(2) Briefly put, the doctrine of Hell has as its foundation some mistranslated Greek and Hebrew words. It is those mistranslations that sustain this wrong doctrine. Let us first explore those words:
- ‘sheol’ (Strong’s No: 07585) – This word is found 65 times in the Original Hebrew Manuscripts of the Old Testament. Its meaning is just ‘grave’, i.e. the place where the dead are buried. You are welcome to verify this in any Hebrew dictionary. Moreover, the Bible mentions directly that sheol (grave) is an eventless, emotionless, memoryless place (Ecclesiastes 9:5,6). That being the case, how can it refer to Hell, a place of intense suffering? But, most English versions of Bible translate this word wrongly as Hell.
- ‘Hades’ (Strong’s No: 086) – This word is found 11 times in the Original Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament. It also means just ‘grave’, a fact supported by the fact that New Testament quotes the Hebrew Psalms 16:10 in Greek in Acts 2:27 and in it the word sheol of the Hebrew text is translated as the Greek Hades. This makes it clear that they both have the same meaning, i.e. grave. For as mentioned directly in the Bible if sheol is an eventless, emotionless, memoryless place; Hades, its Greek equivalent has to be the same (Ecclesiastes 9:5,6). However, this word is also wrongly translated as Hell in English Bibles.
- ‘Tartaroo’ (Strong’s No:5020) – This word is found in 1 Peter 2:4 and is generally translated as Hell. The actual meaning of this word which comes from Greek culture is just a lightless, dark place. From the way Peter uses it, it seems to indicate that the fallen angels are kept in a powerless, dark place awaiting judgement. Anyway, there is no way tartaroo can refer to Hell, where eternal fires supposedly burn bright.
- ‘Gehenna’ (Strong’s No:1067) – This word which is found 12 times in the New Testament is also generally translated wrongly as Hell. The truth is Gehenna is the Greek name for the Valley of Hinnom which is situated to the south of Jerusalem. It was in this valley that the Jews of that time dumped their waste and also the dead bodies of animals wherein they were destroyed by fire. The writers of New Testament used that place to signify the ultimate destruction of sinners. The reason some think Gehenna as hell is due to the statement of Jesus that in Gehenna ‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched’ (Mark 9:44,46,48). People think that it is only in hell worms do not die even in an unquenchable fire. But only those who have knowledge about the first century Gehenna Valley will know the true meaning of the phrase ‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched’. Even today, we must have noticed that the fire keeps burning in places where waste is burned. In the same fashion, fires were kept burning in the Gehenna Valley of that time. But, why did the worms did not die? Because these worms were not exactly amidst the fires. Fires used to burn at the bottom of the Gehenna Valley. It was in the trees that lined the slopes of the valley that the worms thrived. Jesus is referring to those worms. What does Jesus signify with all these? The dead bodies that were thrown into the Gehenna Valley would be destroyed by the fires burning below. The ones that might get stuck in the slopes of the valley would be destroyed by the worms. The point is – the bodies dumped into Gehenna Valley would get destroyed one way or other without fail. In the same fashion, sinners cannot also escape punishment is the point being driven by Jesus. Importantly, all the bodies that were dumped into the Gehenna Valley of that time were only destroyed and were never tortured for eternity. Hence, it is certain that Gehenna cannot denote a place of eternal torture as Hell is supposed to be.
(3) It may have come as a shock to those who strongly believe in Hell that there is no word meaning Hell in the whole Bible. Some may ask the logic behind the mistranslations perpetuated by the translators of Bible. To know that, one has to look at the history of Christianity. Among the Christians of apostolic times, there is no trace of belief in the doctrine of Hell. However, in the many Pagan sects of those times, there were beliefs about a mystic, fiery burning place of torture called Hell. When Christianity spread to many places, many Pagan people also became Christians. However, despite becoming Christians many of them held to some of their earlier pagan beliefs. As some time passed, some of those pagan beliefs became so popular among Christians that they came to be seen as Christian doctrines. The doctrine of Hell is one such Pagan doctrine. Moreover, since it was seen by some Church leaders of that time that the fear of being dumped into Hell was an incentive for many to accept Christianity, in due time Hell came to be seen as a fundamental Christian doctrine. As a result by 3rd and 4th century, Hell was regarded by most Christians, especially by those in powerful positions within the church as an important Christian doctrine. At this juncture, the Bible was translated into Latin in 400 A.D. The Latin Vulgate version was born. These were the times when the Roman Catholic Church was united with the Roman Empire. The official language of both the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church was Latin. Hence, the Latin Vulgate Bible was the predominant Bible version for about 1000 years. All those who were involved in the creation of the Latin Vulgate version believed in Hell. Hence, as we saw earlier, despite there is not a word in the Bible meaning Hell, they inserted it into the Bible. It is in this fashion that the doctrine of Hell entered into the Christian Bible. Since the next 1000 years represented a period of domination of the Catholic Church which prevented the translation of Bible into other languages, the doctrine of Hell became firmly established as a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. Hence, the translators of the KJV English Bible (King James Version) that came out in 1611 and still popular, believed in Hell too. So, they as well inserted Hell into the Bible. Indeed, though the translators of the Bible were scholars, they chose to mistranslate and put in Hell into the Bible, because of their personal beliefs. This is also the reason why even till today most Bible translations contain the word Hell in them.
(4) Infact, when we compare popular English Bibles it becomes amply clear that Hell is a mistranslation. We saw that the Bible translators generally translated the four words – sheol, hades, tartaroo, gehenna – as Hell. In the original manuscripts, these words together occur a total of 89 times. If the translators had believed strongly that these words denote Hell then in the English Bibles, the word Hell must occur 89 times. Let us explore this in English Bibles. In the KJV Bible, the word Hell occurs only 54 times. In the NKJV Bible (New King James Version) that came out in 1982, the word Hell occurs only 32 times. In the RSV (Revised Standard Version) Bible that came out in 1952, the word Hell occurs only 17 times. In the now popular NIV (New International Version) Bible that came out in 1982, the word Hell is present only 14 times. In the ASV (American Standard Version) Bible that came out in 1901, the word Hell occurs only 13 times. Hence it is clear that translations have been done in an imprecise manner. Statistics speak for themselves. The reasons for this lack of professionalism among translators were their personal beliefs on Hell and a commitment to not let go of tradition. Still, some translators did not let their personal beliefs interfere with their work. Hence, astonishingly, in the following English Bibles the word Hell does not even occur once – HNC (Hanson’s New Covenant, 1884), YLT (Young’s Literal Translation, 1891), TCNT (Twentieth Century New Testament, 1900), REB (Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, 1902), WNT (Weymouth’s New Testament, 1903), JPSB OT (Jewish Publication Society Bible, 1917), EDG/E Int. (Emphatic Diaglott Greek/ English Interlinear, 1942), ROSN (Restoration of Original Sacred Name, 1976), CL NT (Concordant Literal NT, 1983), T/TCJB (Tanakh/ The Complete Jewish Bible, 1998). The fact that this many Bible translations do not even have the word Hell is compelling testimony to the absence of the doctrine of Hell in the Bible. Moreover, we also saw that even those translators who believed in Hell and were acting to insert the word Hell into the Bible did not translate the words – sheol, hades, tartaroo, gehenna – as Hell in all their 89 occurrences. The reason for this was, at many places the translation of these words as Hell ended up giving absurd meanings. As an example, note this particular verse – ‘Then Jacob tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and mourned for his son many days. All his sons and daughters came to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. “No,” he said, “I will continue to mourn until I join my son in the grave.” So his father wept for him’ (Genesis 37:34,35). In this verse, the word translated as grave is sheol. Even the KJV and many other English Bibles which translate sheol as Hell in other places, render it as grave here. The reason is simple. If they had translated sheol as Hell here, then it would mean that Jacob thought that his son Joseph was in Hell. To avoid that absurdity, the translators render the true meaning of sheol i.e. grave in here and in other such places. This makes it crystal clear that their translations were according to their whims and fantasies. They have corrupted the Bible with their unprofessionalism. Hence, it is not acceptable for any true Christian to believe in the doctrine of Hell which is a result of a corruption of the Bible by a bunch of unprofessional translators.
(5) Another excuse invented for the doctrine of Hell is the Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus told by Jesus. Many are using it as an evidence to propound the doctrine of Hell. Let us find out the true meaning of that parable. During his earthly ministry Jesus made use of many parables. It was a fulfillment of a prophecy about Jesus, spoken long ago (Psalms 78:2, Matthew 13:35). Many parables of Christ were not fully understood even by his disciples when he spoke them. In this scenario, the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus has remained as an enigma to Christians even till today. As a result, many wild and varied explanations are afloat to explain it. Many even claim that it is not a parable but a true event. Now, we are going to study this parable which has remained as a challenge to Biblical Scholars of all history. Since this is the first parable being studied in Grace, let us first look at some guidelines that are helpful in studying parables. One commonality between parables and typical studies are that, they both are symbolic in nature. Hence, many understand them unwisely. This only results in distortions of truth and confusions. Hence, previous issues of Grace have stressed that typical studies must be undertaken only with the consent of New Testament (See Grace – Blossom 28:April10,paras1,2,3,4; Blossom18:July09,para01). Grace has been advocating a long time for an avoidance of human speculation and asking for a sole reliance on scriptural references in the identification and study of types. In the same way, while studying parables as well, it is easy for human ideas to intrude and confuse their true meaning. If we are not careful enough, we might interpret symbolic aspects wrongly. To avoid that, it is best to follow some guidelines:
- To understand any parable wisely, it is important to understand its context. For example, if Jesus speaks a parable amidst the Pharisees, then it is sure that there must be a message for them or about them in that parable. Since, only through its context we can clearly identify the message and meaning of a parable it is paramount to study the context of a parable.
- We should never interpret a parable in such a way that it contradicts with plain statements of the Bible. Parables have to be understood only in line with direct, plain statements of the Bible.
- Just as one should not concoct new doctrines based just on a typical study, no new doctrine should be created having a parable as the sole basis.
- Many parables of Christ have a foundation in the culture of first century Jews. Hence it is important to have an intricate knowledge of not only the culture of that time but also the history.
- Finally, since parables, typical studies and prophecies are not directly explained in the Bible, it falls upon us to interpret them. So, it is not wise to be adamant and pushy about our interpretation while dealing with them. Each one can subscribe to the interpretation that he or she thinks is right, utilizing the free will given by God. Those interpretations must not however contradict the foundational teachings of Christianity (See Grace – Blossom27:Memorial Day10,para4).
(6) Before we proceed to study the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, we must first answer those who claim it to be not a parable but a true event. If one takes it as a true event then it leads to many absurdities. For example, if the good Lazarus literally died and went to the literal bosom of Abraham then it will only mean that all the good people who die go to the literal bosom of Abraham (Luke 16:22). Then does it mean that the bosom of Abraham is so big that it can accommodate thousands of people? Moreover, we also see that Abraham spoke with the Rich Man who was suffering (Luke 16:24,25). Even if we take the bosom of Abraham as symbolizing heaven, then is there direct communication between heaven and grave? (Even in this verse, Hades is wrongly translated as Hell in many English Bibles instead of its actual meaning grave). Such totally ridiculous concepts come out only because of the foolish error of interpreting parabolic parts as literal ones. Infact, as per the Bible, Abraham has not even resurrected as of yet (John 3:13). Moreover, it is given that the Rich Man is suffering in the grave (Luke 16:23). But the Bible elsewhere says directly that there is no memory or suffering or action in the grave (See Ecclesiastes 9:5,6). Hence, it is clear that this is a parable. That is why the grave symbolically mentioned in it is not a memoryless, actionless actual grave but is a symbolic one. Each part of the narrative has only symbolic meaning. We should not forget that while interpreting this parable. Moreover, in order to understand this parable clearly we need to first comprehend the context in which Jesus spoke it. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is recorded in the Gospel of Luke. Luke says that his account is an ‘orderly’ (kathexes, Strong’s No:2517) i.e. a chronological account. Hence, Luke’s Gospel has a more accurate chronological narrative than the other gospels. What is the context of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus? Jesus spoke this parable to the Pharisees (Luke 16:14,15). Also, the parable occurs after Jesus criticizes the empty faith of the Jews of that time (Luke 16:16-18). Hence, this parable must have a message for both the Pharisees and the Jewish people. Keeping this in mind, let us begin our study. Since this parable is a well known one, we will not approach it verse by verse but rather treat it wholly. To remind yourself of this parable, kindly read it once. It is recorded in Luke 16:19-31. Let us now proceed to study this parable.
(7) Whom does the Rich Man of this parable signify? He is a son of Abraham (Luke 16:24,25). He is wearing purple and costly clothes (Luke 16:19). In those times, Purple was worn by royalty. Among the descendants of Abraham, which family became the royal one? The tribe of Judah. Indeed, the Rich Man represents Judah. This is confirmed by the fact that the Rich Man had five brothers (Luke 16:27). Because, even Judah had five brothers (Genesis 35:23). Since the family of Judah was appointed as the head of the entire Israelite clan, they are often deemed in the Bible as the representative for entire Israelites (Romans 3:1,2). In that fashion, even in this parable as well Judah represents the entire Israelites. Moving on, whom does Lazarus symbolize? This is simple to understand. Many do not know that Lazarus is just the Greek translation of the Hebrew name Eliezer. Though there are as many as 11 people with similar name in the Bible, there was only one Eliezer who was in contact with Abraham. He is none other than the chief servant of Abraham and the man from Damascus, Eliezer. He was a gentile (Genesis 15:2,3). Just as the Rich Man signifies Israelites in this parable, Lazarus signifies those gentiles who have a willing heart to serve God. This can be said with confidence. Though Eliezer was not a descendant of Abraham, he served him faithfully. He had a heart capable of serving God. Moreover, Lazarus is said to be eating out the crumbs that fell from the table of the Rich Man (Luke 16:21). This same figure of speech is used in relation to the gentile woman who sought help from Jesus (Matthew 15:21-28). She was also a woman who was Godly. Hence, it is clear that gentile Eliezer (Lazarus) the chief servant of Abraham represents those gentiles who are capable and willing to serve God in this parable. As for Abraham, he represents the covenant made by God to Abraham – the Abrahamic Covenant. The Israelites who were the descendants and the chosen of that covenant were living with great blessings which are signified by the wealth/linen/purple attire of the Rich Man of this parable. On the other hand, Gentiles who were willing to serve God as symbolised by Eliezer/Lazarus were outside of the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant. Hence, they received only crumbs of the blessings and were in a bad state as signified by the hunger/sores. To be noted is that even though the gentiles who were willing to serve God during the Jewish Age were provided with the means to do so then (Example: The people of Nineveh during the time of Jonah), God’s foremost attention was towards the Jews. With the situation being so, we see in the parable that both the Rich Man and Lazarus die. This is not literal death. A change of state in the conditions of the Israelites and the Godly gentiles is being signified by death here. The Godly gentiles who were till then outside of the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant are brought into it, as signified by the going of Lazarus to the bosom of Abraham. At the same time, the Israelites who had been enjoying the benefits of the Abrahamic Covenant so far are going to be thrown out of it as signified by the sufferings of the Rich Man. This is the crux of this parable. Infact, this parable was prophesying something that was about to and did happen soon. After the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Godly gentiles who accepted Christ became the seed of Abraham and enjoyed the benefits of the Abrahamic Covenant as Christians whereas Israelites who did not accept Christ were thrown out of the covenant and suffered the wrath of God. (To be noted: Some Israelites did accept Christ and let go of their Jewish identity and became like gentiles. From that time it is Lazarus who represents them. Since a majority of Israelites rejected Jesus, as a nation Israel was let go by God). The second part of this parable symbolically explains the reason for this change. The suffering Rich Man seeks the help of Lazarus but Abraham replied to him that Lazarus cannot help him because a great chasm was between them. What does this great chasm symbolise? Reflect! Even till today both Christians and Jews worship the same God. Despite that, what is the great chasm that exists between Christians and Jews? The belief in Jesus Christ is that great chasm. Since the Israelites symbolised by the Rich Man refuse to accept Jesus Christ, Christians represented by Lazarus cannot cross that great chasm and help the Israelites even a small bit as was asked by the Rich Man (Luke 16:24). It is this meaning that the second part of this parable brings out. Finally, let’s study the third and final part of this parable. The Rich Man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to witness to his brothers such that they do not suffer like him. To that Abraham replies that, if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not listen even if someone rises from the dead and witnesses to them. Likewise, despite the fact that the Christians symbolised by Lazarus have been preaching resurrected Christ across the world, even till today a majority of Israelites refuse to believe in Him. Indeed, as indicated by this parable, the Israelites who refused to accept Christ during his lifetime despite the fact that the Moses’ Covenant and the Prophets testified about him, have remained so even after the resurrection of Christ. In this fashion, this parable brings about wonderful truths about the Israelites and the Gentiles. Truly, it is clear that this parable has nothing do with the doctrine of Hell.
(8) Moving on, some mistake the ‘Lake of fire’ mentioned in the symbolic book of Revelation to be Hell. This error is a result of interpreting symbols in a literal fashion. Lake of fire is used as a symbol at 4 places in the book of Revelation. Those places are – Revelation 19:20; 20:20; 20:14, 20:15. Among these, it is to be noted that in Revelation 20:14 it is clarified that the Lake of fire is indeed a symbol for the eternal destruction of the Second Death (See Grace – Blossom31:July10). Hence Lake of fire cannot denote Hell for sure. But, Revelation 20:10 confuses some people. In it is said that the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be tormented forever in the Lake of fire. Again, the reason some get confused here is because they forget that Revelation is a book of Symbols and not a literal book like others. That too in this verse there is the presence of a beast as well which should further ring a bell. Hence, it is more than certain that this verse cannot be understood literally. In that case, what does tormented forever symbolize? To know that we have to first decipher what do the beast and the false prophet stand for in this verse. The beast stands for the civil power of the world, the governments and authorities. The false prophet stands for the Roman Catholic Church. Hence, these symbols denote the doctrines and nature of two systems rather than individual human beings or even spirits. So it is clear that it is not living beings that are being tormented. But how can institutions be tormented? These worldly systems which are operating against the precepts of God today are going to be destroyed eternally in the end as signified by them being thrown into the Lake of Fire. However, since their sins and excesses in this present world will be remembered by the people forever, these institutions will be scorned forever. That is what is symbolized by the tormented forever symbol. In the same way, even the devil will be scorned forever for his heinous acts against God despite the fact that he will be destroyed forever. In this fashion, when we explore the symbols coolly and purposefully, we can appreciate their elegance. Finally, another alleged evidence shown in support of the wrong doctrine of Hell is the following phrase that Jesus used for seven times during his earthly ministry – ‘where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ . This expression is found in the following places – Matthew 8:12; 13:42,50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30, Luke 13:28. Many wrongly assume that the place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth is Hell. In truth, it is obvious that the expression ‘where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ is symbolic because it is used by Jesus only inside a parable or a symbolic statement all the seven times (See Matthew 8:11,12; 13:36-43,45-50; 22:2-13; 24:42-51; 25:14-30, Luke 13:25-30). Infact, the meaning of this expression changes depending upon the context and meaning of the parable or symbolic statement in which it is used. Many other symbols in the Bible also give diverse meanings based on their context. There is nothing unusual about that (See Scripture Study – Blossom08:September10,para6). Anyway, though the precise meaning of the expression ‘where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ varies depending upon its context, a general meaning of it can be said to be – a period of punishment/trial for a group of people who have erred in the sight of God. It can never mean or refer to Hell. It is accepted by even Biblical Scholars that no new doctrine should be created with the aid of just a few symbolic statements of the Bible. Hence it is wrong and unwise to build up an elaborate doctrine of Hell based on misinterpretations of few symbols here and there when the word Hell itself is not found in the Bible. Please do think about the absurdity of it! If the doctrine of Hell was true and as important as its adherents claim it to be, wouldn’t God have made it to be explained in the Bible directly and clearly? Instead, only because it is a false doctrine, even the word Hell finds no place in the Bible. Truly, there need be no greater proof than common sense to see that the doctrine of Hell is erroneous.
(9) We found out with great clarity that there is no scriptural basis for the doctrine of Hell. The doctrine of Hell is nothing but a vile pagan doctrine that has entered into Christianity. Still, some think that if the fear of Hell prevents many from committing sin, then what is wrong in keeping that doctrine. Ours is a God of Love. It is not in His loving nature to torture people for eternity. The erroneous doctrine of Hell has only stained His Name. Moreover, historically the Catholic Church severely tortured many who did not accept its doctrines. Do you know how they justified their heinous actions? They said that it was better for them to be tortured in this world and repent, for if they did not they would go to Hell and be tortured for eternity. The moral is: We are only as good or bad as our beliefs. Hence, bad beliefs like Hell only end up corrupting us. Truly, our God of Love who is the Creator of the whole world is not keeping the torture of ‘dust like’ people as one of his goals. For those who refuse to let go of their sinful nature even till the end, the punishment is the eternal destruction of Second Death. It is not the fires of hell. It is only due to the presence of such absurd and evil doctrines in mainstream Christianity, Christianity is scorned by some and many reasonable people do not even lend their ears to it. Let us have a faith that is not stained even a little bit by pagan doctrines. Amen.