Question 128, from Ron, USA

I have read that Jesus only spoke in parables. I would like to know your thoughts on the subject of “The rich man and Lazarus”. I would just like to know if it is a true story or just a story to make a point.

‘The Rich Man and Lazarus’ is a parable of Jesus which is only found in Luke’s gospel (Luke chapter 16, verses 19 – 31). The basic thread of the story is that a rich man and a beggar, Lazarus, both die. The rich man goes to hell and sees Lazarus in “Abraham’s bosom” (a phrase equating to paradise or heaven) and begs Lazarus to come and bring him water. Lazarus can’t help him because he cannot cross the gulf between heaven and hell.

This parable has sometimes been cited as evidence that Jesus taught a ‘literal’ doctrine of hell – a place of eternal torment for the wicked – which, the theory goes, Jesus, as the pre-existent son of God would be able to describe from a position of knowledge. However, despite the popularity of this story as ‘evidence’ for hell, the fact remains it is a parable and no definite conclusions to its literal truth can be drawn. (more…)

Question 118, from RF, Australia

This answer is sponsored by Xen10.com – the web hosts with standards.

I have a question about hell. What do you think of a God who says (to paraphrase Brian McLaren), ‘If you don’t love me, I’ll torture you forever in hell’? If the lake of fire scenario is right, then the vast bulk of humanity are going to be eternally tortured in ways that make Guantanamo seem tame. I want to be faithful to the Scriptures, and to God, so what do you think? Is annihilation-ism an unscriptural cop-out, or a better rendering of the biblical evidence?

One of the big issues of Western theology since the Enlightenment has been the application of moral judgements on theological statements. Frequently the debate about hell descends into a moral debate: is it right for people to suffer eternally, regardless of what they have done? Can Christianity assert on the one hand that God is loving, and yet equally willing to condemn people to hell?

This contradiction is a common criticism of Christianity. The cartoonist Scott Adams sums this up in one of his earlier books when he illustrates (more…)

Question 103 – from CP, United Kingdom

In your post about the time lapse between bodily death and resurrection, you say: “The deceased are already resurrected and to them it would have felt instantaneous.” It seems to be your belief that those who achieve a life ‘with God’ and with Jesus in this life are the ones who are resurrected. And The Bible says those who believe in Jesus and ask for forgiveness will be resurrected. However, it seems strange that lots of very ‘good’, charitable, loving and kind people who might not believe in Jesus or might be vague about it will not be resurrected with the others. Where do they go? How about the difficult person who causes a lot of upset to others but who believes in Jesus all along or towards the end? Why would that person be resurrected before the charitable person? I understand to the degree that we ALL inevitably sin in our lives and Jesus is the key to being re-united with God. However, this type of question still puzzles me. How does it all work?

This question in one form or another has perplexed Christians for many years. Loosely speaking there are three basic alternative solutions:
i) universalism – the belief that everybody is granted eternal life,
ii) annihilationism – where the ‘saved’ (or righteous/good) receive eternal life, while the unsaved (bad) cease to exist, and
iii) judgement – where the saved/good go to heaven and the unsaved/bad go to hell.

There are problems with all three doctrinal positions, so it comes as no surprise to discover modified and hybrid opinions as well. However, put simply, universalism does not allow for free choice, because human beings get saved whatever they do. It also has very little Biblical basis. It does, however, emphasise God’s grace, mercy and forgiving nature, and has a long pedigree among freethinking Christians (often regarded as heretics). One notable theologian who adopted this view was the third century scholar Origen, who went so far as to claim that even the devil would eventually be redeemed.

Annihilationism is often argued from the reference in Revelation to the ‘second death’ endured by those who are thrown into the lake of fire in chapter 20, verse 14. As with the more typical ‘division between heaven and hell’ judgement scenario, annihilationism does take human sin seriously. In fact, human sin is the reason why those judged unrighteous are annihilated. However, this goes against the Biblical statements about hell, which seem to infer a continuing, conscious existence (see Mark chapter 9, verse 48).

The judgement scenario has always been very popular in Christian thought, particularly among ‘fire and brimstone’ preachers. In some ways the concept of hell feeds the social insecurity caused by religion, in that while Christians may feel that they are a persecuted and threatened minority, they can at least take comfort in the fact that they will be proved right on judgement day. However, this simplistic approach – that believers automatically go to heaven and unbelievers automatically end up in hell – has intrinsic difficulties, both in its Biblical support and internal logic.

For a start, it has often been pointed out that it was the religious leaders that Jesus warned about hell. Jesus clearly saw a distinction between words and deeds, with words on their own not enough to save a person (Matthew chapter 7, verses 15-23). So it appears that a person who “causes upset” will be judged for it, regardless of whether they have said the ‘right’ formula of words (e.g. a ‘prayer of salvation’).

Reducing the effects of salvation merely to the afterlife takes the emphasis away from doing the will of God in the here and now, which is clearly part of Jesus’ intended message. In Luke chapter 4, verse 18, Jesus launches his ministry with a declaration of intent borrowed from the prophet Isaiah and promises “To preach good news to the poor”, liberate prisoners and the oppressed, and heal the blind. Later in Luke many of these phrases are repeated to authenticate Jesus’ status as the messiah to the imprisoned John the Baptist (chapter 7, verse 22).

In two ways then, the Biblical stories undermine the simplistic heaven/hell divide. There is also the question of rational understanding. If hell is a ‘physical’ place or dimension it must have been created specifically for that purpose, but there is no Biblical record of that taking place. In fact it seems from the Old Testament that the idea of hell ‘evolves’ or develops as time goes on, from ‘sheol’ the grave, through to ‘gehenna’ in the New Testament.

If hell is defined as ‘separation from God’ (as it often is in ‘softer’ versions of the judgement theory), then logically how can any place be separate from its creator? Hell will always bear the creative mark of God. Added to that is the sense that if people are condemned to hell for eternity, then evil has won, and God is not the triumphant victor that Christian tradition has always proclaimed. The question why God would allow human souls to be ‘lost’ is an inexplicable mystery.

Perhaps the best answer to this query is to say that the destiny of unbelievers remains uncertain. In contrast, the future of the believer is assured in the Bible and in Christian theology. While many missionary endeavours have been spurred on by the belief that people are being saved from hellfire, it would be as inspiring to give people the opportunity to replace uncertainty with the certain knowledge of eternal life.

Thanks for your question, CP.

Question from MF, USA

When we say we are certain of God’s will (“Hitler/Liberals/Suicides are all in hell”) are we not taking the knowledge of God upon us, and thus sinning?

In an excellent study of Christianity on the cusp of post-modernism, Brian McLaren makes one of the characters in his dialogues state the bold comment that: “It’s none of your business who goes to Hell”. McLaren then outlines the different doctrines about hell as a continuum stretching from Universalism on the one extreme, through Inclusivism (‘anonymous Christianity’) towards Exclusivism (Brian D. McLaren, A New Kind of Christian, Jossey-Bass 2001, p124ff). Regrettably, some Christians tend to make it their life’s work to decide exactly who is going to hell.

Within Christianity there has always been a tendency towards the politics of exclusion. This is partly because early Christians set themselves over and against the prevailing pagan religions of the time and also due to the isolationist mindset carried over from Judaism; the idea of being a people called out and chosen (“citizens of Heaven” – Philippians chapter 3, verse 20). Given the historical precedents, it should come as no surprise that Christians find it easier to define themselves ‘against’ something, be it other religions, scientific humanism, secular liberalism or any of the other ‘foes’ of the faith.

Christianity has only ever stagnated as a movement during the medieval period, when it had few heretics within and only political enemies outside (there was little serious theological discourse with Islam during the period of the crusades). It took the Renaissance, sectarian Reformers and the growth of science that culminated in the Enlightenment to kick-start theological creativity. Christians need enemies, it would seem. At present, this ‘defining against’ is, of course, more likely to happen in authoritarian structures (e.g. fundamentalist Protestantism), which discourage questions and discourse with the unbeliever. After all, if you talk to your sworn enemy, you might find out they’re not so bad after all. The decline of liberal theology can be traced to the fact that liberals wanted to propose ideas, not impose them.

Of course, there is a New Testament precedent for saying exactly who will come under judgment and end up in Hell. In 1 Corinthians chapter 6, Paul states that the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunks, slanderers, or swindlers will not inherit the Kingdom of God (verses 9-10). But he adds a caveat, telling the Corinthian Christians that they had been people just like that (verse 11). They had been ‘washed and sanctified’, meaning they could enter the Kingdom, but deep down they were no better than the sinners around them. According to Paul, there is no cause for pride in being saved; it is a case of literally ‘there, but for the grace of God, go I’. That’s a humbling warning not to be too keen to declare anybody as bound for Hell, because they are not so different from us.

Question from GT, United Kingdom

Before communion in my church we say the Apostles’ Creed, which includes the phrase “He descended into hell” (referring to Jesus). This doesn’t get mentioned all that much when the Easter story is told – where does this bit of information come from, and how much do we know about it? The Apostles’ Creed also includes a profession of belief in “the Holy Catholic Church” – doesn’t this seem a slightly odd thing to be saying in a church that isn’t Catholic? Where does the Apostles’ Creed come from?

As Christianity spread in the first few centuries after the death of Christ, there arose a need for a statement of belief that defined the ‘gospel’ in clear terms. The fore-runners to the Apostles’ Creed as we know it today are the earliest and simplest ways that Christians arranged their beliefs in a set pattern. Later the Nicene Creed expanded on these simple statements, although technically the Nicene Creed found in many of today’s churches is not the finished article from the Council of Nicea in 325AD, but the longer version, which includes a clause about the Holy Spirit and was ratified at the Council of Constantinople in 381AD.

The origins of the Apostles’ Creed are not known exactly, but creeds with similar phrases began appearing in early Christian liturgies (set, formal words spoken in church services) very quickly. However, unlike the Nicene Creed, which was the product of a gathering of theologians, the Apostles’ Creed was not written or officially approved at any specific time. It gradually took shape and most of it has been part of the liturgy of the Western Church since at least the time of Augustine (354-430) in the fifth century. There was a belief, promoted by Augustine, that the Twelve Apostles (with Matthias replacing Judas Iscariot cf. Acts chapter 1) composed it after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, with each apostle contributing a line or particular statement of the creed.

The descent into Hell first appeared in a statement of faith called the Aquileian Creed in the fourth century and was obviously an element of popular Christian belief that was deemed important enough to become part of the basic teaching of the Church. It is based mainly on two references in the first epistle of Peter. In 1 Peter chapter 3, verses 18-20, Jesus is described as being “…put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.” The ‘spirits’ referred to are viewed by commentators as being either fallen angels or sinful human beings now resident in the underworld. The ‘prison’ has a certain resonance with the Old Testament concept of Sheol, the grave or pit. But the wider context of this passage could mean that those ‘spirits in prison’ were people who heard the message of judgment and failed to repent in the time of Noah. The writer might just be saying that the pre-existent Christ inspired Noah’s ‘message’. (For more on this see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, IVP 1994 pp 589-592).

In 1 Peter chapter 4 Christ is described as judging the ‘living and the dead’, “For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged [equally with living men]” (verse 6). Whether this is a correct interpretation of this verse is open to debate. The writer of 1 Peter may be talking about people who have heard the gospel while alive and then subsequently died. However, in terms of early Christian use of Scripture and given the comment shortly before, this has been interpreted to mean that Jesus’ death was somehow retroactive.

A heroic descent into the underworld to rescue the spirits of those who had died was a popular theme in the myths of the region and so it was not difficult for early Christians to accept their hero doing the same. The descent into Hell allowed the early Christians to sidestep the tricky question of what happens to those who died without ever hearing the gospel and meant they could confidently proclaim Abraham, Moses, David et al as being in Heaven.

In fact the whole phrase, in the earliest versions of the creed to include it, use the Greek word ‘Hades’ meaning ‘grave’ rather than ‘Gehenna’, which means ‘place of punishment’. It could be that the original statement was ‘he descended to the grave’, i.e. ‘he was buried’. It is highly likely that somewhere along the line two versions of the creed – one saying ‘he was buried’ and the other saying ‘he descended into Hades’ – were merged, leading to the idea of Christ descending into Hell. There is a Platonic edge to this, with Jesus’ body committed to a grave, while his heroic spirit descended to the (real) grave, i.e. Sheol/Hades/Hell. Medieval theology, which relied heavily on Platonism, could see Jesus’ burial in the garden tomb as representative of his journey to the final resting place of humanity. It would seem that the Biblical ‘support’ for the phrase is secondary with Scriptural passages being interpreted to justify an established and popular doctrine, rather than the other way around.

There remain some Biblical problems with the idea of a descent into Hell. Jesus’ words to the penitent thief on the cross (“today you will be with me in paradise” – Luke 23, verse 13) imply that Jesus did not descend into hell after he died. In the account in the fourth gospel, Christ’s work is “finished” when he dies on the cross (John 19 verse 30). Again in Luke, Jesus commits his spirit to the Father as he dies (Luke 23, verse 46). These inconsistencies with the idea of a descent into Hell are difficult to resolve, but it is possible to view the phrase as figurative rather than literal – in dying to atone for a world under judgment those who believe can avoid Hell as their ultimate destination.

The final statement of the Apostles’ Creed is confusing because of how lazy Christians have become in classifying churches. ‘Catholic’ is probably derived from the Greek adverb ‘kath’ holou’, meaning ‘on the whole’ and in terms of the Church it means ‘universal’, ‘widespread’ and ‘covering a broad range’. It soon came to mean ‘orthodox’ as well, as opposed to the many sects that called themselves churches in the early days of Christianity. So, for example Augustine contrasts the Catholic Church, which adhered to the ‘true faith’ with the schismatic Donatist church in North Africa.

Technically contemporary churches that are referred to as ‘Catholic’ should be called ‘Roman Catholic’ because they adhere to the teachings and apostolic authority of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. By dropping the adjective ‘Roman’ there is a danger of believing other churches are not catholic. In fact, every church that proclaims the true faith derived from the Bible and the teaching of the apostles as preserved in the traditions of the earliest churches is a Catholic Church.

I hope that answers a few of your questions about the Apostles’ Creed, GT. Thanks for contributing to freelance theology.

Question from AW, United Kingdom.

Did Judas go to hell?

Judas Iscariot has gone down in history as the disciple who betrayed Jesus to the Jewish and Roman authorities. In the three synoptic gospels Judas appears to be motivated by money, but the account in the gospel of John is less sympathetic and more troubling for the reader. In chapter 13, the author states twice that the devil/Satan entered Judas (verses 2 & 27) and that Judas’ traitorous actions fulfilled Jesus’ own prophecy of betrayal (verse 19). In fact John intimates that Judas was chosen specifically to betray Jesus and the reference to Satan leaves the reader in no doubt of Judas’ eventual destination.

The reason this is troubling is because Judas is one of the twelve chosen especially by Jesus as his ‘inner circle’ of companions. That implies that while the other eleven were chosen to spread the good news of the Kingdom, Judas was chosen precisely to commit a heinous sin and bring about Jesus’ death. This seems like a form of ‘double predestination’, with the eleven being chosen for eternal life and Judas being chosen for damnation. Given the difficulty many Christians have with holding a doctrine of predestination (or election), the thought that Judas was chosen to betray Jesus and go to Hell as a result seems unpalatable.

That was certainly the belief of the early Christians. One second-century writer, Clement of Alexandria (d 214), refers to Judas being replaced because he was an unworthy apostle (cited in J Stevenson, A New Eusebius, p 199). This was evidently a common view held by Gnostic sects, but Clement does not disagree with their comments on Judas. The Biblical passages that relate to his death (Matthew 27 verses 1-10 and Acts 1 verses 16-20) are both gory and highlight the fact that he committed suicide – an unforgivable sin in Jewish society. [There are some inconsistencies in the two accounts of Judas’ death – see ‘What Happened to Judas’ in The Bible – New Testament section for more on this] Christian creeds named Judas as the betrayer and in popular medieval art and mystery plays Judas is tormented by demons as an arch-sinner, a byword for wickedness.

However, there have been some efforts to rehabilitate Judas in recent years, seeing him as a confused individual who believed that he could ‘force God’s hand’ by pushing Jesus into a confrontation with the Jewish religious leaders. Much of this stems from a possible translation of Iscariot as ‘sicarius’ (‘dagger man’). The Zealots, Jewish freedom fighters who opposed the Roman occupation, carried long thin-bladed daggers (sicarii), which could be thrust between the armour plates of a Roman soldier.

If he was a Zealot, Judas may have understood Jesus’ Messianic claims in terms of a liberated Israel with Jesus as the new King, heir of David, reigning in Jerusalem. His subsequent suicidal remorse when he realised that Jesus was not going to ‘declare himself’ adds to the tragedy that is Judas’ misunderstanding of what is going on.

Whatever Judas’ motivation – money, possession or misguided patriotism – we simply cannot say whether his suicide was a genuine act of repentance. The tradition of the church is that Judas went to Hell for his deed and without more information we simply cannot know otherwise in this life.

Thanks for your question AW, I hope that you found this answer helpful.

JM, United Kingdom responded to the post ‘What is Hell?’

“I read the answer to hell. I wasn’t sure about the bit where you say“The medieval imagery of demons roasting sinners on griddles has fallen out of favour in all but the most fundamentalist Christian circles” doesn’t that (the ‘fallen out of favour’ bit) make it sound like a literary critique?

Some would argue that Hell hasn’t changed it’s makeup even if popular thought has – so we need to be looking only at what we can actually glean from what we are told, not what popular opinion tells us.”

That’s an interesting point, but the medieval view never closely paralleled Biblical statements. I personally would argue that we do need to critique past theological images and so I’d stand by the phrase used.

I’d agree that Hell hasn’t changed it’s make up regardless of how human perceptions have moved on, but the torture imagery was a human perception as much as the ‘grey town’ depicted by CS Lewis in The Great Divorce. My key point was that Hell is the prison of Satan, not his dominion. The thought that Satan rules Hell and that his minions torture sinners is not Biblical, belonging more to Christian ‘myth-theology’.

If you have a comment about any answers on freelance theology, then please email using the ‘contact me’ button above.

Question from GT, United Kingdom: “What is Hell?”

Hell is the alternative destination for human beings after death. Biblical descriptions are varied. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word used for Hell is ‘Sheol’, literally the Grave or the Pit. There isn’t much description to it and is seems that everybody ends up there awaiting final judgement.

In the New Testament, Jesus refers to ‘Gehenna’, thought to be a permanently smouldering rubbish dump outside Jerusalem, also to ‘Hell fire’ and a place of ‘wailing and gnashing of teeth’ (Matthew 8 v12) where ‘the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched’ (Mark 9 v48, quoting Isaiah 66 v24).

In the book of Revelation the final destination of the devil, the Beast, the false prophets and unrepentant sinners is a Lake of Fire, described as ‘the second death’ (Revelation chapters 20 & 21). Contrast this to Jesus’ promise to the thief on the cross of a feast with him in paradise (Luke 23 v 43), or his description of a place ‘prepared for you’ (John 14 v2) or Revelation’s New Jerusalem – a city of gold – and you can see that the threat of Hell is always juxtaposed with the promise of Heaven.

Modern writers describe Hell as separation from God, either as total alone-ness or as a continuing existence not unlike our world (see for example The Great Divorce by CS Lewis). The medieval imagery of demons roasting sinners on griddles has fallen out of favour in all but the most fundamentalist Christian circles. Hell is not the abode of Satan, but the self-willed prison of any and every rebel against God, including Satan.

The problem is that, according to Christian belief, everything in this universe depends on God for its existence. The person who rejects God therefore pushes away from the very thing that causes them to exist in the first place. Oblivion/non-existence beckons, causing Frederick Buechner to describe the situation like this: “Maybe Hell is the limit. In their flight from love, God stops them just this side of extinguishing themselves utterly. Thus the bottomless pit is not really bottomless. Hell is the bottom beyond which God in his terrible mercy will not let them go.” (Wishful Thinking, p43)