Without doubt, the Kalam cosmological argument is my favorite theistic argument. For those unfamiliar with it, it goes like this
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
The power of the argument should be obvious. It is so simple a child could follow it. Its first premise is intuitive and the second is accepted by all cosmologists but the most resolutely atheistic. On my part, my love for the argument comes from the fact that it has never yet failed me. When I use it, my non-theistic counterparts can be counted on to take one of several approaches:
1. Deny that everything that begins to exist has a cause: “Yeah, some things don’t need a cause to come into existence” .This response usually makes me want to flip “Ahhh, so things just pop into existence out of nothing, do they? Are you flipping mad?!” I’d rather believe that I can make a tiger appear in my closet by waving a broomstick and reciting the apostles creed thrice – afterall, that doesn’t violate the law of causality. Out of nothing, nothing comes. If that isn’t obvious to you, I know we’re going to have a very hard time of this discussion.
Sometimes, the person doesn’t quite come out and say it. Instead, they say things like “things pop into existence from nothing in the quantum vacuum” (which is not true because the quantum vacuum is not nothing).
Or, they say “You’re begging the question. The only thing that you claim began to exist is the universe. We don’t know of anything else coming into existence”.
My response: “You didn’t begin to exist? You were around during the revolutionary war, eh?”
Or yet another: Nothing could have caused the universe, because it would have to exist before the universe (i.e. temporally prior to the universe), and time began with the universe.
Response: (a)The cause of the universe is not in the time of our universe, but that does not prevent it from having its own timeline.
(b) Time, as we define it, measures a sequence of physical events. The cause of the universe is not physical because everything that is physical is contained in the universe. There was no series of physical events before the universe.
The rule of thumb I use is that if a response to the Kalam argument leads to the conclusion that something can come into existence without a cause, be skeptical. Be very skeptical.
2. Deny that the universe began to exist: While the previous response irritates me, I find this response quite amusing. I imagine that if this fact did not support the existence of God, those who oppose it would regard it as common sense. How do we know that the universe began to exist?
a. The second law of thermodynamics: Our universe is expanding and getting less dense with every passing moment. There will eventually come a time where the energy in our universe is spread so thinly that it can no longer sustain any life. The world as we know it will come to an end. If our universe has been in existence and expanding forever, it would have reached said point by now.
b. The red shift in the light from distant galaxies show that our universe is expanding. Extrapolating backwards, we can conclude that the universe used to be a lot denser and there is a point before which there was no universe as we know it (the big bang).
c The Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem: The clincher to all of this, the BGV theorem put forward by Alexander Vilenkin and co says that any universe that has been expanding as long as ours has cannot possibly have always existed. As Vilenkin explained to Stephen Hawking at his 70th birthday party, this applies to the multiverse and every other speculative scenario proposed in order to avoid a beginning of the universe.
Other scientific evidence:
Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
Those who deny that the universe began to exist use several methods to justify their claim. The first is to put forward one of the speculative theories about the universe all of which the BGV theorem addresses, and act as if those scenarios invented out of whole cloth and lacking any support whatsoever are viable alternatives.Here are examples of such scenarios:
The steady-state model: disproved by recent empirical observations of radio galaxy distributions, as well as red-shifting of light from distant galaxies moving away from us at increasing speeds
The oscillating model: disproved in 1998 by more empirical measurements of mass density which showed that the universe would expand forever, and never collapse (was named Discovery of the Year)
The vacuum fluctuation model: the theory allows for universes to spawn at every point in space and coalesce into one extremely old universe, which contradictions observations of our much younger universe
The chaotic inflationary model: does not avoid the need for an absolute beginning in the finite past
The second method is semantics. “Time is a property of our universe. There was no point in time at which the universe did not exist because time and the universe are bound together. Therefore, the universe has always existed”. This argument is akin to Stephen Hawking’s (bless his heart) argument that by making the edge of the graph of the universe curved rather than pointed, he has eliminated the idea that the universe began to exist. In truth, the fact that the length of time for which the universe has existed is finite is what proponents of the the Kalam argument mean when they say that the universe began to exist and that fact should be obvious to anyone who wants to see.
3. Perhaps my favorite (though positively maddening) group of people are those who respond to the Kalam argument by ignoring the fact that it is a deductive argument and attacking the conclusion (bless their hearts!). They say things like:
Any pre-existing entity/entities that caused the universe do not have to be personal with a mind and will.
Any cause of the universe does not have to be the god of the Bible.
Why does the cause have to be only one? Why not 20 gods? (get more such ridiculous responses on this atheist wiki)
If you can’t see it, the problem with those arguments is that they either miss the point or pretend that proponents of the KCA have not said what they have. Proponents of the KCA take care to explain why the cause of the universe must be personal and have free will. William Lane Craig, a famous proponent of the argument does so in his article Does God Exist?:
From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we’ve seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.
Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.
This is part of a series and the index can be found here. I will be going through various hypothesis about hell. This first one was suggested by Cherri of CreationScienceForKids who is one of my regular commenters. I intend to look at passages that say something about the issue by theme rather on a case by case basis because a lot of them are so similar.
The Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth and Fiery Furnace Passages
As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (matt 13.40) (also matt 22.13; matt 24.48ff; matt 25.28ff; and Luke 13.28ff)
Taken literally, this passage supports the hypothesis because it suggests that the damned will be thrown into fire. The con is that this passage is in a parable and given the often symbolic and hyperbolic nature of parables, it cannot be taken for granted that Jesus meant for it to be taken literally. It is possible that Jesus was talking pandering to Jewish beliefs in which the fiery furnace described God’s wrath. A rejoinder could be that the surrounding text sounds very literal, which it does.
A problem with the passage is its description of the damned as “weeping”, not “screaming” or any of its synonyms. Unless it’s some strange form of torture, people being tormented will scream, not weep. Weeping is something people do out of sorrow and loss. Screaming is what they do when they are in great pain. Sometimes people do both (like when they are in pain due to the loss of a loved one) but they are not being tortured. The pain they experience is one that comes with loss. It seems quite obvious to me that you scream, not weep during torture. You only get to weep in moments when you are not in great pain or pain at all. What makes this so serious is that ‘weeping’ is used consistently throughout passages like this but ‘screaming is never used. Consequently, the passages give the impression that the damned feel a great sense of loss and grief, but are not in torment. In fact, passages like Luke 13.28 give great ammunition to the suggestion that the damned weep and gnash their teeth because the find themselves excluded from the good things of God’s kingdom. In conclusion, the description of the state of the damned given in these passages is not one consistent with the claim that they will be in torment.
The More Bearable Passages
“I say to you, it will be more bearable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. “But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment, than for you.
And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You shall descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. “Nevertheless I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the Day of Judgment, than for you.” (Matt 11.20-24)
Basically this passage just suggests that some people will be worse off on the Day of Judgment than others. This neither supports nor opposes the hypothesis. It just means that if the hypothesis is true, some people will be in more torment than others. Some might be in very great torment and some in very little torment.
A passage from Revelation
“‘A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand,they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.’ Revelation 14: 9 – 12”
I suspect that this is the passage most often used to support the claim that people in hell undergo physical torment. It definitely supports the contention that some people in hell undergo physical torment if you read it literally. Given the manner in which the book of Revelation is written, I try not to take anything in it too literally. However, if we are being literal I can point out that this does not say anything about the rest of the damned. Given the passages that say that those in hell experience it differently, – the ‘more bearable’ passages do this and Revelation 20: 11 – 14 has death and hades (who definitely will not be tortured) being thrown into the lake of fire – it is quite obvious that the fate of these people does not determine the fate of the rest of the damned.
1. A literal reading of two parables furnished the claim that those in hell are thrown into literal fire, which, lasting eternally, would count as torture. But those passages could be read as metaphors and would not necessarily imply torture then.
2. One passage in the book of revelation describes certain inhabitants of hell as being tormented day and night, but says nothing about the rest.
3. The description of those in hell as ‘weeping’ rather than ‘screaming’ is consistent with the hypothesis if they either are not in torment most of the time or are in very little pain on average. Another way to put it is that the absence of the word ‘screaming’ suggests that they are not in any significant amount of pain. It would definitely exclude mid-numbing torture (at least for most of the inhabitants of hell).
4. The fact that those in hell experience it differently suggests that the same punishment is not given to all of them.
This is the fourth part of a series on hell. You can find the index here.
I would like to start by making a point about the Revelation to John. It is most clearly illustrated in the first chapter of the book.
I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”
I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands,and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
“Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
If you cannot see it, the problem I have with the book is its blatant symbolism. This is just the beginning. If you continue, you see the four horsemen, bowls of wrath and the woman and dragon. In fact, the whole book is one torrent of apocalyptic imagery. There’s nothing wrong with imagery per se, but I think it is obvious that we ought not to read a book that is so flagrantly symbolic literally. When we read it, we can either find the main point of the narrative or say “this is what I think all these pictures mean”. What I am saying, in plain English, is that the statement “the damned will spend eternity in a lake of fire because the book of revelation says so” is a careless one. The book says a lot of things, the vast majority of which are not meant to be taken literally. If you wish to argue that the book’s description of hell should be taken literally, do so. But don’t say it as if it’s obviously true.
“Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.” Revelation 19: 19 – 21
This refers to the judgment of the beast and his false prophet. They are both defeated and thrown into the ‘fiery lake of burning sulfur’ while their followers are killed. I have no idea who the beast and prophet are supposed to be, so I’ll leave them alone and just think about the lake of fire which I’ll come back to later.
“When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth —Gog and Magog —and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 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.” Revelation 20: 7 – 10
Considerable time has passed since the judgment of the beast – a thousand years. Now, Satan is judged and thrown into the same lake of fire. This passage goes on to say that Satan, the beast and the false prophet would be tormented forever.
Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done.Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20: 11 – 14
Death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire. Death and Hades aren’t people, so this probably just means that death and hades will be abolished; that is, there will be no more death. Then the people are judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. Finally, everyone whose name is not written in the book of life is thrown into the lake of fire.
Note 1: People are thrown into the lake of fire, not based on what is written in the other books, but based on whether their names are in the book of life. What then is the point of looking at the other books?
Note 2: The lake of fire is called ‘the second death’, which could mean a number of things.
“He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life.Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children.But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars —they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” – Revelation 21: 6 – 8
Once again, the lake of fire is called the second death.
I’ll look at more Bible verses in a second, but so far I want to point out the things I think are important to understanding the doctrine of hell.
1. The ‘second death’
On its face, this word could mean annihilation (the damned cease to exist). It could also mean that the judgment they face is some kind of death in the tradition of Jesus and Paul where ‘death’ is used as a symbol for certain things e.g. we died in Christ. I don’t know what it means and I am loathe to consult a commentary because of their usual biases.
2. The fiery lake of burning sulfur
Like I pointed out in the beginning, I doubt that this is an actual lake of sulfur. At the very least, I don’t think one should assume that it is. Satan, the beast and the false prophet are thrown into it and tormented forever, but Death and Hades are thrown into it and this can only mean annihilation for them. So, the lake seems to be different things for different entities. Those whose names are not written in the book of life are also thrown into it.
‘A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand,they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.’ Revelation 14: 9 – 12
This specifically refers to those who worship the beast and its image. Since the lake of fire does different things to different people (as it seems), it is perfectly possible that they will have this punishment and everyone else will have another. That would be supported by the passages that describe some people as being punished more than others although it is not said in this passage
It says that they will be tormented/tortured in the presence of the Holy Angels and the Lamb. That seems to mean “in the throne room”. If it said “in God’s presence”, then that could be anywhere. But it would be odd to describe any place but the throne room as the presence of the angels… maybe. Maybe it means that the angels and the Lamb will be able to see it. Torment there is the same word I referred to above.
The smoke of their torment will rise forever. They will have no rest day or night. Normally, I would interpret those statements in a certain way, but I came across another verse that brought some confusion.
For the Lord has a day of vengeance,
a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause.
Edom’s streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!
It will not be quenched night or day;
its smoke will rise forever.
From generation to generation it will lie desolate;
no one will ever pass through it again.
The desert owl and screech owl will possess it;
the great owl and the raven will nest there.
God will stretch out over Edom
the measuring line of chaos
and the plumb line of desolation.
Her nobles will have nothing there to be called a kingdom,
all her princes will vanish away.
Thorns will overrun her citadels,
nettles and brambles her strongholds.
She will become a haunt for jackals,
a home for owls.
Desert creatures will meet with hyenas,
and wild goats will bleat to each other;
there the night creatures will also lie down
and find for themselves places of rest.
The owl will nest there and lay eggs,
she will hatch them, and care for her young
under the shadow of her wings;
there also the falcons will gather,
each with its mate.
Look in the scroll of the Lord and read:
None of these will be missing,
not one will lack her mate.
For it is his mouth that has given the order,
and his Spirit will gather them together.
He allots their portions;
his hand distributes them by measure.
They will possess it forever
and dwell there from generation to generation. – Isaiah 34: 8 – 17
Edom was supposed to burn forever, and never be quenched and a host of animals was supposed to possess it forever too. Edom clearly isn’t burning now and if it was, the animals couldn’t live there – obviously. I suspect it was all just hyperbole. While that cannot be used to interpret the book of revelation – different writers, different times, but the same genre – it did alert me to the fact that a book of prophecy might as well be hyperbolic. In fact, it probably is. The issue here is stripping away the literary devices and determining how serious the actual thing is.
And that’s what worries me. In writing this, I have worried over the fact that I might be reading the book too literally or not literally enough, or that I might be interpreting it wrongly or trying to make it fit my biases. In the end, all I came up with was some more information on specific things, but more confusion on the whole topic of hell altogether. In the end, what I believe about hell will be determined by the theory that most fits the Biblical evidence. Or that’s what I hope. But I’ll steer clear of trying to make up any kind of doctrine of hell from the book of revelation. It’s just too vague and confusing.
This is part of a series on the Bible’s teaching on hell. Here, you can find the first and second parts. The following Commentary is from Glenn Miller of the Christian Think Tank and my own commentary on these and other passages from the book of Revelation should be up in a few days. As you can imagine, I don’t necessarily agree with everything that follows. It is long, but worth reading and mostly made up of Bible passages. The original article is here.
First Revelation 14.9f:
A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. 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, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.”
And the second is Revelation 20.7ff:
And when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. And I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
For some twenty years, these were the proof-texts I used to demonstrate to others that hell consisted of eternal, conscious, active torment. Over the last two years, I have abandoned using these verses in any such way. The problems with (a) understanding them at all(!); and (b) developing a doctrine of hell from these two verses are insurmountable in my opinion, and I simply gave up using them for this.
Let me mention some of the difficulties for taking these verses in the traditional way.
First, the Rev 14 passage:
The torment is said to be in the presence of Jesus (not in hell, but actually in the heavenly throne room).
The torment is a ‘city type’ of torment (e.g., Sodom, Edom), NOT an individual type. See especially Rev 19.3, where this described Babylon.
The “eternal” aspect of this is said by traditionalists to reside in the “eternal smoke” image, but this image was used of VERY finite annihilations/judgments in the OT—events which were not even REMOTELY ‘never-ending torment’
Compare specifically the OT origin of this image—Is 34 on the judgment on Edom:
”For the LORD has a sacrifice in Bozrah and a great slaughter in Edom.
And the wild oxen will fall with them, the bull calves and the great bulls. Their land will be drenched with blood, and the dust will be soaked with fat.
For the LORD has a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause.
Edom’s streams will be turned into pitch, her dust into burning sulfur; her land will become blazing pitch!
It will not be quenched night and day; its smoke will rise forever. From generation to generation it will lie desolate; no one will ever pass through it again.
The desert owl and screech owl will possess it; the great owl and the raven will nest there. God will stretch out over Edom the measuring line of chaos and the plumb line of desolation.
Her nobles will have nothing there to be called a kingdom, all her princes will vanish away.
Thorns will overrun her citadels, nettles and brambles her strongholds. She will become a haunt for jackals, a home for owls.
Desert creatures will meet with hyenas, and wild goats will bleat to each other; there the night creatures will also repose, and find for themselves places of rest.
Look in the scroll of the LORD and read: None of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate. For it is his mouth that has given the order, and his Spirit will gather them together.
He allots their portions; his hand distributes them by measure. They will possess it forever and dwell there from generation to generation.”
Notice that the images are quite unlike our traditional views of hell. The entire land is said to be eternally on fire (including the water!), but a whole host of flora (thorns, nettles, brambles) and fauna (desert owl, screech owl, great owl, raven, jackals, hyenas, goats, falcons) find ‘rest’ there and grow families (presupposing a much wider range of wildlife and vegetation and water supply)…and the animals possess this place “forever” and “from generation to generation”. One of these images cannot be literal—either the fire one is figurative (probably of war, cf. Amos 2.1ff) or the animal one is figurative. And this matter is settled by the later prophecy of Jeremiah 49, building on the one in Isaiah. In this passage, the punishment on Edom is explicitly related to conquest and dispersion (by the Babylonians):
“Concerning Edom. Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Is there no longer any wisdom in Teman? Has good counsel been lost to the prudent? Has their wisdom decayed? “Flee away, turn back, dwell in the depths, O inhabitants of Dedan, For I will bring the disaster of Esau upon him At the time I punish him. “If grape gatherers came to you, Would they not leave gleanings? If thieves came by night, They would destroy only until they had enough. “But I have stripped Esau bare, I have uncovered his hiding places So that he will not be able to conceal himself; His offspring has been destroyed along with his relatives And his neighbors, and he is no more. “Leave your orphans behind, I will keep them alive; And let your widows trust in Me.”
For thus says the LORD, “Behold, those who were not sentenced to drink the cup will certainly drink it, and are you the one who will be completely acquitted? You will not be acquitted, but you will certainly drink it. “For I have sworn by Myself,” declares the LORD, “that Bozrah will become an object of horror, a reproach, a ruin and a curse; and all its cities will become perpetual ruins.”
I have heard a message from the LORD, And an envoy is sent among the nations, saying, “Gather yourselves together and come against her, And rise up for battle!” “For behold, I have made you small among the nations, Despised among men. 16 “As for the terror of you, The arrogance of your heart has deceived you, O you who live in the clefts of the rock, Who occupy the height of the hill. Though you make your nest as high as an eagle’s, I will bring you down from there,” declares the LORD.
“And Edom will become an object of horror; everyone who passes by it will be horrified and will hiss at all its wounds. “Like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah with its neighbors,” says the LORD, “no one will live there, nor will a son of man reside in it. “Behold, one will come up like a lion from the thickets of the Jordan against a perennially watered pasture; for in an instant I shall make him run away from it, and whoever is chosen I shall appoint over it. For who is like Me, and who will summon Me into court? And who then is the shepherd who can stand against Me?”
Therefore hear the plan of the LORD which He has planned against Edom, and His purposes which He has purposed against the inhabitants of Teman: surely they will drag them off, even the little ones of the flock; surely He will make their pasture desolate because of them. 21 The earth has quaked at the noise of their downfall. There is an outcry! The noise of it has been heard at the Red Sea. 22 Behold, He will mount up and swoop like an eagle, and spread out His wings against Bozrah; and the hearts of the mighty men of Edom in that day will be like the heart of a woman in labor.
Notice in the above passage that the items in bold related both to the ‘wasteland’ image of Isaiah AND to warfare, indicating the figurative nature of the ‘fire’ image. (Notice also, that there would be survivors in the orphans and widows, that God would care for.) Also, this judgment (esp. the “lion” image) is applied to Babylon in Jer 50.44, which referred to the military victory of the Medes/Persians over them.
And, just to make the point of discontinuity even MORE vivid: the passage in Jer 49.14 says that Edom’s cities will be “everlasting” ruins (heb. Olam). But ‘everlasting’ doesn’t mean a whole lot in this context, for Judah is said to be in “everlasting ruins” in Jeremiah 25.9 (as a result of the exile). The Psalmist in 74.3 prays to YHWH to look at His temple—an “everlasting ruin”—right before YHWH begins the rebuilding program, and in Is 58.12 the “everlasting ruins” of the nation are promised to be rebuilt by God. We know that “everlasting” is often used hyperbolically like this (indeed, George Foot Moore suggests that the ‘eternal contempt’ of Dan 12 might be hyperbolic, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, vol II. P. 297).
What this does to our ‘smoke rises forever’ image is drastically reduce its force—it is neither fire, smoke, nor forever…it IS judgment, to be sure, but to make this image into something not intended by the biblical authors is misguided
Pushback: “Well, Glenn, I agree that most people DO understand the imagery to be full of non-literal symbols, but the reality behind the symbols must be MUCH, much worse. Therefore, your downgrading of this is obviously false.”
Actually, in the Biblical literature, the OPPOSITE is true–the symbols are much, much worse, and hyperbole and exaggeration were the norm in public discourse. This can be easily seen from just a couple of genres.
1. Jewish oracles/poetics of judgment in the OT, the symbols are much worse than the reality. Judgment is spoken of in massive terms, and even small battles over small villages and kingdoms (Edom was the smallest nation in the area!) are described in geo-astronomical terms (e.g., earthquakes, tidal waves, sun being darkened, stars falling from the sky, powerful fires).
Let me give just a few examples (there are many, many of these):
a. Ezekiel 20.45ff we read:
“The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, set your face toward the south; preach against the south and prophesy against the forest of the southland. Say to the southern forest: ‘Hear the word of the LORD. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am about to set fire to you, and it will consume all your trees, both green and dry. The blazing flame will not be quenched, and every face from south to north will be scorched by it. 48 Everyone will see that I the LORD have kindled it; it will not be quenched.’” Then I said, “Ah, Sovereign LORD! They are saying of me, ‘Isn’t he just telling parables?’”
Notice how sweeping the images are:
1. the fire will consume ALL the trees
2. the blazing flame will NOT BE QUENCHED (sound familiar?)
3. EVERY face will be scorched by this NEVER-QUENCHED flame
And notice that the audience ASSUMED it was parabolic(!)–and this might be an important clue to us, when confronted with such imagery and language.
This passage is followed in the biblical text by a “more literal” version of it (according to most commentators) in 21:
“The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, set your face against Jerusalem and preach against the sanctuary. Prophesy against the land of Israel and say to her: ‘This is what the LORD says: I am against you. I will draw my sword from its scabbard and cut off from you both the righteous and the wicked. Because I am going to cut off the righteous and the wicked, my sword will be unsheathed against everyone from south to north. Then all people will know that I the LORD have drawn my sword from its scabbard; it will not return again.’ “Therefore groan, son of man! Groan before them with broken heart and bitter grief. And when they ask you, ‘Why are you groaning?’ you shall say, ‘Because of the news that is coming. Every heart will melt and every hand go limp; every spirit will become faint and every knee become as weak as water.’ It is coming! It will surely take place, declares the Sovereign LORD.”
8 The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, prophesy and say, ‘This is what the Lord says: ”‘A sword, a sword, sharpened and polished— sharpened for the slaughter, polished to flash like lightning! ”‘Shall we rejoice in the scepter of my son Judah? The sword despises every such stick. ”‘The sword is appointed to be polished, to be grasped with the hand; it is sharpened and polished, made ready for the hand of the slayer. Cry out and wail, son of man, for it is against my people; it is against all the princes of Israel. They are thrown to the sword along with my people. Therefore beat your breast. ”‘Testing will surely come. And what if the scepter of Judah, which the sword despises, does not continue? Declares the Sovereign LORD.’
“So then, son of man, prophesy and strike your hands together. Let the sword strike twice, even three times. It is a sword for slaughter— a sword for great slaughter, closing in on them from every side. So that hearts may melt and the fallen be many, I have stationed the sword for slaughter at all their gates. Oh! It is made to flash like lightning, it is grasped for slaughter. O sword, slash to the right, then to the left, wherever your blade is turned. I too will strike my hands together, and my wrath will subside. I the LORD have spoken.”
Notice how a traditionalist commentator explains this (EBCOT):
“Having surveyed the history of Israel’s rebellion and found the nation deserving of judgment in Ezekiel’s day, God announced and described the judgment that he was about to bring on Judah. Four messages described God’s judgment by Babylonia (cf. vv. 45; 21:1, 8, 18). The first message consists of a parable (vv. 45-49) and its explicit interpretation (21:1-7). The parable described a forest fire in the southern forests that burned every tree, whether green or dry (vv. 46-47). Each person would see that God kindled the unquenchable fire (v. 48). The parable emphasized the “south” by using the three most common Hebrew terms for that direction (cf. Notes). The southern forest referred to the southern kingdom of Judah, a forested area in biblical times, even into the upper Negev.
“Verse 49 provides a transition between the parable and its interpretation. Ezekiel’s hearers were frustrated. Ezekiel, the old parabolic speaker, was at it again. This was another one of those parables they did not understand. Therefore, God would give the interpretation.
“1-5 The parable’s interpretation was revealed in these verses. Ezekiel was instructed to “set [his] face toward the south” (20:46). The south was defined as Jerusalem, its sanctuaries, and all the land of Israel (which was then Judah) (v. 2). The fire in the parable (20:47) represented a sword of judgment (v. 3), i.e., the sword of Nebuchadnezzar and his armies (cf. vv. 18-27). The green and dry trees symbolize the righteous and the wicked, respectively. God’s judgment would be comprehensive. When God would pour out his wrath on the sinner, the effects would cover the entire land from north to south. Each person would be touched by the sword of his fury (vv. 4-5; cf. 20:47). Both the righteous and the wicked would experience the land’s devastation. Everyone would know that the Lord was the one who brought the judgment (v. 5; cf. 20:48).
“6-7 The effects of God’s wrath on Judah would also be devastating. The people would lose strength. Ezekiel communicated these emotional responses to the people by groaning as one who was in emotional distress and in bitter anguish. When the exiles inquired as to the cause of his grief, he would tell them that he was a sign of the emotional distress they would have when God’s judgment would come. At that time their hearts would melt, their spirits would faint, and their hands and knees would become weak like water (vv. 6-7). This would happen. This was not just a scare tactic. God declared that this judgment would “surely take place.”
Here was case where the symbol of unquenchable fire burning down the entire forest and scorching everyone’s face was worse than the actual Fall of Jerusalem itself (literally).
b. Deut 32.22f:
For a fire has been kindled by my wrath,
one that burns to the realm of death below.
It will devour the earth and its harvests
and set afire the foundations of the mountains.
“I will heap calamities upon them
and spend my arrows against them.
“The result of the Lord’s anger (v. 22) is described as a world-embracing cataclysm of fire adversely affecting three entities: the realm of death (whether the afterlife or the grave for dead bodies), the earth and its harvests (its productivity), and the very foundations of the mountains (Ps 18:7). In its context this is hyperbolical language to represent the frightful carnage to which Israel will be exposed because of infidelity to the Lord. The calamities of v. 23 are those experiences that affect men adversely. These disasters or calamities will be heaped on Israel, and the Lord’s arrows will be used up against his people.
c. David’s psalm in 2 Sam 21 (Psalm 18) after having been delivered in battle from the Philistines and from Saul:
In my distress I called upon the Lord, And cried to my God for help; He heard my voice out of His temple, And my cry for help before Him came into His ears.
7 Then the earth shook and quaked; And the foundations of the mountains were trembling And were shaken, because He was angry.
8 Smoke went up out of His nostrils, And fire from His mouth devoured; Coals were kindled by it.
9 He bowed the heavens also, and came down With thick darkness under His feet.
10 And He rode upon a cherub and flew; And He sped upon the wings of the wind.
11 He made darkness His hiding place, His canopy around Him, Darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.
12 From the brightness before Him passed His thick clouds, Hailstones and coals of fire.
13 The Lord also thundered in the heavens, And the Most High uttered His voice, Hailstones and coals of fire.
14 And He sent out His arrows, and scattered them, And lightning flashes in abundance, and routed them.
15 Then the channels of water appeared, And the foundations of the world were laid bare At Thy rebuke, O Lord ,At the blast of the breath of Thy nostrils.
16He sent from on high, He took me; He drew me out of many waters.
Strictly speaking, this psalm is a ‘spoof’ of Caananite deities–all of whom YHWH has conquered in David’s battle, but the imagery is also consistent with most of Israel’s ‘numinous’ language.
d. David’s prayer for victory (after an apparent setback) in Psalm 60:
O God, Thou hast rejected us. Thou hast broken us; Thou hast been angry; O, restore us.
2 Thou hast made the land quake, Thou hast split it open; Heal its breaches, for it totters.
3 Thou hast made Thy people experience hardship; Thou hast given us wine to drink that makes us stagger.
4 Thou hast given a banner to those who fear Thee, That it may be displayed because of the truth. [Selah].
5 That Thy beloved may be delivered, Save with Thy right hand, and answer us!
“There are sad moments in the history of the people of God. God has promised to be with his people; but in his own inscrutable wisdom, he seems to abandon them. This psalm raises the issue of divine abandonment and challenges the godly to abandon themselves to the love and compassion of a wise God. According to the superscription, this psalm alludes to David’s success in Aram Naharaim, Aram Zobah, and Edom (cf. 2 Sam 8:1-14; 10:16; 1 Chronicles 18:1-13). Apparently the successes were not always immediate, as this psalm is a community lament in which the people pray for God’s success after an apparent defeat.
“It is evident that adversity has strained the covenant relationship between God and his people. The people feel that God’s temporary abandonment of them has brought them nothing but trouble. Seven verbs emphasize the divine initiation: “you have rejected … [you] burst forth … you have been angry…. You have shaken … and [you have] torn it open…. You have shown … you have given” (vv. 1-3).
“Rejection, even though for a brief time, is serious (v. 1; cf. v. 10; 44:9, 23; 74:1; 77:7; 89:38), because it results from God’s anger (v. 1; cf. 2:12; 79:5; 1 Kings 8:46). His anger is like “wine that makes us stagger” (v. 3; cf. 75:8; Isa 51:17, 22; Jer 25:15-29); its impact is felt throughout. God’s people live a meaningless existence without his presence. They take defeat seriously, because divine abandonment is the most miserable condition. The psalmist likens abandonment to a state of war (v. 1; NIV, “burst forth”; cf. Judg 21:15 [NIV, “made a gap”]; 2 Sam 5:20; like the breach in a wall; cf. Isa 5:5), to an earthquake (NIV, “you have shaken … torn it open;… it is quaking,” v. 2; cf. 18:7; 46:3, 6; Isa 24:18-20), and to a state of intoxication (v. 3; cf. 75:8; Isa 51:17, 21-22).
e. The locust invasion of Joel 2 (foreshadowing the invasion of Assyria, as well):
At the sight of them, nations are in anguish; every face turns pale. 7 They charge like warriors; they scale walls like soldiers. They all march in line, not swerving from their course. 8 They do not jostle each other; each marches straight ahead. They plunge through defenses without breaking ranks. 9 They rush upon the city; they run along the wall. They climb into the houses; like thieves they enter through the windows. 10 Before them the earth shakes, the sky trembles, the sun and moon are darkened, and the stars no longer shine. 11 The LORD thunders at the head of his army; his forces are beyond number, and mighty are those who obey his command. The day of the LORD is great; it is dreadful. Who can endure it?
Since the images in Revelation are taken dominantly from the images in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, this alone should caution us about making the images carry too much ‘detailed’ and ‘sweeping’ content.
2. In addition to contexts of judgment (the actual context of OUR discussion), there are literary contexts of hyperbole and overstatement, with which the Bible and the Gospels are filled. Stein has collected many instances of this, and even formulated guidelines for detecting exaggeration in the teachings of Jesus (DSIG). It was quite standard practice in biblical Israel, the rabbinic writers, and on the lips of Jesus.
Just a partial listing from Stein of the cases he adduces should demonstrate this (many of these have rabbinic parallels or analogs):
qMatt 7.3f: And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. [Logs don’t fit in eyes]
qMatt 5.29f: And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 “And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell. [ Self-mutilation doesn’t solve lust problems, especially if you leave one eye in!]
qMatt 6.6: But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you. [Jesus was not opposed to public prayer!]
qMark 13.2:Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another which will not be torn down.” [There are some of the foundation stones still visible today.]
qMatt 5.23: If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. [A Galilean, leaving a live goat at the temple in Jerusalem, until he had made a trip back to Galilee to seek reconciliation there, would likely not find his goat there when he returned in a few weeks…]
qMatt 26.52: Then Jesus *said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. [Not all soldiers die violently.]
qMark 10.24: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” [Obvious, but I should point out that the story of the Needle Gate is a apocryphal story made up in the Middle Ages. Also, there are several rabbinic parallels about elephants going through the eye of a needle.]
So, the actual data of the biblical text leads me to believe the OPPOSITE of the slogan “the reality is worse than the symbol”
Okay, back to the discussion on Rev 14 and 20…
A relevant case in point would be the “eternal worms” and “unquenchable fire” images used sometimes of gehenna by our Lord. This image derives from Isaiah 66, in the section on the New Heavens and the New Earth:
“For just as the new heavens and the new earth Which I make will endure before Me,” declares the Lord, “So your offspring and your name will endure. 23 “And it shall be from new moon to new moon And from sabbath to sabbath, All mankind will come to bow down before Me,” says the Lord. 24 “Then they shall go forth and look On the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm shall not die, And their fire shall not be quenched; And they shall be an abhorrence to all mankind.”
This description of the New Jerusalem (cf. Rev 21-22), with its reference to burning and rotting corpses (in full view of the redeemed/the world), seems at odds with the image of the unredeemed being cast ‘bodily’ into the lake of fire in Revelation (not part of the New Heavens and Earth). The image in Isaiah is clearly one of ‘exclusion’ from the benefits of the New Creation, and this exclusion motif is carried on in the Revelation passages as well:
And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 And the nations shall walk by its light, and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it. 25 And in the daytime (for there shall be no night there) its gates shall never be closed; 26 and they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; 27 and nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life. (Rev 21.23)
Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. (Rev 22.14)
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them, 4 and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” 5 And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He *said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.” 6 And He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. 7 “He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. 8 “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (Rev 21.1ff)
Notice the emphasis is on exclusion from the ‘good stuff’ (in Isaiah and in Revelation)–NOT some pain from the immortal worms or refuse fires. This would argue that Jesus’ use of this vivid image is consistent with the ‘thrown outside’ images He generally used to portray the final judgment (noted above). ]
Stein [DSIG:35] identifies this image of Isaiah as hyperbole as well:
“To have the worm present in the description of the judgment of the unrighteous is understandable; to have unquenchable fire present is likewise understandable; but to have both present together is not, for the fire would kill the worm. To claim that Isaiah conceived of a new kind of worm, an asbestos worm as it were, is to miss the point. The worm and the unquenchable fire are two well-known metaphorical portraits of judgment. Placing them side by side simply reinforces Isaiah’s proclamation of the certainty of the judgment.
The traditionalist, evangelical, pre-millennialist commentator in EBCOT points out that this is rather inconclusive in this verse:
”John’s imagery conveys a sense of finality and sober reality. It is not clear whether the imagery points only to permanency and irreversibility of God’s punitive justice or whether it also includes the consciousness of eternal deprivation”
Next, the Rev 20 passage:
The eternal torment mention is applied only to the Devil, the Beast, and the False Prophet—not to their followers (who are said to be devoured by fire from heaven in verse 9). The devil is clearly an angel, but the Beast is difficult to identify as being an individual human or a group of humans or a nation or a “movement” or a spirit (the biblical data in Revelation and the other Johannine literature is all over the map on this one). Indeed, Alan F. Johnson, a traditionalist, points out in EBCOT this lack of precision:
“The description John gives (in chapter 13) of the beast from the seadoes not describe a mere human political entity such as Rome. Rather, it describes in archetypal language the hideous, Satan-backed system of deception and idolatry that may at any time express itself in human systems of various kinds, such as Rome. Yet at the same time John also seems to be saying that this blasphemous, blaspheming, and blasphemy-producing reality will have a final, intense, and, for the saints, utterly devastating manifestation.
“Yet the same paradox found in chapter 12 also appears here in chapter 13. While the dragon (ch. 12) is, on the one hand, defeated and cast out of heaven, on the other hand, he still has time and ability to wage a relentless war against the people of God. Likewise, the beast (ch. 13) has been dealt a fatal blow by the cross of Christ and yet still has time and ability to wage war against the saints. He appears to be alive and in full command of the scene; his blasphemies increase. What the sea beast cannot accomplish, he commissions the earth beast to do (vv. 11 ff.). All three–the dragon, the sea beast, and the earth beast–though distinguishable, are nevertheless in collusion to effect the same end: the deception that led the world to worship the dragon and the sea beast and the destruction of all who oppose them… It is this description that leads to the fourth reason why identifying the beast exclusively with any one historical personage or empire is probably incorrect. In John’s description of the beast, there are numerous parallels with Jesus that should alert the reader to the fact that John is seeking to establish, not a historical identification, but a theological characterization (though in this there is no implication against the historicity of Jesus): Both wielded swords; both had followers on whose foreheads were inscribed their names (13:16-14:1); both had horns (5:6; 13:1); both were slain, the same Greek word being used to describe their deaths (sphagizo, vv. 3, 8); both had arisen to new life and authority; and both were given (by different authorities) power over every nation, tribe, people, and tongue as well as over the kings of the earth (1:5; 7:9; with 13:7; 17:12). The beast described here is the great theological counterpart to all that Christ represents and not the Roman Empire or any of its emperors. So it is easy to understand why many in the history of the church have identified the beast with a future, personal Antichrist.
“But the question must remain open as to whether John in the Apocalypse points to a single archenemy of the church–whether past or future or to a transhistorical reality with many human manifestations in history. Thus the imagery would function similarly with regard to the image of the woman of chapter 12 or the harlot of chapter 17. If such is the case, this does not mean that John would have denied the earthly historical manifestations of this satanic reality; but it would prevent us from limiting the imagery merely to the Roman Empire or to any other single future political entity.
The False Prophet has a similar imprecision. It is identified with the ‘land beast’ in ” (16:13; 19:20; 20:10). Like the other ‘beasts,’ it can be understood as impersonal (and even identical with the other Beast). So EBCOT:
“While recognizing that no view is without problems, the following discussion takes the position that the land beast is John’s way of describing the false prophets of the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24:24; Mark 13:22). This identification is consistent with the previously stated view of the sea beast as describing not just a specific political reality but the world-wide anti-God system of Satan and its manifestation in periodic, historical human antichrists. The land beast is the antithesis to the true prophets of Christ symbolized by the two witnesses in chapter… If the thought of a nonpersonal antichrist and false prophet seems to contradict the verse that describes them as being cast alive into the lake of fire (19:20), consider that “death” and “Hades” (nonpersons) are also thrown into the lake of fire (20:14).
Accordingly, I don’t get a very good feeling about even the referents in this verse, much less what its imagery means (other than the finality and factuality of final judgment on the forces of evil, which may be the ONLY point of the image, as in the one-major-point parables.)
In Verse 14, “death” and “hades” are said to be thrown into this lake of fire. I can find no other reasonable explanation of these images OTHER THAN their ‘annihilation’ (“death shall be no more”, the “last enemy to be destroyed is death”). I have difficulty even imagining what John saw as he described this. Were these the Death and Hades horse riders from chapter 6.7 (“And when He broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, “Come.” 8 And I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. And authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth.”). If so, what is the content of the immediately preceding verse 13: “and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them”?
The dead are judged and some are thrown into the lake of fire, but there is no indication of never-ending torment (or existence for that matter) for them, and, since this event follows the description of death and Hades being thrown into the lake of fire, it might indicate an annihilation, as G.B. Caird in his commentary on Revelation argues (both 14 and 20, bold is his):
“These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire, which, although they must share it with their human followers, to whom it means annihilation, means something different for beings seemingly incapable of death.” (at 14.20)
“John has allowed for the possibility that a man’s name may be expunged from the look (iii.5), that human disobedience may in the end prove impregnable to the assaults of love. For such people the presence of God could be nothing but a horror from which they, like the earth they made their home, must flee, leaving not a trace behind. For them there remains only the annihilation of the second death. In justice to John let it be noted that the lake of fire is not for men, as it is for the demonic enemies of God, a place of torment.” (at 20.12)
Even the “geography” of this lake should warn us about pressing this too closely. The images STILL focus more on exclusion than on torment. This “lake” is called the Second Death in 20.14. In 21, the New Heavens and New Earth are described, along with the New Jerusalem:
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them, 4 and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” 5 And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He *said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.” 6 And He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. 7 “He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. 8 “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Notice in verse 8 the excluded ones are NOT residents of this new place, but rather are consigned to the lake/second death.
And in 21.14, the theme comes back to exclusion:
Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
The fact that this lake is ALWAYS called “the second death” when dealing with humans (as opposed to angels or demons) leads me to question the traditional understanding of this verse. The use of ‘second death’ here by John brings to mind the various “not perish” passages in John (e.g., 3.16; 10.28), Paul (Rom 2.12; 1 Cor 1.18; 15:50; 2 Cor 2.15; 4:3; 2 Th 2.10) and Peter (2 Pet 3.9), which are generally contrasted with continuing existence (cf., e.g., John 3.16; 6.27; 10:28; Heb 1.11). This data, although not conclusive in itself, seems to not warrant using this passage as an support for never-ending conscious torment of normal humans.
There are other exegetical issues here, but these are enough for me to ‘back off’ from understanding these this way any long.
Accordingly, I cannot in good conscience use these verses to support the traditional view.
It is a good idea to set out objectives at the beginning so what I am looking for in my exegesis are
Any indications of injustice done to either those sentenced to hell, or those allowed into heaven i.e. whether the people are being treated as they deserve
Any right actions taken in the sentencing process.
Any hints about God’s character
A passage from Daniel
“Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:2
This verse talks about the fate of humans at the final judgment. It describes the dead as ‘asleep’ and says that some of them will awake to shame and everlasting contempt. I do not know whether by ‘sleep’ the writer wishes to say that the dead are unconscious or he was merely emphasizing their location – buried in the ground.
“The word “contempt” (דראון derâ’ôn) means, properly, a repulse; and then aversion, abhorrence. The meaning here is aversion or abhorrence – the feeling with which we turn away from what is loathsome, disgusting, or hateful. Then it denotes the state of mind with which we contemplate the vile and the abandoned; and in this respect expresses the emotion with which the wicked will be viewed on the final trial.” – Barnes Notes on the Bible
Glenn Miller is right in saying that this says nothing about mind-numbing torture or even torture at all. It merely says that those ruled to be on the wrong side of the law will experience shame (as they should) and be looked on with contempt.
Question: The actions committed by those judged to be in the wrong are contemptible, but should that feeling extend to the people themselves at the final judgment?
The Weeping, Gnashing of Teeth and Darkness Passages
“I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” – Matthew 8; 11, 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.’ (matt 22.13)
But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (matt 24.48ff)
Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29 For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (matt 25.28ff)
There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. (Luke 13.28ff)
These passages have in common that the evildoers will be (1) thrown out (2) into the darkness (3) where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. This fits with what we already know that evildoers will be separated from the rest of the community (as they should be). I do not know what the darkness signifies and I am not inclined to guess, but it is a very mild word with which to describe torture.
The outer (τὸ ἐξώτερον)
The Greek order of words is very forcible. “They shall be east forth into the darkness, the outer (darkness). The picture is of an illuminated banqueting chamber, outside of which is the thick darkness of night. – Vincent’s word studies
Gill’s Exposition of Entire the Bible says “The allusion in the text is, to the customs of the ancients at their feasts and entertainments; which were commonly made in the evening, when the hall or dining room, in which they sat down, was very much illuminated with lamps and torches; but without in the streets, were entire darkness: and where were heard nothing but the cries of the poor, for something to be given them, and of the persons that were turned out as unworthy guests; and the gnashing of their teeth, either with cold in winter nights, or with indignation at their being kept out.”
If that is so, then the dominant theme is exclusion and the people weep and gnash their teeth (not as I can see yet) at some horrible torture, but at being excluded from something so wonderful and being forced to do without it. The passage from Luke especially emphasizes this.
One passage has the wrongdoer being cut into pieces before being thrown outside, which is weird because I can’t see what purpose it would serve. Destruction, perhaps, but you can only read so much into one parable. It might be construed as torture, but it is done before he is thrown out, not afterwards and it is not lasting, but something that is done once. And even so, it still wouldn’t tell us what goes on in hell. Like the passage that has the wrongdoer being tied hand and foot before being thrown out, it might just be about subduing him. It’s too strong a picture to mean nothing. I’m going to move on before I slaughter this parable.
The Weeping, Gnashing of Teeth and Fiery Furnace Passages
As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (matt 13.40)
Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matt 13.47)
Once again, there is the theme of separation and exclusion. The weeds and the bad fish are separated from the crops and the good fish. But in these parables, they are not thrown into darkness, but into a furnace. What happens in the furnace is “weeping and gnashing of teeth” not “screaming and pain” – the same picture used in the previous passages. Now, feel free to disagree but I think the consistent use of “weeping” instead of “screaming” rules out torture in these passages. Weeping is something people do when they’re very sad. Screaming is what they do when they’re being tortured. One can probably come up with a post-hoc rationalization for why weeping would be used to describe a place of torture so go ahead if you feel inclined to.
That still leaves us with what the fire in the picture is about. Like the darkness, I don’t know but there are speculations. For instance, Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible says:
‘And shall cast them into a furnace of fire,…. Not a material, but a metaphorical one; denoting the wrath of God, which shall fall upon wicked men, and abide upon them to all eternity: which is sometimes called hell fire, sometimes a lake which burns with fire and brimstone; and here a furnace of fire, expressing the vehemency and intenseness of divine wrath, which will be intolerable; in allusion either to Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace, or as some think, to the custom of burning persons alive in some countries; or rather, to the burning of chaff and stubble, and the stalks of any unprofitable things that grew in the field (f), for the heating of furnaces, and is the very language of the Jews, who used to compare hell to a furnace;”
I’m not terribly impressed with the explanation, but I’ll go with it.
The “More Bearable” Passages
“I say to you, it will be more bearable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. 13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 “But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment, than for you.
And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You shall descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. 24 “Nevertheless I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.” (Matt 11.23)
Pretty self-explanatory, no? It seems that Jesus is saying that some people will have a worse result of the judgment because they had more evidence and so rejected more evidence, which brings up the question of how the amount of evidence you reject affects your punishment.
The Consolation Passages
“And it came about in the twelfth year, on the fifteenth of the month, that the word of the Lord came to me saying, 18 “Son of man, wail for the multitude of Egypt, and bring it down, her and the daughters of the powerful nations, to the nether world, with those who go down to the pit; 19 ‘Whom do you surpass in beauty? Go down and make your bed with the uncircumcised.’ 20 “They shall fall in the midst of those who are slain by the sword. She is given over to the sword; they have drawn her and all her multitudes away. 21 “The strong among the mighty ones shall speak of him and his helpers from the midst of Sheol, ‘They have gone down, they lie still, the uncircumcised, slain by the sword.’ 22 “Assyria is there and all her company; her graves are round about her. All of them are slain, fallen by the sword, 23 whose graves are set in the remotest parts of the pit, and her company is round about her grave. All of them are slain, fallen by the sword, who spread terror in the land of the living. 24 “Elam is there and all her multitude around her grave; all of them slain, fallen by the sword, who went down uncircumcised to the lower parts of the earth, who instilled their terror in the land of the living, and bore their disgrace with those who went down to the pit. 25 “They have made a bed for her among the slain with all her multitude. Her graves are around it, they are all uncircumcised, slain by the sword (although their terror was instilled in the land of the living), and they bore their disgrace with those who go down to the pit; they were put in the midst of the slain. 26 “Meshech, Tubal and all their multitude are there; their graves surround them. All of them were slain by the sword uncircumcised, though they instilled their terror in the land of the living. 27 “Nor do they lie beside the fallen heroes of the uncircumcised, who went down to Sheol with their weapons of war, and whose swords were laid under their heads; but the punishment for their iniquity rested on their bones, though the terror of these heroes was once in the land of the living. 28 “But in the midst of the uncircumcised you will be broken and lie with those slain by the sword. 29 “There also is Edom, its kings, and all its princes, who for all their might are laid with those slain by the sword; they will lie with the uncircumcised, and with those who go down to the pit. 30 “There also are the chiefs of the north, all of them, and all the Sidonians, who in spite of the terror resulting from their might, in shame went down with the slain. So they lay down uncircumcised with those slain by the sword, and bore their disgrace with those who go down to the pit. 31 “These Pharaoh will see, and he will be comforted for all his multitude slain by the sword, even Pharaoh and all his army,” declares the Lord God. 32 “Though I instilled a terror of him in the land of the living, yet he will be made to lie down among the uncircumcised along with those slain by the sword, even Pharaoh and all his multitude,” declares the Lord God. (Ezek 32)”
Once again, the dominant themes are of shame and disgrace faced by Pharaoh and all the other evil kings who have gone to the grave. And note also that Pharaoh is to be ‘comforted’ at having his old enemies there with him (powerless to hurt him, Glenn Miller says). This passage seems to be talking not about the final judgment, but about the first death (which we all die, after which comes judgment).
““‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: On the day it[Assyria] was brought down to the realm of the dead I covered the deep springs with mourning for it; I held back its streams, and its abundant waters were restrained. Because of it I clothed Lebanon with gloom, and all the trees of the field withered away. 16 I made the nations tremble at the sound of its fall when I brought it down to the realm of the dead to be with those who go down to the pit. Then all the trees of Eden, the choicest and best of Lebanon, the well-watered trees, were consoled in the earth below. 17 They too, like the great cedar, had gone down to the realm of the dead, to those killed by the sword, along with the armed men who lived in its shade among the nations. (Ezek 31.16ff)”
This is my favorite passage in this lot because it has God initiating mourning not for some righteous nation, but for Assyria, rebellious Assyria. No Bible reading would be complete without something about God’s beautiful and incomprehensible goodness. [Clears throat] Where were we? Oh, right. So the other trees (kingdoms) who had gone down to the grave (destroyed by Assyria I hear) were comforted by Assyria’s demise. This too seems to speak of the pre-judgment death.
So, What Have We Found?
I found no evidence of torture, but indication that there might be none. The only thing I found which might suggest something of the sort is the image of evildoers being thrown into a furnace, but that does not mean that hell will be hurt any more than the darkness image means it will be dark. Anyone using that to argue for torture in hell would have to defend a literal understanding of the word in the parable (it is a parable after all) and explain how hell can be a fire and dark at the same time.
I found that the dominant effect of being sent to hell expressed in these passages is that the people are separated from God and from others and excluded from the joys of God’s kingdom. They will also experience shame.
I found right things done in the passages – the separation of evildoers from others (for safety) and an expression of God’s love even for rebels in Ezekiel 31.
I did find one disturbing thing. The first is the indication that the wrongdoers will be looked upon with contempt at the last judgment. I am perfectly willing to accept their actions as contemptible, but I am not certain that the feeling should extend to the people themselves. They are beings made in God’s image so unless their actions have somehow turned them into beings worthy of contempt… I suppose it is possible. A child who does a right thing is worthy of praise, so does someone who does something contemptible become worthy of contempt, at least in the absence of repentance?
Here’s a rough summary of my take on different formulations of the problem of evil.
1. If a God who is all powerful, all good and all-knowing exists, evil would not exist. Evil exists. Therefore this God does not exist.
There are circumstances in which such a God would exist and evil would exist – where created beings have free will and where evil would produce a greater good, for instance. So, the first premise is untrue
2. The existence of evil in the world is evidence against the existence of God. It makes God’s existence improbable.
This assumes that there is some tension between the idea of God’s existence and the fact that evil exists when, like I previously argued, the two are compatible.
Even granting that this is true, it is outweighed by the evidence for God’s existence (e.g. the moral, teleological, ontological and cosmological arguments).
3. If gratuitous evil exists, God does not exist. Gratuitous evil exists.
It is impossible to show that gratuitous evil exists because we do not have enough knowledge to tell what the future consequences of an event are. So, the second premise cannot be defended.
The first premise is the same as saying if God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist. From the moral argument etc. God exists. Therefore gratuitous evil does not exist.
A lot more can be said of course, but you get the point. I have my responses to the versions of the argument I know pretty laid out – all except one version. “If God exists, he would not let children starve in Africa”
If you think that sounds very much like the versions I previously laid out, you’re going too fast. See, I, like a lot of people, split the problem of evil into “the logical problem of evil” and “the emotional problem of evil”. I’ve been pretty willing to engage with the logical version, but I considered the emotional problem without merit. This does not mean that I did not care about those who suffer. It means that while I considered the suffering caused by evil painful, I did not think our feelings about the issue constitute evidence against God. That hasn’t changed very much, but but it has changed.
Back to the question. I’ll take it step by step.
Step 1: See, hear about or experience an instance of terrible evil, preferable something traumatic.
Step 2: Experience the feelings it produces. The feelings of shock and sadness and that “this should not be”.
Step 3: Put this into words: “If God existed, this should/would not happen”
The problem occurs during the transition from step 2 to step 3. What is said in step 3 is (presumably) what you have been feeling but the instance it is put into words, it makes a lot less sense. It becomes the views I already argued against when I summarized logical versions of the argument. I apologize if you cannot see the point I am making. This is something you experience – feeling that a certain event constitutes evidence for against God’s existence, but the finding that it is no evidence at all the instant you attempt to articulate it.
When a person says “If God exists, he would not let children starve”, you may assume that they are formulating an argument. But they are doing more than that. They are inviting you to picture something and their point depends a lot on the emotional feelings that picture produces. Since the point is so like the deductive problem of evil, one is tempted to reply that God could have morally sufficient reason for allowing such a thing and that is a pretty good answer for someone who is thinking about the issue, as opposed to feeling. For those who have not been able to ignore their feelings about the issue, the answer is insufficient because their feelings keep repeating the point. Not in words like we speak, but in a very compelling manner.
I know the answer to this. That we feel something is true does not make it true. Our feelings change with the weather. They say one thing today and the other tomorrow. And this is where I disagree. Maybe what’s his face (aka Pascal) had a point about our heart having reasons that reason does not know. Maybe our feelings can be reliable judges about truth. They do not give contradictory answers in this situation. There is not one instance in which in the midst of a tragedy, my feelings have given me a different response than “this should not be”. It is my reason that tells me that God could (and sometime does) have sufficient reasons for allowing evil.
But I also cannot say that my feelings are right in saying that given God’s existence, evil should not be present. What I think is that their statements sound so logically incorrect when put into words because they are put into the wrong words. Perhaps what my feelings say in the midst of tragedy is not what I think they are saying. Perhaps that feeling should not be translated into “if God exists, this evil would not” (although it sounds like such a good representation of what I feel). Perhaps if I could translate them more accurately, they would make better sense. Then I could find a satisfying answer to their argument. That’s an awful lot of ‘perhaps’, I know.
Of course, I could just take another tactic and conclude that my evaluations of logical arguments from evil are wrong and that they are good arguments after all. But I fear falling into one serious problem. That is: accepting a bad argument based on feelings whose judgment I am not sure are even nearly trustworthy. I suspect lots of people who use the moral have done this – first conclude based on your feelings that the evil in the world is evidence against God’s existence; then try to find arguments to support that view. This is not a wrong way to proceed if our feelings are reliable judges. But I have been told that they are not.
In case you were wondering, this post was brought on by an emotional crisis. And its claims will probably sound less reasonable as the crisis eases so I’m glad I put it down now. The sum of it all is that why I firmly believe and believe that I can defend the view that logical formulations of the argument from evil do not do as they claim, I am unsure about the emotional ones.
This is another one of my replies to Rautakyy, whose original comments you can find here.
Software is different from humans. It is determinate. When I write code, I can go through it with a pencil and tell you exactly what it will do. If it doesn’t do as it should, I have made an error. This is because it does not have the freedom to choose and do as it wishes. If I write a program to print “The brown fox jumped over the lazy dog”, as long as I write the code correctly, it will do it. It won’t tell me “I don’t want to” (unless I tell it to). The way humans work, on the other hand, is that God has given us information on what is right and what is wrong, but what we do is up to us. Engineers and God just can’t be compared in that way.
I know you weren’t born into any religion. That was a cut & paste from an explanation I gave someone else and I didn’t notice that till it was too late.
I do not know why you think my concept of sin and salvation comes from theologians. I do not think we should blindly accept the worse of theologians. If I did, I would believe a lot of contradictory things because theologians disagree. The Bible does teach about sin and salvation. It teaches that we are all sinners, choosing the wrong thing instead of the right when we know the difference between them, that we cannot save ourselves and God saves us.
“There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” – Romans 3: 22b – 24
“You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die.But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.” Romans 5; 6 – 11
Now, to respond to specific points:
One of your points is that God is responsible for our actions because he knows what we will do. Even if this is true (and I say ‘if’ because I have a slight problem with the second clause), his responsibility does not change ours. Since we have information on what is right and what is wrong and we can choose between them, we are responsible if we choose to do the right thing. God is only responsible in that he chose to create beings who could go wrong as I have previously said and his action needs to be judged by its prudence. Do you see the pattern? People are held responsible for any actions they commit if they can do differently and can know which choices are right and which are wrong.
Another thing you said is that people read the Bible and draw conclusions based on their culture. Firstly, this is not determinate. There is no rule that says if someone was born in a certain culture, their belief will line up with that of their culture. I have believed and do believe certain things about which I was taught differently and which those around me believe because I have information about what is true and what is not. The country I come from has 0% of atheists (for practical purposes) in its population but my brother doubts God’s existence despite the culture. People think for themselves. So, if people have all the information they need, and the ability to think, absent any factors constraining them, how they respond to the information is their choice.
That leads us to your other point which is that some people do not have this information. You ask what I would think if my mother was not taught the Christian concept of right and wrong. It is not as if this concept is an extremely complicated one. No one taught it to me. (Sunday school lessons were sadly inadequate) I had it figured out before I even read it in the Bible.
Step 1: Some things are right and some things are wrong.
Step 2: People who do wrong things should be punished, as a deterrent to prevent others from doing the same, as a statement about what the community thinks of those actions, as an attempt to convince the perpetrator of the wrongness of his action and his need to change, etc.
Step 3: One’s status as a wrongdoer and the need for punishment does not depend on one’s previously right actions. If I were arrested and convicted of murder, the judge would be immoral to let me go because I have previously donated money to charities that help babies, donated blood, volunteered at a food bank and saved a person from drowning. Despite all those things, I would still be a murderer. The judge’s action, would also fail to achieve the things that justice is meant to.
That’s about all you need and no one needs to teach it to you. It’s pretty obvious. And you do not need anything special to figure it out. You just need the ability to think. Yes, perhaps some people think differently, but like the gangster who believes it is okay to kill someone who double-crosses him, or the man who thinks it is okay to rape a girl who dresses provocatively, this does not exonerate them.
And there is little need to worry even if some people do not know what is right and wrong by no fault of theirs. According to Paul, you are not counted responsible for your actions if you have no information that they are wrong.
“To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.” Romans 5:13
“All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)” Romans 2: 12 – 15
“Even the idea that we get to live after death for an eternity, but are eternally divided according to what we found plausible in the short spans of our lifetime is horrible.”
You’re doing it again. Like I have previously said, people are not sent to hell just because of what they believe. They are sent there based on what they have done and what they have proven themselves to be (people unwilling to choose the right thing instead of the wrong one). It is leaving them in a place where they can continue to hurt others for no good reason that is immoral.
As for your other problems with hell, my theological knowledge is not much better than it was when I last replied. I hope you find the time to read the articles I sent you and that they help.