Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In Revelation 20 the resurrection of the wicked is detailed. They are then judged and thrown in the lake of fire.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [The righteous only were raised to life first]

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God [the wicked are then raised for judgement]; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. [all the dead wicked are found and raised for judgement]

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [then they die]

I personally take the Annihilationism perspective, where the wicked are completely annihilated after being judged; they will exist no more.

So from the other perspective, the traditional doctrine of Hell, how does it make sense that the wicked will be resurrected, only to be killed, then suffer eternal torment in Hell (Lake of Fire)? Less challengingly said, why are the wicked resurrected when it seems unnecessary?

share|improve this question
    
I don't know that this can possibly be constructive. You're asking for us to explain God's motives, an impossible task. This could be constructive if it were asking if the view is Scriptural, but why God decides to operate a certain way is not. –  David Stratton Apr 1 '13 at 12:11
    
The question assumes that the wicked will be killed. Saying that something that God does "seems unnecessary" might be... missing an important point, to put it one way. –  Alypius Apr 1 '13 at 16:26
    
@Alypius Since when does death not mean killed? There is also a difference between assumption and interpretation. You call it assumption only because you think it is a wrong interpretation. Feel free to answer from the other perspective, which is exactly what I have asked for. –  fredsbend Apr 1 '13 at 18:27
    
@DavidStratton I don't mean to ask for God's motives, but surely God only acts with reason. I am asking for the non-annihilationist perspective if there is a reason that is known, whether through Scripture, tradition, or logic. –  fredsbend Apr 1 '13 at 18:30
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote accepted

I think the misunderstanding here is that the wicked are resurrected and then killed. I'm not sure there's a Biblical backing for the idea that those who rejected Christ will again be separated from their bodies. Their souls will be in bodies when they are cast into the lake of fire. Therefore, the punishment is eternal, physical, punishment in the presence of God and the angels (Revelation 14:10).

The underlying belief here is that the soul was never meant to live without a body, and so it will not, for all eternity, but the question is, will the body be glorified, or will it not be? From Romans 8:30, we see that the foreknown Christian is predestined, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

So a Christian is glorified, but a non-believer will not be.

In 1 Corinthians 15:12-14, Paul specifically states that the dead are raised. He doesn't say that only Christians are raised, but all are raised:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

Not only this, but Christ himself states that all people will be raised, in John 5:28-29:

Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

So it's not only Christians who are resurrected, but ALL people, though their resurrection may be followed immediately by very different experiences. All will worship, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be justified in the eyes of God. All others will bear their own sin.

As for the underlying idea that annihilation might be preferable to eternal suffering, and eternal torment, I can only conjecture that the reason why eternal torment is taught instead of annihilation, is because annihilation is simply "not complete enough" of a penalty to pay for the sins that have been committed against an all-holy, perfect, just, and loving God. The object of the transgression must be taken into consideration as well. Whereas death may be a sufficient penalty here on earth when sins are committed against humans, it is not sufficient in eternity, when committed against an infinitely good God.

(As a side note, some of our discomfort with eternal torment in western culture comes from the western culture's over-emphasis on love and forgiveness at the expense of justice. In Islamic cultures, they may find our emphasis on love and forgiveness somewhat offensive, preferring to value justice more highly.)

share|improve this answer
1  
I suspect it is not so much "over-emphasis on love and forgiveness" as a lack of consideration of the "object of the transgression". While the West still has some concept of respected persons or positions, the emphasis on equality, exposure to faults, and perhaps reduced concept of respecting the office by respecting the person--these seem to make it more difficult to conceive of even the least sin being cosmic treason. (a bit chatty) –  Paul A. Clayton Apr 1 '13 at 15:04
    
Maybe you can clear a few things up for me here. I'm confused by what you are saying in the first two paragraphs. So the other perspective does say the wicked are reunited with their body? Then the dead suffer eternal hell with their physical body? –  fredsbend Apr 1 '13 at 18:35
    
I'm not sure if they'll be in the same body as what they lived in before they died on earth, or whether they'll be resurrected into new bodies, which will then be punished, but it does seem as though, biblically, they will suffer eternal hell with a physical body, yes. At least that's how I read it. –  David Morton Apr 1 '13 at 18:55
1  
Ok. Perhaps you can then expand on the second paragraph. That seems to be where the answer is but it is the shortest paragraph. –  fredsbend Apr 1 '13 at 20:34
    
The edit is much better. +1. So the argument is that a physical body is apparently necessary to receive the punishment of Hell? The definition of Hell, therefore, does not actually matter on this point. Correct? That still leaves a 'why' echoing, but I guess we just don't know. Correct? –  fredsbend Apr 1 '13 at 21:31
show 1 more comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.