Hell. Philosophy. God. Love.

Lately I’ve been taking a different approach to learning who God is and how He deals with people. I have come to believe that although the Bible is an excellent revelation of God – probably the best one we have – it’s not the only one, and in certain circumstances it is not the ideal one.

For example, if I have a broken leg, my doctor will find little in the Bible about fixing me (aside from praying for me). If I want to calculate the trajectory of a satellite that is about to be launched into orbit around the earth, the formulas I need are not in the Bible, even though the behavior of the satellite will be governed by the natural laws that God Himself created. The speed of light is not found in the Bible, nor is any information on the which type of hen I should purchase if I want to have my own farm-fresh eggs.

I believe that God has created immutable laws that govern the universe, and I’m not talking now about only physical laws. Love exists. We all know that intuitively. Things like forgiveness, anger, mercy, selfishness and patience are all concepts that we are aware of even if we’ve never cracked the cover of a Bible. These are laws of life among human beings that all of us are intimately familiar with. So if we already know about such things, what is the Bible’s role in teaching us about them?

I have come to believe that it’s more like this:

Let’s say “love exists.” We all know that already. Now, instead of learning that from the Bible, let’s study all of God’s revelations to humankind to discover what love is all about.

Sure, we can learn about love from the Bible. But the Bible might not be the best revelation of God’s love in certain circumstances. Examples abound of people searching for love in all the wrong places, even studying the Bible for answers, but until they see it in the eyes and actions of a human being who truly loves them, they cannot make the connection. In cases like these, the Bible is not as useful in teaching about the concept of love as a true example of sacrificial love coming from another person is our time of great need.

So we know that “love exists.” In order to learn as much as we can about love, let’s draw upon all of God’s revelations to us. Let’s study the Bible. Let’s interact with people, the Body of Christ on this earth. Let’s sit on a grassy slope at sunset and feel the Spirit of God stirring within us. Let’s invite the Holy Spirit to directly flood our hearts with His love so we can really experience what He means by the word “love.” Let’s get into a personal relationship with God so we can really know about Him and His love.

So in a nutshell, what if the Bible is only one of God’s revelations about life with Him, and He expects us to examine all of His other revelations as well? What if He has set things up such that life with Him requires constant interaction with Him in order to learn the answers? What if the be-all, end-all, absolute authority in every single matter of life and death is not the Bible but rather a personal, intimate, conversational relationship with God Himself? What if He has purposefully left us somewhat in the dark (or at least the twilight) on some (most?) issues so that we’ll not only draw closer to Him but also to one another? What if “The Word of God” that we are all supposed to be so familiar with isn’t a written book after all, but the person of Jesus Christ (John chapter 1), the Logos, the original and only Logic and Truth?

So then, what if we were to take this kind of philosophical approach to discuss the existence and/or purpose of hell?

Rob Bell stirred up a lot of controversy with his book Love Wins in which he seems to defend a position in which all human beings will eventually have the opportunity to be reconciled to God. As a result, some have called him a “universalist.” Very quickly the counterpoint books were published to discuss why Bell is either a heretic or is inspired, with some critiques coming across much more graciously than others. It all begs the question, “Why the huge controversy?” Why have we invested so much in the concept of hell, eternal torment, the justice of God and the like? Few topics create so much heat.

I think one’s concept of hell is strongly influenced by his or her own philosophy of who God is and what he is like. Obviously, if you think of God as a judge or a big eye-in-the-sky whose primary purpose is to make sure you toe the line, then of course you will have less problem believing in a God who torments people consciously for time without end. I’m not saying that if you believe in conscious eternal torment that you believe in a vindictive God – I’m just suggesting how one’s picture of God might influence this conversation. On the other hand, if you believe that God is pure love, incapable of causing pain, and wears a flowery tunic and sandals and listens to the Beatles, then you might view the idea of eternal hell as preposterous.

An accurate understanding of who God is will help us here, but it is vastly complicated by the fact that God appears differently to different people depending on their need. To the woman caught in adultery, whom the Pharisees wanted to stone to death, Jesus appeared forgiving and loving. To the Apostle Paul (while he was still Saul, on his way to persecute Christians), he was a baseball bat that knocked him off his horse (literally) and blinded him for three days. To the Pharisees He was a thorn in their flesh, one who stared them in the eyes while He called them vipers from hell.

Can we boil God down to where we can predict a particular type of behavior from Him in certain situations? I think the Biblical answer to these two questions is an emphatic “No!” What is the purpose of such stories as reducing Gideon’s army down to 300 so he can go out and surround an army of 160,000? What is the purpose of such stories as the walls of Jericho falling down just because some people marched around it for seven days? What is the purpose of such stories as one old man with a cane being sent to rescue more than a million people from bondage in Egypt? What is the purpose of Jesus looking for tax money in the mouth of a fish? If we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that the point of many Bible stories is not to teach us exactly how God operates but to teach precisely the opposite: that we cannot know how He is going to operate. Which makes sense, right? I mean, of what use would faith or relationship be if we could just learn all our lessons from the Bible?

So we may not be able to know specifically how God may operate in a given situation, and we may be able to agree that God possibly prefers to keep us at least a little off guard so He can be the Lord of our lives, and teach us to trust Him regardless of what our circumstances are telling us. But the question is still on the table: can we accurately know who God is and how He thinks as we discuss the concept of hell? I think to answer this question, we need to understand that there is a difference between God’s unpredictable actions and His very predictable character.

God is love. On this the Bible is clear. But what does love mean? Is love always mushy and kind? If I want to teach my son the dangers of playing with fire, I may have to become quite forceful in my discipline and teaching process in order for him to get the point. At times it might not look like love on the surface, but is motivated by a deep love and concern for his well-being. So love may not always look like warmth and kindness. Okay then.

So is it at least safe to assume that God’s love has our best interests at heart? How do we define that? Is my best interest what makes me happy or keeps me safe? What if my best interest is actually the thing that makes me most like Jesus, even at the expense of great personal pain? Now I can see that God’s love may not always be fluffy and easy, because I know myself. I need some hard knocks to keep me on the straight and narrow. And I have submitted myself willingly to that process, even though it causes me some significant pain at times. But this too is God’s love, is it not?

So maybe God’s love for me means that He will only do what is most likely to create in me the personality traits of Jesus. Even if it hurts. Even if it costs a lot of time and money. Even if it looks mean or painful or even nasty on the surface. But I allow Him to do that to me if I’m in a close, trusting relationship with Him. It’s called trust. I trust God. He is the only person I have ever known that is 100%, incontrovertibly trustworthy. So I can let Him do what He wants in my life. Not only that, I can even welcome it because I know it’s good for me in some twisted, comical way that only God understands. One word for the process of me becoming like Jesus is redemption.

To be redeemed is to get back what was originally mine. God created humankind in a state of perfection, and God is trying to bring each of individually, and all of us collectively, back to that state of perfection. The bride of Christ will be and is perfect, spotless, blameless. The culmination of all human history on earth will be the marriage supper with Jesus, an intimate uniting of his Bride, the Church, with Him for eternity. Redeemed.

So, what about those who don’t make the cut?

God woos all human beings to Himself. Many do not heed the call. Many will not make it to the supper table. What happens to those people? What happens to those people whom God desperately loves, so much that He is wooing them to become His bride? What happens to the people who are being romanced by Jesus because of His deep love for them, but who decide they don’t love Him in return? Will God act the scorned lover? Will he punish those who don’t return His love? How will He respond to those who give Him back the engagement ring and say “No, I don’t it’s going to work out between us”? Will he say “Fine, then burn in hell forever, time without end?”

I would not want to marry someone who doesn’t love me so I can’t blame Jesus for acting the same way. We are, after all, made in Him image, and if we are walking with Him, then we also have His mind in us (1 Cor. 2:16). To marry someone who does not love me is an insult to the very definition of love. God is love, so He won’t be united with those who don’t love Him. So what happens to those who choose not to partake in His love?

Other authors have done extensive studies on the biblical references to hell, so there is no need to repeat that here. I strongly encourage readers to study those passages, because what they will find is only one or two verses that imply lasting torment. All the others talk about an eternal fire that is never quenched, but that’s a statement about the nature of the fire itself, not about lasting torment. It’s an interesting study, if only for the revelation that eternal conscious torment is very weakly supported if at all in Scripture. Please read it for yourself. You might be surprised.

What is supported in Scripture is the concept of a “second death.” The first death is, obviously, a physical death. What happens when your body dies? It decays and ceases to exist. It goes back to the dust from which it was formed. It is no more. If the first death is the death of the physical body what is the second death? Is it not the destruction of the immaterial self? Should not the immaterial part os us, then, cease to exist upon the second death? What else could “second death” mean?

“But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men (2 Peter 3:7).”

Please read all the scriptures that talk about the “destruction” of the ungodly. There are quite a few. Why the word “destruction?” Why not “punishment”? The words “destruction” and “second death”, when used to discuss the fate of those who reject God, seem to point toward, well, destruction, not eternal conscious existence in pain. Yes, I am opening the door to annihilationism here in case you were wondering.

It might help to digest this idea if we talk about the book of life. This is an interesting concept. Obviously metaphorical, since that realm which we will be crossing into upon death is non-physical so it can’t be a literal book of paper and ink. The book of life is discussed in the Old Testament (Psalm 69:28) and the New (Philippians 4:3, and several times in Revelation). In several instances, including the Psalms, the Bible talks about the danger of being blotted out from the book of life. Interesting. There is not a single scripture that say “strive to get your name written into the book of life,” but there are warnings about being blotted out of it. This brings up a slightly peripheral subject that is actually interesting to discuss at this point.

We evangelicals typically believe in the concept of original sin, but to get around the particularly touchy subject of sending infants to hell, we have had to invent such silly concepts as an “age of accountability.” There is not one shred of biblical support for this, so let’s just throw it out now. If we take the scriptural warnings about the possibility of being blotted out of the book of life literally, then we ought to assume that we’re all in the book of life until we make decisions that blot us out. We can all agree philosophically that infants or very young people, or mentally handicapped people who have no true grasp of reality, those who are born severely incapable of cogent mental activity, and others who cannot logically decide for or against Christ, cannot be held accountable for either trusting or rejecting God. In other words, they are in the book of life. They will not – because they cannot – make decisions that will blot them out.

The Bible makes it clear that everyone has an opportunity to accept the reality of God (even if no one tells them about Christ they still have the creation itself as a witness – Romans 1:20). Some who are presented with this opportunity will reject the reality of God’s existence or His love for them. Their names can be blotted out of the book of life. Therefore, they will be sentenced to “destruction.” What is destruction? The dictionary provides these synonyms: abolition, annihilation, extinction, elimination, extermination.

It seems peculiar to me that scripture uses fire as a metaphor for eternal hell. Why fire? We know that is has to be metaphorical, because that realm of existence is non-material. It’s eternal, non-physical, having to do with the spirit realm. After people die, their bodies decay and the immaterial part is what’s left to deal with. Fire has to be metaphorical because our spirits, the only part left after death, are non-material while fire is material. We must look not at what fire is but at the metaphorical value of what fire does and what it represents.

So why the metaphor of fire? What is fire? What does it do? It destroys stuff. When something is burned, it is annihilated. Jesus, in Matthew 13:42, talks about the evil ones being thrown into the “blazing furnace.” Blazing furnaces are known for utterly destroying things, not keeping them intact forever in a state of burning. Jesus even warned us of the God “who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). As the body is destroyed, so, apparently, is the soul. “Destruction” is a powerful word. He could have chosen other words that would more accurately portray “continued existence in torment.” But He didn’t. I believe the metaphor of fire, which destroys things and does not keep them intact, was purposefully chosen. By the way, the word “hell” here is actually Gehenna, also called Hinnom in the Old Testament, referring to a valley where those who followed the Caananite gods would burn their children in the fire (2 Chr. 28:3, 33:6). Burning in a fire consumes and destroys.

All of this is to address scriptural reasons why I think that hell is not a place of eternal torment but a concept portraying those who reject Christ as simply being destroyed. After all, we know that those who choose to follow Christ gain eternal life. That means we will live forever. It follows very simply and logically that if we do not gain eternal life, then we do not live forever. Some have been blotted out of the book of life so they will cease to exist. They will not have access to the tree of life (Rev. 2:7, 22:14, 22:19) which is where we gain immortality. Even life in hell is eternal life. It’s a life that is eternal, except it’s in eternal conscious torment. But the Bible is clear that only Christ-followers have eternal life.

Okay, so I still haven’t arrived at the philosophical arguments about hell. This article started with all kinds of lofty talk about the purpose of the Bible and other revelations of God’s character. So let’s apply this to our discussion

I realize that many of us have become tired of the arguments about how a loving God could send people to hell, but it’s a question worth examining closely. All throughout Scripture, regardless of how we define the love of God and its consequences for both Christ-followers and Christ-rejecters, we must admit that God intensely loves all people equally. God is no respecter of persons. Whether or not we choose to love Him, He still loves us. He is romancing every individual on the planet, and every one who ever existed, and every one who ever will exist. He wants desperately to be our Daddy. In fact, all people are called His sons and daughters because we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

Would a loving father whose son rebelled against him, who has committed serious crimes, who has even acted in hate and violence and killed people as a result, prefer eternal torment and torture for time without end, or the death penalty for his own son, whom he loves? Would not a proper sense of justice in the father’s heart, even though it is his own son, support or at least understand a judge’s sentence of death? But what about a sentence of torture? What if this father’s son was sentenced to severe torture, the worst stuff that the judge could conceive, for not only the rest of his own son’s life but for time without end? Would not even a father who loves his wayward son not prefer and understand the penalty of death as being more just than that of eternal torture?

A common answer is that God’s ways are higher than ours so we must blindly accept His judgement of eternal torment. But I believe that the old arguments that God’s ways are higher than our ways and that we cannot understand God’s mind in all this are actually wrong. 1 Corinthians 2:16 is the very verse that Christians have historically used to support the idea that we can’t understand God, but the very same verse, if read in its entirety ends with “But we have the mind of Christ.” Yes, we can understand God’s ways and His mind. That’s why our role as ambassadors for Jesus is so crucial. We are trusted with His mind and heart. He trusts us to speak for Him in this world. He trusts us with supernatural gifts like words of knowledge and words of wisdom and prophecy in order to speak His life and truth into the hearts of people. And we can know something of His heart for the lost. And I believe that a loving Father, who passionately woos every human being, would not – could not – eternally torture those who decide it’s not for them.

But why is this conversation so intense? Whether those who reject Christ are destroyed or they suffer eternally, should not my love for them and my desire to see them “saved” (whatever that actually means) be any different? If I really have the love of God in my heart and I act toward others with that same love, will I not act just as intensely and be just as focused in my attempts to convince them of the truth, regardless of how I view their eternal destiny? Is this really an issue that Christians should spend so much time debating? I’ve painted myself into a corner now, because depending on my answer to this partially rhetorical question, I may be announcing to you that this article itself is frivolous.

Well, I obviously think it’s important. As a follower of God and as one seeking to love others in the same way He loves them, the eternal fate of those I am trying to reach is not an issue. Regardless of my personal outlook on hell, I ought to pursue them and try to communicate the Kingdom of God to them just as intensely. So from my perspective the true nature of hell is a moot point because I should do everything I can to accurately portray the kingdom of God. What is important then is what our teachings about hell are saying to those we are trying to reach and their interpretation of God and His kingdom.

I believe that we must be careful to present an accurate view of God to those who don’t know Him. If indeed He is “vindictive” enough to send those who don’t agree with Him to eternal conscious torment, then that’s the truth we ought to be presenting to others. But if He actually loves those people, and has no intention of torturing them forever but instead will act in a more humane although just way, whatever that way looks like, then that just might show people a side of God that traditional hellfire and brimstone preaching cannot show. To be sure, there are many who have rejected the God of modern evangelicalism because they cannot reconcile the infinite love of God with the eternal torture that the church seems to be teaching. To be honest, neither can I.

I think I know God, at least a little. He wants me to know Him. He has offered to make Himself known to me and He is true to His promises. I am far behind where I want to be in my relationship with Him, but I know of His love and kindness in some very special and significant ways. And I believe that this Person will not torture people forever. Everything about the image of a Father, about a Bridegroom wooing a bride unto Himself, about a Creator who loves and cherishes all aspects of His creation, cries out against torture. His metaphors about being our Father, about his intense and infinite forgiveness, about his infinitely deep and abiding love for all people – not just those who follow Him, all of these testify to His justness, which can and should be understood by those who follow Him, because we have indeed been given the mind of Christ.

Maybe I’m not close enough to God’s heart to really say for sure what He’s thinking about this. What I do know is that if my son were guilty of some heinous crime, I would prefer the death penalty over everlasting torture. That, at least from my perspective, is a more just penalty even though I have severe reservations about our modern acceptance and support of the death penalty. Many modern Christians seem far too supportive of our warring government, while at the same time fighting abortion, yet agreeing with the death penalty. What a mixed bag! That’s a conversation far too complex for this venue. I’m just identifying what I see as a discontinuous philosophy among many Christians regarding the true sanctity of life. I can see clearly where Rob Bell gets his almost-universalism theology, even though I’m convinced that his book on hell is really meant more to open conversations than to make a definitive statement about his belief system. If life is indeed as precious as God seems to be saying it is, perhaps universalism has more merit than many of us realize.

No, I’m not taking a firm stance here. If I had to define my beliefs on hell, I would lean strongly toward annihilation, but even though I want to have the mind of Christ and learn to think exactly like He thinks, yet I want to remain humble enough to keep this a discussion, not a theological statement. I think strict and firm theology often is more damaging than helpful. Theology, by definition, says “This is what I know about God.” But we are finite and God is, actually, not. Any theological statement about anything has to be tempered by the assumption that we are finite beings trying to understand an infinite God, and even though we have the mind of Christ and ought to be learning to think like Him and know things as He knows them, yet we are called not into a relationship of knowledge but of love and intimacy.

I met my wife on eHarmony. For us it worked beautifully. She is amazing and we are very good for each other. But I could have read her online profile, and I could have read everything she wrote about herself, I could have read volumes of prose written by others who knew her, but all of that would have been only that – reading about her, not getting to know her. Life with God is about getting to know Him, not reading about Him. While it is helpful to read about God in the Bible, it is not a substitute for knowing Him personally. He can be known exactly like any other person can be known, but many Christians make the mistake of substituting biblical knowledge for a relationship with Jesus. Please understand me, I love the Bible. But we have put the Bible on a pedestal where it actually does not belong.

As we get to know God personally and intimately, then we can gain more from discussions about things like hell and the afterlife (and any other topic we care to discuss) because He is the source of all knowledge and wisdom, not the Bible. The Bible is a tool, one revelation among many, of the majesty of God. He invites us into conversation with Him and with each other, not to teach us facts but to reveal Himself. The purpose of this article – and, I trust, all my writing, conversation and lifestyle – is not to establish facts but to know the Truth. Jesus is The Truth, and The Way, and The Life. I am less interested to know facts about Him and more interested in knowing Him. I believe this conversation about hell, as well as every conversation we will ever have about God’s kingdom, ought to primarily be focused on getting to know Him better.

I will close with a prayer from the Apostle Paul, which I think really captures the way all us Christians should be thinking as we debate this and other important topics with each other:

“I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better” (Ephesians 1:17).