Annihilation Refuted Part 2

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0 height="100%"><tr> <td valign="top" width=185 BGCOLOR="#003333" TEXT="#F7F7FF" background="03fb9c00dduajq.jpg"> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="0" WIDTH="70" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 76 WIDTH="66"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="76" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="66" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <div> <A HREF="id20.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Doctrinal Issues"><U><B>Doctrinal Issues</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id51.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Annihilation"><U><B>Annihilation</B></U></A></div> </td> <td valign="top" BGCOLOR="#FFFBF0" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>Christian Debatorial Works</B></FONT>    |     <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Christian Debatorial Works"><U>home</U></A></div> <div> <B>Annihilation Refuted Part 2</B></div> <div> Annihilation Refuted Part 2</div> <div> "Does the Bible teach that Hell is punishment forever?" Here we aren't arguing dates and names, and we are often taking as a given that what the Bible says is true, and all that remains are matters of interpretation. This isn't an article for skeptics or for someone who takes marker in hand and believes those parts of the Bible that they prefer to think are true are the only parts that need following. Nor is it an article for the squeamish at heart, for I may as well acknowledge here and now that I am unable to find any support for the position which we will be examining closely, generally known as annihilationism, sometimes called "conditional immortality", although the two terms are not exactly synonymous. If I am to believe the press, this idea has gained some popularity or at least sympathy among evangelicals lately (famous names include John Stott, Gordon Wenham, and F. F. Bruce), and so I hope that this analysis will be relevant, even if it is not particularly well-liked.</div> <bR> <div> To begin, a few words on the limits of this study. We will concentrate almost exclusively on the NT. It is sufficient to merely say of the OT that it teaches nothing any differently in light of progressive revelation, but should anyone disagree, I am open to discussion. Second, we are concerned here only with this specific doctrine of annihilationism. I will not concern myself with the question of whether the torments of Hell involve literal flames and darkness or those references are merely metaphors: If they are metaphors (and I am persuaded that they are), then they are surely metaphors for something worse than actual flames and darkness -- I think, separation from God. I very much doubt that anyone will want to trade the metaphorical hell for the literal one. Finally, as a good starting point for anyone interested in this subject, I will recommend a volume called Four Views on Hell. In this work four authors of varying views discuss the topic of hell, and annihilationism is one of the focal points. The position is supported in the book by Clark Pinnock, and it is he whom we will be drawing upon for major pro-annihilationism arguments, along with David Powys' 'Hell': A Hard Look at a Hard Question.</div> <bR> <div> Annihilationism Reply: Some material was brought to my attention written by an annihilationist (hereafter designated "WK") who posted a reply to this article on a discussion forum. By agreement I am posting replies to this material here.</div> <div> |</div> <bR> <div> The Social Background of Hell</div> <bR> <div> The majority of verses that describe Hell say nothing at all about timeframes for occupation of Hell by the wicked -- from this may we conclude that there is a chance that the doctrine can be averted?</div> <bR> <div> One major problem with such a stance is this: When Jesus speaks to the Pharisees about Hell (cf. Luke 12:4-5, Matt. 10:28), he speaks to them on ascertainable ideological ground. Josephus reports that the Pharisees fully believed that the souls of the wicked went on to eternal punishment [Cro.4VH, 65]. (It may be acknowledged, of course, that this immortality was conferred upon souls rather than being an intrinsic part of their nature; this much is correct from the annihilationist camp, in agrement with 1 Tim. 6:16. But it is not true that Jews believed in a doctrine of "soul sleep" in which the soul passed into an unconscious state until the resurrection: That much is shown by Moses and [perhaps] Elijah making an appearance at the Transfiguration!) Some critics may argue that overall, there was a diversity in Jewish views of the ultimate fate of the wicked, but since the question here involves a known view on the part of the Pharisees, the question is moot. It is with they whom Jesus interacted in these verses on this topic, and the belief in eternal punishment may be assumed even where no timeframe is mentioned. However, for the sake of argument, I will not list verses for support unless they contain explicit reference to a time frame.</div> <bR> <div> annihilationism reply:</div> <div> ...Josephus is less than reliable in many areas, and often imbibes Greek thought into his "history." I'm not saying that he is worthless, but hardly reliable enough to base something like this on (considering the priority given this argument by Holding). In addition, Josephus also reports that the Pharisees believed in the preexistence of souls!</div> <div> Other sources which would support the contention that the Pharisees held to something of a natural immortality would be Edersheim and Morey.  In contrast, many scholars place such a doctrine squarely where it belongs - in GREEK thought...Thus, the idea that "It is with (the Pharisees) whom Jesus interacted in these verses on this topic, and the belief in eternal punishment may be assumed even where no timeframe is mentioned" must be regarded as manifestly false until we see *much* more documentation.</div> <bR> <div> WK's respose to this area we shall see is rather typical, in that he often argues in a rather murky way. What does it mean to say that Josephus "imbibes" his work with Greek thought? I have heard it said that Joe often presented Greek thought in his work, or explained Jewish thought in Greek terms in a way that sometimes failed to represent the Jewish thought with perfect accuracy. What I have not heard is that this "imbibing" led Josephus to falsely ascribe a Greek belief to a Jew, which is what WK seems to be leading into. If this is not so, what does he mean?</div> <bR> <div> The Pharisees either a) believed in eternal torment as Joe said; b) did not believe in it, but J. either b1) recast their beliefs in "Greek" fashion or b2) just plain lied about what they believed. Imbibing or no imbibing, the latter two are rather hard to swallow, since Joe was a Pharisee himself, and it is hard to see what Pharisee belief would have had to be "recast" into eternal torment, or why he should have ascribed a position to the P's that they did not hold at all. Giving an exact accounting of how Joe misreported other Jewish beliefs (esp. Pharisee beliefs) would be helpful, but that's not what we find here. WK's counter-argument is painfully short on detail and proves absolutely nothing.</div> <bR> <div> In order for this argument to mean anything, it has to be proven that the Pharisees did not actually believe in eternal torment and that Joe therefore may have made some sort of mistake. Simply arguing for the possibility of guilt by association, as in the second paragraph (eternal torment is a Greek idea; the Pharisees were not Greeks; therefore they did not believe in eternal torment; therefore Joe is somehow wrong) is to argue in a circle. The data, as it stands, clearly indicates a P belief in eternal torment. Not one shred has been provided that proves otherwise -- just speculation and circular reasoning.</div> <bR> <div> Also, re the Pharisees believing in the pre-existence of souls: This is entirely irrelevant. The Gospels never record that the topic came up with Jesus and the Pharisees; if it had, we could use it in some way, but it didn't. WK is using a tactic that I have often seen skeptics use: He knows that Christians think that the doctrine of pre-existence is false, even ridiculous; hence he thinks it possible to tar the belief in eternal torment with the same brush! This is not a good argument; it is trickery and deceit. Since pre-existence never came up as a subject when Jesus spoke with the Pharisees, the matter is irrelevant.</div> <bR> <div> A different tack is taken by Powys [280-1], who argues that here and in verses like Matt. 10:28 and 25:46, Jesus is "seiz[ing] one of [the Pharisees'] own foundational concepts and, with powerful rhetorical effect, hurl[ing] it against them." In other words, he didn't accept their belief, but used it against them anyway, without making it clear anywhere else that he did not accept it, and in other places Jesus also used the concept merely rhetorically and evocatively! This is no more than Powys assuming what he wants to prove, then applying topspin to make the data fit his thesis.</div> <div> CONCERNING "SOUL SLEEP": I really don't understand why this was even brought up. Not all "annihilationists" hold to "soul sleep" - Philip Hughes didn't. And even though I do, the doctrine concerns THE INTERMEDIATE STATE, and has nothing to do with the issue of the final destiny of the wicked. Thus, I will not be attempting here to defend "soul sleep" - that is another discussion. However, the transfiguration which Holding mentioned does *not* prove a concious intermediate state - the event is clearly designated a "vision" by Jesus Himself!</div> <bR> <div> Of course I realize that "soul sleep" is not a major annihilationism point anymore; that is why it was dealt with only parenthetically. But where, may I ask, is the Transfiguration described by Jesus as a "vision"? I see no such word used of it in either Matthew or Mark. Furthermore, is WK suggesting that Jesus created this "vision" of Moses and Elijah even though they were not really talking to them? This is tantamount to charging Jesus with deception! I certainly hope that WK is not headed in this direction.</div> <div> |</div> <bR> <div>  Verses Indicating Eternal Punishment</div> <bR> <div> As we examine verses that are used to support the argument for eternal punishment, two key words will crop up. We will look at these first.</div> <bR> <div> The first key word is aionios. This is the word that translates as eternal. There is no other Greek word that can refer to an eternal period of time. (The only other word I have seen suggested, pantote, carries the idea of regularity and dedication where it is used, rather than timeframes: For example, "Jesus replied. 'I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.'" - John 18:20) This word, Barr tells us, is used in cases that "refer fairly uniformly to the being of God or to plans and realities which, once are established by Him, are perpetual and unchanging. Since the word is not used of more mundane realities like the flowering of fig-trees, one cannot argue that the same kind of temporality is attributed to these as to the being of God." [Barr.BWT, 77]</div> <bR> <div> Walvoord, following Buis, counts 66 occurrenes of aionios in the NT [Cro.4VH, 23]. 51 of these refer to the unending happiness of the righteous. 2 refer to the duration of God in His glory. 6 indicate an endless amount of time in other contexts, and 7 appear in reference to the punishment of the wicked.</div> <bR> <div> A counter-argument seeks to make the point that aionios may in some cases refer to a limited period of time. For the word by itself, we may say that while it is true that it may refer to a time which began at a certain point and continued on into the future for eternity (and once, in the case of Rom. 16:25, backwards from a specific terminus), it never has any other meaning than an eternal period. It is significant that whenever some critics make this claim, no examples are provided as proof. [Will.EDEP, 73ff -- who says, for example, that the word "may (mean) a week, a month, a year, an age, or a series of ages"! Elsewhere, Pinnock's appeal to Cullmann as proving this point is useless, as Cullmann's arguments have been superseded by Barr.]</div> <bR> <div> There is, however, a second way in which the annihilationists/conditionalists suggest that the strength of aionios can be deflected, and we will look at that when we reach a specific cite below.</div> <div> annihilationism reply: First of all, the Hebrew equivilent is 'olam' and is used in Ex. 12:24; 21:1-6; 29:9; 40:15; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 15:17; 23:3,6; Josh. 14:9; I Sam. 1:22-28; 1 Kings 3:12+; 2 Kings 5:27; Jonah 2:6; and especially Isa. 34:5-11 (v. 10 is where the language of Rev. 14 comes from). In fact, "forever" is used some 56 times in Scripture FOR THINGS/EVENTS WHICH WILL END!</div> <div> The Church Father Origen used 'olam' to demonstrate that the Greek 'aionios' means "a very long time" - BUT NOT LITERALLY "FOREVER" as we think of it (cf. Fudge, pp. 12-13). F.W. Farrar refers to 'aionos' ("eternal") as "a Greek adjective which is used over and over again OF THINGS TRANSITORY" (Fudge, TFTC, quoting Farrar, ETERNAL HOPE, p. 198 - emphasis mine). No less an authority than Young (as in YOUNG'S ANALYTICAL CONCORDANCE) stated concerning this word: "this word has NOT been clearly translated."</div> <bR> <div> This strange attempt to deflect the meaning of a Greek word through use of one in Hebrew does not do full justice to the intricacies of one language to another that is completely different. But indeed, we need not even go in that direction. WK's assertion is misleading: olam is used not of things that "will" end, but things that did end, but were meant not to. Specifically, it is used in several of the cites above to refer to ordinances in the Jewish law which were to be kept by the Israelites.</div> <bR> <div> The word olam is also used to describe the tenure of a slave, indicating that his service will last for the entirety of his life. One might argue that this indicates a time that ends, but the parallel usage of olam with the phrase "as long as he lives" in 1 Sam. 1:22-28 indicates that what lies behind olam in these cases is something of a figurative sense of "forever" that stresses the permanence of the person's condition.</div> <bR> <div> Beyond that, the quotes of authority serve to prove nothing. Unless Origen, Young, Farrar, etc. have met Barr's material head-on (and Barr, as well, regards olam as meaning essentially "in perpetuity" -- i.e., forever), this is merely a poor attempt by WK to shore up his arguments fallaciously. He has not shown any case where aionios refers to anything other than eternity.</div> <bR> <div> A second key word is apollumi, which emerges in our translations as "destroy". This is an important word, for many annihilationists like Pinnock and Fudge actually see it as favoring annihilation (Matt. 10:28; 2 Thess. 1:9; Phil. 3:19). But the meaning of this word and those related to it does not refer to "destruction" in the modern sense that that word is used for the annihilation of something. Rather, it is closer in meaning to the way we use "destroyed" to mean ruined or lost, as in, "He destroyed his family with his drug habit." Lest there be any doubt, take a look at some verses where the same Greek word is used, and ask youself: Were any of the items in question annihilated? [Fern.CQAH, 41]</div> <bR> <div>     * Mt. 10:6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.</div> <div>     * Mt. 12:14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.</div> <div>     * Mt. 26:8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked.</div> <div>     * Luke 15:24, "For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found."</div> <div> * Luke 19:10 "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."</div> <bR> <div> annihilationism reply: Of this word Holding writes: "the meaning of this word and those related to it does not refer to 'destruction' in the modern sense that that word is used for the annihilation of something. Rather, it is closer in meaning to the way we use 'destroyed' to mean ruined or lost, as in, 'He destroyed his family with his drug habit.'" Then he offers a few selective examples, NOT ONE OF WHICH CONTRADICTS WHAT I MEAN BY "ANNIHILATION" AS EXPRESSED ABOVE IN MY CLARIFICATIONS.</div> <div> Strong gives the meaning as "to destroy *fully*"; look at 1 Cor. 1:19 where "destroy" ('apollumi') is parallel to "bring to nothing." Of course, as with most words, other meanings are possible depending on context. However, the various possible translations - "destroyed"; "perish"; "lost"; "kill"; etc. are all consistent with conditional immortality.</div> <div> ...The real question is whether the word retains its natural meaning in the passages speaking of the final end of the wicked. I offer three lines of evidence:</div> <div> First, *other* words are used of the "destruction" of the wicked - example being 'kataphtheiro' in 2 Peter 2:13 --- translated as "utterly perish" (KJV).</div> <div> Second, Paul uses 'apollumi' in 1 Cor. 15:18, translated "perished" (KJV). Paul's hypothetical argument here makes it clear that he means THEY WILL NOT LIVE AGAIN. For more detail on this, see my article at http://www.flash.net/~thinkman/articles/1co15.html</div> <div> Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Old Testament speaks of the final end of the wicked in terms too clear to miss! The wicked will be "cut off"; will "be no more"; are "slain"; they will "not be found"; "vanish like smoke"; "perish"; "be destroyed"; be "torn to pieces"; "vanish like water which flows away"; "melt like a slug"; be like the "stillborn"; their "blood will bathe the feet of the righteous"; etc.; etc. *NONE* of these pictures can possibly symbolize "perpetual concious torment forever."</div> <div> Furthermore, note that All OT examples of the destiny of the lost that the inspired NT writers use resulted not in ongoing torture, but rather DESTRUCTION (meaning "destruction" -- not something else) -- the great flood, Sodom & Gommorah, Jericho, etc.</div> <bR> <div> Here we see WK's longest reply by far. His "clarification" referred to above reads as follows:</div> <div> I also want to clarify what I mean by "annihilation." Many traditionalists (including Holding) like to set forth technical arguments regarding the word "annihilation" - i.e., "It didn't cease to exist, did it?!?" - stuff like that. Such arguments are petty. By "annihilation" I simply mean that the wicked are DESTROYED and that IN THE NORMAL SENSE OF THE WORD - thus, they "cease to exist" AS LIVING ENTITIES. I don't know if every single molecule just *evaporates* or not ... I consider such arguments silly straw men.</div> <bR> <div> I am frankly hard pressed to see any distinction being made here. In what way does WK suggest that the condemned "cease to exist as living beings"? Since we are only given this rather muddy definition, I will simply ask this question: In any of the places where apollumi is used, did the things in question "cease to exist as" whatever they were? No -- the oil of Matt. 26 did not cease to be oil; it was simply (so it was argued by Judas) put to a use that it should not have been. It remained oil. The same may be said of every other example I cited, and of 1 Cor. 1:19 -- the plans did not "cease to exist as" plans; they simply did not fulfill their intended purpose. This is right in line with the traditional view that while God intends us for eternal life with Him, those who are apollumi lose out, but do not in any way evaporate or cease to exist. WK's "clarification" is a figment that does not fit the meaning of apollumi at all.</div> <bR> <div> As far as WK's three arguments go, I am once again straining to find any applicability to our subject. That "other words" are used is true, but beside the point, unless WK wishes to charge that the Bible contradicts itself concerning the fate of the wicked. (2 Peter 2:13, at any rate, refers to people currently living on the earth.) The article WK refers to which he has written appears to me to be little more than a senseless miasma of gibberish -- if anyone knows what he has written there, I would appreciate a clarification. Finally, simply throwing out OT phrases and words without context proves absolutely nothing, and I have already shown (re Jude 7) that the use of OT types to express the fate of the wicked cannot be used to argue against eternal torment. If the NT writers were not free to use OT material typologically, then WK opens up a can of worms that invalidates all Messianic prophecy, for example!</div> <bR> <div> Now to specific cites. Some of these are stronger than others, but these are indeed the most clear indications available [cf. Buis.DEP]. These we may add to the social background data above to indicate that the doctrine is one that is both assumed and taught in Christianity.</div> <bR> <div>     # Matt. 10:28//Luke 12:4-5</div> <div>       Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.</div> <div>       I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell.</div> <bR> <div>       In this case, the Matthean parallel passage is much clearer in description than the Lukan one. However, they are complimentary rather than contradictory.</div> <bR> <div>       This is a fairly clear statement that the soul and body will be destroyed (in the sense noted above -- not "annihilated") in Hell. Annihilationists and conditionalists have a great deal of trouble with this verse. Knowing that the resurrection of the wicked is clearly taught in the NT, some will deny that the nature of the resurrection body of the wicked is the same as that of those of the justified, and that it will eventually "lose all vitality and truly die" [Fudg.FTC, 176], but there is neither scriptural nor social warrant to suppose that there will be any difference in this way. Another tack is to argue that the words "kill" and "destroy" being in parallel should mean that they indicate the same thing [ibid., 177], which seems all too obviously a measure of desperation without any linguistic support. Finally, an appeal is made to Luke's parallel version being itself parallel to Is. 66:24 (see below), which supposedly argues against eternal punishment; we will look at that verse shortly, but generally, to make this argument in this way begs the question of whether or not the punishment described is eternal or not.</div> <div>       annihilationism reply:A 'side point' in this section concerns the resurrection body of the unbeliever. Basically, Scripture nowhere even hints that the wicked receive an *indestructible* body - as Fudge rightly points out. Yet Holding seems to suggest that God *will* in fact confer immortality on the unsaved! Such an idea is, of course, as unscriptural as they come! No, no, no! The "immortality" conferred on believers at the resurrection *is* the "eternal life" spoken of in Scripture! READ 1 Cor. 15 if you doubt this. Those in Adam will be like the first man - "of the earth, earthy" and "corruptible." ONLY those IN CHRIST will be raised "immortal" and "incorruptible." The Scriptures speak of "immortality" ONLY in connection with (1) God; -and- (2) believers.</div> <bR> <div>       In spite of the tripart negative intonation, and the plentiful overuse of emphasizing asterisks, I challenge WK to find any place where it can be proven that the resurrection of the wicked with an "indestructible" (in the fires of hell, I mean) body is "unscriptural". "Extrascriptural", yes -- it is a proposition I derive from logic, not with (but also not contrary to) Scripture. 1 Cor. 15 does not say that only those in Christ will be raised immortal in some way; I would agree that the resurrection body of the wicked will be different from that of the Christian, following the Biblical logic of a "sown" body bearing "fruit" that corresponds with the nature of the body. But WK is chasing rainbows and creating counter-arguments out of whole cloth here. There is nothing in Scripture that contradicts the idea that the bodies of the wicked will be somehow destructible -- indeed, our upcoming cite from Mark can only support this idea!</div> <div>       ...Holding states that the idea that "kill" and "destroy" are parallel "seems all too obviously a measure of desperation without any linguistic support." He writes, "all too obviously"! I dare say that it is *obvious* that the two words *are* parallel in this passage, and further "linguistic" evidence can be found all over the NT as "destroy" and "perish" are used to mean "die" or "kill."</div> <bR> <div>       Needless to say, this assertion proves nothing at all. WK is simply pulling a "Pinnock Punch" by only answering that he begs to differ and being non-specific thereafter. That really isn't enough -- but it does reflect the lengths to which annihilationism proponents must go to defend their doctrine.</div> <div>     # Matt. 12:31-2//Mark 3:29</div> <div>       And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.</div> <bR> <div>       The ways around this verse are multi-fold. Some fall back on the argument that this is a sin that could only be committed in that time and place (rather than describing, as we have argued elsewhere, the sin of disbelief), but this would still leave open that eternal punishment exists, at the very least for those few people who committed this sin in the first century. Another tack is to say as Fudge does that [Fudg.FTC, 181]:</div> <div>       To say that the sin is never forgiven is not the same as saying it's perpetrators will always endure conscious torment for committing it. It is possible in our society for a convicted murderer to be pardoned. But if he is not forgiven, the form of his punishment is beside the point. He is no more pardoned if he is executed for his crime than if he spends 100 years in prison.</div> <bR> <div>       It seems to me that this explanation begs the question. If a special point is made that a sin is "never" forgiven, then it seems to me to imply that the person will always be around to experience the non-forgiveness. One could argue as Fudge has, of course, but to do so makes the whole point of Jesus' teaching superfluous. Why make a special point to say that a sin in never forgiven in given time periods, unless one will be around to fully experience those time periods?</div> <bR> <div>       Hayes [Cro.4VH, 105], trying to soften the passage in favor of a purgatorical stance, says, "One could ask what meaning this text could have if it were not possible that some sins could be forgiven in the next world." I think Hayes is missing the point of the hyperbole here, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that this verse allows for forgiveness of some sins. That would still leave one very much unforgivable sin, and that is still DISBELIEF. There is simply no getting around eternal punishment in this way.</div> <div>       annihilationism reply: Holding writes: "It seems to me that this explanation begs the question. If a special point is made that a sin is "never" forgiven, then it seems to me to imply that the person will always be around to experience the non-forgiveness. One could argue as Fudge has, of course, but to do so makes the whole point of Jesus' teaching superfluous."</div> <div>       *HOW?* Holding is continually going about in this article SIMPLY STATING THINGS. That is all he does here - "it seems to me" - no elaboration or hard evidence, just "it seems to me." I mean, why in the world would Fudge's argument (which is perfectly reasonable) "make the whole point of Jesus' teaching superfluous"? I suggest that it is because Holding has commited a serious logical fallacy BY ALREADY ASSUMING WHAT JESUS "WHOLE POINT" IS.</div> <bR> <div>       I am, as I have noted elsewhere, not accustomed to breaking down simple arguments like this, but for the sake of WK I will try. Jesus' teaching becomes "superfluous" because if a person "ceases to exist as" a person, then they will not be around for the entirety of the "age to come". Hence, why stress that they will never be forgiven? Why not stop by saying that they will not (rather than "never") be forgiven, unless the point has to do with a timeframe or eternity? The former would fit perfectly with the annihilationism position, but the latter only makes sense in the context, as I have said, of someone being around to never be forgiven.</div> <div>     # Matt. 25:46</div> <div>       "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."</div> <bR> <div>       Up until now, our verses have been a bit vague, or softened by a parallel; this is where the banana really hits the fan. Pinnock [Cro.4VH] objects to the use of this verse, saying that it gives no indication that the eternal destiny involves conscious suffering; therefore, he says, we have the "freedom" to interpret this verse as not indicating such a thing. I think it is quite plain that Pinnock here is simply trying to insert a concept into the text that is in no way implied, nor indicated by the social background data. (Significantly, his only answer to the counter that the "eternal life" being conscious must indicate a parallel to the "eternal (punishment)" being conscious is, "I beg to differ." [!] Obviously: "Begging" the question is really the only way to get around what is quite evident in the text!)</div> <bR> <div>       Shaw [Shaw.LAD, 72] is more vague when he argues that the length of the aionios must be determined by context; hence, he argues, allowing that fellowship with God means a "duration of aeon of God Himself" (that is, forever), so it is that "the character of the existence out of or apart from fellowship with God" determines a non-eternal punishment. May I frankly say that this argument by Shaw makes absolutely no sense at all, which is perhaps why he doesn't bother to explain it! He has assumed an equation of "God everlasting = life everlasting", but has offered no initial corollary for the counter-equation, only the secondary corollary: What is it that equals, "not punishment everlasting"?</div> <bR> <div>       A much better argument comes from Williamson [Will.EDEP, 85] who, following a somewhat preterist eschatology, suggests that Matt. 25:46 was already fulfilled in the events of 70 AD, and that the "goats" are the Jews while the "sheep" are the Gentiles! I'll borrow a phrase from Pinnock here: Such an argument may have worked well in 1883 when Williamson wrote, but with the reconstitution of the Jewish nation, it somewhat loses its force. Even so, and even allowing for a preterist interpretation, it seems unlikely that, at least, Matt. 25 and onward can be fit into 70 AD, but rather, with the age following 70 AD, which ends with the final judgment. (See my essay here.)</div> <bR> <div>       Finally, we here come to a second argument used to deflect the force of aionios as meaning "forever". Fudge [Fudg.FTC, 41ff] argues that the word may be read in a qualitative sense as well as a quantitative sense -- i.e., refer to both duration and character of what the word modifies. This much we find agreeable, and Fudge provides some good examples of places where aionios seems to have only a qualitative meaning (Heb. 6:2. 9:12). Thus, for example, verses speak of "eternal judgment"; but the "judgment" itself is a one-time event, whereas the results of it are what is eternal; "eternal redemption" took place in one event, but its results continue forever, and so on. This, so we are told, should serve as an interpretative key to Matthew's "eternal punishment."</div> <bR> <div>       The problem I see with this verse has to do with the fact that some of these words, including "punishment," do not indicate in and of themselves something with a single and solitary point of action with only results (rather than actions) that persist. Our only real clue for this verse is the parallel phrase for eternal life -- and we have seen that attempts to dis-establish the parallel do not work. At best it can be argued that the word for "punishment" here (kolasis) has a sense of "pruning" or "stopping short one's development" and that this may or may not indicate conscious pain [Fudg.FTC, 197]. But then again, the only other use of the word in 1 John 4:18 carries the strong implication of retribution.</div> <div>       annihilationism reply: Such a phrase construction using "aionios" (= "eternal") occurs only SIX TIMES in all the NT, out of 70 uses of "aionios" itself. These six occurences are Matt. 25:46; Mark 3:29; 2 Thes. 1:9; Heb. 5:9; 6:2; 9:12. Since the verse in Matthew is our point of contention, let's look at the other five occurences.</div> <div>       In Mark 3:29, the phrase "eternal sin" is used. Surely "eternal sin" does NOT mean that the one who is guilty continues sinNING forever! No, it is meant to tell us that the RESULTS of the sin in question remain forever, not the act itself -- if you doubt this, see the parallel in Matt. 12:32.</div> <div>       In 2 Thes. 1:9, we see "eternal destruction" spoken of by Paul. My point here would be the same as on Matt. 25:46. There IS an act of "destroyING" obviously, but we are not told that it is "aionios" -- rather, we are told that its RESULTS ("destrucTION") are.</div> <div>       In Heb. 5:9, the author uses "eternal salvation." Does this require us to understand that Jesus is "eternally savING" believers? Certainly not! Hebrews, more so than any other NT book, makes it clear that salvation was accomplished "once for all." What this phrase DOES tell us is that the finished work of salvation is "aionios" in its RESULT.</div> <div>       In Heb. 6:2, we read "eternal judgment." Again, we know from many passages that the Final Judgment is NOT an ongoing process at all, but an event. God in Christ will not forever be "judgING" anyone. The phrase in this verse simply means that the RESULTS of God's judgment remain "eternally."</div> <div>       Finally, in Heb. 9:12 is the phrase "eternal redemption." Is Christ eternally redeemING His people? Again, verse 25 of this very chapter makes it clear that He is NOT. As with the above verses, the RESULTS of Christ's redeeming are "aionios" -- this is further shown in this very verse by use of the word "obtainED," which is PAST TENSE.</div> <div>       Now, in the above cases it is clear that the act/process placed alongside "eternal" occurs in a FIXED PERIOD OF TIME and is NOT an ongoing action. What is true in these cases is that the RESULT of the original action IS ongoing (= "aionios" = "eternal"). To summarize: Because they commited the sin in question (an accomplished action), the result (no forgiveness) is described in the words "eternal sin." In 2 Thes 1:8, Jesus will engage in an act of punishING, but it ends (note the PAST TENSE "punishED" in v. 9) -- the resulting "destrucTION" is "eternal." Jesus' work of "saving" and/or "redeeming" us is an accomplished event -- done "once for all." But the RESULTS - that is, the "salvaTION" (Heb. 5:9) and/or the "redempTION" (Heb. 9:12) - are "eternal." The word "judging" would describe what God will do at the last day, but what is said to be "eternal" in Heb. 9:12 is His FINISHED act of "judgMENT."</div> <div>       Of course, the sixth verse left out above is Matt. 25:46. YET THIS VERSE IS NO DIFFERENT. Like the other five, this verse pairs "aionios" with a NOUN signifying a completed act/process. I must disagree with you on your grammer -- "punishMENT" is NOT a "perfectly natural way to express 'punishment that will be ENDURED forever.'" There is no hint whatsoever in the word "punishMENT" itself which signifies any type of ENDURANCE. In fact, just the opposite -- the word signifies a COMPLETED action.</div> <div>       Fudge writes that the argument "that 'eternal' must refer to the RESULT of the 'life' and of 'punishment' alike (i.e., your 'parallel idea - W.K.) overlooks the difference between an ordinary noun ('life') and a noun FORMED FROM A VERB INVOLVING PROCESS ('punishment')" (Fudge, TFTC, p. 121, fn. 85). The grammer which recognizes this distinction is also endorsed by the late John W. Wenham and Philip E. Hughes.</div> <bR> <div>       I have printed this extensive argument by WK to show, again, to what irrelevant lengths the annihilationism position must go to be defended. Once again, all that is done here is question-begging -- it is assumed without any justification that "punishment" is in exactly the same category as "sin" and "salvation". (I do not agree with all the examples above, incidentally, but we need not concern ourselves with that.) My question is: In which Greek grammar does it specify that any time aionios is paired with a noun, it signifies a process that has a completion? It is not found anywhere; it is a rule created by the annihilationism position.</div> <bR> <div>       At the risk of being anachronistic by dealing with English rather than Greek, let me use a comparable word to "punishment" to make a point. Annihilationism would have us believe that "punishment" refers here to a completed process that is eternal in its results. But let us say that, rather than eternal punishment, we were to be sentenced to eternal entertainment. It is a word paired with aionios, we will say, and it is a noun "formed from a verb involving process". Following annihilationism "logic" someone sentenced to "eternal entertainment" would begin eternity by, say, watching a few back episodes of the Three Stooges, then have it turned off from there on. "I thought this was eternal entertainment!" you would cry. "Sure it is!" Gabriel answers. "You can remember what those Stooges episodes were like and laugh about them for the rest of eternity!" Sounds like false or misleading advertising to me -- and that is what the above annihilationism argument regarding the word "punishment" is. It is a twisting of the normal meaning of a word to suit a given position. Of course, if annixers could show somewhere that the Greek word behind "punishment" refers somewhere to an "experience" that included under the rubric of the punishment an effect not actually experienced by the one punished, but merely a result of the punishment, then they might begin to have a case -- but so far, all I have seen from WK and his annihilationism cohorts is question-begging.</div> <div>     # Mark 9:43-8 (cf. Is. 66:24)</div> <div>       If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where "'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'</div> <bR> <div>       In using this verse, Jesus alluded to the OT passage noted above. This verse in Isaiah was interpreted to refer to the torments of eternal punishment both in rabbinical sources and in the Jewish apocryphal works like Judith.</div> <bR> <div>       Against the use of this verse, Pinnock objects that Judith (and presumably any other works) "should not determine the meaning of Isaiah or Mark." [Cro.4VH, 155] It shouldn't? Since when have the tenets of critical analysis been abandoned simply for the sake of eliminating a troublesome teaching? Nowhere else is it said that rabbinic and apocryphal sources "should not determine the meaning" of something in the NT. Why is that the case here? If this is abandoned then Wisdom of Solomon and Philo are out the door for understanding the Trinity.</div> <bR> <div>       A stronger argument notes that the bodies in question are said to be "carcasses" and therefore could not possibly be suffering. This is a valid point that should be considered seriously, for the word used here is clearly one used only of corpses (cf. 2 Kings 19:35//Is. 37:36). On the other hand, it is just as obvious that this verse does not support annihiliationism: In fact, if we note vv. 22-23, the indication is that just as the righteous continue to come for worship forever, so it is that they will continue to go forth and see these who are outside of the city. We are therefore faced with the paradox [Bern.FH, 171] of dead bodies that perpetually burn, with no indication of consciousness, but we are certainly not given any sense of annihilation. We are left only with 1) later interpretive methods which did use this verse to indicate eternal punishment, 2) the fact that Jesus applies the name "Gehenna" (the perpetually-burning garbage dump) to this place, and 3) this question: If eternal consciousness is not in view here, then why is there an option presented of entering hell with a whole body? If the person is not conscious, what is the point? I conclude that the data is marginally in favor of the interpretation of eternal punishment in Mark.</div> <div>       annihilationism reply: Here again, the source of the figure is the Old Testament. These words are obviously taken from Isaiah 66:24. In Isa. 66, the wicked are "consumed" (v. 17) in contrast to the righteous, who will live eternally (v. 22) in a new earth (v. 22) where ALL will worship God (v. 23 - compare Eph. 1:10, etc.). Finally, verse 24 uses the same figures used in Mark -- but note that the "undying worm," far from signifying ongoing existence, instead refers to "CARCASES" (also used by Isaiah in 34:3). Once again, the source of these figures used in the Gospels is the OT, and once again we see that ACCORDING TO THEIR ORIGINAL INSPIRED USAGE BY THE PROPHETS they signify NOT "perpetual torment" but rather DESTRUCTION -- real death, plain and simple.</div> <bR> <div>       I need only make the point here that if WK wishes to stress that Mark had to use Isaiah in exactly the same way as Isaiah did, then all typological prophecy is out the window. It was my acknowledgement above that Isaiah cannot be used by itself to support eternal, conscious torment. However, it is also clear that some later Jewish interpreters used this verse typologically in favor of eternal torment. The evidence of this verse being coupled with admonitions about the "whole body" (a point WK failed to address) leans slightly in favor of the traditional position.</div> <div>     # 2 Thess. 1:8-9</div> <div>       He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power.</div> <bR> <div>       Unlike many of our verses, this passage uses the word olethros rather than one of the apo- words above. However, it still has the meaning of destruction, punishment, ruin and death. (cf. 1 Tim. 6:9-10) I have thus far seen no arguments against this verse that we have not already covered elsewhere in some form, but we can add that since Paul here describes the punishment as being "shut out from the presence of the Lord", there is a strong inmplication that the persons in question will exist and continue to exist [Pet.TRA, 555]. (Note that this refers to the loss of fellowship with God and has nothing to do with God's omnipresence as such.) It is therefore perhaps the strongest verse against annihilationism, and the least able to be re-interpreted.</div> <div>       annihilationism reply: Holding's theory of "different kinds" of God's presence is a make-shift argument nowhere supported in the text. The fact that the wicked are also excluded from God's "power" does not help his case one bit, as God's "power" would be REQUIRED to sustain their existence if "perpetual torment" were true. The fact that they are EXCLUDED from the very power REQUIRED to sustain their existence proves that their final end is DESTRUCTION, just as the text states. Also, the word for "power" or "might" is 'ischus' and it = "ability, might, strength, power." How can the wicked exist forever when they are clearly EXCLUDED from God's 'ischus'? Far from being "perhaps the strongest verse against annihilationism," it is one of the strongest *requiring* it!</div> <bR> <div>       If there is any speaking here of "two kinds" of God's presence -- I prefer to say, two "degrees" of it -- then it is done here by Paul first and me by derivation. At the same time, WK does nothing to show how the first part of the verse squares with annihilationism. The active voice of the verb in this passage suggests a continual existence for those who are "shut out"; the preposition here (apo) literal implies separation by distance, not annihilation at all. WK's objection concerning the second part would work just fine if he could show that the Bible teaches that God's "power" (ischus) is indeed in a constant sustaining relationship with humanity, but as we are given no cites to prove this, little can be said, and I find no proof of this in any of the 11 places where the word is used. But I don't see why the sustaining power, even if in this sort relationship, has to be in a continual relationship as opposed to one, let us say, that allows for a "single shot" of power at a given point that lasts in effect through eternity -- so that one might say that those in torment, though therefater "shut out/away" from God and the majesty of His power, nevertheless continue to live.</div> <div>     # Jude 7</div> <div>       In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.</div> <bR> <div>       Some also try to cite this verse to favor annihilationism, for it is argued that Sodom and Gomorrah were totally destroyed, and they no longer suffer. It is also added that since these cities are cited as an "example" [Fudg.FTC, 286 - who notes that the word is used in secular sources to mean samples of corn or produce] that therefore, reality must follow example: Eternal fire here refers to the results, not to the course of events. This is possible, but one should recall that in earthly terms, there really would be no suitable "example" of an eternal fire that could be called upon. The closest possible analogy to an "eternal fire" for the Jew would be the legendary, perpetually-burning Gehenna garbage dump, and even that of course would eventually go out! So the fact that an earthly example is used here does not mean that we can discount a teaching of eternal punishment.</div> <bR> <div>       (I need not say anything about WK's analysis here, since I didn't find any direct support for eternal conscious punishment in Jude 7 anyway.)</div> <div>     # Rev. 14:9-11</div> <div>       A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."</div> <bR> <div>       There is little that is presented that is new against these verses. Fudge [Fudg.FTC, 298] cites parallel terms in Isaiah used in relation to the destruction of Edom; thus he says Revelation must describe a complete destruction and annihilation. But this begs the question of whether Isaiah is using "eternal" language hyperbolically to describe Edom's fate, and since he is describing events on earth as opposed to those in heaven, one may argue that there is a strong likelihood that this is what Isaiah is doing.</div> <bR> <div>       Pinnock [Cro.4VH, 157], after devoting a few words to cheap psychologization of his opponents, makes the astonishing claim that these is no indication of how long the suffering described in this verse is to last. Williamson [Will.EDEP, 180ff] tries a different tack, arguing that this refers to earthly events, for "torment is suffered while the worship of the beast is in progress," and he figures that no one will worship anything while in torment. This is quite clearly a case of linguistic gymnastics that doesn't pass scrutiny, for verses 9-10 clearly indicate that this is something that is foretold of those presently worshipping the beast. Williamson also argues that because the torment takes place "day and night," this event must also be taking place in time, for an angel previously declared that time would be no more -- or so Williamson says; the verse he relies on is Rev. 10:6, which in the KJV reads:</div> <div>       And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer...</div> <bR> <div>       But as a more modern version shows, this is the actual meaning:</div> <div>       And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, "There will be no more delay!"</div> <bR> <div>       The reading used by Williamson, as Barr shows [Barr.BWT, 78n], does not fit the context of the passage. Modern versions like the NIV correctly capture the sense of this verse referring to the time of completion of the divine purpose -- not to the end of the institution of time. (Otherwise, Williamson says nothing about the "forever and ever" part of the original passage.)</div> <bR> <div>       As a counter, it should also be noted that Revelation uses the phrase "day and night" to refer to things that occur continuously. (4:8, 7:15, 12:10) Even Fudge [Fudg.FTC, 300] must argue at a stretch by admitting that while it "may be true" that the suffering will last day and night (always), this may not mean that there are not times when it will not occur -- just that it does not occur on a fixed schedule (i.e., just during the day, but not at night)!</div> <bR> <div>       Finally, it should be noted that while annihilationists admit that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet are clearly tormented forever [Pinn.DFI, 257], and thus suffer eternal punishment, they will argue that those thrown into the lake of fire with them do not necessarily suffer the same eternal fate! Once again, this is obvious question-begging. There is no support in the text for the idea that others in the lake of fire will suffer any differently.</div> <div>     # Rev. 20:12-15, 21:8</div> <div>       And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire...But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.</div> <bR> <div>       Some argue that this verse points to annihilation. Williamson [Will.EDEP, 146] offers parallels in the NT that indicate that we already suffer the "first" death in this life in the sense of being in sin, so that the "second" death must be the last, and annihilation; otherwise, he concludes, this verse would be describing a third death. The problem with this interpretation is that Revelation descibes this second death as taking place after the passing away of the old earth and the bringing on of the new Jerusalem -- and, also, after the stopping of death and pain. This means that what Williamson sees as the "second" death has already been eliminated by the time he supposes it is to happen. What he is actually doing here is mixing language used in different ways by different authors and assuming that they always mean the same thing when they use similar word-concepts!</div> <bR> <div>       The same author [ibid., 154] also tries to argue that, if eternal punishment is true, then because this verse says that the fearful and unbelieving "shall" have a place in the lake of fire, then anyone who in the past did not believe (meaning everyone!) shall be in the lake of fire! Like the interpretation of the verse above, this reading of the text (which he also applies to Mark 16:15-6) is so incredible that I hardly think it needs detailed refutation. If it is not more clear that these verses refer to those who are "fearful and unbeliving" at the time, then how else is this concept to be expressed? (It does not say, "All who were ever fearful and believing, but those who are.)</div> <bR> <div>       Other than this, there are the usual arguments: That the verse does not specify conscious suffering, etc...things which, being speculated out of thin air, can have no reasonable answer.</div> <div>       annihilationism reply: For times sake, I cut & paste some past comments made elsewhere on Rev. 20:10 & Satan, much of which would also apply to 14:9-11. I would preface this by saying that Holding's "linear chronological" view of Revelation is a misreading of the book (another discussion).</div> <bR> <div>       This is WK's only comment on Rev. 14, and it serves to prove nothing -- I agree that Revelation is not always viewable as linear-chronological, but WK has not even bothered to show why, in the case of the verses given, there is no linear chronology.</div> <div>       Rev. 20:10 is clearly the best verse in favor of the traditional view, at least on first glance. I clung tenaciously to this very passage for a long time after I watched my other "proof texts" for the traditional understanding fall by the wayside. I will not dogmatically state that Satan as an angelic spirit-being will not suffer "perpetual torment." Taken alone, this one verse certainly SEEMS to say that. If so, this hardly affects the many passages pointing to the ultimate DESTRUCTION of lost HUMANITY. In other words, if my case for the annihilation of the wicked is solid up to Rev. 20:10, then that case cannot be toppled on the basis of this one verse -- a verse dealing with abstract apocalyptic symbols and a spirit-being who is NOT human. That being said, I hardly think that Rev. 20:10 MUST be interpreted this way. IF the case for the destruction of the wicked is Biblical (and I believe it is - see below), then there is ANOTHER WAY to interpret Rev. 20:10 --- FROM SCRIPTURE ITSELF. I offer the below points for consideration.</div> <div>       FIRST, I believe that there is some evidence that Satan's end will be the same as that of the wicked, i.e. absolute destruction. Both Isa. 27:1 (in light of Rev. 12:9 & 20:2) and Jer. 10:11 (w/ the info. provided in 1 Cor. 8:5 & 10:20) both suggest a real DEATH for Satan and his demons. Heb. 2:14 implies destruction for Satan. In Mark 1:24, Jesus encounters some demonic spirits who EXPECTED "utter destruction" at an appointed time. The major passage in this connection would be Eze. 28:18-19, if this passage has ref. to Satan as many believe. We read: "... therefore will (God) bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall DEVOUR thee, and (God) will BRING THEE TO ASHES upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thus shalt thou be a terror, AND NEVER SHALT THOU BE ANYMORE." This passage certainly calls to mind Rev. 14:10-11 and 20:10.</div> <bR> <div>       The above is yet another mass of confusion and irrelevant citations. Once again, since I do not see myself as obliged to both explain and refute my opponent's position, little can be said in some cases. However:</div> <div>           * Is. 27:1 -- Satan is not mentioned in this passage at all; the enemy here is "Leviathan" -- a word used symbolically to represent all of God's enemies. This would likely include Satan, but to conclude from this verse that Satan will be "absolutely destroyed" means we would also have to conclude that God lives in a house and that the earth talks (26:21), that God runs His own personal vineyard (27:3) and likes fighting weeds (27:4). In other words, one can hardly read this text with a full literal sense, nor give it preference over other verses that do contain a more literal sense.</div> <div>           * The verses in Revelation, Jeremiah, and 1 Corinthians have no applicability at all, much less does WK explain why they support his position.</div> <div>           * Mark 1:24 uses the word apollumi -- a word we have seen offers WK no support.</div> <div>     * Ezekiel 28:18-19 may indeed refer to Satan -- or, it may use language used to describe Satan to also describe the prince of Tyre, who is regarded as extremely wicked. But most likely, the passage does not refer to Satan at all, and WK is simply following a popular interpretation of the Christian church uncritically. This particular interpretation which sees Satan as the focus first gained currency in the 3rd and 4th century; the fact that it is not derived from Jewish exegesis of the passage is enough to call it into question. But there is also more than enough evidence to see it as referring only to an earthly ruler: The reference to the ruler as a "cherub" no more means an actual cherub is in view than it means a dragon or a giant tree is actually in view in the next chapters about Pharaoh -- and this point is made even stronger by the fact that cherubs were a key symbol of Phoenician and Tyrian iconography. But regardless of what the interpretation is, let it be noted that in modern versions, these verses are rendered in the past tense -- this describes something that has already happened. If anything, then, these verses show that language of permanent death/destruction can be used figuratively!</div> <div>       SECOND, concerning the "beast" and the "false prophet," some have interpreted these as being apocalyptic SYMBOLS like the many other symbols found in the OT prophets and in Revelation. Even if they are actual beings, the word "are" in Rev. 20:10 is an INSERTED word, supplied by the translators but not by the the text itself (KJV signifies this by putting the word in italics for the reader). Further, there is no "day and night" in eternity, is there? The THIRD, and most important, point concerns the phrase "forever and ever." Given these points, Rev. 20:10 can be understood apocalyptically as well as literally. Again, even if taken literally (ignoring the OT usage) - this verse says NOTHING about the NATURE of the fate of the wicked.</div> <bR> <div>       To some extent this is also a confused mess: We are not told what the significance of the added "and" and of the "forever and ever" is. (My own KJV indicates that it is the "are", not the "and", that is inserted.) Little else can be said, since no justification is given for regarding these things as merely symbols; this is so far nothing but an act of desperation on WK's part, a way to reach for any possible interpretation that might help him. The only points to address are:</div> <div>           * Re "day and night" -- the language here simply implies that there will be no respite from the torment. It is a phrase used elsewhere in Revelation to describe something perpetual (4:8, 7:15; things that are also "in eternity", as WK puts it!).</div> <div>     * Re "the nature of the fate of the wicked" -- the passage clearly indicates that torment will be the fate of those in the lake of fire! It cannot be said any more clearly!</div> <div>       Furthermore, I believe that "second death" means just what it says! As Philip Hughes wrote: "It would be hard to imagine a concept more confusing than that of death which means existing endlessly without the power of dying. This, however, is the corner into which Augustine (in company with and many others) argued himself." (THE TRUE IMAGE, p. 403).</div> <bR> <div>       If Hughes is confused, I suggest he consult Genesis 3, where he will find a "death" which means existing without literally dying. Just extend it into eternity, and your confusion is solved. (My answer here, as in many places, is short, but how much needs to be said to refute such convoluted and tortuous explanations as these, composed as they are mostly of window dressing?)</div> <bR> <div>       WK closes with a listing of verses that he supposes to support the annihilationism position. I have addressed some of these or some form of them already; as for the rest, since WK does not even bother explaining HOW these verses support his position, I will not bother to address them. It is not my responsibility to both explain and answer my opponents' arguments. I look only at this one closing paragraph he offered:</div> <div>       The eschatological goal of God's plan is expressed in Eph. 1:10. This is IMPOSSIBLE apart from either UNIVERSALISM (clearly refuted by many scriptures) or THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WICKED. Since God has "no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (Eze. 33:11), are we to believe that they will forever be TORMENTED in His presence (remember, God is OMNISCIENT), especially in light of passages like Rev. 4:11? (see also Dan. 7:13-14; Eph. 2:7; Phil'p. 2:10; Col. 1:20; Rom. 11:36; Rev. 21:8,27). Also worthy of consideration is the fact that GLORIFICATION happens to the saved only, so God would have to sustain the wicked FOR ALL ETERNITY (per Acts 17:25,28 and Col. 1:15-17) in order for them to undergo such perpetual concious torture!</div> <bR> <div>       This argument by WK involves an illicit exegetical jump. Sure, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but the wicked do indeed die, and that hardly means that the eschatological goal cannot be fulfilled: The goal is not God's "pleasure" but righteousness. The laundry list of verses afterwards are mostly inapplicable, or else fail to take into account that from a Jewish standpoint, harmony is achieved in the universe as long as things are in their proper place. So, if the wicked are in eternal torment, and that is where they belong, things are indeed reconciled in line with verses like Col. 1:20.</div> <div>       One final point here: "death" itself is cast into the Lake of Fire per Rev. 20:14. What is the result of this? ANSWER: "death" is DESTROYED (1 Cor. 15:26), i.e., "death" is "no more," having "passed away" per Rev. 21:4. Now, why would we believe that it would be any different with anything else cast into that same "Lake of Fire"? </div> <bR> <div> A little Greek and context goes a long way! The word in 1 Cor. 15:26 -- which is in a passage that has to do with resurrection and physical bodies, not eternal issues -- means "be voided, abolished, rendered idle". In other words, physical bodies will no longer die. It is an exegetical jump to connect this "death" with the "death" of Rev. 20:14, although it is probable that physical death is an aspect of the "death" of Revelation. One way or another, this says nothing either way about eternal, conscious torment for the wicked, and if anything, works in favor of it.</div> <div> |</div> <bR> <div> It's Not Fair! : Outcries Against Eternal Punishment</div> <bR> <div> Other than those we have already noted above, there are a few extra-scriptual arguments, mostly "by outrage", that have been called to the fore against eternal punishment:</div> <bR> <div>    1. The "finite sins" argument. In our reply to D terp wiz, it was pointed out (following Anselm) that eternal punishment is justifiable on the grounds that any sin against an infinitely holy God amounts to requiring an infinite price. In reply critics argue that finite sins should not require an infinite price, but in terms of actually explaining why, all that is offered is incredulity. Pinnock [Cro.4VH, 39], for example, in between ad hominems and cheap psychological sessions, gushes forth: "Is it not plain that sins committed in time and space cannot deserve limitless divine retribution?" No, it isn't clear at all, and Pinnock offers no reason to think so. In response to the argument above re an infinite price, he only argues that while this argument "worked" in the Middle Ages, it "will not work as an argument today" (Is truth told by the calendar? Is it dependent upon our reception of it?) because:</div> <div>       We do not accept inequality in judgments on the basis of the honor of the victim, as if stealing from a doctor is worse than stealing from a beggar.</div> <bR> <div>       We see now, at least, where Robert Price derives his analogical impairments from. To compare any human, doctor, beggar, or plumber, with the infinite holiness of God is ludicrous to say the least.</div> <div>    2. The unhappy saints argument. This argument asks: How can those who make it into eternal joy be happy knowing that the unsaved are locked forever into eternal torment? It's another heartbreaker, but one suggests that we will, at that point, see things exactly as God sees them -- and realize the justness of the condemnation.</div> <div>    3. The spirit of the belief argument. Williamson [Will.EDEP, 3ff] devotes much space to arguing that Christianity's "spirit of love and kindness" operates against eternal punishment, and cites specifically the parable of the lost sheep and that of the Prodigal Son as indicating a more universalist position. But he fails to note that the lost sheep parable specifies that "lost sheep" is compared to one who repents -- and that the Prodigal Son had to return to the Father, and was welcomed upon his return.</div> <div>    4. The namecalling arguments. Finally, there are those last-ditch attempts to sway by emotion which include comments like this from Pinnock and Shaw [Cro.4VH, 88; Shaw.LAD, 74ff]: Eternal punishment means "God is a sadistic torturer", God is a loser in the battle for souls, etc. In response, I can only say that all who choose Hell, do so of their own will. God "tortures" no one; they have selected their fate; hell is "a condition brought upon the sinner by his persistent self-will" [Chan.LH, 29] -- they won't like the darkness, but they hate the light even more. C. S. Lewis rightly said that the doors of Hell would be locked from the inside! </div> <bR> <div> |</div> <bR> <div> Blow Out the Candle: Verses Used in Favor of Annihilationism</div> <bR> <div> There is a small set of verses that have been used to support annihilationism. Here we will look at those.</div> <bR> <div>     * Is. 65:17 "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.</div> <div>     * Rom. 8:19-23 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.</div> <bR> <div>       It is argued that since these verses (and others) indicate that the entire universe will be in harmony, then it is impossible that a place like Hell could exist where there would be creatures stored who are not in harmony with God, or that there is any possibility that God will "lose" the battle for souls [Bern.FH, 212; Will.EDEP, 70; Shaw.LAD, 74ff]. But Crockett points out [Cro.4VH, 63] that this is imposing our modern view of what constitutes "harmony" on a text written prior to our time. Within an ancient Jewish context, so long as the wicked were "put in their place," so to speak, then harmony is achieved; it is only when they are "out running loose" that things are considered unharmonious. Furthermore, one might just as well argue that annihilation equates with disharmony, for it "means the unmaking of free, created agents (and)...the taking away of that freedom which defines the structure of the moral relationship between God and man." [Chan.LH, 27]</div> <div>     * Matt. 13:30 "Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn."</div> <bR> <div>       Verses like this one, which refer to a destiny of fire, are often called upon in support, for it is reasoned that fire annihiliates what it consumes. But this is not true: Fire does not destroy matter, but converts it to another form [Blan.WHH, 230 -- note that this is not a question of God's capability to annihilate matter, as some suggest; Fudg.FTC, 431], and moreover, it is presupposed that the substance of what is in the fire is such that it is indeed annihilated, which begs the question of what actually happens. And in this particular case, if it is argued that the analogy should be taken to the furthest extent possible, then the righteous will be ground up and made into bread!</div> <bR> <div>       It should be pointed out again as well that in terms of earthly parallels, there is no perpetual fire on earth that contains objects that are never consumed by the fire. Our writers are after all constrained by what images they had available!</div> <div>     * Matt. 5:26 I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.</div> <bR> <div>       Amazingly, this verse is used by annihilationists (and also universalists) to suppose that at some point the person might "pay the last penny" and "get out of jail"! Such an argument fails to account for the reality of debtor's prison: In such cases, barring intervention, the person never pays the last penny, because they can't get out of prison to make money to pay the debt! If this happened a relative would have to get you out by selling their own land, which is where any analogy to eternity breaks down. (Fudge [Fudg.FTC, 165] supposes that since death releases someone from prison, then this verse can still support annihilation; but Jesus never says, "you will not get out until you die" -- and could not say it, because the problem again is the lack of an earthly parallel to an eternal prison. No other metaphor is available!)</div> <div> * Finally, Pinnock [Cro.4VH] uses a number of verses that refer to corruption, death, or perdition for the wicked (Matt. 3:10, 12; 1 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 6:8; Phil. 1:28; Rom. 1:32, 6:23; 2 Pet. 2:1, 3; 3:37; Heb. 3:6-7, 10:39) that either do not specify any sort of time frame or else refer to judgments on earth. But in not one case do these verses indicate anything like annihilation.</div> <bR> <div> |</div> <bR> <div> Conclusion</div> <bR> <div> The doctrine of eternal punishment, though seldom mentioned in Scripture, seems quite clearly Scriptural, even if it does happen to be unpopular. Admittedly one can play with the data and claim that some unsaid condition or twist on the language applies to the text; but given the social background data and the agreement of the early church on this subject, one must conclude that it is extremely unlikely that the NT can be read any differently. When it comes down to reading things into the text, I have found that both sides of this issue have done some "fudging" -- but it is the annihilationists who have the bigger plate of brownies by far.</div> <bR> <div> To close, a personal word. When critics like Pinnock and Shaw fudge the data and then accuse proponents of holding their position so that they can carry the "ultimate big stick" [Cro.4VH, 39; Pinn.DFI, 246; Shaw.LAD, 78] to threaten people with, or say that the early church only adopted the view to stem heresy and get some comfort out of persecution, or inject emotion into the issue and claim to be quite proud of having done so, they are not only engaging in cheap psychoanalysis, they are also being extremely unhelpful. In 18+ years as a Christian I have not once wielded this "stick" in anyone's face; many people in my own family reject Christianity in part because of someone else in my family who did wield the bat of eternal punishment. How then does Pinnock suppose that I have come to believe this doctrine? One must face the fact that eternal punishment is taught in the Bible, and deal with it. Whether you choose to do so with acceptance, or my means of paste and scissors, is up to you. Exegeting it out of existence is not a viable option.</div> <div> |</div> <bR> <div> Sources</div> <bR> <div>    1. Barr.BWT - Barr, James. Biblical Words for Time. SCM Press, 1962.</div> <div>    2. Bern.FH - Bernstein, Alan E. The Formation of Hell. Cornell U. Press, 1993.</div> <div>    3. Blan.WHH - Blanchard, John. Whatever Happened to Hell? Crossway, 1995.</div> <div>    4. Buis.DEP - Buis, Harry. The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment. Presbyterian and Reformed, 1957.</div> <div>    5. (Remaining source cites mysteriously lost...contact me if references are needed. And while you're at it, get me a ballpeen hammer for my A drive...) </div> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>