The Lake of Fire.1
Five General Scenarios
Let’s look at five general possibilities for the interpretation of this lake of fire and second death.
The teaching comprising the largest number of adherents (Christian Fundamentalists) state that the lake of fire is indeed literal fire, but that the second death part is figurative or symbolic seeing that its victims never actually become literally dead or even unconscious, but rather they interpret this second death as separation from God.
Their explanation of their belief, however, contradicts the idea that the lake of fire is literal. They teach that the lake of fire is literal fire that burns like real fire, but they then contradict the literalness of this fire by teaching that it doesn’t actually burn up anything: It just causes INSANE PAIN. But really, can a fire that doesn’t actually burn up physical, material things, be called a literal fire? And although I’ve heard many state that this metaphor is literal, this group certainly denies the literalness of the second death because they don’t believe they ever die and loose consciousness.
It is a physiological impossibility for a literal fire to cause pain on the nervous system of a person and yet never actually kill them and burn them up. Furthermore, real fire does not cause symbolic or figurative death-real fire causes real death.
Others (as the Jehovah's Witnesses) teach that both the lake of fire and the the second death are symbolic and not literal. They believe that this metaphor is a "word picture" that does not represent a place or condition of literal torment in literal fire. However, they believe that it does picture or represent the total annihilation of all those who are judged and are not granted salvation.
This teaching is certainly billions of times more merciful than the Christian fundamentalist theory, however, it too is unscriptural as we shall see. Not to mention the fact that it would prove our heavenly Father either unable or unwilling to save most of His own children.
What kind of an eternal example would that be for those who are saved? Does God really teach us to "train up a child in the way that he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it" (Prov. 22:6), but that God Himself is incapable of training His children in the way that they should go and that most of them WILL DEPART FROM IT?
Does God really teach us to "LOVE OUR ENEMIES" while God Himself "HATES OUR LOVED ONES" by destroying most of them for all eternity? This teaching is also blasphemous.
Still others teach that the "lake of fire" is figurative, but that the "fire" part of the symbolic phrase "lake of fire" is literal fire which will burn up its victims. So they interpret this as a symbolic "lake of fire" which is made up of a literal lake and literal fire. And that the second death is literal death so that its victims will be killed by this literal fire in a literal lake, which then becomes a symbolic "lake OF fire."
However, this group has a unique twist to their teaching. They believe that when the victims are thrown into the lake of fire, they have already gone through the white throne judgment and have turned to God, are now righteous, have accepted Christ as their Lord, but they must die a second time anyway. Why? I don’t know!! I am at a loss as to how Rev. 21:8 would fit into this theory,
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, SHALL HAVE THEIR PART in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death."
They don’t sound too converted to me at this point in time when they enter the lake of fire.
This group then believes that at the consummation of the ages (just as they have died a second time), they will be resurrected a second time, but this time to immortality and life with God in His Family. Though maybe not quite as blasphemous, this teaching is still unscriptural and foolish.
I know of no group who teaches that the lake of fire is figurative, but that the second death is literal. Such a doctrine would be akin to literally drowning in symbolic water.
And so that leaves one more combination, and that is that the lake of fire is figurative or symbolic and that the second death is also figurative or symbolic. I am one of a very tiny group who is of this latter persuasion.
It is the only way that these Scriptures on the lake of fire and the second death will harmonize and not contradict the rest of God’s Word. Furthermore, God plainly tells us in chapter one, verse one, that an angel "signified" this whole "Revelation of Jesus Christ" contained in this book. He "SYMBOLIZED" it, for that is what "signifies" means-to make known by signs, and signs are symbols. Therefore it can’t be literal.