Driving to a holiday destination recently, I had opportunity to listen to Lee Strobel’s interview on the Alisa Childers podcast regarding heaven and hell. Strobel recently released a book making a case for heaven. He included in it a couple of chapters in hell—the first making a case for eternal, conscious torment; the second critiquing conditional immortality and universalism.
In his case for eternal, conscious torment, Strobel asks, “Do the traditional teachings make sense?” Unfortunately, while his case may “make sense,” it does little to provide solid biblical evidence in favor of eternal, conscious torment.
Strobel builds his case around an interview he conducted with Christian philosopher Paul Copan. He notes from the outset that all views of hell must take into consideration divine justice. “The goodness and justice of God are more fundamental than our limited interpretations of hell.” He is persuaded that eternal, conscious torment best accounts for the biblical revelation of divine justice. He presents several arguments to bolster his conviction.
Before delving into those arguments, he notes that teaching on hell is not a relic of a bygone era. Indeed, warnings of final punishment may serve evangelistic purposes as they present a wake-up call to people entrenched in their sins. Quoting Copan, he observes, “Jesus said to repent or perish.” The language of “perish” should be the first red flag, but he chooses not to address what it means to perish. He assumes, instead, that the reader will understand the language to be representative of eternal, conscious torment. While a dictionary definition of “perish,” when used of humans, is to “die, especially in a violent or sudden way,” the reader of the New Testament is to somehow understand Jesus to have used the word of ongoing consciousness.
Strobel’s first real line of biblical evidence for the traditional view of hell is the fact that “the description of hell typically includes eternal flames.” Citing his interview with Copan, he argues that the flames must be metaphorical, since fire and darkness cannot coexist. Nevertheless, these images of flame and darkness both “represent existence away from the Lord’s presence.” He footnotes 2 Thessalonians 1:9 as evidence of this representation.
In Strobel’s mind, “eternal destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9) must have reference to ongoing existence since this destruction takes place “away from the presence of the Lord.” Strobel, quoting Copan, later cites the NIV’s unique rendering of this verse (“shut out from the presence of the Lord”) without acknowledging that the words “shut out” are supplied by the translators and that no other mainstream translation finds reason to similarly supply those words. Consulting other mainstream translations brings into question the addition of those words. The CSB provides a more direct translation: “They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the Lord’s presence and from his glorious strength.” Eternal destruction proceeds from and is the result of the Lord’s presence.
But if hell is described as a place of eternal fire, does that make it “a torture chamber for eternity,” asks Strobel. Copan dismisses this suggestion by drawing a distinction between “torture” and “torment.” He explains, “There’s a difference between torture, which is externally imposed, and torment, which is internally generated.” Hell is a place of torment, not torture, because it “is the result of humans freely separating themselves from him and his love.”
This linguistic distinction between torment and torture is interesting but uncompelling. The Bible describes torment imposed by external sources. An evil spirit tormented Saul (1 Samuel 16:14–15). Job complained that his friends tormented him (19:12) and David asked God to remove “your torment” (Psalm 39:10). The exiles in Babylon described their captors as “tormentors” (Psalm 137:3; cf. Isaiah 51:23). Torment was inflicted on God’s people by the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:3). Evil spirits asked whether Jesus had come to torment them before their time (Matthew 8:29; cf. Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28) while the Canaanite woman’s son was tormented by a demon (Matthew 15:22; cf. Luke 16:18; Acts 5:16). The rich man in Hades (Luke 16:19–31) was tormentedby the flames. Paul’s thorn in the flesh was a messenger of Satan sent to torment him (2 Corinthians 12:7). The fifth trumpet of Revelation involved torment inflicted by demonic locusts (9:5) and beast worshippers “will be tormented with fire and sulfur” (14:11)—the source of their torment external to them.
The Bible simply does not recognize a sharp distinction between the sources of torment and torture. Furthermore, while Copan claims that hell is the result of humans freely separating themselves from God, the Bible pictures God as actively casting people into hell (see Matthew 13:41–42).
A second line of argumentation is the well-worn argument that sin against an infinite God warrants infinite punishment. As observed elsewhere, this philosophical argument has scant biblical support.
A third argument in favor of eternal, conscious torment is “the fact that the rebellion against God isn’t just confined to a limited time on earth, but it continues unabated in hell—and therefore warrants ongoing judgment.” This “fact” is apparently evident in the Bible’s reference to gnashing of teeth. Strobel acknowledges that gnashing of teeth reflects anger and adds, “The gnashing of teeth in hell reflects continued anger at God.” This argument assumes that the gnashing of teeth continues unendingly, while the Bible nowhere suggests such a thing. The argument assumes the point it seeks to prove.
Strobel favorably argues for the dehumanization of beings who continue to exist in hell. He does not offer any biblical evidence for this—probably because there is none!—but instead offers the musings of N. T. Wright on the subject, who argued for it by stating, “It seems to me” and, “It is possible.” Wright adds, “I see nothing in the New Testament to make me reject the possibility that some, perhaps many, of God’s human creatures do choose, and will choose, to dehumanize themselves completely.” I see nothing in the New Testament that affirms this theory. Far better to argue exegetically than from silence.
In summarizing his argument for the traditional view of hell, Strobel favorably quotes Alan Gomes: “The natural consequences of rejecting God and his goodness toward them, in which they will experience the pain of complete abandonment, remorse unmingled with comfort, and the relentless torments of their own consciences, which will burn forever but never finally consume.” Neither Gomes nor Strobel make any biblical case that “the natural consequences of rejecting God” are the things that Gomes proposes. Indeed, while Gomes claims that the “natural consequence” of rejecting God is a punishment that “never finally consumes,” the Bible tells us that God is a consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4:24; Hebrews 12:29; cf. 2 Samuel 22:9) and that the wicked at the final judgement will be like chaff burned in the fire (Matthew 3:10, 12). Indeed, if God is the source of all life, it might equally be argued that the natural result of resisting God is to invite death, not ongoing existence.
Strobel believes that Copan offers “a cogent case for the traditional view of hell,” but much of that “cogent case” assumes the arguments in presents. There is little by way of exegesis and much by way of logically affirming a pre-conceived, traditional understanding, which is what he set out to achieve, if the chapter’s subtitle is anything to go on.
The next line of reasoning that Strobel pursues is to evaluate the argument in favor of annihilationism, which I will consider in my next post.
Recent Comments