God and hell: The Bible's views on hell
As it turns out, the Bible doesn't really have a whole lot to say about hell. The KJV mentions hell 54 times. (For those following along at home, that's less than once per book on average.) Modern translations mention hell even fewer than 54 times, such as the NIV (13), ESV (14), and NLT (17). Even the NKJV reduces its "hell count" to 32. I think the first step to deciding what the Bible says about hell is figuring out why different translations don't seem to be able to agree on where the Bible says "hell".
The Bible's words for hell
In the Bible, there are four different words translated as "hell", and three of those words have alternate meanings that make translation complicated.
Sheol (שְׁאוֹל)
In the Old Testament (which was written in Hebrew and Aramaic), the word Sheol is translated as "hell" 31 times. This might sound like a good place to start - until you learn that the word Sheol actually appears in the Old Testament 65 times.
Why is it translated as "hell" 31 times? And what are the other 34 usages translated as? I'm so glad you asked!
"Sheol" is translated as "pit" three times and "grave" 31 times. As with most words with multiple definitions, translators use their best judgment to decide which word to use. However, if you use a concordance to look up occurrences of the word Sheol (it's Strong H7585), you can see that often, any of the three translations will work. There's nothing in the immediate Hebrew suggesting that anyone suffers eternally in Sheol. In fact, there's very little in the text to suggest that souls exist in Sheol at all, although it's easy enough to read between the lines of some of the verses. It reads like people have read the Christian doctrine of hell back into the text, rather than deriving the doctrine of hell from the text (at least in the OT).
Our modern understanding of the ancient usage of Sheol tells us that Sheol is just "the grave" - sometimes this refers to the abode of the dead, and sometimes to the "bowels of the earth", which is where ancient Hebrews believed Sheol was located. They also believed that everyone went to Sheol when they died - righteous or wicked, Jew or Gentile. Nearing the time of Jesus, it was an increasingly common belief that Sheol had "compartments", as we can see in Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), where Jesus describes Lazarus going to rest in the "bosom of Abraham" while the rich man suffers in flames. Despite the translation of Sheol as "hell" (and Jesus' description of Sheol as a place where some of its inhabitants are punished), Sheol doesn't mean "hell".
Hades (ᾅδου)
The New Testament (which was written in Greek) contains the word Hades 11 times, of which ten are translated "hell" in the KJV. The single non-hell translation is rendered "grave" in 1 Corinthians 15:55. But should the other uses of Hades really be translated as "hell"?
As it turns out, no. Not a single usage of Hades makes more sense as "hell" than as "grave". And there's a reason for that: Hades and Sheol are the same place. We know this because before Jesus' day, the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek (the resulting text is known as the Septuagint). With a couple exceptions (that have nothing to do with hell), the Hebrew word "Sheol" was translated into the Greek "Hades". This is notable because when translating, the translators needed to make a decision: Should they transliterate the Hebrew word into Greek, or translate with a Greek word that is analogous to the Hebrew? If there's not an appropriate word in the target language (such as for a proper place), translators will transliterate the source word (meaning try to rewrite the word using the letters of the target language in a way that is relatively easy for its speakers to pronounce). However, if there's an appropriate word in the target language, translators will use it. Sheol and Hades are actually two examples of transliterated words - the Hebrew and Greek letters have been replaced with Latin characters in such a way that English speakers can approximate the sound of the original words. But for the Septuagint, translators didn't transliterate "Sheol" into a Greek approximation; instead, they used the existing word "Hades" because they felt that the concepts of "Hades" and "Sheol" were close enough for Greek readers of the Septuagint to understand what is meant when the Hebrew scriptures speak of "Sheol". So if "Sheol" never means "a place of eternal punishment for the wicked", we shouldn't read "Hades" that way either.
Uses of Hades in the NT
Look, I get it. You're skeptical that "Hades" shouldn't mean "hell". I was too, at first. So here, we'll go through every single time Hades is used in the NT and discuss why "hell" doesn't make any sense. I'll leave off 1 Corinthians 15:55, since it translates "Hades" as "grave".
Hades is used in the NT 11 times. The following are the ten usages of Hades that are translated as "hell" in the KJV. All quotes of scripture are from the KJV.
Matthew 11:23, Luke 10:15
And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shall be brought down to hell...
This dichotomy between heaven and hell is used several times in the OT with the word Sheol. The contrast drawn is between the heights of heaven and the depths of Sheol, which the ancient Hebrews believed were located high in the sky and deep in the earth, respectively. This can be seen in 1 Samuel 2:6, Psalm 139:8, and Amos 9:2. This description of Capernaum is equivalent to a lament, such as "how the mighty have fallen", and not a literal descriptor of the land being thrust into hell.
The phrase "brought down to Sheol" also appears in Isaiah 14:11 and 14:15. Interestingly, despite the identitical usage and context (they're only four verses apart, after all), Isaiah 14:11 is rendered "brought down to the grave" while 14:15 is rendered "brought down to hell". The similarities in phraseology between Sheol and Hades in these usages, coupled with the sparseness of the usages of these words throughout the Bible, is enough to convince me that this is not a reference to an eternal fiery furnace.
Matthew 16:18
...thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The phrase "gates of hell" is "gates of Hades" in Greek. The Hebrew equivalent phrase "gates of Sheol" appears in the OT as well, in Isaiah 38:10. A similar phrase appears several times in the OT, "gates of death" ("death" is the Hebrew word צַלְמָוֶת maveth), in Job 38:17, Psalm 9:13, and Psalm 107:18. This phrase seems to align well with the Sheol-grave usage, so I see no reason to read "hell" into this verse when it isn't there. "Gates of hell" is certainly evocative, but the text doesn't support this translation.
Luke 16:23 (the parable of the rich man and Lazarus)
And in hell [the rich man] lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Here, Jesus describes the rich man as lifting his eyes up in Hades. While the rich man is described as tormented, this is clearly not a reference to hell as we think of it because this is a known place in Second Temple Jewish eschatology: Jesus is describing a compartmentalized Sheol, with Lazarus in the Bosom of Abraham and the rich man tormented in flames. Because the text explicitly references the Bosom of Abraham, we can be certain that this translation of Hades is associated with Sheol as the realm of the dead, and not hell as a place of eternal punishment.
Acts 2:27, 31
27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption... 31[David] seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Here, Peter is teaching a crowd in Jerusalem on how Jesus is revealed in Psalm 16. This is all happening right after Pentecost; Peter is freshly filled with the Holy Spirit. Verse 27 is a direct quote of Psalm 16:10, which uses "Sheol". The connotation is that God will not leave the David's soul in the grave, but will resurrect him. Unless, of course, you believe that David's soul is currently in hell, and will later be released....
In verse 31, Peter is explaining the connection between Jesus and David. He's tying the doctrine of Christ crucified and resurrected back into Psalm 16:10. Since he's speaking to a crowd of Jews in Jerusalem, his audience is both familiar with Psalm 16:10 and aware of the crucifixion of Christ, since they either personally witnessed the crucifixion or heard about it from someone who did. Again, this verse can't be used in the context of our modern concept of hell unless you're asserting that Jesus will raise souls out of hell.
Rev 1:18
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
If Hades (Sheol) has gates, it needs a key to open. Jesus claiming to have the keys of Sheol and death makes sense because Jesus claims to be the pathway to resurrection for the dead. Jesus can both release souls from Sheol and raise those souls from the dead.
Besides, interpreting Hades as "hell" here would damage the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell. Hell doesn't need a key to be locked, only unlocked. Fortunately for believers in eternal hell, this verse isn't talking about hell at all.
Rev 6:8
And I looked and behold a pale horse; and his name that sat on him was Death, and hell followed with him....
This reference is simple. What follows death according to Jews and Christians of the day? Sheol. They believed that upon their death, their souls descended into Sheol. Sheol naturally follows death, and this perfectly matches Second Temple Jewish and early Christian eschatology.
Rev 20:13-14
13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them; and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Verse 13 says death and Hades delivered up their dead. Which reading makes more sense? "death and hell" or "death and the grave"? It might seem like a wash - until we look at the next verse.
Verse 14 is pretty straightforward. Most Christians believe that the lake of fire is the eternal hell where wicked souls are punished. How can hell give up its souls to be cast into hell? This is clearly a reference to the Hebrew Sheol giving up its dead for judgment and punishment.
Conclusions on Hades
Not a single usage of Hades can be convincingly tied to the idea of eternal punishment in hell. The usage of Hades in the NT is consistent with the usage of Sheol in the OT. Translators of the KJV put doctrine above translation when rendering the original text in English.
More modern translations recognize this fact. Instead of translating Hades as "hell", which it clearly does not mean, modern translators instead transliterate the word directly into English.
Tartarus
Tartarus appears exactly one time in the Bible, in 2 Peter 2:4, and not even as a noun. In many languages, nouns can be used as verbs through a process that linguists call "verbing". Probably the most famous example of verbing is the word "Google", which is both a noun (the company Google) and a verb (to perform a web search using Google's search engine).
4For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment... 9[then] the Lord knoweth how to...reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.
The usage of Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4 is as a verb. This changes the word slightly in Greek, which is how we know for sure that this word is meant as a verb and not a noun. The phase "cast them down to hell" is a single word in Greek; essentially, the Greek says God "Tartarused" the angels that sinned, as in "cast them down to Tartarus".
So what is Tartarus? The unsatisfying answer is that we don't really know for sure. But considering the way early Christians borrowed the word Hades to refer to Sheol, we might be able to make an inference by looking at how Greeks understood Tartarus.
According to the ancient Greeks, Tartarus was a place in Hades where the gods punished the Titans. Later on, Tartarus developed into a place where evil humans were punished for their sins. For example, Plato wrote that temple robbers and murderers would be punished in Tartarus forever, but lesser criminals would be punished in Tartarus for one year, then reprieved long enough to ask their victims for forgiveness. If forgiven, they would be released from Tartarus, but if not forgiven, they would return until they were.
So how much of this theology is Peter borrowing in 2 Peter 2:4? It's hard to say for sure. He could be borrowing a single vivid image that his Greek readers would understand, or he could be borrowing a Christianized version of the entire Greek theology. It's important to note that Peter only ever mentions angels being in Tartarus. He does draw a parallel between these fallen angels and wicked humans being reserved for judgment, but he never outright states that these wicked humans would be punished in Tartarus. In fact, he never mentions anyone being punished in Tartarus; the angels in Tartarus are "chained [in] darkness" awaiting punishment. For these angels, Tartarus serves as a sort of pre-trial detention, and at most, the same can be said of any humans who might be there (but again, Peter never explicitly describes humans in Tartarus).
Gehenna
Gehenna is probably the most interesting of the words translated as "hell" in the Bible. It's also the word that is most closely used the way we would expect "hell" to be used. It appears 12 times in the New Testament: 11 times spoken by Jesus, and once by James.
Of the times Jesus uses Gehenna, most of these appear in Matthew and Mark. Jesus is recorded saying "Gehenna" on eight occasions in total: seven times in Matthew, three times in Mark (but only once that Matthew doesn't mention), and once in Luke (which is also mentioned in Matthew). Most notably, the word "Gehenna" doesn't appear anywhere in the Gospel of John, nor does the word "hell" in any other form.
None of the times that Jesus warns his followers of Gehenna indicates that Gehenna will be an eternal state of being. Each time Jesus mentions Gehenna in Mark, he says that the fire will not be quenched - but this is a qualitative remark about Gehenna itself, and not a quantitative clue about the duration of one's stay. Jesus follows up his last warning about Gehenna (Mark 9:46) with a more vivid warning (9:47): "...where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." This is a quote from the last verse of Isaiah, 66:24, which is a reference to God destroying his earthly enemies and parading the faithful of all nations to look upon their ruined corpses. Isaiah 66:24 is not about hell, nor is it about the eternal destruction of the wicked. It describes a temporal, earthly victory of God over the wicked, reminiscent of the Glorious Appearing in Revelation where Jesus destroys the Beast and his followers.
In fact, the only time Jesus gives a true hint of the duration of the wicked's stay in Gehenna, he seems to imply that it is very short and results in death! In Matthew 10:28, Jesus warns, "...and fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Jesus literally warns that the soul can be destroyed in Gehenna! Why would Jesus only mention destruction in Gehenna if it's meant to be an eternal state of affairs?
More to the point: Gehenna is a literal, geographical location in Israel! Gehenna was called the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom (גֵּיא בֶן־הִנֹּם Ge ben-Hinnom) in the Old Testament. The Jews later called it simply the Valley of Hinnom (גֵיא־הִנֹּם Gehinnom). The Greek word Gehenna is a transliteration of Gehinnom, so we know that when Jesus says "Gehenna", he's referring to this valley. And Gehenna has a lot of spiritual significance in ancient Israel.
"Gehenna", or the Valley of Hinnom, lies right outside Jerusalem, adjacent to Mount Zion and across from the Mount of Olives. It is a place where the ancient Judahites sacrificed their children in spiritual rituals. Jeremiah 7:30-34 describes this sacrifice (although it's not clear whether they truly sacrificed their children or merely maimed them). Verses 32-34 specifically describe how God will punish Judah for this iniquity. Later, in Jeremiah 19, God curses Gehenna and instructs Jeremiah to go preach about the curse and the coming destruction. This led to Gehenna being used as an image of destruction in the face of iniquity, and while the sacrifices stopped long before Jesus' time, the ominous spiritual significance of Gehenna remained - a significance that Jesus' followers would have understood all too well. Jesus wasn't the first to appeal to Gehenna as a possible punishment for the wicked, nor was he the last; but whatever the Second Temple-era Jews believed about Gehenna, it wasn't that it was a place of everlasting punishment. Most importantly, Jesus never taught this, either.
The Lake of Fire
I call the Lake of Fire a "bonus hell" because it's not a single word and it's never actually described as "hell", but really, according to modern Christianity, it's the hell. Most importantly, it's the one form of hell that shows up in the Bible that appears, at face value, to be eternal. But I believe that a careful consideration of the original Greek refutes this belief.
The Lake of Fire is a Greek phrase that appears 5 times, all in Revelation. The core phrase is λίμνη τοῦ πυρός (limne tou pyros), "lake of fire".
The scriptural record
In Revelation 19:20, John says the Beast and the False Prophet are thrown alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. Nowhere does this verse suggest either character will be in the lake of fire forever.
In Revelation 20:10, the Devil joins them after the end of the Millennium (he was in the bottomless pit up until this point). The English text reads that they will be tormented day and night forever, but in Greek, there's more nuance involved, so we'll revisit this.
In Revelation 20:14, "death" and "Hades" (your KJV says "hell", but see my above discourse on Hades) are cast into the lake of fire. This seems to signify the end of death and Hades (or Sheol), which certainly has an eternal finality, but most likely this just means that no one dies anymore and Sheol is no longer needed to house dead souls since there are no more dead souls to house, so they are discarded. As non-entities, the lake of fire probably consumes them and they are annihilated. Revelation specifically calls this "the second death".
In Revelation 20:15, anyone not found in the Book of Life is cast into the lake of fire. Nowhere does this verse suggest they will be in the lake of fire forever.
In Revelation 21:8, we see a list of generally wicked people whose "portion" is in the lake of fire. Nowhere does this verse suggest they will be in the lake of fire forever. Again, Revelation specifically calls this "the second death".
Besides the Lake of Fire
Other than the Lake of Fire, there are two notable mentions of eternal torment or destruction in Revelation. One is applicable to the Lake of Fire by context, and the other is not.
In Revelation 14:11, an angel foretells that the worshippers of the Beast will be tormented with fire and brimstone day and night forever and ever. Again, there's more to this in Greek, and we'll discuss that in a few minutes, but for now, I concede that this describes a group of humans residing in the lake of fire "forever".
In Revelation 19:3, we see that the smoke of the great whore (Babylon) will rise forever and ever. However, Babylon is not an individual or group of people, and she is not described as "tormented".
The analysis
So as we see, there is only one mention of anyone suffering forever in the Lake of Fire, and that verse refers specifically to the Devil, the Beast, and the False Prophet. Many other people go to the Lake of Fire, but only some of them are described as staying forever (and even then, it's an inference, not clearly stated). But this story isn't over yet.
"Forever and ever"
The phrase "forever and ever" is a Greek phrase whose root component words are εἰς (eis, meaning to; into; unto) and αἰών (aion, meaning age; eon). The fully rendered phrases changes a little based on part of speech and specific usage, but it's generally rendered as εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. The phrase doesn't translate well into English, but a literal translation of the idiom might be something like "unto the age of the ages". Some scholars believe this idiom indicates eternity in an abstract way (an "age" meaning a duration of time, and "the ages" meaning all ages, ergo "unto the age of the ages" meaning "unto the duration that makes up all durations", i.e. eternity), while other scholars believe this is a concrete expression of an indeterminate and long period of time, but not eternity. The view of scholars who reject the eternal connotation is that the word αἰών is almost always indicative of a finite duration, and therefore interpreting it as "eternal" is disingenuous because Greek has a word that does mean "eternal", which the Bible almost never uses (and even then, some uses are demonstrably figurative).
Furthermore, the Greek iteration of the phrase follows a parallel with at least two other phrases seen in Revelation: King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.
- τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (the age of the ages)
- βασιλεὺς βασιλέων (king of kings)
- κύριος κυρίων (lord of lords)
You can see here that the Greek rendering is almost identical. The only difference is that "the age of the ages" has definite articles, while "king of kings" and "lord of lords" does not. This might seem significant at first glance, but it isn't; "the age of the ages" is simply a specific, while "lord of lords and king of kings" is being used as a title for Jesus. Grammatically, it would make sense to speak of "age of ages" (αἰῶνας αἰώνων), but not in this context. That's the only difference.
Therefore, one possible interpretation of "the age of the ages" is as the "ultimate age" or the final age, just as Jesus is the "ultimate king" and the "ultimate Lord". Jesus speaks of "the age to come", and Paul speaks of different apparent ages to come as well. In 1 Corinthians 15:28, we see that we look forward to a time when all things shall be subdued unto the Son, and then the Son shall be subject to the Father, and God will be all in all. This both fits the idea of an "ultimate age", or an "age of the ages", and also resolves a difficulty in traditional Christian thought regarding the sovereignty of God versus the rulership of Jesus. According to this interpretation of scripture, even Jesus will one day rule no more, and will be subject to the Father. This is problematic if we interpret εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων only as "forever and ever", because this phrase also describes Jesus' rule in Rev 1:6 and 11:15 - but we know from 1 Corinthians 15:28 that Jesus' rule will end. The phrase also describes the lifetime of Jesus and the lifetime of God in several places, so we know for sure that it can mean "forever and ever", but we also know for sure that it can not mean "forever and ever". In the end, it seems that εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων can mean either eternal or "until the last age", and Revelation has a mixed context, so we can't know for sure which is meant.
"Lake"
When we say "Lake of Fire", it's pretty evocative. It calls to mind a massive...well, lake of fire. Something like Lake Superior, or perhaps an entire ocean. But does a lake have to be large?
As it turns out, no. According to several sources, the Greek word λίμνη (limne) can be as large as a lake or as small as a pool. The ordinary connotation is a larger body of water, but this isn't by necessity. Just as in English, a body of water may qualify as a small lake or a large pond or pool by no other criteria than what people decide to call it.
The biblical usages aren't really much help, either; the word only appears five times in Luke, then again as the five instances of "Lake of Fire" in Revelation. But while context tells us that the lake in Luke is necessarily large (it's navigable by a ship large enough to carry, at a minimum, Jesus and his 12 closest friends), there's no such context in Revelation to indicate how large the Lake of Fire actually is. It could be as small as a water basin or larger than the Sea of Galilee.
"Brimstone"
Why is brimstone, θεῖον (theion), so common in apocalyptic imagery? It's not just fire, it's often "fire and brimstone". Why?
As it turns out, there are two possibilities. The first is that brimstone is flammable. It could just be that brimstone is supposed to add heat to the fire and make it burn hotter, as if that mattered. In Luke, Jesus describes Sodom being destroyed by brimstone. And in Revelation, the lion-headed horses breathed fire and smoke and brimstone. Of course, the Lake of Fire has added brimstone. But there's a second possibility, and it's a very important consideration in the meaning of the Lake of Fire: brimstone is used to refine precious metals.
During the refining process, a smelter can add brimstone to a molten ore to help remove impurities. The impurities are skimmed off the top and the process continues until the metal is highly refined. This sort of process would take place in a small pool or large crucible. And, perhaps just as importantly, an alternate form of the word for brimstone is θεῖος (theios), meaning divine. Ancients believed that burning θεῖον had cleansing properties, to ward off sickness or remove impurities.
According to tradition, God sends the plagues on the world in Revelation to try, one last time, to get humanity to repent from their sins. As awful as it seems, it's supposed to be an act of love. One last, desperate act of love. In this sense, it makes sense for God to use brimstone in the judgment, because brimstone is used for purifying! God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with brimstone because it's used for purifying! Even God's most destructive acts of judgment are founded in love, and the agents he chooses to act with are the proof.
"Torment"
The Greek word for "torment", βασανίζω (basanizō) has many meanings. In Matthew 8:6, it refers to a man stricken with pain from palsy. In Matthew 14:24, it refers to a boat being tossed on the waves. In Mark 6:48, it refers to boat rowers' hard labor against the wind. In several other places in the gospels, demons use the word when begging Jesus not to torture them. In 2 Peter 2:8, it describes the affliction of Lot's soul as he lived among the wicked in Sodom. In Revelation, it's used both to describe torture in the lake of fire and the pain of childbearing. But notably, this word shares a common root with a much more interesting word, also translated exclusively as "torment": βάσανος (basanos).
The word βάσανος is important to our conversation because it has two meanings, one literal and one figurative. Figuratively, it means "torment". But the literal meaning of the word is "touchstone", which is a stone used to test the purity of precious metals. This gives βάσανος (and, by extension, its cognate βασανίζω) the connotation of testing purity. Do you know what the best part is? βάσανος only appears in the entire Bible three times. In one, Matthew is describing the pain of people who Jesus healed in Syria. The other two? The parable of the rich man and Lazarus! The word "torment[ed]" appears four times in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus; two times it is the Greek word ὀδυνάω (odunao), which means "sorrow" or "torment", and the other two times it is the word βάσανος. Touchstone. Testing precious metal purity.
The interpretation
The Lake of Fire isn't a place of eternal torment. Rather, it's a refiner's crucible.
The pond or pool (λίμνη) is full of fire, along with brimstone (θεῖον), a known purifier of precious metals also used for ritual cleansing. During their torment (βασανίζω), they are tested for purity with a touchstone (βάσανος). This purification may take a long time (εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων), but it is necessary to fulfill all scripture, such as Romans 11:32, which states: "For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all." Even while God demands justice, he shows mercy on all.
Conclusion
We can accept that the Bible teaches that some people will go to hell forever, but I don't think it really does. I think this is the result of over a thousand years of church doctrine getting read back into scripture, along with bad translation, bad theology, and bad people running the church.
Or we can open our minds to the possibility that maybe God really means it when he says he's not willing that any should perish. Maybe we are the ones who really want people to go to hell forever, and we enforce that view upon scripture.