Rob Bell, Universalism and Hell

There's been quite a lot of controversy lately about Rob Bell's new book, which is probably a very well-done marketing campaign to make sure it sells lots of copies, which it will.

Rob Bell's past work (e.g. Nooma) is generally really really good at connecting with modern culture, especially the end of it that likes computers with fruit logos on. But he often leaves himself open to the accusation that he is so connected to modern culture that he has at some points lost connection with the Bible.

His new book is called "Love Wins", and sounds like it will be about the non-existence of Hell. Some condemn it outright on the grounds that it looks like it's teaching universalism - that everyone will be saved in the end. And others condemn those people on the grounds that it's a bad idea to attack someone on the basis of a book that isn't even out yet.

Anyway, I thought that Richaard Taylor got the balance about right on his blog. He explains why universalism doesn't work as an idea, then leaves it up to the reader to decide whether or not Rob Bell is teaching it.

Here are a few quick reasons why I don't think universalism works.

1. It downplays the seriousness of sin

In modern western culture, we tend to forget how much of a big deal sin is. Sin is us rejecting the God who made us. Sin is saying that we think we are better off away from the source of all life and love. Sin is ultimately attempted deicide - us trying to kill God - and part of the shock of the cross is that we managed it. Except that death couldn't hold him.

We tend to think that God treats sin like a benevolent old grandfather would, welcoming us in and gently ticking us off for occasional bits of naughtiness while actually indulging us. But sin is far more serious than that. Sin is trying to kill the rightful and loving ruler of the universe and put ourselves in his place. Sin is cosmic treason. God cannot and should not just shrug it off and say that it is all ok.

2. It downplays the dignity of human responsibility

Some people clearly reject God. They clearly say that they do not want God to be Lord of their lives - they want to run the show themselves. And in some cases, over time, those people come to change their minds. But what if they don't? What if they hard-heartedly persist in their rejection of God? Is he going to over-ride them completely, and drag them kicking and screaming somewhere where they do not want to go? Or is he going to let them choose to reject him?

3. It misunderstands the nature of heaven

Jesus said to God "this is eternal life - to know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3). The essence of eternal life is to know God, and to be in relationship with him. Heaven is not some beautiful existence with God as an incidental feature - it is seeing God face to face and knowing him fully in perfect communion with him. Everything else is secondary.

So what would it mean for those who persistently rejected God to be in heaven? Some people argue that heaven and hell are actually the same, and are experienced differently by different people only because of their attitude to God. And I'm not persuaded by that argument, but there's certainly something in it.

Imagine that you'd been bullying a kid in the playground, and then his dad becomes headmaster or Prime Minister. You'd feel pretty stupid, and scared. Now imagine that the God you had been persistently trying to dethrone as king of the universe, surpress, ignore and even kill - suppose that that God turns out to be the ultimate reality of the universe. How is that meant to be good news for you?

Hell - Getting a Balance

Overview of my stuff about Hell.

Last time I wrote about Hell, I showed that one of the extended pictures the Bible uses for Hell is eternal conscious torment. But it's important that we don't leave it at that - that we teach the "full counsel of Scripture". Because there's another important picture...

"As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares the LORD, "so will your name and descendants endure. From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all people will come and bow down before me," says the LORD. "And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to the whole human race."
Isaiah 66:22-24, TNIV

We get the same picture repeated in Revelation 22:1-6 and 14-15. Inside the city is the tree of life and those who have been forgiven - who have "washed their robes" (v14). Outside are those who have not been forgiven, excluded from the tree of life and hence from eternal life.

This is the same picture as we get from thinking about the Bible's teaching on resurrection. It teaches both that everyone will be raised from the dead (Daniel 12:1-2) and that resurrection for the believer is participation in Christ's resurrection, who rose with a greater body than he had before, never to die again (1 Corinthians 15). So what does that mean for the unbeliever?

Because the Bible gives two different pictures, it is clear that at least one of them is metaphorical (incidentally, they broadly correspond to eternal conscious torment and to annihilationism). So we can see something useful if we compare the two pictures and see what is common to both.

In both, there is continued existence for the unsaved. In one case, as suffering prisoners; in the other as corpses. That is why the argument that the Lake of Fire is described as the "second death" doesn't imply annihilation - death isn't annihilation; it is the conversion of a living body into a dead body. It therefore seems only fair to say that the final state of the unsaved will be that they still exist, but only as the ruins of their former selves. This links back to what I wrote earlier about the final ruined state of the unsaved.

In both, there is shame and disgrace that lasts forever.

In one of them, God is present; in the other, they are excluded from God's presence. It seems fair to say, then, that they will be reduced to the stage where they cannot be conscious of God's presence - they will have lost the last remnants of the image of God.

At the end, all people will worship God, because the others will not be people any more.

Hell - Rough Outline of my Thoughts

Over the last month or so, I've done a number of posts on Hell. This is a kind of index for them...

Introductory Quotes

Qualifying annihilationism

Arguing about words - some arguments that don't work

Why I am not an Annihilationist

Getting a Balance

What are people like in Hell? - some quotes to support the idea of everlasting ruin

Why I am not an Annihilationist

Overview of my stuff about Hell.

In my recent essay on Hell, despite the fact that a lot of the arguments are inconclusive, I ended up concluding that annihilationism (the belief that those who aren't saved eventually cease to exist) probably doesn't fit with what the Bible says. This is why.

John Wenham, a noted annihilationist, says that Revelation 14:9-11 is “the most difficult passage” for his point of view. It's also very hard-hitting.

And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshippers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."
Revelation 14:9-11, ESV

Lots of scholars, particularly annihilationists, link the smoke going up for ever to the destruction of Edom in Isaiah 34:9-10. Greg Beale, who wrote quite possibly the best commentary on Revelation summarises:

The image of continually ascending smoke in Isaiah 34 serves as a memorial of God's annihilating punishment for sin, the message of which never goes out of date... Therefore, the imagery of Rev. 14:10-11 could indicate a great judgement that will be remembered forever, not one that leads to eternal suffering.

However, Beale eventually rejects this point of view on the grounds of the parallels with Revelation 20:10, where there is clearly everlasting conscious torment, at least for Satan (see later), and because of the “torment” - the word is basanismos, which is never used of annihilation.

Therefore ... “the smoke of torment” is a mixed metaphor, with “smoke” figurative of an enduring memorial of God's punishment involving a real, ongoing, eternal, conscious torment.

...

It is not the smoke of a completed destruction, but “smoke of their torment.” The nature of the torment is explained in the second part of v11: it is not annihilation but lack of rest.

I honestly cannot see a way of reading Revelation 14:9-11 in its entirety which is compatible with annihilationism. Some people (e.g. Fudge) note the smoke rising forever, but don't really consider the fact that it's the smoke of their torment. Others (e.g. Powys) see Revelation 14:9-11 as a hypothetical threat for those who go back on their belief in Jesus, but which God would never actually carry out. I cannot find anyone who comes up with a credible interpretation of this passage which doesn't involve some form of eternal conscious tormented existence for at least some of the unsaved.

The other really important passage here is the idea of the Lake of Fire in Revelation 19-21.

and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Revelation 20:10, ESV

Gomes writes of this:

By juxtaposing the words “day and night” with “for ever and ever” in 20:10, we have the most emphatic expression of unending ceaseless activity possible in the Greek language.

Even Fudge admits that this seems to be everlasting conscious torment, though he argues that while the lake of fire torments the devil, for people, the lake of fire is annihilation, basing this on its description as the “second death” (20:14, 21:8). He argues that the Beast is an abstraction, though fails to describe what it means for an abstraction to be tormented “day and night, forever and ever.” However, as Pawson points out, it seems that at least one human – the False Prophet – does indeed suffer everlasting conscious torment.

Also thrown into the Lake of Fire are Death and Hades (20:14), anyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life (20:15) and various groups of sinners who are excluded from the New Jerusalem (21:8). It also seems that Fudge's argument that the Lake of Fire is immediate annihilation does not work. The Beast and the False Prophet are thrown into the Lake of Fire in Revelation 19:20, and are still there in 20:10, where they are joined by the devil and will be tortured for ever. Those who are excluded from the New Jerusalem and the Book of Life are thrown in in 20:15. In Revelation 21:8, we are told that their “part” will be in the lake of fire. And in Revelation 22:15, they still seem to exist, simply “outside”.

Although we need to be careful when drawing concrete conclusions from a book which uses language in such a non-concrete way, it does indeed seem that Revelation teaches some form of continued existence for the unsaved, even some form of eternal conscious torment.

Oh, and the other solid argument is that almost no-one is on record as believing annihilationism from AD 150 to 1650. As doctrines go, it looks like a late innovation to me...

Hell - Arguing About Words

Overview of my stuff about Hell.

One of the things that really interested and saddened me in reading and thinking about the whole annihilationism / eternal conscious torment debate was the extent to which it often shows the truth of 2 Timothy 2:14.

Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

A large portion of the debate consists in arguments over two (or three) groups of words - the words translated into English as "destroy" or "destruction" (two groups in Greek) and "eternal". In both cases, the arguments show something interesting, but in neither case do they show what the people using them want them to show. Which makes me wonder why people keep using those arguments - it's almost as if they've made their minds up and then try to find evidence to back up their decision...

The Meaning of "Eternal"

The Greek word translated "eternal" is aionios, and it is often used as an argument that there is eternal conscious torment. However, as Fudge points out in his book "The Fire that Consumes", it might mean "eternal in effect" rather than just "eternal in duration". It seems clear that the description of what happens to the unsaved as "eternal" means that it doesn't end - that Hell isn't like Purgatory in the medieval Catholic doctrine. But it isn't clear from that word whether Hell is somewhere people go and stay forever, or whether it's a sentence of extinction which lasts forever.

The Meaning of "Destruction"

The other word group that gets cited a lot on the other side of the debate is the idea of "destruction", which is used to describe what happens to the unsaved after death. There are three words used in Greek - apollumi, apoleia and olethros.

Apollumi means "destroy", but the meaning in Greek is much broader than in English. For example, it is also used of the lost coin, sheep and son in Luke 15. Apoleia is also used to mean "wasted", like the perfume in Mark 14:4, and olethros is used a lot in the Old Testament to mean "cut off".

So the word "destroy" doesn't mean that the unsaved are annihilated. It does mean they are changed, or ruined, but doesn't necessarily imply annihilation.

Qualifying Annihilationism

Overview of my stuff about Hell.

This is part of a spate of posts I'm writing on the topic of Hell. I might put some kind of structure in later. I'm not writing these because I like to talk about Hell - I don't. I'm writing them because there's a lot of confusion about Hell..

There's a growing movement in some evangelical bits of the church towards annihilationism - the idea that Hell is actually a state of non-existence - that people who aren't saved by Jesus eventually just cease to exist rather than the traditional idea that they suffer consciously in hell forever. (As I've posted recently, I think it's a better expression of the full teaching of Scripture to talk about some form of ruin than about people as they are now being tormented.)

There's quite a lot that could be said about annihilationism. As I've already mentioned, I don't go along with it because I think the case for eternal ruined existence is better. But even for those who do go along with annihilationism, if they take the Bible as authoritative, there are still some qualifications that need to be put on their belief from what the Bible teaches clearly.

• What matters is not what we feel to be preferable, but what is actually the case.
• The saved and the unsaved will all be raised from the dead (Daniel 12:2) and judged.
• There needs to be some form of suffering after the final judgment. What does it mean for the judge of all the Earth to do right when the rich unsaved oppresses the poor unsaved and both die in that state? Or if Heinrich Himmler and Mahatma Gandhi are both unsaved, how can it be fair that they get the same punishment? This is also strongly implied by passages such as Matthew 11:21-24 and Luke 12:47-48.
• Satan does indeed seem to suffer eternal conscious torment (Rev 20:10).

What are People Like in Hell?

Overview of my stuff about Hell.

I've finished my essay on hell now. It turned out that one of the key questions was what people were like in hell. Here are some quotes on that which I found helpful.

To enter hell is to be banished from humanity. What is cast (or casts itself) into hell is not a man: it is ‘remains’.
C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

When human beings give their heartfelt allegiance and worship to that which is not God, they progressively cease to reflect the image of God... it is possible for human beings to so continue down this road.. that after death they become at last, by their own effective choice, beings that once were human but now are not, creatures that have ceased to bear the divine image at all... they pass simultaneously not only beyond hope but also beyond pity.
Tom Wright, Surprised by Hope

Sometimes people ask me: "In heaven how can I be happy, knowing that my fellow human-beings - maybe the people I love best - are in hell?" And the answer is simple. No human being will be in hell. The creatures in hell are not human beings any longer... The person you knew and loved will not be in hell. That person had so many lovable qualities - the remnants of the image of God - but now, the image of God has been obliterated... You could not love the creature in hell if you tried - God cannot love that creature - there is nothing there to love.
Stephen Rees

Wright - Lectionaries

Whenever you see, in an official lectionary, the command to omit two or three verses, you can normally be sure that they contain words of judgment. Unless, of course, they are about sex.
Tom Wright, Surprised by Hope, p.190

Quotes on Hell

My next essay is on the whole hell debate - eternal conscious torment v anihilationism and so on. Here are some quotes on hell that I've come across...

If any human beings find themselves in hell, they will have no-one but themselves to blame. If any find themselves in heaven, they will have no-one but the Lord to praise.
David Pawson

Our friends who long to get rid of the eternal punishment should cease to argue against God and instead obey God's commands while there is still time.
Augustine of Hippo

The principal danger of the 20th century will be: a religion without the Holy Spirit, Christians without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God and a heaven without a hell.
William Booth

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Richard Baxter (I was surprised by who originally said it...)

It is safer for the evangelist to have hell more frequently in his heart than on his lips.
David Pawson

To remember hell prevents our falling into hell.
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans