The Problem of the Doctrine⤒🔗

Our study of the Bible's teaching regarding the future brings us to the subject of the final state. Here, as with many aspects of the Bible's teaching about the future, we enter territory that is only broadly described in the Scriptures. Much of what, in our curiosity, we would like to know (or think we know) about the future is not told us. Only the important and neces­sary truths are. I will attempt to stay with these, therefore, in what fol­lows, resisting the temptation to wander off into uncharted territory.

Even if I am fairly successful, how­ever, in remaining within the boundaries of Scripture on the topic of the final state, there is no avoid­ing the obvious fact that one side of the Bible's teaching about the final state, namely, the eternal punishment of the un­believing and impenitent in hell, is today either neglected or disapproved. This is only a polite way of saying: the doc­trine of eternal punishment is to most people, in the environment of post-Christian and post-modern North American culture, simply ab­horrent and unacceptable. Nothing can more quickly compromise a person's credibility today than the discovery that they believe the doc­trine of hell in anything like its his­toric Christian understanding. In­deed, it is hard to imagine a doc­trine more at odds with the affec­tion of moderns for the virtues of "tolerance" and "openness."¹   What could be more offensive to modern sensibilities than the conviction that those who do not believe in Christ or repent at the preaching of the gospel are destined to suffer eternally in hell?

A quick glance at recent treat­ments of the doctrine of hell readily confirms its unpopularity. Authors speak of Hell on Trial,²   The Other Side of the Good News,³"On Banishing the Lake of Fire,"⁴  and The Problem of Eternal Punishment.⁵  Roman Catholic theologians speak of "anonymous" Christians (Karl Rahner) or of a larger hope that all will be saved.⁶   Even among evangelical authors, alternative views of the final state for those who are not saved are be­ing affirmed. The doctrine of hell, never an easy doctrine to affirm, has become the subject of renewed dis­cussion, most of it by those who are looking for some alternative to the traditional view. At no time has it been more unpopular, even within the church, to affirm the doctrine of everlasting punishment.

The Historic or Traditional View←⤒🔗

Due to the unpopularity of this doctrine and the frequent attempts to revise it today, even within con­servative evangelical contexts, it is necessary to begin with a brief statement of the historic position of the church on the subject of hell. Only against the background of this historic understanding can we evaluate the more common revi­sions to this understanding that are being proposed. What has the or­thodox Christian church historically taught regarding the doctrine of eternal punishment or hell?

If I were to summarize the doc­trine in my own words, it would go something like the following. All those persons whom God does not save through the work of Christ will be, subsequent to the resurrection and the final judgment, consigned to hell. Hell, though its exact nature and location remain somewhat un­determined, will be a place of un­ending punishment for God's en­emies. Those who have lived in en­mity against God will find them­selves forever banished from His blessed presence, in a state of con­scious awareness of His disfavor.

Among the Reformation confes­sions, the following statements well represent this traditional Christian understanding of hell:

And therefore the consideration of this judgment is justly ter­rible and dreadful to the wicked and ungodly, but most desirable and comfortable to the righ­teous and elect; because then their full deliverance shall be perfected, and there they shall receive the fruits of their labor and trouble which they have borne. Their innocence shall be known to all, and they shall see the terrible vengeance which God shall execute on the wicked, who most cruelly persecuted, oppressed, and tor­mented them in this world, and who shall be convicted by the testimony of their own con­sciences, and shall become im­mortal, but only to be tormented in the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels.

Belgic Confession, Art. 37

The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of his justice, in the dam­nation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the pres­ence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal tor­ments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. XXXIII.ii

Though these confessional state­ments set a proper standard of so­briety and reserve in what they say about hell, and though their focus remains primarily fixed upon the comfort that God's people derive from the gospel and its promises, they clearly affirm a doctrine of eter­nal punishment. The language used, echoing that of the Scriptures, underscores the reality and horror of hell as a place of unceasing, con­sciously felt punishment upon the wicked and unbelieving. With an economy of words, these confes­sions affirm what the orthodox Christian church has always taught respecting the doctrine of hell. Even though they do not attempt any de­tailed description of hell as a place of eternal punishment, they clearly affirm its reality.

Identifying the Alternatives←⤒🔗

If this is the shape of the historic doctrine of the church, what are some of the more common alterna­tives to this doctrine that are being proposed today? Without attempt­ing to be exhaustive in what follows, the chief alternatives to the historic doctrine are universalism and annihilationism. Each of these alterna­tives takes various forms, but, for my purpose, I will mention only the most important variations among them.

Universalism←↰⤒🔗

Universalism is the teaching that, in the end, all men will be saved. No human being will ultimately fail to enjoy the fulness of salvation, by whatever means or route that salva­tion be obtained. Universalism can take, broadly speaking, one of two forms: pluralistic or Christian.⁷   Plural­istic universalism teaches that there are many ways of salvation, the Christian faith being one among them, each of which has its own le­gitimacy and integrity. Christian uni­versalism teaches that Christ is the one way of salvation which all will ultimately travel, either in this life or in the life to come.

In its Christian expression, univer­salism affirms that Christ alone is the Mediator and Savior of all. No one will obtain salvation apart from the saving work of Christ. However, this saving work is universal in its scope or reach; no one will finally be lost or suffer eternal punishment in hell. All human beings without exception will be saved through the work of Christ. Christian universal­ism, like pluralistic universalism, is able to accommodate various forms and expressions. Sometimes, for example, those who advocate a Christian universalism will include the provision for a second opportu­nity for people to be saved after death, or they may speak of a period of purgatory, subsequent to death, during which some are fitted for the enjoyment of salvation as they suf­fer a temporary punishment for the sins committed in this life.

Annihilationism (Conditional Immortality)←↰⤒🔗

Annihilationism is the view that, with the exception of those who are saved and enjoy everlasting life in God's presence in the life to come, all those who are lost will ultimately be annihilated. Those who are lost will not suffer any unending tor­ment in hell. Rather, the punish­ment of the wicked will take its fi­nal form in their extinction. The punishment of the wicked will be eternal in the sense of result, but not in the sense of experience.

Annihilationism can and does take many forms.⁸  It is clearly the most tempting and therefore dangerous alternative to the traditional doctrine of hell among evangelicals today. In the form of what is called conditional immortality, it has captivated an increasing number of evangelical theologians, some of them of considerable ability and in­fluence.⁹   As this language suggests, conditional immortality teaches that only those who meet the con­ditions for benefiting from Christ's saving work (however those condi­tions be described) will obtain im­mortality. All others will be annihi­lated, either immediately upon death or subsequent to a limited period of suffering or punishment after death. In its most common evangelical form, the annihilation of the lost will take place after they have endured some kind of punishment for their sin and disobedience. So far as the doc­trine of hell is concerned, condi­tional immortality denies any doc­trine of unending or conscious tor­ment of the wicked.

Since this common form of annihilationism, conditional immortality, is the most subtle and dangerous alternative to the his­toric doctrine of eternal punish­ment, I will focus upon its argu­ments in what follows. If the argu­ments of the more conservative de­fenders of this view cannot be sustained — as I believe they cannot — then it follows that the more radi­cal denials of the doctrine of hell cannot be sustained either. Conse­quently, I will conclude this article by noting the primary objections to the doctrine of hell often cited by advocates of conditional immortal­ity.

The Primary Objections←⤒🔗

Among contemporary advocates of annihilationism or conditional immortality, there are several objec­tions to the traditional doctrine of hell that are commonly raised. Though these objections may not be stated in the same way or have the same degree of importance among different advocates of this position, they tend to recur in the writings of those who oppose the doctrine of eternal punishment.¹⁰

The first and perhaps most impor­tant objection to the doctrine of eternal punishment is the claim that the Bible speaks of the ulti­mate destruction of the wicked (e.g. Philippians 3:19; 1 Thessalonians 5:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 2 Peter 3:7). The idea of destruction, it is argued, suggests the annihila­tion, the ceasing-to-be, of the wicked, rather than their continued existence in a situation of torment or punishment. In the Scriptures and in our ordinary use of this lan­guage, destruction usually means the cessation of something's exist­ence. Edward Fudge, an influential defender of annihilationism whose 1982 book, The Fire That Consumes¹¹  was an alternative selection of the Evangelical Book Club, argues that this is the uniform testimony of the Old and New Testaments. The de­struction of the wicked after the fi­nal judgment means simply that they are removed from existence.

A second and related objection to the doctrine of eternal punishment appeals to the biblical imagery used to describe this punishment. Just as the language of destruction sug­gests complete cessation of exist­ence, so the imagery of fire suggests a process or act whereby the sinner is completely consumed. Like the burning of the chaff at the return of the Judge in Matthew 3:12, so the burning of the wicked at the last judgment will ut­terly destroy and remove them.

The third objection to the doctrine of eternal punishment takes advan­tage of the apparent ambiguity in the language of "eternal." In the his­tory of the church, the parallel be­tween "eternal" life and "eternal" punishment in a passage like Mat­thew 25:46 has been a basis for ar­guing that hell is a place of unend­ing punishment. However, many ad­vocates of the doctrine of annihila­tion maintain that, in the case of eternal punishment, this need only mean that the punishment has an unending result or consequence. It does not require the conclusion that the punishment involves an unending awareness of God's judg­ment. Annihilation is an eternal punishment, but only in the sense that its consequences never end.

In addition to these more directly biblical objections to the doctrine of eternal punishment, there are several objections of a more theo­logical nature. These objections raise questions about the consistency of the doctrine of eternal pun­ishment with other doctrines clearly taught in the Bible.

The first of these theological ob­jections and the fourth objection that I will mention argues that the doctrine of hell is incompatible with what we know of the love of God. The horrible prospect of God's pun­ishing sinners unceasingly in hell for their sins seems repugnant to the love and goodness of God, es­pecially as this has been revealed in the gospel. Those who raise this objection insist that God could not possibly eternally punish the sinner in hell, were He a God of love. Clark Pinnock, a leading evangelical pro­ponent of the doctrine of annihila­tion as an alternative to the doc­trine of hell, has put this objection in the strongest terms:

Let me say at the outset that I consider the concept of hell as endless torment in body and mind an out­rageous doctrine, a theological and moral enormity, a bad doc­trine of the tradition which needs to be changed. How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictive­ness whose ways in­clude inflicting everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been. Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards, and by the gospel itself... Does the one who told us to love our enemies intend to wreak vengeance on his own enemies for all eternity?¹²

The fifth objection to the doctrine of eternal punishment is similar to the fourth in that it argues that this doctrine is incompatible with what we know of the justice of God. If justice in its most basic meaning has to do with due proportion or receiving one's due, this objection maintains that an eternal punishment of the sinner in hell would be a punish­ment that outweighed the crime. The doctrine of hell, it is objected, teaches that a limited offense will receive at the hands of God an unlimited penalty. But this is mani­festly unjust. It would be a clear case of the punishment being far more weighty and grievous than the crime committed.

The sixth and last objection to the doctrine of hell argues that it would mar the perfection and glory of the eternal state. To say that God's pur­poses in history would terminate in part with the eternal punishment of the wicked in hell, seems to suggest that the redemptive work of God in history will fall short of bringing about the fulness of blessing and joy. The beauty of paradise regained will be marred by the continued and eternal presence of sinners under the judgment of God in hell. Consequently, the eternal joy and per­fection of God's kingdom will have to compete with the jarring re­minder of sin and sin's conse­quences. According to this objec­tion, the consummation of God's purposes in history would then be a little bit like a story without an al­together happy ending. The joy of heaven would be muted by the presence of hell.

I have acknowledged that no teaching of Scripture is more apt to be rejected than the doctrine of eternal punishment. The nature of the doctrine itself makes it unpalatable to many. But especially in the cul­tural and intellectual environment of post-Christian and post-modern North American society, the notion that God would unendingly punish the unbelieving in hell is generally regarded as unacceptable. No teaching of Scripture labors, accord­ingly, under a more severe burden of proof than the historic view of the Christian church that not all are saved, and that those who are lost will suffer an eternal separation from God's favor.

Given this burden of proof, my approach to the doctrine of eternal punishment will be to answer the objections often registered against it. Though it would be possible to argue that the burden of proof lies with those who are departing from the historic consensus of the Chris­tian church — as indeed they are — I will deliberately assume the posture of a defender of this consensus. In so doing, I will address the primary biblical arguments against the doc­trine.

The Language of "Destruction"←⤒🔗

Perhaps the most common bibli­cal argument against the doctrine of eternal punishment appeals to the language of destruction in connection with the final state of the wicked. The most common terms in the New Testament for "to destroy" or "destruction," according to this argument, simply mean to cause to cease to exist, or the state of no longer existing.¹³  For example, when Herod plotted to kill the newborn babies in Bethlehem in order to get rid of the Lord Jesus, he is said to have sought to "destroy" him (Matthew 2:13). In His instruction of the dis­ciples, Jesus also spoke of being afraid, not of someone who can only "destroy" the body, but of the One "who can destroy both body and soul in hell." (Matthew 10:28, emphasis mine). The straightforward meaning of this language of destruction seems to be that of an act that causes something or someone to cease to exist. As John R. W. Stott remarks, "If to kill is to deprive the body of life, hell would seem to be the deprivation of both physical and spiritual life, that is, an extinction of being." ¹⁴   Furthermore, in two pas­sages where a different term for "de­struction" is used (1 Thessalonians 5:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:9), the implication seems to be that this destruction involves an annihilation or cessation of the existence of those who experience it.¹⁵

When this same term is used in the middle or intransitive form, meaning "to perish" or "to die," a similar idea is expressed. When something or someone perishes, this is tantamount to its ceasing to be. In Luke 15:17, we read that when the prodigal son came to his senses, he said, "How many of my father's hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger." The apostle Paul, de­scribing the fate of those Israelites who tested the Lord, speaks of their being "destroyed by the serpents" (1 Corinthians 10:9). These passages speak of a kind of physical perishing or de­struction. However, several pas­sages also speak of an eternal per­ishing or dying in connection with hell. The well-known verse, John 3:16, describes those who believe in the only begotten Son of God as those who "shall not perish but have everlasting life." In his declaration of the judgment upon those who have "sinned without the law," the apostle Paul speaks of their perish­ing without the law (Romans 2:12). In 1 Corinthians 15:18, the same apostle insists that a denial of the resurrection of the body for believ­ers means that they will have "per­ished." Furthermore, the Lord who is not slow regarding His promise is said not to wish that any should per­ish (2 Peter 3:9).

Though this kind of argument has a superficial air of plausibility about it, it does not stand up well under cross-examination. Certainly, as several of the references cited show, the language of destruction can be used to describe something like cessation of existence. But this is not always the case. There are other instances of the use of this lan­guage to describe something rather different than the cessation of exist­ence.

In the well-known parables of the "lost" coin or the "lost" son in Luke 15, the term Jesus uses in each case is the same term as the one used for "to destroy" in the passages cited in the preceding. No one would conclude from this language, however, that the coin or the prodi­gal son ceased to exist. The destruc­tion in these instances is quite dif­ferent than the idea of annihilation. Likewise, in Matthew 9:17 the term used to describe the "bursting" or the "ruining" of the wineskins is the common term for "to destroy." The destruction of these wineskins is not their ceasing to be, but their ceasing to be useful for their in­tended purpose. When the disciples of Jesus rebuked the woman who anointed Jesus with costly oint­ment, they are said to have declared her excess a "waste." Here the term translated "waste" is the same term translated elsewhere as "destruc­tion." Again, we are not to conclude from this language that the oint­ment ceased to exist — only that it was inappropriately or excessively used in the anointing of Jesus as a sign of the woman's affection.

Due to this diverse use of the lan­guage of to destroy or destruction, it is much too simplistic to argue from it for a doctrine of annihilationism. Though this language may some­times be used for something like the cessation of existence, the real issue is whether it ever has this meaning when used regarding the final state of the unbelieving. If annihilationism is to be demonstrated, then it will have to be shown that the language of destruction, when describing the destiny of the unbelieving, must mean their ceasing to be. Moreover, for this to be demonstrated, it would also have to be shown that, in other biblical passages that speak of the final state of the unbe­lieving, the idea of ongoing exist­ence and experience is not affirmed. This, as I hope to show in what follows, cannot be done.

The Language of a Consuming "Fire"←⤒🔗

A second and similar argument against the doctrine of everlasting punishment also appeals to the kind of language used in the Scrip­tures to describe this state. Not only do we find several passages that speak of the "destruction" of the wicked, but we also find several that use the image of a "fire that consumes." ¹⁶  This language, to­gether with other common images for the final state of the wicked, sug­gests that the final outcome of God's judgment upon the unbeliev­ing is their extinction or annihila­tion. As Edward Fudge, perhaps the leading critic of the traditional doc­trine of everlasting punishment, puts it in his commentary on Mat­thew 5:29, 30 ("it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell"):

Jesus makes Gehenna the place of final punishment. Here he gives no graphic description of its destruction or even its dura­tion; only this, that those who enter it go from another place, having been discarded and ex­pelled by God. The picture is one of total loss, and it is en­tirely in keeping with the Old Testament to see that loss as ultimately consummated in de­struction by fire.¹⁷

Just as fire finally consumes its object, so the fire of hell utterly consumes the wicked. To speak of the continued or unending experience of hell neglects to take account of the way fire or­dinarily destroys and extin­guishes its object.¹⁸

There are two levels at which this kind of argument can be answered. The first level is hermeneutical: Is it permissible to take the language of fire in such a literal, non-metaphori­cal way, and draw the conclusion that fire, in the nature of the case, must utterly consume its object? The second level is more directly textual: Do the texts that employ this kind of imagery lend any support to the position of the annihilationist?

At the first level, the hermeneuti­cal, it would seem that annihila­tionists fail to take seriously the metaphorical language of the Scrip­tures in the descriptions of hell. To say that these descriptions are of­ten metaphorical in no way requires a diminishing of the reality of hell. Hell is certainly real. But the de­scriptions of hell in the Scripture can hardly be pressed literally. For example, the imagery of a consum­ing fire — imagery which certainly bespeaks God's holy punishment and judgment of the wicked — is fre­quently coupled with the imagery of the "worm that does not die" (e.g. Mark 9:48; cf. Isaiah 66:24). Were we to insist upon the literal fire that con­sumes, it would seem rather incom­patible with a worm working but without being liable to death. D. A. Carson, commenting on this feature of the biblical language, notes that "if the worms do not die, what keeps them alive once they have devoured all the people? The question is ugly and silly, precisely because it is de­manding a concrete and this worldly answer to the use of lan­guage describing the realities of punishment in a future world still largely inconceivable." ¹⁹

It is simply impossible to press the language regarding hell in the Scriptures in a purely literal manner. To do so creates more prob­lems than the annihilationist is ready to acknowledge. If the literal meaning of fire is that of a force that consumes its object, then that literal meaning also includes the idea of a rapid, quick process. Many annihilationists, however, want to allow for a period of time during which the wicked undergo differing de­grees of punishment prior to their eventual annihilation.²⁰   This idea of a period of time, however, seems rather incompatible with the way literal fire works. Fire burns and consumes its object rapidly. More­over, once a literal fire has con­sumed its object, it is no longer able to be sustained or fueled by that which it consumes. In the bib­lical imagery and descriptions of the fire of hell, however, the fire is explicitly described as "eternal" (Matthew 18:8). Like the worm that does not die, it is a fire that is never extin­guished. Indeed, in Jesus' unforget­table description of hell in Mark 9:47-48, we read of those who are thrown into hell where "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" (emphasis mine). There is in this description a close corre­lation between the worm and the fire on the one hand, and the wicked and the unbelieving on the other. Just as the worm continues to work and the fire is unquenchable, so those upon whom they work con­tinue to experience their effects.²¹

One additional example of the metaphorical nature of the imagery regarding hell is the language of "darkness" or "outer darkness" that is often used in the Scriptures. In Matthew 8:12, Jesus forewarns that the "sons of the kingdom shall be thrown into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." The guest at the wedding banquet who is present without the appropriate wedding garment in Matthew 22 is likewise bound hand and foot and cast into "outer darkness" (v. 13). This theme or motif of hell as a place of darkness is commonly (see Matthew 25:30; 2 Peter 2:17) found in the Scriptures. Darkness represents the absence of the light of God's favor and countenance. To be cast into darkness is to be cast away from the favor and gracious presence of the Lord. Remarkably, in one passage the imagery of an "eternal fire" and of "black darkness" are used in the same context to refer to different dimensions of the reality of the eternal punishment of the wicked (Jude: 7 & 13). Now, if we were to in­sist upon a literal reading of this imagery, the result would be confus­ing and incoherent. A literal fire and a literal place of darkness cannot be true of one and the same reality. This only illustrates the metaphori­cal nature of the biblical language; the differing images represent dif­fering dimensions or features of hell. Hell is not only a place where the unbelieving suffer God's holy displeasure (fire), but it is also a place where the unbelieving experi­ence what it means to be excluded or separated from His blessed pres­ence (darkness).

An "Eternity" of Result or Experience?←⤒🔗

The second level at which the ar­gument that the fire of hell is a fire that consumes is more directly tex­tual. Do the biblical texts support the claim of the annihilationist that the wicked are ultimately destroyed or consumed? That they cease to exist, accordingly, after they experi­ence God's judgment? According to annihilationism, this is the only sense in which the punishment of the unbelieving is eternal or unend­ing: it is eternal in the sense of re­sult, but not in the sense of conscious experience of God's displea­sure in hell.²²  If the wicked are de­stroyed or consumed, this has re­sults that endure throughout eter­nity, but not in the sense of any on­going awareness of God's judgment.

There are several biblical texts, however, that militate against this view. These texts speak not only of hell as a place of fire and judgment, but also of the unending nature of these realities. They constitute, therefore, a compelling basis for the historic doctrine of eternal punish­ment and against the claim of annihilationism.

One of these texts, Matthew 25:46, is the well-known conclusion to Jesus' account of the final judgment and the separation of the sheep and the goats: "And these (the goats) will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Not surprisingly, annihilationists attempt to take the language of eternal punishment in this text to mean something other than a temporally unlimited or ev­erlasting experience of God's judg­ment. This is done typically in one of two ways: either the adjective "eternal" is taken in a qualitative sense to mean a kind of punishment, or it is taken temporally to refer to the ongoing result of God's punish­ment in the annihilation of the wicked. The first of these interpre­tations seizes upon the root of the term used for "eternal" in this text — aeon or "age." Jesus is therefore speaking of a kind of punishment, one that corresponds to the age to come. The obvious problem with this in­terpretation is that it neglects the inescap­able temporal aspect of the coming age, namely, that it is an age having no end or conclusion. In the Gospel of Mat­thew, the use of this language al­ways has this temporal meaning, referring to an unlimited period of time.²³

The second of these interpreta­tions is well represented by Clark Pinnock.

Jesus does not define the nature of eternal life or eternal death in this text. He just says there will be two destinies and leaves it there. One is free to interpret it to mean either everlasting con­scious torment or irreversible destruction. The text allows for both possibilities and only teaches explicitly the finality of the judgment itself, not its nature.²⁴

Though Pinnock may be correct to say that his understanding of this text is possible, there is a consid­erable difference between a possible reading of the text and the likeliest reading of it. Three features of the text make    and the annihilationist's reading most un­likely. First, the text is preceded in verse 41 by another description of hell that parallels the description of verse 46: "Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels." This description, like the one provided in verse 46, seems clearly to teach the presence of a fire or a punishment that has no end or conclusion. Second, the lan­guage of verse 46 speaks of an eter­nal punishment, strong language that suggests the experience or felt awareness of God's displeasure. And third, the parallel and contrast in this verse is between an "eternal" punishment and an "eternal" life. The simplest reading of this text would conclude that in each case there is an everlasting experience — of punishment on the one hand, of life and blessing on the other.

Another important text in answer­ing the challenge of annihilationism is Revelation 14:10-11. In this text, those who worship the beast and his image are described as being "tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his im­age, and whoever receives the mark of his name." This text is especially troublesome to the annihilationist position because it speaks in the most emphatic of terms ("forever and ever") of the ongoing torment of the wicked. Those who experi­ence this torment are said to "have no rest day and night," language that hardly seems compatible with an experience of judgment that ter­minates in the extinction of those who suffer.

The most common way to explain this text on annihilationist terms is to introduce a kind of sequence into the experience of the wicked under the judgment of God. This sequence is one first of suffering, then of to­tal annihilation, and then of the "memorializing" of that annihilation. Fudge, for example, in his con­sideration of this text, argues that "torment is meted out according to the mixture of God's cup. Then, as the next image points out, it is for­ever memorialized in the smoke that remains." ²⁵   However, this se­quence is something that has been introduced into the text in order to avoid its clear implications. Revela­tion 14:10-11 does not say that the punishment of the wicked occurs in a sequence of steps, beginning with torment and leading to annihila­tion. It says, in terms that are as clear as they are terrible, that the wicked will experience an unending torment, a torment that will con­tinue without end and without rest, day or night, throughout all eternity. The doctrine of annihilation is op­posed to the clear teaching of this passage, a passage that says nothing about a sequence like that pro­posed.²⁶  Though it may be conve­nient to take the various images of this and other texts — of punish­ment, of fire, of destruction, of ex­clusion — and order them chrono­logically, the biblical texts com­monly use these images as diverse ways of referring to the same real­ity.

Still another important text in this connection is Revelation 20:10-15:

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.

This text describes the great White Throne Judgment, the final judgment of all the dead and the living at the end of the age. It also describes, in terms that parallel those we have seen in other pas­sages, the state of the wicked sub­sequent to this judgment, in hell or the "lake of fire."

Like the description of Revelation 14:10-11, this description in Revela­tion 20:11-15 speaks unmistakably of an ongoing experience of tor­ment in hell. The devil, together with the beast and the false prophet, suffers a torment that is said to be unending. The language could not be more emphatic: "They will be tormented day and night for­ever and ever." Furthermore, all of those whose names are not found in the book of life will also be ulti­mately thrown into the same lake of fire. According to the annihila­tionist's view, those who are thrown into the lake of fire will eventually be consumed; they will cease to ex­ist. The problem with this reading of the text is that it must posit a sharp difference between the experience of the devil, together with the beast and the false prophet, and all oth­ers who are thrown into the same lake of fire, presumably to experi­ence the same kind of punishment or distress. In the case of the wicked generally, this is a fire that will consume them utterly in the sense of annihilation. But not so in the case of the devil, for example, since he is said to be tormented "day and night forever and ever." A more straightforward and obvious reading of this text would conclude that all — the devil, the beast, the false prophet, the wicked — will experi­ence the same judgment and destiny. Why would some who are cast into the same lake of fire be utterly con­sumed by it — assuming that it belongs to the nature of fire that it consume — while in the case of oth­ers the fire will not have this effect?

Preliminary Conclusion←⤒🔗

The biblical arguments mustered against the doctrine of everlasting punishment are, as we have argued, weak and unconvincing. Though I have not provided a full biblical case for the doctrine of everlasting punishment in the foregoing, I have considered the arguments com­monly used to advocate annihila­tionism as an alternative to the his­toric Christian doctrine of hell. None of these arguments contrib­utes to a very strong case against this doctrine.

In the case of most advocates of annihilationism, the objections to the doctrine of hell are not, in the final analysis, born out of the inter­pretation of the biblical texts. The kinds of biblical arguments we have considered are often themselves the product of a prior conviction about the unacceptability of the doctrine of hell. The kinds of theological and moral ob­jections that we will consider in our next article constitute the most vi­tal and important part of the case today against this teaching. Be­cause the doctrine of hell is re­garded as repugnant for these kinds of reasons, an alternative reading of the biblical texts becomes more pressing.

Contemporary critics of the historic Christian doctrine of eternal punishment, in­cluding critics whose theological convictions are generally evangeli­cal, do not argue against this doc­trine so much from the Scriptures. Their treatment of the Scriptural givens results from a prior and more basic conviction that the doc­trine, in its traditional form, is theo­logically and morally repugnant. There are, according to these crit­ics, fundamental considerations of theology, morality, and human emotion that militate against the notion that the God of the Scrip­tures would everlastingly punish the wicked in hell. As Clark Pinnock, speaking for these critics, has put it, "I consider the concept of hell as endless torment in body and mind an outrageous doctrine, a theologi­cal and moral enormity, a bad doc­trine of the tradition that needs to be changed."²⁷

This means that, no matter how inconclusive and unsubstantial may be the biblical arguments for annihilationism, the primary objec­tions to the doctrine of hell still re­main to be considered. To these ar­guments, then, we now turn.

Incompatible with the Love of God?←⤒🔗

Perhaps the most common — and to many as well, the most compel­ling — argument against the doctrine of eternal punishment, is the claim that it contradicts what we know from the gospel about the love of God. That God would pour out His wrath and displeasure upon the wicked by excluding them from the reach of His grace, seems incom­patible with the biblical portrayal of God's abundant love and unfailing mercy. If God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to save the world (John 3:16), how is it conceivable that He should pun­ish the wicked everlastingly in hell?

According to this criticism, it seems needlessly cruel and vindictive that God's displeasure with the unbelieving should continue to be revealed throughout the endless passage of time that marks the final state. How could this harmonize with the Scriptural testimony, often repeated and nowhere more dramatically manifested than in the person and work of Jesus Christ, that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ does not repay us ac­cording to our iniquities? That He is slow to anger and abounding in love? That, like an earthly father with His children, God takes pity upon us and remembers that we are dust? (Psalm 103:8-14). The repug­nance between the remarkable bib­lical testimony to the tenderheart­edness of God's love toward sin­ners, and the idea of the wicked be­ing eternally tormented in hell, can only be resolved by denying the lat­ter in favor of the former.²⁸

How should we respond to this charge that the doctrine of hell is incompatible with what the Scriptures reveal regarding God's love? Though some aspects of an answer to this question will have to wait until we take up the issue of God's justice and the doctrine of hell, at least two responses need to be made at this point.

First, though it may seem too con­cessive at first hearing, we must ac­knowledge a significant difference between God's love and His wrath. Whereas the former is His natural and delightful work, the latter is His alien and reluctant work (Ezekiel 23:23, 30-32). God delights to save in a way that must be distinguished from His holy reluctance to punish or to destroy. To be sure, the Scriptures teach that God has purposed from all eternity to save the elect alone (Ephesians 1:4-6). They also teach that God has chosen not to save others (Romans 9:6-13). However, they do not teach that there is perfect symmetry or parallel between God's sovereign purposes to save and not to save.

Some of the issues that arise in this connection are complex and difficult. But the doctrine of hell has been needlessly burdened by de­fenders of the doctrine who neglect this difference between God's joy and delight in the salvation of lost sinners (Luke 15:7,10, 20-32) and His holy reluctance to punish the wicked. When the biblical theme of God's patience with sinners, His desiring that they should turn from their wicked ways and be saved (1 Timothy 2:9; 2 Peter 3:9), is overlooked or minimized, the doctrine of hell suf­fers distortion. Similarly, when pro­fessing Christians exhibit nothing of God's love toward His enemies, but rather take a kind of perverse delight in the punishment of the wicked — then God is mocked and His gospel is corrupted.

Defenders of the biblical doctrine of hell who do not echo the biblical overtures of God's mercy and grace to any and all, who do not share Christ's sorrow over the unbelief of His fellow Israelites (Luke 19:41-44), who do not understand the apostle Paul's agony over the unbelief of his countrymen (Romans 9:2-3; 10:2), such defenders of the doctrine bring disrepute to the grace of God and encumber the biblical teaching about hell.²⁹

The biblical doctrine of hell has nothing to do with a divine cruelty or vindictiveness that takes delight in the condemnation of the wicked in the same way in which God delights to show mercy. Those who through sin and disobedience forfeit any claim upon God's favor should look only to themselves to find the occa­sion for their punishment in hell. Their exclusion from God's blessed presence is a consequence of their unwillingness to seek Him while He was to be found, to call upon Him while He was still near (Isaiah 55:6-7).

Second, this objection to the doc­trine of everlasting punishment tends to isolate one feature of the biblical doctrine of God, the at­tribute of the love of God, from other features such as God's justice or His holiness. In the process, sig­nificant dimensions of the Bible's teaching are diminished or rejected outright. The love of God is made the overriding and defining attribute that truly expresses God's nature, whereas other attributes are said to be derivative or subordinate. Furthermore, having dimin­ished or rejected other aspects of the biblical doctrine of God, the love of God is itself redefined in ways that make it inconsistent with any doctrine of divine punishment or retribution. The love of God, accordingly, becomes a kind of sentiment, making no de­mands upon those to whom it is communicated, and imposing no penalty upon those who willfully refuse it. The love of God, as it has been demonstrated in the person and work of the crucified and risen Christ, is confused with a sentiment of unconditional affirmation and acceptance, whether Christ is received or rejected.

In the biblical doctrine of God, however, God's holiness and justice are emphasized as well as His love. Each of these attributes of God's nature discloses who He is, so that it is impermissible to play one at­tribute off against another. God's justice is not incompatible with His love. Rather, these qualities mutu­ally define each other. God is loving in His justice, and just in His loving. He could not be otherwise without ceasing to be the God He is. To speak of God's love at the expense of His justice, accordingly, would be to deny the biblical view of God in favor of a doctrine that exhibits more affinity to modern notions of love than the Scriptural under­standing.

Incompatible with the Justice of God?←⤒🔗

Another related theological ob­jection to the doctrine of everlast­ing punishment is that it is unjust. If one of the cardinal rules of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime, then the doctrine of eternal punishment involves a form of pun­ishment that outweighs the crime. For a creature to suffer unendingly under God's displeasure in hell represents a disproportionate meting out of punishment. Annihilationists, though they recognize the need for God's justice to be exercised in the punishment or ultimate destruc­tion of the wicked, typically argue that the doctrine of hell represents a gross disproportion between the limited offense of the sinner and the unlimited consequence that follows. To address this objection, we need to begin with a brief reflection upon the biblical view of justice, particu­larly the divine attribute of God's justice.

Defining what we mean by justice and, in particular, by the justice of God, is no simple task. One place to begin is with the so-called lex talio­nis, the law of retribution set forth in the well-known words of Leviticus 24:19-2: "And if a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him." The prin­ciple enunciated in this passage is one of due proportion or equity in the relation between offense commit­ted and punishment exacted. The perpetrator of the offense must, by means of a corresponding punish­ment, be brought to acknowledge and pay for the offense. It would be wrong or unjust, were the perpetra­tor to get off "scot free," without a due admission of guilt and an ap­propriate punishment suffered. Whether the offense is small or great, justice demands that redress be made in the form of owning up to the offense and suffering the proper consequences.

This rule of justice presumes that there is a standard of right and wrong that, when violated in greater or lesser degrees, requires that the wrongdoing be admitted and some form of amends be made. Parents whose children misbehave know (or should know) well that such misbe­havior needs to be pointed out and a suitable penalty be paid. Often the most difficult questions they face concern the appropriateness of the penalty and the fairness of its application in expressing proper re­straint and corresponding love. But it is irresponsible to overlook the offense or to neglect the discipline the offense demands. Similarly, in the administration of justice by the civil authorities, the law distin­guishes clearly between different crimes, and obligates the courts to assign corresponding penalties. One of the difficulties, of course, that a biblical view of justice faces in the modern age is the tendency to downplay this idea of retribution — imposing an equitable punishment upon the criminal  —  and to empha­size almost exclusively the role of remediation in the administration of justice. If the only purpose of the judicial system is to restore the of­fender, then the notions of just rec­ompense and suitable punishment lose their place.³⁰

Now, according to the biblical doctrine of God, one of God's char­acteristic and defining attributes is His justice. Because God is just and cannot deny Himself, He always deals with human sin in a manner that upholds the strictest rule of justice, including the rule of appro­priate retribution. Though this di­mension of God's nature often re­ceives short shrift in contemporary theology, the Scriptures are full of references to God's justice, to His unwillingness to permit sin to go unpunished, to His role as the One who will judge all human beings with justice. What human conscience and the rule of law demand in the way of acknowledging and suffering the consequences of wrongdoing only reflect the justice of God in His administration of the affairs of His creatures.

God is, biblically understood, the supreme Lawgiver and the Vindica­tor of the right (Psalm 119:137-8; 145:17; Jeremiah 12:1; 1 John 2:29). He is the One who maintains righteousness and finally vindicates the moral or­der He has established (Psalm 99:4; Romans 2:6, 7).

This understanding of God's jus­tice underlies the biblical teaching about the final judgment. It also provides the necessary context within which to comprehend the atoning work of Jesus Christ on be­half of His people.

According to the biblical descrip­tions of God's judgment, all those who are judged will be brought to recognize what they have done, whether it be good or bad. God's justice will serve like a mirror to ex­pose every wrongdoing, even those wrongs that might otherwise be hidden from view. The secret things, including the motives of the heart, will be revealed in the pres­ence of God (1 Corinthians 4:5; Romans 2:16). Each person judged will receive at the hands of God what they have deserved (2 Corinthians 5:10; Psalm 62:12; Jeremiah 17:10). No one will be able to es­cape this judgment (Acts 17:30 ff.; Isaiah 29:15ff.). All will be called to give an account of their lives and actions (Matthew 25:31-46). The pur­pose of this judging, and the exact­ing of an appropriate penalty, will be nothing other than the vindica­tion of God's justice, the revelation of His authority and rule in main­taining the right within His creation (Revelation 16:1-7; 19:1-6; Psalm 82:1, 8).

This raises an important question for which the biblical understand­ing of Christ's atoning work provides the answer: how can God be just in pardoning sinners and treating with favor those who have offended against Him? Not all who are judged will be required to acknowledge their sin and suffer the just consequences of their offense. All will acknowledge their sin and unworthiness, to be sure, but some, those who by the working of the Holy Spirit have trusted in Christ and repented of their sins, will be openly declared acceptable to God and the recipients of the rewards of His grace. The biblical answer to this question is fixed upon the cross of Christ. Christ, by virtue of His life of obedience and His atoning death, met the demands and the penalties of the law on behalf and in the place of His own people. All those who are beneficiaries of Christ's saving work as their Mediator are restored to favor with God and made acceptable to Him. In the bibli­cal view, this work involved a perfect marriage or harmony between God's love or mercy and His justice. God, in provid­ing salvation through the work of Christ, shows Himself to be loving in His justice and just in His loving. As the apostle Paul describes it in Romans 3:21-26:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

One interesting consequence of this biblical emphasis upon Christ's atonement as a demonstration of God's justice is what it tells us about the seriousness and gravity of hu­man sin. The common objection to the doctrine of eternal punish­ment — that the punishment out­weighs the crime — would seem to hold with equal force against the justice of Christ's suffering and cross. Why would God be just in ex­acting an infinite penalty — the death of His own Son — were the offense limited in its seriousness? The jus­tice of God in exacting the price of Christ's atoning death would be imperiled, were some lesser or limited price adequate to meet the need of sinners. To take the measure or es­timate the seriousness of human sin apart from a consideration of Christ's cross and work of atone­ment would be to call into question the justice of God's provision for our need. Ironically, John R. W. Stott, today a defender of annihilationism, has expressed this point as well as anyone in an earlier study, The Cross of Christ:

The doctrine of substitution affirms not only a fact (God in Christ substituted Himself for us) but its necessity (there was no other way by which God's own holy love could be satisfied and rebellious human beings could be saved). Therefore, as we stand before the cross, we begin to gain a clear view both of God and of ourselves, especially in relation to each other. Instead of inflicting upon us the judgment we deserved, God in Christ endured it in our place. Hell is the only alternative. This is the 'scandal', the stumbling-block, of the cross. For our proud hearts rebel against it. We cannot bear to acknowledge either the seriousness of our sin and guilt or our utter indebtedness to the cross ³¹   (emphasis mine).

To state the matter more concisely: that Christ suffered the agony of hell to atone for our sins teaches us that hell is what we sinners deserve. This penalty for sin was infinite in its price precisely because human sin offends against the infinite majesty and worth of God Himself.³²

There is one further consideration that requires comment in connection with the justice of eternal punish­ment. Though it is often assumed that the unbelieving and impenitent cease to sin at the judgment of God, it seems more probable that they con­tinue to sin and live in hostility to­ward God throughout the final state.

When God delivers the impenitent over to hell, He can be said to give them not only what they deserve but also what they perversely continue to desire. To live apart from God and His favor is the epitome of the suffering of hell. But this is precisely what the impenitent sinner seeks even in hell, namely, to live without God and in opposition to Him. D. A. Carson, for example, has argued that the contin­ued sinning of the wicked in hell is the most probable scenario and may even be directly supported by Scripture (Revelation 22:10-11; 16:21).³³   If this be the case, the ongoing punishment of the lost will correspond to their ongoing sin and rebellion.

On balance, this seems to be a more likely circumstance than that the lost would begin to love God and their neighbor, as the law of God re­quires. This likelihood cannot be conclusively demonstrated. How­ever, it seems to fit the biblical givens better than the contrary assumption that the lost begin to live in full con­formity to God's will.

These considerations regarding the law of retribution, the justice of God, the atoning work of Christ, and the likelihood of continuing rebellion on the part of the lost in the final state, together confirm the justice of the doctrine of eternal punishment. Those who contest the justice of hell either fail to estimate properly the gravity of human sin against God or to respect the justice of God in deal­ing with it. There can be no escape from God's justice: either Christ suf­fered it for us at the cross or we shall suffer it ourselves.

A Blemish upon the Final State of Things?←⤒🔗

The last objection to the doctrine of everlasting punishment that we will consider appeals to the glory and perfection of the final state. If God's re­demptive and re-creative purposes in Christ find their ultimate fulfillment in the consummation of all things, then the continued presence of the wicked in hell would constitute a blemish upon the otherwise pristine state of the new creation. One articu­late proponent of this argument, Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, has point­edly stated this objection:

The conception of the endlessness of the suffering of torment and of the endurance of "living" death in hell stands in contradiction to this teaching (that is, the renewal of creation). It leaves a part of creation which, unrenewed, everlastingly exists in alienation from the new heaven and the new earth. It means that suffering and death will never be totally abolished from the scene... To this it must be objected that with the restoration of all things in the new heaven and the new earth, which involves God's reconciliation to himself of all things, whether on earth or in heaven (Acts 3:21; Colossians 1:20), there will be no place for a second kingdom of darkness and death. Where all is light there can be no darkness; for "the night shall be no more" (Revelation 22:5). When Christ fills all and all and God is everything to everyone (Ephesians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 15:28), how is it conceivable that there can be a section or realm of creation that does not belong to this fulness and by its very presence contradicts it?³⁴

To put the matter a bit more prosai­cally, these objectors insist that hell would deprive God's program in history of a happy ending. At the end of the day, when all of God's purposes in Christ will have reached their fulfillment, there will still be the presence of sin and sin­ners within the realm of God's cre­ation. The loose string of the pres­ence of hell will mar the beautiful tapestry of God's redemptive pur­pose brought to its appointed end.

Of all the objections to the biblical doctrine of hell, this one is the most difficult to answer, not because it is so persuasive, but be­cause it is so speculative. For the ar­gument to work, it has to be assumed that the reality of hell represents a kind of fail­ure on God's part to realize His purposes of grace. Hell would, on this view of things, be a kind of insuperable ob­stacle to the complete victory of God's gracious work through Christ. The reach and effectiveness of God's grace would be bounded. The embrace of God's love would be frustrated at the borders of hell. But are these assumptions true to the biblical revelation regarding God's purposes and the triumph of His kingdom?

Contrary to these assumptions, the biblical understanding of hell includes the conviction that, even in the punishment of the unbelieving and im­penitent, God's purposes and justice will in fact be vindicated. Hell does not repre­sent a limitation upon the reach of God's purposes or frustrate His re­demptive work in Christ. In the judgment and ultimate punish­ment of the lost, God's justice will be fully revealed. Every mouth will be stopped. No occasion for protest will be found. All will be held ac­countable to God, and no one will have reason to complain against the justice of His judgments (com­pare Romans 2:19-20; 9:17, 22-24). In­deed, all those for whom Christ shed His blood and on whose be­half He made atonement will be saved. Not one will be lost or snatched from His hand. Not one will be overlooked or forgotten.

Cer­tainly, not one of His own will fall outside of the reach of His gracious purpose to save (compare John 10:14-18, 27-29).

In the final analysis, this last ob­jection rests upon an assumption that is nowhere set forth in Scripture. This assumption really dis­guises a form of universalism, since it asserts that all who are not re­deemed by the grace of God must be annihilated. However, in the bib­lical understanding, God's will and purpose are triumphant in both the salvation of His people and the condemnation of the lost.

Conclusion←⤒🔗

The biblical teaching regarding hell and the eternal punishment of the lost is dif­ficult to maintain in the face of the many assaults upon the doctrine today. Whether in the form of benign neglect³⁵   or open hostility, whether regis­tered by those who repu­diate or defend the Chris­tian faith — opposition to the doctrine of hell is all but overwhelming. Even the form in which I have cast my treatment of the doctrine in the foregoing has about it an air of de­fensiveness. Never in the history of the Christian church has this dimen­sion of the Bible's teach­ing regarding the future been more obviously on trial.

Rather than close our consideration of this doctrine on a defensive note, however, I would like to conclude with a few general observations.

First, the doctrine of hell is a true test of our willingness to stay within the boundaries of Scripture when it comes to the subject of the future, the last things. At no point in our consideration of the Bible's teaching about the future are we more inclined to allow our own judgments and opinions to take precedence over a straightforward exposition of the Bible's teaching and the church's historic under­standing of that teaching. What we do with the subject of hell is, in that respect, a kind of litmus test of our readiness to follow the way set out for us in the Scriptures, even when that way proves at times to be diffi­cult and unpleasant.

Second, the doctrine of hell has immense significance for the man­ner in which the church proclaims the gospel and addresses those who still live in unbelief and impenitence before God. Without endorsing what is often known as "Pascal's wager," it cannot be denied that, if the biblical teaching about hell is true, then it is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of seeking the Lord while He may be found, calling upon Him while He is still near. Though I will not attempt here to explore the ramifications of this doctrine for the Christian believer or the mission of the church, they are transparent and undeniable. The seriousness with which believers "work out their salvation with fear and trembling," and the urgency with which the church preaches the gospel to the nations — these are a fair measure of conviction regarding the doctrine of eternal punishment. Ironically, perhaps one of the primary reasons that this doctrine is so little believed and confessed is the failure of many ostensibly orthodox Christians to live out of the reality of this doctrine. For it is a practical denial of hell to take a cavalier attitude toward one's own salvation, or to treat with indifference the awful plight of those who are perishing in the darkness of unbelief.³⁶

And third, an inappropriate fasci­nation with, and literalistic under­standing of the biblical imagery for hell have often encumbered the doctrine of hell. Fueled by the lurid imagery of Dante's poetic descrip­tions in his Inferno, and the preach­ing of some over-zealous friends of the doctrine of hell, this kind of fas­cination with the doctrine can eas­ily become an unnecessary stum­bling block to understanding. We need to remember that the biblical imagery conveys something of the reality of hell, both as a place of punishment and exclusion from the presence of God's favor. But such imagery ought not to be taken literalistically. We should not think that it enables us to imagine or be­gin to comprehend what hell really is like. What we should do is think soberly and carefully about the re­ality to which this language and im­agery points us: the reality of being banished from the blessed pres­ence of God, being under the felt impression of His everlasting dis­pleasure, and being subjected to the perpetual frustration and fury of sinful, but futile, rebellion against His will.

J. I. Packer offers us sage advice along these lines, advice with which I should like to conclude our con­sideration of the doctrine of hell:

Do not speculate about the retributive process. Do not try to imagine what it is like to be in hell. The horrific imaginings of the past were hardly helpful, and often in fact proved a stumbling-block, as people equated the reality of hell with the lurid word-pictures drawn by Dante, or Edwards, or C. H. Spurgeon. Not that these men were wrong to draw their pictures, any more than Jesus was wrong to dwell on the fire and the worm; the mistake is to take such pictures as physical descriptions, when in fact they are imagery symbolizing realities of possible experience of which we can only say they are far, far worse than the symbols themselves. Our wisdom is rather to spend our lives finding ways of showing gratitude for the saving grace of Christ which ensures that we shall not in fact ever go to the hell that each of us so richly deserves, and to school our minds to dwell on heaven rather than on the other place, except when we are seeking, in Jude's phrase, to snatch others from the fire. Let us then labor to be wise.³⁷