It is amazing how deeply rooted the doctrine of hell is in Christian thought. Those who grew up with this view or were confronted with it in their own community often have traumatizing experiences, fears and insecurities to tell. Even where the foundations of this doctrine have been debunked on the basis of the Bible, hell can remain very present in the faith. Why is this teaching so persistent?

The doctrine of hell is not in the Bible

On this website I have explained in many posts that the Bible nowhere speaks of a hell, that the concept of a hell was foreign to Jesus, and that the apostles never told about it. There is no biblical basis for the doctrine of hell. However, it is projected into the Bible. In the menu you can find the “Themes”. There you will find contributions to all important texts that have to do with a hell.

The word “hell” is mentioned as a translation for three different terms, which – examined on their own – nowhere support the idea of a traditional hell. In addition, the translation “hell” is mentioned quite differently and there are huge differences between translations where and when the term should be used. The closer a translation is to the basic text, the more the term hell is not mentioned. The idea of a hell does not come from the Bible, but from tradition. Only afterwards is it projected onto the Bible. In other words, the Bible is misused to say something that is not there. This is a serious matter.

Traditional hell casts a blight on the God of the Bible, distorts the good news of grace with a threatening message of hell, confuses believers, and is a laughingstock to unbelievers. Nevertheless, many people think that they have to believe this, otherwise they are not a “real Christian”. This seems a bit strange to me, because especially as a Christian who bases his confidence and outlook on the Bible, one should be glad that such things are not mentioned in the Bible with a word. So there is a discrepancy between what is described in the Bible and what many people believe.

Bondage remains

Even those who expose the doctrine of hell as “unbiblical” often remain trapped in the ideas and assumptions of the doctrine. I regularly talk and write with people who have left teaching behind but are not emotionally free. The bondage of doctrine has an effect beyond the biblical passages.

The bondage of doctrine has an effect beyond the biblical passages.

I suspect that’s because teaching has an impact on many other issues, such as:

• God is “so and so,” such as “just” or “vengeful”
• Surely I must believe in order to be saved?
• Surely there is no justice without hell?

Such questions all stem from certain thought patterns of the doctrine of hell. It is not just about individual Bible passages, not even about a particular doctrine, but it is about a doctrinal edifice that knows many rooms. If you clear out a single room, you have many more rooms full of assumptions and beliefs in the same doctrinal building. Deconstructing the doctrinal edifice completely takes courage to confront.

Another challenge is that liberation from certain assumptions also produces a vacuum. With what do you replace the teaching? Accordingly, a healthy debate is also about forming new thoughts. You can do that from different perspectives. This allows the vacuum to be filled. Deconstruction is important, but so is reconstruction. One should not get stuck in the “no”, but also find the “yes”. This does not always happen at the same time, but together these things testify to a conversion (Gr. metanoia, conversion) and reorientation.

Deconstruction and reconstruction are terms much used today. For myself, the examination of the Bible was the tool for a deconstruction of the doctrine of hell, and likewise for a reconstruction of my faith. I have recognized certain beliefs, certain doctrinal buildings, certain assumptions as insufficient or faulty. Such a process corresponds to a deconstruction. By turning to the Bible, checking what was really true about the teachings, I was allowed to become more familiar with the biblical statements themselves. The picture that emerged was different from what some of the teachings suggested. It allowed me to reconstruct. I learned that the doctrine of hell is false from an in-depth study of the Bible.

I learned that the doctrine of hell is false from an in-depth study of the Bible.

But stop! That’s not all. Those who replace a “false doctrine” with a “correct doctrine” still stand in a black and white thinking. It is indeed important to replace a doctrine with a better doctrine, but whoever “takes refuge” in this doctrine afterwards, as if he were “saved” by it, has not yet depended on God’s grace and love alone. Black and white thinking is not liberation. Those who can only distinguish in “right and wrong” may have understood some things, but still do not live out of trust in God. As a side note, trusting God has surprisingly little to do with specific doctrines.

In addition, not even Paul knew everything. Those who regard “right and wrong” as “absolute truth” fail to recognize the limitations of our own understanding. Paul describes his attitude as follows: “But I am chasing after it, whether I may take hold of what I have also been taken hold of by Christ Jesus. Brothers, I do not yet consider myself to have grasped it. But one thing I do: I forget what is behind me and reach out to what is before me”. (Phil 3:12-13). In another place, he writes of God’s ways, “How inscrutable are His judgments and how unsearchable His ways!” (Rom 11:33). Paul was not caught up in black and white thinking, nor did he teach that in the churches where he served.

It can be very challenging to leave behind not just one doctrine, but a doctrinal edifice. After all, this requires dealing with many issues. It’s not just about hell. It is also about assumptions about God, about His activity, about His attitude towards people, about what we can know and think we know about God. Those who ask serious questions are often seriously questioned themselves. This is not to be underestimated, but it is a real challenge.

Lack of freedom in thinking remains, because perhaps one doctrine has been cleared, a single room of this known doctrinal building, but further rooms have not yet been cleared.

Leaving Hell Doctrine Behind

What can you do to leave the doctrine of hell behind? It needs a confrontation. However, it does not look the same for everyone.

If you have always been confronted only with a certain view, there is no way around it to come up with new thoughts. Of course, you have to want that. If you don’t feel like critically examining your own thinking from the start, you won’t do it. You also can’t submit answers if there are no questions. However, if one wants to deal with it, then it is something like a voyage of discovery.

If you deal with the basics of the doctrine of hell, take on the biblical passages, then you can learn to think about it in a new way. It is always about the basic text and the text in context. The point is to find out what Jesus actually said. One can discover that there was no hell in the Old Testament, for example. In the New Testament, you have to learn to look closely.

In the Gospels, where the word “hell” appears in some translations, Jesus speaks of something else. Recognizing all of this is a start.

However, other people have a different approach. They recognize the love of God, experience His grace, and conclude that this is incompatible with a doctrine of hell. You may not be able to explain every text in context, but deeply understand that the doctrine of hell is incompatible with the God of love. This is not a human projection, but one takes the statements about God’s love and omnipotence seriously and trusts Him with everything. Whoever thinks this way does not wallow in self-righteousness about a “correct” teaching, but trusts God in the awareness of his own inadequacy.

Once you have recognized the doctrine of hell as “unbiblical,” you can leave this doctrine behind. This is the beginning. One can now be inspired by the good news. Paul, however, makes it clear that understanding alone is not enough. Understanding wants to be lived out, but that requires further development. Paul describes this as a transformation through the renewal of our thinking:

“I now pronounce unto you, brethren (in view of God’s compassions), to provide your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, and acceptable unto God (as your consequential worship), and not to set your minds on this eon, but to To be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may be able to discern what is the will of God, good, pleasing, and perfect.”
Rom 12:1-2

Why realignment takes time

To be transformed by God’s grace takes time. In everyday life we are confronted with ever new questions, with “self-evident” answers that are suddenly no longer self-evident. Those who react more sensitively to a new orientation of thought can feel how old thoughts and new insights rub against each other. In a biblical comparison: new wine does not fit into old wineskins (cf. Mk 2:22).

That’s why it’s important to keep looking at it. A faith community can provide this regular engagement. This applies positively, but also negatively. I have repeatedly seen people in great fears and insecurities who have been at home in churches or free communities for decades. In decades filled with sermons and Bible lessons, these fears were not cured, but rather stoked. What would be accomplished here, however, if one began to preach grace, to expose hell as an unbiblical threatening message, so that people would finally become free? Where would you be after 5 or after 10 years?

Communities do not simply need “proper teaching” but also a vision and understanding of what the teaching should be for. When Paul writes “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Gal 5:1), this must become visible. What is it about? These are critical issues for cultivating a healthy community. It is not a question of right or wrong, but of what the teaching does, what it is given for.