Are heaven and hell considered physical places?

Certainly a lot of people think of heaven and hell as destinations in some sense. But I find the history of the concepts more interesting.

Up until a few hundred years ago, there was no distinction between what we call “heaven” and what we call “the sky”. The ancients literally believed God (or gods) lived up in the sky. We know this, because ancient writings tell us that explicitly. Even in modern times, there is interplay between these ideas as people raise their arms ‘toward heaven’ during prayer, and tend to imagine heaven as ‘up’ and hell as ‘down’.

So then what of hell? Originally, hell was the ‘underworld’ - the hole in the ground in which the dead are placed.

To the ancients, ‘hell’ was the grave, and ‘heaven’ was the sky. Over time, these ideas have evolved into what they are today.

I’m not religious, but I do know a little bit about this topic.

There are a few different common interpretations on this:

The first is that Heaven and Hell are actual places, where people have physical bodies (although not necessarily physical in the sense that they will be anything recognizable to us). In my experience, this is most popular among the more fundamentalist Christians. It’s based mainly around interpretations of verses like Matthew 27:52, where the dead are said to have raised from their graves.

Another interpretation is that Heaven and Hell are places, but they are solely spiritual realms. In other words, souls will experience them as places, but there won’t be anything physical about them, and no one will have bodies. I don’t think this idea is all that different from the physical idea, but I think some see it as a threat because it might lead to more liberal interpretations of Christianity. I can’t think of any scriptural basis for this interpretation, but then I haven’t really looked.

The last interpretation that has recently (in last 100-150 years or so) become pretty common is that Heaven is the state in which you are with God, and that Hell is the state in which you are separated from God. I guess this could work if you think the afterlife is physical, but everyone I know who takes this position takes the “spiritual, not physical” stance. This view is really popular among more liberal Christians, as it makes Hell not so much a place where you are condemned, but a place where you condemn yourself, and so meshes a little more with our modern sense of justice. I’ve heard a couple of arguments commonly used against this position, including the idea that God’s omnipresence would mean that it’s impossible to be separated from God. Another argument against this is that Hell can’t be an absence of God, since Jesus is God, and he descended into Hell after being crucified (although there’s debate as to whether or not the Bible really says that Jesus descended into Hell).

Anyway, this is just what I’ve picked up; I’m no expert. You’re denomination probably has a specific interpretation, and if not, I’m sure your priest/pastor does. I really don’t think it matters much either way. I think the only reason it’s debated is because it might have implications with ideas like universal salvation and “once saved, always saved.” Hope it helps.

Interesting answers, thank you all! And yes, you can see how the concepts of heaven and hell change throughout the Bible. They reflect the prevailing cultural beliefs of the time.

Heavenly body will have no pain, no disease, no tears, and a mansion awaits us - it refers to Heaven and Hell having a ‘great gulf fixed’ between the two, so since that’s the case I would tend to think possibly they are physical places with that huge trench in between

Yeah, no pain, no tears, no disease, because those are things that affect LIVING people. Its hard to contract a disease or cry when you’re DEAD. Now… a mansion??? You really can’t think beyond tangible terms, can you?

I would also like to know this. I’m skeptical.

umm it’s more of a spiritual place. You’re physical body doesn’t go there, but your spirit.

cthulhu: Good summary. The argument against “separation from god” seems spurious, though: If he’s omnipotent, he could make a place where he’s not (not to mention, create an object too heavy for him to lift ;).