July 31, 2013

Jerry Walls Responds to my Question on Hell (@rachelheldevans)

Jerry Walls is taking a turn in Rachel Held Evan's "Ask a..." series, and he is answering question on hell, free will, and possibility of postmortem repentance. I raised a question about a surprising, if not disturbing, passage in Revelation that portrays the torment of hell as taking place eternally in the very presence of Christ. Here's the passage from Revelation 14:9-11:
Then another angel, a third, followed them, crying with a loud voice, "Those who worship the beast and its image, and receive a mark on their foreheads or on their hands, they will also drink the wine of God's wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of his anger, and they will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image and for anyone who receives the mark of its name" (NRSV, the italics are, of course, mine).
Here's my question:
Revelation 14:9-11 portrays the eternal torment of the condemned as taking place "in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb" (14:10). What does this mean? And how should we understand this portrayal in relation to other traditional images of hell as banishment from the presence of Christ?
Here's Walls' response:
Well, I’d start here with Paul’s sermon at Mars Hill, where he observes that God is “not far from each one of us. For in him we live, and move and have our being” (Acts 17:27-28). In this passage, Paul is applying this point to people who may be seeking God, but have not yet found him. So the point here is that even people who may be “far” from God in terms of meaningful, loving relationship are still “close” to him in the sense that he continually sustains them in existence.
So the unhappy creatures in this text in Revelation are in the presence of the Lamb by virtue of the fact that he sustains them in existence, and they may even be aware of this fact. However, they are utterly separated from him by their sinful rebellion.
Indeed, the paradoxical nature of this observation may illumine why fire is used as an image of the torments of hell.  Fire in the Bible is a common image for the presence of God, not his absence (cf Deut. 4:24; 5:24-5; Psalm 50:3; Hebrews 12:29). But his presence is experienced very differently by those who are rightly related to him, as opposed to those who are not.
David Hart has noted that there is a long theological tradition, particularly in Eastern Orthodoxy, that “makes no distinction, essentially, between the fire of hell and the light of God’s glory, and that interprets damnation as the soul’s resistance to the beauty of God’s glory, its refusal to open itself before the divine love, which causes divine love to seem an exterior chastisement” (The Beauty of the Infinite, 399).  
As the Psalmist noted, there is no place where we can successfully flee from God’s presence (Psalm 139:7ff). The God of love is everywhere, and we cannot exist a millisecond without his sustaining grace and power. But our freedom does allow us to refuse his love and go our own way, even as it remains true that “in him we live and move and have our being.” If that is our choice, his glorious love will be experienced like a burning fire rather than “the spring of the water of life” that will deeply quench our thirst (Revelation 21:6).
I'll begin by saying that Walls raises a couple of interesting points I've not considered before. First, he's right that fire is often an symbol of God's presence, which is fascinating (and troubling!) when applied to the image of "the lake of fire" (Rev 20:14). Might the lake of fire be the very consuming fire that is God himself? Should we be thinking of Hebrews 12:29? Second, I'm not read-up on the Eastern tradition that makes no distinction between the light of God's glory and the fire of hell, though it is initially both compelling and satisfying. It certainly resonates with all the Lewis I've been reading this year.

In the end, I think Walls' suggestion that we need to understand God's presence in two ways is on target. This surprising passage appears to mean that, while a person can be spatially near to Christ, physical proximity is not joyful intimacy. Two people can be in one another's presence and still a rift stand between them. In fact, the physical nearness of those against whom we are opposed may even cause our anger and frustration to burn with heightened fury. Lewis holds this tension in balance in many of his works. For those who love Aslan, his presence is unspeakable joy; for those who hate him, it is a terror. Nearness to Christ is not necessarily love for him. Nearness can inflame antagonism. As Orual, who stood unseeing on the threshold of heaven, blind though she had entered the gates of the home of the gods, full of fiery hatred, for him. 
_____
NB: You may be interested in Robert Mulholland's assessment of this passage in Revelation, which sets it in a Jewish context and resonates with Walls' reflections. Also, be sure to head over to Rachel's blog and read the rest of the questions and Walls' answers.

5 comments:

starrstruck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
starrstruck said...

I've been thinking about God's love and wrath in terms of the Eastern tradition without knowing that I was doing this!

I've started to observe that for those who obey, God's presence is love. And for those who persist in rebellion, God's continued presence and pursuit is experienced as wrath.

I, too, will need to read up on the Eastern tradition.

Blessings!

ἐκκλησία said...

The unspoken assumption in the asking is that [Revelation 14:9-11] is future tense.

If [Revelation 14:9-11] is a prophetic description of something that was historical, and employed the metaphorical but entirely consistent language of parable, and now past - the dilemma of suffering in the presence of Christ is hypothetical if at all.

This possibility has not been excluded, rather it's simply assumed this passage is about something yet to be ... (which is an unproven assumption)

Matt O'Reilly said...

I take εις αιωνας αιωνων (into ages of ages) as a figure of speech basically meaning 'forever', and 'forever' is, of course, in the future.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

ἐκκλησία said...

If this is an objection - it is not clear.

It is not illogical to suggest that the 'smoke of their torment (καπνός)' ascends forever into the ages (εις αιωνας αιωνων) if this event happened in the past because God's judgement is evident throughout all of history and not just at some future point.