2 questions on hell

[T.A.G.]

2 Questions that I would like to hear what you guys have to say on

1. N.T. Wright (yes he is heretical I know) was talking about heaven and hell not being a place but another dimension here etc. Any one else have any more details on what he is saying or thoughts on this topic.

2. I have heard many in the last few weeks say that the fire is allegorical not literal (in reference to hell) They are not saying hell is allegorical, it is the wrath of God for all eternity, it just doesn't literally have fire everywhere. So my question to you is what do you think about the fire in hell, literal or does it represent something else?

 

[earl40]

So far as being in another "dimension" I do know that those destined for hell have resurected bodies.

 

[Montanablue]

Its always seemed clear to me that heaven was a physical place, so it seems odd to think that hell would not be. I'm sure there are people who can give you a much more learned answer than that - but that's my initial thought whenever someone brings this up.

 

[jwright82]

I don't know. These things are left a little mysterious in Scripture, so we can only speculate.

 

[Vytautas]

C.S. Lewis wrote that the damned are enclosed in their own mind at death, which might similar to Wright's idea. J.P. Holding says that the fire is not literal because of honor/shame idea of the Hebrews. Hell is not about tormenting the damned with pain but with shame. Also there could not be literal fire, if the conditions are completly dark.

 

[Jack K]

Eternal separation from God is at the heart of what makes hell unbearable. The best way for us to imagine it is to consider the unbearable pain of fire. So the fire imagery is suggestive of the real thing, which will be just as bad or worse. Not to say there won't be physical torments as well, but the spiritual torments are severe enough in themselves to appropriately be likened to fire.

 

[Tripel]

I'm not sure if the fire is literal or not, but I'm leaning toward not. Many would disagree with this view, but I tend to favor Tim Keller's description of hell in The Reason for God.

Hell, then, is the trajectory of a soul, living a self-absorbed, self-centered life, going on and on forever...it is simply one's freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity.

 

[Skyler]

I don't think it's clear whether or not the fire is literally air re-radiating heat at visible frequencies or whether it's just the next closest description of the torment. Given that we don't necessarily take the description of Heaven at face value, I don't think we need to take the description of Hell at face value either.

Secondly, we don't know whether Hell is in a "separate dimension" or not. We do know that it's a physical place like Heaven, since those in it will have resurrected bodies. But talking about "separate dimensions" is speculative sci-fi--the Bible certainly doesn't use the term, so I don't think we're warranted to spring for those hypotheses. Best stick with what's revealed when doing theology.

 

[Montanablue]

This discussion has really caught my interest. Can anyone recommend further reading? I have Keller's book, which perhaps I'll re read.

 

[Skyler]

One final comment. There's no dichotomy between a "place" and "another dimension", as Tyler's quote of N.T. Wright seems to indicate. Another dimension is a place.

 

[larryjf]

I find it interesting that worms and fire are related to the torment in Hell (Mk 9:44).
Both of these have the property of consumption.
It puts me in mind of...


"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Mat 6:19-21)


The "destroys" that the moth and rust do is the same word as "consume."

I know i'm not answering the questions...but i just wanted to share what came to mind while watching the discussion.

 

[VictorBravo]

One final comment. There's no dichotomy between a "place" and "another dimension", as Tyler's quote of N.T. Wright seems to indicate. Another dimension is a place.

That was my first thought too. Dimension, no matter how you define it, includes the idea of space, which necessarily means it is somewhere.

 

[youthevang]

I would be interested in knowing how N.T. Wright would interpret Luke 16:22-24 and Revelation 21:7-9.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

There are several different metaphors used to describe hell. And if all were to be taken literally, it would be impossible to fathom. Hell is described as outer darkness, fire, worms, suffering, gnashing of teeth, wrath, etc. These are metaphors for something far worse than we can imagine, something our human language simply doesn't have the capacity to fully describe, but it's enough to realize we don't want to go there.

And we can make the same comparison to the descriptions of heaven. The metaphors and pictures can only give us glimpses of the glory to be revealed for God's people. The reality is too glorious for our present language to describe fully.

 

[tlharvey7]

if the lake of fire is allegorical, than the reality will be unimaginably worse.
i believe this to be case.

---------- Post added at 09:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 PM ----------

Eternal separation from God is at the heart of what makes hell unbearable. The best way for us to imagine it is to consider the unbearable pain of fire. So the fire imagery is suggestive of the real thing, which will be just as bad or worse. Not to say there won't be physical torments as well, but the spiritual torments are severe enough in themselves to appropriately be likened to fire.

Hi Jack!... i don't think hell is eternal separation from God. after all God is everywhere? the problem is that you are forever in the presence of God's wrath

 

[Mephibosheth]

Let me chime in here with a quote from J. Marcellus Kik. This is from An Eschatology of Victory, on page 247:

"It may be questioned whether or not the lake of fire and brimstone is to be considered in a literal way. Personally we believe that this not literal fire and brimstone. One reason for so believing is that the Devil is a spirit. This does not in the least lessen the severity of the punishment but actually makes it more intense. Spiritual suffering is more painful and intense than physical suffering. If fire and brimstone are the figures, the reality is worse. One does not soften the anguish and torment by not believing in a literal fire and brimstone. The torment is so horrible that only these figures of speech can describe it. One must remember that the sufferings of the soul of Christ on the cross were more intense than the sufferings of His body. The Devil might well wish that his only suffering was that endured by a body."

Also (slightly off-topic but related), I once heard James White explain on his podcast that he had been debating Hell with some Annihilationists. They argued that because man is finite and can only commit a finite number of sins, God cannot be just in giving the damned an eternal punishment, no less by an eternally-burning fire. Dr. White's reasoning was that since the sinner in Hell was left in his sin, he naturally still hates God. Hatred of God is obviously sin, so the sinner would eternally exist in a perpetual state of hatred of God, and thus never exhaust his just punishment.

 

[jwright82]

As far as the lake of fire goes it may not be literal or allegorical but analogical. God may be revealing something to us that is beyond our current ability to comprehend so he uses the images of the lake of fire to reveal something about the future just not an exact detail by detail phrase.

 

[Skyler]

Dr. White's reasoning was that since the sinner in Hell was left in his sin, he naturally still hates God. Hatred of God is obviously sin, so the sinner would eternally exist in a perpetual state of hatred of God, and thus never exhaust his just punishment.

That's James White for you. Flinging out an astonishingly rational argument that you never would have thought of.