REVIEW OF THE TWO VIEWS OF HELL
A Book Review
Submitted to Prof. Dr. Page Brooks of the SUM Bible College & Theological Seminary
Fall 2018: THEO6213 Biblical Perspectives: Popular Theologies
in SUM Bible College & Theological Seminary
Few doctrines within the Christian religion have inspired more soul-searching and have induced more anxiety than the doctrine of hell. It has vexed theologians for centuries, and has conjured the imaginations of countless authors and artists who have sought to capture its essence in either word or vision. Those who were comfortable with the idea of hell often emphasized the grotesque nature, being a place of unforeseen physical agony with flames abound and demons running about, tormenting the damned for all eternity. Others sought to capture a more nuanced view of hell, being a place where the damned are always free to leave but in the darkness of their own hearts are content to remain there. Still others reject the idea of hell altogether as incompatible with a God whose nature is benevolent and all-loving.
In Two Views of Hell, we are given two standard perspectives that one might find in modern Evangelical circles. On the one hand we have the position of conditionalism, the permanent destruction of the soul, more popularly known as annihilationism. On the other, we have the traditional position of hell as comprising of everlasting eternal torment. Both views are defended and espoused in the scholarly realm today. In this edition, the annihilationist position is defended by Edward William Fudge while the traditional view is put forward by Robert A. Peterson. The first half of the book lays out the case for annihilationism with a short response, and then the traditional view with a short response.
Fudge begins his case with an explanation and appraisal of the conditionalist position. In his explanation, he contrasts this with the traditionalist position with an overview of certain individuals who have held the traditionalist view. His contention is that while traditionalism is by far the dominant position among the contemporary evangelical church, its influence is waning. For example, he says of Spurgeon’s vivid description of the physical torments in hell: “This style of preaching is now in rapid decline. Many advocates of the traditional view now say the fire is likely metaphorical” (20). This will help to set a foundation for which he will begin his biblical case for his position.
He also begins to draw fundamental distinctions between ancient Hebrew and Pagan notions of the nature of the afterlife, body, and soul. Fudge contends that much of our view of the afterlife comes not so much from the Bible as it does from Pagan philosophers like Plato. He notes “Plato taught that each person also has a soul that is immortal and cannot die” (21). By extension, he argues that the notion of the immortal soul a la Plato has been imported into our modern idea of eternal punishment. This is important as it will be used as support for many of his later arguments.
Once the precedent for traditionalism’s decline has been set, Fudge begins to build his Biblical case beginning with the Old Testament. He goes through several Old Testament accounts of God’s judgement upon sin and notes specific details on the means of destruction that God employs. For example, he focuses in on the story of Noah and the great flood and notes the specific words that are used to describe the destruction: “The writers of the Bible use the same verbs to describe the eternal fate of the lost that they use to describe the judgement brought by the great flood” (26). Because the words perish and destroy were both used to describe the people being “wiped off the face of the earth,” one can reasonably assume the same fate awaits the wicked in eternity.
After listing several other examples from the Old Testament, Fudge then moves on to the case from the New Testament. He begins with Jesus’ use of the illustration of fire to describe the ultimate fate of the wicked. He does this by focusing on the nature of fire to utterly destroy everything. It consumes without being quenched until there is nothing left to consume. “Because God’s fire is irresistible and cannot be quenched, it keeps burning until nothing is left” (38). He notes that Jesus uses this imagery consistently throughout his teaching (Matt 7:15-23, Matt 13:30-43). He also raises the significant point that contrary to the teaching of Plato, Jesus unequivocally affirms that God has the ability to destroy both body and soul in hell. The soul is not immortal, at least not in the sense that Plato understood it: “God can kill the soul as easily as he can kill the body. And God can destroy both the body and soul in hell” (43).
After surveying the entirety of Jesus’ teaching on hell, Fudge then moves on to the writings of Paul. Not surprisingly, Fudge is convinced that Paul firmly teaches the doctrine of annhilationism in the bulk of his writing. Like he has argued thus far, much of his case rests on Paul’s use of language. For example, he relies heavily on the use of the term “destruction” as having the meaning of ceasing existence. He notes “This punishment of destruction is also ‘eternal’ in two senses. It is eternal in a qualitative sense, because it belongs to the age to come and not to the present order of created space and time…once destroyed, the wicked will never be seen again. The result is everlasting, not the process.” (59). The referent for “eternal” is the consequence of the destruction, not the act of destroying in itself. . This is important to note. Regardless of whether Fudge’s position is correct, there is no doubt that this point is often glossed over by many pastors and theologians.
After his treatment of Paul, Fudge caps his case with an appraisal of the rest of the New Testament. Yet again, he is convinced that the rest of the New Testament supports his position over against the traditional view. His treatment here is far more brief and cursory than his previous exegesis in the Old Testament, Jesus, and Paul. His strongest case from this section is built upon the epistle from James and his thoroughly Jewish background. For example, he aptly notes that “the new creation stands over and against death” (67). It is his contention that because James continuously refers to “the death of sinners” as meaning a literally ceasing to be. He also makes reference again to the contrast between the Platonic and Hebrew notions of the soul’s immortality when he notes that James “literally says ‘save a soul from death,’” (67) again expounding upon the challenge to the soul’s immortality. If a soul can die then it obviously isn’t immortal.
After the appraisal of the rest of the New Testament, Fudge has his final word on the matter. He has saved his most passionate words for this section, pointing out that our position about Hell directly reflects the nature and character of the God we worship. For Fudge, the idea of eternal torment is incompatible with the God the Bible describes: “Is that the God we see revealed in the personal ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, who told his disciples that whoever has seen him has seen the Father? No, no – a thousand times no” (81).
This section prompts the first response from our traditionalist Robert Peterson. Peterson is ultimately unimpressed with the Biblical case for conditionalism. He first questions the legitimacy of his argumentative techniques, noting that much of his case rests not so much on exegetical sophistication, but upon emotionalism, among others. When he speaks of the emotional nature of many of Fudge’s arguments, he notes that his position is also misrepresented: “This approach is not worthy of a Christian gentleman like Edward Fudge. I hold to the traditional view of hell. But I most certainly do not think that ‘God is an eternal torturer’ or that ‘the glories of heaven will forever be blighted by the screams from hell’” (85). This leads him to conclude that most of Fudge’s position is not exegetically tenable and built on the flimsiest of foundations.
From here, we begin to hear Robinson make his Biblical case for the traditional view of hell. However, instead of going straight to scripture, Robinson first takes us on a journey through Church history, noting that the witness of the western Church for two-thousand years has been squarely in the corner of traditionalism. From Tertullian (208 AD), to Augustine (400 AD), Aquinas (1270 AD), to the reformers (1535 AD), the witness is loud and consistent for the traditional view. He even notes some more contemporary theologians of the past two centuries to bolster his historical case. All in all, Robinson concludes “This unified confession of traditionalism is impressive, and it is not to be set aside lightly” (126).
After laying out his historical case, Robinson then takes us to the scriptures. He first takes us to the Old Testament, where in his strongest case he tackles the “Undying Worm and Unquenchable Fire” featured in Isaiah 66. Robinson uses the scriptures to support his notions of God’s character as good but also just. He draws from the imagery of the undying worm and unquenchable fire. He notes that this is taken from language of ancient battlefields where some corpses were burned and some became infested with maggots: “For corpses to be publicly exposed was a great disgrace…Eventually unburied corpses became food for maggots” (132). Thus, it is taken at face value for Robinson that if the worm will not die and the fire will not be quenched, then it follows that the temporal place of the fire and the worm must also be everlasting.
His strongest case from the New Testament comes from Matthew 25:31-46, the separation of the sheep from the goats. Here, much of his case rests upon Jesus’ contrast between eternal punishment and eternal life. Here he quotes Augustine to make his case: “If both are ‘eternal,’ it follows necessarily that either both are to be taken as long-lasting but finite, or both as endless and perpetual” (141). In other words, because of the parallel nature of the comparison, it would not make sense to say “Eternal life will be infinite, while eternal punishment will have an end” (141). This is an interesting argument that seems to have been missed on Fudge’s treatment of the passage.
Once Robinson has finished making his case from the scriptures, he turns to the greater theological picture. Drawing from systematic theology, Robinson argues that ultimately annihilationism leads to bigger problems with fundamental Christian doctrines. Fudge’s response concedes the historical points of Robinson’s case, reiterates certain points of his own case, and responds point-by-point to Robinson’s 10 Biblical cases. He ultimate concludes that “Traditionalism aborts the final victory of God, envisioning an eternal torture chamber where some traditionalists say God is present and others say he is absent” (208).
We have heard a capable and passionately argued case from both sides of the view of hell. However, we must also remember that it is possible for two sides of a debate to both be wrong, or at least inadequate. One might have been expecting at least a bit more interaction with, say, C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce, or the Eastern Orthodox Church’s notion of the River of Fire. Regardless, Two Views of Hell will give serious Protestant students a lot of material to draw from when they are forming their own opinions on the matter, and pastors will better be able to explain these positions and the merits of both to their congregations.
Bibliography:
Review of Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
Lijo George
SUM Bible College & Theological Seminary, 2018
October 1, 2018
