Consider carefully the scriptures that are used to teach eternal torment. Do not imagine that a study of such scriptures is too elementary, for though convinced the doctrine of eternal torment is false, many mature Bible Students cannot readily explain the scriptures used to support the doctrine. Consider the first:

“And he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment ascends up for ever, and ever; and they have no rest day or night.” (Rev 14:10, 11)

First we ask, Does the proposed interpretation comport with God’s character?

No it does not. There are numerous scriptures, which teach that love is one of the principal characteristics of God. Here is just one:

“God is love. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear hath torment.”(1 John 4:8, 18)

Because God is love, he is incapable of torment. To torment anyone is entirely foreign to God’s character. It is contrary to his thoughts. He simply wouldn’t think of it; it is an abomination to him. Jeremiah confirms this where God denounces those who sacrificed their children by fire to pagan gods:

“They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into my mind.”(Jer 19:5)

“And they built the high places of Baal … to cause their sons, and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination.”(Jer 32:35; Compare with Jer 7:31 and Deut 18:10-12)

It is clear from these statements that God finds this act of burning individuals alive, to be so repulsive that it has never interred into his mind. Thus eternal torment does not comport with God’s character of love.

It is blasphemous for men to put this evil and false idea to our God. The very idea of burning someone alive is evil (an impossibility with God), and gives evidence how depraved someone who believes in such things can be.

Another characteristic of God is justice: “Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne” (Psa 89:14), or as Moffatt renders it: “Thy throne rests upon equality and justice.”

Does eternal torment comport with God’s character of justice?

Is it just to impose an eternity of torment for the sins of only a few brief years of this present life? Is it equitable? Of course it is not! It is a grossly disproportionate punishment.

The penalty for sin was announced at the beginning in Gen 2:17 as simply death: “Thou shall surely die” is what God said. This is what Adam was to expect if he sinned: nothing more than death. Would it be just for God to announce the penalty as death, then after the sin had been committed to rudely surprise the sinner by amplifying the penalty to an eternity of torment? Such a thing would be most unjust. Thus it does not comport with God’s character in this respect either.

Does the proposed interpretation square with the ransom?

It does not. Jesus came as a man to assume the penalty for sin. If the sentence upon Adam was eternal torment and Jesus took Adam’s place, then Jesus must be tormented forever which we know is false. The sentence for disobedience was simply death; Jesus died to pay the penalty as the ransom.

Is eternal torment in accordance with the divine plan?

Emphatically no, the plan provides for the restoration of mankind to perfection and harmony with God. The restitution of all things was spoken by the mouth of all God’s holy prophets since the world began. (Acts 3:21) Eternally tormenting a large segment of humanity is incompatible with this. Since we are told that “all the wicked will he destroy” (Psa 145:20), God will certainly not keep any of the wicked alive in torment. On the contrary 2 Thess 1:9 says plainly that they “shall be punished with everlasting destruction” i.e. they will be destroyed from existence and never come back.

Now we apply another test to our texts, one which indicates that direction we must take to determine what the scriptures really do teach, viz.

Is it literal or symbolic?

The scripture is obviously highly symbolic. Revelation is a book of symbols. As we read in the first verse of the first chapter, the “things which were shortly to come to pass” were signified, or SIGN-ified, unto John, that is they were given in signs and symbols.

“The greatest source of error in understanding the symbols of Revelation is a too literal interpretation. It is read as though it were a statement of facts instead of a statement of symbols.”

The entire 14th chapter is replete with symbols. There is a “lamb,” a symbol of Christ, standing on “mount Zion,” his heavenly kingdom. There is “thunder,” a symbol of controversy, and the “harps” of Bible testimonies sing a “new song,” harmoniously declaring the glad tidings of restitution. There is a “throne,” a symbol of authority and ruler-ship. There are “beasts” and “elders” and “virgins” and “angels,” all having symbolic significance. Then in Verse 8 we are told that “Babylon,” a great city, is fallen. This too is a symbol. “Babylon” means “confusion” and is a symbol of the nominal church as a whole. So the prophecy refers to the time of the Lord’s casting off of the nominal systems, removing His favor from them.

Then in Verse 9 a “beast” and his “image” are mentioned. Bible Students concur that this symbolizes the papal system and a so-called Protestant Federation, Protestants who no longer protest. In regard to this “beast” and its “image” we find a remarkable interpretation of the prophecy written in 1897. It reads as though it were a comment on yesterday’s news reports concerning the ecumenical movement. We quote:

“We find in Revelation a prophecy of a special combination of influence by which Protestant denominations will be unified, and, though separate, yet be brought into cooperation with Papacy, in a manner that will give both of them increased powers, and deceive many into supposing that the new combination will be God’s instrumentality for doing the work predicted of Messiah; and that it is thus his representative.”

With this background we are able to deal with the true meaning of this scripture: “If any man worship the beast, and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire, and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment ascends up for ever, and ever; and they have no rest day nor night.”(Rev 14:9-11)

Here more symbols are brought into the picture: the “mark” or identification of those in harmony or sympathy with the beast or his image which is applied on the “forehead” indicating a mere intellectual assent, or in the “hand” implying a more active cooperation. These shall drink the “wine of the wrath of God” out of the “cup of his indignation” which indicates that such feel the manifestation of God’s displeasure, being compelled to drink a bitter dose.

Do you see how full of symbols the book of Revelation is? To take these symbols literally would be extremely foolish. Jesus is not a literal lamb, a literal beast is not worshiped, it does not have a literal image. Literal marks are not made on literal foreheads and hands.

These are all symbols which, when correctly interpreted, beautifully represent profound truths and tell of tremendous events to come.

Verses 10 and 11 say that those who worship the symbolic beast and his symbolic image shall drink of the symbolic wine of wrath from the symbolic cup.

From this point forward the teachers (and adherents) of eternal torment insist that symbolism’s cease and that the remainder of the text must be taken literally, that the words “he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone” and “the smoke of their torment ascends up for ever and ever” is exactly and literally what it says.

But is this reasonable? No, it is entirely unreasonable. There is no justification for such a view. On the contrary, a fair and reasonable person must conclude that because of all the other symbols and the highly symbolic nature of the entire book, these expressions must be likewise symbolic and NOT literal.

Those who insist on a literal interpretation of this portion of the text are in a further difficulty. The text says that the torments take place “in the presence of the Lamb.” If the torment with fire and brimstone is literal, so must the lamb be also: an animal, the young offspring of a sheep. By what reasoning can you say that the one is literal and the other is not? Both occur in the very same sentence. If one is literal, so is the other.

So we have established beyond the shadow of a doubt that the torment by fire and brimstone of the worshipers of the beast and his image is symbolic. What then does it really mean?

We turn to Rev 18:4 which also refers to the fall of Babylon, the nominal church systems of confusion: “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” So the scripture under consideration simply means that all who remain in Babylon, either in spirit or in name, are in opposition to the word of God.

Those who do not “come out of her” will be subject to torment and vexation so long as they are worshiping creeds, doctrines, and organizations of men. The remembrance of this distress is shown in the smoke of torment and it will never be forgotten. Those who are finally brought out of these systems will forever remember how they were tormented. They will have learned an everlasting lesson.

We will examine our other three texts supposed to support the doctrine of eternal torment in our next post.