I like Wright, and he has some good things to say here. When he speaks about hell being a rejection of God and a diminishing of human life and purpose here and now, he's reminding us of what Paul is getting at in Romans 1.

But when he suggests that the medieval (western) church invented the idea of hell as a polar opposite to heaven, or the ideas of separation, torment and judgment, he seems to be running right up against the clear teaching of Jesus.

Finally, Wright doesn't seem to take his own argument very seriously. Hell is a rejection of the good God who made us, and our choices do have serious consequences. So what in Wright's view does that suggest about the eternal consequences of rejecting God? He rejects universalism, and seems to reject the traditional view of hell, so what will be the existence and experience of those who reject Christ?

I think Bishop Wright is a brilliant New Testament scholar. I've read a few of his books and enjoy his New Testament commentary (under the name of Tom Wright).

Jeff, I would suggest checking out his book Surprised by Hope. It addresses some of the questions you ask here. There are also many more videos and articles you can find online.

Of course there are critics of Wright, but I think it's always good to get other perspectives and find out for yourself what you believe.

We need to remember what Jesus taught about Hell. And He spent much time teaching about this very subject.

Some thoughts on Hell here...

www.grovebaptist.co.uk/thought/tftm0608.htm

See if you agree?

What if heaven and hell coexist? And for those with eyes to see and a heart that's open to intimacy with God, the experience is wonderful. And for those who refuse to bear the image of God and reject the atonement of Christ, their experience of the presence of God is a fiery agony. Heaven and hell indeed. And no one has to go anywhere else.

If Rev. Wright is saying there is no Hell, in the sense of a place where God tortures them, then he would actually be in lock step with the original teachings of Jesus.

An objective review of all that Jesus said about the real nature of God makes Hell impossible, assuming Jesus was correct.

I've actually written an entire book on this topic--Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell, (for anyone interested, you can get a free ecopy of Did Jesus Believe in Hell?, one of the most compelling chapters of my book at www.thereisnohell.com), but if I may, let me share one of the many points I make in it to explain why.

If one is willing to look, there's substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: "You don't know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!" Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it.

So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY!

True, there are a few statements that made their way into the copies of copies of copies of the gospel texts which place “Hell” on Jesus’ lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.

Bear in mind that the historical Protestant doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures applies only to the original autographs, not the copies. But sadly, the interpolations that made their way into those copies have provided a convenient excuse for a lot of people to get around following Jesus’ real message.

"What if heaven and hell coexist? And for those with eyes to see and a heart that's open to intimacy with God, the experience is wonderful. And for those who refuse to bear the image of God and reject the atonement of Christ, their experience of the presence of God is a fiery agony. Heaven and hell indeed. And no one has to go anywhere else."

Jarrod, Jewish scholar Dwight Pryor teaches that there is a rabbinical parable where the God is a river of fire. On one side it is the refining/purifying fire of God, the other side, the "fire of hell" -- destruction. it's an interesting image.

It is interesting to hear men use their imaginations and rationalizations to remake God and His revelation into their own making. Wide is the road that leads to destruction and many "brilliant scholars" and those who follow those "brillliant scholars" will be on that road.

"Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2Tim. 4:3 Many would like to hear that hell, or whatever they suggest lies beyond this life for those who reject God is a kinder gentler place. I'm not a sucker for that. The Mormons and the J.W.'s with all their cock and bull teach more or less the same tame and kind view of judgement. Are we to think they are right? It's all in the same scam.

The Book of John Lennon 5:10 reads, "Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try. No hell below us, above us only sky. Imagine all the people living life in peace. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us and the world will live as one." Lennon claimed to be more popular than Jesus and with a philisophy like that, who would be surprised?

So N.T., if the Bible doesn't really mean a "lake of fire where there is weeping and nashing of teeth" for non believers, what is actually going to happen to them? And if hell is fabrication of western Christianity, why is it mentioned so strongly in the Bible?

If we don't need to take the the teaching of Hell literally, or the teaching on homosexuality and other types of sin, why do we need to take the teaching on caring for the poor seriously? Why sould we be concerned about sex trafficking? How can we possibly have a clue as to what constitutes 'social justice'; and furthermore, why should we care?

I appreciate what N.T. is trying to do–take seriously two seemingly contradictory teachings of Scripture. (1) That God is love, and he loves not just his friends but his enemies(!) and loves us “while we are still sinners,” and expects us to do the same. And (2) that there is a hell “where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth” and the fire is never extinguished and the worm never dies.

For most people, you have to either redefine their traditional understanding of what “loving enemies” means, or you have to redefine what “everlasting torment” means.

I for one appreciate anyone who takes the Bible seriously enough to reconcile both those truths.

i appreciate that Wright, in his own way, calls us to have integrity as protestants.

we are hypocrites if we rail against "middle church" developments of theology in the RCC, but keep the middle church developments of hell.

It's a shame that Jesus didn't have N.T. Wright around 2000 years ago to help Him express what He really meant about hell.
Then Jesus wouldn't have had to grope around and use figures of speech like weeping and gnashing of teeth, unquenchable fire, torment in flame, broad and narrow ways, judgement and the like when apparently He really meant to talk about people declining to be part of God's new creation.

I dont believe in hell or paradise. For me everything is paradise.

I agree with many commenters here. It's the eternal, forever, will not die aspects of the scriptures that seem to be missing from Mr Wrights assessment.

"At the back of this objection [to hell doctrine] lies a mental picture of Heaven and Hell coexisting in unilinear time as the histories of England and America coexist: so that at each moment the blessed could say 'The miseries of Hell are NOW going on.'

"But I notice that Our Lord, while stressing the terror of Hell with unsparing severity, usually emphasizes the idea, not of duration [N.T.Wright's 'progressive shrinking of human life'] but of FINALITY. Consignment to the destroying fire is usually treated as the end of the story..."

- C.S. Lewis

The existence of hell is not dependent on what N.T. Wright thinks, or on what anybody else thinks. The Bible says what it says whether I like it or not. The Bible is intriguing for 'scholars' and should be studied as such, but was written for simple folk like me to understand when they have the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. When something is as plainly spoken of and described by Jesus himself, where is the intellectual honesty in seeking to obfuscate that meaning? One is either self-serving or God-serving. I would far rather have a Bible scholar speak the truth in love (or even without it) than be lied to so that I can feel good for a time.

@ melody.

really? the bible was written for simple folk to understand?

really?

without scholars we'd have no access to much of what we know about the Scriptures.

not the least of which is that Holy Scripture shouldn't be reduced to the idea that it was just written for "simple folk to understand".

further, what disturbs me is that you would admittedly be ok with Truth with no love from a scholar.

Truth without love is the betrayal of truth.

It makes truth untrue, especially in light of the whole counsel of Scripture.

To say that Love is some optional dimension of Christian Truth is not only dangerous, but horribly un-True.

finally, in the evangelical community, I don't think Love without Truth is our problem.

The majority report on our comportment with others is (un)Truth without Love.

The bible speaks of being eternally separated from God. This is described as hell. If I say that my head hurts so bad it feels like it will explode, anyone will be able to understand that I am saying that my head is in great pain.

When the bible describes eternity apart from God as torment, fire, isolation, and suffering and this for eternity, one can assume that to apart from God forever is really bad.

Is it literally fire, torment, pain, suffering and isolation? I do not know. I would probably tend to believe so, but I do not know for 100% certain. What i do believe the bible gives me is this certainty. To enter eternity without Christ is going to be Hell.

i recommend that people read wright's full book (surprised by hope) to get a more complex understanding of what he's saying here.

i also object to people who insist the doctrine of hell is straightforwardly found in Scripture. i think if you don't struggle to understand it, you're not reading the Bible carefully enough. for example, Jesus uses the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" phrasing 1.) in parables, and 2.) to refer to a fiery furnace as well as a dark street. so i'm a little confused why some insist that Jesus taught clearly about hell = fire. why not a dark street? that particular metaphor for hell gets completely cut out, while the other one is taken quite literally. i'm genuinely curious. [and rather with leonard on this one--i don't know "literally" what hell is, but i do not that eternity without Christ would be a torment on its own.]

Could you help me out with the Biblical reference to a 'dark street'? I'm having trouble finding that term in my concordance.

Thanks.

Outside of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, where does Jesus talk about hell? I'm new to this. Can someone please give me chapter and verse from the four gospels? Are there words from Jesus' mouth that say, "There is a literal hell, and non-believers go there when they die"? If the only place is in one of his parables, then I guess I must also believe that I am literally a kind of soil, or that I'm literally a lost coin, etc. I'm not asking for someone's interpretation - I'm asking for an actual Gospel reference. Thanks.

Mat 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
Mat 13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
Mat 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
Mat 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
Mat 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
Mat 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
Mat 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Mat 13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
Mat 13:45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
Mat 13:46 Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.
Mat 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
Mat 13:48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
Mat 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
Mat 13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 13:51 Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.

Wow!
Nuth'n says dog fight amongst believers like a discussion on the reality/factuality of hell.
/whew
Regardless of one's position on the physicality or conceptual imagery, can we, as followers of the living G-d, at least agree that the concept of hell, i.e. "separation from G-d" is NOT a good thing for human beings?
Can we collectively get to that point, and move on?

Sheer
The battle for truth is nothing close to a dog fight. That completely mischaracterized the situation. This is not merely a battle over how we understand hell but over how we look at the whole Bible. The same methods used by some to look at hell in the Bible are also applied to all of scripture. It all goes back to the garden with "...has God said...". That was not a dog fight. Satan is very clever at warping believers understanding of truth by wrapping error in flowery words of truth. Immature saints take the whole package and call it all truth because they are suckered by the flowery and don't see the guano mixed in.

As someone said "The great danger is not that you will renounce your faith but that you will settle for mediocre version of it."
Saints who take in guano will pass it on, as in "i recommend that people read wright's full book..." as stated above.

Tim,
I understand your position, and I agree that bad theology tends to creep through all of one's spirituality beyond the topic being discussed, but...in all honesty, nothing good ever comes of this discussion/debate/argument which eventually devolves into a row that only reinforces the perception of the non-believer, and the seekers that even long time believers/followers of G-d can't agree on scripture.
I want you to look at this from the perspective of a seeker, a person interested in G-d, Y'shua, the whole nine-yards plus field goal to boot, and think from their viewpoint what does this all look like to them?
I can tell you because I have been told this by many a non-believer, and seekers, "you christians can't even agree on what your bible says, how are you going to convince me that you know what you are talking about?"
If we cannot agree on the teachings on the bible with regards to hell...what good is it to try to evangelize anyone?

I was thinking as I sadly read the comments how we would be heard by those who have never entered into the love of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Then I thought people aren't listing to us anymore. They are not even watching anymore how we live to see if Christianity works. If it is real. This loving God we proclaim. The way we follow Jesus is so unlike how he lived his life that we have become a huge stumbling block instead of revealing God's love and kindness in the way we treat each other and reach out to a very broken world.

samb, are you referring to these WORDS OF JESUS himself that I posted above, "So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."? Do you have the guts to share these words of JESUS with a lost soul, or even with yourself? This discussion is not about how we live - that is a seperate issue. This discussion is about what the Bible actually says. I agree with you that "The way we follow Jesus is so unlike how he lived his life that we have become a huge stumbling block..." but it would appear that the one-dimensional Jesus you wish to follow is not the one revealed in the New Testament. I am continually amazed that so many folks can read Jesus' own words and then deny them. Jesus' words make me uncomfortable but I don't want to see anyone wind up in hell because talking about it will make them uncomfortable. Jesus said that those who do not repent will perish. Why are those who repeat Jesus' own words so maligned on this site? I could understand it if this were a blog for non-Christians.

Jesus said that we'll be divided into sheep and goats based on how we treat the poor, the sick and the oppressed, with the goats bound for hell.

It's funny how many Americans will argue strongly for the existence of hell while ignoring the fact they're bound for it due to our national obsession with making as much money as possible and the poor and the sick be damned.

When I ask my friends, "How can a loving God torture anyone for eternity in hell?" they reply that a person's free will, his inherent right to make his own choices, trumps even God's love for him, overwhelms God's desire for him to be saved, frustrates God's sovereign plan to redeem creation. Okay, so free will is all-important. Why, then, do we assume that this all-important free will simply evaporates at the moment of death? If free will is so inherently valuable, so integral to our personhood, doesn't it make sense that the unbeliever, post-mortem, suffering torment in hell, might retain his ability to freely repent? Coming at last to the realization of God's sovereignty and his own sin, will God (who loves his enemies and desires all to be saved) stop loving him, refuse to show mercy any longer and turn a deaf ear to his cries? No, where sin abounds, grace abounds even more!

Here are a couple questions to ask:

1. where does the concept of Hell appear in the OT? It doesn't. The OT teaches a concept of 'sheol' being the abode of the dead or the grave. ALL (good and bad) go to sheol upon death, awaiting the resurrection.

2. do any of the epistles paint the picture of hell - even once? To get a sense of what Jesus really taught, we can look at the apostles for their understanding. No where does Paul talk about heaven or hell being the final destinations of mankind - it is life or death.

3. where does the word 'hell' appear in the Book of Acts? Nowhere (except in Acts 2, in reference to 'sheol'). Ask yourself: if hell was one of 2 final destinations, shouldn't it be included - just once - in the entire book?

By the way, why doesn't 'hell' make it way, even once, in the Gospel of John?

Concepts of hell derive more from Dante's 'Inferno' than they do from the Bible.

The only references to Hell (hades) are found in Matthew, Mark & Luke. They are used parabolically. We know this because NONE of the apostles preached about the concept of hell at all. A strange - no, irresponsible - omission, wouldn't you say?

Paul C.
Regarding Question 2
1. Did you do a simple search on hell in the N.T.? I did and your results differ from mine.
2. If the apostles did not talk about hell the same as Jesus, does that reality nullify what Jesus said? No.

I've never seen Dante's Inferno, but I do read my Bible.

It seems a little odd that you give status to yourself to determine what is "responsible" revelation and invite us to join you in this arrogant venture.

Hi Tim,

If you look at my first question, I was speaking of the OT (not the NT). The word 'hell' in the OT is simply the word 'sheol' which means grave/abode of the dead.

In the OT, ALL people (good and bad, rich and poor) go there. For clarity, just as an example, see Job 3:16-19.

Regarding your second point, it would be extremely irresponsible and downright dishonest for the apostles to NOT mention hell even a single time, no? The present life vs death, instead of heaven vs hell.

Wouldn't it have come up just once in the entire book of Acts which records numerous interactions and loads of sermons? What about in just a single epistle of Paul?

If you can't at least acknowledge this as an odd omission, then I'm not sure I'm the one who is arrogant.

Tim re: Paul C.,

If you search a KJV for "hell", you'll certainly find a number of a passages that include that translation. However, it's a lousy translation - in the NT there are two different words (hades and gehenna) both translated as "hell" in the KJV (other versions are honest enough to at least transliterate them). Hades and Gehenna have profoundly different meanings, and usually Jesus was referring to Gehenna (the burning garbage dump outside of town where the maggots can always be found).

You're being presumptuous with your understanding of both hell and N.T. Wright's position on it; I agree with everyone else here who recommend that you read "Surprised By Hope" with a mind set to understand his perspective (not merely quote-mining for where you think he's wrong).

If believers would only try to UNDERSTAND one another in love and grace and humility more instead of proudly condemning one another so quickly, we might have a better reputation in this world.

Bob - thanks for going a little more deeply on how HELL is rendered in the English translations.

I have never read anything put out by Wright and therefore I am not necessarily defending his view. But the teaching on Hell, as it is presented today in most circles, is erroneous.

Again, I would look at this honestly: if hell does exist and yet it does not appear even once in the Gospel of John, Acts, the epistles of Paul, etc... but only in parabolic language, then why is it omitted?

After all, if it represents one of 2 final destinations for all of mankind, isn't that odd? Did they just forget?

No, they simply taught what was taught since the beginning. That when a person dies, they await the resurrection, at which time they are granted eternal life or death. This is taught consistently throughout the NT.

Paul: You raise some questions worth pondering. It's also worth mentioning that the vast majority of Jesus' references to hell are in the gospel of Matthew, with only a few references in Mark and Luke and none at all, as you pointed out, in John. Why is Matthew's gospel so weighted with "gehenna" passages? Why are they absent from John?

I suspect it has something to do with the fact that Matthew was writing for a predominantly Jewish audience, and that when Jesus referred to Gehenna, he was pointing to the coming destruction of the nation of Israel by the Roman army in 70 AD. Jesus frequently warned of an earthly judgment, but we've taken his words out of context and used them to support our notions of hell.

DonL: as you say, 'gehenna' is used quite often in Matthew, and is something that Jesus' hearers could relate to (as it was a dump, a place of no return, burning refuse, full or worms and other parasites).

The concept of life vs death (instead of heaven vs hell) is consistent right the way through the OT to the NT.

If they're honest, a person who advocates the doctrine of hell must come to terms with the fact that this certainly was not a doctrine taught at all - even once - by the apostles. I have yet to hear a sound reason as to why this absolutely massive, glaring omission exists (seeing as it is often put forward as 1 of 2 final destinations for the entirety of mankind).

Shouldn't Peter have warned of it on the day of Pentecost? What of Paul using it as a warning in Ephesus (seeing as Hades was already understood as the underworld)? Or in Acts 26 in front of royalty?

It is a Roman Catholic teaching that has its roots in paganism.

If hell does not exist and has been made up by early church to scare people. Nobody has to fear hell and everybody goes to heaven in which NT incidentily also believes. Why then live a Christian life serving God. You are going to heaven in any case, God is so graceful you can do what you want. Rape, murder, steal etc. you are going to heaven.

NT Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God, Chapter 8, deals with what Jesus meant by his references to judgement - it was the impending end of the Old Covenant and the judgement that would fall on Israel. These are the last days spoken of in the Bible. Jesus and John the Baptist were trying to get the nation of Israel to realise unless they repented they would be destroyed and all the curses of the law would fall on them. This all happened - as Jesus predicted - in AD 70, the "this generation" he spoke about lived to see Jesus vindicated in what he said. By implication, all these references to "hell" in the gospels refer to God's coming judgement that was realised in AD 70 and carried out as part of the terms of the Old Covenant.

Tobias: Is the only reason you "live a Christian life serving God" so that you can avoid going to hell? I trust not. I hope that your faith commitment flows from a love of your savior rather than a fear of hell. Why is it that you do not "rape, murder, steal, etc."? Because you fear hell, or because you love God?

Fear of hell is poor motivation for holy living. Love of God, who astounds us with his grace and showers us with new mercies every day, fuels holy desire and compels us to live in a right relationship with God and our neighbor.

Tobias - if I may answer you. When it comes to eternity (after this life) what the Bible teaches, from beginning to end, is life or death.

As Paul says, "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." (Rom 6)

So I am the FARTHEST thing from a Universalist.

But fear of hell is simply not biblical. Again, if it was, why was it not employed by the apostles in Acts. Paul wrote over a dozen epistles. Not one mention of hell?

John 3:16 - everlasting life versus perishing. Not heaven versus hell.

I should also say I disagree with John Mann's comment.

It is truly amazing to see people, who constantly hammer the point that Jesus' words in the Bible are the only words that really mean anything, jet as far away from those words as possible when Jesus' words get really HOT.

Paul C. - "To get a sense of what Jesus really taught, we can look at the apostles for their understanding." Why can't we understand Jesus' words as HE spoke them? In the 13th chapter of Matthew the disciples came to Jesus to ask for clarification on the 'Parable of the Tares of The Field'. At the end of his numerous analogies he finishes with, "..and shall cast them [tares] into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord." (Mat. 13:50,51) Did any of the apostles seek to clarify any of this further? No, why should they when it had been made abundantly plain and they said they understood. No, Jesus did not use the term "Hell". He described a place no one wants to go. Call it what you like but a "furnace of fire where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth" is not a place I wish to go, even if yuou called it "Heaven".

If you argue from silence as don is doing--you could also make a different (and a much more plausible) argument--that the apostles presumed their were eternal consequences (life and death) in a place Jesus expressed and understood as hell.

Argument from silence is not make a very good case for no hell, especially when the Bible does articulate heaven/hell or hades/gehenna language

btw...my face turned a bit when NT wrote about orthodox conceptions of hell. I found this on an orthodx site (i'm sure there are variations of this)

HELL, unpopular as it is among modern people, is real. The Orthodox Church understands hell as a place of eternal torment for those who willfully reject the grace of God. Our Lord once said, "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--where 'Their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched' " (Mark 9:43, 44). He challenged the religious hypocrites with the question: "How can you escape the condemnation of hell?" (Matthew 23:33). His answer is, "God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved" (John 3:17). There is a Day of Judgment coming, and there is a place of punishment for those who have hardened their hearts against God. It does make a difference how we live this life. Those who of their own free will reject the grace and mercy of God must forever bear the consequences of that choice.

Chapp - using your reference to "If your hand causes you to sin" did Jesus mean to literally sever your hand from your wrist?

I don't think you believe that. Yet you literalize the next part of the same sentence.

Not to mention, in this particular quote, the word for Hell is actually 'gehenna' which was the garbage heap outside Jerusalem.

I agree there is a day of Judgment coming and it will not be pretty. But the wages of sin is death - not a burning pit.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need to live for God and it is extremely important that we be found in Christ. I also believe rejection of Christ carries massive, eternal consequences: death.

It seems that some people didn't listen very carefully to what NT Wright was saying in this clip.

He did not say that the Orthodox Church did not believe in hell, he said that their understanding of judgment was very different from that of the Western Church and did not correlate with what was on the Sistine Chapel.

He also did not say that there is not a real hell. He said that the descriptions of hell given in the gospels were not literal, but that extreme language was used to describe how serious it was.

Why does Christianity Today and Out of Ur publish such nonsense? The scripture says what it says whether we like it or not. There are always people who want to modify God in their own image or their own opinion, but then the God they are worshiping is themselves. We either accept the scripture as it is or we don't. Either we accept Jesus as the person he is presented to be in scripture or we don't. The key is not to pretend that we believe in the same Jesus if we refuse to accept all of Him, even the uncomfortable parts. Hell is. We may not like that concept or, for that matter, fully understand it. It still remains part of Christ's teaching. I don't claim to have all the answers, but in doubt I always turn to the scripture and accept what is written as it is written.

I delved into "The Oxford Companion to the Bible" and an entry on "Afterlife" invited my interest.

It opened with this introduction: "This entry consists of two articles on views of life after death within the historical communities of Ancient Israel and Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity." The entry closed with this conclusion: "...both continue to exist in tension in Judaism and Christianity until the present."

Thus, the verbal skirmishes above are not uncommon.

Leaving hermeneutics in the lurch for a while, the following reflection is thought-provoking:

"Let us try to be honest with ourselves. Picture to yourself a man who has risen to wealth or power by a continued course of treachery and cruelty, by exploiting for purely selfish ends the noble motions of his victims, laughing the while at their simplicity; who, having thus attained success, uses it for the gratification of lust and hatred and finally parts with the last rag of honor among thieves by betraying his own accomplices and jeering at their last moments of bewildered disillusionment.

"Suppose further, that he does all this, not (as we like to imagine) tormented by remorse or even misgiving, but eating like a schoolboy and sleeping like a healthy infant - a jolly, ruddy-cheeked man, without a care in the world, unshakably confident to the very end that he alone has found the answer to the riddle of life, that God and man are fools whom he has got the better of, that his way of life is utterly successful, satisfactory, unassailable.

"We must be careful at this point. The least indulgence of the passion for revenge is very deadly sin. Christian charity counsels us to make every effort for the conversion of such a man: to prefer his conversion, at the peril of our own lives, perhaps of our own souls, to his punishment; to prefer it infinitely.

"But that is not the question. Supposing he will not be converted, what destiny in the eternal world can you regard as proper for him? Can you really desire that such a man, remaining what he is (and he must be able to do that if he has free will) should be confirmed forever in his present happiness - should continue, for all eternity, to be perfectly convinced that the laugh is on his side?"

- C.S. Lewis

Okay, I'm Eastern Orthodox (formerly Evangelical), and this is the very issue that compelled me on the journey that led me to convert to Orthodoxy. For a fuller understanding of what Orthodoxy and the Bible actually teaches about this issue, go to the following link and scroll down the article "Heaven & Hell in the Afterlife."

http://stjohn.ny.goarch.org/

There is also a very helpful podcast by Orthodox prof. of philosophy Clark Carlton at this link: http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/carlton/hell_a_modest_proposal

I hope this helps the discussion on this very important issue where the faith of many are harmed by distortions on both sides of this issue (a diminishment of God's mercy on one hand, or the real and potentially terrible consequences of man's choices on the other), whether one takes an NT Wright approach or Jon Piper's, or adopts heresies like Universalism and Annihilationism.

I think that those who have commented so far and are obviously very worked up are those who have been immersed in a version of Christianity that really likes hell. Not in that they want to visit, but in that they find it very useful in "spreading the good news" of Jesus.

I find it strange that so many seem to think there is SO much at stake if it turns out that there isn't a giant burning lake of fire somewhere, as if there is no gospel apart from a burning pit of fire.

What Wright says about what is traditionally called the Orthodox view of hell is not that there is no such thing as hell, but that it is less about God (out of "justice" or something) torturing sinners and more like being shut outside of the life God gives and hopes for all creation.

And this is what Wright is talking about when he says our choices in life really do matter. So that when God puts things to rights on the last day there will be a welcome extended to those sinners who have said "yes" to God and the others will get exactly what they want, namely eternity w/o God. And the consequences of a life cut off from God is, as Wright says, increasingly dehumanizing. And the name we have used to describe this way of "living" is "hell".

"I think that those who have commented so far and are obviously very worked up are those who have been immersed in a version of Christianity that really likes hell."

Tony, an astute observation, I believe. I think this is related to modern "Atonement" theories rooted in "Penal Substitution," a Reformation doctrine not found in early Christianity, but the predominating model among protestant evangelicals today. Some food for thought here based on the writings of a Saint of the early church here:

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/st-isaac-mercy-and-justice/

If we are to be truly honest with ourselves, none of us really know if there is a heaven or hell when we die.

It's all based on belief. Whether we believe what this book says or that book says. What we believe this scholar or that scholar says. This religion or that religion. This or that vision.

Personally, the closest we can get to a blurry picture of the afterlife is in people's Near-Death-Experiences. According to Barna, nearly 8 million Americans have died and come back to life experiencing similar things. The majority are positive experiences, regardless of being atheist or having religious beliefs. There are a few negative ones, but they always end up getting rescued by some being of unconditional love.

But even those experiences do not prove anything. It creates another belief for those of us who have yet to experience death. But at least this belief is based on empirical fact, rather than religious theory.

I've read Wright's books, NTPG, JVG, Surprised by Hope and Meaning of Jesus. And I've read every early church writing written before 120AD which seem to believe in Annihilation and Conditional Immortality. I've also read books on Universalist Christians beliefs such as St. Gregory of Nyssa (who co-wrote the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed).

However, after going through theological college, I've had enough of Christianity's diverse theories (as there are 39,000 different Protestant denominations alone who disagree with each other over the interpretation of one Biblical passage or another).

I'd recommend a few books written by medical doctors who have interviewed patients who are dying are who have died and returned to life. You may choose to believe or not, but at least you will know the experience of many.

Into the Light by Dr. John Lerma
Closer to the Light by Dr. Melvin Morse

At the end of the day, I believe that God is the Ultimate Sovereign, which means if God wants you to believe in Hell, that means He needs you to believe in it. If God doesn't want you to believe in Hell, you won't. Many people need to believe in Hell. Fear and Love are the two motivators in life, and if you have not experienced Perfect Love (which casts out all Fear), then you must have Fear to motivate you. Hell is a great motivator to make people do good things that they otherwise wouldn't. However, if you do good things because of Love, then God will not need to use Hell on you as a Fear-based motivator, and will lead you down a different path.

And while I do believe people have free will, I do not believe human free will is more powerful than God's free will. When it comes to a battle of Free Wills, God vs. Man, God's Will shall surely prevail.

Therefore, if God's will is for none to perish, and if God has the power to create a situation where everyone will choose to come to him of their own free will, then the question is will God succeed or not?

All-Sovereignty + All-Powerful + Will to save all = ?

I would also recommend reading what the Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev has to say on this:

http://mercycongress.org/story.php?NID=3132

Remember, that over the last few years, a lot of Evangelicals converted to Orthodoxy (Hilarion isn't one of them) and may have brought a lot of their previous beliefs into Orthodoxy.

"And while I do believe people have free will, I do not believe human free will is more powerful than God's free will. When it comes to a battle of Free Wills, God vs. Man, God's Will shall surely prevail."

Bone of contention: The use of the term "free" made the statement self-contradictory. "Free" is defined in a dictionary as "At liberty; not bound or constrained." The phrase "God's Will shall surely prevail" renders human free will null and void.

C.S. Lewis words are upfront:

"If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free-will and at the same time withhold free-will from it', you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combination of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can'."

With regard to the mention of Orthodox Bp. Alfeyev's scholarship of St. Isaac (which is well worth studying), I would add that in spite of what his teaching might lead a modern protestant (or Roman Catholic) to think, St. Isaac (and all the other Saints who express this kind of profound insight into the radical nature of God's love in their life and teachings--most of whom do NOT teach a finite "Gehenna" and neither is this a dogma of the Orthodox Church) were also firmly grounded in a tradition of the most rigorous Christian asceticism and a kind of literal obedience to Jesus' commandments that modern Christians generally eschew as legalism and rarely view as meant to be taken and worked out in life so literally (i.e., the commands to "pray without ceasing" and to "love your enemies.") They actually take the working out of one's salvation with fear and trembling and the overcoming of sin and the flesh in one's life with the help of God's grace as of the utmost critical importance. We should ask ourselves why.

Without knowing why (and Bp. Alfeyev comes from a tradition in which this sort of rigorous asceticism is still very much taught and assumed even today), I think there is some important information missing here, which easily leads to the perspective that Historymaker expresses, and which I think flies in the face of the fullness of Christian revelation. What Jesus taught and demonstrated through His life, death and resurrection about the nature of ultimate things is of far more interest to me than subjective modern accounts of people resuscitated to a kind of existence in which they will clearly someday die again (not to be resuscitated into another mortal existence). There are also modern accounts of near death experiences where what was experienced was a lot more like "hell," but these don't sell popular books! As my Orthodox Priest recently pointed out, whatever these experiences describe, it is not the afterlife that Jesus and Scripture address, or we wouldn't be talking to them--they would still be dead!

I cannot believe that many of you are questioning Jesus' words. You CANNOT say you believe that every word of the Bible is true and then question what Jesus said. You either believe the Bible for what it says or you don't. Jesus wasn't speaking in parables when He spoke of hell. He was speaking literally.

We are all headed straight for hell without the atoning work of Christ on the Cross. If there is no hell, why did Jesus die?

Sometimes things are not working as forecasted, thats life....

bye,
Elli

Sometimes things are not working as forecasted, thats life....

bye,
Elli