Hell and Human Nature - Part III

This is part of a series of posts flowing out of the conversation Rob Bell initiated in his new book Love Wins. I plan to cover the book itself in more detail next week, but before you can have a conversation about Heaven, Hell and the fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, you have to talk about the nature of human beings themselves. You can get caught up by reading Part I, and Part II. Also, this might possibly be the longest post I've ever written. It will take an eternity for you to read it. In fact, it might feel like an eternally conscious torment. Which is ironic.

Yesterday I argued that the soul is not an immortal substance that has to exist eternally. As Jesus himself says, God is able to destroy both body and soul in hell (Mt 10:28). Humans were made mortal, with everlasting life being a gift, not a natural capacity. God created human beings with the intention of living eternally with Him, but when sin entered the world, death came along with it. This is both a physical and spiritual death resulting, without Christ, in eternal destruction.

So the key question is this: Does God intend to grant the wicked immortality in order to inflict endless pain upon them?

Many people answer, yes. This is why hell was created, to eternally punish the wicked. Mark Driscoll puts it this way “Hell is a place of punishment that God prepared for the Devil and his angels. It is where the beast and the false prophet and those who worship them will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night.”

I do not believe this to be the case for two reasons, 1) Scriptures suggest the final destruction of the impenitent and 2) hell as destruction is more in line with the justice of God.

First of all, in contrast to Rob Bell, I believe the scriptural warnings about eternal destruction are clear enough to prevent us from entertaining the hope of universal salvation (more on this next week). Evidently God values human freedom so much that he allows people to reject him finally. If there is one basic characteristic of hell, it is, in contrast to heaven, the absence of God or banishment from his presence. The consequences of this are very real, they are terrible, and eternal.

The question is whether or not hell, in addition to being real, terrible, and eternal, will involve the experience of everlasting suffering. Will the final destiny of the impenitent be eternal conscious torment or will it be a total annihilation of their being? What kind of hell would cohere with a loving God who does not desire that any perish but all have eternal life?

It is important to start by defining the nature of hell. I believe as Bell does that hell is self-chosen and is a continuation of the “hell” we create for ourselves on this earth.

CS Lewis wrote “Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others… but you are still distinct from it. You may even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a machine. It is not a question of God ‘sending us’ to hell. In each of us there is something growing, which will BE Hell unless it is nipped in the bud.” 

Lewis held that we are created for a relationship with God as human beings who bear the divine image. When we rebel against God and commit ourselves to evil ways, we move further away from this positive relationship with God—and, thereby, further and further away from our humanity. Our ultimate destiny, then, if we do not change directions, is to cease to be human: we end up as monsters who have chosen to live in an outer darkness, removed from God and from other humans. 

J.I.Packer also sees hell as self-chosen: writes: “Hell appears as a God’s gesture of respect for human choice. All receive what they actually chose, either to be with God forever, worshipping him, or without God forever, worshipping themselves.”

In Romans 1-2 Paul explains that God, in his wrath against those who reject him, ‘gives them up’ to the sinful passions of their hearts. It means that the worst (and fairest) punishment God can give a person is to actively give them their sinful hearts’ deepest desire.

Hell is only for those who persistently reject the real God in favor of false gods. So in the end, people get to be with the god they love. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, either people will say to God, “Thy will be done,” or God will say to them, “Thy will be done.”

So hell is eternal separation from God, which recognizes both Jesus’ words ‘depart from me’ (Matt 7:23, 25:41) and of Paul’s ‘shut out from the presence of the Lord’ (2 Thess 1:9). We surely have to say this banishment from God will be real, terrible (so that ‘it would be better for him if he had not been born’, Mark 14:21) and eternal.

However, in contrast to Bell, I believe it is clear that the New Testament records no possibility of a later reprieve or amnesty. In contrast to ‘eternal life’ and ‘eternal salvation’ we read ‘eternal judgment’ (Hebrews 6:2, Mark 3:29), ‘everlasting contempt’ (Dan 12:2), ‘eternal punishment’ (Matt 25:46), ‘everlasting destruction’ (2 Thess 1:9) and ‘eternal fire’ (Matt 18:8, 25:41). And the imagery supporting this includes the picture of the door being shut (Matt 25:10-12) and the great chasm being fixed (Luke 16:26).

However, if our souls are radically contingent and dependent on God’s continuing providence for their very being, without his sustaining presence, I would argue that total extinction at death is a very real possibility.

Of course, the image we most often associate with hell is that of fire. The biblical expression ‘a consuming fire’ and John the Baptist’s picture of the Judge ‘burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire’ (Matt 3:12, cf. Luke 3:17). In both of these instances it is the fire itself is termed ‘eternal’ and ‘unquenchable’, but it would be very odd if what is thrown in proves indestructible. Our expectation would be the opposite: it would be consumed forever, once and for all, not tormented forever. Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has done its work) which ‘rises for ever and ever’ (Revelation 14:11; cf. 19:3). 

Much is made of Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats where he contrasted ‘eternal life’ with ‘eternal punishment’ (Matt 25:46). Does this not indicate that in hell people will endure eternal conscious punishment? No, that is to read into the text what is not necessarily there. What Jesus said is that both the life and the punishment would be eternal, he did not in that passage define the nature of either. Just because elsewhere Jesus spoke of eternal life as a conscious enjoyment of God (John 17:3), it does not necessarily follow that eternal punishment must be a conscious experience of pain at the hand of God.

In the Book of Revelation it says that in the lake of fire ‘they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.’ However, this sentence occurs only once (20:10) where it refers not only to the devil, but to ‘the beast and the false prophet.’ The noun for ‘torment’ is also used for ‘the harlot of Babylon’ (Rev 18:7, 10, 15), though without the addition of the words ‘for ever and ever.’ But the beast, the false prophet and the harlot are not individual people, they are symbols of the world in its varied hostility to God. Therefore they cannot experience pain. Nor can ‘Death and Hades,’ which are also symbols said to follow them into the lake of fire (20:13).

The most natural way to understand the reality behind the imagery John uses is that ultimately all enmity and resistance to God will be destroyed.

The fires of hell do not torture but rather consume the wicked. It would seem strange if the symbols and the people who are said to suffer destruction are in fact not destroyed. It is difficult to imagine a perpetually inconclusive process of perishing. And most importantly, the eternal existence of Satan and his minions in hell would be hard to reconcile with the promises of God’s final victory over evil.

Finally, I believe that an eternally conscious hell challenges the justice of God. Augustine conceived of hell as a literal lake of fire where the damned are embodied in order to burn everlastingly in the flames. This cannot be true, because it contradicts our moral sense and God’s moral nature. The idea that a fully conscious creature would undergo physical and mental torture through endless time is plainly sadistic and therefore incompatible with a God who loves humanity. 

Hell cannot be viewed as a vindictive, retributive punishment. Since Jesus bore the sins of the world, we know that God is not in the business of punishing people. Jesus died so that he would not have to do that. Therefore, hell has to be more a matter of self-destruction, the logical result of final rejection of God. God does not choose hell for people – they choose it.

God’s anger and wrath always comes in order to heal sinners, not to visit endless torment on them. If it fails to heal them, hell must be termination, because otherwise the picture would be one of God endlessly tormenting people for no reason except retribution. No purpose is served by the unending torture of the wicked except vengeance.

Anselm argued that because sin is an offense against God, the raising of a finite will against the will of an infinite being, one cannot consider sin to be merely a finite act deserving finite punishment. However, this conception of hell goes far beyond the Old Testament standard of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, the standard of strict equivalence. And Jesus calls us to an even higher standard than strict equivalence. No set of human choices can deserve everlasting conscious torment. No crime could deserve such punishment.

So, to sum it all up: It is my view that God created us to live as holistic human beings, both spiritual and physical. He desired for us to live forever with him in this state of perfection. However, sin entered the world and with it death, both physical and spiritual. God has been on a mission ever since to rescue human beings from destruction, so much so that he sent his own son to destroy sin and death. Christ came and died a physically brutal death on the cross, and three days later he arose, victoriously as the ‘firstfruits’ of God’s promise for our resurrection. As we approach that day of His return many believers will die physically, yet Scripture promises us that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Those who have believed will be resurrected and spend eternity with God in the ‘New Heavens and New Earth.’ Those who have rejected God will be resurrected and sent to eternal destruction.

---

* Some would say that the absence of an eternally conscious torment in hell does not take the consequences of sin seriously enough. I would respond that to reject God, to miss the purpose for which one was created, to pass into oblivion while others enter into bliss, this will mean weeping and the gnashing of teeth, and is all the fear we need to take Christ’s offer seriously. 

** The position that I am arguing for is often referred to as annihilationism. Some may view this is as heretical as universalism. However, a number of conservative evangelical scholars disagree including J.I. Packer and John Stott. The latter being a key architect of 20th-century evangelicalism who made his case for hell as destruction in Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue.

Comments

[Mae]

Paul, you wrote:

"But the beast, the false prophet and the harlot are not individual people, they are symbols of the world in its varied hostility to God. Therefore they cannot experience pain."

You do realize that this gives away your eschatological bent :) Most importantly, Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp who was discipled by the apostle John) would disagree that the beast and false prophet are not individual people. Most of the earliest Christians were futurists and pre-millennial.

Furthermore, you said a mouthful in your following assertion:

"The idea that a fully conscious creature would undergo physical and mental torture through endless time is plainly sadistic and therefore incompatible with a God who loves humanity."

I'm puzzled why you would assert this given that such a view is clearly the position held by most Christians today.

[Paul]

Mae,

I'm not sure what John's symbolism has to do with being pre-millennial. John himself identifies the harlot as the great city, clearly indicating Rome (17:18). Granted some of his images refer to specific things (the seven lampstands in 1:12-20 are identified as the seven churches) but often these images are more general. The beast out of the sea, is a standard image for a world empire, not for an individual ruler.

I'm equally puzzled why an eternally-conscious torment for all who have rejected or never had the opportunity to hear of Jesus Christ is the position held by most Christians today (although I highly doubt that this is true of the average Christian, but the majority of evangelical Christian teachings).

I don't agree with all of the conclusions Rob Bell reached in his book, but I'm really thankful for his direct and honest questions. It is certainly time that evangelical Christians reexamine our doctrines on hell and damnation and I am glad he got the conversation going.

[Mae]

No denying that Revelation is highly symbolic. But, a strong case can be made that the beast and false prophet are actual people. The beast is likely the Antichrist (prophesied in Daniel). Here is their fate:

The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. -Rev 20:10

Those who haven't heard of Christ, well, there are plenty who wouldn't dogmatically state they will go to hell. God will judge justly, perhaps based upon how they responded to the light that God gave them. For those who actually reject the gospel, the teaching of Scripture is clear that they will not partake in the first resurrection.

That Bell would even consider the possibility of post-mortem repentance (after rejecting Christ during this life) is enough for me to distance myself from him on this topic (and maybe other topics as well, as his exegesis of Scripture appears very unimpressive).

[Ronnie]

Mae, as far as I can tell, the overwhelming consensus of contemporary commentators on Revelation is that the two beasts of Revelation 13 (which are later referred to as the beast and false prophet) are symbols for corporate entities (e.g. the Roman empire).

The beast is almost certainly identified with the fourth beast of Daniel 7 (ten horns) or some sort of combination of all the beasts (leopard, bear, lion). Daniel's vision is interpreted in Daniel 7:23 and the beasts are explicitly identified as kingdoms.

Revelation 20:10 is an apocalyptic vision of a symbols being thrown into another symbol. The pronounced fate is presumably symbolic as well. This is normally the way we interpret such visions. For instance, the fate of the ram in Daniel 8 is to be cast down and trampled by the goat. Nobody takes this to mean that the kings (or people) of Media and Persia will be trampled upon by by a goat.

It is utterly inconsistent to take the symbols of a vision as representing something else, but take the events of the same vision as literal descriptions of reality.

[Mark]

This is an Interesting discussion from a theological viewpoint. You seem to be contradicting the words of Jesus on the idea that there is not an eternal torment. Am I missing something?

Mark 9:48 where “‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’

It is great to have a brilliant mind and to have a well-rounded theological background. The more I read your words, the more I like you. The next stage in your theological development is to go back to original source material, exegete the text, show the boundaries by which we can understand it, then what others have said.

I applaud you and believe in you. Don't lose your finger on the text. Keep progressing. Proud of you.

[Paul]

Mark,

I'm pretty familiar with the exegetical process. The problem is that we all come to the "original source material" with presuppositions and pre-understandings that may or may not be biblical themselves. My point in this series of posts was to show how the Greek idea of natural immortality has skewed the Christian teaching about eternity, specifically the nature of hell.

If you come to texts like Mark 9:48 with the preunderstanding that souls are intrinsically immortal and hell exists, it follows that the wicked will have to suffer consciously forever in it. If there are "worms" and "fire", then hell has to be a condition of eternal conscious torment.

But this imagery is taken from Isaiah 66:24:

“And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to the whole human race.”

Notice it is the "dead" bodies of God's enemies that are being eaten by maggots and burned up. It is safe to say there is not a hint of everlasting suffering in the verse. The fire and the worm destroy the dead bodies; they do not torment them.

[Ronnie]

Not to rehash Paul's remarks, but I just always find it fascinating that someone can read something like, "where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" and from that infer eternal torment! (And Mark, I do not say that in a condescending way; I'm sure I've done--and continue to do--the same thing with other passages.)

There are so many assumptions that must be smuggled into that passage in order to conclude that it just obviously teaches eternal torment.

Paul covered the major point already (about the meaning of the quoted text in Isaiah), so I'll just throw something else out there that you may not have considered.

"Unquenchable fire" does not mean "fire that burns forever," it means fire that cannot be *quenched*. Unquenchable fire is, again, OT judgment language. It is found, for instance, in Ezekiel 20:47 and clearly expresses the idea of a judgement that cannot be resisted. Just do a quick OT search of "quench" to confirm this.

[Mae]

Ronnie, you wrote:

"Mae, as far as I can tell, the overwhelming consensus of contemporary commentators on Revelation is that the two beasts of Revelation 13 (which are later referred to as the beast and false prophet) are symbols for corporate entities (e.g. the Roman empire)."

The first beast in Revelation 13 is most certainly a man. "And all those dwelling on the land shall worship him, whose name is not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." John is very careful with his pronouns. In Rev 13:8, when describing the beast (who represents both a "king" and his kingdom), he used the third person singular pronoun, "he." Like I said before, the early church fathers believed in a future Antichrist (a "man").

[Ronnie]

Mae, the pronoun's antecedent is the symbol, not the symbol's referent! The prostitute of Revelation 17 is explicitly interpreted as a "city", but is referred to as "she". Consistently applying your hermeneutic will give us bizarre results to say the least!

Oddly enough, however, you say that the beast represents both a king and a kingdom. You've then conceded that the beast is a symbol for a corporate entity, and Paul's original point stands.

The early church fathers were wrong about many things. I'm not so much interested in what they believed, but rather, why they believed it.