Perhaps the singularly most unpopular topic in the Bible is Hell. We've always understood it to be "eternal torment." It is so disturbing that not a few have tried to mitigate it. "No one goes to Hell. Haven't you read that everyone is saved?" "It's not eternal torment. It's annihilation." "I don't know what it is, but I know it's not that." So where does this idea of "eternal torment" come from?
Oddly enough, I suppose, the one who spoke most about this concept was the one so often equated with love and grace. Jesus spoke more about Hell than anyone else in the Bible. In Mark 9 He spoke about "unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43). He said, "And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'" (Mark 9:47-48). That last phrase was taken from Isaiah 66:24. These speak of torments, and they speak of them in "unquenchable," unending ways. He describes it as fire (Matt 5:22; 25:46). He speaks of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt 13:42; 22:13; 24:51). He described the torment in the story (the text doesn't list it as a parable) of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31). Unquenchable fire, the worm does not die, gnashing of teeth, "outer darkness" (Matt 25:30), "Gehenna" (Matt 10:28). (Gehenna was a place outside Jerusalem that was used for burning children as sacrifice at one point and, if I'm not mistaken, was used to burn dead bodies in a war at another point.) Jesus had no problem discussing the horrors of Hell.
And not just Jesus. You'll find it in other places as well. Paul wrote of "those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thess 1:8) that they would "suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His might" (2 Thess 1:9). Think about that. "Eternal destruction." If it was annihilation, "eternal" is a pointless adjective. Annihilation is defined as permanent. This isn't that. This is "destruction," an ongoing process. It is continuous ruination ... for eternity. But Paul doesn't leave it blank at that point. He explains in what sense. They are away from God's presence. That's not a geographical description. If it is true that all things consist in Christ (Col 1:17), then if God was not there, they would cease to exist. No, this is about perception. We get glimpses of God in life. We see Him in creation, in certain events, in momentary revelation. They won't. They will have no more sense of God. No hope. No joy. No purpose. Worse, they will be away from His glory. God is all about His glory and we are all about bringing Him glory. Without it, we are pointless.
Biblically, the place we refer to as "Hell" is a real place in which many will find their eternal home. No one will be there unjustly. It is a place of ultimate justice. Heaven, on the other hand, is a place of unmerited favor and mercy in the place of justice. Given the horrors of Hell, I would think we'd want to be diligent to urge people to avoid it. Especially since we have the solution.
6 comments:
I've always found it interesting that so many have no problem with us deserving eternity in the presence of YHWH or however they visualize heaven, yet rebel at the notion of eternal punishment. It seems that if one is eternal, then the other should be as well. The question I have for those folks is, "What length of time being punished is adequate?".
Just a point of quibble, but apparently the story of Gehenna being a trash heap outside the city has been debunked. Jesus wasn't saying Hell is like that trash heap. Apparently that heap wasn't there in His time. I would guess the name reference in that case would be reversed, the trash pile was named Gehenna because of what Christ described.
Gehenna in the Valley of Hinnom was the location where they sacrifice children in the fire (Jer 7:31) which God through Jeremiah cursed (Jer 19:1-6). Gehenna was identified in Jewish literature as the place of divine punishment (as opposed to Sheol, which was simply the place of the dead). "Gehenna" is simply, in the original "the Valley of Hinnom" or "Gē Hīnnōm." So, apparently, the "fires of Gehenna" are not a product of trash burning, but of burning children. The "trash dump" theory (like the rope around the priest's ankle idea) has been debunked, but not the fires of Gehenna and the curse of God associated with it. Certainly I never considered that Jesus was referring to a geographical location on earth (let alone near Jerusalem) when He used the term. I always thought He was using a term that meant something to the people of His day that would draw a picture in their minds about the reality to which He was referring -- a place of eternal destruction.
Living my earthly life without God would be dreadful enough, but to exist forever with no hope, joy, purpose, or sense of God would be horrific beyond belief. Praise God for His mercy and graciousness to rescue us from a well-deserved fate! I appreciate this reminder to be diligent to share the Good News with others, which I have heard described as “one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.” May God use me today to help lead others to find the Bread of Life (John 6:35).
Ah, I assumed you were still under the impression of Gehenna referencing the trash dump outside Jerusalem because you referenced the trash dump outside Jerusalem.
See if this works better. There IS no reference to a trash dump. Feel better? What I was trying to point out in that last comment was a different issue. I understand that some people think that Jesus was referencing the place (Gehenna) as the literal location of Hell. I see no reason to think that. The place (Gehenna) did exist as a place where children (during a time of child sacrifice) (and, I believe, dead bodies during a time of war) were burned. He was using the term to draw an image in their minds of a really bad place.
Post a Comment