Why I Disagree With Gavin Ortlund About Hell

Condemning people to eternal suffering isn't loving

I recently spoke with Gavin Ortlund about hell. My view is that Christianity requires universalism to be plausible, while he affirms the orthodox doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell. It was a good conversation—Gavin is super nice and genuine and has said that he struggles with the doctrine of hell sometimes. Talking with Gavin makes me regret some of my previous rather harsh statements about hell. That said, I still think the doctrine of an eternal hell is extremely implausible and immoral—primarily on philosophical grounds, but also on scriptural grounds, so that even if I were a Christian, I’d definitely be a universalist. Here, I’ll explain our disagreements and why I still have the same view.

The first thing I asked Gavin about was how his view of hell coheres with his broader theology. Gavin does a great job at presenting the message of the gospel in a hopeful way, talking about the beauty of the story, according to which everything sad will become untrue, better for having been broken. This is a good reason for believe Christianity, for one would expect the plan devised by a perfect being to be utterly wonderful. Yet on his theological picture, that’s not true. The tragedy of people rejecting God and suffering in hell will never abate. Many will continue suffering forever.

Cries of anguish will ring out forever in paradise. Evil will never cease. Those who reject the good will never turn back to it. This is a bleak and dismal picture compared to the universalists’.

In response, Gavin suggested that eventually, the people in heaven move on, still slightly morose about the fate of the damned, but ultimately untroubled. But this doesn’t negate the tragedy. Even if the people in heaven stop thinking about those suffering in hell, as hell is a great tragedy, it’s not the case that everything sad becomes untrue.

Furthermore, it’s implausible that people could move on. Could a mother move on from her child being in hell? A father from his daughter being in hell? Could one move on from their spouse whom they loved their entire life suffering forever? That seems like a really bleak picture out of accordance with the love of a perfect being.

Thus, to me it seems that Gavin preaches a theology that only makes sense if hell isn’t eternal. Much remains irreversibly twisted and warped by sin, forever, unless hell is what the universalists think it is.

Gavin’s main defense of hell, which he’s presented elsewhere, is the C.S. Lewis-based defense that appeals to free will. On this view, we freely choose to reject God. The gates to hell are locked from the inside. I presented two basic objections to it during the conversation.

First, I argued that God wouldn’t need to override our free will.  We’d just have to be equipped with the suitable rational faculties to choose the good over the bad.  The fact that I’m not constituted to plunge a steak knife into my eye isn’t a restriction on my free will—it’s a consequence of rationality.  

Gavin suggested firstly that one could rationally act immorally. I don’t think this is true, but this gets us into more complicated and contentious issues. The more important problem with this response is that the argument doesn’t require that rationality always makes one act morally. It merely requires that if one is rational they wouldn’t do something that’s bad for them AND immoral, like rejecting God. This is especially true if, like I think Gavin does, one accepts that all actions one takes are in the guise of the good.

This seems to be the best conception of rationality. One is rational if they respond to reasons. Yet one has a reason to do what’s good for themselves and others. If a person smokes, for instance, despite knowing it’s bad for both them and the world, it seems intuitively that they’re being irrational. Yet God could equip us with full rationality so that we’d never reject him, for that’s bad both for ourselves and others.

Next, Gavin seemed to suggest that people might be equipped with a fully rational nature but would still act irrationally. It’s true that people might have a rational nature and act irrationally. But one who is fully rational would never act irrationally by definition. Could God not equip us with such a nature? There doesn’t seem to be any contradiction therein.

Secondly, I suggested that God would be willing to override our free will to make us freely choose the good. Violating someone’s will might be a pro tanto wrong, but that can obviously be overridden for the sake of infinite benefit. If someone was playing near a volcano, where they were likely to fall in, and their falling in would result in them suffering forever, it would be permissible to override their will.

Gavin suggested that doing this would be impossible. But to my mind, he didn’t really give a convincing reason for this. If God is omnipotent, can’t he make it so that we choose to accept him? There doesn’t seem to be anything impossible or contradictory about the scenario. We often have strong and inexplicable desires. Couldn’t God make our desire for him like that? Couldn’t he make us love the good the way many love various forms of evil?

Furthermore, Gavin is a Calvinist. He thinks that compatibilism is true. So if we’re determined to do what we do, then couldn’t God create us determined to eventually choose him?

At other points, Gavin suggested that, given that most people in human history have been okay with hell, we should interpret our modern uneasiness as a byproduct of warped modern thinking, brought about by our modern conception of hell. But I think it’s a byproduct of a more expansive moral compass. Most people haven’t been concerned about bad things happening to the outgroup. Yet over time, we’ve grown more compassionate.

Furthermore, many people have believed in lots of implausible things like animism and the permissibility of slavery. While many people historically holding a belief might be some reason to think it’s true, it can be easily overridden by stronger considerations, like the clear impermissibility of hell.

Next, Gavin suggested that because scripture teaches clearly that hell is eternal, we should believe that it is, even if it’s hard to see the moral justification. As he said, if Jesus rose from the dead and is God, then we should trust him. Now, I’m not a Christian, so I dispute this. In fact, I think that the doctrine of an eternal hell is sufficiently implausible that it’s a good reason, by itself, not to be a Christian.

Fortunately though, I think that universalism is the most plausible scriptural view by far. I didn’t get the chance to mention most of these verses, but I think there are many that are best explained by universalism. I was surprise to find this—I expected the infernalists to have a better biblical case. I’ll list five such verses, only one of which I got the chance to bring up in conversation (I didn’t want to just dump a million verses on Gavin without having the chance to analyze them):

1. Lamentations 3:31-33

“For no one is cast off by the Lord forever.  Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love. For he does not willingly bring affliction or grief to anyone.”  

2. Romans 14:11

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”

3. Philippians 2:10-11 

“at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

The Romans and Philippians verses are often claimed to be about bowing out of fear. But this can’t be for four reasons, provided by Andrew Hronich in his book Once Loved Always Loved.

Firstly, kampto, here used for “bow,” is used for religious veneration.  If they’d wanted to note bowing out of submission, they would have used the word Sunkampto.  The word for bow is kampsei which is never used in the New Testament to mean bowing out of submission.  Remember, every other time in the Bible that God or Jesus speaks exomologēsetai, they are using it to mean praise.

Second, scholars such as “Vincent, Robertson, Young, Rotherham, and Bullinger,” agree that it’s best translated as in the name rather than of the name.  It makes no sense to tremble in fear in the name of someone.  

Third, Hronich notes that exomologeomai which is the term for confessing is used by Jesus to praise the holy spirit in Matthew1 1:25 and Luke 10:21.   In fact, every other time in the Bible that exomologēsetai is applied to God or Jesus, it’s used to mean praise.

Fourth, Paul claims in 1 Corinthians 12:3 that no one can say that Jesus is Lord except in the Holy spirit and Ephesians 1:10 which says that no one can declare Jesus to be lord except through the Holy spirit.  So their confession is done through the holy spirit, which can’t be a bow out of fear.

It’s also more philosophically plausible. A good God is glorified by all freely loving him, not by people being beaten into submission until they bow down out of fear. A good God gains nothing from people bowing in submission, out of fear. They only gain something from people freely choosing the good.

4. 1 Timothy 4:10:

“For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.”

This passage seem pretty decisive, to my mind. It says God saves all. Now, it says especially those who believe, but universalists believe that for those who embrace Jesus, they have a much easier time getting into heaven, and don’t need to go through a painful cleansing process, of the type described in the 13 verses about fire being used to refine.

5. 1 Corinthians 15:22

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”  

We did get to discuss this one. Gavin suggested that the passage is saying that as in Adam all died, so all in Christ will be made alive. This, however, misreads the passage. Keith DeRose notes:

“A point of grammar, which holds for the Greek as well as our English translations: The grammatical function of “in Christ” here is not to modify or limit the “all.” The passage doesn’t say, “…so also shall all who are in Christ be made alive.” If it said that, I wouldn’t be so cheered by the passage. Rather, “in Christ” is an adverbial phrase that modifies the verb “shall be made” or perhaps the whole clause, “shall all be made alive.” Thus, this passage says that all shall be made alive. How? In Christ. This last point — that it’s through Christ that all will be saved — will be important in section 6, below.”

The scholar Richard Bell, in a detailed study of the passage argues convincingly that the all cannot modify in Christ.  And Bell is confused about this passage, because he thinks that Paul contradicts universalism elsewhere. So Bell goes into reading this passage with a bias towards thinking it doesn’t support universalism, but ends up concluding that the universalist reading is by far the most plausible. Gavin’s reading just isn’t plausible based on the grammar of Greek.

Gavin brought up three verses of his own: Revelation 14:11, Daniel 12:2, and Matthew 25:31-46. I expressed why I didn’t think the verse from Revelation worked or the verse from Matthew, but we didn’t discuss them in detail—Gavin moved on pretty quickly, on the grounds that such detailed textual analysis doesn’t make a super engaging conversation for viewers, which I think is right.

I think all of these verses backfire. Let’s take them one by one. First, the story in Matthew describes Jesus separating the blessed from the cursed the way one separates sheep and goats, with the sheep on the right and the goats on the left. Then it’s typically translated as saying of the people on the left “then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” However, this verse backfires and is, in fact, poorly translated:

1. The verse describing eternal punishment uses the word aionios which, as many like David Bentley Hart have argued means simply in the age to come.  It doesn’t have to mean eternal.  This is how it’s used elsewhere in the bible, and it comes from the word aion which just means age.  Luke 20:34 uses Aion to refer to the boys of this age, in Romans 12:2, Paul uses Aionias to say “do not be conformed to this world…”.  In Ephesians 1:21 Paul uses it to say “not only in this age but also in the age to come.”  So this verse is best translated as being about what will happen in the age to come, rather than forever.

2. The word for punishment is Kolasin, but that refers to punishment for the sake of improving, rather than for its own sake.  Plato, in the Protagoras, explicitly contrasts Kolasin with timoreitai, which means taking revenge.  Kolasin is for the sake of improving the person who is punished.  According to New Testament scholar William Barclay, “The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment.”  The same point comes from Ezekiel 43:10-11 who describes Kolasin for the sake of improving someone, Aristotle in rhetoric, Clement of Alexandria, and many more.  The Rotherham bible as well as numerous other translations of the Greek agrees with this.  The word comes from the term for pruning a tree. God will prune us like a farmer does a tree to improve us.  In other places (Deuteronomy 8:5, Psalms 89:30-34, Proverbs 3:12, Hebrews 12:6, Revelation 3:19, etc.), God’s judgment is said to aim at restoration rather than punishment.

3. This makes the most sense of the sheep and goat analogy. Goats are valuable but require correction—farmers use them but they require more discipline.  The goats are still valuable to farmers but they require greater guidance, like the people on Jesus’s left.

4. Even if there is punishment forever, that punishment could be guilt about one’s sins, rather than being in hell.  

Gavin also brought up the verse from Revelation 14:11 which says “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” But this verse just says the smoke will go up forever, rather than that they’ll suffer forever. The universalists agree that people will suffer for their sins, but merely claim that this won’t be eternal.

I think a better verse from revelation is Revelation 20:10-15 which says:

“And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. … And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”

However, even this verse isn’t convincing (most of these comments also apply to Revelation 14:11):

1. Sulfur was used in gold and silver refining.  This passage isn’t talking about torturing them, it’s talking about refining them.  Zechariah 13:9 describes fire being used for refinement, as does Isaih 48:10, and Malachi 3:3.  First Corinthians 3:15 says "If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.”  There are 12 total verses that do this.  In combination with the broader biblical themes and book of revelation, this is saying that believers will suffer persecution now, but those who do not believe and reject the good will be painfully refined, suffering more in total.  

2. Revelation 6:14-16 describes the “kings of the earth” hiding from the lamb and revelation 19:19 describes the kings of the earth declaring war against the lamb, and revelation 17:1-2 makes the same point.  They are consistently the bad guys in the book of revelation, as well as Psalms 2:2-3 and Acts 4:26.  However, Revelation 21:24-26 says “By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there. They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations.”  Psalm 72:11 says “All the Kings of the Earth will worship him and all the nations shall serve him.”  The nations also sided with the anti-Christ, yet they will enter the city.  This means that the kings of the earth who rebel against Jesus and the nations will eventually enter the city.  

3. The book of revelation is a deeply confusing and poetic book--it’s not really clear what it’s talking about.  It might be talking about the Roman Jewish war, as many theologians have argued.  It’s to draw any firm theological conclusions from this.  Its purpose was to help keep the faith of Christians facing persecution, describing in poetic terms how their faith would pay off, but it shouldn’t be taken literally, unless one thinks that sinners will literally lie in fire.    

4. The literal translation of the words typically translated as forever and ever is aiōnas ton aiōnōn which literally means ages of the ages.  But that doesn’t mean it’s eternal.  Aion means in the ages and is frequently used in the bible to express something other than eternity.  Even early English translations didn’t translate Aion as forever.  

5. The word used is basanisthēsontai which often just means suffering.  But universalists think people will suffer as knowledge of their sins washes over them.  They think they will be cleansed and purified through the love of the lord.  

6. Eis means into, so here it’s saying into the ages to come, not that it will continue throughout all of the ages to come.  If I say “going into the coming year, I have a headache,” that doesn’t mean I’ll have a headache for the whole year.  

7. This reading makes more sense of Jesus as the lamb.  Richard Murray notes “Lambs have no wrath. So, the term is an oxymoron. It’s an image clash where wrath itself is deconstructed by the jarring contradiction of two complete terms. This then allows divine wrath to be conceptually recast as the restorative and curative energies of God. Hence the Lamb.”  The most direct and literal reading of revelation tells of a vengeful Jesus getting revenge—that’s not consistent with his loving nature and injunctions to turn the other cheek.  We must read the lamb as being in accordance with what’s told in the rest of scripture. 

Finally, Gavin brought up Daniel 12:2 which says “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.” But I think that this verse backfires as well.

1. This can’t be used to support infernalism given that no one believed in the infernalist view in the time of the Old Testament.  

2. The word used is Olam which can just mean for some time period.  The bible describes Jonah as being in the belly of the fish for an Olam, not forever—just three days.  Olam can just mean in the age—so a universalist reading provided by Tim Hall is “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to the life of the age, others to shame and contempt of that age.” That’s clearly not an infernalist passage.

3. If one says someone will be “forever embarrassed” about some event—in this case, one’s early sins—that doesn’t literally mean that in 1 trillion years they’ll feel great embarrassment.  Words like this can be used metaphorically.

4. Restoration and shame are compatible, as Ezekiel 16:63 says "Then, when I make atonement for you for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed and never again open your mouth because of your humiliation, declares the Sovereign LORD.”  Suppose a person commits a really shameful crime in this life—like a murder.  They will eternally feel shame as the price of their sins, yet they will still be redeemed.  

5. This verse is just describing what will happen when people wake.  The Bible in many other verses describes one’s sinful state as a state of spiritual death—e.g. (Romans 7:9-10, 8:6, 6:6-7).  So the reading is clear: some will awake in a state of spiritual life, free from sin, redeemed in Christ.  Others will awake in a state of shame, but that doesn’t rule out redemption.  

Even apart from that, I think hell is just implausible narratively. If there is a God, we should expect the broad story of reality to be quite grand, where everything sad becomes untrue. In fact, we should expect it to be grander than we could ever fathom—a perfect plan, built out of the infinite love of a perfect and infinitely wise being. And yet the infernalist reading of reality is quite different.

Not only do many suffer forever, many get to the afterlife and are disappointed. Many universalists, even some of the early Church fathers like Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, are disappointed that God’s grace is less potent than they had guessed. They thought that God in his infinite glory could save all, yet will arrive to find that the God that they devoted their lives to was unable to perform that task.

The universalist picture is the grandest and most hopeful picture of reality. On it, all evil wastes away, and all beings become joined with perfection itself. This is a vision of reality fit for being part of a divine plan—the only picture of reality good enough for a perfect being to want to create it.