PDA

View Full Version : Punished Forever?


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

BlessedinHim
June 25th, 2007, 02:47 AM
Punished Forever?
Ask a Bible Teacher

Q. I’ve always struggled with the concept of Hell. I can understand why a person who rejects Christ should not be allowed to live with him in Heaven for eternity. That’s their choice. I can understand the concept that if you reject God, you reject everything that defines his Character: Faith, Hope and Love and all he created. However, I can’t understand why God appears to go out of his way to make Hell painful:

Rev. 21:8, “But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

What about the good, decent person who doesn’t come close in behavior as the above listed people. I understand they still have a sin nature and that if you commit one sin you’re basically guilty of all. Are they to suffer the same fate Hitler and the anti-Christ are destined to suffer? Are they to be given an immortal, eternal, physical body that only feels torture and pain but doesn’t die? Isn’t just “knowing” you can’t live with God enough punishment?

I guess if it had been up to me, I would have simply “annihilated” them – blot out their existence where they have no self-awareness or consciousness. This seems to me more merciful. But I’m not God and I’m not in control.

Don’t misunderstand me. I’m so grateful the Lord isn’t like me. I thank Him daily for who he is and what Jesus did for me, but I don’t understand, nor can I comprehend torture for eternity and what it really accomplishes.

A. There is a school of thought that says unbelievers will be punished "according to their works" before being destroyed altogether. This would, in effect, put a person out of his or her misery following a period of punishment reflective of their lifestyle. Those who do less evil would bear shorter periods of punishment than those who did more. Scholars are divided on this issue, but one thing is clear. It's better to be saved and avoid the situation altogether.

In all of this, it's important to remember that the notion of relative good and evil is man's perspective. God's view is that apart from Him we can do no good thing. The Israelites taught us that when they were out of fellowship with God, even their required sacrifices were disgusting to Him.

But whoever sacrifices a bull is like one who kills a man, and whoever offers a lamb, like one who breaks a dog's neck; whoever makes a grain offering is like one who presents pig's blood, and whoever burns memorial incense, like one who worships an idol. They have chosen their own ways, and their souls delight in their abominations; so I also will choose harsh treatment for them and will bring upon them what they dread. For when I called, no one answered, when I spoke, no one listened. They did evil in my sight and chose what displeases me." (Isaiah 66:3-4)

Punishment: Eternal Or Temporary?
Ask a Bible Teacher

Q. This is a follow-up on the punishment forever question. Ever since I read about the view you discussed (a couple years ago actually in one of your articles) I've been looking for something concrete to back this up. The idea appeals to me humanly, and presents a view of God consistent with his love ... However, I'm coming up dry.

Also, in light of Isaiah 66:24 and Mark 9:48 (and possibly 2 other vs in the KJV, I believe where it is repeated in the Mk 9 passage) I feel this is refuting the annihilation view. Is there another interpretation of "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched". I've been wrestling with this now for about a year but wanted to find an answer through my own study. Can you help?

A. Among the three leading interpretations of Scripture pertaining to the destiny of unbelievers, the traditional view of eternal suffering is most consistent with Scripture. Those who like the conditional view point to the concept of being judged according to their works as being more in in line with God's character, but they don't have a good explanation for the verses you cite. (I won't address the allegorical view for obvious reasons.)

In John 6:28-29 Jesus was asked what works God requires of us. Jesus answered, "Believe in the One He has sent." With a perfect (might I say Heaven sent?) opportunity to list everything that God expects from us, Jesus mentioned only this. If this is God's only required work than being judged according to our works could simply mean judged according to whether we believe or not.

We humans need to get over our self importance. From my reading of the Bible it seems like throughout history we've distinguished ourselves primarily by messing things up. God chooses to work through us out of love, but He definitely doesn't need our help. He rewards believers with crowns because of our attitude of gratitude, not our results. Like he did with Adam and Eve, maybe God has given us only one rule. Believe in the One He has sent. Everything else comes after that, and with out it nothing else matters.

If that's the case then the admired non-believing philanthropist and the reviled mass murderer are on equal footing. They both failed to fulfill God's only requirement.

From Jack Kelly

Topped 3
June 27th, 2007, 10:54 AM
....In the lake burning with fire and brimstone,prepared for the devil and his angels..."Perhaps there is something about those conditions that render and keep satan and his cronies powerless.Lost unredeemed mankind may just be tethered along with them because of Adam and Eves fall.Jesus did tell the Pharisees..."Ye are of your father the devil..."It does seem overly harsh,but God is just...He must have eternal and substantial reasons.

Hootmon
June 27th, 2007, 11:01 AM
Punished Forever? If by that you mean 'Tormented Forever', Scripture never quite says that for the 'generic' unrighteous dead.

Aliya
June 27th, 2007, 11:05 AM
I read a defense of the 'eventual annihilation' theory that looked grammatically at the translation of 'eternal punishment' vs 'eternally punishing'.

Obviously the idea that the torment will not last forever is one most of us want to embrace - punishment meaning the separation lasts forever and could involve a final annihilation vs punishing meaning continual pain and suffering forever. I would so want that the former to be true... but the words sure do imply the latter.. and I am no Greek or Hebrew scholar to interpret more than an occasional word much less the nuances of an active verb vs whateverelseyouwouldcallit. :ohno

Wildcat81
June 27th, 2007, 11:24 AM
I read a defense of the 'eventual annihilation' theory that looked grammatically at the translation of 'eternal punishment' vs 'eternally punishing'.

I'd be interested to read that. I'm curious as to what sort of grammatical arguments might be made. So far as I can tell, the only way to interpret "eternal" there (Matthew 25:46) is eternal-in-duration, rather than eternal-in-consequence (i.e., eventual annihilation, where the unrighteous are non-existent eternally). This is the most natural way to read the phrase in its own right. It is also the reading that fits best in context, because of the way "eternal punishment" (kolasis aionios) is precisely paralleled with "eternal life" (zoe aionios) in the next clause. The eternal life of the righteous is eternal-in-duration, thus the punishment of the unrighteous is eternal-in-duration as well.

The argument that it doesn't say "eternal punishing," and so doesn't contradict annihilationism is a red herring, because a)the phrase "eternal punishment" is sufficient on its own to suggest a punishment that is eternal in duration, and b)the precise parallel between "eternal punishment" in one clause and "eternal life" in the next means that the two (punishment and life) are "eternal" in the same sense. It doesn't do to say that the punishment is eternal-in-consequence, but the life is eternal-in-duration, because that would demand changing the nuance of "eternal" from one clause to the next, which is improper.

Aliya
June 27th, 2007, 11:28 AM
I'd be interested to read that. I'm curious as to what sort of grammatical arguments might be made. So far as I can tell, the only way to interpret "eternal" there (Matthew 25:46) is eternal-in-duration, rather than eternal-in-consequence (i.e., eventual annihilation, where the unrighteous are non-existent eternally). This is the most natural way to read the phrase in its own right. It is also the reading that fits best in context, because of the way "eternal punishment" (kolasis aionios) is precisely paralleled with "eternal life" (zoe aionios) in the next clause. The eternal life of the righteous is eternal-in-duration, thus the punishment of the unrighteous is eternal-in-duration as well.

LOLOL.. uh-huh *nods wisely* Ok, so I still have no idea.:idunno Didn't when I read it, either. John MacArthur's argument matches yours, though (I think, LOL). I am not sure where I read it - I think it was in a David Reagan book, but he was quoting someone else. If I can find it again, I'll let you know.

Hootmon
June 27th, 2007, 11:46 AM
The argument that it doesn't say "eternal punishing," and so doesn't contradict annihilationism is a red herring, because a)the phrase "eternal punishment" is sufficient on its own to suggest a punishment that is eternal in duration, and b)the precise parallel between "eternal punishment" in one clause and "eternal life" in the next means that the two (punishment and life) are "eternal" in the same sense. It doesn't do to say that the punishment is eternal-in-consequence, but the life is eternal-in-duration, because that would demand changing the nuance of "eternal" from one clause to the next, which is improper.
Im no Greek scholar, but I dont see the 'red herring' in there.

The punishment, as well as the place, is indeed eternal. What is it about the Greek phrase that requires that the 'punishing' (torment) be eternal?

Aliya
June 27th, 2007, 01:13 PM
Im no Greek scholar, but I dont see the 'red herring' in there.

The punishment, as well as the place, is indeed eternal. What is it about the Greek phrase that requires that the 'punishing' (torment) be eternal?

No answer from me (obviously) but you've picked up the key thing in the argument - eternal is eternal, that word wasn't in question - but the debate was on punishment vs punishing.

evjr
June 28th, 2007, 01:52 PM
Everyone-

The below is taken from the Evidence Bible. It can be seen at evidencebible.com. It's right on the money.

If someone says:
"Hell is just a metaphor for the grave."

There are three words translated "hell" in Scripture:

Gehenna (Greek): The place of punishment (Matthew 5:22,29; 10:28; and James 3:6)
Hades (Greek): The abode of the dead (Matthew 11:23; 16:18, Luke 16:23; Acts 2:27)
Sheol (Hebrew): The grave (Psalm 9:17; 16:10)

There are those who accept that hell is a place of punishment, but believe that the punishment is to be annihilated—to cease conscious existence. They can’t conceive that the punishment of the wicked will be conscious and eternal. If they are correct, then a man like Adolph Hitler, who was responsible for the deaths of millions, is being "punished" merely with eternal sleep. His fate is simply to return to the non-existent state he was in before he was born, where he doesn’t even know that he is being punished.

However, Scripture paints a different story. The rich man who found himself in hell (Luke 16:19–31) was conscious. He was able to feel pain, to thirst, and to experience remorse. He wasn’t asleep in the grave; he was in a place of "torment." If hell is a place of knowing nothing or a reference to the grave into which we go at death, Jesus' statements about hell make no sense. He said that if your hand, foot, or eye causes you to sin, it would be better to remove it than to "go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:43–48).

The Bible refers to the fate of the unsaved with such fearful words as the following:

"Shame and everlasting contempt" (Daniel 12:2)
"Everlasting punishment" (Mathew 25:46)
"Weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 24:51)
"Fire unquenchable" (Luke 3:17)
"Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish" (Romans 2:8,9)
"Everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" (2 Thessalonians 1:9)
"Eternal fire...the blackness of darkness for ever" (Jude 7,13)

Revelation 14:10,11 tells us the final, eternal destiny of the sinner: "He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone...the smoke of their torment ascended up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day or night."

:)

Hootmon
June 28th, 2007, 02:02 PM
It's right on the money.Revelation 14:10,11 tells us the final, eternal destiny of the sinner: "He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone...the smoke of their torment ascended up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day or night."
They cobbled together partial Scriptures to prove the point they wanted to make. What they arent telling you is who 'He' is...

Here is the whole thing in context...

Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be 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; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.
(Rev 14:9-12)

Please note that those verses are referring specifically (Twice!) to a particular subset of sinners. Applying those verses generically isnt warranted by the text.

However, they are correct in keeping the various words translated as 'Hell' seperate from each other. THey arent interchangable, and treating them all the same leads to doctrinal error.