In part 2, I stated that there are two main categories of thought on the nature of hell. One of them limits the impact of hell and the other sees it as a real place of eternal torment/punishment. Today, I want to briefly look at this last category and examine the two main viewpoints that fall under it.
Traditionally, Christianity has viewed hell as both a place and a state. The differences that arise are due to an interpretational understanding of the nature of hell. One viewpoint is that the Scriptures descriptions of hell are to be taken literally. When the bible speaks of hell as a place of eternal fire, it is to be understood as a literal flame that burns without consuming. When the bible speaks of eternal darkness, it is to be likewise understood in a literal fashion. In a simplified defense of this viewpoint, it is pointed out that Scripture should be taken literally when it speaks literally. The sheer number of times that the bible uses fire and darkness to describe hell lends itself to a literal interpretation. As well, if one believes that the Scripture does not represent something as true that is false or something that is false as true, then when it speaks of the nature of hell, it does so in a literal fashion.
The second viewpoint that falls under this same category is that the description of hell is to be taken metaphorically. Some of the arguments for this viewpoint is that fire and darkness are two opposing images and cannot exist at the same time. Defenders of the metaphorical view also point to passages in the Scripture that use fire in an obvious metaphorical manner and then they apply this to the other uses of the word. While not denying the reality of hell, the metaphorical view sees the horrors of hell as being far worse than the literal understanding can describe.
The question for the interpreter is which of these views is correct? I would suggest that there is a middle ground between them. The bible represents the nature of hell in human language and in human terms. This does not suggest that it is not describing a literal representation of hell. The repeated use of fire and darkness to describe the nature of hell suggest to me that these are accurate terms, even though I cannot reconcile how you can have fire and darkness co-existing. Yet, I believe that the horrors of hell extend far past the punishment of eternal suffering in a lake of fire and the weeping and gnashing of teeth in the eternal darkness. While literal, they are also representative of the completely horrific nature of hell.
The doctrine of hell is not pleasant. I would be abhorred by someone who said that it was their favourite aspect of the Scripture. However, we cannot be faithful to the Word of God by denying that it exists and that it is the final destiny for those who reject Christ. While there is no pleasure in believing it, there is an obligation. But, that belief should be a driving force for the sharing of the gospel. As I have spent time over the last couple of weeks thinking about hell, my heart is broken to know that hell is the destination for many that I work with unless they repent. I am unable to fanthom the eternity of hell and so part of me wants to not think about it. But it is exactly because of the eternity of hell, the finality of hell that I have to think about it and be more faithful to present the gospel.
