*
I present a dilemma as an illustration of the difficulties of interpreting scripture.
The question is whether to understand the Bible as stating that Hell is a place of eternal torment, or whether scripture implies that after some period of experiencing torment, the damned are annihilated, destroyed, made into nothing.
This is an issue for me because I tend to understand scripture in a broad brush kind of way, rather than focusing upon specific sentences or words.
And I think that the broad brush understanding leads me to assume that Hell is for some period followed by annihilation; while eternal torment seems implied by a close up examination of the text.
*
I hope this is not because I am looking for wriggle room to make space for my own notions, or to twist Christianity into a shape that suits me (instead of the opposite, which is what all Christians should try to do).
I hope it is due to a genuine desire to understand rather than a covert wish deliberately to misunderstand.
But one can never be sure about such matters.
*
That torment in Hell is eternal is implied by specific passages such as:
Mark 9:43-4 - And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Also, I have always read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as implying eternal torment in Hell; although perhaps it does not really do so.
Reference to the torments of Hell in terms of fire, worms, thirst etc. mean that intense suffering (if not the precise specifics of its nature) must be real.
Indeed, the consequences of recognizing failure to accept Christ could not but lead to torment - and it was argued as long ago as St John Chrysostom that this torment of regret was the primary suffering of those who did not choose salvation.
*
But on the other hand I believe there are several 'broad brush' arguments which apparently imply that the damned are annihilated, and that I personally find pretty convincing.
*
1. In this broad brush sense, I feel a need to reconcile the undoubted fact that the Gospel is good news (and was perceived as such at the time it was first presented), with a new emphasis on the torments of Hell which is absent from the ancient Jewish concept of Sheol.
(Sheol seems to entail annihilation of the individual self and self-awareness, a place depicted as dark and containing of witless gibbering ghosts, but not of active torment).
I tend to think that if the reality or nature of Sheol was being challenged by the advent of Christ, then this would have been specifically mentioned.
*
2. Also, in a similarly broad brush sense, there is the refrain that Christ offers us everlasting life - which implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) seems to contrast with death, or annihilation; rather than with eternal living-torment.
This, indeed, is an interpretation I find compelling.
Every time I hear or read of the promise of everlasting life, of life instead of death, or the wages of sin being death - it makes me think that death in the sense of non-existence is the ultimate alternative to Heaven.
*
3. Somewhat aside, there is also the argument that Hell is essentially prepared for the fallen angels, not Man.
Matthew 25:41- Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
I imagine this as being necessary in terms of sequestering irredeemable evil from Good - on a permanent basis.
But it may also imply that Hell is not to be regarded as the eternal dwelling place of unsaved Men.
*
I am not seeking closure on this issue, and it is a snare to try and try and learn exactly about the nature of life beyond death - indeed the concept of eternity is itself beyond comprehension.
But I use this example to illustrate how reasoning from specific passages may push in one direction, while reasoning in a broad brush way push in the other direction - and for someone of limited spiritual development such as myself, there cannot be a decisive answer.
*
We must, we should, look to tradition and authority for as much guidance as we need to proceed; and beyond that to try and avoid focusing on such questions for too long, and certainly avoid having disputes over such matters grow into dissensions.
But authorities differ, and often concerning the particular matters under question: we must then choose among the authorities, and within the authorities we sometimes must choose between different teachings at different points in their lives. Or we may not understand their teachings.
The fact that John Stott, the premier Anglican evangelical scholar of recent decades, was an 'annihilationist' should indicate that it is not an interpretation 'beyiond the pale' - but the fact that he was in a minority among his peers (such as JI Packer) certainly is grounds for caution.
*
I am a fairly traditionalist Anglican, I think, on the matter of how the torments of Hell should be used in teaching and evangelism: the matter of Hell should not be avoided nor downplayed, but should a matter one for stark and sober realism; on the other hand the torments of Hell should not be deployed to try and intimidate or coerce people into conversion or obedience 'for their own good': that is a short path to spiritual pride hence evil, since we do not know enough of the workings or outcome of salvation to be specific and personal.
In this, I am much influenced by Pascal's Pensees and the idea of the 'Hidden Christ', and the profound insight that the world is made such that there is enough evidence for people to find it if they look, and to choose Christ; but equally the world is not deigned to overwhelm human will into submission by unmasked divine power and terror.
To argue that one must become a Christian/ obey the Law or else personally suffer specifically eternal as well as excruciating torment is - I think - never known with precision; eternity cannot, anyway, be understood by the human mind; and more importantly contradicts the Gospel of Love. The Christian God simply must be loved; and it is simply wrong to imagine that a state of terrified submission to 'God' can be, at some later stage be flipped-over into the free choice of Christ from gratitude for the Glory of God.
*
We know enough truth for our purposes - I am sure that we do; but this does not mean we ever can know the precise and explicit truth about every matter where we can formulate a question (or imagine that we have formulated a question - the question may be ill-formed and unanswerable, or we may not understand the real answer).
There is always ignorance, and at the heart of things there is mystery.
*
7 comments:
Joseph Herrin thinks that the notion that damnation is "eternal" is a mistranslation of the Greek "aion", which he suggests is often better translated as "age-abiding". If I understand right, perhaps those not saved will spend an age in the Lake of Fire. Also, he thinks that much of our image of hell is wrongly borrowed from Greek mythology of Hades and the underworld, with no support from scripture.
Herrin also takes the minority view that God's entire creation will eventually be reconciled to him, although some souls will take much longer to be reconciled than other souls. But right or wrong about this, he might have a point about "aion".
His views on the topic are very thoughtful, at any rate:
http://parablesblog.blogspot.ca/2011/11/gods-plan-of-ages-mythology-and-bible.html
In addition to being intentionally non-topical, I note that the blog tends also not to become an "argument by linking to people I like"-fest, which is a positive quality. However, on this topic that cat may be out of the bag, so I want to recommend, for anyone who enjoys podcasts, my friend Glenn People's site.
He not only hosts a blog, but creates a very good philosophy/theology-related podcast, and he is an annihilationist. The podcasts on that topic are quite good - you can find them here. He argues for many of the issues that have already been raised, and more.
There is a reliable exposition of the Catholic doctrine in the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Hell". H.U. von Balthasar also wrote on the subject. As yourself, we hope there is nobody in hell but the fallen angels. However, the possibility of eternal hell dor the soul that fixed itself against God is necessary to uphold the moral as well as the metaphysical order of things.
To accept the possibility of annihilation means that God would have to go against nature and indeed assassinate his creature, which is metaphysically impossible. Though a possible form of "annihilation" would be that, out of mercy, God permit us to forget about the damned we knew (I heard such a thought once).
In any case we must remember that we can save our loved ones from the very fangs of the dragon by our prayers and sacrifices added to Christ's. As a bishop who was once Manichean told to saint Monica about her stray son, Augustine: "It is impossible that the son of such tears should perish."
We should be cautious treading this ground. Annihilationism historically seems like a radical minority position, and in taking it one aligns oneself against generations and generations of far holier and wiser men than ourselves.
All that said, there are ways of understanding Hell and the threat of destruction it entails that fall short of annihilationism. C.S. Lewis discussed many of them in "The Problem of the Pain." He astutely points out that when we, say, burn a book, we "destroy" it only in the loose sense that we destroy the form of the book. What remains is smoke, heat, ashes -- in other words, remains. Just so, what endures in Hell is not a soul but the remains of a soul.
Personally, I incline toward the view that strict annihilationism is not only false but metaphysically impossible -- that it so entirely contradicts God's loving nature that He is utterly incapable of enacting it.
@SDR and Proph - an email from Kristor reminded me of the fairly mainstream view that God created everything from nothing, and sustains the existence of everything from moment to moment.
On this understanding of creation, God merely has to cease his continual act of creation for any part of it is disappear to nothing.
I have at times held to the view (outlined by Proph) that souls are not destroyed, but that apparently conflicts with some scriptural passages (e.g. in the psalms) which seem to talk of souls being destroyed.
Psalm 40:14 - Let them be ashamed and confounded together that seek after my soul to destroy it; let them be driven backward and put to shame that wish me evil.
Most likely these are simply matters far beyond our comprehension and language.
I suspect that the insistence on a particular interpretation (e.g *eternal* torment, no annihilation) is driven by the scholarly desire for a *systematic* (or rather, a theology that seems systematic to human reason) rather than any specific scriptural necessity - and has been challenged by less- systematic Christians at various times.
The rarity of arguments in favour of ultimate annihilation may simply be that most Christian writers are primarily scholarly, theological, systematic.
It seems that we can scheme a synthesis between total annihilation and eternal torment out of the desires of the radical autonomist.
For starters, none of us is able to "see" total annihilation. It is literally, inconceivable. OTOH, eternal torment is a "thing" of which we may claim to have some temporal and fleeting experience of. At root, this "torment" is to be found in the idea of maintaining relationships that attempt to subvert reality.
In the basest way, the radical autonomist is desirous of "total annihilation" in that he WANTS TO believe that upon his death, nothingness is "to be had."
This "being" nothingness = radical autonomy.
To "be" something and then nothing is to sever all relationships with everything. This is radical liberal "freedom."
To the healthy-minded man, this is Hell. To be something and then nothing forever is "eternal torment." To be absolutely detached from all things and to be "aware" that you were detached from all things is the making of torment.
So it seems that those that desire radical autonomy will get exactly that in the end. But only after they completely self-annihilate and then have an eternity to be "nothing." Such is Hell.
"God merely has to cease his continual act of creation for any part of it disappear to nothing": This is the precise definition of metaphysical assassination.
The only way that the living God could cease to give life to whom he gave it once is if the damned would beg him themselves to let them disappear. But I don't think they would, because justice must be satisfied in their own eyes too.
Apart from having read something of the sort in a book from a Thomist philosopher, I had a personal experience that gave me some understanding in that sense.
Post a Comment