Is the Book of Revelation the only place in Scripture teaching eternal torment?

[Der Alte]

Well, no! If it's literal smoke then it's coming from the corporeal Hmm, to take me as an example, who (unjustly) is being burned forever and ever. But that means that I will lose mass over time, becoming an ever slimmer and more sylph like Hmm, until eventually I disappear and there's no more smoke. It's a vision and not a literal account IOW.

If God can make a bush burn without being consumed and cause a furnace, heated 7 times hotter than normal, to not harm three Jewish slaves who were thrown into it although men outside the furnace were killed, I'm sure He can do anything He wants to with smoke, remaining mass etc. Funny how reality only becomes important when it conflicts with your assumptions/presuppositions.

 

[Clare73]

Revelation 20:10 depicts hell in the following manner (NKJV, emphasis mine):

The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.​

Also, while it doesn't directly say the torment is eternal, Revelation 14:11 comes close as well (NKJV, emphasis mine):

And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.​

Aside from these two verses in Revelation, do any other Books of the Bible depict eternal torment, or is the symbolic Book of Revelation the only source for eternal torment? If not, it could be difficult to know whether we should interpret these verses literally.

Note: I'm not looking for verses that discuss eternal "punishment" (which is vaguer) or verses that speak of just "torment" without saying such is forever/eternal. Rather, I'm looking specifically for verses that depict torment/torture as being eternal/forever.

Jesus is the one who reveals hell.

Mark 9:43 - "hell, where the fire never goes out."
Mark 9:48 - "hell, where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die."
Matthew 3:12 - "unquenchable fire"
Matthew 25:41 - "eternal fire"

 

[Kilk1]

If God can make a bush burn without being consumed and cause a furnace, heated 7 times hotter than normal, not harm three Jewish slaves who were thrown into it although men outside the furnace were killed, I'm sure He can do anything He wants to with smoke, remaining mass etc. Funny how reality only becomes important when it conflicts with your assumptions/presuppositions.

Well, here's the thing. In Exodus 3:2, we're told "the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed" (NKJV, emphasis added). From what I remember, the Greek word that the Septuagint used to translate the Hebrew word for "consumed" in this verse is katakaio (2618 κατακαίω). This is the same word John the Baptist used to describe what Jesus will do to the "chaff" (i.e., the lost) when they're judged, saying "He will burn up [katakaio] the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12, NKJV, emphasis added).

In other words, the very thing that did not happen to the burning bush (being consumed/katakaio) is what will happen to the lost. Does this argument make sense?

 

[Der Alte]

Well, here's the thing. In Exodus 3:2, we're told "the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed" (NKJV, emphasis added). From what I remember, the Greek word that the Septuagint used to translate the Hebrew word for "consumed" in this verse is katakaio (2618 κατακαίω). This is the same word John the Baptist used to describe what Jesus will do to the "chaff" (i.e., the lost) when they're judged, saying "He will burn up [katakaio] the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12, NKJV, emphasis added).
In other words, the very thing that did not happen to the burning bush (being consumed/katakaio) is what will happen to the lost. Does this argument make sense?

Why are you going to the Greek translation instead of the Hebrew original? The Hebrew is אַיִן אָכַל ,"ain akal" "not consumed." As for the chaff that is part of the wheat that is discarded not a separate plant. God can do what He wants to do with anything in creation, any time He wants.

 

[Kilk1]

Jesus is the one who reveals hell.

Mark 9:43 - "hell, where the fire never goes out."
Mark 9:48 - "hell, where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die."
Matthew 3:12 - "unquenchable fire"
Matthew 25:41 - "eternal fire"

Thank you for your reply. Using the Gospels' terminology to describe hell seems better, in the sense that Revelation's language is often figurative. Let's look at those verses. Mark 9:43-48 says the fire doesn't go out, but it doesn't say the "people" live forever. In fact, Jesus is quoting a Scripture, Isaiah 66:24. If we go to that verse, we find out what's being burned: dead corpses, not living, conscious beings.

As for Matthew 3:12, this says the fire won't be quenched. Being unquenchable means you won't be able to stop it. It doesn't mean the fire can't consume/burn up anything. In fact, we know from this verse that "unquenchable fire" can burn people up. The verse says Jesus "will burn up [katakaio] the chaff [i.e., lost sinners] with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12, NKJV, emphasis added). Thus, the lost won't just be "burned" but "burned up" (katakaio). This would explain why the Hebrew writer says "our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29, NKJV).

Matthew 25:41 again says it's the fire, not the people's lives, that are eternal. A few verses later, in Matthew 25:46, Jesus talks about the people, saying righteous will have eternal life while the wicked will have eternal punishment. It doesn't say whether the punishment is torment or the death penalty. However, since the contrast is with "eternal life," it makes sense the alternative is referring to "eternal death." Thus, the view that the lost die forever not only works with this passage; it seems a better fit than that the lost also have "eternal life," just in torment.

I admit I'm surprised to write all this. I've always been taught eternal torment, but all the verses outside Revelation seem to better fit annihilation (i.e., suffering the death penalty) for the lost rather than torment. I'm beginning to change my mind in favor of annihilationism.

 

[Kilk1]

Why are you going to the Greek translation instead of the Hebrew original? The Hebrew is אַיִן אָכַל ,"ain akal" "not consumed." As for the chaff that is part of the wheat that is discarded not a separate plant. God can do what He wants to do with anything in creation, any time He wants.

My point was just that the same term is used in both. However, since they're in different languages, you'd have to look in the Greek translation of Exodus. If you think that isn't the best approach, another question could be this: What does katakaio, used in Matthew 3:12, mean? Do you say it means "burn" as in getting a burn or, more specifically, "burn up" (i.e., consume)?

What do you think it means to separate the wheat from the chaff? I understand it to mean separating saints from sinners, burning up the latter. Is this your view?

 

[Kilk1]

@Kilk
The lake of fire passages, in context.

Revelation 2:11 'Whoever has an ear should listen to what the Spirit is saying to the Churches. The one who overcomes will not be harmed by the second death.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and ho1y is the one who has part in the first resurrection! Over these, the second death has no power, but they will be priests” of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
Rev 19:20 But the beast was captured and with him the false prophet who worked the signs in his sight and by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who expressed adoration to his image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.2 ​

And 1000 years later, the beast and the false prophet, who is a person, are still in the lake of fire.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet
are, and [they] shall be tormented [plural verb] day and night for ever and ever.
Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Revelation 21:8 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.​

The lake of fire [LOF] is called “the second death” twice in Rev. vss. 20:14 and 21:8. While this is true, Rev. never says that anyone is thrown into the LOF then they die.
…..The terms “the lake of fire” and “the second death” are interchangeable.
“The lake of fire” is “the second death” and “the second death” is “the lake of fire,” thus we can see that it is not synonymous with death or destruction.
…..We also see that being thrown into the LOF is not synonymous with death from Rev 19:20, where the beast and the false prophet, who was a person, are thrown into the LOF and 1000 years later, in 20:10 the devil, is thrown into the LOF.
Three living, sentient, beings, are thrown into the LOF but they do not die, they are tormented day and night for ever and ever. There is not one verse in Revelation which says anyone/anything is thrown into the LOF then they/it dies.
…..Rev 20:14 does say death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. Death is the point in time end of life; it has no physical presence and cannot be literally thrown anywhere.
If “hell” refers to the grave, graves are empty holes. Empty cannot be literally thrown anywhere. Since neither death nor hell could/did die a first death they can’t die a second death.
But there is a scriptural answer which does not involve mixing literal and figurative in one sentence. There is a death and hell which are sentient beings and can be thrown into the LOF.

Revelation 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.​

My name for these two sentient beings is, “the angel of death” and “the demon of hell.” Others can feel free to call them whatever they want. The 2 beings are thrown into the LOF and their power to kill ended.
….Additional verses which show that the LOF is not synonymous with death or destruction.

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Revelation 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
Revelation 21:8 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.​

. Rev 21:4 says “there shall be no more death.” In vs. 5 Jesus said “Behold I make all things new.”
“No more death” but 3 verses later, Rev 21:8 says eight groups of the unrighteous; [the]fearful, [the] unbelieving, the abominable, murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers, idolaters and liars “shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is [still called] the second death.”
If there is “no more death,” after vs. 4, then those thrown into the lake of fire in vs. 8 do not die although it is called the “second death.”.

Revelation 22:11
(11) He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.​

The last chapter of the Bible, Rev. 22:11., 10 more vss. No salvation, no destruction, no death, only “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still.”

Thanks for your reply. I can say more later, but if I could ask a question to better understand your position: Are you saying that since Revelation 21:4 says there will be no more death, therefore those thrown in the lake of fire won't die? Just making sure.

 

[Der Alte]

My point was just that the same term is used in both. However, since they're in different languages, you'd have to look in the Greek translation of Exodus. If you think that isn't the best approach, another question could be this: What does katakaio, used in Matthew 3:12, mean? Do you say it means "burn" as in getting a burn or, more specifically, "burn up" (i.e., consume)?
What do you think it means to separate the wheat from the chaff? I understand it to mean separating saints from sinners, burning up the latter. Is this your view?

Chaff /CHaf/ noun 1.the husks of corn or other seed separated by winnowing or threshing.

 

[Der Alte]

Thanks for your reply. I can say more later, but if I could ask a question to better understand your position: Are you saying that since Revelation 21:4 says there will be no more death, therefore those thrown in the lake of fire won't die? Just making sure.

"Death" is the point in time end of life. "No more death" does not mean that all the dead will return to life. In that same vs. it says no more tears, sorrow, crying or pain.

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.​

If there is "no more death" after vs. 4 then the 8 groups of sinners thrown into the lake of fire in vs. 8 do not die.

 

[Clare73]

Thank you for your reply. Using the Gospels' terminology to describe hell seems better, in the sense that Revelation's language is often figurative. Let's look at those verses.
Mark 9:43-48 says the fire doesn't go out, but it doesn't say the "people" live forever.

Their bodies are dead in the ground. It is their spirits which live forever.
It's not about suffering bodies, it's about suffering immortal spirits, described in physical terms which we can understand.

In fact, Jesus is quoting a Scripture, Isaiah 66:24. If we go to that verse, we find out what's being burned: dead corpses, not living, conscious beings.

As for Matthew 3:12, this says the fire won't be quenched. Being unquenchable means you won't be able to stop it. It doesn't mean the fire can't consume/burn up anything. In fact, we know from this verse that "unquenchable fire" can burn people up. The verse says Jesus "will burn up [katakaio] the chaff [i.e., lost sinners] with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12, NKJV, emphasis added). Thus, the lost won't just be "burned" but "burned up" (katakaio). This would explain why the Hebrew writer says "our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29, NKJV).

Matthew 25:41 again says it's the fire, not the people's lives, that are eternal. A few verses later, in Matthew 25:46, Jesus talks about the people, saying righteous will have eternal life while the wicked will have eternal punishment. It doesn't say whether the punishment is torment or the death penalty. However, since the contrast is with "eternal life," it makes sense the alternative is referring to "eternal death." Thus, the view that the lost die forever not only works with this passage; it seems a better fit than that the lost also have "eternal life," just in torment.

I admit I'm surprised to write all this. I've always been taught eternal torment, but
all the verses outside Revelation seem to better fit annihilation (i.e., suffering the death penalty) for the lost rather than torment. I'm beginning to change my mind in favor of annihilationism.

Lotta' wrestling of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16), in light of Jesus' own parable in Luke 16:19-31.
Jesus parables were always based on facts of reality.

 

[Der Alte]

Lotta' wrestling of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16), in light of Jesus' own parable in Luke 16:19-31.
Jesus parables were always based on facts of reality.

The Lazarus and rich man narrative in Luke 16:19-31 might be some other figure of speech but it is not a parable. The word "parable" is derived from the Greek word "parabolos" which means to throw or lay beside. In a "parable" something unknown/not understood is explained by comparison with something known/understood. See e.g. Matthew 13:24 "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:"
In Luk16 there is no comparison "This is likened to that."
This story is not introduced as a parable and Jesus did not explain it later to His disciples.
The word "parable" occurs 32 times in the NT. Jesus identifies parables 5 times.
Matthew 13:18, Matthew 21:33, Matthew 24:32, Matthew 4:13, Matthew 13:28.
17 times the writer identifies the parables.
Luk 16:19-31 might be some other figure of speech, but it is not a parable.
…..All of the unquestioned parables are anonymous; a certain widow, a certain man, a certain landowner etc. The story of Lazarus and the rich man mentions three specific actual persons by name; Lazarus, Abraham and Moses.
If Abraham was not in the place Jesus named and did not speak the words Jesus quoted then Jesus lied. Would Jesus use a false statement to make a point?
What most folks don’t know about the rich man, he violated a specific commandment.

Deuteronomy 15:7-8
7 If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:
8 But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.​

All of the ECF who quoted Luk 16:19-31considered it to be factual.

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book II Chapter XXXIV.-Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning.Ireneaeus, 120-202 AD, was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John.
1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,-in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives [=Latin for rich] knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him-[Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table. [He tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive the preaching of Him who was to rise again from the dead. By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man, so that they may be recognised, and retain the memory of things in this world; moreover, that the gift of prophecy was possessed by Abraham, and that each class of souls] receives a habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgment.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1
On the Resurrection. But he figuratively designates the vulgar rabble, attached to ephemeral pleasure, flourishing for a little, loving ornament, loving praise, and being everything but truth-loving, good for nothing but to be burned with fire. “There was a certain man,” said the Lord, narrating, “very rich, who was clothed in purple and scarlet,
enjoying himself splendidly every day.” This was the hay. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.
Tertullian A Treatise On The Soul [A.D. 145-220.]
In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality. For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.
The Epistles Of Cyprian (A.D. 200-258) Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics
A good man out of the good treasure bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.” Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.
Methodius Fragments On The History Of Jonah (A.D. 260-312)
But souls, being rational bodies, are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which are visible to reason, having received this impression. Whence, also, in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are spoken of as having a tongue, and a finger, and the other members; not as though they had with them another invisible body, but that the souls themselves, naturally, when entirely stripped of their covering, are such according to their essence.​

 

[Clare73]

The Lazarus and rich man narrative in Luke 16:19-31 might be some other figure of speech but it is not a parable. The word "parable" is derived from the Greek word "parabolos" which means to throw or lay beside. In a "parable" something unknown/not understood is explained by comparison with something known/understood.

As is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
It is a paralleling of the "known" spiritual state of the rich man as given in the parable, with the "unknown" spiritual state of the Jews (Luke 16:27-31).
By definition, that makes it a parable, objections notwithstanding.

See e.g. Matthew 13:24 "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:"

In Luk16 there is no comparison "This is likened to that."
This story is not introduced as a parable and Jesus did not explain it later to His disciples.

Many of Jesus' parables were not introduced as parables, and Jesus likewise did not later explain many of his parables to his disciples.

There is no good Biblical reason why the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable, even by the standards you give. . .just more wrestling of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16).

 

[Der Alte]

As is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
It is a paralleling of the "known" spiritual state of the rich man as given in the parable, with the "unknown" spiritual state of the Jews (Luke 16:27-31).
By definition, that makes it a parable, objections notwithstanding.
Many of Jesus' parables were not introduced as parables, and Jesus likewise did not later explain many of his parables to his disciples.
There is no good Biblical reason why the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable, even by the standards you give. . .just more wrestling of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16).

Nonsense! You are not paying attention. I call this the "You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh huh!" argument. The condition of the Jews was certainly known by the Jews themselves. And they certainly knew the difference between themselves and non-Jews.
You ignored the fact that all 4 ECF who quoted Lazarus and the rich man considered it factual.,

 

[JulieB67]

this says the fire won't be quenched. Being unquenchable means you won't be able to stop it. It doesn't mean the fire can't consume/burn up anything.

That's how I see it. Human hands can't stop it but that doesn't mean the fire won't burn up what's thrown in. That's what a fire does.

I'm beginning to change my mind in favor of annihilationism.

That's where I'm at. If we take the bible as a whole that's where it points to imo. One will either achieve eternal life or suffer the second death/perish.

 

[Clare73]

Nonsense! You are not paying attention. I call this the "You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh huh!" argument. The condition of the Jews was certainly known by the Jews themselves. And they certainly knew the difference between themselves and non-Jews.

Nope. . .

The Jews did not believe they were rejecting the Messiah, and they certainly did not know that the man they rejected would come back from the dead.

You missed the point of the parable.
Just as the Jews did at that time.

 

[Der Alte]

You missed the point of the parable.
Just as the Jews did at that time.

Saying it don't make it true. See ECF quotes.

 

[Clare73]

Saying it don't make it true.
See ECF quotes.

Non-responsive to the point presented.

And the ECF put their pants on one leg at a time just like everyone else.

 

[Kilk1]

Chaff /CHaf/ noun 1.the husks of corn or other seed separated by winnowing or threshing.

That's what chaff is, but what is your view on what chaff represents in Matthew 3:12? Is Jesus talking about literal chaff, or is He talking about the lost?

"Death" is the point in time end of life. "No more death" does not mean that all the dead will return to life. In that same vs. it says no more tears, sorrow, crying or pain.

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.​

If there is "no more death" after vs. 4 then the 8 groups of sinners thrown into the lake of fire in vs. 8 do not die.

What if Revelation 21:4 is just talking about the righteous and not applying to those in hell? There's a reason I think this: If the sinners in Revelation 21:8 can't die because Revelation 21:4 mentions no more death, then the sinners in Revelation 21:8 also can't experience sorrow, crying, or pain either because Revelation 21:4 mentions no more sorrow, crying, or pain.

 

[Kilk1]

Lotta' wrestling of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16), in light of Jesus' own parable in Luke 16:19-31.
Jesus parables were always based on facts of reality.

I'm just saying what the Scriptures say. To describe hell, Jesus quotes Isaiah 66:24, which describes hell as a place where dead corpses (not living, conscious beings) live, so I'll believe what Jesus says. Matthew 3:12 says the lost will be "burned up" like chaff rather than burning forever, so I'll believe the lost will be "burned up" (i.e., consumed, katakaio). Matthew 25:46 contrasts eternal punishment with eternal life, so I'll believe that the lost won't have eternal life since Jesus said eternal life is specifically for the saved in this verse. Isn't that taking Scripture for what it says? Wouldn't "twisting" involve me saying the lost won't be "burned up," and won't be dead despite these verses?

As for the story about Lazarus and the rich man, isn't it about Hades rather than hell? Luke 16:23 uses the word "Hades," not "hell" (unless you use the KJV, which conflates the two for some reason). Moreover, doesn't Luke 16:27-28 suggest the rich man's brothers were still alive on earth, suggesting this passage isn't about the final judgment?

 

[Der Alte]

That's what chaff is, but what is your view on what chaff represents in Matthew 3:12? Is Jesus talking about literal chaff, or is He talking about the lost?
What if Revelation 21:4 is just talking about the righteous and not applying to those in hell? There's a reason I think this: If the sinners in Revelation 21:8 can't die because verse 4 mentions no more death, then the sinners in verse 8 also can't experience sorrow, crying, or pain either because verse 4 mentions no more sorrow, crying, or pain.

I tend to believe that Jesus means what He says and says what He means. Elsewhere Jesus identified the "wheat" and the "tares," which is some kind of unwanted plant maybe a weed. Evidently the chaff is different than tares. I spent about 15 years in the orient and every year during the rice harvest, I saw them burning the chaff.