I’ve decided to start a little series on Biblical literalism, since that seems to be at the heart of much of the disagreement in the church. I’ll admit now that I’m not a literalist. So much of the bible was clearly written to be taken as allegory, hyperbole, metaphor, etc. that I can’t imagine how annoyed the authors would be if they knew their words are being taken literally. On the other hand, I don’t believe in just throwing out passages that I don’t like. It’s quite easy to just ignore something we don’t like, but I think the Word of God is revealed most strongly when we find the Gospel hidden in a difficult passage. One of Luther’s great realizations happened when he did exactly this, his understanding of external righteousness came from studying a passage that he felt he just could not accept.
This brings me to my topic today, Hell. I don’t claim to be a Universalist, but I don’t feel a need to refute Universalism either. If Hell exists, I hope that no one ever goes there. My interpretation of the bible in its context suggests that there is something like hell that Jesus is talking about, my faith doesn’t rest on this idea, so usually I don’t bother with it. If the New Testament is read literally, there is no hell. Let me repeat that to make it extra clear, in a literal reading of the New Testament (in Greek) hell is not mentioned. Think I’m wrong? Well read on:
First of all, I ask the reader to forget everything they think they know about hell for now. Much of western civilization’s imagery about hell comes from extra biblical sources, especially Dante’s inferno. For a sola scriptura literalist, it would be inconsistent to apply non-scriptural descriptions. Popular mythology has so permeated society that I think many sola scriptura folks don’t even realize where their picture of hell comes from.
As far as I’ve been able to find, there are two terms in the New Testament that have been (mis)translated as “hell” in English, Hades and the Hinnom Valley, or hadou and geenna in Greek. If there are others, I would be very interested to find out about them and do additional research. I don’t know Hebrew, so I’m afraid I can’t really speak to the references in the Old Testament, again I would be interested to hear what others have found there.
Let’s tackle “Hades” first. In the Greek worldview, Hades was seen as simply the “land of the dead”. Greek mythology doesn’t really speak in the dualistic terms that many modern Christians use. For the Greek religion, all people, good and bad, went to Hades after death. It’s described as “shadowy” and “misty”. There is no connotation of fire, or of the Devil with a pitchfork, or anything like that. As I understand it (and again I don’t know Hebrew) this roughly correlates to the pre-Christian Jewish concept of “Sheol” which is often translated as “the grave”. Punishment and reward didn’t factor into the Jewish conception of the afterlife. Don’t believe me? Well, David, Solomon, and many other heroes of the Old Testament are described as being in Sheol after death, often with the term “with his ancestors”. Look it up. “Just read the text” as my Old Testament professor would often say. I’ll admit that Hades doesn’t sound too great, but it certainly isn’t a place of eternal torture and punishment.
That interpretation comes from the other term, Hinnom valley. A little background about the Hinnom valley. The Hinnom valley was near Jerusalem, it was the city’s garbage dump. In the valley, there was a constant trash fire burning, and when criminals or foreigners died in the city, their bodies would be burned there. Lake of unquenchable fire? Yep, they threw sulfur (aka brimstone) on the flames to keep them going. Smelly, nasty, not a good place for a weekend trip. Eternal punishment, well, I just don’t see it. It’s just the term that they used when we would say “in the trash”. Jesus uses the term in this way in Mark 9:43:
If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to the Hinnom Valley, to the unquenchable fire.
Again, that sounds pretty nasty, but if you take it literally, I don’t see how you can claim that he’s speaking about hell. No, he’s speaking about throwing something in the trash. Better to throw your hand in the trash than to throw your whole body away. I’m not a literalist, so I take this to mean something like: better to question a belief that leads to hatred than to allow your whole self to be consumed by hatred. But yeah, I guess the literalists are going to have to get out the hacksaw, yuck! (please don’t actually do that, go talk to a psychiatrist and/or a pastor first!) This usage appears several times in the variations of this pericope across the Synoptic gospels. Jesus uses it in each to refer to different body parts, but the message is the same.
I know there are more references, but I think that covers most of it. Comments are welcome, do your research and refute me if you disagree.
#1 by Mike on August 29th, 2009
Quote
I totally agree with you that Hell is not what people have made it out to be; there is no red devil with a pitch fork. However, in the same vein heaven isn’t a cloudy place with chubby angels with harps.
But what do we do with Matt 8:11-12?
11″I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; 12but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
There is a “place”, and some will be cast into that place. There must be a judgment in order for “some” to be cast there. Or is that too much of a stretch? To make sure it’s not, if we look across the amazing gift of scripture we start to see other examples. Jesus speaks in John 3 about “life” and “not having life”, and to he who “will not see life” the “wrath of God abides on him”. A simple understanding of God would lead one to believe that the “wrath of God” is much more than a dump.
One other word of caution, when you decide which verses you will (or will not) take “literally” you are at great risk of making the text say what you want it to. Don’t forget to apply the principle of authorial intent. That is how we should “literally” interpret scripture. We have to ask ourselves, “What did this mean to the people to whom Jesus spoke itâ€? What was their perception of the “Hinnom Valley”, is it the same as ours today? Or is something different? In the context of the time Jesus spoke it do you think the “Hinnom Valley” could have been the worst possible example or illustration of what hell might look like? Was that the lesson? Could it be that Jesus knew that the human mind can’t (or refuses to) fully grasp the concept of hell and that He wanted to describe it using the worst possible example that they knew of?
For example, how do I interpret your blog post above? When you say you don’t believe in “throwing out” passages, do I interpret that like there are some that literally “throw them out” into the trash? No, of course not. You aren’t referring to ripping them out of your bible & throwing them into the trash. I know based on the contemporary understanding that you are referring to not “skipping over them” or “not applying them”.
Keep up your study, the truth is in there.
-Mike
#2 by josh on August 29th, 2009
Quote
Thanks for you comments, I think you’re actually agreeing with the point I was trying to make. Being “purely literalist” isn’t really possible, the bible must be read and understood in the historical context. To quote myself “My interpretation of the bible in its context suggests that there is something like hell that Jesus is talking about, my faith doesn’t rest on this idea, so usually I don’t bother with it.” So yes, I think we see hell much the same way. I’ve just met so many people who’ve been bullied by a church preaching hellfire and brimstone, that I think we need to shift our focus to Love and Grace. In my experience people are usually able to figure out how messed up they are and how they constantly fall short of the glory of God. I’d rather not continue to drive the point home, but instead show them that God will continue to reach out to them and call them into life in the midst of their brokenness.
I don’t know if you consider yourself a literalist, but I appreciate your willingness to say that literalism requires an understanding of context. To me this is key to a whole host of issues in how many Christians read and misread the bible. But is also means that we can’t be too certain of some things. On the issue of homosexuality, for instance, the context of one passage from Paul is really referring to male prostitutes (and possibly boys) does that change how we address the issue today? I’ve heard a lot of people assert that “homosexuality is a sin” and yet I don’t read that when I take Paul literally in context.
Thanks for engaging, I really appreciate respectful open discourse about this kind of thing, especially with people whom I disagree with.
Peace,
Josh
#3 by Rick Lannoye on August 31st, 2009
Quote
You’ve made some very good points.
I’ve actually written an entire book on this topic–”Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There’s No Such Place As Hell,” (for anyone interested, you can get a free Ecopy of my book at my website: http://www.ricklannoye.com), but if I may, allow me to share one more point from my book in support of the general case you make against the traditional Hell.
If one is willing to look, there’s substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: “You don’t know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!” Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it.
So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY!
True, there are a few statements that made their way into the gospels which place Hell on Jesus lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.
#4 by josh on August 31st, 2009
Quote
Thanks for the insight, Rick. I’ll take a look at your E-book when I have a chance. I’m actually not very interested in discussions of Hell. Like I said, it isn’t important to my theology so I don’t bother with it. My usual stance with Hell (or the rapture, or similar things) is “well that doesn’t sound like the Jesus that I know.” Mostly my point in writing this is to cast a harsh light on so called “literalism” and show that it is really based on a certain biased theological perspective. Hell as it’s come to be known in Christianity bears little resemblance to even what the Greek redactors you mention were suggesting. Maybe it exists, but I don’t find it inspirational to talk about and as I see God’s relationship with humanity I find it hard to believe that anyone would be sent there (not to mention Jesus telling Peter that the “gates of hell” would not prevail against him). I think there is a twisted spirituality that’s been spread in Chick tracts and other similar fundamentalist circles that is quite misguided, so I’m glad to know that there are other people doing the research to bring that to light.
Peace,
Josh
#5 by Challaz on September 1st, 2009
Quote
separating sheep and goats? Gnashing of teeth? “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”…and on and on…
Are we reading the same Bible? Fine, no “Hell” as defined by Chick Comics. I agree. But no punishment? No karmic retribution? This seems at odds not only with Christianity but with every other world religious system.
I think if we think this way, we are taking our Christian liberty to an extreme that Paul speaks about very clearly in Romans (“What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!” – Rom 6:13)
You say that you yourself aren’t a Universalist, but it certainly sounds like it. And the more folks I talk to at church (I’m an ELCA member), the more I see the same universalism. It’s disturbing to me. Certain hermeneutics can be terrifying.
But I love you nonetheless
Edmond
#6 by josh on September 1st, 2009
Quote
Just to be clear, I’m actually not trying to disprove hell, I wrote this to get people to question what they think the bible “literally” says because quite often that is based on an extra-biblical source (sadly far too often it’s Chick tracts). In that vein, I’d suggest you do a study of each of the phrases you’re referencing. Do they refer to hell? Why do you assume so? The one from Luke about Jesus bringing a sword never occurred to me as talking about hell, I think he was referring to the division that would occur among the early Christians. I am reading the same bible as you, but we should be careful about confusing what we read with what we assume.
I’m a little troubled that you think hell is central to Christianity. I’ll agree that punishment for behavior is at the center of practically every other religion (except Pure Land Buddhism) but that’s why I’m a Christian and not a follower of some other faith. God’s love is unconditional and it’s a good thing because we “are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves”. I hear a theology from you that claims that only those who avoid sin are saved, is that what you think? That’s not the Gospel that I’ve heard. Here is a shocker, I don’t think Jesus is ever really talking about the afterlife. The “Kingdom of God is in the midst of you”, hmm that doesn’t sound like the heaven I read about in Chick tracts, that’s what got me started questioning their view of Hell too. He does talk about eternal life, but I think way to many Christians forget that eternal life begins now.
I don’t mean to suggest that we should go out and sin because we’ve got a “free pass”, society would be damaged if people took that view (1st use of the Law). And we shouldn’t throw out the law because it’s there to remind us were are sinful and need Jesus (2nd use of the law). As for the 3rd use of the law, which I think is what you’re promoting, sorry, my corner of the ELCA doesn’t ascribe to that (though many in the ELCA do), and I’m quite glad we don’t because it invariably leads back to self justification aka Pride. I would much rather have a world where people were sometimes rotten to each other than one where they were convinced that they didn’t need God and could make themselves righteous. I can forgive a brother in Christ when he harms me with his sin, how can I forgive him if he has decided he doesn’t need Christ and can live without sinning? That is the most damaging sin because it will never lead to repentance. Ultimately, that is the sin that leads to hell, because it rejects God’s Love and Grace. Forget the lake of fire and the guys with pitchforks; living forever without God, that’s hell.
#7 by Challaz on September 2nd, 2009
Quote
I assure you that hell is central to Christianity. God’s wrath is central to Christianity. Our sin isn’t just sin, it’s sin that requires karmic retribution from God. Luckily, we have the atonement (this is central to most Christians although in recent years some heretically deny this aspect of the faith). Christ died on the cross, descended into hell IN PLACE OF me and you. That is central to Christianity. I’m concerned it doesn’t have a place in your theology.
The third use of the law is confessional. It might not be a part of individualized versions of Lutheranism, but it is central to most of the Protestant world.
And I assure you, Pure Land Buddhism does have realms of hell within its cosmology.
It seems you are questioning an after life? Are you?
#8 by josh on September 9th, 2009
Quote
Sorry it’s taken a while to reply. I just got back to Seminary and it’s been a bit busy. It sounds like you’re talking down to me, but I’ll assume you didn’t intend that. A person’s tone is so hard to gauge on the internet
1. Atonement: Substitutionary atonement is what your describing. It is “a” theory, not “the” theory. The ELCA does not have an official theory on the atonement. Frankly I don’t think substitution makes much sense. Who does God owe this debt to? Why? Couldn’t God forgive the debt without Jesus’ death? There are two many loose ends for that to make sense. I believe in the atonement, but I just don’t think it works that way. I’ll write up a whole blog post about my atonement theology sometime in the future to explain it more.
2. 3rd use of the Law: Well, it’s in some of the confessions, I’m taking Lutheran Confessions this Semester so I can probably give you a clearer answer about this then. I think it was in the altered Augsburg confession that Melanchthon wrote to try to make peace with the Calvinists. Anyway, I’m not a confessional literalist. I don’t think 3rd use of the law ever does what it intends, so I don’t think it’s worth bothering with.
3. Pure Land Buddhism: Again, I’m not an expert. I was referring to a specific Buddhist denomination of a friend of mine. As I understand it all that is required for rebirth in the pure land is to say the name of Amita Buddha ten times. It doesn’t seem like there is much room for hellfire and brimstone sermons if that is all that it takes.
4. Afterlife: I am not questioning the afterlife, I don’t know where you got that. I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting. Yes indeed. I just don’t believe that the Kingdom of God is somewhere else (e.g. up in the sky) and I don’t believe that we have to wait until we die to have everlasting life. Logically, if life lasts forever, death is just a transition, not a beginning or an end.