Pages

Monday, January 05, 2015

The hermeneutics of annihilationism


A friend and I were discussing annihilationism recently. I'm going to post my email statements:

In large part, the exegetical case for annihilationism is predicated on a fallacy.

The Bible often depicts eschatological punishment in terms of physical destruction or even total destruction. Why is that?

That's because it's using physical metaphors. Metaphors of physical objects undergoing a physical process. Like burning a city to the ground, or burning corpses on the battlefield. 

Burning is a reductive process. That, however, doesn't mean damnation is a reductive process. Rather, that's an incidental feature of a picturesque metaphor. The choice of metaphor dictates what's consistent with the metaphor. 

But that's an artifact of the chosen metaphor. And you can go very wrong if you overextend a theological metaphor. 

Some depictions of eschatological punishment aren't reductive because that's the inherent nature of the damned or the inherent nature of damnation, but because that's the nature of the metaphor.

It doesn't mean human nature is analogous to a burning building. It doesn't mean human nature is analogous to a physical composite like firewood. That confuses the figurative imagery with what it was meant to illustrate. 

Annihilationists naively draw metaphysical inferences from picture language. 

i) Obviously, a lot of what's driving annihilationism is reaction to the torture chamber model of hell. There's the intuition that never-ending torture is a fate worse than oblivion. And that intuition certainly has some appeal.

Mind you, it's striking how many people will endure years of torture, when they're in a position to kill themselves or provoke their summary execution, in the sometimes vain hope of liberation. The will to live is very strong.

And even those who are liberated after years of torture live with nightmares and chronic pain. Yet they still choose that over death. 

ii) I myself doubt that hell is any one thing. I doubt it's a torture chamber. Some of the damned may well suffer torture. And some of them richly deserve to be on the receiving end of what they inflicted on others. 

One ethical/philosophical problem I have is that I don't share annihilationist intuitions. I mean, I can see why annihilation might seem to be more humane than everlasting torture–if that's the comparison. 

Yet considered on its own terms, why does everlasting punishment reflect badly on God's character, but God zapping his enemies out of existence does not reflect badly on God's character? 

What about Damien (a la the Omen) zapping people out of existence, with a snap of his fingers. 

Another thing: it's just a historical accident that most folks don't commit atrocities. Consider German guards at concentration camps or Japanese guards at POW camps who take sadistic delight in torturing defenseless inmates. If the same guards were born a generation earlier or a generation later, they might never hurt a fly. They just happen to find themselves in a situation which smokes out their true character. 

A lot of people are closet sociopaths. It's just fear of reprisal that restrains them. So even though they never did anything horrendous in this life, that's quite deceptive. It doesn't tell you anything about their capacity for evil, which can emerge with terrifying ease if the conditions are right. 

I'd like to make a few comments on the finite crime/infinite punishment objection:

i) As I've said before, that's equivocal. It compares a qualitative property (culpability, demerit) with a qualitative property (duration).

ii) Moreover, it backfires. If everlasting misery is an infinite penalty for finite sin, then everlasting oblivion is an infinite penalty for finite sin. 

iii) Furthermore, what makes the transgressions finite? Let's revert to my illustration. Why did German/Japanese guards stop torturing inmates. Not because they got tired of torturing inmates. Not because they repented of their evil ways.

Rather, in some cases they stopped because they killed the inmate. If they could resuscitate him, they continue to torture him. Twice the fun for half the supply. 

More generally, they had to stop because they lost the war. They no longer had that power over other human beings.

Ultimately, they stopped because they died. So they commit finite atrocities because they have finite opportunities, not because they have a finite inclination to do so. They may have an insatiable inclination. They simply run out of time. 

Suppose you had an immortal serial killer. Suppose he's never caught. Or he pays off the authorities.

He never stops torturing victims to death. It's one after another after another. A potential infinite. 

iv) Finally, there's another exegetical challenge for annihilationism:

a) In crude annihilationism, oblivion itself is the punishment. Death is the ultimate punishment. God punishes them by never restoring them to life.

A stock objection to that sanction is that the penalty doesn't fit the crime. Attila the Hun and the small-time crook suffer the identical fate. And that's an ironic objection for a position that levels the same objection to everlasting punishment.

b) Hence, sophisticated annihilationism says God resurrects some (all?) of the wicked to make they suffer their finite just deserts before annihilating them.

However, that scenario requires a double oblivion:

Oblivion when you die.

Temporary resurrection.

A return to oblivion when God zaps them out of existence after they suffered enough retribution.

But where does Scripture teach post-postmortem oblivion? 

Postmortem oblivion followed by temporary resurrection followed by a second, permanent oblivion? 

I don't think it even teaches postmortem oblivion, much less post-postmortem oblivion? 

18 comments:

  1. Obadiah 1.16 is an indicator of 'spirit death'. In my mind scripture teaches that the wicked suffer turmoil in this life. After death the wicked suffer further until the resurrection of the wicked and their judgment which ends in 'spirit death' after individualized punishment.

    I think the spectre of oblivion (and punishment), after tasting the good possibilities of temporal life, are a strong motivator to turn to God and Christ. I could be wrong, of course, but scripture seems to overwhelmingly speak of "destruction" when speaking about the eternal state of the unredeemed. If you are going to 'spiritualize' "destruction", how do you know where to stop taking the text metaphorically? I mean, why not take the few times the text seems to say 'never-ending' torment as metaphorical?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're confusing words with images. I didn't "spiritualize" the word "destruction." Rather, if "destruction" is applied to a figurative image, that's what makes it figurative.

      The adjective "never-ending" isn't a metaphorical *adjective*.

      What makes you think Obadiah 1:16 refers to "spirit death."

      Delete
    2. i) So, by your logic, if a serial killer dies a year before the day of judgment, he only suffers for a year before he's annihilated–but if a horse-thief dies 800 years before the day of judgment, he suffers for 800 years before he's annihilated. Hence, the punishment isn't calibrated to the nature of the crime, but lucky or unlucky timing in terms of when you happen to die vis-a-vis the day of judgment.

      ii) Many of the wicked don't suffer turmoil in this life.

      iii) Why would God resurrect them to annihilate them?

      iv) You seem to be combining a postmortem second chance with annihilationism. Is that your position?

      Delete
    3. I think I lost my reply again on your site Steve. No, that is not my position. Edward Fudge's reasoning persuade me is the best way to sum up my position: conditionalism. Only God has immortality and gives it to those he elects from sinful humanity.

      Delete
    4. But that's burning a straw man. Everlasting punishment isn't predicated on the inherent immortality of the soul, as if the soul is indestructible even for God. All creaturely existence is contingent on divine conservation.

      Moreover, everlasting punishment isn't confined to the soul. It includes the general resurrection.

      To say only God has immortality doesn't select for annihilationism. That's not unique to annihilationism. Even if that's a necessary condition, it's hardly a sufficient condition.

      Delete
    5. As I stated earlier, the very words of scripture support annihilationism. conditionalism buttresses the position. I never argued for sufficiency of conditionalism.

      How would you answer if charged with the notion of 'once God has created something, then he can never deconstruct it', this is what it sounds like you are saying. Where does God bind Himself to that notion?

      Delete
    6. "As I stated earlier, the very words of scripture support annihilationism. conditionalism buttresses the position."

      My original post already dealt that appeal, so your statement is retrograde. You need to catch up with the actual state of the argument.

      "How would you answer if charged with the notion of 'once God has created something, then he can never deconstruct it', this is what it sounds like you are saying."

      i) I explicitly denied that.

      ii) In addition, the real question is not what he can do, but what he will do. After all, he has the ability to annihilate everyone.

      Delete
    7. If I could have posted my original comment, it addressed your points. Your strong suit seems to be rhetoric and logic but not so much exegesis, theology, textual criticism, or hermeneutics. Your original post warns of over-extending the metaphor, which is a valid concern but likewise under appreciating clear descriptive words is also a danger. Your statements are far too sweeping in their dismissal of the multitude of descriptive terms.

      The destiny of the wicked is an under-studied doctrine in scripture probably because of its irrelevance to the Christian (the wicked will never study the bible to see their fate). However, since it is revealed in many parts and ways, it should be studied.

      In this doctrine, Steve, you philosophize much but seem to under-appreciate the biblical text. Your sweeping generalizations is not how to do theology. I am all for critical thinking also but not at the expense of having a stilted view of scripture. Again, this is about clear descriptors about the wicked in the text and not over-extending metaphors.

      Also, again, we should think of God's revelation of Himself and creation textually and theologically without over-utilizing philosophical reasoning.

      Anyway, my tuppence, you can have the last word.

      Delete
    8. "Your original post warns of over-extending the metaphor, which is a valid concern but likewise under appreciating clear descriptive words is also a danger."

      You still don't grasp the issue. If "descriptive words" describe a figurative representation, then "the multitude of descriptive terms" simply multiplies metaphorical destruction, like "burning."

      You originally referred to "spirit-death." Do you think spirits are literally combustible?

      Delete
    9. Suppose you have a 100 Bible passages that describe eschatological "destruction" in terms of burning. But unless you think God literally annihilates the damned by incinerating them, the reductive process is a reductive metaphor. Figurative destruction.

      Likewise, unless you think maggots literally consume the damned, then that's picture language. You speak of "spirit-death." Do you think the souls of the damned are edible?

      What makes it "destructive" is the chosen metaphor. But unless you think the souls of the damned are made of wood, burning them isn't an indication that they are literally destroyed.

      Delete
    10. You are totally spiritualizing everything. I am not sure if discussion with you will advance understanding. You don't get to make up the rules of hermeneutics. Also, some things you want to treat as metaphorical language is instead prophecy. When the bible does use metaphors they correspond to actualities. We know how scripture uses metaphors quite accurately in some cases and the interpreter can extrapolate (with caution) meanings corresponding to actualities. This is revealed scripture and there are truths to find by correct exegesis and interpretation.

      Of course you don't know what hell is like because you just spiritualize it away with philosophical conjectures. (this is to your point ii) in your original post).

      Most likely the unredeemed are resurrected with a temporary spiritual body to face judgment and punishment (proportional). Eventually God would separate soul from spirit and the person would be destroyed.

      In my thinking annihilation is worse than never-ending torment because destruction is more 'hopeless'. If never-ending torment is the case the imprisoned could always hold out some hope of reconciliation which I reject. I think God "writes off" the unredeemed completely which would also bring final resolution to the righteous and would let them enjoy the new heaven and earth untrammeled with the thoughts of others continually suffering.

      Delete
    11. "You are totally spiritualizing everything."

      i) And you are indulging in wild hyperbole. I've given specific reasons for my rejection of annihilationist prooftexting. That's hardly "spiritualizing everything."

      ii) You are fond of the word "spiritualize." Do you use that as a pejorative synonym for metaphor?

      "You don't get to make up the rules of hermeneutics."

      Here's a sample of monographs I've studied on "the rules of hermeneutics:

      Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (rev. ed.); Craig. Bartholomew et al. eds. 'Behind' the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation; G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation; D. Bock & B. Fanning, eds. Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis; G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible; Craig Blomberg, A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis; G. Fee & D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth; Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature; Jorge Gracia, How Can We Know What God Means? The Interpretation of Revelation; Robert Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules (2nd ed.; Donald McKim, Leland Ryken, Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible (2nd ed); S. Porter & B. Stovell, eds. Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views; S. Porter & J. Robinson, Hermeneutics: An Introduction to Interpretive Theory; Vern Poythress, God-Centered Interpretation; Leland Ryken, Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible (2nd ed); Anthony Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An Introduction; Kevin Vanhoozer, ed. The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible.

      Where are you getting the "rule of hermeneutics"? What have you studied on the subject?

      Do you think that, unlike yourself, Bible scholars like Douglas Moo, Daniel Block, and D. A. Carson who defend eternal conscious punishment don't know much about "exegesis, theology, textual criticism, or hermeneutics"?

      "Also, some things you want to treat as metaphorical language is instead prophecy."

      False dichotomy inasmuch as prophecy often employs metaphorical language.

      "When the bible does use metaphors they correspond to actualities."

      A vague truism that does nothing to advance your specific contention.

      "Of course you don't know what hell is like because you just spiritualize it away with philosophical conjectures. (this is to your point ii) in your original post)."

      That's an uncomprehending remark. I was responding to a stock annihilationist argument on its own grounds.

      "Most likely the unredeemed are resurrected with a temporary spiritual body"

      What is a "spiritual body"? Can a spiritual body experience physical suffering? Does Scripture say the damned are resurrected with a "temporary spiritual body?"

      "In my thinking annihilation is worse than never-ending torment because destruction is more 'hopeless'."

      Only conscious agents can feel hopeless. Nonexistent agents are neither hopeful nor hopeless.

      "If never-ending torment is the case the imprisoned could always hold out some hope of reconciliation which I reject."

      Not if God makes it clear to them that their fate is permanent.

      But suppose for the sake of argument that they cling to false hope. False hope can, itself, be punitive. Vainly hoping for something that will never happen.

      "I think God 'writes off' the unredeemed completely which would also bring final resolution to the righteous and would let them enjoy the new heaven and earth untrammeled with the thoughts of others continually suffering."

      What about their memories of lost loved-ones? What about survivor's guilt?

      Delete
    12. At the Rethinking Hell site, which is the flagship of contemporary annihilationism, here are three prooftexts they give–which perfectly illustrate my contention:

      “You conceive chaff; you give birth to stubble; your breath is a fire that will consume you. And the peoples will be as if burned to lime, like thorns cut down, that are burned in the fire . . . The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling has seized the godless: ‘Who among us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?’”

      “For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who fear my name . . . you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the Lord of hosts.”

      “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
      http://rethinkinghell.com/explore/

      Yes, this depicts eschatological judgment in terms of total destruction. But that's because it's based on the metaphor of burning flammable materials. A consistent extended metaphor. The fiery element. The dry branches.

      Fire "consumes." A bonfire.

      But if annihilationists can't recognize such blatantly figurative imagery, they have a serious hermeneutical blindspot. It reduces the fuel to ash that's the nature of the process.

      But humans aren't literally chaff or dry branches. God doesn't literally breathe fire.

      Delete
    13. Take a passage that's quite similar to annihilationist prooftexts: Mt 7:24-27. The theme of total loss. Total destruction.

      Yet it would be silly to say that describes the annihilation of the lost. Rather, it describes the total destruction or total loss of everything they live for, everything they acquire. Even though this passage ultimately refers to the eschatological judgment that awaits those who build on a sandy foundation, it doesn't imply the total destruction of the unbeliever, but rather, the total loss of his cumulative achievements, of everything he aspired to. At the end, he is bereft.

      A contemporary analogue would be a shady business man (e.g. Bernie Madoff) who suffers utter ruin when he's caught and convicted.

      What makes it punitive is that he exists to experience the consequences of his folly.

      Delete
    14. Have you left yourself open to gnostic tendencies? They considered matter as inherently evil or at least something from which they needed release. You seem to want to have immaterial conscious entities.

      You said you didn't know if hell was one thing. You were not really countering annihilationism.

      I earned an M.Div. over 30 years ago. The modern works are wonderful which you studied but they break no significant ground over works from a generation ago.

      I like the scholars you mentioned who insist on ECP (eternal conscious punishment) but think they are wrong on this idea. I like you too and your apologetics but am starting to see significant disagreement with you. We seem to be speaking past each other at times and not really comprehending what the other is saying. You said this about me and I marvel how you missed so much of my points.

      On the matter of spiritual bodies. First read 1Cor. 15. Notice that not only the righteous receive spiritual bodies.

      Prooftexting is a good thing which the bible writers employed. Of course they didn't only prooftext, they had a coherent theology.

      As for "spiritualizing", Why don't you give the actualities to the metaphors found in the bible? What does "destruction" mean, a bad time?

      I think you as well as most Christians are overly influenced by Pagan Greek Philosophy in holding to the immortality of the soul and keep thinking that God is stuck with a bunch of wicked entities which He can't get rid of.

      The spectre of annihilation is only relevant to those now alive. Never-ending punishment seems to signal some hope for the living that God would settle with them somehow in the afterlife. Annihilation is the harder position because of its finality. Anyway, I'm not going to continue in this comment section on the issue though more arguments for my position can be given (I need to flesh them out a bit) and I want to focus on other things as well.



      Delete
    15. "Have you left yourself open to gnostic tendencies?"

      Have you left yourself open to Mormon or Sadducean tendencies?

      "They considered matter as inherently evil or at least something from which they needed release."

      And where in my post or my replies to you did I say anything to that effect? i didn't.

      You're resorting to the underhanded tactic of imputing invidious associations which have nothing to do with the stated position of your interlocutor.

      "You seem to want to have immaterial conscious entities."

      And you don't? So that either makes you an atheist, Mormon, or Sadducee.

      Speaking for myself, since I believe in God and angels, I do subscribe to immaterial conscious entities.

      In addition, I affirm the Biblical doctrine of the intermediate state (i.e. temporarily discarnate human souls).

      "You said you didn't know if hell was one thing. You were not really countering annihilationism."

      There was more than one point (ii) in my post.

      How does saying I doubt that hell is any one thing amount to "spiritualizing hell away"? What makes you think a physical place is the same everywhere? Consider different ecological zones on earth.

      Unless you assume the damned are all equally evil, why would they all be punished the same way?

      And, as I went on to explain, when I say that I doubt that hell is any one thing, by that I mean I don't take hell to be one big torture chamber. I make allowance for that in the case of some of the damned, but not for all of the damned.
      And that's no more or less conjectural than insisting that hell is uniform.

      "The modern works are wonderful which you studied but they break no significant ground over works from a generation ago."

      Irrelevant. It was in response to your allegation that I'm guilty of "making the rules of hermeneutics."

      "On the matter of spiritual bodies. First read 1Cor. 15."

      Not only have i read it, but I discussed that in detail in response to atheists like Richard Carrier. And referring me to 1 Cor 15 tells me nothing about how you construe v44. I construe it the same way as Fee, Wright, and Ciampa/Rosner do.

      "Notice that not only the righteous receive spiritual bodies."

      That doesn't select for annihilationism. The distinction between the general resurrection and the resurrection of the just is a stock distinction among proponents of everlasting punishment. The fact that Paul is referring to the resurrection of the just in 1 Cor 15 doesn't advance the case for annihilationism no whit.

      "As for 'spiritualizing', Why don't you give the actualities to the metaphors found in the bible? What does 'destruction' mean, a bad time?"

      I already dealt with that in my comparison: Mt 7:24-27.

      "I think you as well as most Christians are overly influenced by Pagan Greek Philosophy in holding to the immortality of the soul…"

      That's another example of your underhanded tactic of imputing invidious associations which have nothing to do with the stated position of your interlocutor.

      I'd add that unitarians accuse Trinitarians of being overly influence by pagan Greek philosophy, too.

      "…and keep thinking that God is stuck with a bunch of wicked entities which He can't get rid of. "

      You're not even attempting to argue in good faith.

      "Never-ending punishment seems to signal some hope for the living that God would settle with them somehow in the afterlife."

      Just the opposite: it means their fate is truly hopeless.

      "Annihilation is the harder position because of its finality."

      Harder for whom? Harder for nonentities? They never knew what hit them. You might as well say the fate of rocks is hopeless inasmuch as rocks can't hope for anything.

      Delete
  2. I don't think annihilationism properly takes into account man's total depravity. Fear of death is a weak motivation for repentance. There are many people who don't fear death (suicide bombers, for example) or being annihilated, what teeth then does the threat of condemnation have? Atheists generally believe that in death consciousness dissolves and individual persons cease to exist, annihilationism simply confirms (with a few qualifications) this atheistic belief.

    There is also no justice under this doctrine. Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, etc. and your unrepentant neighbor end up in the same place, nowhere. So, in a sense, the arch criminals of our time do get away with it, given annihilationism.

    ReplyDelete