I have a problem with hell. Not so much with it being the place I don’t want to go someday…but in the whole concept itself. Many folks in our society have the concept of “Hell” as being some kind of a fiery place where bad people go to serve out a sentence for their evil deeds. Somehow this punishment is apparently not quite adequate however…because the sentence never ends. In other words, it seems the punishment can never quite meet the just demands such crimes require.
When I first walked away from my Christian roots, one of the contributing factors was I felt I could never be good enough to earn that end-of-life reward promised to all the good folks…I was hopeless. I believed I had to make the most of what I had available in the present moment and simply not concern myself about what the future might hold – I reasoned the future would simply be whatever I made it. In my upbringing I had also been taught about a final judgment and punishment for those who had not been saved. Since I’d abandoned my faith, I also put that concern (and all thoughts of a final punishment) out of mind as well. With regard to hell, I tended to think more of the “hell on earth” we all might sometimes have to face in our day to day lives. Upon my return to Christ, and having gained a much greater concept of His forgiveness and grace, I was able to experience a sense of peace and hope that had heretofore been missing. Slowly, however, the idea of a “Hell” has re-emerged and, while I have no intention of going to such a place, I find such notions to be contradictory and very troubling.
Hell has been tied, as a consequence, to humankind’s sinful nature which emerged after the fall of man. Despite clear direction and a warning as to what the consequence would be (should he choose to disobey) mankind disobeyed God and did what we had been told not to do. This action, and the fall it precipitated, set into motion a whole chain of events along with God’s plan for our rescue and salvation. With this understanding in mind, I’d like to go back and look more closely at that sequence of events.
I presume that Adam and Eve had a clear understanding of the consequence contained within God’s warning. In fact when the devil tempted Eve, he began by asking, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” (Genesis 3:1) This innocent sounding question was designed to engage the woman in the con he had planned and it also confirmed the woman (as well as the man) understood both the command and the consequence. Her statement confirms this. Her answer to the serpent was, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” (Genesis 3:2-3)
Next the serpent pushed the temptation with this lie, “You will not certainly die…” Notice the lie was in reference to the consequence – not the command. He did not say, “Oh you misunderstood God…” or, “What God meant was…” or even, “You heard God wrong, what He actually said was ___.” If anything, the devil confirmed the command God had given - but then went on to ascribe a false motive to the command and implied that God was just trying to scare them away from the power they could have. As far as I am aware, the devil is the only one who ever assured mankind that deliberate disobedience to God would not result in death. In essence, the devil is saying that God lied - you are immortal and will live on despite disobeying him and despite what he says about sin. The devil has continued to promote that lie, in one form or another, ever since.
So, what happened? The implementation of the consequence is spoken of in Genesis 3:22-23 and reads, “And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.” In other words, because his access to the “tree of life” was denied as a consequence of his disobedience, man was now destined to die.
So, what is the meaning of the consequence contained in God’s warning? What does it mean to die? The meaning of this warning - the consequence for disobedience - should be as clear as God intended it to be. The only one to call into question, what God had clearly stated, was the devil. As far as I know, nowhere did God say, “Some portion of you will live forever – and the pain and torment will never end! You will burn forever and ever all the while wishing that it would end and you were no more.” I certainly can see the devil wanting us to view God in this manner; however, nowhere in those early Scriptural stories is this kind of punishment or this image of God portrayed.
Is the conventional teaching of Hell Scriptural?
What were the earliest historical views of the Israelites concerning Hell? From what I’ve been able to find, it is clear to me that while the Israelites were very much aware of all the early Torah stories, and they knew what death was, they had no concept of a Hell as is commonly taught today. Along with the many covenantal agreements, we see clearly stated warnings of what (and when) violations would result in death. No such warnings were ever issued to the people that included the mention of suffering for eternity in hellfire. In fact, the earliest writings would seem to indicate they had no belief of the soul’s existence apart from the body.
The following notes, quotes and passages are taken from: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/
“The Mosaic account of the creation of man speaks of a spirit or breath with which he was endowed by his Creator (Gen. ii. 7); but this spirit was conceived of as inseparably connected, if not wholly identified, with the life-blood (ib. ix. 4; Lev. xvii. 11). Only through the contact of the Jews with Persian and Greek thought did the idea of a disembodied soul, having its own individuality, take root in Judaism…”
“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture. As long as the soul was conceived to be merely a breath ("nefesh"; "neshamah"; comp. "anima"), and inseparably connected, if not identified, with the life-blood (Gen. ix. 4, comp. iv. 11; Lev. xvii. 11; see Soul), no real substance could be ascribed to it…”
“The belief in a continuous life of the soul, which underlies primitive Ancestor Worship and the rites of necromancy, practised also in ancient Israel (I Sam. xxviii. 13 et seq.; Isa. viii. 19; see Necromancy), was discouraged and suppressed by prophet and lawgiver as antagonistic to the belief in YWHA, the God of life, the Ruler of heaven and earth, whose reign was not extended over Sheol until post-exilic times (Ps. xvi. 10, xlix. 16, cxxxix. 8). As a matter of fact, eternal life was ascribed exclusively to God and to celestial beings who "eat of the tree of life and live forever" (Gen. iii. 22, Hebr.), whereas man by being driven out of the Garden of Eden was deprived of the opportunity of eating the food of immortality (see Roscher, "Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie," s.v. "Ambrosia")….”
However, what I did find is that sometime after Christ (around 70AD) some Jewish thinkers began to invest in greater expectations for a future life after death that was going to be better than their current, hopeless situation (Roman occupation and destruction of their temple). This idea and hope (life that went on after death) was coupled with the introduction into Judaism of Hellenistic (Greek) notions of the division of the material, perishable body from the spiritual, eternal soul. Despite the repeated warnings directing the Israelites to refrain from worshipping foreign gods and engaging in the beliefs and practices of the surrounding nations, it was likely through their contact with Persian and Greek thought that the notion of disembodied souls first gained a foothold into certain Jewish philosophy.
I thought that perhaps I could gain a better understanding of Hell by moving on into New Testament times and the establishment of the church. Keeping in mind that the only Holy Scriptures (during the earliest history of the church) was the “Old Testament,” and since such teachings are not contained therein, it seemed reasonable to look to the New Testament for a new teaching concerning eternal, everlasting torment. While there are a number of references to sin and the penalty for sin (death) there is insufficient evidence of any new teaching with respect to our current concept of Hell. Paul, in his spreading of the gospel to the Gentiles, makes no warning concerning Hell in any of his letters to the gentile churches.
The kinds of New Testament passages that drew my attention were those that echoed and reinforced the teachings of the Old Testament. There are numerous passages citing death as a consequence of sin such as Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” There are also many passages that tell us Jesus came to save us from the consequence of our sins. One such verse (and a favourite of many) is John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
As I read these passages, I think to myself, “This clearly does not say because you have eternal life, choose how you want to spend it; believe on his one and only son and live in heaven - or - don’t believe and suffer excruciating torture and pain for every moment of eternity without any hope of it ever ending.” What it says to me is, “Believe in my son, and though you are a sinner, your sins will be forgiven and you will not perish – ever.” Implied, of course, is “otherwise you will perish.” But, as I see it, someone languishing in hellfire has not perished.
What I find extremely objectionable about the hell doctrine (as taught by many within the Christian church) is how it conflicts with and seems to contradict so much of scripture. It fails to portray God as our Loving Father; instead it all but brands God in an extremely distorted and hateful manner no matter what kind of language is used to try to mitigate the impact. To believe the hell story, one would have to accept that the elimination of sin (through death) is not enough. Further, this concept of hell diminishes the sacrifice of Christ by suggesting when Jesus proclaimed, “It is finished!”…it really wasn’t. Such a hell means that the problem of sin remains for all time and thus the need for unbelieving sinners to be eternally punished by a god who also continues to sustain them so punishment can continue.
Jesus did not, “sort of” defeat sin, either he defeated sin for all time or he did not. When he said, “It is finished” it was indeed finished. When he took on the punishment for sin in order to restore all creation, he did just that. He took on the death that he had warned Adam about, so long ago, and he defeated it. Christ did not come to somehow mitigate the effects of sin for a small percentage of humanity – he did not come to mitigate sin but to defeat it. And He did.
It (hell) is the most extreme form of coercion and evokes fear not love. I realize that the whole subject of freedom to choose (or freewill) is subject to differing views within the broader Christian church. However the idea of having relationship with Our Heavenly Father, through the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ, is paramount to Christian theology. It has often been said that God does not force Himself on us but wants us to freely choose and love Him – this is primary to the relationship. Much in our traditions reflects this including the hymns we sing – old favourites such as, “Softly and Tenderly Jesus is Calling.” If you then add to this the doctrine of hell, we might as well say, “Choose me and love me or you will burn - for all time and beyond.” Choices that are obtained through fear or extreme coercion are not freely made.
Origin of Hell
So where did today’s most prevalent hellfire doctrine come from? The early Christian church did not include such a teaching and it was many generations after Christ before it actually appears. From what I was able to find, the first person to write about “eternal hell” (as a Christian teaching) was someone by the name of Tertullian (160–220 A.D.) who was in Carthage which was located in the north-western part of Africa. Tertullian is considered by many to be the father of the Latin (Roman) Church. During this time period, there were at least six theological schools operating at various centers around the Mediterranean Sea:
1. The Catechetical School of Alexandria
2. Theological school of Caesarea
3. School of Antioch
4. School of Edessa
5. School of Nisibis
6. Archdiocese of Carthage
Of these six, only his (the Roman school operating from AD 170-430) taught such a doctrine (eternal hellfire).
Tertullian was not a Christian until age forty. He was educated in the fashionable Greco-Roman philosophical training of his day. After his conversion he produced a large number of Christian writings and the influence of his early education in Greek philosophy is in evidence in many of those writings. He was the first church father to write in the Latin language, which would eventually become the official language of Christianity. One topic he wrote about and supported was that of the immortal soul.
Tertullian, it is said, is the first who “affirmed that torments of the lost will be co-equal and co-exist with the happiness of the saved” (Dr Le Roy Froom Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1965, Vol. 1,950.) In order to support his position on the topic, Tertullian “confessedly altered the sense of Scripture and the meaning of words, so as to interpret ‘death’ as eternal misery and ‘destruction’ and ‘consume’ as pain and anguish. ‘Hell’ became perpetually dying, but never dead” (Froom, 951).
“Tertullian openly referenced Plato in his writings, basing his support of the immortality of the soul, not on Scripture, but on the pagan Greek philosopher. “For some things are known even by nature: the immortality of the soul, for instance, is held by many; the knowledge of our God is possessed by all. I may use, therefore, the opinion of a Plato, when he declares, ‘Every soul is immortal’ ” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 7308).”
(Note: The above 3 paragraphs contain quotes and paraphrased sections from the article Plato and the Immortal Soul)
Plato (428-347 BC), who has just been mentioned in the above paragraph, had a significant and lasting impact on views that would find their way into the western church several hundreds of years later. The myth of Hell is thought to have been created toward the end of the Republic while Plato was mourning the recent death of his friend and teacher, Socrates. It is said, this myth was created both for those who could not handle philosophical truth as well as to serve as the means for establishing ultimate political control. Plato’s invention of hell was a way for citizens to have a new system of rewards and punishments in the hereafter, thus it was a coercive device to promote a new form of democracy. Such a creation as this also speaks to Plato’s totalitarianism.
Plato made several philosophical arguments that have ironically become a significant part of many mainstream Christian denominations. These philosophical arguments include:
1. Plato believed the soul to be separate from the body and that it (the soul) was fundamentally pure but tends to become deformed through association with the body. This was a somewhat Gnostic viewpoint.
2. Plato, along with his teacher Socrates, believed that the soul itself was immortal, thus necessitating an eternal destination for the soul after the body dies.
3. Plato proposed that good actions result in a reward - not just in this life, but more importantly, a greater reward after death. Similarly, bad actions result in consequences both in this life, but with an even greater punishment following death.
Plato linked some of his ideas to prevailing Greek mythology, including the locations of Hades and Tartarus. In Greek mythology, Tartarus is the location deep below Hades where the Titans were enslaved and the wicked were tormented. According to Plato, this is where divine punishment was meted out.
Against this background of Plato and Tertullian (the Roman Church) we have Augustine entering the picture with his contribution. Augustine was made the Bishop of Hippo in North Africa and it is noteworthy that this area is close to, and thought to have been established by people from, Carthage (and its Latin influence). Augustine admired Plato and he believed that the Greek scholar had “perfected philosophy” and “is justly preferred to all the other philosophers of the Gentiles.” Augustine did not endorse all of Plato’s ideas, but he did hold a number of his philosophical opinions in high regard—“opinions sometimes favourable to the true religion, which our faith takes up and defends” (City of God 8.4). One of the key tenets of Neoplatonic thought (philosophy originating with Plato) adopted by Augustine was that humans possess an immortal soul. This was a critical step in his developing the idea that unbelievers could be made to endure eternal torment in hell.
In a National Geographic article titled, “The Campaign to Eliminate Hell” we read:
“…it was Augustine of Hippo and his book, City of God, published in A.D. 426, that set the tone for official doctrine over the next 1,500 years. Hell existed not to reform or deter sinners, he argued. Its primary purpose was to satisfy the demands of justice. Augustine believed in the literal existence of a lake of fire, where “by a miracle of their most omnipotent Creator, [the damned] can burn without being consumed, and suffer without dying.”
In theological circles this doctrine is known as Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT). Critics fault it for its lack of proportion. Why would a loving God punish a single lifetime of sin with endless lifetimes of torture? And, among sinners, does an adulterer merit the same punishment as a murderer? And what about the billions of people whose only sin was to follow a different faith?”
Not only was Augustine the champion of the hell doctrine in the Western Church, he also had a major influence on the onset of religious bigotry and hate campaigns in the centuries which followed. In the 1907 book, “Lives of the Fathers: Sketches of Church History in Biography,” written by Frederick D. Farrar, who was Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen of England, we read about Augustine:
“The advocacy of hell came primarily on the scene with Augustine: In no other respect did Augustine differ more widely from Origen and the Alexandrians [Eastern Church] than in his intolerant spirit. Even Tertullian conceded to all the right of opinion.
[Augustine] was the first in the long line of Christian persecutors, and illustrates the character of the theology that swayed him in the wicked spirit that impelled him to advocate the right to persecute Christians who differ from those in power. The dark pages that bear the record of subsequent centuries are a damning witness to the cruel spirit that actuated Christians, and the cruel theology that impelled it. Augustine was the first and ablest asserter of the principle which led to Albigensian crusades, Spanish armadas, Netherland’s butcheries, St. Bartholomew massacres, the accursed infamies of the Inquisition, the vile espionage, the hideous bale fires of Seville and Smithfield, the racks, the gibbets, the thumbscrews, and the subterranean torture-chambers used by churchly torturers.”
Next to Augustine, probably the greatest influence on today’s doctrine of hell, evidenced in many modern Bible translations, came from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation. For over a thousand years, the Vulgate was the definitive edition of the most influential text in Western Europe. For most Western Christians, it was the only version of the Bible ever encountered. The Vulgate’s influence was quite possibly even greater than the King James Version (English) throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period. For Christians during this period of history, the phraseology and wording of the Vulgate permeated all areas of the culture.
(See “Vulgate,” Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate)
**One of the problems with Jerome’s Bible was the degree to which it was heavily influenced by Latin/Roman theologians like Tertullian and Augustine and their Hellenistic theology of Hell. It was several hundred years after Jesus and the apostles that men began formulating many of these new Church doctrines and creeds, many of which are still a part of Evangelical Christian orthodoxy to this day. If the first ‘English’ Bibles had been translated directly out of the Greek instead of Latin, it is very probable that the doctrine of eternal torment would never have found its way into our modern theology at all.
** A good source of information on the history of our English Bible and translations is a book by David Daniell, “The Bible in English: its history and influence” (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 2003)
It is unfortunate that some (certainly not all) early Church fathers accepted the Hellenistic (Greek) view and consequently read into Scripture the view that the wicked suffer unending torment. This became the dominant view of hell throughout Church history. However it has been said that if we read Scripture without the Hellenistic assumptions, we see that it teaches that God justly, and mercifully, annihilates the wicked. He does not subject them to eternal torment.
Scripture certainly teaches that the wicked are punished eternally, but I take that as meaning their death is eternal (as in annihilated). Passages in scripture referencing eternal punishment, judgment and destruction (such as Matthew 25:46, Hebrews 6:2 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9) can be viewed in the same way in which “the elect” experience “eternal redemption” (as in Hebrews 5:9, 9:12). The elect do not undergo an eternal process of redemption. Their redemption is “eternal” in the sense that once the elect are redeemed, it is forever. So too, the damned do not undergo an eternal process of punishment or destruction. But once they are punished and destroyed, it is forever. Hell is eternal in consequence, not duration.
In a similar vein, I believe scriptural references to an “unquenchable fire” or an “undying worm” most likely refers to the finality of judgment, not its duration. (Isaiah 66:24, 2 Kings 22:17, Jeremiah 4:4; 7:20; 21:12, Ezekiel 20:47–48 are some such passages). If passages (such as, Isaiah 66:24, 2 Kings 22:17, Jeremiah 4:4; 7:20; 21:12 and Ezekiel 20:47–48) are read in context, it becomes clear that the fire is unquenchable in the sense that it cannot be put out before it consumes those thrown into it. And the worm is undying in the sense that there is no chance that it will be prevented from devouring the corpses of the condemned. Passages such as this show that the wicked will justly suffer for their sins, but the end result will be their destruction.
What’s it to me?
OK, so I don’t believe in everlasting hellfire, why does this idea bother me so; and why don’t I simply drop it? Why write about it? Even my wife worries I must be depressed or something to be contemplating and writing on a topic such as this. What gives? This topic has weighed heavily on my mind for quite a long time now - and I’d been wondering that same thing myself…why….? In order to begin answering this question, I had to take a giant step back and look at the bigger picture…look at my life in some kind of context.
I’ve already looked critically at (and written about) certain aspects of my faith journey in the effort to get some kind of handle on where I find myself today. I’ve re-examined many of the doctrines from the faith tradition in which I was raised. Most of what I learned was traditional Christian values, views and beliefs while other doctrines I was exposed to were more unique. Some I’ve gone on to confirm and accept while other former beliefs I’ve come to believe needed to be changed or adjusted somewhat.
Included in the inventory of beliefs I’ve cogitated upon and studied were those concerning what happens when we die. This question is, for me, probably second only to questions about why we are here (alive) in the first place…and what our purpose is. As I’ve gotten older I have experienced the loss (through death) of many people I’ve known and loved; this list has included parents, my first wife, in-laws, former classmates and close friends. Where are they now? Or, are they anywhere now?
These seem like pretty important questions to me and I’m pretty sure they are important to most people I know. Often, when I have spoken with folks who have experienced the recent loss of a loved one, an oft expressed thought will be of that loved one still existing somewhere in some state…often imagining that person looking down on them and smiling or approving. This is frequently the case even when neither the one speaking, nor the deceased, was particularly religious or had shown any spiritual interests. This clearly indicates to me that there is generally a widespread acknowledgement that life is fragile and short and whatever happens afterwards (if anything) is a very important consideration.
And yet, thus far in my studies I have yet to find (for myself) a fully coherent, consistent narrative for all that happens when the clock runs out and the final buzzer sounds. I believe, however, that God has provided us with answers as well as the means to seek and study further as our understanding grows and new questions arise. From discussions I’ve had and research I’ve done on this topic, it is clear there are some very strong feelings and beliefs. In fact, I would go so far as to say the topic has (in some instances) provoked quite angry and even hostile responses.
On this particular topic, (eternal Hell) I think the faith tradition I was raised in got it right. Based on my studies thus far, I believe that the soul is not immortal. When we were created, our “immortality” was conditional upon believing the word of God and obedience to His command. When man fell to sin, as described in Genesis 3, he (we) were denied access to the tree of life and thus we lost our immortality as a consequence. God alone is able to grant the gift of eternal life (immortality); and this has been made possible through the sacrifice of His Son, as a freely given gift, to all who believe in Jesus Christ. For those who reject this gift, who do not believe (and all that implies) there is a final judgment and death. There is no eternal, ongoing, punishing hell but instead a final and complete death of sin and the wicked. As I said in the previous paragraph, the response to such views can provoke a strong response from some. Therefore, I say all this not to be provocative but because it is my firmly held conviction. I believe it more completely represents the God I believe in and I want to represent Him as best as I can in any statements I make.
Notes for reference and further study:
Early Jewish teachings: Biblical and Apocryphal Views.
The Mosaic account of the creation of man speaks of a spirit or breath with which he was endowed by his Creator (Gen. ii. 7); but this spirit was conceived of as inseparably connected, if not wholly identified, with the life-blood (ib. ix. 4; Lev. xvii. 11). Only through the contact of the Jews with Persian and Greek thought did the idea of a disembodied soul, having its own individuality, take root in Judaism and find its expression in the later Biblical books, as, for instance, in the following passages: "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord" (Prov. xx. 27); "There is a spirit in man" (Job xxxii. 8); "The spirit shall return unto God who gave it" (Eccl. xii. 7). The soul is called in Biblical literature "ruaḥ," "nefesh," and "neshamah." The first of these terms denotes the spirit in its primitive state; the second, in its association with the body; the third, in its activity while in the body.
An explicit statement of the doctrine of the preexistence of the soul is found in the Apocrypha: "All souls are prepared before the foundation of the world" (Slavonic Book of Enoch, xxiii. 5); and according to II Esd. iv. 35 et seq. the number of the righteous who are to come into the world is foreordained from the beginning. All souls are, therefore, preexistent, although the number of those which are to become incorporated is not determined at the very first. As a matter of fact, there are souls of different quality.
The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture. As long as the soul was conceived to be merely a breath ("nefesh"; "neshamah"; comp. "anima"), and inseparably connected, if not identified, with the life-blood (Gen. ix. 4, comp. iv. 11; Lev. xvii. 11; see Soul),no real substance could be ascribed to it. As soon as the spirit or breath of God ("nishmat" or "ruaḥ ḥayyim"), which was believed to keep body and soul together, both in man and in beast (Gen. ii. 7, vi. 17, vii. 22; Job xxvii. 3), is taken away (Ps. cxlvi. 4) or returns to God (Eccl. xii. 7; Job xxxiv. 14), the soul goes down to Sheol or Hades, there to lead a shadowy existence without life and consciousness (Job xiv. 21; Ps. vi. 6 [A. V. 5], cxv. 17; Isa. xxxviii. 18; Eccl. ix. 5, 10). The belief in a continuous life of the soul, which underlies primitive Ancestor Worship and the rites of necromancy, practised also in ancient Israel (I Sam. xxviii. 13 et seq.; Isa. viii. 19; see Necromancy), was discouraged and suppressed by prophet and lawgiver as antagonistic to the belief in Yhwh, the God of life, the Ruler of heaven and earth, whose reign was not extended over Sheol until post-exilic times (Ps. xvi. 10, xlix. 16, cxxxix. 8).
As a matter of fact, eternal life was ascribed exclusively to God and to celestial beings who "eat of the tree of life and live forever" (Gen. iii. 22, Hebr.), whereas man by being driven out of the Garden of Eden was deprived of the opportunity of eating the food of immortality (see Roscher, "Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie," s.v. "Ambrosia"). It is the Psalmist's implicit faith in God's omnipotence and omnipresence that leads him to the hope of immortality (Ps. xvi. 11, xvii. 15, xlix. 16, lxxiii. 24 et seq., cxvi. 6-9); whereas Job (xiv. 13 et seq., xix. 26) betrays only a desire for, not a real faith in, a life after death. Ben Sira (xiv. 12, xvii. 27 et seq., xxi. 10, xxviii. 21) still clings to the belief in Sheol as the destination of man. It was only in connection with the Messianic hope that, under the influence of Persian ideas, the belief in resurrection lent to the disembodied soul a continuous existence (Isa. xxv. 6-8; Dan. xii. 2; see Eschatology; Resurrection).
The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended, as the Semitic name "Minos" (comp. "Minotaurus"), and the Egyptian "Rhadamanthys" ("Ra of Ament," "Ruler of Hades"; Naville, "La Litanie du Soleil," 1875, p. 13) with others, sufficiently prove. Consult especially E. Rhode, "Psyche: Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen," 1894, pp. 555 et seq. A blessed immortality awaiting the spirit while the bones rest in the earth is mentioned in Jubilees xxiii. 31 and Enoch iii. 4. Immortality, the "dwelling near God's throne" "free from the load of the body," is "the fruit of righteousness," says the Book of Wisdom (i. 15; iii. 4; iv. 1; viii. 13, 17; xv. 3). In IV Maccabees, also (ix. 8, 22; x. 15; xiv. 5; xv. 2; xvi. 13; xvii. 5, 18), immortality of the soul is represented as life with God in heaven, and declared to be the reward for righteousness and martyrdom. The souls of the righteous are transplanted into heaven and transformed into holy souls (ib. xiii. 17, xviii. 23). According to Philo, the soul exists before it enters the body, a prison-house from which death liberates it; to return to God and live in constant contemplation of Him is man's highest destiny (Philo, "De Opificio Mundi," §§ 46, 47; idem, "De Allegoriis Legum," i., §§ 33, 65; iii., §§ 14, 37; idem, "Quis Rerum Divinarum Hæres Sit," §§ 38, 57).
It is not quite clear whether the Sadducees, in denying resurrection (Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 1, § 4; idem, "B. J." ii. 12; Mark xii. 18; Acts xxiii. 8; comp. Sanh. 90b), denied also the immortality of the soul (see Ab. R. N., recension B. x. [ed. Schechter, 26]). Certain it is that the Pharisaic belief in resurrection had not even a name for the immortality of the soul. For them, man was made for two worlds, the world that now is, and the world to come, where life does not end in death (Gen. R. viii.; Yer. Meg. ii. 73b; M. Ḳ. iii. 83b, where the words http://d3sva65x0i5hnc.cloudfront.net/V06p566001.jpg, Ps. xlviii. 15, are translated by Aquilas as if they read: http://d3sva65x0i5hnc.cloudfront.net/V06p566002.jpg, "no death," ἀθανασία).
Nevertheless, the prevailing rabbinical conception of the future world is that of the world of resurrection, not that of pure immortality. Resurrection became the dogma of Judaism, fixed in the Mishnah (Sanh. x. 1) and in the liturgy ("Elohai Neshamah" and "Shemoneh 'Esreh"), just as the Church knows only of a future based upon the resurrection; whereas immortality remained merely a philosophical assumption. When therefore Maimonides ("Yad," Teshubah, viii. 2) declared, with reference to Ber. 17a, quoted above, that the world to come is entirely spiritual, one in which the body and bodily enjoyments have no share, he met with strong opposition on the part of Abraham of Posquières, who pointed in his critical annotations ("Hassagot RABaD") to a number of Talmudical passages (Shab. 114a; Ket. 111a; Sanh. 91b) which leave no doubt as to the identification of the world to come ("'olam ha-ba") with that of the resurrection of the body. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8092-immortality-of-the-soul
Six Theological schools:
1. The Catechetical School of Alexandria
2. Theological school of Caesarea
3. School of Antioch
4. School of Edessa
5. School of Nisibis
6. Archdiocese of Carthage
Geographically, they are situated around the Mediterranean Sea, except one, which is on the upper courses of the Euphrates. Beginning, then, at the great school of Alexandria, whose position on this question is conceded, and passing up on the east end of the Mediterranean Sea, we come to Caesarea, which for some years was the seat of a distinguished theological school, under the care of Origen and his friend Pamphilus.
For a time, Dr. Schaff tells us, it “outshone that at Alexandria, and labored for the spread of the kingdom of God.” From this school came the celebrated Gregory Thaumaturgus, ever the grateful scholar and admirer, and finally the eulogist of Origen. Passing on to the north we come to Antioch, in West Syria, where was the celebrated Antiochian school to which belonged such representatives as Diodore of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, those well-known advocates of universal restoration, not as followers of Origen, but on principles of their own. Passing on farther to the east, we come to Edessa, in Eastern Syria; and, farther on, to Nisibis. The Eastern Syrian great theological school was sometimes in one of these places, and sometimes in the other, according as they were tolerated or persecuted by the orthodox Greek Church and the emperor. But here was the great centre of the persecuted Nestorians, when excommunicated and anathematized by the orthodox Greek Church and the imperial decree. https://www.tentmaker.org/books/Retribution/retribution22.htm
Eastern Orthodox view (1)
“Thus it is the Church’s spiritual teaching that God does not punish man by some material fire or physical torment. God simply reveals Himself in the risen Lord Jesus in such a glorious way that no man can fail to behold His glory. It is the presence of God’s splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light.” https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell
Eastern Orthodox view (2)
The first thing I will note is that you cannot say Hell is real and Heaven is real and the word real mean the same thing in both sentences. Whatever the reality of Heaven, Hell does not have such reality. Whatever the reality of Hell, Heaven is far beyond such reality.
St. Athanasius in his De Incarnatione, sees sin (and thus hell) as a movement towards “non-being.” The created universe was made out of nothing – thus as it moves away from God it is moving away from the gift of existence and towards its original state – non-existence. God is good, and does not begrudge existence to anything, thus the most creation can do is move towards non-being.
But in Orthodox spiritual terms I would say that hell is a massive state of delusion, maybe the ultimate state of delusion. It is delusional in the sense that (in Orthodox understanding) the “fire” of hell is not a material fire, but itself nothing other than the fire of the Living God (Hebrews 12:29). For those who love God, His fire is light and life, purification and all good things. For those who hate God, His fire is torment, though it be love.
And these are not simply picky issues about the afterlife – they are very germane issues for thepresent life. Christ Himself gave this “definition” of hell: “And this is condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).
http://orthochristian.com/79592.html
