I posted on Sunday evening about the problems that arise when we interpret imagery from the book of the Revelation too hyper-literally. What it boiled down to was that one is then forced, in order to be consistent, to interpret all of the book’s wild, apocalyptic imagery literally as well, leaving us with Godzilla-like creatures living in earth’s oceans, space-dragons, and biblical “villains” attending first century congregations, centuries after their deaths.

Another issue with interpreting the lake of fire imagery as we do, is what it does to the Protestant doctrine of salvation. Were I to ask you, as a Protestant, “who goes to the lake of fire?”, how would you answer? It’s likely you’d, if you’ve got your doctrine sorted correctly, answer with something simple like “unbelievers.” And at least, according to the Revelation text, you’d be right. So, were you asked directly by someone who, let’s say, was involved in sexual activity that you deemed unsavory and immoral, “Will I go to hell because of said activity?”, again, if your doctrinal ducks were in a row, you’d likely answer with, “No, you’d go to hell because you’re an unbeliever and rejected Christ, but not because of any particular action.”

Here, though, is where the text in question would begin disagreeing with you. Let’s take a look:

8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
-Revelation 21:8, NIV

Sure, “unbelieving” is on that list, but only after “cowardly,” and is then followed by other actions, like sexual immorality and lying. The issue here is that if rejection of Christ and unbelief is *what sends someone to hell, why all the behaviors? Why not leave it at unbelief? It seems like all these extras only add to the confusion. Also, in light of this, the Protestant doctrine of salvation not being by works, etc., stops…working, because here it is specifically *works and actions that are sending people to this place.

Now, sure, we could simply say that these are metaphors-behaviors typifying the villainous force in the book, and doesn’t mean specifically that anyone who is a cowardly , occasional truth-stretcher, will go to hell. But at that point, why not understand the lake of fire itself to be a metaphor? If you’re willing to metaphor-ize one part of the book, why not other parts?

Just some thoughts for this lovely, Tuesday morning.