As the title suggests, The Four Views on Hell explores the nature of hell. Four prominent professors express their views on the nature of hell and then provide rebuttals to the alternative views presented. William Crockett, Ph.D., professor of New Testament at Alliance Theological Seminary, is the general editor and contributing author who provides a view of hell that is metaphorical.[1] John F. Walvoord, Th.D., former president of Dallas Theological Seminary, presents the literal perspective of hell.[2] Zachary J. Hayes, professor emeritus of systematic theology at the Catholic Theological Union, communicates the purgatorial position.[3] Finally, Clark H. Pinnock, professor emeritus of theology at McMaster Divinity College, argues for a conditional view of hell.[4] This particular theological critique will show all four views have merit, but also contain significant challenges. This paper will provide a brief summary of the themes followed by a critical interaction with each contributing author.
Four Views on Hell: Second Edition (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)
BRIEF SUMMARY
Walvoord’s literal view argues that hell is literal, eternal, and adequately harmonized with God’s love. Hell is literally fire and punishment, although aspects of punishment may be a combination of physical, mental, and emotional torment.[5] Walvoord supports the literal view with biblical exegesis from both the Old and New Testament Scripture.[6] Furthermore, hell has duration, a duration that is everlasting.[7] According to Walvoord, the eternality of hell is a requirement of biblical inerrancy.[8] Finally, due to the most trivial sin having infinite significance, a loving and just God requires infinite punishment and undeservingly shows infinite grace toward believers.[9]
Crockett’s metaphorical view argues that the biblical perspective of hell is metaphorical and symbolic.[10] First, based on the conflicting images of hell in the New Testament and the common cultural images utilized by the biblical writers, Crockett concludes the biblical explanation of heaven and hell is not literal.[11] The writers simply used familiar first century images such as stones, gates, smoke, and fire to communicate the reality of heaven and hell metaphorically.[12] Further, the symbolic use of words utilizing techniques such as rabbinic hyperbole and the nonliteral image of fire in Jewish literature is characteristic of first century writers, thus, to conclude the language is literal is to force a biblical interpretation that goes beyond its meaning.[13]
Hayes’s purgatorial view does not specifically address hell, but instead, argues the position of purgatory, a place between heaven and hell that has the purpose of purification, support of Scripture, and an association with grace and works. In Hayes’s view, fire symbolizes a purifying process that enhances the capacity of humanity to meet God, gives humanity the potential to share fate with Christian martyrs, and provides an opportunity for the living to impact the dead.[14] Additionally, Hayes refers to 2 Maccabees, 1 Corinthians, and Matthew to support the concept of purgatory, but admits no specific textual support exists.[15] Finally, purgatory is an eschatological extension of the Catholic understanding of grace and works that suggests the effectiveness of God’s grace depends on an adequate human response.[16]
Pinnock’s conditional view does not deny the destructive nature of hell, but instead, argues the biblical perspective of hell is complete annihilation, which supports justice and morality, aligns metaphysically, and opposes the immortality of the soul. Specifically, God’s justice and morality prohibit the act of eternal punishment because it goes beyond what humanity deserves.[17] Further, annihilation of the wicked supports the eschatological perspective of a new creation in contrast to an everlasting cosmic dualism.[18] Finally, Pinnock suggests the belief in the immortality of the soul originates from Greek influence and not biblical evidence.[19]
CRITICAL INTERACTION
Walvoord’s theological perspective provides for a dispensational view toward eschatology and a literal view of biblical prophecy.[20] The goal of Walvoord’s account is to convince the reader that the Bible exclusively teaches that life after death for the wicked is everlasting punishment in a literal sense. A combination of a dispensational theological method, exegesis, and inerrancy is utilized to further the argument.
The strengths of the literal view reside on the back of biblical exegesis and inerrancy. Specifically, Walvoord suggests the interpretation of the New Testament Greek word aionios “in every instance refers to eternity” and quotes W. R. Inge who states that “no sound Greek scholar can pretend that aionios means anything less than eternal.”[21] Walvoord then powerfully connects the exegesis directly to Revelation 20:10, which states that the wicked “will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”[22] Although all four authors agree that hell exists and is a form of punishment, Walvoord’s distinction primarily relates to duration, and argues that doubting the eternality of punishment doubts biblical inerrancy.
The weaknesses in Walvoord’s argument consist of the inability to prove an absence of metaphor and failure to differentiate itself from the metaphorical view. Walvoord attempts to prove that fire is literal because of its frequency of use in relationship to eternal punishment as well as a reference to the rich man in hades in Luke 16.[23] However, the frequency of word usage does not prove an absence of metaphor and a reference to thirst does not prove the existence of actual fire or water in an eternal dimension, which is likely why Ashland Theological Seminary suggests Walvoord’s “essay comes across as pedestrian.”[24] Accordingly, it appears the primary distinction of Walvoord’s analysis pertains to the duration of punishment, which supports the reasonableness of Ashland’s assertion that “Crockett’s so-called ‘metaphorical’ position is virtually the same as his ‘literal’ one.”[25]
Crockett’s theological perspective positions itself along a relatively modern evangelical context. Crockett’s goal is to convincingly argue that the biblical language pertaining to the nature of hell is symbolistic. The argument is primarily based on recent historical support, symbolism, metaphor, and an opposition to annihilationism.
The strengths in Crockett’s argument include recognizing incongruent language in the New Testament, the aligning with prominent theologians, and guarding against a forced interpretation. In particular, Crockett refers to Jude 7 and 13 that describe hell as both fire and darkness, but recognizes the two terms are mutually exclusive.[26] The implication is that Jude is either errant or speaking metaphorically, which may explain why Hayes suggests the metaphorical view could be “in reality the most literal reading.”[27] Furthermore, numerous relatively recent theologians including John Calvin, Martin Luther, Charles Hodge, and J. I. Packer support Crockett’s position.[28] Finally, Hayes appropriately points out that Crockett’s metaphorical view safeguards against communicating more than the biblical evidence conveys on topics, “which none has ever experienced.”[29]
The weaknesses of Crockett’s metaphorical view are a reliance on recent tradition, an illogical reference to Hitler, and an extended argument against annihilationism. First, Halstead notes that the metaphorical view is relatively new, “having been advocated only since the sixteenth century.”[30] Second, utilizing a reference from Nels Ferré, Crocket suggests that if a literal interpretation of hell were true “it would make Hitler a third degree saint.”[31] Although a strong emotional polemic, Ferré’s logic is skewed. Hitler’s wrath destroyed the lives of innocent Jews, but God’s wrath extends to the guilty, and more closely aligns with the criminal justice system not a tyrannical criminal. Finally, Crockett would have better served the reader by providing additional support for a metaphorical view rather than spending almost half of the essay opposing annihilationism.
Hayes’s theological perspective is based the Roman Catholic tradition. The goal of Hayes’s account is to effectively communicate a purgatorial perspective. According to Hayes, the argument for purgatory is based on tradition, Scripture, and a Catholic understanding of grace and justification.
Hayes’s essay has a number of strengths including a strong development and defense of purgatory, supportive logic, and a pertinent connection to grace and justification. First, Robertson appropriately notes that Hayes provides a chapter that is “particularly helpful for those wanting to know how the doctrine of purgatory developed and how it is defended.”[32] Furthermore, Pinnock observes that the logic in the purgatorial argument is sound by stating that it is difficult to deny that many believers are imperfect upon death and a certain wisdom exists in giving humanity the ability to mature after death.[33] Finally, by explicating an eschatological extension of grace and works, Hayes provides strong theological support for purgatory from a Catholic perspective, which allows evangelicals to appreciate the doctrine without necessarily agreeing with it.
A number of weaknesses also exist in Hayes’s assessment, which include a lack of focus, an absence of Scriptural support, and a lack of eschatological analysis. First, as explained in Pinnock’s response, Hayes focuses on purgatory and not hell in a book whose subject is hell.[34] Second, as pointed out in Walvoord’s response and admitted by Hayes, “There is no clear textual basis in Scripture for the later doctrine of purgatory.”[35] Finally, although Pyne correctly notes that the entire book is a study in theological method as much as eschatology, the emphasis on theological method appears particularly exaggerated in Hayes.[36]
Pinnock’s theological perspective is evangelical in nature with a Wesleyan-Arminian soteriology.[37] The goal of Pinnock’s view is to persuade readers that annihilationism is the most appropriate perspective of hell. The argument is supported by Scripture, mortality of the soul, the morality and justice of God, and metaphysics.
The primary strengths of the conditional view of hell pertain to morality and metaphysics. First, Pinnock refers to God’s boundless mercy and love by effectively highlighting the difficulty in reconciling God’s character with humanity’s moral intuition.[38] Furthermore, Pinnock poses an insightful metaphysical question regarding evangelical eschatology by asking how God can ultimately make all creation new and simultaneously allow “heaven and hell go on existing alongside each other forever in everlasting cosmological dualism.”[39]
A number of weaknesses in Pinnock’s argument exist including a connection of annihilationism with the Didache, an avoidance of key Scripture, and a digression regarding theological method. First, Crockett argues that Pinnock’s assertion that annihilationism is found in the Didache is incorrect; accordingly, a specific citation is critical to support the conditional view with such a strong tradition.[40] Furthermore, although Pinnock does reference Scripture, to ignore Revelation 20:10 appears to be incongruous. Finally, digressing away from eschatology toward theological method by spending almost a quarter of the essay defending the Wesleyan quadrilateral appears unnecessary.
CONCLUSION
The Four Views on Hell provides a strong method of introducing different views of hell to the reader. It has been shown that all four views on hell have merit, but each one contains significant challenges. Personally, Hayes’s purgatorial view was the most enlightening, but also the most egregious due to the connection of God’s grace with human works to the doctrine of purgatory. Pinnock’s perspective has a natural emotional appeal, but does not reconcile with the full body of Scripture. Walvoord’s literal view seems strongest in supporting the eternality of hell, but does not adequately address the conflicting language of Scripture. Accordingly, Crockett’s metaphorical view seems most adequate.
____________________________________
[1]“William Crockett,” http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/90000556/William_Crockett/index.aspx (accessed January 1, 2012).
[2]W. A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Walvoord, John F., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 1254.
[3]Thomas A. Halstead, “Four Views on Hell,” Master’s Seminary Journal 9, no 2 (Fall 1998): 225-227. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001547578&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed December 31, 2011), 226.
[4]W. A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Pinnock, Clark H., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 927.
[5] William Crockett et al., Four Views on Hell, ed. William Crockett and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 28.
[6] Ibid., 14-18, 19-23.
[7] Ibid., 26.
[8] Ibid., 27.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid., 44.
[11] Ibid., 51-52.
[12] Ibid., 55, 57.
[13] Ibid., 50-51.
[14] Ibid., 96-98.
[15] Ibid., 104-6.
[16] Ibid., 114.
[17] Ibid., 149-54.
[18] Ibid., 154.
[19] Ibid., 147-49.
[20]Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Walvoord, John F., 1254.
[21]Crockett et al., Four Views on Hell, 23-24.
[22] Ibid., 26.
[23] Ibid., 28.
[24]“Book Reviews,” Ashland Theological Journal, no 30:0 (1998): 143-144. http://www.galaxie.com. ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/202 (accessed January 1, 2012), 143.
[25]Ibid.
[26] Crockett et al., Four Views on Hell, 59.
[27]Ibid., 83.
[28] Ibid., 44-45.
[29]Ibid., 84.
[30]Crockett et al., Four Views on Hell.
[31]Crockett et al., Four Views on Hell, 50.
[32]Paul E. Robertson, “Four Views on Hell,” Theological Educator, no 52 (Fall 1995): 152-154. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001547578&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed December 31, 2011), 153.
[33] Crockett et al., Four Views on Hell, 129-30.
[34] Ibid., 127.
[35]Ibid., 107.
[36]Pyne, Robert A. “Four Views on Hell,” Bibliotheca sacra 150, no 600 (1993): 500-501. http://search. ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&A (accessed December 31, 2011), 501.
[37]Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Pinnock, Clark H., 927.
[38] Crockett et al., Four Views on Hell, 149.
[39]Ibid., 154.
[40] Ibid., 172.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- “Book Reviews,” Ashland Theological Journal, no 30:0 (1998): 143-144. http://www.galaxie. com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/202 (accessed January 1, 2012).
- Crockett, William, John F. Walvoord, Zachary J. Hayes, and Clark H. Pinnock. Four Views on Hell. Edited by William Crockett and Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
- Elwell, W. A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
- Halstead, Thomas A. “Four Views on Hell,” Master’s Seminary Journal 9, no 2 (Fall 1998): 225-227. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true& (accessed December 30, 2011).
- Pyne, Robert A. “Four Views on Hell,” Bibliotheca sacra 150, no 600 (1993): 500-501. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&A (accessed December 31, 2011).
- Robertson, Paul E. “Four Views on Hell,” Theological Educator, no 52 (Fall 1995): 152-154. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db =rfh&AN=ATLA0000304612&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed December 31, 2011).
- “William Crockett,” http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/90000556/William_Crockett/ index.aspx (accessed January 1, 2012).
