I notice
an increasing trend within evangelicalism. We might identify this with the
evangelical left, although it’s becoming more widespread and mainstream. Right
now I’m picking on a segment of evangelicalism, but we have parallel
developments in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, so don’t foster the
illusion that you can take refuge in those alternatives.
I notice
the freedom that many professing Christians feel to just set aside whatever
they don’t like. To openly and brazenly disbelieve whatever they find
displeasing or hard to believe. They have no sense of obligation to submit
their hearts and minds to the wisdom of God speaking in his word. No sense of
duty to believe anything that happens to rub them the wrong way.
As a result, they feel free
to make the Bible more acceptable or credible (as they deem it) by any means
necessary. To unilaterally recreate the Christian faith or creatively
reinterpret the Bible.
This takes as many forms as
what is held to be morally or intellectually offensive. If the creation account
is thought to be hopelessly unscientific, then men like Enns, Seely, and Walton
tells that that’s because the narrator inherited an antiquated conception of
the world. Employed obsolete cosmological notions. People back then didn’t know
any better.
If evolutionary biology is
thought to put too much pressure on the historical Adam, we simply redefine
Adam. Adam becomes a metaphor for Israel. Or Adam becomes one man among many
preexisting hominids, whom God singles out.
If we don’t like the Bible’s
masculine linguistic bias, we retranslate it to our liking. If we find male
headship offensive, we either reinterpret the offending passages or say the
Bible is irremediably misogynistic in that regard, which we’re at liberty to
disregard (e.g. R. H. Evans). Same thing with homosexuality.
If we take umbrage at God’s
command to execute the Canaanites, we reinterpret that to mean it’s just the
conventional rhetoric of violence, which needn’t be confused with actual events
(e.g. Rowlett).
And we readjust our theory of
inspiration to accommodate these modifications. God superintends error, and
it’s our calling to discern the voice of God in the cacophony of jarring voices
within Scripture.
If we perceive an
irreconcilable conflict between divine foreknowledge and human freedom, then we
cut the Gordian knot by denying God’s knowledge of the future. Or we declare
that God must play the hand he was dealt (W. L. Craig).
If we don’t like everlasting
punishment, we substitute annihilationism or universalism. Easy as that.
If we think it’s unfair for
death to terminate the opportunity for salvation, we stipulate purgatory and
postmortem salvation (e.g. Jerry Walls).
If we think it’s unfair that
everyone didn’t enjoy the same spiritual opportunities, we posit that “God
could place a person anywhere He wants in human history, regardless of how that
person might freely behave in different circumstances. But my suggestion is
that God, being so merciful and not wanting anyone to be damned, so
providentially orders the world that anyone who would embrace the Gospel if he
were to hear it will not be placed in circumstances in which he fails to hear
it and is lost. Only in the case of someone who would be saved through his
response to general revelation would a person who would freely respond to
special revelation, if he heard it, find himself in circumstances where he
doesn’t hear it” (W. L. Craig).
If Calvinism rankles, we
preemptively dictate that whatever the Bible means, it can’t mean that (e.g.
Wesley, Rauser, Olson).
Now the problem I have with
all these efforts to make the Bible more believable is that, if I granted their
assumptions, their efforts to make the Bible more believable would make the
Bible less believable. And that’s because they are clearly manipulating
Scripture or theology to yield a desired result. Whenever there’s any tension
between the Bible and their prior commitments, Scripture must always adapt to
their prior commitments, not vice versa.
But that becomes an exercise
in make-believe. Theology as fiction, where you rewrite the story to provide an
alternate ending which you find more agreeable.
By contrast, the Bible
contains a lot of flinty, gnarly, intractable material. Material that resists
domestication.
Take Judges. Along with
Lamentations, this may be the nastiest book of the Bible. It contains a series
of atrocities. Mutilation, dismemberment, disembowelment, eye-gouging, human
sacrifice, gang rape &c. This is not a nice book. Not a hymnal.
But, unfortunately, that’s
what makes it so believable. Because, unfortunately, that’s very true to life.
The Bible has that raw, gritty, gruesome verity. The very effort to sanitize
the Bible makes it less realistic. And in so doing, makes it less credible.
That’s projecting how we’d like things to be, rather than how they actually
are.
All this moral squalor
supplies the dark backdrop for the Bible’s bright redemptive vision. Hope in
the shadow of despair. A fallen world is an ugly world. But only a fallen world
can be redeemed.
As we reject the offending
passages of the Bible, we ironically sink back into the very depravity at which
we take offense. We revert to the heathen brutality which the Bible graphically
depicts, as a warning to God’s people. That’s the lesson of Judges.
"If we don’t like everlasting punishment, we substitute annihilationism or universalism. Easy as that."
ReplyDeleteThere are, no doubt, some annihilationists who first begin questioning the traditional view of hell because they "don't like" it. That wasn't the case for me, however. Being Reformed, I believed in the traditional view of hell until about a year and a half ago, and never thought it too terrible to believe, or incompatible with the love and justice of God, or anything like that. To this day, in fact, I maintain that God would be perfectly just in causing the wicked to suffer for eternity were He to choose to do so.
However, what I discovered as I researched the topic in more depth was that with virtually no exception, every single proof-text historically pointed to by traditionalists, proves to be better support for the final annihilation of the risen impenitent, rather than for their eternal torment. I became convinced of annihilationism purely by exegesis of the text.
Also, many who begin questioning the traditional view because they "don't like" it, are still committed to the authority of God's Word and would believe the traditional view if they found it in the pages of Scripture. But what they discover is what I discovered: that it's just not there. And their commitment to the authority of Scripture forces them to embrace annihilationism.
Around 20 years ago I held to annihilationism because of my SDA and Armstrongite background. But after reading Robert Morey's book Death and the Afterlife, I became convinced of the traditional view of eternal punishment. I've never read (but have browsed) The Fire That Consumes by Edward Fudge. It's considered by some to be the definitive book in defense of annihilationism and conditional immortality. I haven't read it because I agree that the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of annihilationism. However, there are some key passages that Morey has exegeted that strongly suggests (at least to me) the truth of the traditional position.
DeleteI agree with most of the criticism that Edward Fudge has made against Morey's book. The review can be read HERE http://www.edwardfudge.com/morey_review.html. Moreover, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who hold to the traditional view to make their case. Nevertheless, I think Morey and others have been able to shoulder that burden. Morey clearly is not reliable when it comes to Islam, but I think this book, his book on the Atonement and his book on the Trinity are very useful.
Here's an old public domain book that critiques annihilationism by Nathan Dow George titled Annihilationism Not of the Bible
When I began to see how strong the biblical case for annihilationism is, I read Robert Morey's book, hoping to find some reason to remain a traditionalist. Unfortunately it's a pretty deplorable defense of the traditional view. I read a number of other books, articles, etc., hoping to find something better. The poor quality of Morey's arguments and those made in these various works were very telling, and contributed to my conversion to annihilationism.
DeleteI can post more tonight past midnight EST. But for now, here are three reasons why I think the traditional view makes better sense.
Delete1. I think a foundational premise of conditional immortality is the assumption of a materialist (whether reductive or non-reductive) or physicalist (whether reductive or non-reductive) anthropology. I think Morey (and others) have successfully shown that there is an immaterial aspect to human nature (whether a dichotomy or trichotomy).
2. I also think that Morey's case for an intermediate state is compelling.
3. The conditional immortality position has the difficult problem of identity. The law of identity is "A is A" (A -> A). However, if conditional immortality is true, the same person isn't really brought back to life. At the resurrection, it's merely a copy of the person who died. It may be an exact copy, but a copy nonetheless. It's not truly the same person.
You're conflating doctrines. The annihilation of the risen wicked is not at all dependent upon a denial of traditional, dualistic anthropology. Irenaeus was a dualist and an annihilationist (http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/11/deprived-of-continuance-irenaeus-the-conditionalist); Dr. Robert Taylor, recent author of Rescue from Death, is a dualist and an annihilationist (http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/12/episode-13-rescue-from-death-with-robert-taylor). So you're welcome to continue to argue against mortalism or soul sleep or physicalism, but you won't be arguing against me or annihilationism :)
DeleteI guess you're right about my conflating doctrines. I grant it's possible to be a dualist and an annhilationist. But if that's the case, where are the unsaved wicked? Are they being punished? If so, then the wicked who died long ago will be punished longer than those who died closer to the time of Christ's return. Then in addition to the punishment they receive before the resurrection, they have more punishment after the resurrection (after which they are annihilated).
DeleteTwo more arguments that I think point to the traditional view as being most likely true.
4. If Conditional Immortality's understanding of justice is correct, then why are those who are punished in hell eventually annihilated? Since their sins have been fully paid for by themselves (rather than by Christ's sacrifice) they could be given a new oppportunity to be saved by believing in Christ and having His righteousness imputed to them. If they continue sinning in hell, then wouldn't that require them to continue being punished? Or would you say that God punishes them to a greater/"faster" degree that His punishing catches up to their sinning so that they can still be annihilated? But the problem remains. Why can't they still be given an opportunity to be saved (a kind of Protestant Purgatory)? One might say, "Because they resolutely continue to refuse to accept Christ." But is that really what someone with enlighten self-interest would do 1. now knowing the truth of the existence of God and of which God does exist, 2. having experienced the pains of hell and 3. given the opportunity to now enter heaven?
5. This argument is adapted from Morey. My understanding (rightly or wrongly) is that during the inter-testamental period there were a number of Jewish views concerning the afterlife and punishment.
a) Some Jews denied an afterlife (like the NT Sadducees). b) Some believed in annihilationism. c) Some believed in eternal punishment. d) Some believed in BOTH annihilationism and eternal punishment but reserved eternal punishment for the extremely wicked. Given the fact that Jesus and those who listened to His teaching (predominantly Jews) were aware of the variety of views in their generation and previously, coupled with the fact that Jesus often used the word "eternal" with reference to the punishment of the wicked after death, strongly suggests to me that the traditional view is correct. Technically, Jesus could have taught both annihilationism and eternal punishment. However, Jesus never seems to made those distinctions. He never seems to teach two forms of punishment in the same context so that some are punished temporarily while others are punished eternally. Jesus does speak of degrees of punishment (Luke 12:47). But whenever Jesus speaks of the punishment of hell, He speaks as if all receive the same type of punishment (even if not the same degree). Either all are "burnt up like chaff", OR He uses the word "eternal" with respect to the fire of hell or to their punishment (Matt. 18:8; 25:41). I'd include the many passages that refer to "unquenchable fire" but annihilationists would say that the fire cannot be quenched so long as the wicked deserve to be punished. Only after the punishment is completed does the fire end (but it was never technically "quenched" prematurely).
Given the fact that Jesus and His hearers understood that some Jews believed in eternal punishment, and given the fact that Luke was aware of pagan views of eternal punishment, wouldn't Jesus and Luke make clear that the punishment of hell was only temporary? In the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man Luke seems to use the Greek word "hades" to refer to hell because his Gentile readers would understand the Greek mythological understanding of punishment. That's even if the word "hades" is sometimes is used to refer to the grave in the LXX.
6. Rev. 14:11 and Rev. 19:20 in conjunction with Rev. 20:10 suggests to me the traditional view. Though, it's strength is tempered by the observation by annihilationists that this passage comes from a book that's highly symbolic and its interpretation is uncertain. Whichever eschatological interpretation one holds (e.g. Pre-Millennial, Amillennial, Post-Millennial, futurist, preterist, historicist, idealist etc.) will affect how one interprets Rev. 14:11, Rev. 19:20 and Rev. 20:10. When I was dogmatic about Pre-Millennialism these verses were much stronger. Now that I'm not dogmatic on a millennial position, not as much. When I was a Pre-Miller, I would point to how Rev. 14:11 says, "their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night..." Suggesting they receive conscious torment eternally. When it came to Rev. 19:20 and 20:10 I would have pointed out the fact that the *beast* and the *false prophet* (who presumably were human beings) still being tormented in the lake of fire after having been thrown into it a thousand years earlier and how "they" (all three including the devil) [quote] "will be tormented day and night forever and ever." There are other passages I would point to but I'm not prepared to discuss them.
DeleteIn the past I've considered annihilationism within the pale of orthodoxy, but just wrong. Thanks for pointing me to www.rethinkinghell.com. From that website, I see there have been advances in the annihilationist position I'm not aware of. I'm always willing to follow wherever the Biblical evidence points to. Clearly I'm going to have to revisit this issue and re-examine those passages I think point to the traditional view. But for now, I'm a traditionalist. Chris, what other websites and books would you recommend?
typo correction: However, Jesus never seems to made [MAKE] those distinctions.
Boy, that's a lot to respond to :) I'll try to do so as briefly as possible.
DeleteIn response to the sentences that follow, "where are the unsaved wicked?," death row criminals spend time in prison awaiting their execution. Now, obviously the analogy is imperfect, but I think dualist conditionalists would say that the intermediate state is like being in prison awaiting execution. They would say, like even many traditionalists, that the biblical picture of the intermediate state of the wicked is not at all clear, unless one is inclined to, contrary to reason, take the parable of Lazarus and the rich man literally. Being on the fence between dualism and physicalism myself, I just say that whatever the Bible teaches concerning the intermediate state, its teaching on final punishment is clear. (The following isn't entirely relevant, but it does address a question that sometimes comes up when annihilation and the intermediate state are discussed: http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/07/double-jeopardy-why-raise-the-dead-only-to-destroy-them.)
In response to argument 4, the question with which it begins, and the questions and statements that follow, are all based upon an incorrect understanding of annihilationism. We don't believe that the risen wicked die after they have completed paying for their sins; we believe they die as payment for their sins. Their death is their punishment, not what happens after their punishment. And this is exactly what Scripture says Jesus suffered on behalf of the elect, who would have otherwise faced that punishment: a violent execution. And the punishment of death can account for any and all sins committed leading up to and including the process of execution. For more, check out http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/07/no-penitent-in-hell-a-reformed-response-to-d-a-carson-2.
In response to argument 5a, the diversity of Jewish views of final punishment--and I call it 5a because you combine several arguments, and I'll respond to each--the dichotomy you present between eternal punishment and annihilation is a false one, and so I'll admit that I'm finding myself a bit frustrated as I try to track with this argument. Even Jonathan Edwards, an ardent traditionalist, admitted that annihilation is an eternal punishment. The death with which the risen wicked pay for their sins will never, ever be reversed. And so, I'll replace "eternal punishment" in this argument with "eternal conscious torment" as I read your argument, so that I can follow it.
Well actually, as I read on, I see that that's not even possible. A proper recognition that annihilation is an eternal punishment appears to render your question obsolete, or at least requiring of revision. For example, you write, "[Jesus] never seems to teach two forms of punishment in the same context so that some are punished temporarily while others are punished eternally." That's right. He teaches that the punishment will be eternal for everyone, just as we annihilationists content. So I'm not even sure this argument applies to me. What I will say is that, you're absolutely right, Jewish views on final punishment were diverse. But Jesus, in several different ways, confirms that the annihilationists had it right. (Continued…)
In response to argument 5b, degrees of punishment, the Bible does not tell us how it is that degrees of punishment are meted out. I agree that all the risen wicked will receive the same "type" of punishment, in that they will all be executed. Christ's execution was very long and involved a great duration and intensity of suffering. I could likewise see the worst of sinners experiencing a very violent execution in hell, and the least of sinners experiencing a much more brief and less painful one (to the extent that it's correct to speak of the "worst" and "least" of sinners, that is; I'm sure you know what I mean). Alternatively, degrees of punishment can be accounted for in other ways as well, such as the degree of one's shame and in which they are remembered in contempt. Whatever the case, the nature of final punishment as annihilation is clear and all over the place in the Bible, and I just don't see it challenged by a handful of texts which, though suggesting degrees of punishment, don't tell us how those degrees are meted out.
DeleteIn response to argument 5c, "unquenchable fire", you actually put it pretty decently, and I commend you for acknowledging that a fire that burns out has not been quenched. When firefighters arrive on the scene to quench a house fire, they don't wait for it to burn out and then congratulate one another for quenching the fire. No, quenching a fire means putting it out before it completes its work, and an unquenchable fire is one that cannot be put out prematurely and prevented from doing its work. This is how the Bible consistently uses the idiom, and I would encourage you to read http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/11/the-fire-is-not-quenched-annihilation-and-mark-948-part-2.
In response to the paragraph that concludes argument 5, once again, I can't answer the question, "wouldn't Jesus and Luke make clear that the punishment of hell was only temporary?," because we don't contend that the punishment of hell is temporary. But as for Lazarus and the Rich Man, Jesus uses the word Hades because he's not talking about hell at all; he's talking about the intermediate state, which John sees thrown into the lake of fire after it's emptied of its dead. The rich man's brothers are still alive, after all. And so while you might have a case against mortalism or soul sleep or physicalism from this parable (I'm not convinced that you do, but because I'm on the fence I'm not going to argue it here), you don't have one against annihilationism. For more, read http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/06/lazarus-and-the-rich-man-its-not-about-final-punishment. (Continued…)
In response to argument 6, it is true that the book of Revelation, being apocalyptic imagery, is highly symbolic, but when it comes to the meaning of the verses you point to, I actually don't agree that their interpretation is uncertain. I think the book gives us quite a number of clues as to the meaning of the imagery. For example, Revelation 14:9-11 alludes to Isaiah 34:10 in which smoke rises up forever from the remains of Edom, as well as Revelation 18-19 where smoke rises up forever from the torment of the harlot which the angel interprets as symbolizing the destruction of the city she represents, and all of these passages bring to mind the smoke Abraham saw rising from the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah. The imagery of smoke rising forever is imagery symbolizing destruction. Revelation 20 alludes to Daniel 2 and Daniel 7--in fact, I think they demonstrably foretell the same events, all of them using symbols of successive kingdoms followed by the kingdom of the reigining saints--and taken at face value, all three visions are contradictory. In Daniel 2, a statue is demolished; in Daniel 7, a beast is slain and its dead body thrown into a river of fire; and in Revelation 20, a beast is thrown alive into a lake of fire and tormented eternally. But the interpreter of both visions in Daniel tells us that the fate of the symbol in the imagery represents the end to a kingdom's dominion in reality, followed by the dominion of the kingdom of the saints. So I just let Scripture intepret Revelation 20 for me. What's more, John sees Death and Hades, abstractions incapable of experiencing torment to begin with, thrown into the fire as well, which I take as communicating the end of death. And perhaps most importantly, John and God Himself intepret the lake of fire imagery for us, telling us it symbolizes the second death. We conditionalists are sometimes accused of picking and choosing what to take symbolically and what to take literally, but in this case we're following what appears to me to be the consistent use of imagery and its interpretation in Scripture. As far back as Joseph's interpretation of the cupbearer's, baker's and Pharaoh's dreams, when an interpreter interprets imagery in Scripture, the explanation of the vivid symbolism is pretty plain and straightforward. We conditionalists believe that when the wicked rise from the first death, they will die a second time, which is just about as plan and straightforward an understanding of "the second death" as is possible.
DeleteSo yeah, I think the imagery of Revelation, so frequently appealed to by traditionalists, actually works against them. For more on Revelation, read http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/07/consistency-in-preterism-annihilation-and-revelation-2010 and http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/09/traditionalism-and-the-not-so-second-death and http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/10/clearly-wrong-about-hell-a-response-to-t-kurt-jaros.
Thank you so much for checking out our website! I hope you find the resources we make available helpful as you reexamine the issue. And honestly, what's important to me is not so much convincing traditionalists, but encouraging them to think about the issue more, and improving the quality and tenor of the dialogue. There aren't many websites I would recommend; http://www.afterlife.co.nz/ is pretty decent, although they also advocate physicalism whereas RH does not take a stance on that question; http://conditionalism.net/blog/ is a good blog; http://3-ringbinder.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/1/0/1910989/the_bible_teaches_annihilationism_.pdf is a very thorough treatment of the topic by RH's own Joey Dear. In terms of books, Edward Fudge's The Fire That Consumes is very good; you might also check out Dr. Robert Taylor's Rescue from Death. There are others out there as well, which you might see mentioned in various places at RH.
DeleteChris thanks for all the recommendations. I'll certaintly take advantage of them. One clarification though...
DeleteBut as for Lazarus and the Rich Man, Jesus uses the word Hades because he's not talking about hell at all; he's talking about the intermediate state, which John sees thrown into the lake of fire after it's emptied of its dead.
Yes, I think (with Morey) that the wicked dead are in the "compartment" (for lack of a better term) of sheol where the wicked are kept to wait for their resurrection, while the righteous dead no longer "go" to the righteous "compartment" of sheol but go immediately to heaven (since the Cross). However, Luke might either not be aware of that distinction, or intentionally didn't bring it into the story so as not to confuse his Gentile readers.
I'm not sure if my point came across as clearly as I had hoped. My point was that Jesus (as recorded by Luke) is not talking about hell at all. You seemed to cite the parable (assuming, as I do, that that's what it is) as having some bearing on what Jesus intended His hearers to understand about hell, but I think His hearers would have understood that He was not talking about hell at all, but the intermediate state. Again, the rich man's brothers were still alive, and the rich man wanted them to be warned of their fate so they could repent. This cannot be a picture of the eternal state; it must be a picture of the intermediate one.
DeleteI understood what you meant and I agree that that's a possible interpretation (which I've held to in the past). I was just making clear another possible interpretation of that passage. I agree the passage need not be in reference to hell. It was a bad example for me to cite since it could be referring to the intermediate state rather than Gehenna which exists after the return of Christ.
DeleteMy point was that in Greek mythology there is an understanding of a place of punishment called Hades that roughly corresponds to the Christian understanding of Gehenna. Since the Greeks didn't (for the most part) believe in the resurrection of the body (e.g. Act 17:32), there would be no sense in referring to the "intermediate" state. In this pagan counterpart to Gehenna (actually there were various pagan versions) the place of torment was a place of eternal conscious torment rather than a temporal one. Again, I just shouldn't have used that example since I could have made my point without referring to that parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.
Also, since you explained it, I do now understand why you reject my use of the phrase "eternal punishment" and would rather me use "eternal conscious torment." If you're willing to have another round of dialogue, then go ahead and plug in that phrase of "eternal conscious torment" in my 5th argument. Now, knowing that some contemporary Jews (along with inter-testamental Jews) held to eternal conscious torment of the wicked, doesn't it make sense that Jesus' use of the word "eternal" in connection with "punishment" and "fire" suggest Jesus was teaching eternal conscious torment for either all or (at least) a subset of the (worst) wicked? By your understanding, death by definition is eternal. In which case, isn't it redundant for Jesus to basically be saying it's an eternal death that's eternal?
I agree that God did not create human souls to be inherently immortal and that it's illegitimate for Christians to appeal to arguments that pagan philosophers have used to argue for the immortality of the soul. Nevertheless it's interesting (as Morey has noted) that in the OT God (nor His prophets) ever saw the need to correct the pagan conception of an afterlife or of an immaterial aspect to human beings. God often instructed Israel regarding the errors of pagans, but He never said (for example) necromancy is wrong BECAUSE the dead no longer exist and are therefore not conscious (at least until their resurrection). As someone who's on the fence on the dualist vs. physicalist forms of annihilationism, what do you make of that?
DeleteSimilarly, the NT doesn't go out of its way to deny that human souls will continue to exist eternally somewhere; which was the assumption of many (not all) pagans (i.e. the belief in the immortality of the soul). Paul, being familiar with pagan philosophy does make statements that could be interpreted in a way in keeping with annihilationism (e.g. Rom. 6:23), but he too didn't go out of his way to deny souls will live forever (even if they aren't inherently eternal). What do you make of that?
I actually don't think it's possible to interpret the parable as having anything to do with hell. But, moving on :)
Delete"Now, knowing that some contemporary Jews (along with inter-testamental Jews) held to eternal conscious torment of the wicked, doesn't it make sense that Jesus' use of the word "eternal" in connection with "punishment" and "fire" suggest Jesus was teaching eternal conscious torment for either all or (at least) a subset of the (worst) wicked?"
No, not at all, because if I'm right, those Jews who believed in annihilation would have seen it as a punishment equally eternal as eternal conscious torment, just of a different nature. So Jesus' use of "eternal" with "punishment" and "fire" would in no way be suggestive of one view or the other. However, as I explained, contextually those phrases are far better support for annihilationism.
"By your understanding, death by definition is eternal. In which case, isn't it redundant for Jesus to basically be saying it's an eternal death that's eternal?"
Oh, no, not at all. Death is NOT by definition eternal. After all, there is going to be a general resurrection of all the dead.
"As someone who's on the fence on the dualist vs. physicalist forms of annihilationism, what do you make of that?"
I think it begs the question, did God in fact never say the dead are no longer conscious? Physicalists would reject that premise, pointing to numerous texts in which, they contend, God said just that.
"Similarly, the NT doesn't go out of its way to deny that human souls will continue to exist eternally somewhere"
Oh I think quite the contrary is true. In Matthew 10:28, Jesus said not to fear man who can kill the body but not the soul, but He said to fear God who is capable of destroying both body and soul in hell. The word translated "destroy" here, wherever it's used in the synoptic gospels to describe what one person does to another, means something like "slay" or "kill", and of course it fits the context in which Jesus is basically saying fear God who can do what men can't. So here I do think the NT goes out of its way to deny that human souls (as dualists understand them) will continue to exist eternally somewhere.
More important, however, is the fact that the traditional view of hell is NOT one in which merely souls go on living somewhere; it's one in which the risen bodies of the wicked are rendered immortal as well, and will live forevermore. Yet, Matthew 10:28 and numerous other passages make it very clear that the bodies of the risen wicked will be killed in hell. So unless you're proposing an untraditional traditionalism which says the bodies of the risen wicked will be killed but their souls will not, your claim here, even if true, would not help your case.
"Paul, being familiar with pagan philosophy does make statements that could be interpreted in a way in keeping with annihilationism (e.g. Rom. 6:23), but he too didn't go out of his way to deny souls will live forever (even if they aren't inherently eternal). What do you make of that?"
Again, I think quite the contrary is true. I'll try to do some research for you, or invite another conditionalist here to give the details, but I've been told that Paul often used words to describe the death awaiting the wicked that pagans would never have used to describe the death of souls they considered to be immortal. I'll see what I can do for you.
But regardless of whether or not the OT or NT goes out of its way to deny that souls will live forever, both go out of their way to say that the risen wicked will be executed, permanently, which goes directly contrary to the traditional view.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletetypo correction (which you probably caught): Nevertheless it's interesting (as Morey has noted) that in the OT God ( [AND] His prophets) [NEVER] saw the need to correct the pagan conception of an afterlife or of an immaterial aspect to human beings.
DeleteI actually don't think it's possible to interpret the parable as having anything to do with hell. But, moving on :)
okay
.Oh, no, not at all. Death is NOT by definition eternal. After all, there is going to be a general resurrection of all the dead.
I should have said death is eternal unless (or until) one is resurrected.
I think it begs the question, did God in fact never say the dead are no longer conscious? Physicalists would reject that premise, pointing to numerous texts in which, they contend, God said just that.
I'm familiar with those passages in Ecclesiastes and Psalms that suggest that the dead are no longer conscious. But many of those passages, if taken literally would imply that the dead will never be raised to life (contrary to both OT and NT teaching of a general resurrection).
...So unless you're proposing an untraditional traditionalism
No, you're right, I do propose the traditional view of the resurrection of the bodies of the wicked and their punishment in Gehenna both body and soul.
No, not at all, because if I'm right, those Jews who believed in annihilation would have seen it as a punishment equally eternal as eternal conscious torment, just of a different nature.
The point I was trying to get across (but poorly) is that even though Jewish annihilationists believed the results of God's punishment was eternal, they most likely wouldn't be the ones who used the word "eternal" in connection with the words "fire" and "punishment". Rather it would have been the Jews who subscribed to eternal conscious torment who did so. But admittedly I haven't surveyed the inter-testamental literature to document that 1. the annihilationists NEVER used the word or concept of eternity in relationship to the word or concept of "fire" and "punishment", and 2. the Jews who subscribed to eternal conscious torment more or less consistently did. If I'm right, then Jesus' preaching on Gehenna would give the impression that He advocated eternal conscious torment.
Because I'm convinced that there is an immaterial aspect to human nature (I lean more toward a dichotomy than a trichotomy), if I ever returned to being an annihilationist I would be a dualist kind. Some of the passages that lead me to dualism are Gen. 35:18; 37:35; Zech 12:1; 1 Kings 17:21-22; Dan. 7:15; Matt. 10:28; Luke 23:43; Acts 20:10; 2 Cor. 4:16; 12:2-3; Phil 1:21-24; 2 Tim. 4:6; Heb. 12:23; 2 Pet. 1:14; Rev. 6:9-11; along with passages that are less suggestive like Luke 23:39; Acts 23:8; Ps. 73:24; 90:10. I could cite more passages but you know them all because you've read Morey's book. So you're already familiar with all the arguments and evidence I could muster.
typo correction: Luke 23:39 is supposed to be Luke 24:39, where Jesus says a "spirit" (presumably a *human* spirit rather than an angelic one) does not have flesh and bones.
DeleteBTW, I do think there are passages in the Gospels that could make annihilationists slightly uncomfortable (despite my concession about the preponderance of the evidential data). For example, the many passages where Jesus refers to those who are cast into hell and that in that place (or in that state) there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. In those passages Jesus' description of hell abruptly ends. Jesus doesn't go on to say or imply that their weeping and gnashing of teeth will eventually end (Matt. 8:12; 13:42; 13:50; 22:13; 24:51; Luke 13:28). They are similar to Dan. 12:2 which says in the end the wicked will awake "to shame and everlasting contempt." After being completely consumed and extinguished, the wicked can no longer subjectively feel shame or objectively receive the dishonor of shame and contempt. Yet, the passage says they will receive everlasting contempt. The "shame" comes before the word everlasting, so it could be argued that the shame is not included in what's everlasting. But I think it's plausible that the shame is included.
DeleteMatt. 22:13; 25:30 speaks of "outer darkness" reminiscent of Jude 1:13 which says "...for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever." (ESV). One could argue that "darkness" is the "experience" of those annihilated. But, that wouldn't be a real experience of darkness since there's no one (i.e. no being) to be experiencing the darkness. Yet Jude does seem to be saying that part of the punishment of hell is eternal conscious experience of "darkness" (whatever that may mean literally or by some figure of speech).
Matt. 24:51 speaks of the wicked being "cut in pieces" yet at the same time they will be weeping and gnashing their teeth. This points out how the NT's description of hell has to be incorporating figures of speech rather than being literal descriptions. Otherwise they would contradict each other. For example, hell is described as a place of fire as well as a place of darkness even though in the physical world where there's fire there's usually also light. Similarly, just because Jesus talks about the wicked being consumed or burnt up doesn't necessarily mean they are caused to cease to exist. It could mean that, but it's not the only or necessary interpretation.
Finally, Rev. 22:11 may suggest that in the Eternal State the condition of the righteous and wicked are fixed in a way whereby they are eternally conscious of that state.
"Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy." - Rev. 22:11
More passages that suggests man has an immaterial spirit.
DeleteLuke 8:55; Acts 7:59; Rom. 8:16; 1 Cor. 2:11; 5:5; 2 Cor. 5:8; 2 Tim. 4:22; James 2:26; Eccl. 12:7; Heb. 4:12
Also in the last post I cited Jude 1:13. You probably can recall that 2 Pet. 2:17 is a parallel passage.
I don't want to take up any more of you time. I'll let you have the last word if you post again. That is, unless you ask me a question or expect a response. You said, "I'll try to do some research for you..." If you did that I'd appreciate it. But there's no obligation or rush to do it. Thanks for the interaction. I think it's time for me to read up on all the links you gave. Thanks you again for them. :-)
I just said above that we shouldn't press the imagery of hell too literally. Conditionalists believe phrases like "burn up" the chaff suggests extinction and annihilation. Using the same kind of reasoning, then is it not the case that passages which refer to "eternal fire" (Matt. 18:8; 25:41; Jude 1:7) suggest the "fuel" that is being burned is never completely consumed and therefore the "fuel" is never extinguished/annihilated? This might be a basic objection to you, but it seems like a good question to me.
DeleteGosh, there's so much there to respond to, I almost don't know where to begin :) I don't care which of us gets the last word, so you're welcome to continue the conversation. Though, if you're interested, you can email me at chrisdate@rethinkinghell.com, as it might be easier to communicate over email. In any case, I can't get to everything you've said right now, but I'll start with the most recent comment and work up.
DeleteIt is true that the term katakaio (it's a term, not a phrase) which means to "burn up" suggests annihilation, but I freely admit it doesn't settle the debate all by itself. My point when I bring up its use is to demonstrate that texts which traditionalists typically think support their case, like the "unquenchable fire" which katakaio's the chaff, actually work against their case. As I said in my original comment, this is what convinced me more than anything else: that traditionalist proof-texts actually work against traditionalism when examined more closely.
Now, as to your question: why would a fire that's called "eternal" suggest that those whom it burns never completely burn up? The fire which came down out of heaven and consumed Sodom and Gomorrah was burning before it ever came into contact with them, right? The river of fire in the imagery of Daniel 7 is burning before the beast is thrown into it, right? The lake of fire in the imagery of Revelation 20 is burning before Satan, the beast and false prophet are thrown into it, right? So I'll admit that I just don't understand why the phrase "eternal fire" suggests what you think it suggests.
More importantly, the texts which actually use the phrase make it clear that the fire does completely consume its fuel. Jude uses the phrase to refer to the fire which destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah; Jesus uses the phrase in Matthew 18:8, in the next verse calling it Gehenna which in Jeremiah 7:32-33 is called a valley of slaughter where scavenging beasts and birds will not be frightened away from the corpses they eat, and which in Isaiah 30:33 is likened unto a funeral pyre which is a pile of wood for burning up corpses. So not only doesn't "eternal fire" suggest that the wicked will never be completely consumed, but the very texts which use it strongly indicate just the opposite.
Finally, Rev. 22:11 may suggest that in the Eternal State the condition of the righteous and wicked are fixed in a way whereby they are eternally conscious of that state.
Delete"Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy." - Rev. 22:11
As I explain in http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/07/no-penitent-in-hell-a-reformed-response-to-d-a-carson-2, this verse follows the conclusion to the imagery. These words are spoken to John on behalf of Jesus after the vision has concluded. They warn of those who ignore the message of John's letter and continue to reject God in the here and now. The imagery simply doesn't depict the ongoing conscious existence of the wicked in the lake of fire.
Even if it did, however, the question of the imagery's interpretation would remain. I believe that there are numerous indications in Revelation that its imagery symbolizes annihilation, and I'm happy to discuss that in depth if you like.
Matt. 24:51 speaks of the wicked being "cut in pieces" yet at the same time they will be weeping and gnashing their teeth. This points out how the NT's description of hell has to be incorporating figures of speech rather than being literal descriptions. Otherwise they would contradict each other.
DeleteI'm not suggesting we take the various relevant texts all literally, but even if we did, I don't see how these texts would be contradictory. The text nowhere says the wicked will weep and gnash forever; wouldn't they weep and gnash as they are judged and sentenced, and as they are cut to pieces? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me as if you're just assuming that texts which speak of weeping and gnashing speak of it happening forever.
For example, hell is described as a place of fire as well as a place of darkness even though in the physical world where there's fire there's usually also light.
I'm happy to discuss each such alleged text, but I wouldn't immediately grant that statement. Parables whose earthly scene depicts wedding guests thrown out in the dark Israeli wilderness use the phrase "outer darkness," and Jude talks about stars in "black darkness" (likening the wicked to such stars), but off the top of my head I'm not aware of any texts which describe hell as a place of darkness.
Similarly, just because Jesus talks about the wicked being consumed or burnt up doesn't necessarily mean they are caused to cease to exist. It could mean that, but it's not the only or necessary interpretation.
Agreed, but my case, and the case made by other annihilationists, does not rest solely upon a few scattered texts which speak of chaff or tares being completely burned up. Again, my purpose in pointing to texts in which chaff or tares are completely burned up is to show how texts which are typically pointed to by traditionalists because phrases like "unquenchable fire" are used actually prove to be better support for annihilationism.
Matt. 22:13; 25:30 speaks of "outer darkness" reminiscent of Jude 1:13 which says "...for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever." (ESV). One could argue that "darkness" is the "experience" of those annihilated. But, that wouldn't be a real experience of darkness since there's no one (i.e. no being) to be experiencing the darkness. Yet Jude does seem to be saying that part of the punishment of hell is eternal conscious experience of "darkness" (whatever that may mean literally or by some figure of speech).
DeleteAhh, the problem with me responding to your comments in reverse order :) Yes, those are the passages I mentioned in my previous comment. Those Matthean texts are parables depicting an earthly scene, "outer darkness" referring to the dark wilderness, outside the wedding hall, into which people are thrown after being bound hand and foot. What would happen to someone bound hand and foot and thrown into the first century, Israel wilderness at night--if no one were to rescue them? (After all, we're not universalists.) They would eventually die of exposure to the elements, or of hunger or thirst, or be killed by beasts or robbers.
As for Jude, take a closer look: the black darkness is where the stars he mentions are, like the foam has to do with waves, and the uprooting has to do with trees, and so on. Jude certainly intends to tell us something about the wicked by likening them to stars forever residing in the dark night sky, but I don't understand why you think the most natural interpetation is that the wicked will consciously experience darkness for eternity. When Job, in Job 3, wishes that the day in which he was born would perish and be seized by darkness, I think it's clear what he means: he wishes it had never happened, that that day had never existed--that he, in fact, had never existed.
We agree that the darkness in Jesus' and Jude's parables are not necessarily to be taken literally, and I freely admit that such is the case when chaff and tares are burned up in Jesus' other parables. However, it is noteworthy that in Matthew 13, in interpreting His own parable, Jesus says that just as the tares are completely burned up, so, too, will the wicked be thrown into a furnace of fire, hearkening to Malachi 4 in which the wicked are reduced to ashes beneath the feet of the righteous.
BTW, I do think there are passages in the Gospels that could make annihilationists slightly uncomfortable (despite my concession about the preponderance of the evidential data).
DeleteI'm hoping that you're beginning to see that we are, in fact, quite comfortable with any and all texts traditionalists point to. As I've said several times now, what has convinced me more than anything else is that virtually all the proof-texts typically cited by traditionalists actually prove to work against them when examined more closely.
For example, the many passages where Jesus refers to those who are cast into hell and that in that place (or in that state) there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. In those passages Jesus' description of hell abruptly ends. Jesus doesn't go on to say or imply that their weeping and gnashing of teeth will eventually end (Matt. 8:12; 13:42; 13:50; 22:13; 24:51; Luke 13:28).
I disagree. Matthew 13 is a good example of a text which, though mentioning weeping and gnashing, does so after saying that they will be thrown into a furnace of fire just as tares are completely burned up. Matthew 8:12 and 22:13, and Luke 13:28, are those parables in whose earthly scene the wicked are bound hand and foot and thrown into the dark wilderness of first century Judea, where if not rescue they would, no doubt, die. Matthew 24:51 says they will weep and gnash, which no doubt one would do as one is cut to pieces. So quite the contrary from making annihilationists uncomfortable, and from suggesting that the weeping and gnashing goes on forever, each of these texts suggests quite the opposite.
They are similar to Dan. 12:2 which says in the end the wicked will awake "to shame and everlasting contempt." After being completely consumed and extinguished, the wicked can no longer subjectively feel shame or objectively receive the dishonor of shame and contempt. Yet, the passage says they will receive everlasting contempt.
The word translated "contempt" is used in only one other place: Isaiah 66:24, where it describes not the experience of the wicked, but the experience of those who look upon the lifeless, stinking, rotting corpses of the wicked. "Contempt" is not what the wicked will feel; it is how they will be remembered forever.
The "shame" comes before the word everlasting, so it could be argued that the shame is not included in what's everlasting. But I think it's plausible that the shame is included.
I do, too. But when the Bible speaks of "shame" and "contempt" it doesn't appear to me to be talking about something the shameful one feels, but rather how the shameful one is remembered. It's similar to Japanese Samurai who would rather commit suicide than be remembered forever in shame. Shame and honor were very important to the Hebrews (and most middle eastern peoples), and it wasn't the feeling of being shameful that concerned them, but rather the prospect of being remembered forever as shameful. Therefore, particularly in light of its connection to Isaiah 66:24, I think the evidence is in annihilationism's favor, that Daniel 12:2 has to do with how the annihilated wicked will be remembered forever, not what they will experience forever.
I should have said death is eternal unless (or until) one is resurrected.
DeleteYes, but the Jews expected everyone to be resurrected, so it would not have been redundant to warn of a death which would not be reversed as an "eternal punishment."
I'm familiar with those passages in Ecclesiastes and Psalms that suggest that the dead are no longer conscious. But many of those passages, if taken literally would imply that the dead will never be raised to life (contrary to both OT and NT teaching of a general resurrection).
These are not, actually, the texts I have in mind which physicalists will point to. But you'll notice that I haven't responded to your other comments about dualism, and you'll have to forgive me for continuing that. I'm just not convinced enough of either side of the debate.
No, you're right, I do propose the traditional view of the resurrection of the bodies of the wicked and their punishment in Gehenna both body and soul.
Then it doesn't really matter if it were true that the NT doesn't go out of its way to say the souls of the wicked will come to an end, because, as I've been arguing and will continue to argue, it goes far out of its way to say their bodies will. And by using the phrase "body and soul" you've alluded to Matthew 10:28 in which Jesus says God will apollymi both body and soul in Gehenna, the word apollymi always meaning something like "slay" or "kill" in the synoptics when describing what one person does to another. Jesus is saying fear God who can do what men can't: kill the soul.
The point I was trying to get across (but poorly) is that even though Jewish annihilationists believed the results of God's punishment was eternal, they most likely wouldn't be the ones who used the word "eternal" in connection with the words "fire" and "punishment". Rather it would have been the Jews who subscribed to eternal conscious torment who did so.
This sounds like a huge assumption.
But admittedly I haven't surveyed the inter-testamental literature to document that 1. the annihilationists NEVER used the word or concept of eternity in relationship to the word or concept of "fire" and "punishment"
Actually, as I explained in a previous comment, Jude applied the word to the fire which came down from heaven and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and Jesus used eternal fire in conjunction with Gehenna as the valley of slaughter in which corpses are consumed by scavengers, likened unto a funeral pyre for burning up corpses. As for "punishment," I'll try to find it for you sometime but in the most recent edition of The Fire That Consumes, Edward Fudge cites a pair of researchers who suggest that "eternal punishment" was, in fact, a phrase used by first century, Jewish annihilationists. (Continued...)
and 2. the Jews who subscribed to eternal conscious torment more or less consistently did. If I'm right, then Jesus' preaching on Gehenna would give the impression that He advocated eternal conscious torment.
DeleteI don't agree, because even if you're right, Jesus' words which were not spoken in a historical vacuum were neither spoken in a contextual one. We need to look at context for what Jesus meant, and in light of the whole of Scripture. If Jesus makes it clear what He means by eternal anything, I don't give a rip what some of His listeners would have thought He meant. In fact, I would expect Him to have used those very phrases but given sufficient additional detail to show what He really means. It would be somewhat similar to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, in which Jesus co-opted a somewhat common folk tale in His day and turned it on its head, reversing the fates of the protagonist and antagonist, to show His listeners that they had their expectations all wrong.
In any case, what I'm interested in is examining Jesus' words in their context.
Because I'm convinced that there is an immaterial aspect to human nature (I lean more toward a dichotomy than a trichotomy), if I ever returned to being an annihilationist I would be a dualist kind. Some of the passages that lead me to dualism are Gen. 35:18; 37:35; Zech 12:1; 1 Kings 17:21-22; Dan. 7:15; Matt. 10:28; Luke 23:43; Acts 20:10; 2 Cor. 4:16; 12:2-3; Phil 1:21-24; 2 Tim. 4:6; Heb. 12:23; 2 Pet. 1:14; Rev. 6:9-11; along with passages that are less suggestive like Luke 23:39; Acts 23:8; Ps. 73:24; 90:10. I could cite more passages but you know them all because you've read Morey's book. So you're already familiar with all the arguments and evidence I could muster.
As I said, I'm not up to debating physicalism versus dualism, and am quite content with you returning to a position of annihilationism while remaining a dualist :) I look forward to it!
OK, I was wrong, I was able to get to it all now, which is good because I won't be itching to respond at Christmas Eve dinner tonight :) Please do consider emailing me at chrisdate@rethinkinghell.com as it might be easier to have a conversation via that medium.
DeleteI just discovered you've responded. I haven't read your comments yet because of Christmas. I'll read them by the end of this week. Thanks for responding.
DeleteI come back to a couple things reading this post today, Steve.
ReplyDeleteOne is the study of a couple of Greek Words found in the New Testament and not having searched them out in the LXX, maybe there as well? The Greek words are bios and biotikos.
When I start there with those words and how they are used in the New Testament and let the Word of God speak not trying to get it to say what I want but letting it speak I come away with being reduced to a disciple of Christ with a better understanding of this Cross life we have been called into and that life we have been called out of.
I heard this amazing thing from a Brit once where he was speaking at a conference that might shed some light on the debates raging against our soul to reduce God's Word to ours?
He said this: "... this life is just a dressing room for eternity."
Thanks for this, and I love reading your guys' blog. This may be weird, but I have a request. Could you do a piece debunking the supposed evolutionary origins of religion? I have read some stuff here and there, but I would like some more resources on the topic. I have a coworker who is a disillusioned EO guy, and he constantly talks about how religions evolved from maternal worship of natural resources (ie rivers, creeks). What empirical evidence is there against such a view?
ReplyDeleteI suppose the primary evidence is that there's no way that the guy couldn't be old enough to witness the events he's describing. He's imputing psychological motivations to people that he is in no position to question or observe.
DeleteThat should be *could,* not couldn't
DeleteEven IF (some) religions have an evolutionary origin, that doesn't prove that all religions are false since to argue that way would commit the genetic fallacy. For example, it could be true that some people have psychological (or even irrational) reasons for believing in God, but that doesn't prove God doesn't exist. Wanting God to exist (as Christians do), or NOT wanting God to exist (as many atheists do) has no bearing on God's ontological status.
DeleteI don't know if this post will show up or not, but for people's information, someone posted Robert Morey's book "Death and the Afterlife" on Scribd here:
Deletehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/7279487/Death-and-the-Afterlife-Robert-a-Morey
Quickly browsing through it, it looks complete.
Precisely. It's a pattern of disbelief. If we ask the epistemic question, "how do we know?" and fail to ask, "how would everyone else know the same thing?" we miss the necessity of external revelation. Evidently, the Bible is this revelation. Presuppositionally, we're looking for it and it speaks the horrid truth about us. Deny any of this, and we lack belief that God really wants to communicate with us.
ReplyDeleteWhen I see the argument, "it can be interpreted different ways," to mean, "you have to let me believe what I want," my baloney alarm goes off. There are debatable passages, but a solid hermeneutic will generally work in a Rom 12:2 way even when we arrive at an uncertain conclusion. We don't get to call our own version of the truth in on the matter.
"If we don’t like everlasting punishment, we substitute annihilationism or universalism. Easy as that."
ReplyDeleteNot so fast. The term "everlasting punishment" doesn't occur in Scripture. Aionios doesn't preferentially mean everlasting.
As an annihilationist, I actually do think Matthew 25:46 refers to "eternal punishment." But as even Jonathan Edwards admitted (himself being a traditionalist), annihilation is an eternal punishment. The punishment that is the death of the risen wicked will never be reversed; it is eternal.
DeleteFor more on annihilation as eternal punishment: http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/06/eternal-punishment-and-the-polysemy-of-deverbal-nouns
DeleteHi, I'm a Christian living in Australia and I've been reading this blog nearly every day for years now. I want to sincerely thank all the contributors for upholding the truth of the Scriptures to the best of their ability and for not compromising on the teachings of God's Word. Over the years I've been tempted to compromise with some of the teachings in Scripture but with the help of your blog and other resources I still, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, remain faithful to the Word of God as the inerrant source of truth. My sincerest thanks.
ReplyDeleteIn Christ
Mark
This is a TEST post. Ignore this.
ReplyDelete