Hell is an unbiblical concept; it is not in the Bible but is interpreted into it. This is not to say that there is no judgment in the Bible, but hell is an outright misreading of the biblical terms mentioned. This is evident from the fact that there are several Bible translations in which the word “hell” does not appear even once.
A misleading translation
The word “hell” is a misleading translation of quite different words in the basic text. That is why there are big differences between the translations – because it is not at all clear where to translate with hell. Translations in comparison:
- Luther 1984 has “hell” 17x in the Bible
- Rev. Elberfelder has “hell” 12x in the Bible
- Hope for All finds a whole 23x “hell”.
- Schlachter 2000, on the other hand, finds “hell” only 9x
- The New Geneva Translation speaks of “hell” 13 times
- The New Evangelistic Translation needs more “hell”, namely 19x
- The Latin Vulgate has “hell” (lat. infernum) 113x
It is plausible that the descriptions of hell in the Catholic Church could be so broadly measured on the basis of the 113 mentions in the Vulgate. Schlachter 2000 has by far not as many, but still nine mentions. Where do these extreme differences come from? If it were so clear and unambiguous about hell, these differences would not exist. There’s a reason for that. We will look into this further in a moment.
The word “hell” is missing entirely from the following editions:
- The Hebrew Old Testament (Tenach)
- The Greek New Testament
- Concordant New Testament
- Concordant New Testament
- Concordant Old Testament
- Youngs Literal Translation
- Hanson’s New Covenant
- Twentieth Century New Testament
- Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible
- Weymouth’s New Testament
- Jewish Publication Society Bible OT
- Emphatic Diaglott Greek/English Int.
- Restoration of Original Sacred Name
The word “hell” is selectively interpreted into the Bible
There are many other translations that lack the word “hell” altogether. It is primarily missing in the editions that place special emphasis on a literal translation. That’s supposed to make you bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Another list (English):
How come there is no mention of hell in all these translations? This can be answered simply: there is no word in the basic text that can be correctly rendered as hell (namely, with all the ideas one has about it) from the context. To the unsophisticated reader of the Bible, connections and differences that are clearly given in the basic text remain hidden.
“Hell” is used in the New Testament as a translation for gr. hades, gehenna and tartaroo (verb). Furthermore, the idea of hell is linked to other judgments, such as the lake of fire in Rev 20:14-15, which, however, is nowhere directly described as “hell”. All of these things – read in their own context – are different. None of these terms in themselves stand for what should be hell in a heaven-and-hell doctrine. Therefore, there is no “hell” in the Bible, as many Bible translations also show.
Testing in the base text and in context
In the Bible editions in which the word “hell” is missing, the original words are used. When among others the Greek Hades was mentioned, some translations say “hell”, but better translations simply say “Hades” (or at best “realm of the dead”). Gehenna was also marked as “hell,” but better translations simply write Gehenna. So nothing is taken out of the Bible, but it is translated better. Thus, hell disappears from the Bible and it is a prerequisite for testing the original concepts.
The word “hell” is a rather random translation of quite different words. They were also usually translated as “hell” not consistently, but very selectively. Thus, the hb. Sheol once with grave, with hell, or again differently translated. The judgment of Gehenna, described by the prophet Isaiah in Isa 66:24 in the context of the coming messianic kingdom, is often quoted by Jesus in the same prophetic context, but misinterpreted as “hell” and taken out of its own context(Mk 9:42-49). This becomes clear only when one realizes that Jesus is quoting Isaiah and therefore referring to the context of which Isaiah wrote.
The dogmatically motivated but rather indiscriminate translation “hell” inevitably leads astray. Clarification of the terms is best done by means of concordances to the basic text, with which all biblical passages can be read and checked according to their use in the basic text. To distinguish are: Sheol/Hades, Gehenna, Tartarus (tartaroo). Such a concordance in German language is e.g. part of the Concordant New Testament, with which everybody can check the different basic text words in the whole New Testament, even if he does not know the old languages of the Bible.
Courts and “hell” are not the same
The rejection of “hell” based on the basic text and context is not a denial of God’s judgments, but the basis for a critical examination of the tradition. The image of a medieval hell is read into the Bible. Compare, for example, the article on the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Becoming aware of this opens the door for a closer look. Further texts will of course have to be evaluated. There are already good studies on many individual topics that are available to everyone on the Internet. (Deeply biblically based e.g. “Death and Judgement” or German articles like “Apokatastasis > Entwicklung der christlichen Höllenlehre“). Also, there are stimulating thoughts from various theologians if one is looking for something. Many more could be mentioned, thus illustrating that this controversy is not marginal.
Today, even adherents of a heaven-and-hell doctrine are reluctant to speak of hell. Instead, one prefers to speak of “God-absence” or “God-forsakenness”. Doesn’t that sound much better? Isn’t that more presentable? There is no biblical justification for this. It seems to me rather an attempt to avoid having to ask the really probing questions about God’s actions and God’s purpose. When asked specifically where this is found in the Bible, the traditional evidence of hell immediately reappears. These very passages should therefore be read critically and carefully and freed from the dust of the centuries – as many believers have done again and again.
Courts take place. A hell, on the other hand, would be a place. There are several dishes in the Bible and they all lead to a “result”. The court is the jurisdiction. The result is then defined depending on the context. A hell is not a judgment, nor is it a result. A hell is completely missing in the Bible. As a description of a place, it has no biblical basis.
A distinction must be made between judgment and hell. Judgments are in the Bible, but hell is not. Courts exist, as well as consequences thereof. However, a medieval depiction of hell does not fit anywhere and is merely interpreted into it. If I want to take the Bible seriously, I can let go of hell to the extent that I begin to take seriously the judgments of God and His righteousness obtained on the cross(Rom 1:16-17).
