Kavie 1

Amber Kavie
CPO 4059
Religion 200
Dr. Simmons
25 November 2017
An Expository Analysis on Different Interpretations of Hell and Variation in Readings of
Religious Text
Fire. Wrath. Never-ending suffering. These are characteristics of what hell is commonly

portrayed as. Reading Dante’s Inferno does nothing to contradict this message. Circles of hell in

which gluttons are rained on by fecal waste and forced to eat it or having your body eternally

engulfed in a frozen lake certainly feed into this image of hell. However, in John Sander’s

article, Raising Hell About Razing Hell: Evangelical Debates on Universal Salvation, the author

presents many different interpretations of what hell is, along with what its purpose is. While the

article itself is an enthralling read, it does little to the point of developing an argument in favor of

one interpretation or the other. However, it brilliantly showcases something, perhaps

unintentional, about the nature of religion. As will be explained in the following summary of the

article, individuals in the field of theology have drastically different interpretations about the

Bible. One must only look at who quotes the Bible and for what reason (in relation to this article)

to see the startling differences. One theorist thinks that a passage should be interpreted literally

while another believes it is a big metaphor. This article exemplifies the differences that

interpretations of religious texts can have and therefore, it is clearly up to subscribers, in this case

of Christianity, to find a viewpoint or interpretation similar to the values that they hold dear, and

use that as a reference point for what they believe in terms of religion as a whole.

The majority of Sander’s article is spent presenting and summarizing viewpoints from

different people within the North American evangelical community. He presents and concisely
 Kavie 2

describes every viewpoint and finds evidence to support it. For example, the first viewpoint that

he describes is what he labels “Eternal Conscious Punishment with No Chance of Leaving.” The

author states that “[Hell] is active punishment, it lasts forever, there is no exodus from hell, and

those punished remain fully aware of their suffering” (2). This view is entirely centered around a

literal interpretation of the Bible. Verses from Matt, Mark, and Luke are used to provide textual

evidence to further support this belief. This is a very popular belief in the evangelical faith, and

people within the faith believe this to be the only true reading of the Bible because it is taken

literally. This theory is furthered by the tradition of this being taught in the church with people

like Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley (2).

The second theory discussed in this article is presented as “Annihilationism – The

Impenitent Cease to Exist” (4). This theory is similar to the first in that it also maintains the

infinite nature of hell, however, in this theory, “Hell is forever but will not involve eternal

suffering because those who resist God to the end will simply cease to exist” (4). This view is

considerably more controversial than the theory of infinite suffering. This theory is supported by

texts from John 3:16 and 3:38, Matt 10:28, 1 Timothy 6:16, and 1 Corinthians 15:53 (4). The

first three verses stated concern the ultimate destruction of the impenitent while the latter two

verses are focused on God’s immortality. Sander states, “…God is the only immortal being (1

Tim 6:16) and that humans are by nature mortal. In order to become immortal, humans must

receive this gift from God by an act of faith (1 Cor 15:53). Those who do not trust God are

denied immortality and so will cease to exist” (4). This view has been very incendiary within the

evangelical community, with supporters like John R. W. Stott, John Wenham, Clark Pinnock,

Stephen Davis, and Edward Fudge (4). Proponents of this theory have also faced resistance

presenting these ideas at evangelical conferences due to the strong belief in everlasting suffering.
 Kavie 3

John Stott wished to speak on this topic at such a conference, and ultimately, he was allowed to

speak, not because the other participants necessarily accepted his view as a sound interpretation

of the Bible, but rather because his reputation was of high stature (5).

The third theory proposed is titled “Eternally Conscious Non-Humans.” This theory is an

attempt to bridge the gap between eternal suffering and annihilationism. Author Greg Boyd

helped promote this theory and drew from all elements of Scripture (believing that Scripture does

not contradict itself (6)), the idea of das Nichtige (the nothing), and “C. S. Lewis’s ideas to argue

that those who expend their energy opposing God will eventually ‘come to nothing’” (6).

Another major proponent of this view is N. T. Wright. He believes that the texts that Christians

commonly use to talk about hell, the flames and suffering, instead are “God’s judgement and

vindication within history” (6). Wright still believes, like the previous two theories, that there

will inevitably be some humans who repeatedly reject God, but instead of suffering for all of

eternity, these people will simply continue to exist as “ex-human” (6) and will “retain

consciousness but experience neither joy nor suffering” (7). Although this theory attempts to

negotiate some sort of middle ground between the first two opposing views, it is not widely

accepted by followers of the first two theories because it satisfies neither of their major points.

Sander does include a short section on “Remedial – Some Leave Hell.” This theory is

supported by the likes of George Beasley-Murray, Charles Cranfield, Donald Bloesch, Gabriel

Fackre, and Nigel Wright (7). Sander states, “Proponents of this view affirm postmortem

evangelization and use the ancient doctrine known as Christ’s descent into hell (descendit ad

inferna) to suggest that Jesus and then his followers went to hell upon their deaths in order to

preach the gospel” (7). This view believes that every person in hell should have an opportunity to

be redeemed, and therefore, must have angels from heaven attempt to spread the good Word.
 Kavie 4

However, as has been the case in all theories so far, this view also believes that some will

ultimately refuse God. What happens after ultimate rejection of God is something not heavily

elaborated on, although “Bloesch, citing deep agreement with the view of C. S. Lewis, asserts

that people are conscious in hell and that they experience retributive punishment but it is no

‘torture chamber or concentration camp’” (8).

This theory transitions directly into the final view proposed, “Universal Salvation – Hell

Will Be Emptied.” As the title of the section states, this theory promotes the belief that “God

loves every single person, desperately wants to reclaim wayward creatures, and pursues such

beyond the grave” (7). This theory has been promoted most prominently by evangelical pastor

Rob Bell in his book Love Wins, in which “he definitely rejects some dominant evangelical

positions such as the penal substitution model of the atonement and eternal conscious

punishment” (8). This belief states that all people have a chance for redemption in hell, and that

after a purifying process (proposed by Miroslav Volf) that cleanses individuals from “our slavery

to evil and sin,” a purified person would choose to live with God because it is the logical choice

to make (9). Other proponents of this theory include the likes of Keith DeRose, Jan Bonda and

Thomas Talbott (10). Sander concludes his article with a section on conservative criticism of

Bell’s book, Love Wins, and ultimately ends with Sander finally analyzing the debate and

varying stances from a non-objective viewpoint (in contrast to the objective viewpoint he held

throughout the first twelve pages of this article).

John Sanders is an excellent writer. The coherence and flow of the article was clear from

the beginning. He maintains intense focus on the topic at hand. The article is formatted to include

the titles of each theory at the beginning of each section, and includes footnotes at the bottom of

every page that clearly show the bounty of resources that Sanders pulled on to write this article.
 Kavie 5

Although a majority of the article is not necessarily an outright argument, Sanders should be

credited with an intense focus on being objective throughout the explanation of these theories.

One could argue that he shows favoritism to the last point about “Ultimate Salvation” because it

is significantly longer than any other section. However, it is necessary for this theory to be longer

due to the intense scrutiny surrounding Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins. Sanders takes the time to

explain the different potential interpretations of this book. His objectiveness can also be

supported in that he includes an entire page purely on conservative criticisms of Bell’s book.

Sanders’s purpose in this essay is to provide the audience with a slew of interpretations of hell,

and in order to do so properly and fairly, must remain objective. He maintains this all the way

until his own assessment of the debates in the final three pages of the article. Furthermore, his

own assessment seems to have no affect on the quality of information offered in the previous

twelve pages.

Sanders also facilitates great coherence throughout the article. One might assume that due

to the juxtaposing viewpoints and drastically different interpretations of the same text, it would

be difficult to maintain a flowing narrative throughout a sixteen-page article. However, Sanders

does it with ease. He organizes the arguments in such a way that each successive article builds

upon the previous. It begins with one extreme and steadily moves through more neutral theories,

only to return to the other extreme. This format is brilliant because it allows the audience to go

on a journey with the author. Sanders leads his readers through the different arguments, picking

up pieces of one and referencing it in the next. If Sanders had formatted the order in which he

proposed each theory, the article would lose not only its flow and coherence, but its relevance.

The beauty of formatting it in such a way is that it keeps readers engaged and involved. Readers

are forced to make the connection between the previously discussed views and relate them to
 Kavie 6

whichever view may be currently elaborated on. This format also challenges readers of

evangelical Christian background because Sanders opens with the commonly held belief of

everlasting suffering. This viewpoint is very commonly taught because it is easy to pull verses

from the Bible and explain the fiery pit of hell in a few concise verses. Starting with this and then

moving away allows these readers to reevaluate what they might have previously thought.

Therefore, even though Sanders (in the exposition of these theories) may not be making an

explicit argument, persuasion may be at play when regarding the formatting of these arguments.

Most Christians believe in hell. To say definitively that every Christian does would be

inaccurate. However, to focus on the majority, hell is a very real thing that Christians are not

only taught about, but fear. Hell, especially to those who have been taught that it is a pit of

doom, is terrifying. The fear is instilled in followers in order to direct them towards the path of

salvation that leads to heaven. To wander from this path could be a fatal stumble towards the

depths of hell. Is that the only option? Is the only option inevitable and irreversible suffering for

the rest of eternity? Sanders describes each of these views to counter this one-mindedness. In

some ways, this is how we can see his true argument. He may not explicitly state which theory

he subscribes to, but the fact that he is presenting each different view shows that he is open to the

possibility of other options, therefore excluding the first theory as the only sound and just option.

This all relates directly back to the human experience. In the world today, citizens of all different

countries are being manipulated by fear. Fear of attack, fear of death, fear of difference. Fear is a

dangerous tool that can make people do things that they would not have believed they could do.

Fear of hell is not the only way that Christians must view it. By giving his readers multiple

resources to investigate different interpretations of hell, Sanders is leading his readers away from
 Kavie 7

the belief that there is only one option for hell. Since no Christian wants to go to hell, this is the

most relevant part of the entire article.

This article was more significant than simply presenting different pictures of hell. To be

clear, that was the main point of this article, to present a relatively unbiased view of multiple

different interpretations of hell, but not the most important thing to take away. Reading this

article was enlightening. It showed just how much variability a religious text can have. If two

people interpret even one word differently than the other in a passage, the entire meaning

changes. It baffles me to think that one person or group of people can claim to believe the one

true interpretation of the Bible (or any religious text for that matter) when there is clearly so

much variation. I believe that this variation lends itself well to religion, specifically Christianity,

because it exemplifies what I love about such an institution. One can make whatever they want

out of their experience. One can interpret religion and Scripture to fit the values that they hold

most valuable. To make religion specific to oneself is essential to the survival of said religion.

Theologians, pastors, and followers alike cannot assume that their interpretation is the only

sound answer to life’s divine questions. To do so would attempt to equate oneself with God. We

must remain humble and accepting of all possible readings of Scripture. This differs from

accepting racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or any other exclusionary behaviors. However,

we must accept that not everyone will believe exactly what we believe. Furthermore, instead of

viewing this as a weakness, we should view it as an undeniable advantage to religion and the

human experience. Our differences make us stronger, not the other way around.

John Sanders’s article Raising Hell about Razing Hell: Evangelical Debates on Universal

Salvation to the naked eye seems like a simple article explaining the different interpretations of

hell in the North American evangelical Christian tradition. However, upon further analysis, it is
 Kavie 8

clear that not only does Sanders format his arguments in a way that is designed to open his

reader’s minds to an interpretation that may have been unheard of before. The article also

exemplifies the variation of readings of Scripture which supports the variation and beauty of

religion as an institution. Religion is a beautiful thing, and accepting its differences will help it to

continue for thousands of years.

Work Cited

Sanders, John. "Raising Hell about Razing Hell: Evangelical Debates on Universal

Salvation." Perspectives in Religious Studies, vol. 40, no. 3, Sept. 2013, pp. 267-281.

EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001960513&

site=ehost-live&scope=site.