(We left this conversation last time by observing that the few times Jesus mentions hell it is in a metaphorical context.)
Q: Well, Paul advances most of the straight-forward Christian doctrine. When he talks about hell, that can’t be taken as metaphorical, right?
A: Paul never talks about hell.
Q: Really?
A: Yes, really. He talks about judgment but not hell.
Q: Well, maybe he just never got around to mentioning it.
A: That doesn’t seem like a likely explanation. Paul had lots of great chances to mention or describe hell if he indeed believed in it, but he consistently passed up the opportunity. For example, consider Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” This verse is strikingly asymmetrical. If Paul believed in hell, he probably would have said “For the wages of sin is eternal death, but the gift of God is eternal life…” Or possibly: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is life…” But Paul chooses to leave the passage without any symmetry. Since the idea that people are going to be tortured for eternity is such a dramatic belief, I would think Paul would bring it up every chance he got. But since his prolific letter-writing that never mentions hell, we simply can't use Biblical grounds to say that Paul thinks non-believers are going to hell.
Q: Can’t we simply combine the New Testament teachings about faith with Jesus’ metaphorical descriptions of hell?
A: I don’t think that cherry-picking like that a very genuine way to approach a text, because it leaves too much room for the interpreter to say whatever he or she wants. As a result, these observations create a hermeneutical paradox for a conservative theologian. If she believes that righteousness is conferred simply by the ‘sinner’s prayer’, then she evidently must explain away the preponderance of passages which say that works are the determining factor for final judgment, like in Matthew 25, when Jesus says that the goats are going to eternal fire BECAUSE they did not help the poor. But after she explains away these verses as not being literally true (or whatever the explanation is), she has no more verses in the entire Bible that talk about a hell!
Q: What about philosophical or theological arguments against hell?
A: Some folks, such as Brian McLaren, try to argue against the existence of hell (as a destination for people) by saying that it is not in God’s character to send people there, or that “gehenna” was just a burning trash heap outside of Jerusalem, etc, etc, etc. These arguments may be good ones, but it really doesn’t matter. It should be enough for Evangelicals to disbelieve in hell for non-believers simply because it is not a Biblical belief.
