(Beginning
of Series, gr5part1.html)
Part
Two: Criterion One.
Let’s look at each of
these criteria in turn…
Criterion
One:
1.
There must be more
‘good’ than ‘bad’ (for the creatures, that is, us)
This is a most
interesting issue, because it is often assumed by ‘objectors’ that the world is
full of evil and suffering, that life is more-torture-than-not, and that the
evil present world order is not “good enough” to have warranted being created
itself (before we even get to the issue of heaven and hell).
Now, I have argued
elsewhere in the Tank that this is simply not the case. Without falling into
the folly of Candide, I would
argue that although it might be difficult to defend the position that this
world is the ‘best of all possible worlds’, I consider it very defensible to maintain that this world
is much , much better than the ‘worst of all possible worlds’, and indeed, that
it would fall into the “top half” of possible worlds, based upon simple world
and life statistics.
Let's look at the two
most often mentioned specific areas of alleged "vast" suffering: people and the biotic food-chain (e.g., predation, parasitism, etc).
First, evil in human experience.
Even at a cursory
(non-rigorous) level, it should obvious that:
1.
If
life really were more evil than good, then violent crimes should be orders of magnitude higher than they
are in the world. Violent crime is measured in single and double digits, within
population bases of 100,000 people. Of the approximately 50 million people who
died worldwide in 1990 (approximately eight-tenths of one percent of the world
population), only 1.4% of those were from intentional, violent crime. [In the USA in 1997, violent personal crime
affected only 4% of the over-12yr population.] These numbers should be vastly
higher in a vastly-evil world.
2.
Even a quick fly-by glance at basic vital
statistics would suggest that "evil suffering" is not the major part
of our lives. Life expectancy: of
all the major countries of the world, only three have life expectancies of less
than 60 years (i.e., Kenya, Pakistan, South Africa). Refugee counts: even with the widest definitions, only
two-hundredths of one percent (.02%) of the world population is classified as
refugees. Unemployment: the vast
majority of the countries of the world have unemployment under 15%, with the
60+ largest countries having 10% or less. Nutritional
mortality: in spite of the fact that perhaps as many as one-third of
the world does not eat an 'adequate diet,' deaths from nutrition-related causes
only accounts for less than 1 percent of all deaths. These figures should be
much, much higher in a world of "more evil than good".
3.
If life really were more evil than good,
then humanity might have killed itself off long ago, by a combination of
homicide, genocide, suicide, xenocide.
But somehow, life “outruns” self-destruction in our history…
4.
If life really were more evil than good,
then the headlines of the nightly news would not captivate us very well…Plane
crashes of hundreds of fatalities, earthquakes with similar body counts, serial
killers of dozens of people would all be virtually trivialized by the daily
experience in each life
on earth(!) of "majority evil". If evil were the
majority (i.e., more “bad” than “good”), news of it would not be
"news" in the least, and the horrors of concentrated points of evil
in history (e.g. the Holocaust, the western Slave Trade) would not provoke such
moral outrage or pessimism over human nature as they do…
5.
There is a basic philosophical argument,
that evil, as parasitic on ‘good’, simply cannot exist in the ‘majority’ or it
would starve itself, so to speak. You simply cannot have significantly more
vampires than you have live humans…
So, at a big-picture
level, the ‘actual numbers’ are
overwhelmingly in favor of “there is
more good than bad, for us humans”, relative to life on earth. This
point needs to be taken quite seriously. One moment of pain is unbearable and
stark, when it occurs in a life of uninterrupted bliss. But in a life that is
characterized by chronic pain, the simple moment doesn't even get
noticed...Evil gets 'noticed' by us and is used in a POE(!) BECAUSE it stands
in such contrast to ordinary lives of non-evil...The statistics of deaths by violence and actual deaths by hunger, for example, show these to be very, very non-majority in human
life on the planet as a whole.
But let’s look a little
closer at some related issues…
If I had to categorize
suffering for this discussion, I might make the following distinctions:
a.
“low-grade” suffering or
discontent. This might include feelings of modern
discontent, alienation, bad situations,
and the like. These are difficult to really call ‘suffering’ or ‘torturous’
since they can so quickly be forgotten in moments of happiness, fun, or even
co-miseration(!), and since they are generally dwarfed (quantitatively) by the
simple pleasures of eating, sleeping, nature, friends, music, love, humor,
family, and (often) progress or results, and (sometimes) even victory/triumph
over adverstity! These feelings can also often be incitements to better
ourselves (“tired of that same old boring job? Try being a XYZ!") as well
as clues to the Reality beyond ourselves. Although intellectuals frequently
complain about the malaise of life, the common folk, although they constantly
complain about bosses, wives, kids, sport figures, politicians, in-laws, taxes,
bad food, etc., etc., etc., would not appear so morbid or concerned as the
“sensitive elite” might lead us to believe. In this category I would also
include the annoyance-level illnesses (e.g, colds), and accidents of
non-life-changing nature.
b.
systemic discomfort. This would include “continuous” diseases
(e.g., diabetes), accidents that force major changes to lifestyles (e.g.,
amputations), and physical or mental abnormalities that force systemic changes
to our ways of life. Generally, these changes then become routine and become
part of the “background” of our lives. We develop “work arounds” for these, and
often develop compensatory and off-setting skills as well.
c.
“crisis level”
suffering. This would include events, accidents,
severe emotional trauma, debilitating violent crimes, or onset of some serious
disease, which prompt a ‘crisis’ in life. In other words, this type of
suffering is episodic or incident-based, and often gives rise to questions of personal
identify, existence, purpose, etc.
d.
“serious” suffering. This would
include painful diseases of chronic nature or long-term torture.
[I am excluding from
consideration here, any short-term, intense suffering which is part of a
death-experience. In other words, since everyone dies and since dying itself is
unpleasant (but generally very
brief compared to life), it cannot rank “quantitatively” up
there with longer-period suffering types mentioned above. Someone who lives 40
years in general absence-of-intense-pain , and then suffers horribly for three
days after a car accident before dying in the hospital, cannot be said to have
had a life of “more pain than not”. I am not trying to be insensitive here, but
I am simply trying to respond to the 'statistical' argument that 'life is more
evil than good' of an objector.]
Even the simplest of
reflection on the above categories should reveal that the more ‘serious’ the suffering level, the
less ‘statistically present’ it is in human experience. Category D is by
far and away the most intense, and yet is very rare, statistically speaking.
Category C we have already referred to, in noting its “parts per 100,000
people” frequency measurements. Category B is still very small statistically,
and most of the elements that would be included do not involve large-term
physical pain of intense nature. [They could, of course, be related to C and
fall into that category as well. And there are also psychological dimensions
associated with each of these categories as well, but that phenomenon is much
more variant among people than are the physical aspects. In other words, how
one ‘deals emotionally’ with crises, impairments, accidents is much less
predictable that the physical pain associated with a broken leg.] And Category
A cannot be considered “suffering” in any but the most trivial sense (although
for various reasons, they sometimes escalate for various reasons, to Category
C).
I gave a quote in the
earlier part of this that bears repeating here:
'[If
God were a sadist], He could give us infinitely more pain than we do suffer. He
could force us to eat as the drug addict is forced to the use of his drug, by
the pain of abstention instead of by the pleasing urge of healthy hunger. All
physical functions could be forced by pain instead of invited by pleasure...If
God were indifferent, why the variety of fruit flavors for the palate, the
invariably harmonizing riot of colors in flower and sunset, the tang of salt
air and power to vibrate in joy to these things?...If God loves His creatures
all is explained, except death, pain, and sorrow, and these things would indeed
present, as they do present to all but believers, an insoluble problem. But the
Bible's explanation is clear as crystal: 'Death came by sin,' and the glorious
end is as succinctly put as the explanation, 'And God shall wipe all tears from
their eyes.'" [Irwin H. Linton, A
Lawyer Examines the Bible, Wilde:1943, p.31., cited in Dave Hunt's In Defense
of the Faith, Harvest House:1996, p.231]
And, to size the
problem, let me point out that by far and away, the VAST majority of pain and suffering
is preventative--it alerts us to
take evasive action to avoid more
pain and harm. As such, the vast
majority of “suffering” is constructive and helpful, even though unpleasant. By
the same token, MUCH adversity and challenge result in personal achievement and
community care responses; and many horrendous evils result in public outcry,
resulting in macro-shifts in public morality and cultural 'compromises' (e.g.,
the Holocaust, Bosnia). And even the low-level "whining" of
discontent sometimes irritates us enough to better ourselves or to change our
situation/future.
It is important to
remind the reader that to satisfy this criteria only requires that ‘obvious,
intense suffering’ be 49% or less of all conscious experiences. It does not
require suffering to be at an absolute minimum, or non-gratuitous, or
correlated exactly with “virtue” or “vice”. This Poor Man’s theodicy is much
more ‘tangible’ and ‘intuitive’, and seems to fit reasonably well with our
basic moral notions and decision-making approaches.
So, I have to conclude that Criterion One is met (for
humans) with regards to this earthly life.
The second case is that
of the biotic food-chain of the natural world, with its eat-and-be-eaten,
predation, parasitism, etc. Surely such a world constitutes
more-suffering-than-good for the animals that must run to avoid being eaten
every single day.
But the facts are
otherwise...
An extensive analysis of
consciousness, suffering, animal 'happiness', and predation indicates quite
clearly that there is considerably
"more conscious animal good than bad" in the biotic world. [see predator.html]
So, I have to conclude that Criterion One is met (for
suffering-capable creatures)t with regards to this earthly life.
But, the real wrinkle is
thought to arise when the afterlife (specifically, hell) is added into the mix…
And in this case, we can
divide the classes of conscious creatures (we will deal exclusively with human
creatures in this afterlife discussion) we need to deal with into two:
1. Those that go to a
pleasant afterlife.
2. Those that go to an
unpleasant afterlife.
Most people don't complain
about the first class--for the people in that class it is generally accepted
that the good that they experience in eternal life with God would dwarf any
sorrow and persecution that they experienced on earth. The net effect would be
"more good than bad" very, very easily!
In fact, the good they
experience is considered to be a "multiple" of their earthly
existence. Biblical images of this would include the "much more" of
Paul, and the sowing/reaping images.
So, that category of
folks would definitely seem to
experience Criterion One (more good than bad).
[Note also that if this
class were somehow quantitatively in the majority, and if their experience of
'post-death good' was at least as good
as the experience of 'post-death bad' was 'bad' for the other class, then Criterion One would be
achieved--even without consideration of the nature of the 'bad'. But we cannot
assume that here, although it is discussed briefly elsewhere, in hnohear.html ]
So, we are left with those
that experience what the Christian tradition calls "Hell".
Now, there are three
dominant views of the duration of
Hell today--the traditional view, the
universalist view, and the annihilation
view (in a couple of variations). [There are other views, of course,
but only these three are dominant in evangelical theology—that sphere in which
this issue arises most vividly. ]
First,
let’s do the “easiest” one—the universalist view.
This view essentially
has both a hell and a heaven, but the hell is only temporary. Those not ‘ready’
for heaven go to hell (a place of purging or “remedial” suffering), and after
some period of discipline/punish (correlated with their acts of evil during
their earthly life), they are released from hell and enter heaven, to experience
unending bliss.
This position obviously
has more ‘good than bad’, for even the cruelest of humans, and accordingly
Criterion One is clearly met for all humans under this view of the afterlife
(and therefore also applies to the aggregate of people).
Next,
let's do the "easier" one--the annihilation view.
There are a couple of
variations of the annihilationist view (also known as ‘conditional
immortality’), but the one the most relevant for our analysis here would
include the following elements:
1.
The hell-bound are raised from the dead at the final judgment.
2.
They are judged and sentenced on the basis of the violence they perpetrated on
others during their lifetime (at least those that did not accept some sort of
‘pardon’ offer from God).
3.
They are sent to a place/state of punishment (hell) where they receive
themselves what they did to others (in some analogous form?). This is a
"proportional" judgment/sentence, which might consist of solely
'self-inflicted consequences', but might also involve punishment from external
forces (e.g., pain from heat, thirst).
4.
When they have served this sentence, since immortality is NOT inherent in
humans but is SOLELY an add-on gift from God, they die a second time (the Second
Death) and/or are annihilated (simply "poof" out of
existence--disintegration like when a cell dies and the components simply
disperse?). [Alternately, the punishment
itself disintegrates their consciousness over its duration--the
image of 'destruction' and 'consumption' and ‘perish’]
In this case, the
justice element is exact. The damage done by
them is the damage done to them
(perhaps with a slight penalty up-tick, to account for the destructive ripples
in history their acts would have caused, and perhaps with a slight down-tick,
to account for any undue oppression done to them). In this case, this temporary
state of punishment would not exceed
the 'improperly acquired good' (e.g.,
extorted) during the earthly life. In other words, if their "default"
earthly life were more good than bad, with an abnormal
extra "layer" of good gained
by oppression and exploitation of others, then the "layer of
bad" in hell (proportional
to that oppression/exploitation) would simply "cancel
out" the extra "layer of
good" (resulting in a "net" life of still more good than bad, or
perhaps something "close to zero").
In this case, the life,
although lasting longer than physical death, is still finite, and the judgment
(however long) merely compensates for 'excess' good gained by evil actions. Accordingly, under this view of hell, these people
would also satisfy Criterion One (more good than bad) although the
good would be VASTLY LESS than that experienced by the heaven-bound
individuals.
[The data to support
this view is considerable, and I intend to deal with it as soon as I can get to
it.]
Notice that the two
views above deny explicitly that any
human will experience unending, conscious punishment.
Now, we
will deal with the traditional
view.
[The official Roman Catholic
view, with purgatory as a 'staging area' for those who will end up in heaven,
falls into this category of traditional. Those in hell are conscious there for
forever, and those in heaven likewise. This can be found in the theological
works (e.g., Ott, Tanquery), the modern catechisms (e.g., A New Catechism: Catholic Faith for Adults,
Seabury:1966, by the bishops of the Netherlands), as well as the compendia of
church documents (e.g., editions by Neuner and Roos, by Neuner and Dupuis).]
The traditional view maintains that the souls
of all people are inherently immortal (in the Greek sense, not the biblical
sense), meaning that all conscious beings remain conscious forever. As beings
created within a universe, we are part of our surroundings. We 'put' elements
from our character and our choices 'into' our environment, and we 'take in'
elements of the environment into our selves. We exist in intake/outtake
"dialog" with our surroundings (including our peers). Since much of
the environment is "put there" by other agents like ourselves, what
happens to one generally trickles out to affect the others (like passengers
sharing the air on an airplane flight). In life, my smile might start a chain
of smiles, and my scowls might start similar chains at the office...
When such a 'minimally
immortal' soul is placed in the presence of God (a state in which God is
'contributing' much of His internal personal joy, peace, love, well-being into
the environment for 'intake' by others), it enjoys
the experience and draws creative and healing-integrative life from Him, and
from others around Him. When such a soul is placed in the area of God's
non-contribution (in which none of the elements of the environment available
for 'intake' are contributed from God's internal values, but only from the soul
itself and from other souls without that feed also), the result would be
unpleasant and degenerative.
The 'logic' of hell in
the bible is surprisingly simple: You receive
back the treatment/effects you gave other agents (including God and yourself)
with some kind of multiplier effect. [The bible is full of images of
this reciprocity concept: reaping what you sow, being paid back, suffering loss
as you had despoiled others, unkindness for unkindness shown, apathy for apathy
rendered, 'eye for an eye', proportional judgement, etc.] Most traditionalists
also recognize that our exploitative actions toward others also modify our own
characters in the process. When I
treat people destructively, I also treat myself destructively. When I treat
people kindly, I also treat myself kindly.
In this model of
“interaction with one’s environment,” receiving back any negative
treatment/effects you gave to others may consist largely of ‘re-breathing’
one’s own character, soiled by exploitative actions and destructive choices.
[There may be other elements as well, externally administered by victims
perhaps.]
Now at this point I need
to do a lot of Dante-debunking...
The religious
imaginations and speculations about what goes on in hell are staggering, and
even famous theologians in the past have not been exempt. The images that
(sometimes) influence our perceptions of what hell is like are DECIDEDLY
unbiblical and MUST consciously be distanced from. A smattering of these
extra-biblical (both Christian and Jewish) images is given by Crockett in Four Views of Hell (Crockett, ed.,
Zondervan:1992; pp.46-47):
"From the second to the fourth centuries, we find no uniform view on the fate of the lost, but from some Christians emerged descriptions of hell that were gruesome beyond belief. Not satisfied with the images of fire and smoke, some of the more creative pictured hell as a bizarre horror chamber. No excess or novelty escaped them. These vivid Christian portraits are similar to, and often dependent on, earlier Jewish accounts of hell. In both literatures, punishment is based on a measure-for-measure principle, as in the formula, 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' (Ex. 21:24; Lev. 24:20). For Christians, Jesus' words about final judgment were significant: 'For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get' (Matt. 7:2,NRSV).
"In short, whatever member of the body sinned, that member would be punished more than any other in hell (at least they attempted proximate punishment). In Christian literature we find blasphemers hanging by their tongues. Adulterous women who plaited their hair to entice men dangle over boiling mire by their necks or hair. Slanderers chew their tongues, hot irons burn their eyes. Other evildoers suffer in equally picturesque ways. Murderers are cast into pits filled with venomous reptiles, and worms fill their bodies. Women who had abortions sit neck deep in the excretions of the damned. Those who chatted idly during church stand in a pool of burning sulphur and pitch. Idolaters are driven up cliffs by demons where they plunge to the rocks below, only to be driven up again. Those who turned their backs on God are turned and baked slowly in the fires of hell.
"Italian poet Dante Alighieri fueled these early speculations with the publication of his Divine Comedy, a popular work that achieved a certain notoriety in western culture. He imagined a place of absolute terror where the damned writhe and scream, while the blessed bask in the glory of Eternal Light. The descriptions of hell come complete with loud wails of sinners boiling in blood, terrified and naked people running from hordes of biting snakes, and lands of heavy darkness and dense fog. In Dante's hell, people must endure thick, burning smoke that chars their nostrils, and some remain forever trapped in lead cloaks, a claustrophobic nightmare.
"Jewish literature is often more graphic than the frightful descriptions of hell found in Christian apocalypses. The rabbis speak of licentious men hanging by their genitals, women who publicly suckled their children hanging by their breasts, and those who talked during synagogue prayers having their mouths filled with hot coals.
"Graphic descriptions of hell are not limited to Jews and Christians. The Koran talks about the damned roasting in the flames of hell (Al-Muddaththir 74:28-29) and being forced to drink scalding water and cold pus (Sad 38:57-58).
The traditional
evangelical view DOES NOT include the active,
monstrous torments that occur in the more speculative religious literature
(Greek, Roman, Jewish, Christian), in those vivid medieval paintings, in some
fundamentalist preaching, or in many skeptics' formulation of this objection!
To demonstrate this, let
me simply quote from two VERY traditional sources, one evangelical protestant
(very conservative and holding to the traditional view of hell) and from a
modern (but still conservative) Catholic work.
The first is from Immortality: The Other Side of Death, by
Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland
[CS:IOSD:169-170, 172, 174, 159]:
"Before
proceeding, though, one more preliminary is in order. We do not accept the idea that hell is a place where
God actively tortures people forever and ever. There will indeed be
everlasting, conscious, mental and physical torment in various degrees according to the lives people have lived here on earth.
But the essence of that torment is relational
in nature: the banishment from
heaven and all it stands for. Mental and physical anguish result from the
sorrow and shame of the judgment of being forever relationally excluded from
God, heaven, and so forth. It is not due to God himself inflicting
torture."
"In
response, we should first point out that we would agree that an un-ending hell
of moment by moment, active torture by God would be unjust and hard to square
with his love and the intrinsic dignity of man. But we have already shown that our understanding of hell is different from the
torture-chamber model."
"Remember,
hell is not a torture chamber, and people in
hell are not howling like dogs in mind-numbing pain. There are
degrees of anguish in hell."
"The
Bible describes hell primarily in relational
terms--it is 'away from' God. Therefore, it involves banishment from
his presence, his purposes, and his followers. Like heaven, hell is a freely chosen destination. What
we decide to believe and do in this life sets us on a road leading to a final
destination in the next...Hell is also a place of shame, sorrow, regret, and
anguish. This intense pain is not actively produced by God; he is not a cosmic
torturer. Undoubtedly, anguish and torment will exist in hell. And because we
will have both body and soul in the resurrected state, the anguish experienced
can be both mental and physical. But the pain
suffered will be due to the shame and sorrow resulting from the
punishment of final, ultimate, unending banishment from God, his kingdom, and
the good life for which we were created in the first place. Hell's occupants
will deeply and tragically regret
all they lost. As Jesus said, 'For what profit is it to a man if he gains the
whole world, and loses his own soul?' (Matt 16:26)"
"The
Bible's picture of hell, therefore, indicates that upon death, some people will
be translated into a different, nonspatial mode of existence. They will be
conscious, and they will await the resurrection of their bodies, at which time
they will be banished from heaven and secured in hell where they will
experience unending, conscious exclusion from God, his people, and anything of
value. This banishment will include conscious sorrow, shame, and anguish to
differing degrees, depending on the person's life on earth." [CS:IOSD:160,
note: no torture]
The second is from a
Catholic source, the A New Catechism:
Catholic Faith for Adults, Seabury:1966, p.480:
"Jesus
speaks of the possibility of one's being eternally condemned. We read of
'eternal punishment' (Mt. 25:46). This could be wrongly understood, as if a
disaster or even an injustice then befell the damned, as can sometimes happen
with punishments on earth. Hence we find it more enlightening to express the
same truth by the term 'eternal sin'. The state of cold obstinacy has become
eternal. They have become impervious to God, love, goodness, Christ and
fellowship. But it was for these things that man was made. It is now a total
perversion, sin brought to its fullest self-expression. To be lost means to be
entirely closed in on oneself, without
contact with others or with God. This is the punishment, the 'second
death' (Rev. 20:14). Scripture uses terrifying words to express it: darkness,
gnashing of teeth, fire. They need not be
taken as literal descriptions. They are apt expressions nonetheless of the
dismay at having missed the end and object of existence."
Let me point out here
that these two sources would not be 'liberal' in ANY sense of the word. They
would represent mainstream, conservative, traditional views of hell. Moreland
and Habermas, for example, would probably be considered 'literalists' when it
comes to the Book of Revelation (probably pre-millennialists). The couple of
passages that paint potential "mind-numbing" pictures of torment in
hell would not be
'explained away' by these two, but would be given full weight in
constructing their comment quoted above. There is no 'softening' of the reality
of hell here by them, but there is no Dante here either (they literally refer
to hell as "living in a state with a low
quality of life"--hardly a description of mind-numbing torment!
(p.173))...
Now, it is important
here to make sure we understand this point--that the traditional view of hell
does not contain the images of torture of Dante, the Greek and Roman writers,
the Jewish pseudepigraphal writers, and many of the early Church Fathers. We must try to see the biblical teaching without these cultural and historical
preconceptions.
To make sure we
understand that the biblical teaching is best summarized this way, let me make
a few comments on some biblical passages related to this:
1. The first 'long-term judgment' verse in the Bible:
“And many of those who sleep in the
dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. (Dan 12.2)
This is the first verse in the bible that refers to
post-death, post-resurrection, long-term effects of this life, for those who
actively reject God’s goodness. Notice that
the 'quality of life' is described as 'disgrace' and 'contempt'--hardly
mind-numbing torture terms! If the hell-experience had been
understood as the intense suffering commonly attributed to it, then this verse
has focused on very minor aspects of that--to the point of being misleading
perhaps.
2.
The "weeping and gnashing of teeth" passages:
I say to you that many
will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast
with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be
thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (matt 8.11ff)
As the weeds are pulled up
and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and
they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do
evil. 42 They will throw them into the
fiery furnace, where there will be weeping
and gnashing of teeth. (matt 13.40)
Once again, the kingdom of
heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of
fish. 48 When
it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and
collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This
is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the
wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into
the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping
and gnashing of teeth. (Matt 13.47)
Then the king told the attendants,
‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there
will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ (matt 22.13)
But suppose that servant
is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow
servants and to eat and drink with drunkards.
50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect
him and at an hour he is not aware of.
51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites,
where there will be weeping and gnashing of
teeth. (matt
24.48ff)
Take the talent from him
and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29 For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an
abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside,
into the darkness, where there will be weeping
and gnashing of teeth (matt 25.28ff)
There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you
yourselves thrown out. 29 People will
come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the
feast in the kingdom of God. (Luke 13.28ff)
The
discomfort described here is weeping/sorrow, NOT screaming/pain--contrary to most of the popular images of
hell used for this question.
Notice
that a few of these passages have the 'darkness' and 'fire' images, but the
effects are cast in terms of sorrow ('weeping') and anguish/regret/anger
('gnashing of teeth', cf. Acts 7.54, Ps 37.12). Notice especially that in the Lucan passage the
weeping occurs "when they see"
their own exclusion--it is due to the separation issue, not some torture or
pain.
Indeed,
Moreland/Habermas can say [CS:IOSD:164]:
"Since
God cannot force his love on people and coerce them to choose him, and since he
cannot annihilate creatures with such high intrinsic value, then the only
option available is quarantine. And that is
what hell is."
This
needs to be seen clearly. In you look back through the verses above carefully,
the weeping and gnashing is explicitly related to ‘exclusion’ from future
Kingdom blessings. The weeping is NOT related to some pain of fire, even in the passages that mention that. It
is consistent throughout these passages—“but
you yourselves thrown out”…
3.
The picture in Luke 16.19ff:
Now there was a certain
rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, gaily living in
splendor every day. 20 “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at his
gate, covered with sores, 21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were
falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and
licking his sores. 22 “Now it came about that the poor man died and he was
carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and
was buried. 23 “And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw
Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 “And he cried out and said,
‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of
his finger in water and cool off my tongue; for I am in agony in this flame.’
25 “But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your
good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted
here, and you are in agony. 26 ‘And besides all this, between us and you there
is a great chasm fixed, in order that those who wish to come over from here to
you may not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ 27 “And he
said, ‘Then I beg you, Father, that you send him to my father’s house— 28 for I
have five brothers—that he may warn them, lest they also come to this place of
torment.’ 29 “But Abraham *said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them
hear them.’ 30 “But he said, ‘No, Father Abraham, but if someone goes to them
from the dead, they will repent!’ 31 “But he said to him, ‘If they do not
listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone
rises from the dead.’”
Notice
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.
4.
The 'more bearable/tolerable' passage in Luke 10.12ff (par. Matt 10,11):
“I say to you, it will be more
bearable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. 13 “Woe to you,
Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre
and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in
sackcloth and ashes. 14 “But it will be more
bearable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment, than for you.
And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to
heaven, will you? You shall descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred
in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. 24 “Nevertheless I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in
the day of judgment, than for you.” (Matt 11.23)
"More bearable" or
"more endurable" or "more tolerable" is NOT the way you would
describe active, conscious, unending, without interruption, mind-numbing
torment...In fact, it would probably not be the way you would describe ANY
intense suffering of any significant length of time.
This is of major importance, and
needs to be given its full weight.
There are several passages that
teach that the severity of judgment varies, of course, but the use of
"more bearable" (anektoteron,
comparative form of the adj. anektos,
from the verb anechomai "to
bear, endure") is QUITE surprising. Note
that the contrast in the passage is NOT between "unbearable" and
"bearable"; or between "more unbearable" and "less
unbearable"; but between "bearable" and "more
bearable"!
This comparative form does not occur
often in extra-biblical lit, but Cicero uses it in his letter to Atticus,
written from Tusculum in 45 BC:
"That's good news about
Attica. I am worried about your listlessness, though you say it is nothing. I
shall find Tusculum more convenient, as I shall get letters from you more
frequently and see you yourself at times: for in other respects things were more endurable (anektotera, a Greek word in the middle of a Latin letter!)
at Astura. My feelings are not more harrowed by galling memories here than
there; though to be sure, wherever I am, they are with me." (Loeb)
"...Otherwise, life was more tolerable at Astura..." (Penguin
translation)
This word has no 'suffering'
content in it, actually, and is only related to annoyance or convenience issues
in this passage--Cicero found life generally 'better' at Astura.
The verb forms "to bear,
endure" have wider attestation than non-verbal forms, and the simple
adjective meaning "bearable" or "endurable" shows up in
Josephus and 2 Clement, in the normal sense of the word. For example, in
Josephus' Antiquities 18.348 we
read:
"But when they also
heard of the worship of those gods whom the Parthians adore, they thought the
injury that Anileus offered to their laws was to
be borne no longer; and a greater number of them came to Asineus,
and loudly complained of Anileus,
Here we have the adjective
describing the 'injury' of a government regulation, which was "complained
about"...Although it doesn't describe the most desirable state for the
complainers, it certainly would not describe torment, pain, or hellish
experience!
What these passages from the
lips of our Lord mean for us is this: whatever
description we come up with for the experience in hell, it must fall into the
range of "bearable" and "more bearable",
"tolerable" and "more tolerable".
It will NOT do, for example, to
conceive of this experience as so intense as to be 'unbearable'. Compare Walls'
summary of some of the traditional speculative descriptions by Augustine,
Aquinas, Edwards, and Wesley:
"This conception of hell
could be described paradoxically as
unbearable agony and torment which must, nevertheless, be borne. No one can bear up under it, and yet, there is no
escape from it or end to it. Moreover, since this conception
represents perhaps an unsurpassable notion of misery, it is an appropriate
place to end this sketch of traditional depictions of hell." [TH:HLD:147]
And, amazingly,
hyper-traditionalists can completely
miss this "more tolerable" aspect and STILL read-in a Dantean
meaning!
"In this passage, Christ
reveals that there will be degrees of hell. While
all sinners in hell will be perfectly miserable, they will not be equally miserable." [Morey, Death and the Afterlife, Bethany:1984,
p.153, emphasis mine.]
These descriptions form a
boundary condition that we will need to be aware of as we continue trying to
understand the actual biblical teaching on hell.