How Long Does Hell Last?

Cambridge, MA. I was intrigued to read in today’s New York Times (October 11) an article by Mark Oppenheimer on “conditionalism,” a theological perspective on the non-eternity of hell proposed, in modern times, by Dr. Edward Fudge. Read it yourself here.

In my morning scan of the paper, I put on the brakes at this piece, since I have scholarly as well as personal, Christian interest in the topic. I was intrigued partly due to my homily preparation for Sunday – more on that below – and partly because I am an inveterate comparativist. I have, as most readers of this blog will know, studied Hinduism most of my life, and learned much along the way. One well-known and to me attractive belief common among Hindus is this: the self is eternal; there are periodic, sometimes very long, periods of reward and punishment after death in heavens and hells of various sorts; yet in the end, that cycle, wearisome even during the heavenly episodes, thankfully ends, and all souls are liberated. (Yes, there are a few texts, such as Bhagavad Gita 16.19-20, that seem to speak of eternal hells — those who are born again and again, and never reach the Lord — but such passages are not normative for most Hindus.) All will be freed and be free; the immensity of time is there precisely to insure that none will be left behind. Rabindranath Tagore, in an essay entitled “Soul Consciousness” in his famous book Sadhana, puts it this way: “Once I met two ascetics of a certain religious sect in a village of Bengal. ‘Can you tell me,’ I asked them, ‘wherein lies the special features of your religion?’ One of them hesitated for a moment and answered, It is difficult to define that.’ The other said, ‘No, it is quite simple. We hold that we have first of all to know our own soul under the guidance of our spiritual teacher, and when we have done that we can find him, who is the Supreme Soul, within us.’ ‘Why don’t you preach your doctrine to all the people of the world?’ I asked. ‘Whoever feels thirsty will of himself come to the river,’ was his reply. ‘But then, do you find it so? Are they coming?’ The man gave a gentle smile, and with an assurance which had not the least tinge of impatience or anxiety, he said, ‘They must come, one and all.’”

Advertisement

In any case, as I started to read about conditionalism in the NYT, I was expecting a defense of the view that hell is not eternal; God welcomes the damned, the lost will be found. I was expecting, even in the early morning, that conditionalism would be a version of “universalism” or apocatastasis, the view, as old as the early Church, that all people will in the end be redeemed. Some think this was the teaching of the great theologian Origen. To maintain moral standards, preachers might accentuate the fires of hell – but in fact, God’s loud secret, the light that cannot be hidden under a barrel, is that all will be saved. I cannot but believe this to be the case, and suspect that even if I had not studied Hinduism I would have rejected the view that some are damned. (However: reading Gerry O’Collins 2008 gem, Salvation for All: God’s Other Peoples, confirmed my view that a generous and capacious view of salvation is also inherent in the Bible.)

Dr. Fudge agrees, it turns out, that souls do not burn in hell eternally. Yet I amazed to see that his real point, refined in terms of several Biblical texts, is not that hell will end and all be saved, but that after some period of intense suffering in hell, God obliterates the damned souls, ending their suffering by exterminating them. Indeed. Oppenheimer puts it succinctly: “Mr. Fudge’s inquiry into the nature of damnation resulted in his seminal 1982 book, The Fire That Consumes, in which he argued that the suffering of the wicked in hell is finite, that after a time their souls are extinguished. This view, called ‘conditional immortality’ or sometimes the more macabre ‘annihilationism,’ is in direct opposition to the traditional Christian view that suffering in hell lasts forever.” Souls do not suffer in hell forever. They suffer terribly for a time, and then God annihilates them. Thus goes this take on theodicy.

I disagree, but will say no more on that topic. Rather, it seems to me that speculating about all these matters may be a rather lpointless exercise, unless we go deeper. What do we gain by pondering whether some or all of them will be saved? Perhaps the real point is about us, not them. Consider this Sunday’s Gospel, Matthew 22:1-14, that astonishing story in which the invited guests not only will not come to the wedding of the king’s son, but do violence to the messengers: “But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his slaves, maltreated them, and killed them.” To this extreme manner of evading a wedding, the king responds with still greater ferocity: “He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.” Such a wedding!

But since feast is ready, the king is determined to have the hall filled and the food eaten: “Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.’” I am not the Biblical exegete to explain all of this — rather, look at John Martens’ Word column for this week. My guess is that many a preachers among us will avoid the grotesque details of the parable, and focus rather on the last words in the passage: “Many are called, but few are chosen.”

Yet the real danger is still that we are speculating about others, not ourselves. We are spectators at the spectacle of the Gospel account, the violence and bloodshed. Out loud or secretly, as we leave the church, we sigh with relief that we are insiders, observing what happens to them who, because of their sins or their pride, fail to get inside the wedding, the kingdom, the Church. Back then, out there, some seem to be lost, by the justice of God — and thanks be to God that we am here, trying our best. God’s insiders.

This subtly poisonous attitude can, if we are not careful, ruin us here and now: what we think about them may be a disguise for a comforting word about ourselves, who don't go to hell, don't lose God's favor, etc. On the level of eternity at least, Hindus seem to realize that the duality of us and them is a dead end, and refuse to make exceptions: all beings, from the tiniest to the greatest, will in the end be free, and they may be right, however that salvation occurs. But if we stay within the logic of Matthew 22, the point is rather different and rather sharp, once we notice the verses I’ve skipped over, after all the new-found guests are seated: “When the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?’ And he was at a loss for words. Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’” You watched the show, the king is implying - but you didn't realize it applied to you as well.

That is to say, the point of pondering hell is to learn something about ourselvesnow. We think we are insiders, already at the feast, inside the door. But we are, we can be, that improper guest, who got inside but was not really ready for the feast. We see others, perhaps saved, perhaps in hell, perhaps annihilated — and are shocked to find that we are only passing judgment on ourselves: the ones in hell may be those who begrudge the salvation of others. To echo the Gospel from several Sundays ago: “Are you envious because I am generous?” (Matthew 20)

 

 

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Bruce Snowden
3 years 2 months ago
I do believe in hell, but not in a poet's everlasting hell where fires burn and people yell! That would be cruelty and I cannot conceive of the God in whom I believe, the God who likes to be called "Daddy" (Abba) ever doing such a cruel thing. There is, however, an everlasting hell, the kind I believe in, the kind of non-hyperbolic hell of which Jesus spoke, calling it "everlasting death." People who choose to die in God's disgrace remain dead, as if they never existed for all eternity! That is certainly a terrible, total hell, but a painless one. Saint Faustina Kowalska in her "Divine Mercy Revelations" gives a clue I think, on the validity of what I'm saying. From her we learn that, at the hour of death, Jesus comes to all offering a final opportunity to say "I believe!" Those who choose not to accept that invitation die disgraced and I say quoting Scripture, because "God's mercy is above all his works," he grants the disgraced soul a final gift "everlasting death," no hell fire of endless suffering. Speaking of hell Jesus did use a lot of hyperbolic language, frightening examples showing how terrible the fate of "everlasting death" would be, but not nearly as terrible as eternal consignment to a hell of fire, "where the worm dies not and the fire is not quenched" whatever the nature of that "fire" would be. It certainly couldn't be the natural fire with which we are all acquainted. As expressed, so it seems to me.
Mike Evans
3 years 2 months ago
Bruce, you are scaring me. Is it Halloween? And how would St. Faustina even know or 'give a clue?' None of our lusty or testy Old Testament prophets seem to wrestle with this when they are near death. Instead they are surrounded by their own legacy of wife and children, ready to go on and become part of the Lord's company.
Mike Evans
3 years 2 months ago
Who would deliberately choose to die in God's disgrace? Who wants to not live forever? How could anyone resist God's overwhelming grace and love? So many stories of life after death and the wonderful, peaceful, love-filled ecstasy of a forgiving and even doting Father. We should stop threatening and start loving...
Lucie Johnson
3 years 2 months ago
Maybe the desire for eternal life is a young person's thing. The older I get, the less appealing that is to me. I'd be perfectly fine with just disappearing... But it is impossible for things to be as if one never existed: the results of one's actions and influences continue to ripple forever. Of course, no one really knows about what truly happens after death. I'll trust the One who took care of my life to take care of my death... The problem that I have with everlasting hell is that it does not seem logical (nor fair) that temporary actions, often the result of delusions, difficult environments, incomplete understandings etc. should have eternal, unchanging, unredeemable painful consequences... So maybe eternal hell is like a mathematical, never attained, limit. One could say that sin "tends toward" eternal hell and destruction. But other factors, such as God's mercy, the openness that remains in one's heart, also intervene in the enfolding of what happens after death.

Advertisement

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

Father James Martin, S.J. and Ross Douthat at the Civility in America Part 1: Religion event held at The Sheen Center on Dec. 13th. (America/Antonio DeLoera-Brust).
Is there a duty for Christians to represent a certain kind of voice in the public discourse?
Angelo Jesus CantaDecember 14, 2017
A spokesman for the archdiocese described the meeting as “personal” in nature and aimed at “renewing a friendship that goes back 15 years or so.”
Michael J. O’LoughlinDecember 14, 2017
Black women cannot be expected to continue to save white people from the poor choices they make.
Anthea ButlerDecember 14, 2017
After a visit to Christ in the Desert, I knew it was not the monks whose lifestyle I should question.
Michael DauschDecember 14, 2017