In each of the passages considered in the previous installment of this study, we’ve seen that there
are context-based reasons and considerations to understand the “fire” (or
fire-related imagery) in a figurative way. We did not approach any of these
passages with the presupposition that
the “fire” in view should be understood figuratively, or assume that it must be figurative until proven to be literal
(which would be the opposite of the “literal whenever possible” principle of
interpretation). Rather, we found that there are good, context-based reasons to
understand the “fire” in a non-literal way. However, we’ve also seen that there
are passages where a consistent use of the “literal whenever possible”
principle should lead the reader to interpret the “fire” that’s being referred
to literally.
In light of the above, how should we understand the “fire” (and
the “sulfur”) being referred to Revelation? Here, for example, are the Lord’s
words as recorded in Revelation 21:8: ”Yet the timid, and
unbelievers, and the abominable, and murderers, and paramours, and enchanters,
and idolaters, and all the false – their part is in the lake burning with fire
and sulfur, which is the second death.” When we read this verse in accord
with the “literal whenever possible” principle of interpretation, does a
literal interpretation “hold up?” Or, is it the case that a literal
interpretation is untenable in light of certain contextual considerations? I
submit that there is nothing untenable about, or problematic with, a literal
interpretation of the lake of fire, and that it’s reasonable to understand the
lake of fire as a literal place that will be used by God to bring about the immediate death
of those whose names will not be found written in the scroll of life (and who
are thus not destined to enjoy the “allotment” referred to in Rev. 21:1-7). And
because those humans who will be cast into the lake of fire will be dying a
second time by means of being cast into this lake, the lake is appropriately
referred to as “the second death” (for it is both where, and the means by
which, the second death of these individuals will be brought about).
Significantly, the lake of fire is referred to as “the second
death” only in connection with mortal humans who are to be cast into it (Rev.
20:13-15; 21:8; cf. 20:6 and 2:11). In contrast, when the three wicked,
spiritual beings who will be playing a central role in the drama that is to unfold during
the final years of this eon (i.e., “the Adversary,” “the wild beast” and
“the false prophet”) are said to be cast into the lake of fire, the expression
“the second death” is not used. This omission is not a coincidence. For these
three beings, the lake of fire won’t be
“the second death.” Rather, it will be a place of eonian torment. And lest
one object that Satan and other spiritual beings couldn’t be tormented by
literal fire or sulfur, it should be pointed out that we’re not actually told
that their torment will be caused by
the fire or the sulfur with which the lake will be burning. We’re simply told
that, after they’re cast into the lake of fire, they will be “tormented day and
night for the eons of the eons.” Thus, while the reader is free to
speculate concerning what the main source of their torment might be,[1] the
problem of how supernatural
beings could be tormented by literal fire and sulfur is simply not a problem
that a literal, straightforward interpretation of the text creates (and is thus
no objection to a literal interpretation).
Some have claimed that a literal lake of fire burning with
sulfur is physically impossible, and so must be figurative. However, there is
nothing physically impossible about an enclosed body of water (or some other
lake-constituting liquid) in which, or on which, sulfur is continuously
burning. It should also be noted that, even if it were physically
impossible (or simply unlikely to occur naturally), God has
complete control over the “laws of physics” according to which the “natural
world” normally operates (such “laws” are simply the expression of God’s own
will, and he can “break” or “modify” them as he sees fit). The supposed
“physical impossibility” of a lake burning with fire and sulfur is, therefore,
no objection to a straight-forward, literal interpretation. There is no logical
contradiction created that requires a figurative interpretation of the lake of
fire.
Now,
in defense of a figurative interpretation, R.L. asserted
the following in a short article he posted on Facebook: “In ancient times both [fire and sulfur] were used to
purge contaminants, and in some places still are. The Greeks and Hebrews who
read these words knew that they were being used in a figurative sense; they
knew God would never burn anyone literally, and they knew He would purge
individuals (humans) with His all consuming fire.”
I think it would be worth emphasizing that I’m in complete agreement
with R.L. that everyone is eventually going to be subjected to Christ and
reconciled to God. However, I don’t believe the lake of fire/second death will
be the means by which God brings anyone to the state of spiritual
maturity/perfection in which all will exist after God has become “All in all.” Rather,
the event that will bring all people to the necessary state of perfection that
will be required for one’s being able to enjoy an eternity in fellowship with
God is being vivified in Christ. It
is through this event – which
involves death/mortality being abolished – that God will “purge” or “purify”
people of whatever “contaminants” still remain.
The first reason why R.L. thinks the fire and sulfur referred to in Revelation
should be interpreted figuratively rather than literally is that, “in ancient times, both fire and sulfur were
used to purge contaminants.” Thus, in light of its ancient religious usage, R.L. believes that, when it's referred to in Scripture, sulfur should be understood as symbolic of purification. In conjunction with this belief, the original literal meaning of the term – i.e., “divine” – is sometimes appealed to as well (with the lake of fire being understood to symbolize “divine purification”).
The problem with this view is that, unless a few verses from Revelation are to be understood as the sole exceptions, we never find sulfur being referred to in Scripture as a symbol for the purification or refinement of sinners. And in Revelation the term translated “sulfur” is always used as a noun to refer to the literal chemical element (rather than as an adjective meaning “divine”). Concerning this subject, A.E. Knoch wrote the following in his book, The Unveiling of Jesus Christ:
It has been pressed that the lake of fire is a purging process, a disinfecting agency, calculated to rid the sinner of his sin and make him fit for God's presence. This, of course, is the purgatory of Roman Catholicism, with little modification. Its great fault lies in that it provides a substitute for the sufferings of Christ. Let us be clear on this: no sufferings of the sinner can purge his sins. That is accomplished solely by the sacrifice of Christ. Besides the sinner has been judged at the great white throne, so why continue the infliction for the whole of that tremendous eon?
The word theion, brimstone, sulfur, has been seized and given its literal signification, divine, to support the thought of a figurative lake of fire. But the word is always used as a noun in Scripture, and we are not warranted in the rendering divine fire. Literally it is of fire and divine, which makes no intelligible sense. The fact is that sulfur got its name from the religious use made of it in heathen lustrations. Fire and sulfur was supposed to be a purifying agent. Indeed, it is a good disinfectant, and is so used today.
Needless to say, the idolaters did not purify by plunging the person into fire and sulfur, nor did they even apply it to their bodies. Only one who has been burned by sulfur knows how malignant such a sore is. It seems to defy healing. The ancients assuredly did not purify by any such means. Their method was rather to sprinkle sulfur on a torch and carry the flame thrice around the place or person to be purified. Hence they called sulfur by the name divine. But no such thought is ever attached to it in the Scriptures. Sodom and Gomorrah were not purified by sulfur. They were condemned. We should never allow ourselves to be driven to such exigencies even if it be to support a precious doctrine. The truth needs no prop.
Whenever the judgment of human beings is said to involve “fire and sulfur,” the end result is the destruction of those with whom the fire and sulfur comes into contact. For example, in Luke 17:29 we read, “Yet on the day in which Lot came out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rains from heaven and destroys them all.” The fire and sulfur that God rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah did not, of course, begin to eternally torment the citizens of these cities. But neither did it begin to refine them and transform them into more godly, loving people. Rather, the fire and sulfur was intended by God to bring about their destruction. Any torment that the people of these cities suffered during this judgment would’ve been relatively brief, for its ultimate purpose was to bring their mortal existence on the earth to an end.
In light of the historical event involving Sodom and the surrounding cities, R.L.'s appeal to how fire and sulfur have been used “in ancient times” in no way
justifies a figurative interpretation of the words “fire and sulfur” in
Scripture. It would be absurd to conclude
that the fire and sulfur referred to in Luke 17:29 can’t be literal simply because the
ancients used fire and sulfur to “purge contaminants.” Regardless of whether or
not one thinks there may be some special significance or deeper meaning to be
found in the fact that God used fire and sulfur (rather than something else) to
destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, it doesn’t change the fact that the fire and sulfur
God used to destroy these cities was literal
fire and sulfur, and that the terms should be understood literally in Luke
17:29 and elsewhere.
In connection with the last point, it’s completely false that
God would “never burn anyone literally” with fire and sulfur (as R.L. asserted in the above quote). In fact, whenever
fire and sulfur are referred to elsewhere in Scripture in connection with
mortal human beings being judged, it is always the death/extermination of those
being judged that is in view (rather than their “purification” or
“refinement”). Obviously, the fire and sulfur that God rained
down upon Sodom and Gomorrah did not begin to refine and purify the citizens of
these cities, and transform them into more godly, loving people. Rather,
the fire and sulfur brought about their destruction. As we read in 2
Pet. 2:6, God “condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, reducing them to
cinders by an overthrow, having placed them as an example for those about to be
irreverent” (see also Jude 1:7, where “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities
about them” are said to be “lying before us, a specimen,
experiencing the justice of fire eonian”). Any torment that the people of
these cities suffered during this divine judgment would’ve been relatively
brief, for its ultimate purpose was to bring their mortal existence on the
earth to an end.
Interestingly, the first time that fire and sulfur are mentioned
together in Revelation they are said to be the means by which the death of those exposed to these elements
of destruction is brought about (see Rev. 9:13-18). And even when, in Rev. 14:8-11,
fire and sulfur is associated with the “torment” of the
“worshipers of the wild beast,” the immediate and broader context in which
their torment is referred to makes it clear that those who are to be tormented
by fire and sulfur will, like the citizens of Sodom, be the wicked citizens of
a certain “great city” that is going to be destroyed in a divine judgment near
the end of this eon. In conjunction with the explicit reference to the fall of
the city of “Babylon” in Rev. 14:8, the strikingly similar language used in
Rev. 14:11 and v. 3 strongly implies that the “worshipers of the wild beast”
referred to in Rev. 14:9-10 will be the citizens of this particular city (which we’re told is going to
be judged by God and “burned up with fire, for strong is the Lord God Who
judges her”; see Rev. 18 and 19:1-3). This
means that the threatened fire-and-sulfur-caused torment referred to in Rev.
14:10 is what will be suffered by the citizens of “Babylon” while the city is being destroyed in a
divine judgment.
Thus, even in the book of Revelation itself, fire and sulfur is
associated with the same kind of destructive, life-exterminating judgment from
God that we find in view in those passages in which the destruction of Sodom
and Gomorrah is in view. When the judgment involves mortal humans, the terms
“fire and sulfur” simply do not express the idea of sinful people being
“purified,” or of their undergoing some kind of “purgatorial” process that
makes them fit for an eternity with God. Rather, fire and sulfur is connected
with divine judgment involving the destruction of any humans who have a part in
it. And any of the original readers of the Book of Revelation who were familiar
with what Scripture revealed concerning God’s use of fire and sulfur in the
past when judging sinners would’ve appreciated this fact (rather than
erroneously concluding that the terms must be figurative references to some
unspecified “purification” process for people who aren’t yet ready to spend
eternity with God).
At this point, it should be noted that some have appealed to
Christ’s rebuke of James and John in Luke 9:55 as undermining the idea that God
would use literal fire to destroy anyone at some future time. However, Christ
was clearly not rebuking his disciples because he thought his Father would never
destroy people with literal fire; the very event to which James and John were
referring involved literal fire coming down from heaven (twice) and destroying
more than 100 men (2 Kings 1:10-12). Unless one believes that Christ disapproved
of (or simply refused to believe) what God did through Elijah’s prophetic
ministry at this time, Christ’s rebuke cannot have been based on this. And
then, of course, we have Christ’s own reference to an even greater display of
divine judgment involving an entire city being destroyed by literal fire and
sulfur from heaven in Luke 17:29. Clearly Jesus did not disapprove of his
Father having done this, or rebuke his disciples because he thought God was
“too nice” to destroy people with literal fire and sulfur. But why, then, did
Jesus rebuke them?
Answer: Besides the fact that the circumstances in Elijah’s day
were completely different than the circumstances in which the disciples found
themselves when they witnessed the unbelief of the citizens of a certain
Samaritan village, Christ’s rebuke can be understood as having been based on
the fact that the display of divine judgment that his disciples desired was
completely at odds with the purpose of Christ’s earthly mission. Just a few
chapters before we read that Christ began his public ministry by proclaiming
the “year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:16-21). Christ was quoting from Isaiah
61:2 here, and – significantly – did not quote the part of the verse that tells
us what is to follow the year of the Lord’s favor: “the day of vengeance of our
God.” The reason Christ didn’t quote the rest of this prophecy is because the
fulfillment of the “day of vengeance” (i.e., the “day of the Lord”) was – and
is – still future (and, it should be noted, this coming “day of vengeance of
our God” is going to involve far more destruction and loss of life than took
place in Elijah’s day, or during the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah).
R.L. went on to say in
the same Facebook post, “We also read that they will all have a "part" in the
Lake of Fire, in other words they will be a part of the lake of fire, they will
be the location of the lake of fire.”
R.L. was referring to Revelation 21:8 (which was quoted earlier):
”Yet the timid, and unbelievers, and the
abominable, and murderers, and paramours, and enchanters, and idolaters, and
all the false – their part is in the lake burning with fire and sulfur, which
is the second death.”
The term translated “part” here (mer’os) is found also in Rev.
20:6 and 22:19, where we read the following:
“Happy and holy is he who is
having part in the former
resurrection! Over these the second death has no jurisdiction…”
“And if ever anyone should be eliminating from the words of the scroll
of this prophecy, God shall be eliminating his
part from the log of life, and out of the holy city, that is written in
this scroll.”
In these verses, the term translated “part” simply expresses the
idea of someone having a “share” or “portion” in something. Now, notice how R.L.
goes from affirming what is actually
being said in Rev. 21:8 (i.e., that the “part” of those whose names are not
found written in the scroll of life will be in the lake of fire) to then
invalidly concluding that those cast into the lake of fire “will be a part OF
the lake of fire,” and “will be the location OF the lake of fire.” R.L.’s
“re-phrasing” of what is actually being said in verse 8 (which he introduces
with the expression “in other words”) expresses a different idea entirely than
what John actually wrote. There is nothing that indicates that those who are to
be cast into the lake of fire will be becoming “the location of the lake of
fire” (whatever that’s supposed to mean), or becoming “a part of the lake of
fire” (whatever that’s supposed to mean).
R.L. went on to claim that the lake of fire “is located in
all who will have their part in it, as God in His way consumes the chaff from
their lives.” Here, again, we find R.L. expressing an idea that is simply not
found anywhere in what John actually wrote. Before, R.L. claimed that those
whose “part” is in the lake of fire will become “part of the lake of fire” and
will be “the location of the lake of fire.” Here we find that the lake of fire
will be “in all who will have their part in it.” Rather than bringing any
additional clarity to what John actually wrote (which, when understood
literally, needs little “explaining”), all that R.L.’s doing is rearranging
words in a way that doesn’t really communicate anything meaningful. These
various descriptions of the lake of fire as something that will be comprised of
those who are “in” it (and who will be its “location”), and which will be
located “in” all who are “in” it, are simply the imaginative, speculation-based
musings of someone who is, for whatever reason, committed to understanding the
lake of fire as anything other than a literal location in which those whose names won't be found written in the scroll of life will be
returned to a state of death, and where they will remain dead until they are
vivified in Christ at the consummation.
R.L. went on to assert the following: “Those who believe that the fire in the lake of fire is literal,
in a set location, believe that this literal fire was created by God for only
one purpose; to literally burn people, whether for eternity, or for ever how
long it takes for them to die.”
If the lake of fire’s job is to burn people “for eternity,” then it would have a completely different purpose than that which I believe, and have argued, that it will have (i.e., quickly returning certain humans to a lifeless state, and thus being the means by which the second death of these individuals is brought about). It would appear that R.L. sees little difference between these two positions, and sees nothing wrong with (or unfair about) lumping
together everyone who believes in a literal lake of fire, even when their beliefs
concerning its divine purpose are radically different. However, there is an
infinite difference between the belief that the lake of fire is designed by God
to terminate the lives of those not appointed for eonian life on the new earth,
and the belief that the purpose of the lake of fire is to torment people forever. While the latter belief is certainly contrary to what we find
revealed in Scripture concerning God’s character and his ultimate purpose the save all mankind, the former belief is not.
[1] From what, then, will
their torment be derived? We know that their freedom (as they experienced it,
at least) will be greatly restricted after being cast into the lake of fire,
and that this state of affairs will be continuing for a relatively long period
of time (“for the eons of the eons”). Being incarcerated – and thus stripped of
the great experiential freedom and influence they once enjoyed before being
cast into the lake of fire – will be bad enough. But the relatively lengthy
period of time during which they must remain incarcerated will likely be an
equal (if not greater) source of torment for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment