Why Fire?

[Singalphile]

The Bible often refers to fire or the symbolism of fire in relation to judgment and punishment. Why?
It may astonish you, but I don't recall ever considering that question. So ...

These seem to be the basic uses and properties of fire, understood for millennia:

1) Fire provides illumination and warmth (at a safe distance).
2) Fire causes pain and discomfort with or without permanent damage
3) Fire can purify, refine, soften or harden.
4) Fire ultimately completely consumes, burns up, destroys (which is the end of the progression).

(Am i missing anything?)

Surely God (via the Biblical writers) had one or more of these properties in mind when He decided to create or symbolize "hell" as a place of fire, no?

So when it comes to the last known destination of the wicked whose names are not in the Lamb's book of life ...

ECT would say that the purpose of the fire (whether literal or symbolic) is to cause pain (#2),
UR would say that the purpose of the fire is to refine, purify, or mold (#3), and
CI would say that the purpose of the fire is to ultimately burn up and destroy (#4).

There are certainly verses that each view would use to support its case. And some might guess that all three will come into play.

Anyway, it's an interesting (but somewhat sobering) thing to consider.

[steve]

I discuss the very same points in my book on hell. Though it still won't be out for a couple of months, I can reveal a few paragraphs from the manuscript, but they say only the same things you just mentioned (only with greater verbosity):


It is very common in both Testaments for writers to employ the imagery of “fire” to represent both God’s temporal and His ultimate judgments. Fire could have a number of associations in the minds of the original readers.

1) One obvious effect of fire is that it consumes most physical objects as fuel. Buildings, forests, fouled clothing—even dead bodies—are soon reduced to ashes when consigned to the flames. This tendency of fire to consume, destroy and do away with unwanted materials would be expected to be (and is) a common effect of fire suggested by the metaphor.

2) Gold and silver were the currency of daily transactions for ancient people. Everybody knew that precious metals were not generally found lying around on the ground. They had to be mined from shoals of ordinary rock, and separated from other minerals through a refining process. Fire was the most expedient medium for this process. The separation of gold and silver from its dross by the use of fire is an extremely common image in scripture, as it was familiar to all.

3) Though not frequently mentioned in scripture, it is commonly known that living, human flesh, when burned, experiences great pain. To imagine being thrown alive into fire would be a painful thought. The prospect of being burned slowly, so that the reprieve of death is not instantaneous, is almost as gruesome a means of torture as can be imagined. Sometimes, though not often, the very painfulness of burning is used in scripture as the dominant feature of the imagery.

What, then, is being suggested by the metaphor of unquenchable fire when applied to hell?

Of the three aspects of judgment by fire surveyed above, the first is the most common in scripture. This idea lies at the root of the Annihilationist (or Conditionalist) view—the main point being that hell serves a necessary purpose: It rids the universe of those unfit to inhabit it.

This view does not necessarily preclude a season of suffering and misery, preceding destruction, such as one’s degree of guilt may require. Therefore, it may be “more tolerable…in the day of judgment” for one criminal than for another. Though unrepentant sinners may receive proportionate punishment, whether “few stripes” or “many stripes,” as justice may require, yet none will be tormented infinitely or eternally, but all will ultimately perish and be no more. The permanent removal of human debris from the presence of the divine Majesty is not an unworthy conclusion to the drama of the ages, and might well be considered to be the intended purpose for which the fires of hell were ordained.

The second most common of the metaphorical uses of fire, listed above, is that of purging or purification. This is regarded as hell’s purpose by those who espouse the Universal Reconciliation view. Like the Annihilationist alternative, this view also sees hell as accomplishing the permanent and complete removal of sin from every realm, and the establishment of an order in which every knee shall bow and every tongue will gladly confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

The obvious difference between this view and the annihilationist view is that annihilation brings about this desired end by destroying those who could never be reformed or made to embrace such a righteous order. Universal Reconciliation obtains the same end, not by the destruction, but by the conversion, of every last rebel.

This view assumes that all men are ultimately as winnable to Christ as were those of us who have already been converted. Some of us remained in rebellion longer than others before surrendering to God’s claims. Some may remain in rebellion until death. Those for whom 70 years was not long enough to be broken, might find 100 years, or 200 years, or 1000 years (who knows?) long enough to accomplish this. On this view, every man has his limit, and, however foolish and rebellious some may be, none are infinitely foolish and rebellious. Finite man does not possess infinite powers. Unlike man, God has all the time in the world (and perhaps beyond) to wear down His opponent’s resistance. The fires of hell (much like the fiery trials of this present life) are thus viewed as having a corrective intention—a purpose consistent with God’s desire that all people be saved.

The least common metaphorical use of fire, in scripture, is as an image of searing pain—which is the idea that the traditional view of hell sees as central to the purpose of hell. Retributive justice, pure and simple, is the purpose of hell fires. God is a God of justice. The lost get only what they deserve. If it were not so, there would be no ultimate justice in the universe—which would be unacceptable, both to God and to the consciences of good men and women.

[Singalphile]

I really will have to just wait for the book! (I recently skipped my new Sunday Bible school class b/c the topic was hell, and I don't yet know the people very well and so on. I was thinking that if I'd had your book, I would have gone just so I could recommended it.)

Another thought, which I guess might also be mentioned in All You Want to Know About Hell, is also along the lines of something I've heard on TNP. Apparently, being burned up (cremated) was seen as dishonorable or degrading. So fire might have symbolized shame and contempt (Dan 12:2, Isaiah 66:24) , at least to the ancient Jews.

Thanks!

[steve]

True that. Though, as a primary meaning, this would probably not be applicable to very many passages—the ones you mention being exceptions..

[backwoodsman]

The Bible often refers to fire or the symbolism of fire in relation to judgment and punishment. Why?

I don't recall ever giving it any thought. I've always assumed that, there being little or nothing that most people are more afraid of than fire, being burned to death, etc., it's simply a way of communicating the extreme unpleasantness of the penalty, and the importance of avoiding it at any cost.

[Singalphile]

backwoodsman wrote:
I don't recall ever giving it any thought. I've always assumed that, there being little or nothing that most people are more afraid of than fire, being burned to death, etc., it's simply a way of communicating the extreme unpleasantness of the penalty, and the importance of avoiding it at any cost.

Do you suppose then that God used the imagery/reality of fire simply because it's something that is feared? No more, no less, necessarily?
I hadn't thought of that. It is scary, fire. That's true.

[backwoodsman]

Do you suppose then that God used the imagery/reality of fire simply because it's something that is feared? No more, no less, necessarily?

I don't think I'd go that far. Regarding the imagery of refining and purification by fire, I wouldn't say fear is really the central idea there, but rather the idea of a worthwhile payoff after a difficult or unpleasant time. As far as relates to your original question about judgment and punishment, I wouldn't say it's the fear that's the point, as though God is trying to scare people into following Him; rather it's a tool to communicate the gravity of the issue.

[Singalphile]

backwoodsman wrote:
I don't think I'd go that far. Regarding the imagery of refining and purification by fire, I wouldn't say fear is really the central idea there, but rather the idea of a worthwhile payoff after a difficult or unpleasant time. As far as relates to your original question about judgment and punishment, I wouldn't say it's the fear that's the point, as though God is trying to scare people into following Him; rather it's a tool to communicate the gravity of the issue.

I see. Well, that could be, I guess.

That ("communicate the gravity") does remind me of another property of fire: smoke. Where there's fire, there's smoke, and we know that the Bible mentions rising smoke a few times. What would be the significance of that except perhaps that it's something that everyone would see and recognize? I guess that the imagery or figure of speech of "smoke rising up forever" could have something to do with this.

Thanks.

[jriccitelli]

The intention of the person doing the burning is clear in scripture, burning and purifying are two different objectives. The motive seems intended by the contexts, in one it is to destroy, another purify. You do not 'throw' something in a fire to purify it, especially gold (you 'place' it 'in' something like a crucible). You throw something in to a fire when you don't want it anymore. Purposeful destroying fire, and accidental fire was 'way' 'way' more known and predominate an occurrence than purifying gold. Again, gold has to be gold 'before' it is put in a fire.

[steve]

You throw something in to a fire when you don't want it anymore

This suggests that the same God who "wanted" the sinner enough to send His Son to die for him is fickle. While scripture says that "love never fails (ceases)," the contrary is affirmed by this thesis: God loves a person, and "wants" him, right up to the moment of death. However, when the poor fool is unfortunate enough to die, God sees some new, unlovable quality in the same person (what it is, who can say?), so that God doesn't "want" him anymore.

God's patience, I guess, runs out.

If the Bible taught such a thing, I guess we would be obliged to affirm it. However, in the absence of any scriptural declaration of such changeability in God, I would think this thesis counterintuitive.