk doesn't assign their audience. Matthew, for example, is filled with Messianic themes, references to Jewish prophecies, and nods to Jesus' relation to Moses. It's essentially a book of Jewish history and theology. It's a thoroughly Jewish framework.

Luke also taps into quite a bit of Jewish theology and Messianic references, though he also reaches out to Gentiles. He is especially dealing with the failure of messianic events (known particularly to those schooled in Jewish thought) to play out as expected. He uses both OT literary traditions and Hellenistic literary techniques, so it's tough to be hard-handed with certainty about his audience.

John works very hard to convince his audience that Jesus is YHWH, not a point of particular emphasis in the Gentile mindset. The book is steeped in Jewish customs, Jewish theological controversies (the Sabbath, the Messiah and his credentials, and true vs. false Judaism). It also is most likely aimed at a primarily Jewish audience.