Visions, Images and Hell
Everyone admits it; even those that do it admit it in some place or other. It’s dangerous to build foundational or major doctrines on visions and images. The more far-reaching the doctrine, the nearer we think it to be to the centre of the Christian faith the more carefully we should proceed. A plain and unvarnished biblical statement by some speaker of authority gives us more confidence in the correctness of our understanding than, say, having to choose between various possibilities. The meaning of a parable might appear to be straightforward but there may be more than one reasonable understanding of some important elements in the parable and more than one reasonable view of the parable’s central purpose.
I believe this should make us cautious about holding the view, on the basis of a text from the Apocalypse, that "hell" is eternal conscious torture inflicted by God on the finally impenitent. I mean a text such as Revelation 14:11. Let me illustrate what I mean about the use of a vision or a narrative made out of images.
Take Ezekiel 9:1-11. The prophet is in captivity (1:1) along with many other Jewish exiles. While in his house (8:1) he receives a vision from the Lord, which runs through 11:25. The vision concerns the fall of Jerusalem because of its corruption and I’m jumping into a central section of the vision (9:1-11). In terms of the vision the penitent righteous are to be marked out as exempt from the coming judgement (9:3-4) and everyone else is to be left unmarked and they are to be destroyed utterly (9:5-7).
That would seem straightforward enough—none of the penitent are to die and every last one of those not marked as repentant are to be slain. That is what Ezekiel saw and heard. If the vision had been fulfilled as given no unrighteous person would have survived and no righteous person would have died.
The judgement certainly fell on Jerusalem as the vision had declared but it wasn’t fulfilled in keeping with the terms of the vision. Ezekiel 21:1-4 has God speaking his mind and saying, "Son of man set your face against Jerusalem...’This is what the Lord says: I am against you. I will draw my sword from its scabbard and cut off from you both the righteous and the wicked. Because I am going to cut off the righteous and the wicked, my sword will be unsheathed against everyone from south to north’."
This (essentially) prose explanation of what he will do runs contrary to the vision of 9:1-11. In that vision the righteous do not die! In that vision all the unrighteous die. But as 21:1-4 tells us, when God brought the Babylonian armies, righteous people died along with the unrighteous. And what's more, in Ezekiel 14:21-23 we’re told that unrighteous people lived beyond the judgement. But in the vision of 9:1-11 the unrighteous were to be utterly destroyed in the judgement.
So is this material hopelessly contradictory? Of course not! But we must allow visions or images to serve their own point rather than ours. Whatever the 9:1-11 vision wishes to say we are not to receive it as a literal description of what was to follow unless we have other interpretative grounds for doing so. I judge that the vision of 9:1-11 is meant to speak of the severity and specificity of God’s anger against the sin of the nation. There are only two classes in Jerusalem, you notice. If you’re righteous you are exempt from the sword. If you’re unrighteous you die by the sword and in both cases it is because God wills it. He is against sin and supports righteousness. (Note how Christ says something similar in Matthew 24:41 of the judgement on Jerusalem via the Romans. Two women will be sitting at the hand-mill, grinding (therefore, probably friends) and one is taken away in the judgement and the other is left. [The one "taken" is the unrighteous and not some alleged "raptured" righteous—see 24:39, which makes it clear that "taken away" is judgement and not rescue.]
The point I wish to make is this: visions and imagery should not be used to found major doctrine on. Imbedded in the images and visions are truths, of course, but it is just too easy to say, "That’s what it says he saw therefore that is literally what will happen." I mean to say something more, God enabling, in this direction.
Now, just a few remarks on Revelation 14:11. This is perhaps the main text used to support the doctrine that "hell" is eternal conscious torture inflicted by God on the finally impenitent. I purpose to return to it but let me make a few concluding remarks to this piece.
Even if we were to agree that the imagery in this text is that of ceaseless torture inflicted on the worshipers of the beast (and writers like Edward Fudge and Ralph G Bowles give solid grounds for disputing that reading)—even if we were to agree to that, it wouldn’t follow that that is what these worshipers were to endure. Revelation 14:11 certainly says what it says, that’s not in dispute. Should we take the imagery as the literal truth about the future of the worshipers in view in this text?
Isaiah 66:22-24 contrasts the future of the people of God with the fate of the enemies of God in the new heaven and earth. Should we believe that God’s enemies are eternally corpses fed on by deathless maggots or an unceasing supply of them, while the corpses lie smouldering in a fire? Whatever Isaiah 66 has in mind, are we to receive it as truth to be fulfilled literally? For a little more click here.
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy for allowing me to post from his website, The Abiding Word.com.