Examining Hell (with help from C. S. Lewis)

A well-known podcaster recently brought the topic of hell to the forefront by advocating for annihilationism or conditionalism, the belief that the soul of the nonbeliever ceases to exist at the final judgment. A stir of responses followed! The doctrine of hell has always been a controversial one. The traditional view of hell as eternal conscious torment has so often been accused of being cruel, and even dare I say, unjust? Add to this medieval depictions of souls in agony burning forever in literal fire and it's a topic to offend even a passive skeptic. It may be helpful to consider the Bible’s teaching on hell again, with some help from C. S. Lewis.

The Bible describes hell in different categories

The Bible describes hell with various images, fitting imperfectly into different categories. None of these categories exist to the exclusion of the others, but let me delineate three. Many images describe hell as exclusion, the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, outside the City’s gates (e.g. Rev 21:27). Other images describe hell as torment (not the same as torture), a place of misery and agony. The Apostle Paul’s most common reference to hell is “the wrath of God.” Still elsewhere hell is described in the category of destruction: Jesus in Matthew 10:28, or in Revelation as “the Second Death” (2:11, 20:6, 20:14, 21:8).

Hell is something so unlike our world it can only be described in diverse images and with different categories. This diverse imagery should cause us to be humble in our epistemology of the afterlife. What C. S. Lewis warned about images of heaven could also be said about images of hell, “There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make the Christian hope of ‘Heaven’ ridiculous by saying they do not want ‘to spend eternity playing harps.’ …if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them” (Mere Christianity, Book III, ch. 10, “Hope”).
The reality of hell behind these images is a mystery to us.

Hell as destruction has been underemphasized

We should be careful not to teach hell using only one of these categories. Those advocating for annihilation are highlighting a category that has been often overlooked. From the beginning of Genesis, the punishment for sin is death. The wages of sin is death. Death designates an end, a cessation, a finality to life. Whatever existence the condemned have, it is one the Bible has no problem describing as destruction.

However, while the medieval church over-emphasized torment, I believe annihilationists over-emphasize the destruction category. Could it be, trying to be faithful to all three categories here, that whatever hell’s existence is it is such a wispy being, devoid of the life one once had and in stark contrast to the life one could have had, that it could best be described as destroyed? As C. S. Lewis says, “What is cast (or casts itself) into hell is not a man: it is ‘remains’” (The Problem of Pain, ch. 8).

The Bible describes hell’s punishment as eternal

No one doubts this; it is the nature of the punishment that is under debate. Jesus designates the goats to “eternal punishment,” (Matt 25:46). John’s Apocalypse describes hell, “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night,” (Rev 14:11). Six chapters later, John’s vision sees the devil in hell, “tormented day and night forever and ever,” (20:10). One might argue that this is apocalyptic literature. Sure, but what does it reveal? Keep in mind the “Second Death” passages are also found in Revelation.

“Eternal destruction” is often mentioned in support of annihilation, but the full verse reads, “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,” (2 Thess 1:9). Is the context of the verse merely saying that annihilation happens outside of God’s sight? Or is it more likely bringing together two categories, both that of destruction and that of exclusion? Both are “eternal” in duration.

Hell is voluntary rebellion against God

Danny Aikin wrote, “Those who perish in the horrors of hell must walk over a blood-stained cross that bears their name.” For those fearful of hell, no one who wants heaven needs to go there! The gospel is offered to all humanity working its way to the ends of the earth, calling people to be rescued from hell. I believe, as C. S. Lewis did, that this rebellion against God remains a conscious decision for all eternity. “I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside” (The Problem of Pain, ch. 8). Those in hell choose to be there rather than turn to God. It is not that those in hell enjoy it, but the option of eternal worship of God is inconceivable to them (much as a hardened criminal finds confinement abysmal, but a life without crime outside the prison gates is not an option).

God will do only justice in the end

As for the charge that hell will be cruel or unjust, that is one objection we can easily rule out. As Abraham argued, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Gen 18:25). Our very sense of justice comes from being made in the image of God. Our objection to “cruel and unusual punishment” is a mere reflection of the perfect justice of God. We want justice because God our Maker is Justice. Whatever hell is, it will be moral. If it seems unjust to us now, it is either because we have misunderstood it, or we have not accounted fully for the severity of sin and the holiness of God.

Hell might be unpalatable, hard to imagine, and even severe, but it will be right. “I am not going to try to prove the doctrine tolerable… Let us make no mistake; it is not tolerable. But I think the doctrine can be shown to be moral” (The Problem of Pain, ch. 8).
In the final judgment, no one, in heaven or hell, will be able to charge God with injustice. He will have done only what was good.

After all, justice must have its day or grace becomes permissiveness of evil. God is patient, but patience must run its course or it is hollow. “I believe that if a million chances were likely to do good, they would be given… Finality must come some time, and it does not require a very robust faith to believe that omniscience knows when” (The Problem of Pain, ch. 8).