SERIES: Heaven and Hell
Whatever Happened to Heaven and Hell?
SPEAKER: Michael P. Andrus
Introduction: I have chosen to preach for the next two months about heaven and hell. As you know, most of the time I preach through books of the Bible, and frankly I think that’s the best way to maintain a balanced diet–God chooses the topics for us and it’s amazing how often a topic comes up during a series just when we need it.
Nevertheless, I believe there are also times when it is legitimate to focus on some specific biblical and theological topic and to consider all that the Bible has to say about it. There are several reasons why I have decided to address the topic of heaven and hell. First, it is clearly a biblical topic. Second, it is a neglected topic in our churches. And third, it is a topic under intense attack in our rationalistic, relativistic day.
During this series we are going to explore such questions as,
What are heaven and hell like?
Who are the inhabitants of heaven and hell?
How is their destiny determined?
What will they be doing there?
Is there such a thing as St. Peter’s gate?
What is the Judgment Seat of Christ and how does it differ from the
Great White Throne Judgment?
And how should we live in the light of what the Bible teaches about
heaven and hell?
I want to begin the series with a general defense of heaven and hell. Unfortunately, we cannot take for granted (as my father could when he was pastoring 50 years ago) that everyone attending a Christian church accepts the existence of an afterlife or has anywhere near a biblical framework from which to operate.
Hell has all but disappeared from the religious scene.
None of us should be surprised that the unchurched generally reject the concept of eternal punishment, but even within the church, belief in hell has fallen on hard times. Renowned American church historian, Martin Marty of the University of Chicago, observed tersely, “Hell disappeared. And no one noticed.” [i]
In 1986 only 23% of Europeans claimed to believe in hell. The percentage is higher here in the U.S. but is dropping steadily. Teaching about hell has virtually disappeared from the mainline churches. And even in evangelical churches that accept the authority of Scripture, it is not nearly as common a topic as it was in the past or, I might add, in the discourses of Jesus.
Ajith Fernando, an Indian evangelist I heard speak at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in May, argued that many evangelicals are ashamed of hell. They are bound by their faith to believe all that the Bible explicitly teaches, so they acknowledge the existence of an eternal hell. But they wish that they did not have to believe it. If they speak about the topic, which is not very often, they do so with a sense of shame, as if it were something very unjust.[ii]
Well, I suppose every one of us wishes hell was a figment of our imagination, but we don’t have to be ashamed of it. God Himself is not ashamed of it. In fact, when we arrive at a truly biblical understanding of human sin and God’s holiness, hell will seem inevitable, not shameful.
Of course, while hell has virtually disappeared from the religious scene, it has not quite disappeared from our vocabulary. John Braun writes,
“It is not unlikely that within the last twenty-four hours you’ve heard someone say, ‘What the hell are you doing?’ Or, ‘I sure as hell will.’ Or, ‘Who in the hell do you think you are.’
That word hell has become a conversational byword in our day. Good friends dare to say playfully to one another, ‘Go to hell.’ They surely don’t mean, ‘Go to the place of punishment of the wicked after death,’ though that is how the dictionary defines the word hell.
But why use the word hell? Why not instead, ‘What the jail are you doing?’ Or, ‘I sure as school will.’ And why not say, ‘Oh, go to Chicago’? Simply because jail, school, andChicago, even for the enemies of each, have no real sting….
When it comes right down to it, in the English language, hell is the strongest expletive available that carries the idea of ultimate deprivation, devastation, fear, torment, punishment, suffering, and loss. Whether or not the user of the term hell believes in an actual, literal hell is of little or no consequence. There is an inbuilt, inarticulated, yet understood bite in the very word itself.[iii]
If hell really is the place for eternal punishment of the wicked after death, why is the term used so lightly millions and millions of times each day? Why is there such an apparent lack of seriousness about the word? Why do people pretend the place doesn’t exist? Why has hell fallen on hard times?
One reason is that this is the age of scientific enlightenment. The assumption is made by many that science has rendered the supernatural unnecessary and has reduced reality to physical forces in the here and now. After all, knowledge must be supported by scientific evidence, and since there is a lack of scientific evidence for life after death, we must at the very least remain agnostic about the possibility of heaven or hell, if not reject it outright. Accompanying this view is often the following kind of reasoning:
“In the olden days folks couldn’t figure out a way to keep bad people and little children in line. So, they conjured up the idea of a monstrously grotesque place of gloomy darkness and frightening, everlasting torments. Armed with the threat of consignment to such a terrible place, they scared the stubborn and the young into submission to their cultural patterns.”[iv]
But, of course, today we have replaced such dilapidated and antiquated ideas with modern, relevant, and enlightened ways of keeping bad people and little children in line. And it should be evident to everyone that these modern ways are working so much better! Lest anyone be distracted by the sarcasm, let me make clear that I do not believe in hell because of its utility in preventing juvenile delinquency. I believe in it because God’s Word teaches it.
Another reason why hell has fallen on hard times is that this is the age of pluralism. Pluralism affirms that incompatible views must be tolerated. Postmodern pluralism sometimes even asserts that such views are equally true. The doctrine of hell, on the other hand, proclaims an irreversible division of humanity into two groups—the saved and the lost. How unspeakably intolerant can you get!
This is also the age of the human potential movement. People are viewed as essentially good and capable of great possibilities if only they would think positive thoughts about themselves. In such an environment it seems out of place to tell people they are so sinful that unless they repent and turn to God, they are doomed to everlasting punishment.
This is also a feel-good generation. Serious talk about hell does not make people feel good. Therefore, a lot of preachers have consciously chosen to avoid talking about it, choosing instead to speak only of the love of God.
Still another reason why hell has fallen on hard times is that today we are seeing astounding growth in eastern religions. Buddhism and Hinduism teach reincarnation, which provides an alternative to the unpleasant doctrine of hell. The New Age Movement borrows from these Eastern ideas and proclaims only acceptance by God–never His wrath.
These are just a few of the reasons why hell has fallen on hard times both in and out of the church. But it’s also fascinating to me that among those who still believe in hell, the idea has largely lost the dimension of being a serious personal threat. In a recent poll the Des Moines Register found that most people in Iowa and Minnesota did, in fact, believe in an afterlife—about 70%. But in a later follow-up poll, the question was asked:
“A recent poll showed that most in our state believe in heaven or hell. In line with this, can you think of anyone you know who might end up in hell?” And, “On a personal basis, how do you think you might end up–in heaven or hell?”[v]
About 20% knew at least one person who was a sure bet to go there (a drunk driver, an axe murderer, a terrorist), but less than 5% of those who professed to believe in hell thought they themselves were in any danger of ending up there. Jon Braun writes, “Those twenty-to-one odds against going to hell testify that most Iowans must be saints or that the threat of hell is no longer real to them.”[vi]
In contrast to all this societal data, friends, the Bible speaks unambiguously about hell’s existence and its critical importance. While we do not have time to do detailed study of specific texts this morning, as we will later, let me read a few verses from just one of the Gospels–all words uttered by Jesus Christ Himself:
Matthew 10:28: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Matthew 13:49-50: “This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 25:31-32: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”
Matthew 25:41: “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
Then, consider one further word from Jesus, this one from the Gospel of Mark:
Mark 9:43-48: “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where “‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'”[vii]
There is much more. In fact, Jesus spoke more about hell than He did about heaven or marriage or the Holy Spirit or the ordinances of the church. The purpose of this series of sermons is to call us to begin to embrace once again an orthodox and biblical sobriety towards hell. But even more importantly, we must present a message of hope, namely that God has provided a way for human beings to escape hell and to be confident of their eternal destiny with Him in heaven.
So much for the observation that hell has all but disappeared from the religious scene. What may be even more surprising to us is that …
Heaven is also fast becoming an endangered species.
Modern scientists and philosophers have generally scoffed at the doctrine of heaven. One of the most respected philosophers of the 20th century, Dr. Alfred North Whitehead, wrote: “The clash between religion and science which has relegated the earth to the position of a second-rate planet attached to a second-rate sun has been greatly to (our) benefit … by dispersing these medieval fancies of hell and heaven in the sky.”[viii] Later he wrote, “As for the Christian theology, can you imagine anything more appallingly idiotic than the Christian idea of heaven?”[ix]
But it’s not just secular scientists and philosophers who have become skeptical about heaven. Liberal and neo-orthodox “Christians” have also largely jettisoned it. Gordon Kaufman, distinguished professor at Harvard Divinity School, which is a seminary preparing young pastors for mainline churches, was quoted in Newsweek as saying, “I don’t think there can be any future for heaven and hell.”[x]
In Reinhold Seeberg’s Textbook of the History of Doctrines, though there are 80 columns of index, “heaven” does not appear once! Reinhold Niebuhr’s exhaustive work, The Nature and Destiny of Man, contains no treatment of Heaven whatever, and the only reference to it appears in a single sentence, namely, “It is unwise for Christians to claim any knowledge of either the furniture of heaven or the temperature of hell.”[xi] Now I might agree with this rather snide remark, for I too am uninterested in the furniture of heaven of the temperature of hell; but that is the sum total of all he has to say about heaven and hell in a monumental book on the destiny of man! These scholars are supposed to be respected Christian theologians, though from a biblical standpoint I think we would have to say they fall far short.
I said it is more surprising that heaven has fallen on hard times than that hell has, but perhaps it should not be. The late Professor Willard L. Sperry, for many years Dean of the Divinity School at Harvard University, connects the two by asking, “Is it possible to save what was intended by the doctrine of Heaven at the same time that we dispense with the antithetical idea of Hell?” Then after stating regarding Hell that “most of us are through with that doctrine,” he goes on to say, “If we cannot have Heaven, save at the price of Hell, then we will forego the hope of Heaven.”[xii]
Sadly, even evangelical scholars have often ignored the doctrine of heaven. Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology contains less than half a page on heaven out of 784 pages. Henry Thiessen’s Lectures in Systematic Theology includes only two sentences in 574 pages. You may have noticed some revival of interest in heaven in the movies and on TV, but the heaven depicted there is so far from the biblical heaven that it hardly deserves the same name.
But just as the Bible speaks unambiguously about hell’s existence, so it speaks unambiguously about heaven’s existence. Consider just a few verses, again all from the mouth of our Lord:
Matthew 6:19-21: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
Matthew 5:3: “”Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 5:10: “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
(Matthew 5:12: “Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
(John 14:1-3: “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.”
Again, the rest of this series will be based squarely on what the Bible has to say about heaven and hell, and it has a lot to say about both. What it says is often clear and unambiguous, and the only way to avoid it is to reject the authority of Scripture. If most mainline theologians don’t believe in heaven or hell, their argument is with the Bible, not with us.
So far this morning I have observed with considerable consternation the disappearance of heaven and hell from our faith vocabulary. But clearly, there are reasons why these doctrines have been denied or at least questioned–reasons beyond the societal issues we have already discussed. Many professing Christians have made a conscious decision to jettison these truths for what they consider theologicalreasons. In response, I contend that…
Hell can be shown to be reasonable, even essential.
C. S. Lewis wrote a chapter on hell in his marvelous book, The Problem of Pain. The eminent Professor of Medieval and Renaissance English Literature at Cambridge University and brilliant apologist for the Christian faith, wrote,
“There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord’s own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason.”[xiii]
It is that last phrase that I want to pick up on, for it is that last phrase that has been challenged so vigorously in our day and time. Is hell reasonable, or are we just blindly accepting by faith something that violates every good person’s sense of justice and equity? One of the first objections one hears to the doctrine of hell is a question:
1. How could a good God send anyone to hell? The problem with this question lies in the use of the word “send.” It too easily connotes direct and arbitrary action on God’s part, as though He were sitting up in heaven with an air rifle picking off sinners for entertainment. The truth is that God is so full of mercy that He became a man and died by torture to avert the necessity of consigning any of His creatures to hell. C. S. Lewis wrote later in the same chapter, “I said glibly a moment ago that I would pay ‘any price’ to remove this doctrine (of hell). I lied. I could not pay one-thousandth part of the price that God has already paid to remove the fact (of hell). And here is the real problem: so much mercy, yet still there is Hell.”[xiv]
A second objection one often hears is that …
2. Retribution and punishment are unenlightened concepts unworthy of our advanced culture. The whole philosophy underlying penal institutions is, of course, being challenged today. Of course, some criminals need to be removed from society for our protection, but they should be made as comfortable as possible, and rehabilitation should be our sole goal. After all, criminals are victims too, and punishment is vengeful. The same argument is used against hell. A God who would take vengeance on His creatures is not one who deserves to be worshiped.
Let me respond this way. Think of the most vile and evil person you know or of whom you have read. Think of a Hitler or an Idi Amin or a Wayne Gacy or a Timothy McVeigh. Or imagine a person who has gained power and influence by a continued course of treachery and cruelty, by exploiting his victims for purely selfish ends, laughing all the time at their naivety. Suppose this person uses all his power to gratify his lust and finally separates himself from the last vestige of honor among thieves by betraying his own accomplices and jeering at them. Further suppose he does all this without any remorse whatever, thinking to the very end that God and man are fools whom he has got the best of. Can you really desire that such a person, should he remain as he is until death, be granted bliss for all eternity, or even that he be granted the privilege of extinction? Can this life be all that there is for such a person? That notion is what seems immoral to me.
We do not have to be motivated by a desire for such a wretched person’s pain as such. Our motive can and should be simply that sooner or later right must triumph over wrong.
A third objection is that …
3. There is an unacceptable disproportion between eternal damnation and the seriousness of sins committed. The essential problem here, of course, is that we have an inherent tendency to minimize sin, especially our own. Our whole nation has been subjected in recent days to politicians and commentators weighing the sins of adultery and lying (by our President) against the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and the conclusion of a great many seems to be that these sins are neither, but rather amount to insignificant peccadilloes. But God has a higher standard than even high crimes and misdemeanors. The standard is His own holiness, and against that standard we are all “dead men walking.” The most terrible mistake of all is to minimize the seriousness of turning one’s back on the One who died a Cross-death for us. A fourth challenge offered is …
4. How could any charitable believer enjoy heaven while knowing that even one soul was still in hell? The best answer to this objection may be a question, “Do we fancy ourselves more merciful than God?” If God can enjoy His heaven while hell exists, cannot we? Perhaps the knowledge of hell and the people in it will be one of those things which God promises to erase from our minds. Isaiah 65:17 reads, “Behold I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.” Finally, it is objected that …
5. The ultimate loss of a single soul in hell means the defeat of omnipotence. To this argument C. S. Lewis responds,
“And so it does. In creating beings with free will, omnipotence from the outset submits to the possibility of such defeat. What you call defeat, I call miracle: for to make things which are not (Himself), and thus to become, in a sense capable of being resisted by (His) own handiwork, is the most astonishing and unimaginable of all the feats we attribute to (God).”[xv]
It can be maintained that God is defeated only if one can demonstrate that God intended to save everyone and failed to do so; only if it can be demonstrated that a world in which men are free to reject God is morally inferior to one in which they could not do so.
After wrestling with all these objections, Lewis concludes his chapter on the defense of hell with one of the most profound paragraphs in print anywhere:
“In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a question: “What are you asking God to do?” To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.”[xvi]
Our time is almost gone, but I quickly want to make one last point, and that is,
Heaven is just as necessary to reward the righteous as hell is to punish the wicked.
Think of the three missionaries who were recently captured by terrorists in the jungles of Panama and taken to Columbia. Suppose they never come back. These men gave up so much to take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who had never heard. They gave up careers and houses and sports and so many of the things we think of necessities. They ultimately gave up their lives. Their families gave up sons and husbands and fathers. It is in view of just such a sacrifice that Paul states in 1 Cor. 15:19, “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” But it is not only for this life.
I’ve heard people say, “Even if Christianity were false, the Christian life is the best life there is, for it stresses close family life, honesty in business, kindness to neighbors, and peace with one’s enemies.” But Paul disagrees. Sure, a Christian may (all other things being equal) live longer, healthier and happier, but if believers arrive at their lifestyle through the delusion of a hope based upon resurrection and an eternity in Heaven, when, in fact, that is all just a pipe dream, then they are indeed pitiable creatures—no better off than the people who live good lives under the delusion of any other false religious system.
Think for just a moment with me. If right this moment you were able to see into the future and realize that the moment you die is the absolute end of everything, how would you spend your last days and years? What would you do differently? I know one thing I’d do—I’d quit this job. I don’t say that because being a pastor is an unpleasant job. I say it because my whole life’s work would be based on a lie. It would have no lasting value.
In place of this job, I would grab for all the gusto I could get in the shortest time possible. I would lie, steal, cheat, and gamble (yes, I’d vote for Amendment 9). I’d do anything I could to get more money, and I would spend it like it was going out of style on every conceivable kind of pleasure—legitimate or not. And why not? Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow it’s all over.
Frankly, friends, a lot of people live like that and we shouldn’t be surprised! They are living consistently with their philosophy of life. Why would you expect them to live any other way? If there is no God, if there is no judgment, if there is no heaven or hell, then self-interest is the only interest that makes any sense.
But I don’t lie, steal, cheat, or gamble. I don’t go on pleasure binges. Why? It’s simple. Because I don’t believe this life is all there is. I firmly believe that this life is preparation for the next and that what I do in this life will affect how and where I spend all of eternity. I firmly believe that all those (and only those) who put their faith in Jesus Christ will spend eternity in the glory of God’s presence, in a place specially prepared for redeemed mankind. All others will spend eternity in a place not prepared for mankind at all, but rather a place prepared for the Devil and his angels.
Let me be perfectly clear as to how one can be sure that his destiny is heaven rather than hell. Scripture tells us, “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (John 3:16-18). He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Tags:
Heaven
Hell
Punishment
[i] Martin Marty cited in Erwin Lutzer, One Minute After You Die, 97.
[ii] Ajith Fernando, Crucial Questions About Hell, 22.
[iii]Jon Braun, Whatever Happened to Hell?, 11.
[iv] Braun, 14.
[v] The Des Moines Register, Dec. 25, 1977, 1.
[vi] Braun, 20.
[vii] I think it is important that we not confuse the doctrine of hell itself with the imagery by which it may be conveyed. Jesus speaks of hell using at least three different symbols: punishment, destruction, and banishment into darkness. In Matt. 25:46 He says of the wicked, “They will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” In Matt. 10:28 He uses the second imagery: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” And in Matt. 8:12 He says of the unbelievers that they “will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
The very fact that a lake of fire and outer darkness are contradictory images should tell us that the point of these words is not to give us a literal description of hell. Yet it is quite certain that all these expressions are intended to suggest something unspeakably horrible, and any interpretation which does not face that fact is unacceptable. But I do not think it is necessary to dwell on the literal imagery of hell any more than it is to dwell on the literal imagery of heaven. It is not streets of gold or gates of pearl that make heaven attractive; it is the fact that Jesus is there and that those who enter have reached their fulfillment as human beings. Likewise, it is not the Lake of Fire that makes hell hideous as much as the realization that one has been banished for all eternity from God and has lost forever the very point of humanity–to know God and to enjoy Him forever.
In 2 Thes. 1 a fascinating defense of hell is offered to comfort those who are experiencing awful persecution for their faith:
“God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.”
It’s that phrase, “shut out from the presence of the Lord” that fascinates me. The wicked will finally realize that God is Who He said He was all the time–a righteous, holy God full of goodness, mercy, and justice. But they will be shut off from all communication, fellowship, and joy with Him for all of eternity. That is the worst thing about hell.
[viii] Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 272.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Gordon Kaufman, quoted in Newsweek, April 3, 1989, p. 44.
[xi] Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man,
[xii] Willard L. Sperry, Man’s Destiny in Eternity, 215.
[xiii] C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 118.
[xiv] Lewis, 119-120.
[xv] Lewis, 127.
[xvi] Lewis, 128.