The Nature of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of Eternal Damnation

This was one of the darkest papers I wrote in terms of the subject at hand. It was also one of the best papers I ever wrote though my professor disagreed with my conclusion (I still hold the same view now that I did then on this). As always, please feel free to reach out with questions.

THE NATURE OF HELL:

A BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF ETERNAL DAMNATION

JONATHAN SMITH

THEO 350

AUGUST 16, 2013

Introduction

One of the most misunderstood and terrifying doctrines of the Bible is hell. Albert Mohler even says that the doctrine of hell “is routinely dismissed as an embarrassing artifact from an ancient age.” While most evangelical Christians today believe that hell exists, there has been a significant amount of controversy of what the true nature of hell is, as well as the fate of the inhabitants of hell. Hell, the eternal abode for the devil, his angels, and unsaved humans, is best distinguished by the Classical View of Hell, while another view on hell, the Annihilationist View of Hell, severely waters down the biblical significance and truth about hell. 

Explanation of Different Viewpoints on the Nature of Hell

The Classical View of Hell has been “the dominant teaching of the church throughout its history.” The Classical View of Hell holds “the belief that eternal punishment for the wicked is everlasting and that it is punitive, not redemptive.” Scripturally, advocates of the Classical View of Hell cite a couple of passages in the Old Testament as well as several passages in the New Testament (Dan. 12:2; Isa. 66:24; Matt. 25:31-46; Luke 16:19-31; 2 Thess. 1:8-9). The Classical View of Hell has a strong defense in its favor, including “church tradition,” the “sin against an infinite God” argument, the “criminals must pay” argument, and the “no fear of hell” argument.”

The Annihilationist View of Hell, or conditionalism, teaches that “the wicked will ultimately be exterminated and cease to exist.” In other words, “the final end of the unrighteous is nonexistence.” Furthermore, this view of hell asserts that “hell is eternal in consequence, not duration.” Scripturally, the Annihilationist View of Hell quotes several Old Testament and New Testament passages (Isa. 66:24; Deut. 29:20; 29:23; Ps. 1:6; 50:22; 69:28; 37:38; 1 Thess. 5:3; Phil. 3:18-19; 2 Pet. 3:7). The arguments for the Annihilationist View of Hell include the beliefs that “unending suffering is inconsistent with the love of God” and “unending torment is inconsistent with God’s victory.”

Discussion of Personal Viewpoint on the Nature of Hell

The author’s personal viewpoint of hell is that of the Classical View of Hell, with a concentration on the metaphorical nature of hell, because of its strong, well-meaning argument, both theologically and biblically, over the Annihilationist View of Hell. The author’s argument of the Classical View of Hell has two primary objectives. First, the Classical View of Hell can be shown to be the soundest argument for the true nature of hell. Second, arguments from opposing views will be revealed and addressed as well.

The Classical View of Hell holds to the view that hell is “eternal in [both] duration” and “in consequence.” The eternal nature of hell in both its existence and punishment is evident in the Scripture as well (Dan. 12:2; Rev. 14:11; 19:20; 20:10-13; Matt. 18:8; 25:41; 25:46; Jude 1:7). The apostle Paul even discussed hell in 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10, where he wrote that God punishes unbelievers, with the resulting punishment being eternal separation from God as well as everlasting destruction. The punishment that unbelievers will face in hell has been debated for centuries. It is the author’s understanding that the punishments mentioned in Scripture should not necessarily be interpreted literally, but instead, metaphorically (Matt. 5:22; 13:42; 22:13; Mark 9:48; Rev. 21:8; 19:20). In fact, there are three reasons as to why there is such a graphic, horrifying depiction of hell. 

First, back in the ancient era, “rabbis (and this includes Jesus) often used colorful speech to bring home forcefully their points.” An example given by William V. Crockett is that of Matthew 5:29, where Jesus explains that gouging out one’s eye if it sins is better than having your entire body tossed into hell. Crockett explains that what Jesus means here is “that sin is so serious that it is better to lose an eye than to perish in hell.” 

Second, “the writers [of Jewish literature] do not intend their descriptions to be literal depictions of the fate of the damned, but rather warnings of coming judgment.” For example, in reference to 1 Corinthians 3:15, “the fire that burns up the works of individuals…is not a literal fire, but something far greater.” Furthermore, “fire in Jewish and early Christian writings is used to create a mood of seriousness or reverence.” 

Third, interpreting the nature of hell metaphorically prevents any contradictions that are evident in the Scripture, such as the “lake of fire” described in Revelation 20:15 alongside the “darkness” described in Matthew 8:12. It seems to make sense since the writers want to “paint the most awful image of hell they can, no matter how incompatible the images might be.” Does this mean that the metaphorical interpretation of hell softens its image? No, absolutely not, especially when taking into account the above context and understanding that these writers had in mind. With this metaphorical interpretation of the nature of hell in mind, a discussion of hell’s nature is in order. 

From the metaphorical interpretation of the nature of hell, the imagery of “literal fire is a possibility,” though there is also “a fire that may be worse than literal fire.” This fire, described by Erwin Lutzer, “is the fire of unfulfilled passion, of desires that are never satisfied.” Lutzer further explains that “burning lusts never subside” and that there is an “increased desire with decreased satisfaction,” as well as “unquenchable, raging guilt.”  Scripture appears to agree with Lutzer’s interpretation as well about the anguish of those in hell (Rev. 14:11; 2 Pet. 2:4; Luke 16:23; Rev. 20:13; Dan. 12:2; Mark 9:48; Matt. 13:41-42; 24:51; Gal. 6:8). Furthermore, each unbelieving person will be judged for what they did in this life at the Great White Throne Judgment and their eternal destiny will rest in hell (Rev. 20:11-15). Since the Great White Throne Judgment results in judgment of each person according to what they have done, does this mean that there are various degrees of punishment in hell? 

In the author’s opinion, the Scripture appears to imply that there are (Matt. 10:15; 11:20-24; Luke 10:13-14; 20:46-47; Mark 12:38-40; Heb. 10:29; 2 Cor. 5:10). Lutzer writes that “God is meticulously just” and Scripture certainly defends this characteristic of God, especially in regards to rewards for believers in heaven (1 Pet. 1:17; 1 Cor. 3:12-15; Matt. 5:11-12; Luke 6:22-24; 2 Cor. 5:10). In his book The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel poses a scenario in an interview with JP Moreland, in which he says, “…it violates our sense of fairness that Adolf Hitler would bear the same eternal punishment as someone who lived a pretty good life by our standards, but who made the decision not to follow God.” In their dialogue, Moreland eventually says, “…if God really does let people shape their own character by the thousands of choices they make, he is also going to allow them to suffer the natural consequences of the character that they’ve chosen to have.” Since God is just, it would seem, theologically-speaking, that God would certainly give His creation their wish, whether it is eternal life in heaven or eternal damnation in hell. Despite the biblical and theological basis for the Classical View of Hell, two objections are raised that both undermine God and misinterpret Scripture.

The first objection that the Classical View of Hell faces is the belief that “eternal hell is cruel.” Furthermore, opponents say, alongside the cruelty of hell, that God is cruel for purposely sending people to hell, hence the reason for beliefs on hell such as universalism, which is the belief that all people “will safely arrive to heaven.” There are three responses that can be said in regards to these objections. 

First, God is just and is impartial in his judgment upon people, whether they are righteous or wicked (1 Pet. 1:17; 2 Cor. 5:10). Hell is “everlasting separation from God.” For God to force all people to go to heaven against their will would be considered “immoral.” How can it be immoral? Well, God has given every single person free will and to forcefully take away that choice would result in “dehumanizing them,” or stripping “them of the dignity of making their own decision.” 

Second, God is not responsible for “sending people to hell.” As stated in the prior response, humans have free will to choose whether or not they want to accept or reject God.  While it is true that God knew who His elect were before the world was created (1 Pet. 1:20; Eph. 1:4-5), God’s desire is that all people will love Him and be in heaven one day (2 Pet. 3:9). However, sending people to heaven against their own will, as stated above, is wrong. In response to the objection of sending people to heaven against their own will, Moreland says, “When God allows people to say ‘no’ to him, he actually respects and dignifies them.” 

Third, saying that God is cruel “is somewhat mitigated if we consider that the images used throughout Scripture to describe hell are not literal.” In the author’s opinion, it is not an issue if the nature of hell as depicted in the Scripture is literal, though he takes a metaphorical interpretation of it. However, Jesus says that hell was prepared for the devil and his angels, not for humans (Matt. 25:41). This means that even if hell’s nature is literal as the Scripture depicts it, it was never meant for humans; it was meant for Satan and his angels. Regardless, when taking into account the first response that addresses how God is just, it is reasonable and justified to say that God is free to do justice as He sees fit and that whatever He chooses to do, regardless of a human’s limited understanding and intellectual capability, will be justice because that is who God is. 

The second objection that the Classical View of Hell faces is the belief that “Scripture teaches annihilation.” Sadly, this is the result of completely misinterpreting the meaning of verses.  First, “Old Testament authors are primarily interested in how God’s justice gets played out in history.” None of these verses refer to “the ultimate destiny of the wicked, but to the earthly fate of the wicked (Isa. 1:28, 30-31; Ps. 37:38).” Second, the New Testament does use the word “destroy” or “destruction” (Matt. 10:28). However, destruction does not mean “to annihilate,” but instead is better translated as “to be delivered up to eternal misery.” Furthermore, Jesus emphasizes an eternal life for both the saved and unsaved, whether it is in heaven or hell, respectively (Matt. 25:46).

Conclusion

The nature of hell is one of the most misunderstood doctrines in the Scripture. When understood from the Annihilationist View of Hell, there is a strong discord of verses, coupled with murky interpretations and an underestimation of the holiness of God. However, when understood from the Classical View of Hell, the nature of hell comes to fruition, resulting in a firm biblical and theological viewpoint that results in not only a better understanding what hell is, but also a better tool to witness to others and give a more thorough, clear explanation of one of the most complex doctrines in theology.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boyd, Gregory A. and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

Crockett, Stanley N. Gundry, John F. Walvoord, Zachary J. Hayes, Clark H. Pinnock William. Four Views On Hell. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996.

Lutzer, Erwin W. One Minute After You Die. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2007.

Morgan, Christopher W., and Robert A. Peterson. Hell under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Faith: a Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity. Supersaver ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000.