Pages

Friday, November 03, 2006

What's so bad about hell?

The doctrine of hell is one of the leading objections to Christian. But one of the striking features of the polemical literature against the doctrine of hell is the vast disproportion between the intensity of the rhetoric and what the Bible actually has to say on the subject.

Most all of the time, what the critics of hell are attacking is not the Biblical doctrine of hell, but a popular version of hell, based on some colorful bits of imagery in Dante and Edwards or horror flicks of the slash-em-up variety.

It’s like a bunch of boys who double-dare each other to go into an abandoned house, as they regale each other with lurid stories about the unspeakable horror that lurks within.

And when a kid screws up his courage to go inside, the actual experience is quite a let down. The anticlimactic reality can’t live up to the campfire stories.

But what is hell really like? What does the Bible say?

1. Imagery

The Bible uses some stock imagery to describe hell, viz. maggots, chains, outer darkness, the lake of fire.

This is usually taken to be figurative.

2. Duration

On the traditional interpretation, the state of damnation is everlasting.

There have been persistent efforts to deny this, but I think the traditional interpretation is sound.

3. Punishment

Damnation is punitive.

There have been some attempts to deny this. Hell is locked from the inside. The damned rejected God, but God never rejected the damned. That sort of thing.

But it’s clear from Scripture that damnation is treated as a judicial sentence in which God is exacting retribution against the wicked. Damnation is inseparable from the principle of just deserts.

4. Despair

Hell is characterized as a place of psychological misery, viz. “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

5. Pain?

This is a bit difficult to separate from the figurative imagery. However, Scripture has a doctrine of the general resurrection.

Since the damned are reembodied, they are presumably vulnerable to pain.

The corporeal dimension of damnation is also a reason to say that hell is an actual place, and not merely a state of mind.

6. Pure evil

Damnation is a state in which sin is unrestrained by common grace.

And that, I think, covers just about everything we can say for sure about damnation. The rest is speculation.

Now, in the customary attack on hell, such as you find in Pinnock or Ingersoll, hell is characterized as a torture chamber—with God cast in the role of the cosmic sadist. Like something from a B-movie of the horror genre.

Several things stand out in this model of hell:

i) The damned are victims.

ii) Apropos (i), the damned are unwilling participants—like a man or woman who’s strapped to a table as a psychopath flays them alive.

iii) An emphasis on physical torment.

But it should be obvious that this model of hell doesn’t derive from the specific exegesis of Scripture.

To depict hell as a torture chamber, you have to make certain assumptions. Ironically, this confronts the critic of hell with a dilemma.

Why would hell resemble a torture chamber? Assuming that it is analogous to a torture chamber, why would the damned be so cruel to each other?

To believe this, you have to accept a pretty traditional view of sin and human depravity.

Yet critics of hell assure us that the traditional doctrine of sin is vastly overblown. Not only does it exaggerate the degree of human depravity, but it artificially classifies perfectly natural and normal impulses as sinful.

What is more, secular critics of hell regard unbelievers as more virtuous than believers. As Steven Weinberg puts it, with or without religion, you’d have good people doing good and bad people doing bad, but for good people to do evil—now that takes religion.

Moreover, a secular humanist would say that a consistent secular humanist is more virtuous than a consistent Christian.

If, then, we take the critics of hell at their word, why would hell be one big torture chamber? Why would the damned torment each other?

This depiction isn’t consistent with either the religious left or secular humanism.

On their view, hell should actually be better than life on earth. Better without God. Or better without the superstitious shackles and Victorian hang-ups of organized religion.

All the most enlightened people end up in hell. The scientists and philanthropists.

The only reason for believing that the damned are truly vicious is if you believe that sin is every bit as bad as the Bible says it is.

But, in that case, where’s the injustice in punishing sinners by making them live with each other? If one wrongdoer wrongs another wrongdoer, is that a miscarriage of justice, or is that poetic justice?

Isn’t that a case in which the punishment exactly fits the crime? Conmen conning other conmen? Muggers mugging other muggers. That sort of thing.

Finally, if we’re going to speculate on hell, then a hellish existence need not entail pain. Interminable boredom would be a hellish existence. Too much sameness becomes unbearable over time.

Conversely, too much change becomes unbearable over time. Imagine an inescapable dream in which nothing ever stays the same. People come and go. Places come and go.

Having your own way came be a source of despair. A dream come true can be a nightmare if your three wishes are sinful wishes. We’ve all seen people who couldn’t cope with success. The man who has everything in life except a happy life.

Life in a fallen world gives us many glimpses of hell. A foretaste of things to come for those who die outside of Christ.

This is the stuff of novels and plays, movies, TV shows, and real life.

The way in which the enemies of Christianity demonize (pun intended) the doctrine of everlasting punishment is exactly the kind of malicious caricature I’d expect if hell is for real. This is the devil’s version of hell. The version of hell he puts out for public consumption so that folks won’t take it seriously. And his P.R. campaign is ironically successful with the hell-bound.

I don’t doubt that hell is a very bleak place. But what makes a hellish existence such a grim existence is not the address, but the company we keep. There goes the neighborhood!

13 comments:

  1. Steve, a few questions:

    What is the reasoning for assuming that the depictions of hell are figurative? If Scripture on more than one occasion portrays it as a place of fire and such, what reasons are there for deciding this is symbolic rather than literal?

    Also, the idea of retributive justice was mentioned. What would be your answer to the stock objection that hell isn't really retributive, since it's eternal and the various sins committed are temporal. In other words, why should someone be punished eternally for a finite crime?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Many Conservative theologians, such as John Stott, and the late F.F. Bruce deny everlasting punishment of the non believer. I know it's off the subject somewhat but worth mentioning.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mathetes:

    In hell, sin will be unrestrained. Therefore sin will go on for eternity. Whether or not sin is an eternal or finite crime (a philosophical rather than exegetical question), there will be in hell enough sin worthy of the punishment to be unending, for the sin will be unending.

    Anonymous:

    Is it accurate to say that John Stott denies everlasting punishment? I think it is more accurate to say that John Stott is open to annihilationism as an exegetical possibility. I'm not certain that that is the actual position with which he would label himself, however.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the info, Evan. To be sure, though, the idea that sin is unrestrained in hell is one I hadn't encountered until I started reading Triablogue. Are there any relevant passages that bear this out? Also, if hell is simply a place where sinners get to sin without restriction, it's hard to see how this is punishment, since sin is what they love.

    Thanks again for the helpful comments.

    ReplyDelete
  5. MATHETES SAID:
    Steve, a few questions:

    “What is the reasoning for assuming that the depictions of hell are figurative? If Scripture on more than one occasion portrays it as a place of fire and such, what reasons are there for deciding this is symbolic rather than literal?”

    1.Scripture often recycles stock imagery—including poetic imagery. That’s what makes it stock imagery.

    The mere fact that it’s used over and over again does not, of itself, suggest that it’s literal.

    2.In addition, some of the imagery is apparently incompatible. Fire is a light-source. So how do you harmonize fire with darkness?

    Now, if we felt the need to harmonize the imagery, we could postulate something like a campfire. However, there’s nothing very hellish about a campfire.

    I think it’s more plausible to suppose that Scripture is using different metaphors to express the extreme misery of hell.

    “Light” and “darkness” are standard spiritual metaphors throughout Scripture. So is “fire,” the force of which varies according to context.

    3.Taking this literally also generates some other logistical problems. What, literally speaking, would be a lake of fire? Something like a lava flow?

    But the devil is cast into the lake of fire. Yet the devil is a discarnate spirit. So he’s fireproof.

    Conversely, if we assume that the damned are reembodied souls, according to the general resurrection, then they are not fireproof. To the contrary, tossing one of them into a lava flow would incinerate the flesh.

    But why resurrect the damned only to once again negate the effects of a resurrection?

    Of course, it’s possible to miraculously preserve the flesh in conditions of extreme heat (Dan 3), but in the case of Daniel’s friends, not only were they unharmed, but they felt no pain.

    But if being burned alive in the lake of fire is a painless experience, then what’s the point?

    4.Likewise, the reference to “worms” is an allusion to maggots which infest and devour a corpse.

    But, literally speaking, the damned are not going to be eaten alive. Otherwise, they’d have no body left.

    5.Now, it’s quite possible, due to the general resurrection, that the damned will be susceptible to physical pain. And they may inflict pain on one another. But that’s a possible inference from the general resurrection, and not from fiery figures of speech.

    “Also, the idea of retributive justice was mentioned. What would be your answer to the stock objection that hell isn't really retributive, since it's eternal and the various sins committed are temporal. In other words, why should someone be punished eternally for a finite crime?”

    1.Guilt is qualitative, not quantitative. Just as you can’t measure guilt in inches and feet, or ounces and pounds, you can’t measure guilt in temporal units.

    2.If I’m guilty of something, then I’m always guilty of it in the sense that I did it, and it’s always true that I did it. It doesn’t cease to be true through the sheer elapse of time.

    3.There’s an equivocation here between eternal and temporal. “Temporal” is not the same thing as “temporary,” and “eternal” is not the same thing as an actual infinite.

    Everlasting punishment is temporal without being temporary. And it’s finite rather than infinite in the sense of a potential rather than an actual infinite.

    It never comes to an end, but at any point in the afterlife of the damned, his punishment up to that point is finite in duration.

    4.Evan also points out that the damned never cease to sin.

    5.The question of whether unending punishment is unjust also depends on the nature of the punishment.
    If, for example, punishment takes the form of one sinner abusing another, I don’t see how that is unjust—even if there’s no end to it.

    Suppose you have two poker players. Suppose both poker players are crooked. Each poker player is trying to cheat the other poker player. Is that unjust? Or is that perfect justice?

    Or suppose punishment takes the form of allowing a sinner to sin to his heart’s content. To sin as often as he wants.

    Letting him have everything he wants. Yet what he wants will make him miserable because all his desires are sinful, and in the long run, they leave the sinner empty inside, or with an insatiable appetite for vice which he can never quench. Sinning to your heart’s content will leave you discontented.

    Is that unjust? How so?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mathetes said:
    "Thanks for the info, Evan. To be sure, though, the idea that sin is unrestrained in hell is one I hadn't encountered until I started reading Triablogue. Are there any relevant passages that bear this out?"

    The Scriptural argument is indirect. The damned are graceless. There is no grace in hell. So all that's left is sin.

    "Also, if hell is simply a place where sinners get to sin without restriction, it's hard to see how this is punishment, since sin is what they love."

    But does it make them happy? Or does it make them miserable? Sin can be fun at first, but even in this life it loses its charm and becomes a source of increasing misery.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You make a good point, Steve. Listening to Bertrand Russell and David Hume argue for eternity sounds like something that would get tedious pretty quickly :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. This isn't directly related, but I'll ask anyway.

    What do you guys think of so-called fire and brimstone messages? Biblically valid? Productive? Effective?

    Something like "Sinners in the hands..." comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous:

    Just as the biblical passages on hell often illustrate for us the severity of the wrath of God against sin and help us understand the consequences for sin, sermons which eloquently illustrate this point can also be helpful. No doubt, as with everything else, this can be abused and be done in a harmful manner. But that does not mean that all forms of it are illegitimate.

    Indeed, fear of hell is a biblical category of the realization of the necessity of salvation. We don’t want to meet the consequences of our sin, so we flee to Christ who has already paid the price for us. We will have little appreciation of the fact that we stand condemned if we have no grasp of what that condemnation looks like.

    Are they effective? As far as they contain biblical content and are effectively presented (Scripture does place an emphasis on our ability to teach), then they are as effective as they can be. Of course, it is necessary for the Holy Spirit to do his miraculous work in the hearts of unbelievers. And he can do that despite our efforts. But that does not excuse us to be effortless.

    ReplyDelete
  10. How would the original readers and hearers of the hell scriptures interpret them? Also, you said that "The corporeal dimension of damnation is also a reason to say that hell is an actual place, and not merely a state of mind." How do you know that these passages aren't to be taken symbolically?

    Could the whole concept mean separation from all that is good (which is God)? But this could only be separation from His love, after all, He would be the actual one doing the punishing.

    I don't understand all of the various physical places that are used like gehenna, sheol, and hades, that have been used to describe different things. It's just confusing for me to come up with a clear picture of what everlasting damnation is from reading scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ANONYMOUS SAID:
    How would the original readers and hearers of the hell scriptures interpret them? Also, you said that "The corporeal dimension of damnation is also a reason to say that hell is an actual place, and not merely a state of mind." How do you know that these passages aren't to be taken symbolically?

    Could the whole concept mean separation from all that is good (which is God)? But this could only be separation from His love, after all, He would be the actual one doing the punishing.

    I don't understand all of the various physical places that are used like gehenna, sheol, and hades, that have been used to describe different things. It's just confusing for me to come up with a clear picture of what everlasting damnation is from reading scripture.

    1.Both Lk 24 and Jn 20-21 go out of their way to accentuate the physicality of the Risen Christ.

    And in 1 Cor 15, we have an extensive explanation of what constitutes the resurrection of the just.

    From these two axes we can analogize about the resurrection of the damned.

    2.The Bible uses picture language for the Netherworld. A case in point is Ezk 28:22-32.

    These descriptions are modeled on ANE burial customs. Thanks to Biblical archaeology, we can compare these figurative descriptions with actual period practice.

    Of course, ancient Jews would have known about all that first-hand.

    So (1)-(2) give us examples of how to distinguish the literal from the symbolic with respect to the afterlife.

    3.There’s a lot we don’t know about hell. But, in my post, I cited at least six things we do know for a fact.

    For the rest, we are free to extrapolate from experience in a fallen world.

    4.Yes, hell involves separation from all that’s good, including the love of God. But that’s a purely negative or privative definition.

    There’s more positive content to the Biblical doctrine of hell than the rather generic notion of separation from the love of God.

    5.As I said in my post, such a condition is, indeed, a punitive state and act of divine judgment.

    But that doesn’t imply that God is the “actual one doing the punishing,” if by this you mean that such an action must exclude secondary agents to carry out the sentence.

    God used the Babylonians and Assyrians to punish apostate Israel. So God can and does employ secondary agents to implement his plans and execute his judgment.

    Which doesn’t mean that he necessarily does it that way in the case of infernal punishment. But at least that’s a live possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks Steve, these are some helpful thoughts. Interestingly, even though you provide an alternative to the stock description of hell as a torture chamber, the hell you describe sounds even more terrifying! Not a place I want to end up. Lord have mercy.

    I wonder what you make of the people who at the end will cry out saying "Lord, Lord, open to us!" What sort of people are they? They don't seem like the ones who would prefer to stay mired in their sin. Do you think they are genuinely repentant at the end, or they simply realize that they weren't able to beat the system after all?

    ReplyDelete
  13. JD,

    Paul Helm doesn't think there will be sinning in hell (it won't be a fool's paradise) and he thinks all will bend the knee to Christ and admit of his righteous judgment. No one will be able to argue it down. All mouths will be stopped.

    ReplyDelete