about physical torture in Hell

[Wesley's son]

In many threads on TWeb, it is explained that - physical - torment of the wicked in Hell is not supported in Scripture, at least not from famous passages in Revelation. Rather they are poetic descriptions of judgement using OT typology. How are we to resolve this with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. In the parable the rich man begs for a drop of water to cool his tongue as he is in agony. If the punishment in Hell is not physical, then what does it consist of? I admit, my understanding of Hell has been unduely influenced by the The Divine Comedy. I am not arguing against what I have read on TWeb, I am just a little confused.

Thanks all

[Xmansmommy]

Howdy Wesley's son! Just wanted to make a quick comment on your question. From what I hear from those that hold this particular view that you are inquiring of, some would probably refer to the rich man and Lazarus as being a parable and not an actual story in which one should derive the doctrine of hell from. This is a topic that I am currently listening to the views on so it is very intriguing to me. Don't know if that helps but that's just one explanation that I've heard so far. If I hear of any others I will convey them to you here. :smile:

[spl_cadet]

There's nothing in favor of it being a parable, except for Protestant doctrine that denies there being a place aside from Heaven and Hell (you can't interact if you are in Heaven and the other dude is in Hell).

As for their being physically tortured: After the Second Coming, everyone gets a new incorruptible body (the saved get glorified ones as well). Then the damned get thrown into a lake of everlasting fire (Rev 20:15, 21:18). Now, perhaps it is just me, but I suspect that that, at the very least, is going to sting pretty bad.

[Robert's s/n]

you can't interact if you are in Heaven and the other dude is in Hell).

I'd like to add that the only reason that Jesus allows the subjects of this parable to communicate post-mortem is to better illustrate the reversal of roles. The rich man couldn't very well beg Lazarus if there were no line of communication.


Now, perhaps it is just me, but I suspect that that, at the very least, is going to sting pretty bad.

If it is you, you have based your position on erroneous exegesis. To steal Dee Dee's analogy, if I tell you, "I'm gonna punch your lights out", you will interpret that to mean that I will pound your face in. If it's translated into Japanese and said in Japan, your hearer would most likely believe that you are intent on breaking into their home and smashing all of their lamps. Therefore, all metaphors need to be interpretted in their original context, and Glenn Miller's treatment of the subject demonstrates the error in your analysis.


How are we to resolve this with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. In the parable the rich man begs for a drop of water to cool his tongue as he is in agony.

"Agony" there can mean mental anguish and this anguish may only be due to his new found material decadence. As for begging for a drop of water, the text doesn't tell us explicitly why the rich man is doing that. Perhaps the only food available in hell is liver and onions, and the rich man needed a drop of water to help wash the taste out of his mouth. :smile:

[markporter]

miller says the following"




otice that this picture of a dead man in some intermediate post-death, pre-resurrection state ('Hades' here), is in "torment" (but cf. 2 Peter 2.8: "for by what he[Lot] saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds"), but is able to carry on a very subdued conversation with Abraham. There is no screaming (or even weeping/gnashing, in this case), and the only request he makes is for a simple 'fingertip' of water for his thirst. There is fire, but it doesn't seem to burn him--it only makes him thirsty/warm. His "quality of life" is equated to the quality of life that the beggar Lazarus had during his lifetime (e.g. lack of getting all of his basic needs met in community). He carries on a reasonable argument with Abraham about his brothers, without alternating the sentences with shrieks and screams of pain. This would be quite a disappointment to Dante...

A couple of exegetical notes:

1. The Rich Man's word for being in 'agony' is better translated 'anguish'. So, Bock, Luke:

"The rich man has gone from self-indulgence to anguish. Luke here uses a different term for suffering that that used in 16:23: 'odynaomai' refers to continual pain and grief, especially mental pain, which is why 'anguish' is a good way to render the term." [cf. its usage in Luke 2.48: "When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.” And Acts 20.38: "What grieved them most was his statement that they would never see his face again.")

2. The only type of anguish alluded to her seems to be thirst (i.e. the Rich Man doesn't seem to have sores, hunger, attending canines--so his situation is already 'less bad' than what Lazarus experienced in life), and this fits the only early Jewish parallel we have. Bauckham describes it [HI:FD:99]:

"It will be useful to summarize the earliest of the Jewish versions, which occurs in the Palestinian Talmud (y. Sanh. 23c; y. Hag. 77d). it tells of a rich taxcollector named Bar Ma'yan and a poor Torah scholar in Askelon. They die on the same day, but whereas the taxcollector is buried in style, the poor pious man is unmourned. A friend of his is troubled by the contrast, until in a dream he sees the poor man in paradise and the taxcollector tormented in hell. His punishment is tantalization: he continually tries to drink from a river but cannot."

3. The contrasts between the Rich Man and Lazarus (name means 'the help of God') cannot be starker: mansion/outside at gate; feasting/hunger, splendor/squalor, extreme wealth/extreme poverty, burial/none.

4. We have no idea how long Lazarus has been a beggar, been at the man's gate begging, or been covered with sores. He is clearly able to talk, but not able to keep the dogs away. The Rich Man, however, probably knows Lazarus' name, since he refers to him by name later in the story (although this may be pressing the details too much).

Strictly speaking, this verse AT BEST describes the intermediate state of the Rich Man, between the First Death and the Second Death, as opposed to the “lake of fire” or "hell". It might not be representative of the final state, although the image of ‘fire’ is still present therein. And even the "torment" that the Rich Man feels may be relative to his 'comfort and luxury' experienced on earth.

And there is a strong possibility that it teaches almost NOTHING about the next life...Many (conservative and moderate) biblical scholars argue that this picture was not intended by Jesus to be taken as a detailed description of hell, but rather solely as an image of status-reversal (i.e, the last will be first).

It is in the form of a rabbinic parable (cf. esp. the many conversations of Abraham in rabbinic lit), and accordingly was ONLY 'parsed' by the reader for the SINGLE lesson point (like "normal" parables are supposed to be taken). Rabbinic parables were never "used" to base factual conclusions on--the audience knew not to make assumptions about the size of Abraham's lap from this, or about the identity of Lazarus.

For example, Bauckham does an excellent job of pointing out how difficult it is to sustain the argument that this story teaches ANYTHING OTHER THAN the principle of 'reversal of fortunes' [HI:FD:103-105]:

"The first part of the parable (vv 19-26) is solely concerned with the reversal of fortunes of the rich man and Lazarus. The point is that the rich man's luxurious lifestyle in this life is replaced by suffering in the next, while Lazarus's destitution and suffering in this life are replaced by exaltation in the next."

"It is sometimes said that the parable does not explain why the fortunes of the two are reversed after death, and so some implicit criterion of judgment must be supplied. It must be assumed that the rich man is condemned because he was not only rich but misused his wealth, or because he acquired it unjustly or because he neglected to give charity to the poor man at his gate._ Similarly, it must be assumed that Lazarus was not only destitute but pious. But the claim that the parable does not explain the reversal of fortunes is untrue. The reason is clearly stated in verse 25, where Abraham justifies the reversal to the rich man. Of course, there is something implicit even in verse 25. It is assumed that the state of affairs in the next world is due to God's justice. The common Jewish eschatological assumption that the next world exists to put right the injustices of this world can be taken for granted. What has to be put right is the fact that one man lived in luxury while another was destitute. The next world compensates for this inequality by replacing it with a reverse inequality. The rich man has already received his good things, it is now his turn to suffer. Lazarus has already suffered enough; he should now be 'consoled'.

"For this view of the matter, it is not relevant to condemn the rich man for over-indulgence, dishonesty or even neglecting his duty of charity to the poor (if that means he should have relieved Lazarus' suffering while remaining rich himself. What is wrong with the situation in this world, according to the parable, is the stark inequality in the living conditions of the two men, which is vividly and memorably conveyed simply by the juxtaposition of the rich man's expensive luxury and the poor man's painful beggary (vv 19-2 1). This is why there is no mention of the moral qualities of the two men. The injustice which God's justice in the next life must remedy lies in the mere facts which are stated in verses 19-2 1. To try to base the fate of the two men in the parable on considerations other than these stated facts is to evade the parable's clear-sighted view of the flagrant injustice of the situation it sketches. What is not stated is not relevant.

"In effect, therefore, it is true that the rich man suffers in the next life just because he was rich in this life, while the poor man is blessed in the next life just because he was poor in this life. The reasons why scholars have been so reluctant to accept that the parable teaches this, even though it so explicitly does, are no doubt various. Probably some do not themselves see the inequality described at the beginning of the parable as in itself unjust. But then it is characteristic of the Gospel parables to shift our perspective on things. Others perhaps object to the notion that the eternal destiny of individuals should be determined solely by this one consideration. But this would be the teaching of the parable only if we understood it to be a systematic statement about human destiny after death, whereas in fact it is a parable concerned with the single issue of wealth and poverty. Finally, it may be objected that the notion of justice involved in the reversal of fortunes is unacceptably crude. The inequality of the two men's position in this life is not satisfactorily remedied by the imposition of a reverse inequality in the next life (especially if the brevity of this life is contrasted with the eternity of the next).

"If the theme of eschatological reversal were taken as a literal description of how God's justice will operate after death it would be morally intolerable. However, if it is taken as a popular way of thinking which the parable uses to make a point, it can be seen as serving primarily to express and to highlight the intolerable injustice of the situation where one enjoys luxury and another suffers want. The motif of the eschatological reversal of fortunes for rich and poor surely belongs properly to the religious folklore of ordinary people, the poor. It is their hope in the justice of God against the injustice of this life as they experience it. Jesus in the parable takes up that perception, that hope and a popular way of expressing it. The parable is one of many indications that Jesus was close to both the religious folklore and the concerns of ordinary, poor people.

Even the more traditional Bock (Luke, in.loc.), who sees--contra Bauckham--a moral to the story about lack of compassion, points out the problem of using this for details about the afterlife:

"Calling the account an example story implies that its details about the afterlife are graphic portrayals, not necessarily actual descriptions of the afterlife." (p.1363)

Accordingly, this story may provide no information about the afterlife. But if it does, the information it yields is hardly that of mind-numbing torture.



sorry, will get the custom smilies sorted out some time

[Socrates]

11-28-2003 @ 01:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318838#post318838)
spl_cadet:

There's nothing in favor of it being a parable,

Indeed there is not.


except for Protestant doctrine that denies there being a place aside from Heaven and Hell (you can't interact if you are in Heaven and the other dude is in Hell).

No we don't -- the Bible says that Sheol had two compartments: one for the blessed called the "bosom of Abraham" and then other for the damned called Gehenna. When Christ ascended, he took the inhabitants of Abraham's bosom with him, so this compartment of sheol is now empty. Neither this nor any other part of true Scripture lend the slightest support for Purgatory.

If you want to cast blame, you would do well to take off your Papist hat and point to those who use emotions to judge Scripture rather than vice versa.


As for their being physically tortured: After the Second Coming, everyone gets a new incorruptible body (the saved get glorified ones as well). Then the damned get thrown into a lake of everlasting fire (Rev 20:15, 21:18). Now, perhaps it is just me, but I suspect that that, at the very least, is going to sting pretty bad.

Yes, annihilationism is untenable -- see Soc gives 'em hell (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=247378#post247378).

[mickiel]

11-27-2003 @ 03:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318558#post318558)
Wesley's son:

In many threads on TWeb, it is explained that - physical - torment of the wicked in Hell is not supported in Scripture, at least not from famous passages in Revelation. Rather they are poetic descriptions of judgement using OT typology. How are we to resolve this with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. In the parable the rich man begs for a drop of water to cool his tongue as he is in agony. If the punishment in Hell is not physical, then what does it consist of? I admit, my understanding of Hell has been unduely influenced by the The Divine Comedy. I am not arguing against what I have read on TWeb, I am just a little confused.

Thanks all




When you try to make a parable literal, it ceases to be a parable. Wesley I highly recomend you read L Ray Smiths article on this parable at bible-truths.com. Lazarus and the rich man is a parable, parables must always be interpited. They must be understood "figuratively". If one trys to give this parable literal meaning, it would be impossible. It would defy the laws of physics itself, much less reason and logic, two things that escape most bible believers. For example, the statement "being in Abrahams bosom", many think that means heaven. Impossible, no mans bosom is heaven. Heaven is not even mentioned in the parable. Then the statement " the rich man dying lifited up his eyes", impossible if you try to interpit that literally. Nobody can lift up their eyes in the grave. Even in the not too distant future, the eyes would be rotten. When we die, there is no conciousness, Ps. 6:5, 13:3, Job 7:21, 1 Thess. 4:14, Job 14:14-15. Notice in Job 14, when a person dies they must wait for God to change them.

Notice also the statement, " and seeing Abraham from afar, he shouted", immposible. How in the world of reason, if this man is supposed to be in flames, torment, he can see and reconize anyone from a long ways off. And besides, no one shouts in the grave, they are silent.

There are many interpitations of hell in our world, and the bible is just not as clear on hell as most pretend it is. I believe that many mistake the lake of fire-- as hell. There is death, there is the grave, there is a burning of bodies back then, even now, and there is a lake of fire. I reject the belief that God will place humans into this fire PERMINANTLY, and keep them alive- forever, while inflicting eternal punishment for a few years of sinning. This belief is relevant in religons and has handicapped the minds of humanity. It shows me how far off we have travled from truth.

I believe that the lake of fire is a sterilazition of sin. I am not quite clear on there being humans put into it, sometimes I think so, often I do not. But even when I think they will be placed in the lake, I know they will not remain there for eternity. I will never believe that about God. As I study his nature, come to understand more of his pathology, he would never torture anything forever, such a belief is a horrible misunderstanding of God.

I must say, I am not christian, and this horrible belief is one reason I will never be one. I will not be a part of any religon that teachs that God will punish humans alive for all eternity. It hurts me to my heart that religons have swallowed this terrible distortion of truth.

[trueseeker]

From my point of view there is a real hell with real punishment and agony. Whether the souls in hell have actual physical bodies or they are only in a soul form that feels pain I'm not sure. However, I do believe it is a limited fair-just punishment equal to the individuals crimes, evil intentions, etc. in this life. After they have received just recompense they will be thrown into the lake of fire and cease to exist. I would suspect that the story of lazarus and the rich man, although it was only a parable, is a fairly accurate depiction of what people in hell are thinking and feeling - agony and fear that their loved ones will end up there as well.

[mickiel]

Today @ 08:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=370247#post370247)
trueseeker:

From my point of view there is a real hell with real punishment and agony. Whether the souls in hell have actual physical bodies or they are only in a soul form that feels pain I'm not sure. However, I do believe it is a limited fair-just punishment equal to the individuals crimes, evil intentions, etc. in this life. After they have received just recompense they will be thrown into the lake of fire and cease to exist. I would suspect that the story of lazarus and the rich man, although it was only a parable, is a fairly accurate depiction of what people in hell are thinking and feeling - agony and fear that their loved ones will end up there as well.





You think that God will allow the memory of agony forever? What about suffering and agony is a "just punishment". What human do you know who deserves to live forever? I would like to meet some of these "holy people". Do you deserve not to be punished? When did humanity "deserve to NOT be punished, muchless speak of who deserves punishment. Just punishment, good greif, the mind of man is merciless.

[trueseeker]

mickiel asked:
You think that God will allow the memory of agony forever? What about suffering and agony is a "just punishment". What human do you know who deserves to live forever? I would like to meet some of these "holy people". Do you deserve not to be punished? When did humanity "deserve to NOT be punished, muchless speak of who deserves punishment. Just punishment, good greif, the mind of man is merciless.


There are extreme evil doers like Hitler and Stalin. Then there are cold hearted murders and the list goes down to lessor and lessor crimes. I believe that God's punishment is just and will fit the crimes of the individuals. The rich man's crime from Jesus' description, was a lack of mercy for the poor Lazarus, so the rich man's punishment seems to have been severe thirst. I imagine there will be much more severe punishments for some, and much less for others. I believe the punishment will fit the crimes and when the price has been paid, they will be thrown into the lake of fire to be unmade - cease to exist. They will be relieved to be finished with their punishments and go to eternal rest - be finally at peace.

I agree with your accessment that no one is holy enough to avoid some punishment in hell, but Jesus has provided a way to avoid it. If we are willing to accept His sacrifice to cover our crimes, and if we are willing to allow Him to remake our hearts in His image, then we will receive a pardon and membership in His eternal kingdom.

[mickiel]

There are extreme evil doers like Hitler and Stalin. Then there are cold hearted murders and the list goes down to lessor and lessor crimes. I believe that God's punishment is just and will fit the crimes of the individuals. The rich man's crime from Jesus' description, was a lack of mercy for the poor Lazarus, so the rich man's punishment seems to have been severe thirst. I imagine there will be much more severe punishments for some, and much less for others. I believe the punishment will fit the crimes and when the price has been paid, they will be thrown into the lake of fire to be unmade - cease to exist. They will be relieved to be finished with their punishments and go to eternal rest - be finally at peace.

I agree with your accessment that no one is holy enough to avoid some punishment in hell, but Jesus has provided a way to avoid it. If we are willing to accept His sacrifice to cover our crimes, and if we are willing to allow Him to remake our hearts in His image, then we will receive a pardon and membership in His eternal kingdom. [/QUOTE]





I used to think in terms of God eliminating what he does not like. God certaintly has the ability to will things out of existance, which makes more sense than torturing forever, or allowing something in a sinful state to have eternity in that state. Still, I now go futher. I think the history of mankind has been "locked" into a sinful state by God himself, Rom. 11:32, and they are simply not being judged. The bible states that judgement starts in the house of God, which is perhaps the first fruits, they are being judged now, whoever they are. I don't think any of them will be eliminated. Because Jesus is called the savior of the world, I believe that is a literal truth statement. I therefore see no reason to conclude that any will be eliminated, but in some distant future, all will come to repentance when God releases them from the lock. This I believe to be the hope of glory.

[trueseeker]

mickiel wrote:
I used to think in terms of God eliminating what he does not like. God certaintly has the ability to will things out of existance, which makes more sense than torturing forever, or allowing something in a sinful state to have eternity in that state. Still, I now go futher. I think the history of mankind has been "locked" into a sinful state by God himself, Rom. 11:32, and they are simply not being judged. The bible states that judgement starts in the house of God, which is perhaps the first fruits, they are being judged now, whoever they are. I don't think any of them will be eliminated. Because Jesus is called the savior of the world, I believe that is a literal truth statement. I therefore see no reason to conclude that any will be eliminated, but in some distant future, all will come to repentance when God releases them from the lock. This I believe to be the hope of glory.


I think God made us to be His children, in His image, and He is preparing a place for His children. However, mankind rebelled and we allowed our hearts to be corrupted. If we are willing to die to our old corrupt nature, and let God build a heart in us that is like His, in His image, then we again will be what He made us to be - His children. He is building a eternal place for His children, but there is no place for those who are not willing to die to their own desires and accept His. We can't enter in with our old natures, because that would bring corruption into His new kingdom. So there is no place for those of us who are unwilling to become what He made us to be, but to be unmade.

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 10:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=370444#post370444)
trueseeker:

I think God made us to be His children, in His image, and He is preparing a place for His children. However, mankind rebelled and we allowed our hearts to be corrupted. If we are willing to die to our old corrupt nature, and let God build a heart in us that is like His, in His image, then we again will be what He made us to be - His children. He is building a eternal place for His children, but there is no place for those who are not willing to die to their own desires and accept His. We can't enter in with our old natures, because that would bring corruption into His new kingdom. So there is no place for those of us who are unwilling to become what He made us to be, but to be unmade.





I see in you understanding that you think mankind is the cause for their own corruption. You seem to also believe that God will not change the corrupt nature of all men, just perhaps a few. I disagree with such notions. And I will tell you why. In 1 Thess. 5:9, God has not destined us to feel his wrath, but we were destined for salvation. Salvation is mankinds destiny. It is a preconceived plan of Gods design, not based on the corruption of men. Those who are not willing to change, their wills are going to be submitted to God. Even those who do not know better, Jesus was prophisicised to open their minds and change their natures. Isaiah 53:11. Jesus will justify the many corrupt that you think cannot be justified. In Is. 45:23, this is when the corupt nature of all of mankind will be changed. God swears by himself that every single corupt human will bow to him and be given belief.

Now in Titus 1:2, this shows God promised this salvation long ago, before coruption waseven unleased upon humanity in Eden. In Titus 2:11, this salvation is promised to all men, especially the corupt ones. All are included. In 1John 3:8, Jesus came to earth to totally destroy the works of the devil. Evil and coruption are satans work, not humans. The courpt humans you are willing to condemn, are not condemned by Christ. In 1 John 3:5, Jesus appeared in order to take away sins, corupt minds are included in that process. The wills of corupt men will be changed. The mind of religon cannot believe this, thinking Gods plan of salvation is only for good people. Jesus did not come for those who are NOT corupt, he came to call corupt sinners to repentance. Luke 5:32 is clear on that. The bible does not condemn sinners, it gives them hope. You have no hope for corupt humanity, as you display in your views. The bible disagrees with such an approach toward sinful humanity, there is much hope to the one who is not giving in to this rampant mentality of doom spreading in the religous community.

In 1John 2:2 Jesus is the solution, the forgiveness, for OUR sins. This "our" is those who are NOT corupt. Then the verse extends salvation futher. It then says not JUST ours, but the sins of the WHOLE WORLD. All the corption you thinks dooms humanity, will be forgiven by Christ. This is the great mystery of the gospel. In Jhon 1:29, Jesus is taking away the sins OF THE WORLD, NOT -- NOT just those who are not corupt. Good people are good people, but the corupt are those who really need salvation. In my understanding of Gods word, he will not abandon these unbelievers. In 1 Tim 2:6, he is the ransom for all, this all INCLUDES unbelievers and vile corupt humanity. These are who Christ came for. Religon teaches he came just for the righteous, the bible does not teach that. Again in Mark 3:28, all the sins of humanity will be forgiven, unbelief and corupt mentalitys IS INCLUDED in this, you simply do not believe this.

In Rom. 5:18, because of one mans coruption sin entered into this world into all mankind, because of Jesus, that same all will be saved. In 1 Tim. 4:10 Jesus is called world savior, this includes those you exclude from Gods kingdom. In 1 John 4:14, that is Jesus God given mission, to save all of us, not just the good people. I do not share your vison of Gods word eliminating people, I see him saving people. In Luke 9:56, Jesus claims this himself. He didnot come to eliminate corupt humanity, but to save them.