Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
July 10, 2009
Free E-mail Newsletters:
RSS Feeds | Audio | Twitter

Home > 2007 > FebruaryThe Single Life > FaithChristianity Today, February, 2007Christianity Today, Faith, singlelife  |   |  
GOOD QUESTION
Three Models of Hell
"Is hell nothing more than eternal torture of the unsaved? Why would God engage in punishment that seems so cruel?" -- Tony De Luca, New York, New York



ADVERTISEMENT

God would not be party to anything as sordid as torture; Christians can agree on that. However, theologians are divided about how eternal judgment is not tantamount to such.

Two competing answers are proposed: (1) Yes, hell involves eternal pain inflicted on the unsaved, but this should not be regarded as gratuitous, unjust, or cruel; and (2) the final judgment will not involve eternal, conscious torment as has been traditionally assumed, and this misreading of biblical teaching needs modification. Both sides raise legitimate concerns worth careful consideration.

The first position is the view of most Christians. It argues that people commonly underestimate the appropriate punishment for defying an infinitely holy God. When human rebellion wrecked God's original good design, God undertook, at great cost, to restore humans to a loving relationship with himself. Those who spurn God's love deserve their eternal destiny, justly suffering the pain of God's wrath.

Of course, God alone has the right to execute this type of sentence. And God gets no sadistic enjoyment from pain he inflicts (Ezek. 18:23, 32). In righteousness and justice, God exacts deadly retribution for wickedness on those not under the blood atonement of Christ.

Other Christians argue that God would never be so seemingly punitive or vicious. They say the Bible's imagery occasionally reflects vindictive presuppositions of ancient cultures, but no one should take this imagery literally. Since rejection of God's love is reprehensible, they say, God will ultimately (and here the answers vary): overcome all evil and all resistance (universalism), destroy all evil (annihilationism), or inflict only as much pain as is necessary to extract repentance, leaving only the incorrigibly evil in everlasting pain (a purgatorial view of hell).

As we contemplate the questions raised by hell, it is helpful to remember two strands of complementary biblical teaching. First, just sentences for sin, as described in Scripture, are both proportional and prorated. Divine punishment is meted out in accordance with the severity of a crime and the awareness a person had of God and of sin. To whom much is given, much is required.

The deuteronomic code forbade beating a guilty person beyond 40 lashes, lest the person be "degraded" (Deut. 25:3). In addition, although a person guilty of heinous crimes might be executed, nowhere was infliction of pain over a lengthy period of time commanded or countenanced. That is partly why medieval Christians constructed an elaborate purgatorial scheme, which allowed for varying levels and lengths of suffering, and which posited a host of variables that God might take into account in rendering verdicts (see Luke 12:47-48). In purgatorial hell, only incorrigibly evil people suffered a limitless duration of pain (see Rev. 14:9-11). This view has never been common among Protestants, but believing in purgatory as the state that purifies and hell as the state of eternal damnation continues to be an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Second, we must remember that it is never cruel for God to enforce penalties appropriate to crimes committed. Pity toward the guilty is actually suppressed in the Old Testament (Deut. 7:2, 16; 19:21; 25:12). We sometimes assume that this stands in contrast to Christ and his work. It does not. Indeed, God in the Old Testament may have overlooked some wrongs as a concession to the immaturity of his people, but he never forbade them to do something (showing pity to the guilty, in this case) that Jesus later declared to be godly. Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament, not to overturn it.





E-mail this pageE-mail this pageWrite CTPrint this articlePost a comment





  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]
Average User Rating: 

Displaying 1 - 3 of 56 comments.See all comments
Gary   Posted: February 23, 2007 7:04 PM
The idea of an immortal soul comes from Greek philosophy not from Scritpure. In Gen. God breathes into Adam the breath of life and he became a "living soul (being)." The NT declares that 8 souls were saved in the ark. These were Noah and his family - living, breathing human beings, not bodiless souls. Also, God has promised to put an end to sin, to its very existence. If unsaved people were to be consigned to the flames of hell for eternity, then sin would also exist throughout eternity in them and would always be a blight on His otherwise perfect universe. Finally, at the final judgment the unrighteous are resurrected to receive their sentence which means that they are in bodily form. The human body burns. Fire burns fuel. If the flames of hell are hot enough to melt the elements, surely they would consume mere human flesh. For this not to be the case, God would have to use Divine creative power to continually re-create human bodies for eternity to keep the flames alive. God forbid!

William Stuart   Posted: February 22, 2007 5:46 PM
Since universalism, annihilationism, and purgatory do not appear tenable in light of the biblical text (to me at least), the article implicilty argues for the eternal torment viewpoint. Being absent from the benevolent presence of God would surely involve such torment, and that seems consistent with the parables told by Jesus himself, and with the Book of Revelation's description of the second death.

Beth Muir   Posted: February 22, 2007 2:13 PM
Isn't the idea of simply being separated from God for all eternity enough of the definition of hell for any of us? We are ever searching for this ultimate connection with Him and to have that possibility taken away forever, to me would be hell. There is nothing worse.

sponsors 








[Browse More Christianity Today]

Search





















Search by Name
Or use Advanced Search to search by program, region, cost, affiliation, enrollment, more!

Search by:





Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Church Office Today
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Outcomes
Today's Christian Woman
Your Church
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com