EXAMINING THE BIBLICAL PORTRAYAL OF HELL
IN RELATION TO PEACE AND JUSTICE
Paper #3
Eastern Mennonite University
December 4, 2012
Paper #3 2
Introduction
The concept of an afterlife seems to be one that is historically engrained in the
collective unconscious of human memory. For thousands of years, a representation of the
afterlife has been present in various cultures. Determining the destination of a soul after
death usually depends on the moral quality of an individual’s life on earth or on their
dedication to the gods. For the morally upright and devoted, depictions of paradise have
fueled their righteous living, and the alternative destination of a punishing place for
wrongdoers was only introduced later in human history. Although presented under
different names, the most common representation of a postmortem place of punishment
for wrongdoers is hell.
Presently, the concept of eternal punishment is strong in Christian rhetoric.
According to Baker (2010), while almost 60% of Americans believe in hell, a staggering
92% of church attenders believe in hell (p. xi). I will address where this concept of hell
came from later, but suffice it to say that the doctrine of hell as a place of eternal
punishment is pervasive in Christian theology. Nothing portrays this better than Mary
Baxter’s statement in her national best selling book A Divine Revelation of Hell, where
she claims that “if you are a sinner when you die, you go immediately to a burning hell.
Demons with great chains will draw your soul through the gateways of hell, where you
will be thrown into pits and tormented” (Klassen, 2001, p. 28). I am deeply
uncomfortable with the acceptance of hell in Christian thought, and I wonder about the
need of Christians to justify the sacrificial call of Christ on their lives by deeming
themselves fit for eternal paradise while condemning unbelievers to eternal punishment.
Paper #3 3
I find many problems with the theology of hell because it creates cognitive
dissonance with the image of God I receive from the Bible. The traditional doctrine of
eternal punishment through hell appears inconsistent with a loving God for multiple
reasons that are well articulated in Sharon Baker’s book Razing Hell: Rethinking
Everything You’ve Been Taught about God’s Wrath and Judgment (2010). First, eternal
punishment in hell destroys any hope in redemption and change of evil, and evil is forced
to exist forever, albeit in torment, rather than allowing God’s transforming power to heal
the world (p. 14). Second, coupling a doctrine of eternal punishment with a loving God
results in splitting God into a bipolar entity who is loving and merciful while also
wrathful and just (p. 15). Although I recognize my utter weakness and incomprehension
in the scope of God’s power, I cannot acknowledge such a bipolar God when such
acknowledgement would undermine the fundamental love God holds for creation.
Finally, and most pressingly, the idea of a creator God who gives humans one lifetime, a
blip on the scale of time, to get things right and follow God obediently while also
assuming knowledge of Christ in every population on the globe is utterly incoherent (p.
17). Does God really throw people into eternal torment after a lifetime of temporal sin,
committed in the “fleeting boundaries of a human lifetime? (p. 18).
This paper covers my wrestling with the traditional conception of hell as eternal
punishment. I will examine the historical rise of the Christian doctrine of hell while also
inspecting the different words translated as “hell” in the Bible. Subsequently, I will
review Scriptures’ use of “hell”, particularly in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.
Finally, I will reexamine my theology of hell based on the biblical theme of salvation and
reconciliation, and I will apply the biblical conception of hell to a theology of peace and
Paper #3 4
justice. Prior to the task, I recognize my inherently limited understanding of God’s works,
but I also see how damaging the doctrine of hell is to Christians, as it often leads to
condemnation and judgment on earth that should not belong to humans. This examination
of the biblical conception of hell is necessary because I cannot reconcile the loving God I
find in the Bible with the traditional doctrine of hell as eternal punishment. Although God
is undoubtedly the ultimate judge, the biblical concept of hell as eternal punishment has
been essentially misinterpreted.
The Origin of Hell
The traditional view of hell as a place of burning, eternal punishment did not exist
prominently in Hebraic thought until the intertestamental period (Baker, 2010, p. 5). The
Old Testament refers to “Sheol” as the name of the underworld, but this name carries
almost no connotation with eternal punishment (Johnston, 2009, p. 227). Instead, Greek
and Persian influences in the intertestamental period most likely led to the development
of a place of fiery punishment (Baker, 2010, p. 5).
Following the writings of the New Testament, the traditional view of hell took
hold in the thought of some early Christians. In 160 A.D., according to Baker (2010),
Justin Martyr believed people in hell would be punished in eternal fire based on their
earthly deeds (p. 6). In agreement with this, Irenaeus thought Scripture clearly indicated
that sinners would burn in eternal fire. These ideas indoctrinated the Church, and in 1741
Jonathan Edwards famously wrote “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” and depicted
God to be wrathfully torturing sinners in a fiery hell. John Wesley, who persistently
proclaimed the love of God, shared a graphic view of hell in his Sermon 15, where “the
wicked will gnaw their tongues for anguish and pain” that provides “no possibility of
Paper #3 5
their fainting away” (Baker, 2010, p. 7). Hell as eternal, fiery punishment entered
Christian thought as a result of Greece and Persian pagan influence and remains
embedded in Christian thought.
“Hell” Translated
The English word “hell” in most Bibles originated from translations of the words
“Sheol”, “Hades”, and “Gehenna”. In the Old Testament, Sheol is most prominent, while
the New Testament contains translations of hell from Hades and Gehenna. Examining
each original word for hell provides a better understanding of the biblical writers’ initial
intentions for the concept of hell.
According to Johnston (2009), the Old Testament references Sheol sixty-six times
(p. 227). Sheol refers to the underworld where the dead dwell together, not a as a place
that divides the good from the evil (Baker, 2010, p. 128). Klassen (2001) points to thirtyone uses of the word “Sheol” translated to hell in the King James’ Version, with the
remaining references to Sheol used to mean “grave” or “pit” (p. 37). Interestingly,
Hebrew Scriptures reference Sheol much less frequently than other ancient
Mesopotamian traditions, but their references contain similar connotations to Sheol as the
place for the dead (Johnston, 2009, p. 227).
The references to Sheol translated to “hell” make no reference to Sheol being a
place for eternal torment by God. The theme of judgment is strong, but not the traditional
view of hell as fiery torture (Klassen, 2001, p. 40). Klassen (2001) references various Old
Testament uses of “Sheol”, most notably for three uses. First, Sheol is in passages like
Job 11:8 and 26:6, when Sheol is used to glorify the magnitude of God (p. 38). Second,
Sheol expresses escapism from God in Amos 9:2 and Jonah 2:2. Finally, Sheol acts as
Paper #3 6
allegory to Babylon and Egypt (Isa. 5:14, 14:9-11; Ezk. 31) beyond the usual references
to Sheol simply as the underworld of the dead (p. 39). Because the Old Testament
references to hell are translated exclusively from Sheol, a doctrine of hell as eternal
punishment cannot be obtained from the Old Testament (Baker, 2010, p. 128).
The New Testament acquires “hell” from two sources; “Hades” and “Gehenna”.
The original concept of Hades in Greek thought pertained to the underworld as a sad
place, not a place of punishment. However, Homer introduced the notion of some people
being punished in Hades, and hell as eternal punishment eventually seeped into Jewish
culture in the intertestamental period. The Hebrew idea of Sheol relates to the Greek idea
of Hades, which could explain the New Testament’s ten references to Hades (Bauckham,
1992, p. 14). The idea of Hades as a place of eternal punishment for the wicked before
the last judgment arises in Jewish literature in the New Testament period, but Hades
generally is translated to describe the residence of the dead before resurrection
(Bauckham, 1992, p. 15).
Gehenna is most often translated “hell” in the New Testament as a part of Jesus’
teachings that reference postmortem punishment. The Greek word geenna comes from
the Hebrew ge hinnom meaning “Valley of Hinnom” (Johnston, 2007, p. 531). The
Valley of Hinnom was the ravine outside of Jerusalem where Israel worshiped idols and
offered child sacrifices to pagan gods during Ahaz’s reign in 2 Chronicles 28:3 and
Manasseh’s reign in 2 Chronicles 33:6 (Klassen, 2001, p. 46). Additionally, the Hinnom
Valley was used as a trash site to burn refuse, causing flies and maggots to spawn there
(Baker, 2010, p. 131). How the valley came to represent the place of eternal punishment
Paper #3 7
is unclear, but the linkage of the valley to abominable sacrifices and disobedience to God
makes the association understandable (Johnston, 2007, p. 531).
The belief in punishment of the wicked by fire developed in the intertestamental
period of Jewish literature, which led to the transition from death as an underworld
named Sheol or Hades, to the New Testament association of Gehenna as the symbolic
place of eternal torment for the unrighteous (Johnston, 2007, p. 531). Although Baker
(2010) realizes that Gehenna has something to say in its symbolism of the consequences
of departing from God, she states that most passages with hell translated from Gehenna
are in figurative form (p. 131). Klassen (2001) believes that Jesus uses extreme hyperbole
to catch his listeners’ attention, but to think that his listeners’ would have associated
references to the Valley of Hinnom with a literal fiery hell seems unlikely (p. 47).
There is almost no mention of Hades or Gehenna in the epistles, because Gentile
converts would have struggled to understand the idea of punishment outside of their
pagan ideas (Klassen, 2001, p. 56). However, the epistles reference “eternal punishment”
numerous times, leading contemporary Christians to understand this as a reference to
hell. Baker (2010) takes issue with our translation of “eternal” from the Greek word aion
or the Hebrew word olam. These words typically reference a period of time or an age, not
eternity as we think of it. Translating aion or olam to suggest infinity provides a gravely
misleading concept of divine punishment (p. 136). Examples of reference to a period of
time rather than eternity can be found in Jonah 2:6 when Jonah cries “the earth with its
bars was around me ‘forever’”, and in Philemon 15-16, when Paul tells Philemon that his
slave will be back with him “forever”. In Jonah 2:6, the word “forever” is olam, which
cannot reference eternity since Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days. In
Paper #3 8
Philemon 15-16, the translation of aion to “forever” seems misleading, since Philemon
and his slave obviously cannot be together forever in a finite life (p. 137).
In summary, the Old Testament references hell as translated from Sheol, meaning
the region of all the dead. The New Testament refers to hell as translated either from
Hades, which has a similar meaning to Sheol, or Gehenna, which was a condemned,
stinky valley of burning trash. Hell references judgment especially in the New Testament,
but as will be elaborated later, it is almost always used metaphorically rather than literally
to suggest eternal torment (Klassen, 2001, p. 54). Furthermore, the use of the word
“eternal” does not mean time without end, as commonly thought in the context of eternal
punishment. Rather, Klassen (2001) suggests that eternal more accurately describes the
time necessary until God’s purpose is fulfilled (p. 54). Judgment is clearly insinuated in
the biblical concept of hell, but our conception as eternal torment based on references to a
historical place of burning garbage is worth reconsideration.
Hell in the New Testament
Because references to hell in the Old Testament refer primarily to the underworld
(Sheol), I will focus on the depiction of hell in the New Testament.
Mark 9:42-48
In Mark’s account, Jesus follows his message that “whoever is not against us is
for us” (9:40) with this warning against causing “little ones”, new believers in Jesus, from
stumbling (Williamson, 1983, p. 171). In Williamson’s (1983) commentary on this
passage, he describes the language Jesus uses as “figurative, hyperbolic, vivid, and harsh”
(p. 171). The prevention of early believers from acting in Jesus’ name is a serious offense
that is cautioned against extremely (Wessel, 1984, 707). It is better to lose a part of the
Paper #3 9
body than to turn people away from Jesus, and when Jesus deems that it is better to be
maimed than to go into Gehenna whole, he is using striking metaphors to emphasize his
point (Perkins, 1995, p. 640). Verse 48 demonstrates Jesus’ use of cultural
understandings to emphasize the severity of punishment for this sin, portraying hell as the
place where the “worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” Fire and worms were
regular ways of describing punishment for the wicked, and Jesus’ use of such vivid
imagery would no doubt make his listeners understand his message clearly (Perkins,
1995, p. 640).
Williamson (1983) notes that verses 44 and 46 are correctly omitted in modern
versions because they repeat verse 48 not so much for the sake of accuracy in translation
as the fascination ancient copyists had with the idea of hell’s worms and fire (p. 172).
Saturated in pagan ideas of hell as torment, how did this influence the copyists’ writing of
the text? Williamson goes on to point out that the command to cut off parts of the body
that cause sin should not be taken literally, but seriously (p. 172). Perkins (1995) agrees,
and states that Jesus’ audience would recognize his language as metaphoric, not literal (p.
641). This passage is saturated inundated with hyperbolic and metaphoric language, and
this should call literal interpretations of hell in this context into question.
Matthew 5:21-30
Following the Beatitudes earlier in the chapter, this section marks the core of the
six antitheses from Matthew 5:21-48. In this set of verses, Jesus calls his listeners to
examine what Scriptures really say about how we should live (Hare, 1993, p. 51). Jesus is
pointing people to a true understanding of the Law and away from their
misunderstandings in a process that fulfills the Law and the Prophets rather than
Paper #3 10
abolishing them (Carson, 1984, p. 148). Gehenna is referenced as the place where people
will go if they call their brother “fool” (v. 22), and again in a way reminiscent to Mark
9:42-50 as Jesus calls for us to take care of our sin seriously instead of being thrown into
Gehenna (v. 29).
Focusing on v. 21-26, the hyperbolic teachings of Jesus are evident once again.
Matt. 5:22-23 expounds on the command forbidding murder by forbidding abusive
language of others (Hare, 1993, p. 51). Carson (1984) notes that there is no discernable
difference between an angry person, insulting someone by calling them a fool, and
calling someone ‘Raca’ (p. 148). If there is no great distinction between the terms, it
appears that rather than suggesting that calling someone ‘Raca’ deserves the fires of
Gehenna, he is warning us of the dangers of anger in all forms (Klassen, 2001, p. 51).
Certainly, Jesus himself would have been liable to the fires of Gehenna himself if he took
his advice seriously; in Matt. 23:17, he calls the Pharisees fools in his anger! Clearly,
Jesus is using hell as a metaphor to grab his listeners’ attention and show the severity of
our abuse of one another rather than suggesting that hell is literal punishment for calling
someone a fool (Boring, 1995, p. 190).
Verses 23-24 further emphasize the hyperbolic teaching of Jesus in his command
to leave gifts at the altar if a sin against a brother is recognized. Leaving a gift at the altar
in a busy Temple area would be impossible, but Jesus uses this example to accentuate the
need to repair injuries we cause to our neighbors immediately and earnestly (Hare, 1993,
p. 52). While we are shown that anger and brokenness fall outside of God’s kingdom (v.
21-22), Matt. 23-26 shows that Christians must fix the inevitable broken relationships
when they occur (Boring, 1995, p. 196). In this passage, hell is used to urge reconciliation
Paper #3 11
to those we wrong rather than suggesting that our wrongs lead to eternal punishment
(Klassen, 2001, p. 51).
Matthew 23
This passage contains Jesus’ rant about the Pharisees, in which he twice suggests
that they are men of hell (v. 15) or destined for hell (v. 33). To understand these
references, we must understand that Jesus is not condemning the Pharisees themselves so
much as their efforts to convert others to their way of false interpretation of scripture
(Carson, 1984, p. 479). As Carson (1984) notes, the Pharisees’ converts picked up the
false interpretations of scripture they were taught and would perpetuate the
misunderstanding of scripture in ways detrimental to the kingdom of God (p. 479).
Jesus is undermining the Pharisaic tendency to promote false teachings rather than
their attitudes themselves. Matthew uses the word ‘hypocrite’ to describe the Pharisee’s
practices to be in tension with the Law. He is not suggesting that they pretend to be
religious but have no faith (Hare, 1993, p. 268). Jesus’ admonition of the Pharisees is
dramatic and provocative (v. 17), demonstrating Matthew’s love of such language over
logical consistency in his narrative (Carson, 1984, p. 457). Hell is once again used as a
way of grabbing the attention of his listeners, and literal condemnation to eternal
punishment cannot be drawn from the use of hell in Matthew 23.
Matthew 8:5-13
Jesus points to the faith of the Centurion, a Gentile who believes Jesus can heal
his servant, as being greater than the faith of some in Israel (Hare, 1993, p. 90). More
than anything, this story portrays a role reversal; those who think they are destined as
God’s children are thrown out (v. 12) and only those of faith in Jesus are welcomed
Paper #3 12
(Carson, 1984, p. 202). This passage is especially noteworthy because Matthew’s
narrative here turns the traditional images of Jewish eschatology, such as the weeping and
gnashing of teeth, and a banquet table with patriarchs, against the Jews who demonstrate
no faith in Jesus (Boring, 1995, p. 226). As Carson (1984) puts it, this story is designed to
shock the audience once again, turning around their ideas of entitlement and inheritance.
The casting out of Jews who do not have faith in Jesus is not suggested to be permanent,
but awakening and astonishing (p. 203).
Luke 16:19-31
One of Luke’s most notable references to hell lies in this passage. Translated from
the Greek Hades, hell is depicted as a place of torment and fire (v. 23-24). In this parable,
the rich man dies and goes to Hades while the poor beggar Lazarus is take up by angels to
Abraham’s side. It is unclear whether Lazarus and the rich man are both in Hades, or if
the rich man suffers in Hades while Lazarus, at Abraham’s side, is in a separate location
(Culpepper, 1995, p. 317). However, the picture of Hades as the rich man experiences it
clearly contrasts Lazarus’ place of blessing, and this placement is final due to the chasm
between them (Liefeld, 1984, p. 992). Culpepper (1995) suggests that this chasm is fixed
between them because the rich man did not help Lazarus while he suffered on earth (p.
318). This depiction of the rich man being punished directly conflicts with the Pharisaic
Deuteronomic theology, in which the understanding is that those who obey God are
blessed with riches (Craddock, 1990, p. 192). By telling the parable of a rich man
separated from God, Jesus contradicts the Pharisees’ teachings on prosperity and
blessings.
Paper #3 13
This parable must be understood in the context of Jesus’ message that the poor
must be cared for by those who are able, and greater emphasis currently placed on this
passage to provide a representation of hell is misguided (Liefeld, 1984, p. 991). In this
parable, as in the previous passages referencing hell, Jesus utilizes hyperbolic language to
convey his point. First, the request of the rich man in verse 24 for Lazarus to “dip the tip
of his finger in water” and quench the rich man’s thirst is ridiculous; this action would do
little to help the rich man (Culpepper, 1995, p. 317). Second, the conversation between
the rich man and Abraham across the “great chasm” (v. 26) seems impossible if the rich
man is being tormented and Lazarus and Abraham are in a completely different place of
comfort (Culpepper, 1995, p. 317). This conversation doesn’t make sense in verses 27-31
either, when the rich man asks for a message to be sent to his brothers so they can avoid
the torment he is experiencing. The traditional view of hell denies the presence of love in
hell, but the rich man’s concern for his brothers is an expression of care and love from his
own depicted torment in hell. With such contradiction, how can this statement of care
from the rich man lend itself to literal interpretation by those who assume the traditional
view of hell? Here, the contemporary notion of hell is inconsistent with Jesus’ hyperbolic
portrayal of hell (Klassen, 2001, p. 49).
Revelation 20:11-15
The traditional understanding of hell as eternal torment often borrows from the
reference to a lake of fire found in Revelation 20:11-15. However, this use of the passage
begs further inquiry. As in all studies of Revelation, understanding Revelation as
historically symbolic is crucially important. That said, John never gives a consistent, fluid
picture in his visions; they tend to be incoherent sets that do not necessarily mesh
Paper #3 14
together (Boring, 1989, p. 211). The picture here may be taken as an eschatological
victory of God, but it cannot be taken as a comprehensive picture of the Day of Judgment
(Boring, 1989, p. 210). Rowland (1998) suggests that instead of taking Revelation to be
such an exclusive, judgmental text, greater benefits can be gained by acknowledging how
Revelation challenges complacency, specifically in our “assumptions about priorities,
inclusiveness, and values (p. 717). That said, this passage certainly points to a Day of
Judgment, but perhaps in a different sense than traditionally understood.
Although it is unclear whether those who stand before the throne are believers
from the first resurrection earlier in Revelation or from a second resurrection of the
wicked, God’s absolute power is acknowledged in verse 11 by the great white throne
(Johnson, 1981, p. 589). In verse 13-15, death and Hades are thrown into a lake of fire,
followed by anyone whose name is not written in the book of life. Although this suggests
judgment, interpreting this passage is difficult. For one, the idea of the lake of fire being a
place of torment is vague, because throwing death and the underworld (Hades) into a
second death involving torment is hard to comprehend (Boring, 1989, p. 213).
Furthermore, with so much symbolism around fire as God’s method of purifying people
in judgment, some interpretations of the lake of fire suggest that this scene depicts the
purification of sinners rather than their banishment to eternal torment (Baker, 2010, p.
143). Christians must be careful to use the imagery of a lake of fire as a hell of eternal
torment, because this passage indicates no such thing.
The Doctrine of Hell vs. Healing and Reconciliation
The traditional conception of hell as eternal punishment is a misunderstood
interpretation of the Bible. Because of the mistranslated and literalized use of ‘Sheol’,
Paper #3 15
‘Hades’, and ‘Gehenna’ coupled with the adoption of pagan ideas of hell as eternal, fiery
punishment, hell has been overdramatized and overemphasized. Delving into the
passages above provides an idea of how God’s judgment and Jesus’ message have been
misrepresented in traditional theology. I reject the interpretation of God’s judgment as a
fiery, everlasting punishment because I perceive a greater message present throughout the
Bible of a God who is loving, full of grace, and merciful.
The Bible is saturated with passages containing the interpretation of God’s love.
Through Jesus, this love is evident in passages narrating Jesus’ ability to bring together
people of diverse backgrounds (Matt. 10:2-4) and his association with people of all social
statuses (John 9). Jesus associates with Samaritan women (John 4:1-26), tax collectors
and sinners (Mark 2:13-17), and occupying, Gentile forces (Luke 7:1-10), in ways that
not only provide me with a normative model of how I should live, but also demonstrates
the love and inclusion of God and God’s creation. Among the controversial passages of
Jesus relating God’s judgment are stories that convey a much greater, more prominent
theme of God’s love.
Paul also conveys a remarkable message of God’s desire to be in relationship with
the whole world. 2 Corinthians 5:19 possesses a beautiful message, that “God was
reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.” The
message is not one of vengeance for the sins of the world, but of reconciliation and
restoration of relationship between the sinful world and God (Baker, 2010, p. 91). Paul
further communicates God’s desire for all to be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4 (Baker, 2010, p.
67). Finally, Romans 5:18 communicates Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ sacrifice on the
cross as an action that “brings life for all men.” Throughout Paul’s letters a theme of
Paper #3 16
God’s healing of the world through Jesus is pervasive and contrary to the traditional
understanding of hell as the natural response of God to a sinful world.
“The Moral Test”
The traditional doctrine of a fiery, eternal hell in which God tortures sinners,
besides missing the way the concept of hell is contextualized in the Bible, simply does
not line up with the biblical themes of peace, justice, and love. Undoubtedly, the most
violent depiction of hell as Gehenna should cause Christians to stop and ponder the
significance of Jesus’ teachings when he references hell as an alternative to living as the
Law commands (Baker, 2010, p. 131). God has the power to judge our actions after we
die, but as Clark Pinnock stated, “any doctrine of hell needs to pass the moral test”
(Klassen, 2001, p. 71). Any conception of God’s judgment as eternal torment contradicts
the overall message of grace, mercy, and love, and we must reform our literalistic
interpretation of scriptural references to hell (Klassen, 2001, p. 71).
Undoubtedly, how we view salvation and God’s judgment determines how we
spread Jesus’ message and live our lives as a witness to God’s affect on our lives. If our
God is wrathful, retributive, and violent, then our embodiment of violent acts for a
greater good can be justified (Baker, 2010, p. 37). However, through Jesus’ example, we
are called to live differently. In Luke 4:16-21, Jesus reads Isaiah 61:1-2, the paramount
prophesy of a coming Messiah who will work for social justice because he is anointed to
“preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and
recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s
favor” (Luke 4:18-19). Jesus stops quoting Isaiah there, but he doesn’t finish the
remainder of Isa. 61:2, which includes the sending of the Messiah to proclaim “…and the
Paper #3 17
day of vengeance of our God.” Why would Jesus stop his reading in the synagogue midverse? Baker (2010) suggests that Jesus stops quoting Isaiah because the focus of his
ministry is not on proclaiming vengeance, but on providing redemption through righting
injustice (p. 59). Jesus shows us that we must prioritize working for social justice over
proclaiming the vengeance of God that we cannot fully comprehend anyways in our
present age.
Our concept of hell is vitally important to how we live out our faith. If we
prioritize a doctrine of condemnation over a message of love through social justice, we
dishonor Jesus’ primary message. If, as some believers in the traditional view of hell
would suggest, fiery punishment is viewed as an act of God’s loving judgment, the
message of God’s love personified by Jesus Christ is diluted beyond recognition. A
doctrine of condemnation, even if assumed to be an embodiment of God’s love, does not
resonate with the life and teaching of Jesus. Rather than emphasizing our limited and
misunderstood notions of the form of God’s judgment, it is time to concentrate on the
central message of God’s love and healing of all people. As John Stott wrote, “The
hallmark of an authentic evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions
but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh scrutiny and, if
necessary, reform” (Klassen, 2001, p. 71). The time has come to scrutinize our traditional
conception of hell as eternal punishment, and to recognize the overwhelming power of
God’s desire for God’s people to work for justice and shalom in the world.
Paper #3 18
References
Baker, Sharon L. (2010). Razing hell: Rethinking everything you’ve been taught about
god’s wrath and judgment. Louisville, KY: John Knox.
Bauckham, Richard. (1992). "Hades." (p. 14-15) Vol. 3 The anchor bible dictionary.
Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Boring, Eugene M. (1989). Revelation. In James L. Mays (Series Ed.), Interpretation: A
bible commentary for teaching and preaching. Louisville, KY: John Knox.
Boring, Eugene M. (1995). Matthew. In Leander E. Keck (Ed.), The new interpreter’s
bible: Vol. 8. new testament articles, matthew, and mark (pp. 87-505). Nashville,
TN: Abingdon.
Carson, D.A. (1984). Matthew. In F. E. Gæbelein (Ed.), The expositor’s bible
commentary: With the new international version: Vol. 8. matthew, mark, and
luke (pp. 3-599). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Craddock, Fred B. (1990). Luke. In James L. Mays (Series Ed.), Interpretation: A
bible commentary for teaching and preaching. Louisville, KY: John Knox.
Culpepper, Alan R. (1995). Luke. In Leander E. Keck (Ed.), The new interpreter’s bible:
Vol. 9. luke and john (pp. 1-490). Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
Hare, Douglas R. A. (1993). Matthew. In James L. Mays (Series Ed.), Interpretation: A
bible commentary for teaching and preaching. Louisville, KY: John Knox.
Holy bible: New international version. (1984). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Johnson, Alan F. (1981). Revelation. In F. E. Gæbelein (Ed.), The expositor’s bible
commentary: With the new international version: Vol. 12. hebrews, james, 1 &
2 peter, 1, 2, & 3 john, jude, and revelation (pp. 399-603). Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan
Johnston, Philip S. (2007). "Gehenna." (p. 531) Vol. 2 The new interpreter’s
dictionary of the bible. Edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. 5 vols. Nashville,
TN: Abingdon.
Johnston, Philip S. (2009). "Sheol." (p. 227) Vol. 5 The new interpreter’s
dictionary of the bible. Edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. 5 vols. Nashville,
TN: Abingdon.
Klassen, Randolph J. (2001). What does the bible really say about hell? : Wrestling with
the traditional view. Telford, PA: Pandora.
Paper #3 19
Liefeld, Walter L. (1984). Luke. In F. E. Gæbelein (Ed.), The expositor’s bible
commentary: With the new international version: Vol. 8. matthew, mark, and
luke (pp. 797-1059). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Perkins, Pheme. (1995). Mark. In Leander E. Keck (Ed.), The new interpreter’s bible:
Vol. 8. new testament articles, matthew, and mark (pp. 507-733). Nashville, TN:
Abingdon.
Rowland, Christopher C. (1998). Revelation. In Leander E. Keck (Ed.), The new
interpreter’s bible: Vol. 12. hebrews, james, 1 & 2 peter, 1, 2, & 3 john, jude,
and revelation (pp. 501-736). Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
Wessel, Walter W. (1984). Mark. In F. E. Gæbelein (Ed.), The expositor’s bible
commentary: With the new international version: Vol. 8. matthew, mark, and
luke (pp. 603-793). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Williamson, Lamar. (1983). Mark. In James L. Mays (Series Ed.), Interpretation: A
bible commentary for teaching and preaching. Atlanta, GA: John Knox.