This is one of the most constant images under which the torment
and misery of the wicked is represented. Fire is a symbol of the
divine judgment of wrath (Matt. 5:22). In Matthew 3:10 the godless
are represented as a tree hewn down and cast into the fire; in 3:12
the chaff (godless) is burned with unquenchable fire; in 13:42 the
wicked are said to be cast into a furnace of fire.
Is the "fire" spoken of here _literal_ fire? It is an accepted
law of language that a figure of speech is less intense than the
reality. If "fire" is merely a figurative expression, it must
stand for some great reality, and if the reality is more intense
than the figure, what an awful thing the punishment symbolized by
fire must be.
It is contended that fire must necessarily consume; that nothing
could continue to exist in fire. Is it not remarkable that the
Baptist uses the word "unquenchable"' (Greek, "asbestos") when
speaking of this fire? Is any light thrown on the question by the
incident of the three Hebrew children in the fiery furnace? Did
they consume, or did they withstand the fire? (Dan. 3:27). In the
parable of the Tares (Matt. 13:36-43) our Lord speaks of the tares
being burned up. When Christ retired to the house after delivering
the parable, his disciples asked Him to explain to them what He meant
by the figures of speech He used in the parable. This request He
granted. He explained the figurative language of the parable; every
figurative word in it except that of "fire." He said: "The field
is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but
the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed
them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the
reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and
burned in the fire, so shall it be at the end of this world. .
. . And they shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall
be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Why did not the Master explain
what he meant by the figurative word "fire"? He explained all the
other figurative words, why not this one? Did He forget? Or did
He intend that His disciples should have the impression that He
was speaking of literal fire? Here was His opportunity to explain
His use of words, for the disciples were asking for just that very
thing. Was there any significance in the fact that Jesus did not
explain the word "fire"? Whether we believe in literal fire or not,
we certainly ought to ask for a reason for the Master's failure to
literalize the figurative word "fire."