18

I just finished a five-part series on the History Channel: "The Bible". They did a fantastic job with it. However, I noticed that Jesus did not appear to condemn those who did not believe in Him, and I had never really thought about that before.

Did Jesus ever actually say, "If you don't believe in me you will go to hell"?

I understand that when His disciples asked, "What is the way?" He said, "No one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). However, there is context here. It does not appear to be a blanket statement. For example, He obviously didn't mean it for some kid living in Ireland at that same exact night of the Last Supper.

Jesus did say, "Blessed are those who believe in me" (John 20:29), but He did not say there that you are damned to hell if you don't. So did the TV series leave something out? Or where did fallen man come up with this?

curiousdannii
  • 20,140
  • 14
  • 58
  • 126
Greg McNulty
  • 4,024
  • 13
  • 47
  • 76

7 Answers7

20

Did Jesus actually ever say if you don't believe in me you go to Hell?

Yes, He did say this directly, without mincing words. Bolded in the passage below.

John, Chapter 3 (KJV)

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Note that it doesn't say "the punishment for not believing in me is an eternity in Hell.". It says that everyone is condemned already, and that only through faith in Him can we escape. It's a subtle, but doctrinally important difference.

David Stratton
  • 43,923
  • 9
  • 129
  • 233
  • 1
    In the KJV, it's possible to misunderstand this passage based on verse 19 and assume that having the Light shone on one's deeds is the punishment. "This is the condemnation" in verse 19 should really be "This is the verdict", or more so "This is the reason/evidence for the verdict". – Eclipse Apr 01 '13 at 16:33
  • 3
    @DavidStratton: are these John's words inspired by the Holy Spirit or Jesus'? – Greg McNulty Apr 03 '13 at 00:09
  • No, if you get a red letter Bible, these are Jesus' words as recorded in the book of John. – David Stratton Apr 03 '13 at 00:13
  • @DavidStratton: but how do we know His context and intent? it seems very rarely is a statement in the Bible a direct interpretation like that...I'm having a really hard time believing this is what Jesus meant...for example, I truly believe God would not send a Buddhist monk that devoted his life to the expression of God he was given, to hell, that just can't be because God is also fair and God is Love. – Greg McNulty Apr 03 '13 at 00:35
  • 3
    That's all good and well. You can choose to believe what you wish, but the question I thought I was posting was "did He say it"? not "Is it possible that He meant something other than what He said." Many people don't believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, and as this isn't a site that is about Truth, I'm not going to argue it. All I'm saying is that I thought I answered the question that was asked. Whether this passage means what established Doctrine says it means might make fair game for another question. – David Stratton Apr 03 '13 at 01:16
  • 4
    I'm not using a "Red Letter Bible", but Bible Gateway clearly shows these as not the words of Jesus in NIV, while showing they are the words of Jesus for NKJV. – Flimzy Jun 30 '13 at 02:23
  • 1
    I have asked about this on Biblical Hermeneutics. – Flimzy Jun 30 '13 at 02:29
  • 1
    There might also be a difference between "Not believing" and "disbelieving". I don't know if such a distinction would be meaningful to the OP, or if such a distinction can even be made with the original language of John 3:18. – Flimzy Jun 30 '13 at 02:47
  • 1
    This question suggests that these were the words of John. But, it's impossible to prove. I would probably suggest just modifying this answer to include a "maybe" of sorts. – Flimzy Jun 30 '13 at 04:27
  • 2
    @algebralives - If you can post an answer with supporting evidence to back your claim, I'd appreciate it. I'm here to learn as much as anything else, and you seem pretty sure about that position. for the good of other visitors, if I'm wrong, it would be good to have the "right" answer here. – David Stratton Sep 02 '13 at 16:07
  • Since the recorded words that Christ spoke are from the Holy Spirit (as see by duplicate accounts), then the whole "red letter" hermeneutic is fault, as they are all His words. But besides others, the Lord only promised eternal life to those who believed on Him and clearly stated in John 8;24 that " if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins." And the only other place and experience for unbelievers after this life that the Lord clearly spoke of is that of Hell, damnation + torment (Mt. 8:12; 13:42,50; 22: 13; 24:51; 25:41,46; Mk. 9:43-48; 16:16; Lk. 13:28; 16:19-33) – Daniel1212 Feb 01 '17 at 05:12
9

I cannot comment on that particular series, but I can assuredly say the following:

It seems quite clear to me that you need to intimately know Jesus to be accepted by Him.

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ Matt. 7:21

We are left with this picture: The last day is upon us, and some are allowed into the Kingdom and some are not. You must know Jesus to be allowed into the Kingdom. Not being in the Kingdom is hell (whatever that may be) to the very large majority of Christian denominations.

Concerning your context for the heathen who never had the chance to hear the Good News, well, that is a very big and different topic.

  • I also believe that this passage is a warning for those that follow their own will and call it God's will. It is true that to know his will you need to know him. – dcreight Apr 01 '13 at 16:24
  • @fredsbend: "but only the one who does the will of my Father" geez, that seems like it excludes most Christians.... – Greg McNulty Apr 03 '13 at 00:12
  • @GregMcNulty, that's where repentance comes in – through Christ we can be forgiven and cleansed from sin. Without Him, we have no chance, because all of us sin. – Samuel Bradshaw Sep 07 '16 at 01:07
6

I'll certainly unpack this for you. Although I would not trust that internet reading alone would give anybody a comprehensive understanding of the Jewish religion (or any other religion, for that matter), you can read about Jewish conceptions of the afterlife here, for example: Olam Ha-Ba: The Afterlife . There is no single doctrine to which Jews adhere regarding the afterlife (in fact, many Jews do not have any defined concept of an afterlife at all). What I would like to propose is that Jesus' words that do seem to reference a state of exile or suffering may not be doctrinal, but rather metaphorical in nature. Whether this state is an external, otherworldly one or an internal state of mind / soul in this life is a matter of debate. I should mention here that the "traditional" Christian doctrine of an otherworldly heaven and hell has been linked by scholars to Zoroastrianism--a religion which strongly influenced some types of early Christianity as well as Judaism. Therefore, a question: how do we know that orthodox Christian doctrines are not the outgrowth of historical misunderstandings / misinterpretations of Jesus' words? To further complicate things, you have the entirety of the Gnostic scriptures to deal with (which include some of the earliest known Christian writings), and if, after reading them, you do not find your traditional understanding of Christian doctrines disturbed, you probably aren't reading closely enough.

You can read about Gehenna, Zoroastrianism, and Gnosticism on Wikipedia or do some scholarly / historical research on your own, and thus come to your own conclusions. There is a gigantic body of research already done regarding these matters, and I would not consider any list of books that I could provide comprehensive enough to do this body of work justice. In addition, please do not simply accept my, or anybody's, answers to these questions without thinking for yourself and doing some investigation into them on your own.

I'm glad that Matthew 7: 17-23 was brought up. Here are the verses:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'"

So, AffableGeek, is it possible to say that, for those Jesus is speaking about here, simple belief in Jesus/God does not suffice to allow entrance into the "kingdom of heaven"? They did all kinds of miracles in Jesus' name and called upon him as their "Lord," but still, they did not actively "do the will of [Jesus'] Father in heaven" and so they do not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

What might it mean to enter into the kingdom of heaven? Let's look at another passage. Here is Luke 17:20:

"Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he [Jesus] said in reply, 'The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed, and no one will announce, 'Look, here it is,' or 'There it is.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Jesus does not say that the kingdom of God is external to you or that it is a destination that one reaches only after physical death, but that it is within you--present in this very life at this very moment. Perhaps, then, it would be wise to consider that both "heaven" and "hell" as they are traditionally conceived (as eternal, external states of being) are, in actuality, inner states of mind or soul that are generated by actions in this life. In short, perhaps these notions are only metaphors, as I stated above.

In this light, let’s consider the beginning of the Gospel of Thomas:

“Jesus said, If your leaders say to you, ‘Behold, the kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds in the sky will get there before you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will get there before you. Rather, the kingdom is inside you and outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and embody poverty” (Saying 3).

Jesus is never clear about the existential ontology of a physical “heaven” or “hell,” but he is clear about other more important issues. He is clear about the fact that love is that which is most central to his message, not judgment. In answer to a scholar of the law who asks Jesus, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus asks him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?” The scholar (not Jesus himself) answers,

“You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus replies to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live” (Luke 10: 25-28).

To answer to AffableGeek's question regarding John 3:18--please note that these are not Jesus' words, but the words of whomever it was who wrote the Gospel of John (and whoever that person was, it was certainly not the apostle John himself. Contemporary scholars know that none of the four traditional Gospels were written by those whose name they bear.)

The initial question was whether or not Jesus actually ever said "If you don't believe in me you go to hell." Did he say these words exactly, ever? If I am missing something, please let me know. Yes, the author of the Gospel of John says something approximate to this (depending on how you interpret his words), and yet Jesus never did himself. And yes, Jesus is said to have spoken the following words after the resurrection, according to Mark 16:16:

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

However, as I have already shown above, Matthew 7:17-21 refutes the notion that mere faith suffices for entrance into the kingdom of heaven. Another question: how do we know that the passage from Mark’s Gospel (or any other passages in the bible, Gnostic scriptures, etc. for that matter) quotes Jesus directly? Like most other accounts of episodes in Jesus’ life, resurrection accounts greatly contradict one another.

If the Official Doctrine of Hell was so important to Jesus himself (like it is to so many fundamentalists), why didn't Jesus explicitly say that one must believe in him and accept him as one’s “personal savior” to get to “heaven” while he was alive over and over again? Also, if we are to take everything written in the bible as absolute truth, we should also, for example, wholeheartedly support slavery, since Paul tells us that slavery is a natural state of being (Ephesians 6:5). There are a great number of other horrible, violent, and/or nonsensical “dogmas” that the writers of the books of the bible advance as well. Must we accept all of them unquestioningly, and return to a medieval state of existence in which—for example—our “women” are considered untouchable during their menstrual cycles, as Leviticus 15: 19-30 dictates?

There is much more to say about all these matters, and much more evidence to be considered that I cannot speak of here due to space and time issues. Please do reading on your own, and don't expect the internet or other people to answer such important questions. If you're serious about an intellectual foray into questions of this nature, sign up for some university courses about religion or do reading on your own, as I said. It may be that you'll be surprised at what you can discover.

Peace to all of you.

Ken Graham
  • 71,079
  • 6
  • 53
  • 173
orpheus_sings
  • 92
  • 1
  • 2
  • 1
    Um, I had forgotten all about this :) From looking at my own comments, I think I was actually staying as clear of this question as I could. Jesus may not have said, "If you don't believe in me, you're going to Hell," but I also am 100% behind Jesus' statement that he is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to Father, but by me." Check out other things I've written - you'll see I can be pretty academic and entertain all sorts of heresy. Doesn't mean I accept it. – Affable Geek Sep 16 '13 at 00:58
  • 2
    That said, I don't consider Gnostic Scripture (or Zorastrianism) compatible with modern Christianity. – Affable Geek Sep 16 '13 at 01:00
  • After spending way too much time on this answer, I finally gave it a -1. Your assertion that "it almost certainly wasn't John who wrote the Gospel" is an overreach at best. Is there debate? Sure. But no certainty. – Affable Geek Sep 16 '13 at 01:04
  • 1
    What finally led me to a -1 was that there was so little that actually dealt with the question. Your most valid point is that the Jewish conception of the afterlife is ambiguous. Had you left it there, I'd probably have left this alone, or maybe even given it a +1. That said, your theology just starts spray shotting a hodgepodge of dubious interpretation. Ending on "take some college classes" is actually rather odious. I've done a lot of this reading (I do have a Masters and I've been in the pulpit for a bit), and the interpretations are inconclusive at best. – Affable Geek Sep 16 '13 at 01:07
  • A much better answer along these lines would have avoided the whole "It's metaphorical" stuff, and concentrated on the salient issue of Luke 19. – Affable Geek Sep 16 '13 at 01:08
  • When you get the chance, I'd suggest you check out our [about] and read how we are different. I think you have a lot of potential - you clearly have a base of theological knowledge, but this answer does a poor job of expressing it. – Affable Geek Sep 16 '13 at 01:09
  • Finally, please do not post multiple times. If you want to edit your previous response, that's fine. If you want to delete and just go in a new direction, that also works - but giving two answers to a question is generally frowned upon. – Affable Geek Sep 16 '13 at 01:11
  • @AffableGeek: That's a lot to respond to, but I'll say the following: 1) Even though you might not consider Zoroastrianism and Gnostic Christianity "compatible" with modern Christianity, these are still important to understand if you're not to miss something. I consider slavery incompatible with modern Christianity, myself. 2) Yes, Jesus is quoted as saying "I am the way, the truth, the life..." That doesn't dismantle what I've already written. – orpheus_sings Sep 16 '13 at 13:34
  • You say that my interpretation is dubious, but why? What I am arguing is that there are no certainties when it comes to doctrines of Hell, etc. 4) Luke 19 can be read using the interpretation that I offered. It is a parable, yes? 5) I meant that anyone interested in these matters (and in debating these matters) should, if interested, seek the answers themselves by reading or taking classes rather than taking my (or your, or anybody's) interpretation as absolute truth. You took college classes? That's great! My comment was not directed at you personally. I'm sorry you took it that way.
  • – orpheus_sings Sep 16 '13 at 13:36
  • It's nice that you think I have potential, but why do you say I express it poorly? 7) I may be missing something, but I thought this was a free discussion forum. Is it?
  • – orpheus_sings Sep 16 '13 at 13:37
  • (NP on the 'college classes' thing) The thing I was getting at with that college classes remark, though, is that this is a Q&A site. We're not a forum. As a Q&A, the whole point of posts is to synthesize what has been apprehended. As I said, it shows a lot of potential - it just could be tightened up in some places and synthesized better. – Affable Geek Sep 16 '13 at 13:38
  • 1
    @AffableGeek: I realized I'd left a few issues hanging that you brought up. 1) You mention that you don't accept "heresy" (and I'm assuming you mean to call the Gospel of Thomas heretical).Of course, you know that the Gnostics constituted one of the earliest sects of Christians, and their writings do exist and must be dealt with, regardless of what label has been slapped on them by church authorities. "Heretical" is a designation that the early Roman Church (not Jesus himself) used, often to accuse and then put to death those who did not agree with orthodox dogma. – orpheus_sings Sep 17 '13 at 03:31
  • 2
    Contemporary bibles (like those used by Protestants) do not and cannot include Gnostic scriptures because, well, the Council of Trent (a Catholic council in the middle of the 1500s) decided what was and was not orthodox as far as biblical books go. (You can read about the Council of Trent here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent#Canons_and_decrees) Orthodox or not, the Gnostic scriptures are authentic and must be dealt with if we are to consider what the historical words of Jesus might have been. – orpheus_sings Sep 17 '13 at 03:35
  • 1
  • Re Zoroastrianism: I was arguing the fact that scholars believe Zoroastrianism influenced what has become contemporary orthodox Christianity, not whether or not it is compatible with modern Christianity. People might not like that, but that does not mean that this is not factual. Likewise, the apostle Paul himself was heavily influenced by Platonic philosophy.
  • – orpheus_sings Sep 17 '13 at 03:37