Justice, Violence, and the Lake of Fire in Revelation

In my exploration of the last few chapters of Revelation, I’ll follow a more free-flowing exegesis of the last chapters of Revelation. This will be more than just looking at the confusing parts and trying to make sense of them. Rather, I will be wrestling with the theology and eschatology of these last chapters. This is because, ultimately, beyond all the imagery and metaphor, Revelation is speaking theologically into different issues of this world.  One question seems prevalent: Why is there “horrors” in this world? And why does God allow them? Why does God allow all the violence and devastation that afflicts people throughout the world? Revelation has particular answers to these questions.

Perhaps no other book of the Bible depicts the horrors of our world with more emotion and intensity than the book of Revelation. Another question that will be addressed is how we should read the depictions of judgment and of hell in Revelation. Does it fit with God’s justice depicted in the book to view hell as eternal, conscious torment of sinners? Or ought we read the depictions of judgment differently?

Violence in Revelation

In chapter 16, we see people getting “what they deserve” (16:6). Since people have shed the blood of the prophets, they will be given blood to drink. In God’s view of justice, we are given an “eye for an eye” vision of God’s ultimate justice on humanity. Since people have shed blood, their blood will be shed.

Now we have here a problem because God never allows his people in the book of Revelation to execute judgment (see 6:9-11 and 13:10). So does God have a higher expectation of his people when it comes to violence than himself? In other words, does God tell his people not to execute vengeance on others only to turn around and execute vengeance himself.

Well, in my opinion, yes and no. When I look at the New Testament and its depiction of vengeance or justice, I do not see that God expects his people to passively accept violence in a sense that they do not believe that those who commit violence will not have vengeance brought on them. Instead, the New Testament vision of justice is that God is entrusted with the role of bringing justice on those who commit evil, either through allowing/not protecting said people from the violence that inevitably comes upon them, or being an active agent in bringing violence. In other words, I do not believe God or God’s people are anti-violence when it comes to judgement. In fact, those saints that had been slain ask God to finally bring vengeance for their deaths (see 6:9-11) and the rest of Revelation God answers their plea with judgment on their murderers.

Moreover, we see the “wrath of the lamb” in 6:16. So the “lamb” is not docile. While the lamb has been slain and has conquered through his martyrdom, it is not beyond the lamb to execute judgment. We also see this in Jesus’ actions towards Jezebel in Revelation 2:21-23. The lamb and the father are one and do not have split personalities where one is willing to bring judgment through violent means and the other would never bring violent judgment. To teach this is akin to Gnosticism or the Marcionite heresy.

Sometimes, I’m amazed how fashionable it has become to teach that God would never be violent, or that the New Testament shows who God really is, a being who would never use violence to achieve something in creation. This was not the case in the Old Testament and it continues to not be the case in the New Testament. While it has become fashionable to speak of God as never being violent, or speaking of redemptive violence as a “myth”, I would challenge those who teach this to demonstrate how this could be true within a high view of scripture’s authority. If it cannot be demonstrated, perhaps we should become more comfortable with the idea that the God of the Bible, even in the New Testament, uses violence as a form of judgment, and not simply go along with the latest fashionable theology about God. Why, for example, do we think that God could never use violence under any circumstances, and a cop might have legitimate reason to use violence under some circumstances?

On the other hand, part of the reason I mention all of this is because, while God is depicted in Revelation as using violence for his purposes, there is a limit to this use of violence. In other words, the use of violence is not ultimately depicted as never-ending. If in the Old Testament, God forbade his people from extravagant retribution through the “eye for an eye” commandments (Exod 21:24, Lev 24:20, Deut 19:21). Why then would God, while increasing his expectations of mercy for his people (Matt 5:38), then increase his own eternal judgment to eternally extravagant. Perhaps, if this is our interpretation of judgment in Revelation, we may be misreading. I plan to demonstrate why this is a misreading.

There is a difference between God using violence as a tool for either judgment or discipline, and God being a “violent” God. I think the difference is key. God’s goal is, in fact, never violence, but wholeness. Violence, by it’s very nature, is not wholeness or righteousness, but is rather brokenness and harm, the opposite of God’s desire for his creation. Therefore where God uses or allows violence is with the hope of bringing about wholeness, and is never damage for damage’s sake. It is also giving people over to what they have chosen for themselves. For instance, if one chooses to inflict violence, they have in effect chosen violence for themselves, and should not be surprised when the same violence they use on others is turned back on them. In fact, in most cases, it seems God simply allows people to experience the natural progression of a violent life. But this does not mean that God does not exercise such violence as an agent of violence.

God’s violence in some cases would be in response to evil where the natural progression of events might not lead to justice. We see both in the book of Revelation. We see God letting events unfold naturally for the sake of justice, but we also see God’s direct intervention where the natural unfolding of events would not bring about justice. In fact, whether God allows or is the agent of violence is not often strictly delineated. If you had a gun pointed at you and someone else had the ability to stop it, yet did not, it would be little different than if they had pulled the trigger themselves. So, even if God simply allows violence to happen to people, we cannot strictly separate this from a God who is an agent of violence. My point is, we cannot so easily get around the issue of God using violence for his purposes.

Hell in Revelation

Throughout much of Revelation, we are concerned with judgments executed on earth, but once we get to chapter 19:20, we get descriptions of the lake of fire. But this is not necessarily the “second death” described later, since it says the beast and false prophet are thrown “alive” into the lake of fire, and everything else in this chapter has been referring to things happening on earth, not necessarily in the afterlife.

So, what is the “lake of fire”. We have grown so used to associating the lake of fire with medieval and modern associations with hell that we often haven’t stopped much to think of what it meant to people in the first century. Also, as with other images in Revelation, it’s unlikely that we should take the imagery literally. In another article I examine the use of fire of burning in the New Testament in figurative language: https://www.jonwalt.com/post/eschatology-series-part-one-exegesis-of-passages-that-argue-against-a-new-heaven-and-new-earth

The ”lake of fire” is mentioned in Greco-Roman literature and Gehenna is its Hebrew counterpart. But how about where Revelation and elsewhere in the New Testament refers to torment in the after life as lasting “forever and ever.” Let me explain why the term “forever and ever” should not be over-literalized. For one, in 19:3, we have this phrase “forever and ever” describing the destruction of Babylon, but will Babylon literally burn forever and ever? The next place we see this phrase is in 20:10 where the devil and the false prophet are said to “be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” Now this seems more specific. Surely this means literal conscious eternal torment, right? Let’s see what Ian Paul says on this point: “In interpreting the language of torment…for ever and ever, we need to consider at least three things. First, the dragon, beast and false prophet are metaphors for spiritual agents and systems opposed to God, rather than human agents. Second, the theme throughout these judgement chapters (from Rev. 17 onwards) has been the principle of lex talionis and the justice of God’s judgements, so the punishment is more severe for the agencies of deception than for those deceived. Third, the primary significance of the lake of fire and sulphur, going right back to its origins in the Old Testament, is destruction rather than continual torture…” (Ian Paul, Revelation, pg. 331) What I would add to this is that only where the false prophet and beast are mentioned does it use the phrase “day and night forever and ever.” Where the deceived rather than deceiver are mentioned, it simply states that they were thrown into the lake of fire (see 19:20; 20:15; 21:8).

Furthermore, the text states that each person was judged according to what they had done (20:13). If they are judged according to what they had done then how can it be forever? How can everyone receive the same punishment. This also dispels the Christian myth that if you are going to live a life of sin you might as well sin as much as possible since hell will be the same eternal conscious torment for everyone. No, if you sin more you will be punished more. At least, that is how I read judgment in Revelation.

Also “Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:14) What does this mean? Does it mean that death itself will come to an end? And does it make sense that it is called a “second death” if it is in fact eternal conscious torment? Wouldn’t it be called torture or torment rather than death?

Even in the case of the devil and the false prophet we cannot say definitively that this is speaking literally of eternal conscious torment. The first reason for this is obvious: Revelation is highly metaphorical and given to hyperbole at various points. The second is that the phrase “forever and ever” or “eternal” is used elsewhere in scripture and is not literal. I’ll give some examples:

-Rev 19:3, John 8:35, Heb 7:24, 2 Sam 7:16, 1 Chr 17:14, Dan 3:9, 1 Chr 17:27

-Jude 6-7: “eternal chains” seems to not be literal here. The “eternal fire” that punished Sodom and Gomorrah was in fact not literally eternal. (See also 2 Peter 2:6)

-In Matthew 10:15, we get this statement from Jesus: “Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.” (Parallel: Luke 10:12) While this passage does not mention the word “eternal”, we get the idea that punishment can vary according to the offense.

My point with all this is not to downplay the seriousness of hell or how terrible it will be for many people. My point is that the “eternal conscious torment” view of hell ought to be rethought. Is it possible for people to be “judged according to their deeds” and yet all undergo the same eternal conscious torment? In my view, scripture consistently represents God as judging justly, so any view we have of God that seems unjust ought to be re-thought. While we can say that it might not seem just to us but might be just to God, this can sometimes be a way to avoid a serious question. As humans, we have some knowledge of what is just. We know that incarcerating someone for life because they were caught with marijuana is unjust, so why would it be any different in our view of the afterlife. The belief that the punishment should fit the crime is a God-given view of justice, because God gives people punishments that fits their crimes, and to do otherwise is an injustice.