What does the Bible really teach about eternal punishment?
Beginning with the book of Matthew we will look at what the New Testament teaches about punishment and hell.
The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does
not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire (Matt 3:10).
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.
It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole
body to go into hell (Matt 5:30)
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins (Matt 6:14-15).
Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matt 7:23)
They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt 13:42).
"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw
him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and
gnashing of teeth.' (Matt 22:13)
But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,' and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt 24:48-51).
Keep in mind that if God thinks something is very important,
and He
wants us to understand it, He repeats the lesson over and over again.
Isn't it odd that He does not do this regarding "eternal punishment"
considering it is such a weighty issue? (This is even more interesting
when you look at how many verses in the New Testament talk about "all"
being saved and "all" things being made new.)
Many people get
confused about the nature of the suffering in Hell because they read verses which tell
them that the fire is eternal and then combine those verses with others which talk about suffering. But how many verses actually say the
suffering is eternal? Once they stop combining the verses which tell
us about the fire and those verses which talk about suffering the
case for eternal suffering suddenly becomes very shaky.
If your hand or your
foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it
away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to
have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And
if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is
better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be
thrown into the fire of hell (Matt 18:8-9).
Note: Eternal fire is
mentioned but not specifically eternal
suffering.
What is the nature of an eternal
place?
If
a building is
eternal, does it follow that you cannot enter the building? No. Does it
follow that after you have entered the building you cannot leave it?
No. Why? Because we are talking about the building not about you. The Bible paints a description
of a waste land outside the New
Jerusalem, a place of torment. The
fire is eternal (Rev 20:14). Now it is possible that the smoke from
that place will
rise forever. But that does not undermine what I believe is the
Biblical position. If the smoke rises forever it would be a powerful
reminder of God's grace which is shown to all people. This picture fits
beautifully with what I know of the God who loves everyone and
everything. His love is without conditions. Now compare that
explanation with what I think is a better one. Keith DeRose, a professor of philosophy at Yale, claims that
"for ever and ever" is not a good translation of Rev 20:10. A more
literal translation is "for the eons of the eons". In other words for a
very long time. Unfortunately, the second death will occur in the lake
of fire for a lot of people (Rev 20:15), but it does not follow that
their suffering will last "forever and ever". (See Universalism and the
Bible: The Really Good News by Keith DeRose)
The following verse is interesting. Why say, "in this age or the age to come"? Why not simply say "will not be forgiven"? It makes it look as though the same rules apply to this life and that which follows.
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be
forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Anyone
who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone
who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this
age or in the age to come (Matt 12:31-32. It is important to note that there is only one thing for which a person cannot be forgiven, unrepentance. A person who continually ignores the Holy Spirit is in an
unrepentant state of being. The Holy Spirit convicts us of sin (John
16:7-11), while we purposefully ignore him we cannot be forgiven. (Blaspheme means to show irreverance or disrespect
towards someone or something which is holy). When someone ignores the Holy Spirit they are showing irreverence and disrespect for him. The verse cannot mean what many claim it means. Someone who purposefully worships Satan and credits the good
things of God to Satan can repent and be forgiven.
Our words and actions merely reflect what is in our hearts. No single
act or word can make God give up on anyone.)
Below is a verse which seems to support eternal punishment. Professor William
Barclay in New
Testament Words tells us what the word eternity relates to and how
the word was understood in first century Greek culture.
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matt 25:46)
This is where good hermeneutics really is key.
As mentioned, if God thinks an issue is
of great importance, one which He wants us to clearly understand, He repeats it often to make sure we get the message. The
fact that endless
punishment "may be" implied only once in the Greek Gospel of Matthew
has a practical and
spiritual consequence. Consider many of the early Christians who were
blessed to get their hands on any one of the Gospels. Do you think it
was of importance that they correctly understood the nature of the
punishment that awaited those who did not turn and follow Christ in
this life?
How we interpret the
Bible is very important. If we really believe God is good we will approach the Bible a particular way.
If God is so good, why is it that so many Christians are slow to come to God's defence?
Imagine for a moment that you have a friend named John. You have known him for years and sincerely believe that he is honest, kind and trustworthy. One day you hear on the news that John is on trial for the murder of many small children. The murders occured over a period of years and each child died painfully and slowly under the hands of someone who was very cruel. You meet someone in the street and they say, "Did you hear about John? What a bastard. What kind of a person does that to children?" How would you react? Now you wouldn't say something like, "Yeh, it's incredible. Hard to believe really. I've known John for years and it just goes to show that you think you know somebody but you really don't." For if you said something like that you don't really believe he is good. But because you believe John is good you'd probably say something like, "No, John's not like that. They've got the wrong person. This is all a big mistake."
Now you could come to John's defence in another way, you might say, "John is good. If he killed small children then they must have deserved it." That is one way you could defend John, but wouldn't that simply reveal that you have a rather odd sense of what is just and fair?
Calling something good does not make it good. The
God of the Bible is not arbitrary. Something
is not good because God does it; rather God does that which is good. If
we
mistakenly believe that God does something and then call it good because
we
think that God does it, we may be calling something which is evil good
and
attributing that evil action to God.
If we believe someone is good we are quick to believe that they do good things and slow to believe that they have done bad things. Is it not strange, that many who claim to believe God is good are quick to believe that he can make a person suffer without any hope of redemption or complete annihilation? When it comes to endless suffering, isn't it time we started saying, "There must be some kind of mistake. God is good. He loves everyone and his love is eternal and unconditional. Love always hopes, love always perseveres. If he warns he warns because of love and if he punishes he punishes because of love. Surely the Bible must be being mishandled!"
(A digression: We must remember that God did not arbitrarily determine what is to be called
good, good has always existed. God does what is good because it
is part of his eternal nature. Doing what is right is part of God's unchanging character.
So is natural law (that which tells us what is good) greater than God?
No, it did not exist before God, it is part of His nature. (Note: The
Mosaic law is not natural law but the Mosaic law was based upon natural
law. For more on natural law see 1 & 2.))
To interpret the Bible rightly we must think deeply about God's
character and use logic in light of His character. We must also allow the
majority of scripture to interpret the minority.
The
view that God will eventually save all people makes a lot more sense of
what we see in the world than the view that God gives up on some people. I used to
wonder why the
early Church prayed for the dead. It only makes sense if they believed
that there is some hope for the dead. Another issue worth considering
is the kindness the early Christians showed unbelievers who lost loved
ones. Christians took part in the burial of
many non-believers and because of the kindness they showed, many pagans
came to Christ. I don't think the Christians were telling the
unbelievers that their loved ones were in Hell. If the issue of where
their loved one was came up I think they would have said something
like, "they are in God's hands and God loves them. If they are
suffering it is for their good." (See page 96 in the following Encyclopedia. Do you think that most of the earlier Church had it wrong?) You might ask, "Why then is the cross
offensive?" It is because no one wants to be told that they are
sinners, nor do they want to be told that they must change the way they
live their lives (i.e. repent).
Our God is a consuming fire. Death and
Hades will be destroyed.
This is a work in progress.
Is it just that the innocent should die for the guilty?
Dying to live
