Board index ‹ Heaven and Hell

[Holly and Ivy]

I'm just looking for the Bible saying this—specifically that people who have the nature of sin go to hell and those who have the nature of Christ go to heaven. This is a very precise claim. Does the Bible say it, or are you offering an interpretation of a few different passages?

[jimwalton]

In Romans 7, Paul talks explicitly about the "sin nature", distinct from sinful behavior. 7.17 says that sin lives in us. He speaks of it as if it's a state of our existence. He elaborates briefly in 7.18, explaining that what he means by "lives in me" is that it's our nature as humans. He says that our sinful behavior has its source in the sinful nature. In Mark 7.15-20, Jesus makes the same point: our behavior only comes from our nature. James 1.13-15 makes the same point. Ephesians 2.3 says that it is our nature that is deserving of God's wrath. As Paul develops his "case" through Romans 7, he says that this sin nature is what leads to death (24). James says the same thing in James 1.15. In Romans 6.23, Paul writes that the result, the payment, of sin is death. The sin nature inevitably leads to death. It's in Gen. 2.17 all the way to Rev. 20.14. The sin nature is characterized by death (Eph. 2.1), leads to death (Rom. 6.23; James 1.17) and ends in death (Rev. 20.14).

In contrast, those who are in Christ Jesus are given a new nature (2 Cor. 5.17; Jn. 3.3)—the nature of Jesus (2 Peter 1.4). Paul expresses it in Romans 8.29 with "to be conformed to the likeness of his Son", where he is talking about an inward (nature) likeness, not a behavioral one. These are the people, Paul says, that will experience resurrection to eternal life (as Jesus was the "firstborn" of all those who will follow in like manner). These are the ones who will be glorified (Rom. 8.30). He makes the same kind of point in 1 Cor. 15.12-57, guaranteeing the resurrection to eternal life for those who are in Christ Jesus (i.e., sharing his nature). Eph. 4.22-24 and Gal. 3.27 share these same kinds of thoughts. Ephesians 4.24 speaks of putting on the "new self" (after having put off the old self in 4.22 and being made new [23]). These speak of our inner beings, not just behavior. In Gal. 3.27, the metaphor of "clothed yourselves with Christ" implies a changed character, especially since we know the other texts that talk about new nature.

In Jn. 3.3 Jesus speaks of being "born again" as the condition for entering the kingdom of God. He means born from above, by the Spirit. Regeneration in God is not just good behaviors, but a new person, a new nature. 2 Corinthians 5.17 expresses the same idea: new creation. It's a divine transformation, or metamorphosis if you please, of our natures.

[Angel]

> Sorry to hear about your problems with the text. I know that some people have that, but I also find that there's a monstrous amount of misinformation flying around about the Bible. Ridiculous stuff, but people are falling for it. I find, personally, that the deeper I study the Bible the more convinced I become of its truth. The more I dig into the logic of theism vs. the logic of atheism, the more theism makes so much more sense

I absolutely agree. There is a lot of misinterpretation in regards to what the Bible actually says, which is the reason that I decided to delve into it. Contrary to your experience though, the further I dove into the Bible the more impossible it seemed to be true. I felt like I had to do constant mental gymnastics and that I had to make excuses for God to be okay with things, and I shouldn't have to make excuses for my creator. I investigated a lot of the responses to my issues on apologetic websites and I found them to be incredibly flawed. Furthermore, I even took an apologetic class a couple of years ago but the rationalization for many things simply didn't jibe with me.

> Having been incredibly sincere in your belief in the past, you indubitably recognize that what you desire is the core of what God offers in the Bible. You now wonder if God is real, but I wonder what has led you to that doubt. Is it something we can talk about, because as I said the more seek the more indications I've seen that he is real.

Well, I feel as though what the Bible offers is relatively unclear even though I once believed that I was loved and cared for by a God. I personally find that God's plan to save humanity doesn't save much at all because going by scripture, so so many people are going to go to Hell. I feel like the sacrifice should have simply ended with the resurrection of Jesus instead of including the additional text of: if you don't trust in something incredibly complicated and difficult to believe in, you are not forgiven. I am aware that there are Christian denominations that believe that Jesus saves everyone in the end but I don't find this to be scripturally sound.

> Actually the opposite is what seems to be true. "Christians" in Europe in a previous generation turned away from God by the hundreds of thousands, and Europe is now largely a secular continent. The same thing seems to be happening in America. But there is a HUGE community of believers growing in Muslim countries, China, and Africa, where they were raised to believe in different gods.

I'll look up statistics but to the best of my knowledge, a very large amount of those who are raised with different beliefs don't come to Christianity. I'll withdraw this point until I have full evidence, though.

> We all struggle with the theology of hell, but to me it's not the make-it-or-break-it point. Regardless of what form or duration it is, the Bible is insistent that God will be fair. That's where I hang my hat. If when I die I find that there is no such thing as hell, great. And if there is, I can be confident that God's going to handle things fairly, whatever that may mean.

Hell is one of the many reasons I struggle with belief in Christianity, but I do find it to be a point that actually can break belief. I would like to believe that God would be fair, but we have what Jesus directly tells us in the Bible. In my opinion, it clearly states that those who don't believe will be subjected to eternal punishment and I simply can't make heads or tails of that. If God will act more fair than His plan sounds, I do not know why He made the concept of Hell sound so ugly to humans.

I'd be interested in dialouging further, as I think that conversations like these are constructive. Thanks for talking!

[jimwalton]

> Contrary to your experience though, the further I dove into the Bible the more impossible it seemed to be true.

The only way to responsibly deal with this is to approach the texts that have been barriers to you. It's impossible for me to comment when the field is so wide. If you want to talk about specific texts in particular, I'd be glad to discuss them with you. It would be interesting to see how similar/different our takes on different passages are.

> I shouldn't have to make excuses for my creator.

I very strongly agree. If I have to make excuses for God, then he's not worth my devotion.

> I investigated a lot of the responses to my issues on apologetic websites and I found them to be incredibly flawed.

I too am often disappointed by allegedly "apologetic" websites. Most of the time I find the arguments lacking.

> I would like to believe that God would be fair, but we have what Jesus directly tells us in the Bible.

It's impossible for us in a forum such as this to digest all of what Jesus said about hell, but as with most things, it's not what it seems. Jesus is a very complex teacher, and while he can be appreciated on the surface, it's digging in where Jesus's teaching takes on rich dimensions.

For instance, suppose we look at Mt. 5.22 the way I look at stuff. Jesus is giving his judgment in the form of "the rule of three": three examples, with each one worse/more severe than the previous one, with the last one carrying the full punch: the fires of hell. (Why "you fool" is any worse than anger is not explained and is subject to interpretation, but not the focus of this conversation.) The judgments get worse every time: judgment by a brother, answerable to Sanhedrin, fire of hell, presumably judgment at the hand of God. The Greek is τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός, where "of hell" is an adjectival genitive, describing Gehenna as marked by fire. We know, for instance, that Gehenna is a geographical term in the OT (it was an actual place), but in the NT it is used as a metaphor in conjunction with the judgment of the unrepentant. Jesus clearly means "judgment" by his reference, as is obvious in v. 21 as well as 22.

Observations we can make:
1. The judgment is meant to be severe.
2. The judgment is intended to be commensurate with the crime.
3. The judgment is future ("will be in danger of...").
4. Gehenna seems to be indicative of an actual place of punishment.
5. It is a punishment that is avoidable, and steps should be taken to avoid it (Mt. 5.23ff.).

Verse 26 adds a twist. It's just an analogy, or maybe it's an illustration, but the end of 26, at least in the illustration, seems to indicate that it's not "forever". I don't see a reference to eternity.

Then in Matthew 5.29, Jesus mentions Gehenna again. Again, hell seems to be considered a real, as opposed to a metaphorical, place. ("Gehenna" is a metaphor, but the place itself is real.) In 5.22, the Sanhedrin is a real place, and even the Valley of Hinnom (or Ben-Hinnom), so also hell.

The new element this time is that the "whole body" is THROWN into hell. It's the Greek σῶμά, for physical body, which would indicate a reuniting of body and soul after death for the action at hand.

Verse 28 indicates that the perpetrator is guilty of his or her own actions and is morally, behaviorally, and spiritual culpable for his/her choices and behavior based on these choices. The people themselves have done the dirty deed dirt cheap, and God is acting as the righteous Judge. And (v. 29), he or she was able to have acted differently, but didn't. Therefore, what seems to be another judgment is brought to bear ON the perpetrator: he faces the possibility of his body (can we also presume soul?—possibly NOT from THIS verse) being unceremoniously tossed into Gehenna. Again, judgment exacted on the unrepentant. He or she could have repented, and had every chance to do so, but didn't.

But that's all we get here in this particular verse. Nothing of fire, nothing explicitly of "soul", and nothing of eternity. The point is "straighten up and fly right or horrible judgment awaits you." Is that fair?

I don't know if this is constructive dialogue, and helpful for you, but if it is, and you want to tackle other texts or stories, let's do it.

[Angel]

> For instance, suppose we look at Mt. 5.22 the way I look at stuff. Jesus is giving his judgment in the form of "the rule of three": three examples, with each one worse/more severe than the previous one, with the last one carrying the full punch: the fires of hell. (Why "you fool" is any worse than anger is not explained and is subject to interpretation, but not the focus of this conversation.) The judgments get worse every time: judgment by a brother, answerable to Sanhedrin, fire of hell, presumably judgment at the hand of God. The Greek is τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός, where "of hell" is an adjectival genitive, describing Gehenna as marked by fire. We know, for instance, that Gehenna is a geographical term in the OT (it was an actual place), but in the NT it is used as a metaphor in conjunction with the judgment of the unrepentant. Jesus clearly means "judgment" by his reference, as is obvious in v. 21 as well as 22.

I actually agree with your analysis, but I think you're missing a few pivotal verses in Matthew. Jesus frequently speaks of being thrown into a lake of fire with weeping and gnashing of teeth, and we can infer from the rest of these verses that there is a physical place of punishment that should be avoided.

What makes it go from "place of punishment" to "eternal place of punishment" though is Matthew 25. In particular, the verses being:
"41 “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. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."
and
"44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Interestingly, it doesn't mention a punishment for disbelief but rather a punishment for not being righteous. That being said though, the use of the word "eternal" seems pretty clear unless I am misunderstanding a pivotal point in the text.

My contention that those who don't believe will go to Hell comes from places like John where it seems to say those that do not believe suffer a similar fate. I'll have to go digging for those verses.

As far as whether or not it is an issue of the soul, I believe that the verses are referring to what happens after death, so it's a fair presumption to assume that the punishment is happening to the soul, but I suppose to the body is a possible interpretation. I am of the understanding that fire may be metaphorical, but it is still portrayed as a very unpleasant place.

Anyway, I do find this dialogue constructive. Thank you for discussing it with me. I'd be interested in perhaps delving into some other theological issues if you are.

[jimwalton]

I'm game to delve into whatever theological issues you want. Dialogue like this is just fun.

As far as hell is concerned, I wasn't trying to claim that one verse said everything that Jesus said about hell. It was just a place to start. You're right that Mt. 25.46 places a firmer stake on the "eternal" part. Being totally honest with you, the word Matthew uses for "punishment" is an interesting choice. (In the Greek it's κόλασιν [*kolasin*].) It's meaning is closer to "prune" than "punish." It *could* indicate something disciplinary (that might have an end) than punitive (that wouldn't have an end). The problem with that interpretation is that Jesus uses the same word "eternal" for both "life" and "pruning," so we still have to stick with the idea of eternity. Some scholars, though, say that the "disciplinary" part may take place in hell until the person is reformed, and then they'll be moved to heaven, though still under discipline. (The Bible doesn't say anything like that anywhere else, but people are always working to figure out what Jesus really meant about hell.) It's an interesting take on it. That way they are in eternal discipline, but not necessarily eternally in hell.

Regardless of that, 2 Thessalonians 1.9 is very clear. The words Paul uses are undoubtable: punished with everlasting destruction.

The discussion usually turns at this point to trying to understand how to define justice. We don't want to manipulate the term. How, in anyone's legitimate definition, can eternal punishment be a just response to finite sin? It's a great question, and the only legitimate answer is that "it can't." We are left with two possibilities:

1. People's rebellion against God will continue in the afterlife as it has in this life, and therefore their sin will not be finite. As long as they continue in it the punishment will continue, and therefore it will be fair. But, another thought goes, if they don't continue in it, they will be restored to life. It's a position called "semi-restorationism".

2. The other possibility is to take other Bible verses more literally that talk about "God will reconcile all things to himself." The idea behind this is that God will not stop trying to save people, and he will initiate a process so that a person's duration in hell is only as long as their rebellion, but when they come to Jesus after a time, he will reconcile them to himself and they will move to heaven. It's a position called "reconciliationism".

In both of these senses, hell can be eternal (for the Devil and his angels, for sure, and for some people who refuse to be reconciled on another) for some, but not for others. The Scriptures can be true, just not as explanatory as we would like. And that could make sense (that their not explanatory as much as we want), because the goal is to keep people out of hell PERIOD, and so the teaching is the worst case scenario as a motivational tactic (though still true). That's why I go with, as I've said: Regardless of what form or duration hell is, the Bible is insistent that God will be fair.

We can keep talking about hell (pulling up other texts), or modulate to other theological issues, as you wish. Let me know.

[Angel]

> Some scholars, though, say that the "disciplinary" part may take place in hell until the person is reformed, and then they'll be moved to heaven, though still under discipline. (The Bible doesn't say anything like that anywhere else, but people are always working to figure out what Jesus really meant about hell.) It's an interesting take on it. That way they are in eternal discipline, but not necessarily eternally in hell.

Do you know what verses scholars cite to suggest that Hell is limited discipline rather than eternal punishment? That's an interesting idea but I don't know if it is grounded in scripture. As for your two possibilities, I have similar contentions.

> People's rebellion against God will continue in the afterlife as it has in this life, and therefore their sin will not be finite. As long as they continue in it the punishment will continue, and therefore it will be fair. But, another thought goes, if they don't continue in it, they will be restored to life. It's a position called "semi-restorationism".

I feel like this viewpoint kind of nullifies the sacrifice of Jesus. To my understanding, He died to pay the penalty for our rebellion. If our rebellion continued even after our death, it doesn't seem to be a useful sacrifice.

> The other possibility is to take other Bible verses more literally that talk about "God will reconcile all things to himself." The idea behind this is that God will not stop trying to save people, and he will initiate a process so that a person's duration in hell is only as long as their rebellion, but when they come to Jesus after a time, he will reconcile them to himself and they will move to heaven. It's a position called "reconciliationism".

I definitely like this idea more than the others, but I don't know what the scriptural basis of it is. The verses in the Bible that mention condemnation and eternal punishment and the like seem fairly clear. I guess if you take a loose interpretation you could say that Jesus was not speaking in completely literal terms as far as how long Hell lasts for everyone, but if this is the case I don't see why He would be so vague about it. Hell seems like a super important concept, so I don't think it should be that open to interpretation if people need to be saved from it while on earth.

I guess to me, I can't interpret the doctine of Hell to mean anything but "eternal punishment," and I simply cannot grasp how it is a fair punishment, or why it would be necessary. If I'm assuming that God is fair, I can rely on faith that God knows better than I do, but I found that it made a lot more sense that Hell simply wasn't a real concept made by God.

I understand your disagreement, though, and I thank you for the conversation!

[jimwalton]

As far as the subject of hell, I've just started reading a book by Dennis Jensen called "Flirting With Universalism." I'm not very far into it yet, but he takes the position of semi-restorationism, where people, after they have paid the fair punishment for this sin, will be restored and moved to heaven, but at a lesser status than the people who have been in heaven all along. That's why he calls it SEMI-restorationism: They'll be restored, but not on the same plane as if they had gotten it right the first time. I haven't gotten far enough along yet to see his substantiation in the Bible, but I'm interested enough to keep reading. He says in the preface that he has full Scriptural substantiation for everything he's claiming.

Reconciliationism is mainly from Colossians 1.20. The idea here is that the verse promises that one day Christ will reconcile all things to himself. The scope is obviously unlimited, but that doesn't require that everything and everyone will be reconciled in the same way. Believers, obviously, will be reconciled because of their salvation. The cosmos will be reconciled in that it will no longer be subject to frustration (Rom. 8.19-23). For Christ's enemies (the devil and his angels), the reconciliation will be brought about that the war will cease because they will have been conquered, so there will be peace (though never submission from them). As far as the unbelievers, the war with them will also cease because their rebellion will be quashed and they will be relegated to a place apart from him where their rebellion will be of no effect. They will there be under Christ's rule, and at least in that way "reconciled" to him. So they won't be "saved", but exiled.

These theories don't negate the sacrifice of Christ, because none of them are universalism. But the authors are wrestling with the juxtaposition of the justice of God and yet the requirement of some kind of punishment.

Even when Jesus used the phrase "where the worm doesn't die and the fire it not quenched," it could be a reference of the severity of the punishment as much as it could be to the duration of it.

I agree that hell is a super-important concept. For there to be some kind of fairness and justice to it, there has to be some kind of retribution principle: people get what they deserve. And evil people need to face some kind of punishment for what they've done. At the same time, going to heaven is not just a matter of being good, and so the rule can't be just that it depends on how good or bad you are. There are other factors at play that have to be considered for the system to be truly fair. (If it just depends on how good or bad we are, then we're all just earning our way to heaven, which just isn't possible in an environment where none of us is perfect. In that case, none of would get there. So then there have to be factors other than "being good" or "doing evil" for some people to even get to heaven.) Justice, as is obvious, isn't just a straight line or an easy solution if one is going to be truly just. The result, then, is far more complex—it has to be to be truly fair.