Hell and Revelation (Hell, part 9)

If you've been following this series, I apologize for yet another long hiatus. Balancing the blog with deadlines involving my job and family commitments is not always easy. So we'll review a bit before moving on.

We've been considering the conditionalist arguments that hell is not a place of unending conscious torment, but that unrepentant souls will finally go out of existence after a time of punishment. The argument is that immortality is conditioned upon faith in Christ and that unbelievers will perish or be destroyed (John 3:16; Matt. 10:28).

Old Testament Scriptures are employed to demonstrate that neither undying worms, nor unquenchable fire need last forever. Moreover, the Greek word translated "eternal" is often applied to objects that are not never-ending, such as the Jerusalem temple and the Levitical priesthood. And finally, it is questioned whether eternal conscious torment is consistent with a loving God or with the restoration of all things.

How does all of this square with passages in Revelation which are often cited as proof that hell is indeed never-ending, conscious torment? Revelation 14:10-11 speaks of the outcome of anyone who worships the beast:

He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image...

Then there is Revelation 20:10:

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.

So do these verses prove never-ending conscious torment? Not necessarily. 

First, in regard to those who worshiped the beast, the smoke of their torment is said to rise for ever and ever. But this was also stated in regard to the smoke from Edom's destruction in Isaiah 34:10. We know that since the desolation of Edom the smoke is not continuing to rise. The language figuratively suggests the permanency of Edom's judgment. As Edom will not be restored, nor will those who have worshiped the beast. The judgment is final and conclusive.  

Second, there is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast. This too, could be figurative language, suggesting that there is no rest for the wicked, day or night, for as long as the punishment lasts.

If we are to take these statements about smoke rising forever and no rest day or night literally, would it not be consistent to take the entire passage literally? This would include the part about the torment taking place in the presence of the lamb and his angels. Will Jesus and the angels be about the task of fanning the flames of hell throughout eternity or are the wicked cast outside of Christ's presence?  

Nor do we take the descriptions of the lamb or the beast literally, as if they were literal animals. It is curious that some who would take these statements supposedly identifying the duration of hell quite literally, do not take the references to the duration of Christ's reign (1000 years) literally, although it appears in the same chapter. Revelation consists of highly symbolic language and we should be very cautious about building foundational doctrines on figurative literature.

Third, the devil, the beast, and false prophet are said to be tormented forever. According to Fudge, the beast and the false prophet are not individuals, but institutions. The beast is a politically corrupt institution, while the false prophet represents a religiously corrupt institution. This passage foretells the demise of these institutions. How can institutions be tormented forever? 

Fourth, even if all those mentioned (devil, beast, false prophet) are individuals who are tormented "for ever and ever," we've already discussed the language of "eternal" which doesn't necessarily mean never-ending. The adjective form is aionios, which often modifies Old Covenant institutions in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. The noun form, aion, is often translated "age" in the New Testament as when distinguishing this age from the age to come (Matt. 12:32). So the word is not so much about duration of time as it is a referene to the age in which an event will occur. Will it happen within time or outside of time?  

Forms of the word aion are used in Revelation 20:10 to translate the phrase "forever and ever" of which the literal translation is "into the ages of ages." So the devil, beast, and false prophet will be tormented into the ages of ages. This doesn't necessarily mean forever, but perhaps for a very long time or in the coming age that exists when time is no more.

I have still not considered the conditional immortality view in light of the rich man and Lazarus in Hades. I'll do this next time and it may be the final post in this series. That is, unless someone wants to open a new can of undying worms. :-)  

Comments

[Theophilus]

1. Isaiah 34:10 uses figurative language to say that Edom will not recover from the devastation coming upon them. But since we both acknowledge that the fire & smoke is figurative, what does it represent? The permanence of its destruction. So Edom's devastation will not cease "night or day;" it will be desolate forever. But in Revelation, what goes on forever? Torment & lack of rest. They continually long for that "drop of water on the tongue," but it never comes. Annihilation would bring "rest" to them, but they never receive rest.

2. Should we take the entire final judgment figuratively, since that is also talked about in chapter 20? There are good reasons to take some things literally, & other things figuratively. But concluding something is figurative just because we don't like it is not sound exegesis. If we consistently applied that principle, the Bible would mean whatever we wanted it to, rendering it meaningless.

3. The beast is a double symbol (Rev. 17:9-10), so it is both an institution & a person. The mark of the beast is a number representing the name of the beast, the name of a man (Rev. 13:17-18). So I don't think we can conclude that the beast definitely does not refer to a person.

"How can institutions be tormented forever?" How can institutions be tormented at all? This is further proof that the beast symbol points to a man.

We do see non-persons cast into the fiery pit in Rev. 20:14. "Death" (the separation of body from spirit) & "Hades" (the realm of disembodied spirits) is cast into the fiery pit. These things do not represent persons, which is why it doesn't talk about them being tormented.

I understand some are uncomfortable with the notion of God literally burning conscious people forever. But I think there is a more scriptural way to handle this - that the fire may not in fact be literal.

#1. Fire has symbolic value. You burn trash - that which you discard. You burn stuff in order to keep it from being reused - permanency. Which fits with the larger picture of divine judgment.

Since the final judgment is described as the "second death," what is death? Death, whether physical or spiritual, is not about existence, it is about separation. We know that the second death is a final separation from God, which would make fire a fitting symbol. We also know there will be torment of some kind involved. Fire is painful, so it fits very well as a symbol.

#2. The fire in Hades, as seen in the rich man & Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) cannot be literal. Literal fire cannot harm a spirit. Since this takes place before the resurrection, the rich man has no literal tongue. Literal water would bring no relief to a disembodied spirit. So if the fire before the resurrection is figurative, & fire has obvious symbolic value, then I think we have good reason to think the fire in Hell may not be literal. Especially when joined with the plain language in Revelation & the following point:

#3. There will be different levels of punishment at the judgment. This is clearly implied in Matt. 11:21-24 & 12:41-42, etc., which is fitting since people have different levels of guilt - Matt. 23:23 & John 19:11.

[Wade Tannehill]

Theophilus,

Sorry I'm just getting back to you, but by the time I posted last week Sunday was coming and I had loads of preparation to get ready for my three lessons, plus a bulletin to help get out. I should probably post earlier in the week, before Sunday is just around the corner, so I can respond more quickly. Anyway, here is my response to your comments.

1. Since about every verse of Revelation is saturated with Old Testament allusions, I think the apocalyptic imagery of the prophets is probably the best commentary we have on Revelation. I appealed to Isaiah 34:10 to show that fire burning night and day, or smoke rising forever, does not mean that these things are never-ending.

You said that Edom's devastation will not cease night or day. It is actually the blazing pitch of verse 9,
perhaps symbolic of Edom's devastation, which will not be quenched night or day according to verse 10. Its smoke will rise forever. My point is that if Isaiah can use the language of “night and day” or “forever” to designate a burning that only lasts for a time, with results that are irreversible, then Revelation, heavily influenced by prophetic language, is likely doing the same thing. The language of night and day, and of smoke rising forever, are likely borrowed from the prophetic literature and in Revelation should be interpreted as they were in that literature—figuratively.

You mentioned that there is no rest day or night from the torment of those worship the beast. That is true—for as long as that torment lasts. Just as the smoke from the burning sulfur in Edom was not never-ending, nor shall the smoke from the burning sulfur that torments the beast's worshipers be never-ending. It's a figurative way of saying that their doom is sealed. Paul said that he prayed night and day, but that doesn't mean his prayers go on throughout eternity.

2. Should we take the final judgment figuratively? Well, in many respects, yes. I do believe there will be a final judgment, but whether that will include the literal opening of books as humanity stands before a throne, who knows? For all I know our judgment happens immediately on resurrection day or when we die. The point that people are punished or rewarded according to their deeds is wrapped in figurative language.

I have not chosen to conclude that the language of fire that isn't quenched night or day, or of smoke rising forever, as figurative symbols for judgment simply because I don't like the idea of punishment that is never-ending. In fact, for someone like Hitler, I like the idea very much. I'm just not convinced that the Bible supports it.

3. There were four beasts in Daniel 7, all of whom were institutions (empires) and not individuals. To see what a “beast”is in Revelation requires that we see what a beast is in prophetic literature.

The Beast in Revelation could very well be a double symbol. I am aware of the numerical value of Nero's name coming to 666. But identification of Nero with the beast is not so conclusive I would bet my life on it. Since 6 is representative of man it could merely mean that the beast is a human institution (kingdom) and not a heavenly one. Even if its a man, the use of three sixes could imply just how far from divine this poser really is.

No, the non-persons cast into the fire are not tormented, while the beast and false prophet are. I'll give you that. Does this necessarily mean that the beast and false prophet are individuals? Who is the false prophet if not corrupt Judaism?

Even if these guys are individuals, that does not answer the question as to whether their punishment is never-ending. And as I've stated, the language that suggests to some that is is never-ending could very well be figurative as in Isaiah.

I understand that the fire may not be literal and I have no argument on that. I simply don't see what we gain from that conclusion. Never-ending pain is never-ending pain whether it's literal fire or the utter emotional despair of being separated from God. So we're still back to the original question as to whether the suffering of the damned is never-ending.

You mention that death is not about existence but about separation. That may be in some cases, as when Paul says that we were dead in our sins, but that God made us alive with Christ. (Or perhaps, even in that phrase, “death” is a reference to the destiny one has chosen). But the punishment for the non-repentant is described as “destruction” or being “consumed” in the New Testament. These statements are in Scriptures that are not apocalyptic or poetic and could very well be intended as literal. If something is destroyed or consumed, it is no more.

Finally, I think the best argument for conditional immortality is the Greek language. As I have mentioned previously, the Greek word family that is translated “eternal” or “forever and ever” was also used in the LXX in reference to institutions that are not never-ending, such as the temple and the priesthood. The “forever” language of Revelation often refers to “age” or “world.” I have not seen that you have responded to those arguments, which again, I think are among the strongest. The terms “forever” or “eternal” in biblical literature don't necessarily mean “never-ending.” They simply refer to what takes place in the next age or to what will last until God chooses to end it.

I have no problem with different levels of punishment.

As for Hades, I'll deal with that in the next post since I intended to anyway.

Thanks for your comments. I did read most of the stuff you e-mailed and I find the New Heavens and New Earth document, as well as your views on Genesis, to be quite compelling and in some ways a more consistent fit to the whole of biblical literature than some traditional views. I do hope to have an e-mail discussion about it soon. It was very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[Theophilus]

What happens in this life is not directly analogous to how things will be in Heaven and Hell. The Bible says that death is abolished when the dead are raised. There will be no more physical death, so those cast into Hell will never physically die.

The 4 beasts of Daniel 7 represented both empires (7:23) & kings (7:17). Just as the beast is a double symbol in Revelation, representing both Rome & individual kings (Rev. 17:9-10). I don't think this was included in the handouts I sent, but I believe the false prophet refers to particular individuals.

If it was just a matter of saying the smoke of their destruction goes up forever and ever, the annihilationist's case would be much stronger. I usually avoid making a point about time statements, as I know the Bible uses them in different ways in different places.

Technically, saying that God's judgment is "near," and that He is coming "swiftly" or "quickly" can merely mean that it will be sudden, whenever it comes. By itself, these things do not indicate it will happen in the near future. But when "it must soon take place" is combined with "the time is near" and "I am coming quickly," then it can't just be dismissed.

Likewise, when the Bible combines "people" with "torment" with "day and night" with "forever and ever," it is insufficient to say that, since "forever and ever" meant one thing somewhere else, who is to say it doesn't mean the same thing here? The context and language is very different. I mean, if God wanted to teach everlasting torment, how could He have said it any plainer? Even allowing for the fact that the Bible does sometimes use language in "interesting ways," the "torment" interpretation is far, far stronger here than the "annihilationist" interpretation.

Moving on to death, death is never annihilation. Nothing is ever truly annihilated in this world. So we have no prior examples of actual annihilation to draw from. When Sodom was destroyed, did the Sodomites cease to exist? No. They still exist, in torment. So referring back to Sodom in no way helps the annihilationist argument. It actually supports the torment view.

Regarding the fire, whether it is literal or not, I've never heard an annihilationist that didn't believe the fire was literal, for that is how they explain how annihilation takes place. Otherwise, the annihilationist view would have God annihilating living people, without ever explaining how He was going to do it.

If you think the Genesis stuff was interesting, I'd recommend checking out Dr. Sailhamer's book Genesis Unbound. Unfortunately, it is now out of print and the prices are ridiculous. The only hope of getting a hold of one is if a local library has a copy. But if you want to REALLY get into some trouble, ask me how my view of Genesis relates to the long lifespans... =)

[David Dallas]

Wade,

You might find it interesting to go to this website: http://www.edwardfudge.com/home.html

He is a man of our flavor but who has been ostracized for some of his views. He had two books about hell--one of which deals with what you have been discussing.

[Wade Tannehill]

David,

I have read Fudge's book which has led me to at least consider his views as a viable option. When I began a class on hell at church I was so convinced of everlasting concious torment that I didn't intend to read Fudge, until a member loaned it to me and suggested that I did. When I read it with an open mind I discovered that the "conditionalists" are not just crazy people trying to explain hell away, but serious students who have simply come to a different conclusion than some. The study has not led me to pretend that I am an expert on hell, but it reinforces my conviction that we can hold radically differnt views on some matters and stil be serious Bible students and brothers in good standing.

[Wade Tannehill]

Theophilus,

I appreciate your reply and I will get back to you. Right now I have to go finish a sermon and check in on the sick and afflicted. I want to hear about the long life spans in Genesis. E-mail me.

[Wade Tannehill]

Theophilus,

Well, here it is five days later and I’m finally getting back to you. I’d rather give a thoughtful response than a knee-jerk one.

First, you say that “What happens in this life is not directly analogous to how things will be in heaven and hell.” You state that since death will be abolished when the dead are raised, that those cast into hell will never die physically.

I personally think that death being abolished is a better argument for the conditional immortality viewpoint. If hell is the second death, then this second death cannot continue throughout eternity precisely because death has been abolished.

I understand that you said “physical death” is what will be abolished. So death is now suddenly a “physical” thing when you earlier defined it as separation. If death is abolished, it is abolished, physical death, spiritual death, however you want to define it. There will be no realm in which any death, including agonizing separation from God, continues to exist.

Second, maybe I missed something but I don’t see a beast who is an individual in Daniel 7. I see the horns of a beast who are individuals. But again, neither argument really stands or falls on the basis of whether the beast of Revelation is individual, institution, or both. The real question is whether the torment is never-ending.

Third, in reference to the “beast worshipers,” Revelation 14:9-11 states that they will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the angels and the Lamb. The smoke of their torment rises forever and ever. There is no rest for them day or night.

I understand that you are in agreement that the smoke of torment rising forever, taken by itself would not necessarily imply unending conscious torment. But to consider that statement in the context of people being tormented with burning sulfur, with no rest day or night, leads you to conclude that Revelation 14 is talking about unending conscious torment.

When you ask “If God wanted to teach everlasting torment, how could he have stated it any plainer?” I admittedly cannot think of any other way in the Greek language that he could have expressed it. Unless I’m ignorant of some other possibility, this may be a tally mark for the traditional column.

The fact remains, however, that the Greek phrase doesn’t have to mean something without end. Nor does “no rest day or night” have to imply “from now on,” but only for as long as the punishment lasts. The burning sulfur and blazing pitch of Edom’s devastation would not be quenched “night and day,” but that doesn’t mean it went on burning forever (Isaiah 34:9-10).

There are other ways in which the traditional view, when applied to all of Scripture, seems inconsistent. For example, those tormented with burning sulfur are in the presence of the Lamb. But the damned are cast outside the Lord’s presence elsewhere in Scripture. He says, “Depart from me.”

It seems possible that the description of torment in Revelation 14 is not to be taken too literally. You have admitted yourself to holding the view that the fire of hell is not literal. I doubt very much that eternal torment in the presence of Christ is intended to be literal. I think it’s simply a way of saying that Christ is the ultimate judge.

In Revelation, which is apocalyptic and highly symbolic, there is the problem of what to take literally and what to take figuratively. Even if “forever” as we think of the term in English, is intended, why should we take it literally when the fire and the presence of the Lamb might not be intended to be literal?

How do we even know that this passage is talking about hell? Could it not be a reference to judgment upon Rome and its officials in this life with the smoke of torment rising forever simply referring to a punishment that is irreversible and final?

It’s at least possible to read the Revelation 14 passage as not referring to unending conscious torment. In all honesty, Revelation 20 is not so easy for conditionalists to reconcile with an annihilation viewpoint. Here we have the devil, beast, and false prophet being tormented day and night—which again does not necessarily imply unendingly, but could mean only until the punishment ends. But I understand that since “day and night” is coupled with “forever and ever” (or even “into the ages of ages”) this leads you to conclude that this is unending conscious torment. I don’t think it has to be, but I do see your point.

If Revelation were the only Scriptures under consideration, I might be completely sold on unending conscious torment. But the clearer references in the Gospels and Epistles to the unrepentant being consumed, perishing, or being destroyed, coupled with the prophetic language of “day and night” or “smoke rising forever” that does not imply without end, I am led to at least consider an alternative or non-literal reading of the Revelation texts which better harmonizes with the Gospels and Epistles. I prefer to interpret an apocalyptic text in light of the plainer literary genres then to make them conform to Revelation.

Fourth, the meaning of death really is where the arguments hinge. I’ll begin by saying that Sodom was indeed destroyed and I see no evidence that the Sodomites are still alive and in torment.

I’m not sure what nothing being annihilated in this world really proves. The laws of physics may not apply in the afterlife. Moreover, the ancients were unaware of these laws. While they might not have imagined the annihilation of matter, they knew what destruction meant. I think destruction is a better term than annihilation.

As to whether the fire is literal or not, I don’t think it matters since God can “poof” someone out of existence if he chooses to do so.

BTW, I enjoyed your take on the lifespans in Genesis. What is scary is that your views on Genesis seem to make a lot of sense in the context of the whole of Scripture. We’ll talk more about this once we get out of hell.

[Wade Tannehill]

Theophilus,

I just realized that I forgot to elaborate on death. The real issue does come down to whether we see death as a "loss of life" or a "life of loss" (I beleive that is from Fudge).

Traditionalists see death as separation from God, i.e., a life of loss experienced by the immortal soul.

Conditionalists think of death more literally as a loss of life. Death means you are no longer around.

I'd assume that the traditionalists would hold the language of "destruction," "perishing," and "consumed," in regard to the unrepentant, as referring (symbolically perhaps) to a life of loss throughout eternity.

[Beholdallthingsnew.blogspot.com]

In Revelation 20, death is clearly talking about physical death (the death we see now), which is distinct from the second death, which is something different. Support for this is found in the two resurrections of Revelation 20. I believe the two resurrections corresponds to John 5:25-29. The first resurrection consisting of receiving spiritual life upon putting one's faith in Christ, and the second resurrection being made physically alive/immortal.

Both the saved and the lost experience the first death, but only the lost experience the second death. This is in contrast to resurrection. Only the saved experience the first resurrection, but both the saved and the lost experience the second resurrection.

Here are two more points that support my take on the lifespans in Genesis that I forgot to mention:
#1. This explains why Cain was afraid for his life, and how he could move far away and start up a city (better than the traditional interpretations).
#2. This explains why the Bible records the long lifespans, and yet never tries to explain their significance. If my interpretation is correct, people wouldn't have been able to understand for thousands of years, since only now is our scientific understanding even beginning to grasp things about genetics and lifespans.

Of course, I always recommend people be very cautious with this view, because it is definitely different. I don't see how it is heretical in any way, but it might disturb the faith of some.

By the way, I now have my own blog now, so now's your chance to come and harass me. =)

http://beholdallthingsnew.blogspot.com/

[Wade Tannehill]

Theophilus(Steve),

I cannot disagree with these points.

In regard to Genesis, your two points are exactly what I meant when I mentioned the consistency of this view with Scripture as a whole. It solves a lot of problems.