The first image evolves around fire. The author of Revelation uses the phrase “lake of fire” (3 times with the addition of the words “and sulfur”) to refer to a place of eternal punishment and destruction. Revelation 21:8 reads,
“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (NRSV)
Of course the very image of a “lake” (body of water) of fire (the opposite of water) seems contradictory and so is difficult to translate. Whether this image is a great expanse of fire or even something like the magma from volcanoes, it is associated with the “second death” and carries a measure of punishment in the afterlife. In addition, we occasionally find other references to fire such as Matthew 25:41:
“Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (NRSV)
Luke 16:19-31 offers an interesting account that many see as a direct view into hell. The story of the “Rich man and Lazarus” narrates a scene with the location of “Hades” but contains imagery not found in the other references to Hades (see Part 1). The rich man described his tormenting and agony in the flames and asked “Father Abraham” to allow Lazarus to dip his finger in water to cool his tongue. Though this scene seems to depict what hell is like, I don’t believe it portrays an accurate picture based on 2 reasons. First, many scholars (including myself) see this as a parable, similar to other figures of speech that Jesus used. If this is the case, it leads to the second reason – describing the nature of hell was not Jesus’ intention. He was trying to teach his hearers about living responsibly in the here and now. Just as the mustard seed is not really the smallest seed, so hell is not necessarily a place of fiery torment.
The next two images – outside and darkness – are hard to separate as they convey similar concepts. Some authors use an idiom that is literally rendered, “the outer darkness.” Other authors might just say “outside” but follow it up with “into darkness”. Either way, they seem to be describing a place which is both dark and removed (presumably from the abode of the righteous). The following contain a few examples:
“When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, ‘Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’” Matthew 8:10-12
“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’” Matthew 22:13
“And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 25:30
“Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.” Revelation 22:15
The authors of 2 Peter and Jude, probably drawing from the same source, describe a scene of utter, black, deep and complete darkness:
“These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm; for them the deepest darkness has been reserved.” 2 Peter 2:17
“These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.” Jude 12-13
The final image, and the most intriguing in my estimation, comes from 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9:
“[God] will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power.”
The punishment consists of everlasting destruction and ejection from the presence of God. This passage gets referred to by annihilationists, whose hold the view that the souls of the “unsaved” are destroyed rather than tormented forever in hell. Matthew 10:28 also feeds into this line of thought:
“Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
The punishment does not lie in the torture but in the destruction of the person and his/her inability to participate in an eternal relationship with God. As Aleks said in the comments from Part 1, “The most frightening part about eternal damnation is not the horny Beelzebub, or pit with the eternal fire, or even the eternal torture. It is the complete and utter absence of God.” We can’t even comprehend what the absence of the presence of God looks like. God’s presence inundates this world. We can’t escape it. God is in the air we breath, the food we eat, and our very life source (soul if you will). For that presence to be removed, perhaps we would cease to exist.
To sum up, the Bible employs different words for the actual location of hell (Gehenna, Hades, Tartaros, the Abyss) and different images (fire, darkness, outside, shut out from the presence of God). This variety seems to indicate a lack of uniformity in the understanding of hell by the Biblical writers. Despite the diversity, each writer sought to convey a terrible existence (or perhaps lack of) in which no one would want to participate. In the final installment I will examine the implications that go along with one's doctrine of hell.
6 comments:
My concern would be with this sentence:
"To sum up, the Bible employs different words for the actual location of hell (Gehenna, Hades, Tartaros, the Abyss) and different images (fire, darkness, outside, shut out from the presence of God). This variety seems to indicate a lack of uniformity in the understanding of hell by the Biblical writers. Despite the diversity, each writer sought to convey a terrible existence (or perhaps lack of) in which no one would want to participate."
One with a higher view of inspiration of Scripture would miss your point, which they could agree with, by the language you use to share it. You are saying that the Scripture does not give a clear definition of what hell is to the point in which the Scripture actually seems to contradict itself in describing hell. This would just imply that it is irrelevant what hell is no matter what level of inspiration of Scripture one adheres to. The point would actually be more compelling if one had the funnel inspiration view (that each word written came directly from God through a human) because God did not clearly state what hell was.
There must be a reason for this not stating what hell is. As we talked the other day (and I'm sorry if I am stepping on your next post), we noticed that the purpose of the teachings of hell were not to make us fascinated with the concept of hell but to comfort persecuted believers that the unjust will receive their punishment some day. No matter how difficult of a situation disciples find themselves in, they can always be assured that God is in control. There might be other reasons for teaching about hell than just that.
To sum it up, the teachings on hell are obviously not to describe hell or they would be consistent with one another. The teachings on hell were given for another reason.
I wouldn't even use the words contradict. They just describe it in different ways using well known imagery. The same could be said for various biblical images, including heaven and God. Is God a tower? Or is God a lion? Or a maggot? Or a Shield? I would say none...and all. Coming to grips with an idea means describing it based on images and words accessible to the writer. That they are not literal descriptions is a preoccupation about which the biblical writers are not concerned.
I've always approached imagery in scripture as looking at different paintings of an abstract concept. Some people might use known objects others simply colors to put into visual form an abstract concept.
On another note.. if you consider the "Lazarus" story a parable why is it the only one where he uses actual names?
Barry - I think the way you frame Biblical imagery is a good one.
As for the parabolic nature of the Lazarus story, I don't think the use of names makes it more than a teaching story. One could also consider it an allegory, in which names are often used.
Notice also that the "rich man" was not named. Perhaps Jesus was indicting his listeners (the rich) by referring to an actual beggar they all knew whose name was "Lazarus."
Regardless, I believe Jesus' point is not to teach us about hell but to remind us of our responsibilities to one another.
I'm trying to understand this. Jesus says (roughly) those who neglect their responsibilities to the poor go to hell. From this we are to learn about responsibilities but not hell? If Jesus misrepresents hell, even for allegorical purposes, doesn't that undercut what he said about responsibilities? In other words, if the hearers were aware that he was using such a device, doesn't it carry the same weight as warnings about boogey men do to you and me? "Do right or face unreal circumstances" just does not seem all that compelling.
In comparing the story of Lazarus to other parables, we need to look at the content in a similar way. Is the kingdom of God a pearl? No, it is like a pearl which is wonderful thing to compare the kingdom.
In the same way, Jesus focus seems more on human culpability and judgment by God than describing in detail the nature of the punishment that would be rendered. Is torture by fire the punishment for living a life devoid of love? I would say no, but it accomplishes an intended effect to describe hell in this way.
Post a Comment