Jesus also said the following:
Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Emphasis added) (Matthew 10:28)
Hell is where God will destroy the soul! Some say that “destroy” doesn’t mean destruction in a literal sense, that it instead means conscious “ruin” or “loss.” However, aside from the consistent use of the word for “destroy” referring to killing and slaying3 when describing what one person does to another in the synoptic gospels,4 we have an indication of what is meant within the immediate context. Jesus directly contrasts what man cannot do (“kill the soul”) with what God can do. If Jesus meant that God would “ruin” body and soul in hell or something like that, then why would he directly contrast it to ability of men to kill the body and their inability to do likewise to the soul? It would amount to him saying, “don’t fear those who cannot kill the soul; instead, fear the one who isn’t going to kill the soul either.”If God doesn’t do to the soul what humans can do only to the body (i.e. kill it, make it as vivacious and conscious as a corpse), then why would Jesus have even brought it up?
One might argue that even if annihilation5 was meant, Jesus only said that God can do it, not that he will. But, that raises the question of why Jesus would have warned about what God could do if God would never do it, even to the wicked, no matter what. If this were so, “then the same purpose would be served by some absurd warning like ‘be afraid of the One who can turn you into a melon.'”6The meaning is simple. Man cannot render a soul as dead and lifeless as a corpse (which they can do to the body). But what man cannot do, God can and will do, which is to kill the soul, thereby destroying it as a living, conscious entity.
There are some problems with this analysis:
i) What does Joseph Dear mean by "hell"? Does he simply mean the realm of the dead (hades)? What happens after you die?
ii) In that sense, hades is not where the body is destroyed. It's not as if decedents pass into hades, body and soul, then their body is destroyed in hades. Rather, when they die they leave their body behind, in this world. The body is destroyed by the natural process of dissolution. This is the place where the body undergoes destruction. So the parallel poses an obstacle for annihilationist dualists and physicalists alike. And that raises questions about what is meant by "destroy" in this context.
iii) Many annihilationists are physicalists rather than dualists. So they don't think the soul is destroyed in hades inasmuch as man doesn't have a soul to destroy.
iv) Physicalists believe that everyone passes into oblivion at the moment of death–the righteous and wicked alike. So everyone is destroyed in hades. That's not a fate reserved for the wicked. True, annihilationists believe the righteous will be resurrected, but that's in tension with this prooftext–in combination with physicalism.
v) I think the gist of the passage is that there's a fate worse than death. There's more to fear in the after life than in this life.
Since the verse (IMO) disproves physicalist understanding of annihilationism, the following comments address a dualist understanding of annihilationism (DUA for short). IF DUA is true, then what point would there be in resurrecting the body? It has already been destroyed by physical death. Their conscious judgment by God is still possible sans a physical body. God can still assign them immediate termination of life. A DUA proponent might counter by arguing that a body is necessary for a person to experience the finitely temporal pains of gehenna [which which will last and have an intensity proportionate to one's guilt]. But that assumes that the "fire" of hell (whether it be literal and/or figurative) somehow depends (at least for humans) on having a body. But gehenna was originally prepared for the devil and his angels who are immaterial (Matt. 25:41). So, clearly, the "fire" of hell can affect immaterial spirits. In which case, that brings up the original question, why the need for the resurrection of the body?
ReplyDeleteUnless, we're to expect that humans are to be punished in two modes affecting both soul and body while angels only in soul/spirit. Meaning, humans will be punished with both with literal physical fire, and figurative "fire" for their souls. But that doesn't seem very fair. Fallen angels sinned against greater light. Tempted more people to sin, and caused more people to end up in hell and with those humans having incurred greater guilt because of angelic temptation. The angels also persisted in sin longer since they likely fell before men and have lived a very long time. Tempting generations of humans. To make up for that, and to ensure true equity, shouldn't angels be granted physical bodies too upon the resurrection of the human wicked so that they too can experience what humans do in hell?
If gehenna was originally prepared for the devil and his angels, then the "fire" of hell must at least be figurative for at least spirits, if not also a literal fire for bodies. But then why can't the "fire" be entirely figurative (and not physical at all)? If so, then that opens up the possibility that human punishment in hell will involve only figurative fire. In which case, that again, for the 3rd time, brings up the question of why the need for a physical resurrection? Maybe because human persons—who cannot be complete human beings without bodies–will be punished eternally along with their bodies eternally in the same way as fallen angels.
CONT.
Annihilationists must also reckon with the fact that Matthew teaches that the gehenna that was originally prepared for the devil and his angels is "ETERNAL fire" (in that very verse, Matt. 25:41). Physical fire can't burn up angelic substance. But the "fire" for the devil and his angels is eternal. Annihilationists might argue that just as physical fire will annihilate the body, so the punishment of gehenna will annihilate angels. But that's to interpret the original intention of gehenna for a group who fell before mankind, with the human and earthly figurative language used for human understanding, and who fell afterward (for whom gehenna wasn't originally meant). So, they're interpreting things backwards. Just as Arians who compare and describe the Sonship of the Son of God with human sonship and temporal procreation as the model. Rather than, as the church fathers argued, interpreting human generation in light of the higher and original generation and sonship of the Son of God. Of which human generation is kind of dim reflection or imitation. If "eternal fire" for angels doesn't imply termination, and may even imply ongoing conscious punishment, then whenever "eternal fire" is used in reference to humans, that too doesn't imply termination. But might even imply eternal conscious punishment. Especially in light of intertestamental literature that MIGHT teach it by the same imagery and/or phraseology of "eternal fire". I'm mostly ignorant of the ITL.
DeleteIn fact, there are passages in the epistles that suggest the punishment of angels will be eternally conscious. If so, then since the original punishment of angels was to be eternally conscious, then human eschatological punishment would necessarily be eternally conscious too. Again, because our Lord implied that a similar type of punishment awaits wicked humans, in that they share the same basic fate as the wicked angels for whom gehenna was originally prepared (Matt. 24:41).
It seems to me that 2 Pet. 2:17, while it doesn't positively/clearly teach eternal conscious punishment for humans, it's consistent with it and could be interpreted to imply it [see below for additional reasons for that implication]. 2 Peter 2:4 talks about angels being committed to chains till the judgment. It doesn't say whether the punishment will be eternal or will eventually terminate. It's consistent with both. However, the same language about angels in chains is said to be eternal in Jude 1:6. Also, the same language of gloom for humans in 2 Pet. 2:17 is also used of humans in Jude 1:13, but the latter states that it will be ETERNAL ["gloom...darkness...reserved forever"]. And so, an examination of 2 Peter in conjunction with Jude suggests that the punishment of both fallen angels and humans will be eternal and conscious. Which parallels Matt. 25:41-46 in teaching the punishment of both groups will be comparable/similar.
Finally, both 2nd Peter and Jude seem to be alluding to the Book of Enoch. I've only browsed the book. IF, as it seems, the book teaches eternal punishment for humans and/or angels, then it's reasonable to assume that Peter and Jude, while not believing everything taught in the book of Enoch, nevertheless agreed with one of the basic teachings of the book. Namely, eternal conscious punishment for humans and/or angels. If Enoch only explicitly taught it for angels, Peter and Jude's close aligning of the similar fates of wicked angels and humans would fill that gap of implying eternal conscious punishment for humans too. Which again, seems (IMO) to be explicitly taught in Jude 1:13. Annihilationists would seem to have to question the canonicity of of the books of 2nd Peter and Jude to maintain their positions. As well as demonstrate that every instance of the phraseology or imagery of eternal and/or unquenchable fire in the intertestamental literature never meant to teach eternal conscious punishment for humans. Seeing that Jesus and his audience were aware of the various views on eschatology which ranged from eternal conscious punishment, to annihilationism, to a kind of purgatory for some, to oblivion upon death [cf. Saducees], or a combination of the views. For example, eternal conscious punishment for the very wicked, while annihilation and/or eventual release from gehenna for the less wicked. Yet, Jesus taught ALL the wicked will endure "eternal fire". He did so knowing that that phrase "eternal fire" and "unquenchable fire" could be interpreted by some as denying annihilation, and affirming eternal conscious punishement. If annihilationism is true, then Jesus should have stuck with "burning up" imagery/phraseology and never have used those of "eternal fire" and "unquenchable fire". Whereas, if eternal conscious punishment is true, that can more easily be made to fit the "burning up"/"consumed" imagery/phraseology as figurative.
DeleteRegarding Jude 1:13, the immediately preceding verse and context has to do with evil humans who participated in and infiltrated Christian "love/agape feasts" (v. 12). Just as verse 11 and 10 are dealing with humans. The verse uses the term "gloom". Translated by some versions as "black" or "blackness". Even assuming that translation, annihilated people couldn't suffer from "darkness" or "blackness" as the verse seems to implies. I wouldn't be surprised if the same language is used in Enoch for humans consciously suffering in the afterlife.
DeleteOne last comment. It seems the Greek word "reserved" in Jude 1:13 also suggests a real experience, and not the absence of experience from annihilation. It means something like, "to watch over, to guard". Implying a definite place or state of being. Maybe something like what's found in the book of Enoch.
DeleteSome (not all) proponents of annihilationism claim that their view doesn't make hell less fearful for non-Christians or that it doesn't embolden them to reject Christianity. But that's just not true. Recently I read one atheist blogger who wrote:
ReplyDelete//Skeptics are also reasonable to simply ignore Christianity even if they believe it true, since the case for eternal conscious torment (the fundamentalist interpretation of biblical "hell") is exceptionally weak, and therefore, skeptics have no reason to expect that God's wrath against them will involve any more danger to them than the permanent extinction of consciousness that they already expect at physical death. This is especially supportive of apathy toward Christianity when we remember that god gets extremely pissed off at people who join the wrong form of Christianity (Galatians 1:8-9). If the skeptic is already in some type of "trouble" with god, might make more sense to play it safe and not make a "decision for Christ" that could very well cause that skeptic to suffer the divine curse even more.//- barry,
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/11/my-youtube-reply-to-gary-habermas-and.html
The guy is actually telling people who believe or suspect that Christianity is true to gamble on their eternal fate. A truly rational person who suspected that Christianity might be true wouldn't gamble like that. Rather he'd think in terms of worse possible scenario, and make his decision based on that. Meaning, a rational person would be conservative and tentatively/provisionally assume eternal conscious punishment and make his decision based on that possibility.
DeleteYou're right, that is absurd. (And it's also absurd that someone would call themself a "skeptic" and then deliberately live as though Christianity were false when they believe it's true. That is NOT what the word "skeptic" actually means.)
DeleteBut here's another reason: if you already believe Christianity is true, then you believe you have an opportunity to NOT undergo that "permanent extinction of consciousness." So the basic assumption is WAY off; this so-called skeptic would be abandoning the universally agreed hope common to all Christians, rather than probably avoiding the disaster merely because he think's it's unlikely. (I suppose this is a reason to not preach fire-insurance Christianity, but I hope we have better reasons than this.)
Steve, I think you're among the best who can address annihilationists' approach at turning around the best evidence for eternal conscious punishment found in the book of Revelation and making them teach conditional immortality. That's because they employ involved hermeneutics to make their case, and I think your knowledge of the principles of exegesis and hermeneutics can see through any possible weaknesses in their interpretation. Chris Date's books would be a good place to find carefully written CI interpretations of the Revelation passages.
ReplyDeleteOne of my personal favorites in Chris' book happens to be available online. I would love to see a response to Bowles' article (for example at https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/2001-1_021.pdf).
DeleteThere are also annihilationists that don't believe in soul sleep yet when man is cast into the Lake of fire.
ReplyDeleteMan is tormented for a finite amount of time until annihilation.
//What does Joseph Dear mean by "hell"? Does he simply mean the realm of the dead (hades)? What happens after you die?//
ReplyDeleteJoseph's talking about a passage in which Jesus uses the term "Gehenna", and quoting a Bible version (NASV) which never translates /hades/ as "hell." All of your following criticism is simply an assertion that Joseph meant /hades/, rather than considering whether he might have meant to exegete what the verse says. Since, as you point out, interpreting this verse to refer to Hades makes literally no sense at all, and since as I point out it's the result of simply confusing two different Greek words, do you have any response to Joseph which works if he actually meant /gehenna/? I see only one that might work:
//I think the gist of the passage is that there's a fate worse than death. There's more to fear in the after life than in this life.//
Perhaps, but this isn't a response to Joseph; it's just your attempt to give a gist. His gist disagrees with yours; why is yours better than his?
The bodily resurrection of the wicked to face the body-soul judgment of Gehenna is a doctrine in such neglect today that vague gestures at "the after life" and "the gist" of a very precise teaching only risk perpetuating that neglect. No, there's not simply "more to fear" in some nebulous "after life." Rather, very specifically, there is the destruction of body and soul together in a resurrected state (same as the present state where body and soul are conjoined), in escalating parallel with the slaughter of the body by mere men, and this is to be feared at the time of final judgment described by the Gehenna prophecies. All of this should be a given in the debate. It should also be clear that the basis for the parallel here is the fact of being killed by fellow human beings, not the resulting experience of a disembodied soul in a realm called Hades. Conflating the cessation of life with "after life" considerations is the Achilles' Heel of traditionalist critique, accounting for their inability to connect with the framework of conditionalism due to an obsession with unrelated doctrines like physicalism and soul sleep. I propound neither, but I note a distinct lack of treatment in the OP of the *actual* argument proponents would make from this text. The church and this debate deserve better than conflated categories, vague extractions of "the gist" of a very specific teaching, and failure to accurately represent the views one is criticizing.
Delete"No, there's not simply 'more to fear' in some nebulous 'after life.'"
Deletei) But dualist annihilationists presumably subscribe to the intermediate state. So Grice is throwing them under the bus.
ii) The intermediate state is no more "nebulous" than a vivid collective dream.
"there is the destruction of body and soul together in a resurrected state (same as the present state where body and soul are conjoined)"
i) Physicalist annihilationists deny the existence of a soul that survives death. So there is no soul to destroy on the day of judgment.
ii) The Bible never presents a sequence of:
death>oblivion and/or intermediate state>resurrection of the body>annihilation of the damned after the resurrection of the wicked.
"Conflating the cessation of life with "after life" considerations is the Achilles' Heel of traditionalist critique…"
If so, that's the Achilles' heel for dualist annihilationists as well.
"due to an obsession with unrelated doctrines like physicalism…"
Physicalist annihilationism and dualist annihilationism have different implications and different eschatologies. Grice's attempt to sideline the issue is intellectually dishonest.
"but I note a distinct lack of treatment in the OP of the *actual* argument proponents would make from this text. The church and this debate deserve better than conflated categories, vague extractions of "the gist" of a very specific teaching, and failure to accurately represent the views one is criticizing."
The OP directly engages the argument of a spokesman for Rethinking Hell.
If Joseph means "hell" in the usual sense of the fate awaiting the damned on Judgment Day:
Deletei) For physicalists, there is no soul that persists between death and Judgment Day to destroy on Judgment day.
ii) For dualists and physicalists alike, there is no body that persists between death and Judgment Day to destroy on Judgment Day.
Annihilationists must resort to the ad hoc expedient of stipulating that God resurrects the body of the damned on judgment day in order to then destroy the resurrected body. But if the body was already destroyed by death and decay, what's the point of resurrecting the body to destroy it a second time? That's a makeshift explanation.
Why do you assert that it is an "ad hoc expedient" to assert what the Bible _directly_ asserts? But the Bible actually _says_ that God will resurrect the bodies of the just and unjust (see Dan 12:2, John 5:28-29), and it actually _says_ He will destroy their bodies. It is not "ad-hoc" but directly stated in the text.
DeleteNor is it a "makeshift explanation" -- it's not an explanation at all, simply reporting what the Bible directly says without attempting to explain it.
You might accuse us of over-literalism, I would respect (and respond to) that as a serious argument. Or you might ask why God would do something so counterproductive; that might be interesting to answer (and by the way, the answer is given _directly_ and explicitly in the Bible).
//If Joseph means "hell" in the usual sense of the fate awaiting the damned on Judgment Day://
If you believe that's the usual sense, why would you address anything else? What is going _on_ here?
//i) For physicalists, there is no soul that persists between death and Judgment Day to destroy on Judgment day. ii) For dualists and physicalists alike, there is no body that persists between death and Judgment Day to destroy on Judgment Day.//
This argument works if and only if you completely reject the resurrection. It's particularly interesting to me that you've chosen to frame your objection to dualistic conditionalism in a way that completely protects physicalists using the exact same response.
//i) But dualist annihilationists presumably subscribe to the intermediate state. So Grice is throwing them under the bus.//
I subscribe to the intermediate state, and I know he's not throwing me under the bus -- because he's talking about Matt 10:28, the topic you're supposed to be responding to. Matt 10:28 is not about a nebulous afterlife, but about a time when God judges both body and soul together.
//ii) The Bible never presents a sequence of: death>oblivion and/or intermediate state>resurrection of the body>annihilation of the damned after the resurrection of the wicked.//
Replace the word "annihilation" with "punishment" and you'd have stated what 99% of confessional scholars (and non-scholars) think the Bible teaches. It's what all of the creeds teach. If the punishment _is_ annihilation, then that fits; if the punishment is confinement to eternal torment, that also fits.
So ... what on earth are you rejecting here? Aside from objecting to our belief that the impenitent will lose their lives completely, the only content in your objection would require rejecting all of the Christian Creeds. Are you a preterist?
//If so, that's the Achilles' heel for dualist annihilationists as well.//
You're the only one here who conflated hades and gehenna.
//"due to an obsession with unrelated doctrines like physicalism…" Physicalist annihilationism and dualist annihilationism have different implications and different eschatologies. Grice's attempt to sideline the issue is intellectually dishonest.//
None of that is true. The eschatologies in particular are almost identical; only the presence of an intermediate state is different. Now, if you want to make an argument with implications based on _that_ you might get somewhere.
//The OP directly engages the argument of a spokesman for Rethinking Hell.//
The OP does nothing but assume the argument was talking about /hades/ when looking at the text would have instantly refuted that assumption (even the _English_ would have refuted it).
"Why do you assert that it is an "ad hoc expedient" to assert what the Bible _directly_ asserts? But the Bible actually _says_ that God will resurrect the bodies of the just and unjust (see Dan 12:2, John 5:28-29), and it actually _says_ He will destroy their bodies. It is not "ad-hoc" but directly stated in the text."
DeleteThe Bible never says God will destroy the bodies of the damned after he resurrects them.
"Nor is it a "makeshift explanation" -- it's not an explanation at all, simply reporting what the Bible directly says without attempting to explain it."
You need to pay attention to the flow of argument (see above).
"If you believe that's the usual sense, why would you address anything else? What is going _on_ here?"
It's not a question of what I believe it means, but what Joseph believes it means. For instance, many annexationists think Gehenna is a theological metaphor based on a garbage dumb in Jerusalem.
"This argument works if and only if you completely reject the resurrection."
You're unable to follow the argument (see above).
"It's particularly interesting to me that you've chosen to frame your objection to dualistic conditionalism in a way that completely protects physicalists using the exact same response."
"he's talking about Matt 10:28, the topic you're supposed to be responding to. Matt 10:28 is not about a nebulous afterlife, but about a time when God judges both body and soul together."
That's what the text says, but it doesn't follow that that's what annihilationism says because there are varieties of annihilationism (see below).
"Replace the word "annihilation" with "punishment" and you'd have stated what 99% of confessional scholars (and non-scholars) think the Bible teaches. It's what all of the creeds teach. If the punishment _is_ annihilation, then that fits; if the punishment is confinement to eternal torment, that also fits."
Now you're retreating into the fallacy of equivocation.
"So ... what on earth are you rejecting here? Aside from objecting to our belief that the impenitent will lose their lives completely, the only content in your objection would require rejecting all of the Christian Creeds. Are you a preterist?"
You keep repeating your confusion.
"You're the only one here who conflated hades and gehenna…The OP does nothing but assume the argument was talking about /hades/ when looking at the text would have instantly refuted that assumption (even the _English_ would have refuted it)."
DeleteYou need to acquire a modicum of logical sophistication. I framed the discussion in hypothetical terms: If>then.
How does he understand "hell". If so, then there are different ways to develop that.
"None of that is true. The eschatologies in particular are almost identical; only the presence of an intermediate state is different. Now, if you want to make an argument with implications based on _that_ you might get somewhere."
I've thought more deeply about annihilationism than you have. In my experience, many annihilationists defend their position by arguing that according to John and Paul, resurrection life is only available to Christians. It's not primarily quantitative but qualitative. A kind of life you can only have if you're plugged into the life of God. That's what makes it "conditional". You must be in Christ to have that kind of life.
So the most consistent version of annihilationism is to day that God doesn't resurrect the damned since that blurs a fundamental distinction between Christians and the damned. The damned are cut off from the source of resurrection life.
On a physicalist model, just and unjust alike pass into oblivion when they die. The way God punishes the unjust is to leave them in a state of oblivion. Resurrection life is reserved for Christians.
You can try to evade that by claiming there are two different kinds of resurrection life, but that messes up the appeal to John and Paul (see above).
On dualist model is gimmicky. There's a soul that persists between death and Judgment day, then God resurrects the damned, then destroys their body. So their body is destroyed twice over. That simply tacks a resurrection onto the process, which makes no sense giving the inner logic of annihilationism.
And it runs counter to the claim that resurrection life is special, not something shared by Christians and damned alike, but something that fundamentally sets them apart.
wtanksley, you wrote:
Delete//Why do you assert that it is an "ad hoc expedient" to assert what the Bible _directly_ asserts? But the Bible actually _says_ that God will resurrect the bodies of the just and unjust (see Dan 12:2, John 5:28-29), and it actually _says_ He will destroy their bodies. It is not "ad-hoc" but directly stated in the text.//
It's funny how neither passage you cited actually state that their bodies would be destroyed. You're importing your interpretation of other passages into Dan. 12:2 and John 5:28-29.
//None of that is true. The eschatologies in particular are almost identical; only the presence of an intermediate state is different. Now, if you want to make an argument with implications based on _that_ you might get somewhere.//
The metaphysics are very different. I've never heard a good explanation of how, given physicalist conditionalism, the resurrect wicked are the same persons that died, rather than merely exact duplicates/copies with identical memories and physical scars. That seems to violate the law of identity which states A is A. In this case, it seems we're supposed to believe B is A, even though there's no real historical connection between the two groups of persons. If anything, the resurrected persons are newly created human beings who has false memories implanted into their minds.
And even if we grant that the resurrected wicked are the same persons that died, destroying them again would seem to be a case of double jeopardy. They already died. Why punish them a second time? How is that just?
And if they are newly created human beings, then they are being punished for sins they didn't commit, but which others committed a long time ago. So, they are being punished for false memories of sins they never committed. How is that just?