(18 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...The following is a Q&A that I have done with my publisher Simon & Schuster for the History in Five page. You should check it out. You will get a free ebook! Here’s the site: https://www.simonandschuster.com/p/historyinfive You’ll see, its an impressive array of authors with intriguing answers to questions about their books.
Here’s what mine looks like.
-
- Why write about the afterlife? What drew you toward the subject of heaven and hell?
I was raised as in a Christian household and the literal realities of heaven and hell were taken very seriously. My personal views intensified when I had a “born again” experience in high school, and eventually headed off to the fundamentalist Moody Bible Institute, where we were trained to evangelize “the lost” (that is, the vast majority of the human race): there was one way to heaven, and the results would be glorious; every other way led to hell and eternal torment.
I no longer hold those views, but I have long been struck that so many other people in our world do – nearly three out of four Americans believe in a literal heaven and almost three out of five in a literal hell. I wrote my book to explain that these views were not the original teachings of either Judaism or Christianity and to answer the question: So where did they come from?
2. You argue in your book that it was after Jesus’s death that the ideas of eternal reward and punishment began to develop into their modern form. What do you think were the most influential developments along the way?
The Hebrew Bible that Jesus inherited as scripture has no idea at all of rewards and punishments after death. This life is all there is and is all that matters. But two centuries before Jesus a different view emerged within Judaism, driven by the concern for “justice” in the world. How is it fair that the righteous suffer now and the wicked prosper? Surely God will ultimately bring justice. So, after death, there will be rewards and punishments. But Jews who held this view did not share the Greek idea (found in Plato, e.g.) that the soul could exist when the body dies. For them, the human was a single unit, body and soul together. So when they thought of afterlife, they assumed it would involve a bodily existence. At the end of history, God would breathe life back into dead bodies. Those who had sided with God and his ways would be given an eternal reward in a new utopian kingdom on earth, those who were opposed to God would be annihilated for all time.
That was also Jesus’ view. But the kingdom never arrived, and several decades after his death, most of his followers were by now gentile converts, not Jews. These Christians had been raised with Greek ways of thinking. They did believe in souls that survived the body. And so they transferred the idea of a future resurrection of the body into the idea of the ongoing life of the soul. That is the view then that became the standard Christian view down until today: when a person dies, their soul goes to heaven above or hell below — a view not taught by the Old Testament nor by Jesus himself.
3. Did you encounter any surprises while doing your research?
I had studied the book of Revelation for over 40 years, but I never plowed deeply into its understanding of the afterlife. I always simply assumed that its famous “lake of fire” was the ending place for all sinners, who would be confined to the flames for all eternity. But when I actually examined the issue more closely, I realized that …
The rest of this post is for members only. You too can be part of that elite and growing cadre of interesting and interested people. Join the Blog! There are free memberships available; and those who choose to be paying members will see every nickle of their membership fee go straight to important charities. Everyone wins!
… I realized that Revelation does not actually say that. It does say that God’s super-human enemies, the “Beast” (popularly called the Antichrist, but not in Revelation itself), his “prophet,” and then, a thousand years later, Satan, will be thrown into the lake of fire to be tormented forever. But not humans. Revelation, like Jesus himself and the apostle Paul, thought the ultimate penalty as a death sentence. Sinners would be destroyed out of existence. Only saints would live on, here on earth, in the glorious utopia God would send from above.
4. . What was the most interesting source you worked with?
One of the most intriguing early Christian books known to scholars but virtually unknown to people is called the Apocalypse of Peter. It almost came to be included in the canon of Scripture. This is the early Christian account of a guided tour of heaven and hell, the oldest Christian forerunner of Dante’s Divine Comedy. The apostle Peter is shown the torments of the damned, which he describes in graphic and even lurid detail. The wicked are tortured in various, creatively imagined ways, depending on their characteristic sins: adulterers, blasphemers, usurers, and so on. Peter is then shown the blessings of the saved, which, remarkably, he discusses only briefly. But the point of the account is clear: if you want to avoid non-ending physical torment, and receive a lovely eternity in a beautiful setting, don’t sin!
5. How does the developing understanding of the afterlife interact with the growth and change of early Christianity?
Here is one way. Christians in the first three centuries occasionally (not regularly) were subject to Roman persecution; in some instances they were tortured to death for refusing to worship the Roman gods. Christians insisted that if they could endure the torment and remain faithful to death God would honor their stalwart commitment by granting them ecstatic pleasure for all eternity in heaven. Moreover, they maintained that the tortures they endured for a short time hour would be revisited on their torturers for all eternity. And so, just as the martyrs were burned at the stake, or torn apart by wild animals, or subject to burning pokers in their eyes – this is what would happen forever and ever to their persecutors. As one Christian martyr reported said to his torturers: “You us, God you.”
6. According to polling, 58% of Americans believe in a literal hell. Why do you think the idea of eternal punishment is so popular and enduring?
My sense is that people cannot conceive of a world where ultimately no justice. Surely if there is any divine guidance of this world, the injustices we face here will be dealt with after death – since they clearly are not being addressed in this world. There is so much horrible, meaningless suffering caused by human willfulness and negligence, with the powerful and the mighty acting in ways that either intentionally or haphazardly create widespread disaster: lack of clean water, medicine and health care; massive starvation, war, and civil unrest; and so on. Those people will pay a price. And since, in this view, this life is only preparation for the eternal life to come, actions now have eternal consequences. The soul will live on, and sinners will pay the price for their deed. (But see my next answer.)
7. How are the changing needs of the modern era affecting the conception of the afterlife? How do you see those beliefs changing in the future?
The most important developments along this line in the West is the constantly growing numbers of agnostics, atheists, and “nones”. In parts of Western Europe the numbers are staggering, and they are growing in North America as well. Many people do not find the church relevant or its teaching convincing anymore; many consider Christian responses to world crises and social issues to be outdated and deficient; many feel that the institution itself has not adopted to the realities of the world or the advances in science. This has led many, many people to think there is no afterlife at all. We are animals, as animals we die, and we have no more afterlife than the mosquito we just swat or the pig we just ate.
What is most striking, though, is that there is a move even among Bible-believing Christians to question and reject the idea of eternal punishment in hell. If the idea of punishment after death originated as a way to establish the ultimate triumph of justice, how can eternal hell be justified, even for the worst of sinners, let alone your run-of-the-mill schmuck? You live an imperfect life, even one filled with debauchery, for, say fifty years, and die, and then are physically tormented for fifty trillion years, and that’s only the beginning? It just doesn’t make sense, and certainly is not just. And in surprising numbers evangelical thinkers also beginning to think and say so.
8. You discuss how, over the years, there was never one single understanding of the afterlife but rather a number of competing views. Which is your favorite? Why and how did it develop – and if it didn’t catch on, why not?
After everything I read on the afterlife for years and years, at the end of the day I think the great Socrates himself got it right. During his trial for crimes against the state, and facing the death sentence, Socrates explained why he was not afraid to die. Death would bring one of two things. It would either mean an ongoing existence with others who have died before – for Socrates, the lover of conversation and dialogue, an eternal happiness. He could talk with the greats of the past about all the mysteries of the universe, forever. How good can it get?
The second option involve a complete annihilation, in which case death would be like entering into a deep, dreamless sleep for all time. And who doesn’t enjoy that? That’s what I think. Death will either be an unconscious state no worse than what it was before we were born (when I didn’t have a care in the world) or a very pleasant ongoing existence along with those who have gone before us. I personally think it will be the former, but am completely open to being surprised by the latter. In neither event, is there the slightest thing to fear.
BE: “It does say that God’s super-human enemies, the “Beast” (popularly called the Antichrist, but not in Revelation itself), his “prophet,” and then, a thousand years later, Satan, will be thrown into the lake of fire to be tormented forever. But not humans.”
Was there much speculation among Christians in antiquity over the eternal fate of Judas? In John’s gospel especially, Jesus describes Judas as the devil, and an editorial comment states that Satan entered him on the night he betrayed Jesus. I don’t know if the Johannine community were responsible for Revelation and GJn, but perhaps they held a belief that Judas would share the same fate as Satan?
No, as it turns out, none that has survived. Since most early Christians thought death was the end of the story until the future resurrection, they probably just thought: Good Riddance.
In #7 you touch on the outdated and deficient Christian responses to world crises and social issues as these impact ideas of the afterlife. I agree with what you say but I think there’s another important factor. The recent behavior of the Catholic church top leaders and some Protestant leaders in covering up the sexual misconduct of priests and ministers and hiding them from civil prosecution indicates that the leaderships of these churches are engaged in a criminal conspiracy and that these leaders should themselves be prosecuted for obstruction of justice as a minimum.
This behavior on the part of the church leadership undermines the moral authority of organized religion and raises doubts about the fantasies that religion promulgates concerning the existence of immortal human souls and an eternal afterlife of rewards and punishments. The fantasies of sin, guilt, grace, salvation and eternal rewards and punishments are now being recognized for what they are, namely, myths and fantasies. Eternal punishment of a wretched, powerless human by an infinitely powerful God, for starters, is not punishment, but rather is monumental injustice and torture. This idea could only have been generated by ignorant religious fanatics.
Have you read “Stages of Faith” by James W. Fowler? I’m curious.
I left Christianity and religion years ago, but I read and study the Bible out of pure enjoyment. Much of it reads as metaphorical, speaking of the future. Justice isn’t supposed to be present now; it’s something to come, based on my interpretation. (I throw out a lot of the New Testament to understand it that way, but they cherry-picked the text back then, so I don’t see why I can’t do the same now). 🙂
I believe that if there’s a god, then the entirety of the universe would have to figure out how to live in harmony with one another, eventually. Otherwise, I don’t see the point of divinity.
Annihilation is a fine alternative.
Yup, in seminary, so, well, 40 years ago! But it was a kind of big deal back then. I always thought it was very insightful.
Thanks for the reply! I thought you might have read Stages of Faith. I’m in my late twenties, so I wasn’t alive when it was prevalent. 🙂 It was recommended to me years ago by someone who knew I love(d) studying psychology and religion. I always get an insight when I pick up that book.
I was all set to get my free book but read the fine print first – only available to residents of the US. I live in the Canadian part of the US, so not eligible.
Really?? Wow, that’s weird.
Dr Ehrman
Heaven and Hell in the Bible.
Hell:
“And he gave a cry and said, Father Abraham……..I am cruelly burning in this flame.”Luke 16:24
“And in addition, there is a deep division fixed between us and you……..”Luke 16:26
“Unhappy are you who are full of food now: for you will be in need. Unhappy are you who are laughing now: for you will be crying in sorrow.”Luke 6:25
Heaven:
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; …. my Father’s house are many rooms; …” (John 14:1-3)
Both Heaven and Hell:
Rev – 21 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth…“Look! God’s dwelling place….the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
The Bible ( both NT & OT ) has been proven to be corrupted. So, Why is it used to prove and disprove? Since we use OT as reference to NT and NT as reference to the OT, why not reflect on a book that claims to be the Word of God which elaborates and clarifies both Heaven and Hell in the Bible. ( scholars have used books outside the Canon to reflect on books in the Canon)
Luke 16-24 ,25, and 26 ——-reflected in the Quran :
“And the companions of the Fire will call to the companions of Paradise, “Pour upon us some water or from whatever Allah has provided you.” They will say, “Indeed, Allah has forbidden them both to the disbelievers.”17:50
“And between them will be a partition, and on [its] elevations are men who recognize all by their mark. And they call out to the companions of Paradise, “Peace be upon you.” They have not [yet] entered it, but they long intensely.”7:46
“So let them laugh a little and [then] weep much as recompense for what they used to earn.”9:82
The Book of Revelation describes a “lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death”, which most Christians believe to be a description of Hell, comparable to Jahannam as “the fire”. While the Quran describes Jahannam as having seven levels, each for different sins, the Bible (regards the issue of levels), speaks of the “lowest Hell (Sheol)”. It also refers to a “bottomless pit”
Your Thoughts.
In response to Q #2, The Hebrew Bible that Jesus inherited …….. Jesus came to guide the children of Israel back on the right path. He came to fulfill what they were not.
Did Jesus inherit the the Hebrew Bible?
Why are you telling me these verses? As you might imagine, I discuss them in my book. And yes, Jesus like all Jews of his time inherited the traditions of his faith, including their sacred Scriptures.
I like your (and Socrates’) view of the afterlife, but whether we have individual souls or not, I don’t think there’s any denying that we are all part of the same reality, whatever that all entails and encompasses. I have to wonder, though, if this particular world and universe we find ourselves in is possible, what else might be possible? Unless we are of the opinion that this universe is all there is – a view that is questioned by more and more physicists these days – it seems to me we have to be open to other possibilities. I personally think there are far better worlds/universes than ours that exist, probably on a different plane of reality in the quantum multiverse. The idea that we inhabit the best of all possible worlds has never commended itself to philosophers throughout history, so that begs the question: if such an imperfect world as ours exists, might there be others that are far worse too? Whether there is a purpose to all these worlds is another matter.
I finished it yesterday, and would rank it in the top three of your books I’ve read. (I’ll get back to you about the other two, possibly Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God, lists are hard). It was full of surprises and interesting reassessments of well-known (and not so well-known) sources. And the afterward was especially powerful.
Of course it’s not attempting to tell the complete story of how humans have imagined what happens after death. It’s mainly about Christian ideas of the afterlife, and how they evolved from a mixture of Jewish and pagan sources. There have been many alternate visions, but the western world has been mostly influenced by Christianity and what came before it.
I knew I had to read it when I learned you would say Jesus never believed in heaven or hell. I think that is one of the most heinous slanders ever leveled against him–that he believed in eternal hellfire for those who didn’t believe as he did. You cleared him of all charges in that regard. And put Plato and Virgil in the dock in his place. 😉
Thanks!
Thank *you*. Though I will say, when I started reading it, I was suffering what I took to be early symptoms of Covid 19 (I may have been quite mistaken about that), and maybe not the most cheery subject to read about when one is seriously contemplating his/her own afterlife.
I respect, of course, your belief that Socrates had the best answer, and I’m not unsympathetic to his idea that either it’s an endless dreamless sleep, or else you get to talk to all the dead people you admire (except wouldn’t there be like an endless line ahead of you, and wouldn’t they be bored to tears with hearing the same questions, ad infinitum? Also, you’ve heard the saying “Never meet your heroes.”)
I think the reason people had a hard time accepting this is that mostly sleep isn’t dreamless. Yes, waking up after anesthesia administered by a qualified professional is quite refreshing, but dreams can range from blissful to tedious to downright hellish. I think dreams mainly inspire our ideas of the afterlife, because sleep is the closest thing to death that we know, and we need REM sleep to live.
So to finish my thought (and my posts for the day)–if Socrates’ idea was so persuasive, how come Plato, having reported it, went on to promote an afterlife based on the merit system?
Perhaps for the same reason Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, having fully understood Jesus’ ideas, and loved them, still felt obliged to ‘improve’ on them.
As you say, the problem is us. We’re all Hamlet, down deep. His soliloquy sums the problem up very well. What dreams may come, indeed. There’s the rub.
My own view is that Plato did that for pedagogical purposes. I think he too thought death was the end of the story. But the “myths” (he calls them that) were meant to reveal what most mattered in life: living philosophically instead of for pleasure (that’s the shortest/simplistically worded way I can put it)
If Plato is *that* untrustworthy a witness, we have to question *everything* he tells us about Socrates–at least as much as we question what we’re told about Jesus in the NT. Just because we don’t literally worship Socrates (there are those who come close) doesn’t mean we apply a whit less skepticism, to both the accuracy of what records we have, and to the messages being conveyed.
A possibly illiterate stonemason, ignored by most (which is why we have so little about him) who described himself as a ‘gadfly’–which is to say a horse fly. In what way were equines ever well-served by blood-sucking insects that carry infection? His most famous pupils largely proved to be a plague upon the land. Athens tired of the bites, swatted the pest. (Is one interpretation.)
Perhaps Socrates had pedagogical motives of his own–he certainly did. Even if we could know for a fact we’re reading a close approximation of what he said, we still have to look deeper, consider that perhaps he was deceiving himself, as all of us do. No one entirely holds up to deep scrutiny. Never meet your heroes. If you want to have any.
Yes, that’s absolutely right about Socrates and Jesus.
Two men of humble background and little education, largely disregarded by their societies (Thucydides doesn’t even mention Socrates, though he mentions people connected to him in other sources), until such time as they were abruptly dispatched by it, for reasons that are still debated. Both subjecting the world they saw around them to close scrutiny and withering critique. Both attracting talented disciples (albeit of very different classes and backgrounds) who went on to change the world, in a variety of ways. Both known to us only indirectly, meaning that we can only see them through a glass darkly, so to speak.
And, many would say, the two most influential men who ever lived, at least as far as the western world is concerned. For no reason other than their ability to express their ideas through the spoken word, unconventional behavior–and martyrdom.
I read a review of I.F. Stone’s The Trial of Socrates in The Catholic Worker. The reviewer was offended that Stone questioned Socrates’ motives and character (while still believing Athens betrayed its ideals by executing him). For many centuries, the two have been linked in the western mind.
Fascinating.
I signed up with audible and got two free credits, so I’ve been listening to Heaven and Hell on Audible and am loving it. I think the topic is excellently chosen and discussed (as are all Bart’s books) I was raised in the Episcopal church (my dad is an Episcopal priest) and started having serious questions about my faith in college. The hardest part of leaving my faith was the prospect of losing out on an eternity in heaven. I think this book helps show that Jesus probably did’t teach about Heaven as most people believe in. Interestingly, I’ve talked to my dad recently about his beliefs in heaven, and he has beliefs that probably none of his parishioners share. He agrees that science has discovered that memories are stored in our brains which we won’t carry on into an afterlife, so he doesn’t believe he will have any memories of his life on earth after he dies.
Bart – You mention some evangelicals are starting to question or even stop believing in hell. What is the strangest modern belief about heaven that you have run into from someone in a leadership position in a church?
I don’t know of anything particularly strange per se, but I do know evangelical theologians now who believe in a kind of Purgatory; that view would have been strictly Verboten in my evangelical days.
Why is the Rich Man and Lazarus not proof that Jesus believed in eternal peace for the faithful and eternal punishment for the wicked? Though it is a depiction of Hades and not Heaven and Hell, it’s still depicted as never ending.
I deal with it at length in my book. The main point (it takes a while to explain): I try to show it is not actually a parable that Jesus himself told; it was produced after his death and put on his lips.
Prof Ehrman,
That was a great interview. I am currently reading Catherine Nixey’s ‘The Darkening Age’ in which she makes this statement and attribute to the Apocalypse of Peter – ” At the edge of a lake filled with the ‘discharge and stench’ of those who were tortured are babies that are ‘born before time’ ”
Question is – Is it so reflected in the Apocalypse of Peter and does the contest really depict punishment for innocent ‘pre-mature’ babies? What sin did they commit
Yes, it is not that these babies were simply born before their time (i.e., premature); they were aborted. From their eyes they shoot lightening at their mothers who did this to them. Strongly anti-abortionist text.
A follow-up please.
But were the babies in hell as well because I am of the impression that it was a description of hell. Will that mean aborted babies end up in hell according to the Book?
Reference
Question is – Is it so reflected in the Apocalypse of Peter and does the contest really depict punishment for innocent ‘pre-mature’ babies? What sin did they commit
Bart April 15, 2020
Yes, it is not that these babies were simply born before their time (i.e., premature); they were aborted. From their eyes they shoot lightening at their mothers who did this to them. Strongly anti-abortionist text.
Yup, it doesn’t make sense. Of course they aren’t being punished, but are given over to a guardian angel in the account. Still, why are they in hell at *all*? The thing about ALL these tours of teh afterlife from Homer to Virgil to teh Xn apocalypses: none of them is internally coherent. Weirdnesses and inconsistencies are virtually a feature of the genre. (I”ll be showing this in the monograph I’m writing on the topic)
HI Dr. Ehrman, has your book been responded by fundamentalists?
Not to *me* anyway!
Thank you Dr Ehrman and I am enjoying your new book, by the way. Despite its grim subject matter, it is still a very entertaining and satisfying read, as are all your books.
Maybe grim, but my point is that it need not be frightful! But I push that more at the end.
Dr. Ehrman – I just finished reading the book and enjoyed it very much. As expected, it was very well conceived and written. I couldn’t help but think that it must have been difficult for you when writing the “what did Jesus have to say about the afterlife” section. You basically had to condense “Misquoting Jesus” into “…well all we know about what Jesus said is found in the Gospels and ….well…. a lot of what’s in the Gospels wasn’t what he said.” I wonder what some of the reactions of people who were reading you for the first time might have been to that!
Congrats on the book!
Do you have time for a question regarding Menelaus’ motivation to keep Helen as a way to avoid the fate of but a few in the Greek afterlife, a wraith existence?
Ha, good question! He took her in the first place beacuse she was drop-dead gorgeous. Nothing in the poems suggest he “kept” her for any other reason, other than his own honor and being unwilling to give up what was his. I don’t think the poems sgguested he realized that as Zeus’s son-in-law, he’d get to Elysium until later. And I guess he would have been there even if he had given her up earlier. But HERE’S a question: why aren’t Paris and Deiphobus (e.g.) also in Elysium?
Ancient Plot Hole!!
Received your book in the mail the other day, and already halfway done with it. Fascinating thoughts, easy to read and understand, and causing me to rethink personal views. Not always easy to do, but a great read. Thanks for the extensive research done to produce it.
To die, to sleep – to sleep, perchance to dream – ay, there’s the rub, for in this sleep of death what dreams may come…
Great interview! This topic touches a part of a larger curiosity I’ve always pondered: why is there so much in modern-day Christianity (beliefs and customs) that has no basis in the bible?! How the bible and biblical teachings have somehow morphed into what today’s (American) Christianity looks like is astounding to me.
Because they want authority for their own views. I guess an analogy would be how conservative religious persons also sometimes appeal to the faith of the “Founding Fathers” even though most of the time these claims are completely unfounded.
Dr Ehrman, this is a perfect case in point of what I have been saying for some time: people mistake what you say about the historical Jesus for what the Bible itself states.
Here are the facts:
1. the n/t itself DOES put eternal life and eternal punishment on the very lips of JC himself I.e.
“And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.””
Matthew 25:46 NRSV
2. Some very early writers spoke in no uncertain terms about their beliefs on the topic I.e. Apocalypse of Peter, Justin Martyr
3. Your argument is NOT that the Bible doesn’t speak of eternal punishment, but rather the reconstructed teachings of Jesus do not include this doctrine.
I realize that you never explicitly claim that the idea of eternal punishment is not found in the Bible, but at a glance, people THINK that’s what you claim.
This isn’t the Howard Stern show. Shocking sound bites are misleading, but they do sell books… btw… I bought this book, as well as several others you’ve written… and I love them all!
There’s a world of difference between the reconstructed Jesus and the biblical Jesus, do you ever worry that your readers could mistake the two?
I do claim these views aer not found in the OT. And I claim that Jesus did indeed speak of eternal punishment. The punishment was annihilation. Sinners would be destroyed. They are not termporarily dead, to come back to life. The punishment will not be reversed. That’s why it is “eternal.”
The life and punishment are both eternal. How can one be an existence and one be the absence of existence with the same qualifier? The earliest writers (albeit not VERY early) did not understand it that way, again i cite Apocalypse of Peter and Justin Martyr as an example, and he claims to be mid 2nd C. Many is the time that we use early writers as a commentary or interpretation tool, as in the concept of the devil fallen angel thing i.e. the Enoch material. Granted it may be WRONG, but that’s what they believed as early as we can tell.
however it is equally compelling, in my mind, what Jesus said about destroying the body and soul in Gehenna. That certainly sounds like annihilation, I concede.
But even if ONE example in the NT speaks of punishment i.e. the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (indeed a parable in my mind) then the NT contains the concept of a torturous punishment after death. It is 100% irrelevant if Jesus actually said it or not, its in the Bible, for good or bad, right or wrong.
The concept derives from the NT.
Jesus doesn’t say that the punishment will be *felt* forever, only that it will *last* forever. The penalty is death. Everyone dies.
But those who side with God will come to life and never die again. That’s their reward. Those penalized get the opposite. They will die and never come to life again. The punishment in their case will last for ever. (Yes, Lazarus and the Rich Man does presuppose torment after death; as you might imagine, I deal with it at length in my book. My claim has always been that JESUS never taught torment after death, not that this parable is not in the Bible. (you’ll notice, by the way, that (a) it is a parable, not a statement of historical reality and (b) it says nothing about how long the punishment lasts; but more than that, I show why scholars have long maintained that it is not a parable that Jesus himself actually spoke.
And I certainly also freely admit that the OT speaks very little if anything about life after death.
Hi sir. I may ask.
Who did you believe to be an Antichrist during your fundamentalist early period?
I thought he was yet to come.
Prof Erhman,
At the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, what else was agreed on/ deliberated apart from the ‘nature of the divinity of Jesus Christ’?
There are a number of canons that emerged from the council, but that was the major issue. (The canon of the NT was *not* part of the discussion, for what it’s worth); maybe check this out: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
Hi Sir!
I just finished listening to one of your lecture called “jesus the law and new covenant” One thing I learned from it is that, ancient Jews in old Testament didn’t had the idea of afterlife. If a person dies that’s it game over. But what did they make of with some of the stories like Enoch in Genesis, and Elijah. Who were taken heaven !
They didn’t die first. People who die didn’t go to heaven to be with God.
Dr., Ehrman,
In you research of the parable of the the Rich Man and Lazarus, did you discover any other similar works from the same genre and/or milieu? I’ve heard a few Bible teachers say “the parable is found in the Jewish Gemara” or “it’s a Jewish parable but we’re not sure of its origin” while making a case for its parabolic genre (which I agree with you about). So again, what did you discover?
Appreciatively!
Yes indeed. In fact in teh book I tell th mot interesting tale in the book — from an Egyptian story that is *very* close (and intersteing)
Finished reading your book and I’m glad I got it– got two in fact, so I could loan it without having to worry too much about whether I’d get it back. Toward the end I noticed something I’d never really noticed before and it mystified me: when Jesus asks his apostles who people think he is, and it is said that some think he is John the Baptist reembodied or some such– how could anyone think that? John the Baptist and Jesus were contemporary. Even if John the Baptist was dead at that point, how can it make sense to think that Jesus is John the Baptist “reincarnated”? Surely no one would imagine that Jesus could be possessed or inhabited by someone who died after Jesus was born. Am I missing something here? Could this oddity be taken as evidence that this passage was written by someone who lived so long after Jesus and John the Baptist were both dead that they got confused on chronology? What else could it mean?
Yeah, hard to figure that one out. Unless the people asking the question didn’t know that Jesus had been John’s follower? OR, that teh spirit of John came into Jesus after John had died? (Again maybe they didn’t know the sequence)
Wasn’t Jesus asking first in Matt. 16 who outsiders thought he was? Who is to say that these outsiders had ever met John? Maybe these folks were ignorant of the fact that Jesus and John were contemporaries? Ignorant of the timeline?
It appears to me that, for Fundamentalists & Evangelicals who believe in the Eternal Conscious Torment view of Hell (ECT), that the weightiest point in the whole debate is what Jesus meant when He spoke of “Gehenna.” Some Evangelicals agree that “Gehenna” (or valley of sons of Hinnom/Tophet – e.g. Jer. 7:31-32) referred to /national judgment/–and not /individual eschatology/–in the Old Testament. But, during the Intertestamental Period (IP), the same evangelicals contend, “Gehenna” evolved into meaning ECT (e.g. 2 Esdras, Baruch) and therefore was the predominant meaning among first century Jews–including Jesus. Other than the problem for Evangelicals of how IP writings considered /non-inspired/ somehow got it right and the /inspired writers/ of the OT missed it, I know you disagree. Why?
4 Ezra and 2 Baruch were written after the fall of Jerusalem, so I don’t see how they can establish common usage so many decades earlier.
As for the post-70 AD dates of composition of 2 Esdras/4 Ezra & Baruch I’ll take your word for it (I was working from ISBE (“Thus three different lines converge in pointing to 60 or 59 BC as the date at which this book was written”). But again I trust you and such is not my point.
My *primary* inquiry has to do with the Fundamentalist & Evangelical claims that:
1. Gehenna evolved from its OT meaning of national judgment (via some Intertestamental writings or whatever) to individual eschatology and the modern understanding (or beginnings of) Hell as Eternal Conscious Torment; and…
2. That the Jews of Jesus’ day–and *critically*, Jesus too–meant ECT when they used the term Gehenna.
I know you disagree. Why?
Many thanks!
There is no evidence for either view. There is no reason to accept a view if there is no reason to accept it!
And Jesus explicitly talks about *annihilation*, not eternally conscious torment. I discuss all this, of course, in my book.
Just finished the new book; great!! Question…when Jesus is to have said, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me” did he mean the “kingdom” he anticipated had not come, and he missed everything himself? Original text says? Thx!
In the context of Mark’s Gospel, he means that he doesn’t understand why God has made him go through with all of this, without any divine support. Mark’s *reader* knows the answer though. Jesus felt abandoned even though God was achieving a greater purpose. His death led to a far greater good. Mark is telling his readers this so that when they themselves don’t understand why God is not helping them, they can rest assured that their own suffering will also lead to a greater good.
Isaiah 14 passage. Famous passage. 2 questions if I may. #1v. 4 makes it very clear it is a taunt toward the king of Babylon (odd to me, since Babylon wasn’t the present threat in 1 Isaiah, it was Assyria, but anyway) v 14. Oh how you are fallen from heaven day star son of the dawn. Early Christians evidently thought this was a fall of Satan story? Ignorant of the Canaanite myths behind it? Ok here’s the question: Although this was outside the scope of the book, do the references Jesus makes about watching Satan fall like lightning (although again in context having to do with the origin of the devil) and also the famous war in heaven chapter12 of revelation lead the reader to think yes indeed the Satan/devil was at one time an angel? Also the imagery in Ezekiel 28? And the inclusion of the Satan among the sons of God in Job 1? What I’m asking I guess is, is a reader of the Bible as a whole supposed to think that the Devil is a fallen angel? Strictly speaking NOWHERE in the canonized Bible is the topic expressly discussed, yet so many people believe it. Thank you again for the opportunity to sit in on the blog ????
Yes, it was eventually interpreted as a reference to the fall of Satan, but it originally didn’t mean that at all. Milton has influenced modern readings of the Bible mroe than historical knowledge has.
But what is a reader of the Bible intended to think? There is a lesser known Enoch book that talks about “Samuel”and his fall etc. I’m not sure of the date of it’s composition, but it’s pretty early. I used to believe that since people thought the devil was a fallen angel that early, then well the Bible was being interpreted that way way early therefore it must have been what the writers intended. One of the things your book(s) does(do) a good job of is demonstrating how varied the early beliefs and faiths were. I now am coming to the persuasion that the early church fathers had less access to the codified canon and used bad exegesis and hermeneutics quite often. What I’m saying is, who cares what they believed about if or if not the devil was a fallen angel or if a negative afterlife is eternal! If you were a Christian, don’t you think you are better equipped to interpret the Bible than let’s say the writer of 2 Enoch? Or even Justin Martyr who I personally think got most of it right.
I meant Samael not Samuel
I think you’re talking about 1 Enoch, the first major chunk of which, “The Book of the Watchers,” is all about the fall of the angels, an elaboration of Genesis 6. Yes, i think modern scholars are indeed better equipped to interpret the Bible than ancient readers.
As I mentioned I failed to finish a MDiv, and my Greek isn’t good. My Hebrew is infinitely worse. I use the NRSV. Do you prefer another translation?
Like 12. Again absent from the book? Space constraints I know I know. But I’m sure you notice the development as compared to Matthew 10:28 “destroy both soul and body in Hell,” Luke modifies the statement in 12:4 “fear whom after he has killed, has authority to cast into Hell.” Is this a development? Is Luke making a statement by leaving out the word destroy? Is there a glimmer of eternal fire and torment in that omission?
What about Luke 12:47, 48? “The slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare… receive a severe beating. The one who did not know… light beating.” Is this prototypical of things like the apocalypse of Peter, in which there are varying degrees of punishment? And does it leave open the idea of eternal punishment? Of course “Jesus didn’t actually say that”. Immaterial to the question. What did the writer of Luke intend his reader to draw from this? We must let this writer have his revisionist voice, ya know? Thanks again ????
I prefer the NRSV. But it makes mistakes. I was the research grunt for the committee that produced it, and so I have a bit of inside info on it, having worked full time on it in preparation for its publication. “Hell” is a mistranslation. And no, Luke 12 is not talking about punishment in the afterlife.
For the heck of it, I listened to 1 and 2 apologies of your man Justin Martyr. He was indeed a bodily resurrection man, but he was an eternal punishment guy too. Has anybody ever disputed it’s internal claims of mid 2nd C authorship? If it is legit mid 2nd C, then that’s fairly quickly embracing the variation from what you believe the historical Jesus and Paul actually taught. Of all the early Christian writers I feel Justin martyr to be maybe the most “orthodox”, but even then some of his ideas for example Greek gods being demons is a little out there.
Yes, these are almost certainly mid-2nd c. And yes, things can change quickly!
man I can’t say enough how much I appreciate an audience with you. The fact that you don’t have a dog in the race make you so much more credible than let’s say some snake handler who got hit by lightning on top of his gazebo and ever since then has had the power. He might be clueless about the Bible, but he can speak gibberish with the best of em. Thank you!
Anyways, let’s talk 1 Peter. Authorship is irrelevant to me. It’s canon. Ain’t nuttin gonna change that lol. Ok, B. a Ehrman exegesis on 3:18-21. If I quote it, I’ll run outta space. Put to death in the flesh/ made alive in the spirit or by the Spirit? Who were the spirits in prison? What did he proclaim to them? Why did he proclaim anything to them? Where were they? Hades? Tartarus? They’re conscious or so it seems, right? Water saved Noah? Spill bro ???? I know you’ve studied this before ????
How does this (or does it) relate to 4:6 “for this reason the gospel was preached even to the dead.”? Is that dead physically or spiritually? Thank you so much again ????
As you might imagine, there are entire books written on the passage, with just these questions in mind. Lots of itnerpretations are possible an out there, way too much for a blog comment. But one common view is that even though his body died, Christ’s soul went down to hades where either the people from the time of Noah’s flood or all dead people were in order to proclaim that he had now died for their sins so that the rigteous would be saved. If that’ interpretetation is right, it ties closely to 4:6.
There is a growing trend in Christianity toward “universalism,” its largest proponents being the theologian David Bentley Hart, Thomas Talbott, Eric Reitan, and John Kronen. In my opinion, the latter two, who co-authored a book called “God’s Final Victory” about 10 years ago, make the most convincing case for it, and it is no surprise this view has been catching on among believers and non-believers. It’s actually not a new position at all but is found among church fathers such as Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa.
Yes indeed — though Origen (Gregory was picking up on his views) had a very, very different way of explaining how and why it worked.
Hello Dr Ehrman
I intend to read your book about heaven and hell, but I am currently living in Spain, so …
I’m curious about the following passage, (Matthew 12:32 NAB)
“And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
What was Jesus referring to when he says “the age to come”. Isn’t this the passage that Catholic scholars use to justify a belief in Purgatory? (If so, it means that … those guilty of this sin are stuck in Purgatory forever??? If it’s hell, then it implies that it’s possible to be liberated from eternal damnation.)
He is referring to the future kingdom of God soon to come to earth to all those on God’s side, including the dead who will be bodily raised to enter into the kingdom. No, Jesus had no idea of purgatory. Those not forgiven would be destroyed/annihilated.
What do you think Jesus’ contemporaries would have thought when he heard them talking about Gehenna? Sure, the Torah describes it only as a physical location in the midst of Israel, yet Rabbinical literature is afloat with descriptions of Gehenna has a place of punishment of the wicket (and Gan Eden as a heaven-like place for the righteous). Therefore I am not sure that it is really safe to say that he didn’t mean something like hell in Islam and Christianity.
I think they would have thought what he did. It was a God-forsaken, desolated valley outside of Jerusalem that you did *not* want your corpse to be dumped in.
Bart,
Regarding early first century views of the afterlife, what do you think the odds are that Peter and Jesus’ other close followers would have been able to envision only Jesus’ *soul* going up to heaven after his death instead of having the view that “souls die with the bodies” (Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.4) or the view that the soul was permanently attached to the body and so any act of going up to heaven would have required a *bodily* ascent?
I don’t think they would have imagined it. And the only accounts of him after his death do *not* imagine it!
Sorry Bart, let me ask my question in another way: Let’s say a relative of Peter’s died in 30 C.E., his mother for example. As an early first-century Jew, would Peter have been able to envision his mother’s *soul* going up to heaven, or would Peter have thought that his mother’s soul died with the body or remained with the corpse in the grave or gone down to Sheol, or are all four options a possibility? If all four options are a possibility, are you able to give any kind of estimate of how prevalent each view was among early first-century Jews, especially the view that the soul could go up to heaven?
Almost all Jews at the time would have thought that she was dead in every way, that there was no soul to live on; for apocalyptic Jews like Peter, she would remain dead until the reusrrection happened and God “breathed” the breath of life (= soul) back into her body.
Bart,
You said that almost all Jews at the time of Jesus believed that when a person dies “there was no soul to live on”. However, what do you make of these three Jewish traditions which seem to suggest that souls lived on after death in some kind of sleep or minimally conscious state: 1) “the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God…at peace…their hope is full of immortality” (Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-4), 2) “[souls are] kept in rest…gathered into their chambers and guarded by angels in profound quiet” (4 Ezra 7:75, 95-96), and 3) “[The] treasuries will be opened in which is preserved the number of the souls of the righteous” (2 Baruch 30:2). Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that early first-century Jews thought the soul lived on but in some kind of sleep or minimally conscious state?
The point is “almost.” And two of th texts you cite are long after Jesus, from the same time that Christians too were starting to hold to the idea of independent souls.
Bart,
For sure the Sadducees believed that “souls die with the bodies” (Antiquities 18.1.4). However, don’t the following pre-first-century Jewish texts suggest that some (or many or most) other Jews believed that the soul after death existed in Sheol in some kind of flimsy unconscious or barely conscious sleep state: 1) “I shall go down to Sheol to my son” (Gen. 37:35), 2) “David slept with his ancestors” (1 Kings 2:10), 3) “O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy” (Isa 26:19), 4) “I will ransom them from the power of Sheol. I will redeem them from death” (LXX Hos 13:14), 5) “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake….[Go] your way [Daniel], and rest; you shall rise for your reward at the end of the days” (Dan 12:2, 13)?
No, I don’t think so. Read my discussion in Heaven and Hell and tell me what you think. Short story that I can’t devoted enough space here to give the detailed evidence: Going to Sheol simply meant going to the grave; and sleeping with the ancestors meant being dead along with them. Some proto-apocalyptic texts did imagine bodies being brought back to life, but that was almost always, prior to Daniel, a metaphorical reference to Israel being restored from the dead as a nation; Daniel, of course, did believe in the resurrection of the body. But before the body came back to life, the person was dead, not existing somewhere else.
Bart,
I spent yesterday reading chapters 5-9 of your Heaven and Hell book and I think you make a good case that in the *Hebrew bible* the soul died with the body (with some exceptions like necromancy that you mention). However, as far as I can tell, after the Hebrew bible was written, every Jewish text except 2 Maccabees (which you date to 124 BCE) that mentions a future bodily resurrection seems also to at least *hint* at some kind of interim state for the soul (e.g., 1 Enoch, Pseudo-Philo, Wisdom of Solomon, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and others even more so as far as I can tell). I know some of these sources are late, but it would help if you could point to a couple more Jewish texts written after the Hebrew bible was written that mention resurrection *without* also hinting at some kind of interim state for the soul. Is 2 Maccabees the only such example?
I do discuss the Maccabean literature. Maybe you haven’t gotten to that point yet?
Bart,
What I was trying to ask was: Is 2 Macc your latest (124 BCE) Jewish text mentioning the general resurrection with no hint of some kind of interim state for the soul, i.e., is 2 Macc your latest textual evidence for a belief that the soul died with the body but was still able to be resurrected by God by breathing life back into the body?
Well, it’s a great question. My sense is most texts that talk about resurrection don’t say anything about an interim state of the soul. What do you have in mind?
Bart.
As far as I can tell you have it completely backwards; *all* Jewish texts written after 2 Maccabees (124 BCE) that talk about a general resurrection say something about an interim state of the soul. For example: “I will receive your souls and lay them up in peace” (Pseudo-Philo 23:13); “But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God” (Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-4); “Treasuries will be opened in which is preserved the number of the souls of the righteous” (2 Baruch 30:2). “…souls, after they have been separated from the bodies” (4 Ezra 7:100). Full blown Plato-like soul can be found in Testament of Abraham, 4 Maccabees, Jubilees, and Philo. This doesn’t mean your view that souls die with the body was not present among some first-century Jews hoping for a future general resurrection (e.g., Jesus’ followers), but there appears to be no relevant texts representing that view after 2 Maccabees (124 BCE)…don’t you agree?
No, I’m not sure I do. Statements like “souls of the righteous are in the hands of God” do not demonstrate teh belief that souls could exist apart from the body. I’d be happy for rabbinic experts among us to weigh in here — and if none does, I’ll be happy to ask my rabbinic scholar colleagues.
Bart,
Three quick things:
1] Yes!, I would love to see if your rabbinic colleagues think Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-4 (available at https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3905445) reflects (or not) the belief that souls could exist separate from the body, especially the phrase “the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God”.
2] I noticed that at the end of your ch. 6 in Heaven and Hell you use Psalms of Solomon (3:11-12; 13:11; 15:11-13) as evidence of a bodily resurrection belief with no interim period of existence for the soul. It looks that way to me too, but I just want to make sure you still think this is the case. Yes or no?
3] Do you still think a first century CE dating for Psalms of Solomon is correct (pg. 123 in Heaven and Hell), because the commentary I’ve browsed on this seems overwhelmingly to point to 70-40ish BCE.
I asked a an expert Rabbinist (expert both from his personal upbringing in Israel and later as a PhD in the academic field and a professor at the leading rabbinic training seminary in North America), who tells me that most of the rabbinic texts do not subscribe to the idea that the soul lives on after the body (i.e. for most people).
Yes, Psalms of Solomon is 1st c BCE. I don’t believe I date it CE in my book, but possibly I did not specify BCE, probably because all of the texts I was talking about in the context were BCE
Bart,
Thank you *very* much for the rabbinic feedback and clarification on the date of Ps. Sol. One last question (I think). You call Jesus’ followers “apocalypticists”, which in my mind simply means a Jew who believes the general resurrection will happen very soon. However, you seem to use this term to also mean a Jew who does *not* believe the soul can live separately from its body. Why do you add/assume this last part to your definition of “apocalypticists” if there also could have been first-century Jewish “apocalypticists” who believed the soul lived *separately* from its body before the imminent general resurrection (like the souls in hollow places in the Book of the Watchers, Chapter 22)?
My definition of apocalypticism per se is not connected with the idea of the soul. It is more involved than just “resurrection” though — it is an entire world view. You may want to do a search for the term on the blog and you’ll see some posts devoted to describing it.
Bart,
I understand that “apocalypticism” involves more than just an imminent general resurrection, but just to clarify, an “apocalypticists” could have a unitary or dualistic understanding of the body/soul…right?
I’m not sure they would use that language, but some apocalypticists did think there could be some kind of intermediate state for souls prior to the bodily resurrection, yes. Thus 1 Enoch 22.
Bart,
You said “some apocalypticists did think there could be some kind of intermediate state for souls prior to the bodily resurrection [e.g., 1 Enoch 22]”, but if I understand you correctly, you think Jesus’ followers were *not* these kind of apocalypticists; instead, Jesus’ followers were apocalypticists who thought the soul died with the body and so could never have imagined Jesus’ soul going up to heaven. Do I got that right?
That’s right. That appears to have been the dominant apocalyptic view and is the only one that can be shown to have been held by Jesus; nothing indicates that his followers had different views from his.
Bart,
I agree with the idea of annihilation and not conscious torment and that the 3 who end up in the Lake of Fire for eternity are satan, the beast and the false prophet (and perhaps all of satans other demons as Jesus said that the lake of fire was not meant for people but for satan and his demons).
The portion of scripture that I would like to ask about is Rev 14:
9 “Anyone who worships the beast and his statue or who accepts his mark on the forehead or on the hand 10 must drink the wine of God’s anger. It has been poured full strength into God’s cup of wrath. And they will be tormented with fire and burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb. 11 The smoke of their torment will rise forever and ever, and they will have no relief day or night, for they have worshiped the beast and his statue and have accepted the mark of his name.”
Can you please comment on the phrase “and they will have no relief day or night”? This is the one phrase that would suggest continuous concsious torment.
It talk about this in my book. What I argue is that they will be tormented day and night until they are destroyed. They are clearly destroyed later, so Rev. 14 must be talking about a constant but not eternal torment. (Like when I say: “that dog just doesn’t stop barking!” He eventually does, but for now, it’s non-stop)
Ok here’s a heaven and heller… maybe. The infamous Matthew 24 & 25. No need for me to quote anything or give any context. Question: was ANYTHING spoken by Jesus, as portrayed by the author said in reference to eschatological events? It seems to me that both chapters are essentially the long answer to one question, “when will the temple be destroyed?” There certainly is imagery, and Christians for centuries have preached this as how it’s gonna be standing before god in the day of judgment, but what do you see? Strictly from the text and context? Thank you for your consideration.
Yes, I think a number of sayings of Jesus in the Gospels, including in these chapters, go back to Jesus. I think the apocalyptic discourse was a central component of his teaching.
Yes, but what did the writer intend his audience to understand them to mean? Is Jesus (in Matthews portrayal) talking about the destruction of the temple? The end of time? Or something else? If else, then what? And should chapter 25 be read in the same context? My question is not did Jesus say it, but rather what is it said in reference to, and how did the reader initially understand it?
OK, and how would you answer the question? How would we know how the first readers understood it if we don’t have any reports from the first readers (or fifth readers or 219th readers, etc?) What we have are the words, and we need to interpret them.
Lol. Not fair lol. Surely you have an opinion ???? using that Historical Critical method, by which we both adore, give us your interpretation. I USED to think it was half destruction of the temple, then in v 36 an abrupt shift to the end of time, but now I’m beginning to think that there is no evidence to suggest he changes thoughts like that. What is he talking about? I value your opinion ????
My sense is that Jesus is talking about the climax of history when the divine catastrophe hits this planet prior to the coming of the Kingdom of God, and that Jesus’ audience would have understood it that way. The idea that he was talking about the destruction of the Temple (which is not what he seems to be talking about!) came up only years later when people realized that what he *was* talking about never happened.
Ok one more time and I promise I’ll move on. I must be horrible at phrasing my question.
“As Jesus came out of the temple and was going away, his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. Then he asked them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.” When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?””
Matthew 24:1-3 NRSV
His apocalyptic statements to follow, made in this context, in the next two chapters… how does the writer of Matthew intend his readers to interpret these things to mean?
He intends them to understand that what he describes in chs. 24 – 25 will happen. When the temple was destroyed there were not accompanying cataclysmic disasters that led to the end of history. He indicates in the verses you cite that he is now oging to describe what *will* happen at the end of the age. I don’t think the problem is in your phrasing of the question. The problem is that I’m not giving you the answer you’re looking for. 🙂
Dr, Ehrman
in the description of your new book it is written:
“But eternal rewards and punishments are found nowhere in the Old Testament and are not what Jesus or his disciples taught”
Obviously this refers to the idea of heaven and hell. However, if I have not misunderstood your thought, you do not claim that Jesus never taught about a place of eternal reward. On the contrary, you say that he did it, but he wasn’t talking about Heaven.
Jesus taught that the righteous would be raised to be given an ETERNAL REWARDS in the Kingdom of God here on EARTH. The wicked would raised to realize the error of their ways and then brutally destroyed/annihilated for all time. Right?
Thank you very much
That’s right. In my description I believe I was referring to *souls* being given eternal rewards (which Jesus decidedly did not teach)
Dr. Ehrman,
I’ve recently started following your works. My wife majored in religious studies and recommended you, and I’m already a big fan. I’ve read part of MIsquoting Jesus and finished Heaven and Hell.
Quick question that I haven’t seen addressed yet: What are your thoughts on fire representing purity? I’ve seen arguments that the lake of fire isn’t a place of destruction/torture, but instead is a place to purify sinners for heaven?
Thanks!
Great! Yes, sometimes fire definitely denotes purity. Other times it designates horrible torture. In Revelation the lake of fire is explicitly said to be a place of eternal torment for the devil and his minions, so it is not a place of purification.
Thanks for the reply. My thoughts were in line with the topics you talked about in the last chapter of Heaven and Hell, specifically with universal salvation. The lake of fire may be a place of torment, but doesn’t the scripture say that only the beast and false prophet would be tormented forever? Wouldn’t this point to the possibility of everyone else being tormented by the fire for a finite amount of time to be cleansed? I probably missed something.
Yes, that’s right, only they. The humans thrown into it end up like everyone who is thrown into a pit of fire: they are destroyed. Revelation calls this the “second death.” They die permanently that time.
Are there any mention of the number of evil angels/demons being 19 in hell or at the gate in the bible or anywhere you’re aware of? The reason I’m asking is this passage in Quran:
” I will roast him in Saqar. But what will explain to you what Saqar is? It neither leaves, nor spares. It scorches the flesh. Over it are Nineteen. We have appointed only angels to be wardens of the Fire, and caused their number to be a stumbling block for those who disbelieve; so that those given the Scripture may attain certainty; and those who believe may increase in faith; and those given the Scripture and the believers may not doubt; and those in whose hearts is sickness and the unbelievers may say, “What did God intend by this parable?” Thus God leads astray whom He wills, and guides whom He wills. None knows the soldiers of your Lord except He. This is nothing but a reminder for the mortals.”
The Bible doesn’t mention demons being in hell. It does say in Matthew 25 that the eternal fires were prepared for them for the end of time; but that’s later It does not give a number of htem.
Hello Bart,
Have you done any studies on the Book of Life mentioned in the Book of Rev., or do you know of someone who has ?
Is it suppose to be a real thing, or used metaphorically?
Thank you!!
Do you mean was John thinking that there was literally a book with the names of all the saved written in it, or was he spaeaking metaphorically? I’m afraid there’s no way to know for sure. Certainly many of his readers thought he was speaking literally. Others realized there were wome rather serious problems with that (how big was this book, exactly??) I just deal with the passage briefly in my book Armaggedon. disabledupes{32dabd585d8d7bb86c8e16de361829a7}disabledupes
Hi Bart, I read your book on heaven and hell. I liked it a lot, though I have two lingering doubts about the idea of the devil and other being tormented forever while humans are not. One comes from Matthew 25:41, the other comes from Revelation. In both Jesus’s words (am I correct in assuming is this verse something that Jesus actually said?) and in Revelation, it seems like both indicate that the devil will be tormented eternally, and that the wicked humans will be punished with the same fire. What were Jesus’s views on the eternal fate of the devil and his angels? Also, why can we understand that John of Patmos means that humans will be destroyed in the lake of fire when it doesn’t destroy the devil?
Yes, the deal is that immortal beings cannot die by definition, mortal beings do, by definition. It appears that angels/demons/devils are understood in ancient texts as immortal beings; humans are always portrayed as mortals. In fact, in ancient Greek “mortal” is simply a synonym for human being and “immortals” is what divine beings were called.