John Locke & Eternal Punishment

Locke made it known that many considered the doctrine of eternal torment to be of “little consistent with the justice or goodness of the great and infinite God…thereby doing violence to the whole tenour of the New Testament.”[1] Far from post-modernism and the emergent movement, Locke nevertheless considered such the doctrine of eternal torment to be inconsistent with justice and goodness of God. This should not be dismissed as sentimentalism, but rather an acute awareness of the world around him and possibly reflects the heart of a man who had the potential for being a powerful preacher. One wonders to what extent his influence would’ve increased or decreased had he chosen to pursue the clergy. Locke says, “this [mortality] is so clear in these cited places, and so much the current of the New Testament, that nobody can deny, but that the doctrine of the gospel is, that death came on all men by Adam’s sin; only they differ about the signification of the word death: for some will have it to be a state of guilt, wherein not only [Adam], but all his posterity was so involved, that every one descended of him deserves endless torment, in hell-fire.”[2] The debate about ‘death’ and ‘immortality’ has apparently been raging since Locke’s day, and modern annihilationists may rest in comfort that we may indeed continue to be misunderstood as Locke was.[3]

Locke continues, “I shall say nothing more here, how far, in the apprehensions of men, this consists with the justice and goodness of God, having mentioned it above: but it seems a strange way of understanding a law, which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery. Could anyone be supposed, by a law, that says, “For felony thou shalt die,” not that he should lose his life; but be kept alive in perpetual, exquisite torments? And would anyone think himself fairly dealt with, that was so used?”[4] While one may simply and silently concur with such an acute observation, there are arguments made against Locke and he takes it upon himself to clarify his remarks. 

The rejoinder deserves to be quoted in full: 

“To this, they would have it be also a state of necessary sinning, and provoking God in every action that men do: a yet harder sense of the word death than the other. God says, that “in the day that thou eatest of the forbidden fruit, thou shalt die;” i. e. thou and thy posterity shall be, ever after, incapable of doing any thing, but what shall be sinful and provoking to me and shall justly deserve my wrath and indignation. Could a worthy man be supposed to put such terms upon the obedience of his subjects? Much less can the righteous God be supposed, as a punishment of one sin, wherewith he is displeased, to put man under the necessity of sinning continually, and so multiplying the provocation. The reason of this strange interpretation, we shall perhaps find, in some mistaken places of the New Testament. I must confess, by death here, I can understand nothing but a ceasing to be, the losing of all actions of life and sense. Such a death came on Adam, and all his posterity, by his first disobedience in paradise; under which death they should have lain for ever, had it not been for the redemption by Jesus Christ. If by death, threatened to Adam, were meant the corruption of human nature in his posterity, ’tis strange, that the New Testament should not any-where take notice of it, and tell us, that corruption seized on all, because of Adam’s transgression, as well as it tells us so of death. But, as I remember, every one’s sin is charged upon himself only.”[5]  

Locke even takes up the challenge of the issue of the unevangelized, offering several thoughts. One being the promise of God to Israel, to persuade people to embrace what was revealed to them.[6] The more interesting is that Locke didn’t believe that all men had to have perfect doctrine, suggesting, “I desire those who tell us, that God will not (nay, some go so far as to say, cannot) accept any, who do not believe every article of their particular creeds and systems, to consider, why God, out of his infinite mercy, cannot as well justify men now, for believing Jesus of Nazareth to be the promised Messiah, the King and Deliverer.”[7] While he was not a systematic theologian[8], he was acutely aware that each idea was built upon each other. To remove one isn’t to devolve the other argument; each argument is independent, but yet related to the other argument. Therefore, Locke’s views were reciprocal with each other, never exclusive. Immortality and resurrection are married, and this appears in the shadow of the eschatological cross.

NQ

---

[1] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 8.

[2] Ibid, 9

[3] Modern Annihilationists may also take comfort in the knowledge that with an advocate as articulate as Locke, he was surely not alone in expressing his views.

[4] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 9.

[5] Ibid, 9.

[6] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 81. Locke appears to embrace a view of ‘limited’ knowledge for those who haven’t heard. To believe in a little, or what has been revealed to them, is enough for God. God doesn’t expect more than what he has given.

[7] Ibid,  81.

[8] Similarly, some scholars and theologians have claimed that Paul wasn’t a systematic theologian either. C.f. E.P. Sanders, Paul. This does not diminish the brilliance of Paul and John Locke; it merely showcases that perhaps they were closer aligned than many have assumed.

Eschatology Decompressing: Some of the Best Books on Hell

There is something of an inner-family debate going amongst the evangelical family. At the moment, the traditionalist father is somewhat uneasily passing the potatoes to the conditionalist mothers, who is eying both the father and the kids, who are patiently waiting for the aforementioned potatoes because, well, it will get to the end eventually.

You see, the debate has become far more interesting and respectable as of late, what with the father being will to pass the now cooling potatoes to the mother and all. The mother, bless her strong heart, is happy to pass the dish either way, but she is more likely to double check with the father because...

Okay this analogy has become significantly less funny to me so I shall move on. Thanks for humoring me. Anyway.

There is an abundance of materials out now concerning the evangelical debate on the nature and duration of final punishment. While it is easy to simply google the various phrases (and if you did and ended up here, welcome!), I figured it would be helpful to simply list the various texts that have some significant pull in the world between the Church and the Academy.

I shall start with universalism, mostly because Universalism hasn't gotten a fair shake amongst many evangelicals. For good reason or not, one ought to engage with the best texts on the topic and I have listed them below:

Thomas Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God has just been released and has been quite influential in some parts of the evangelical world. It even has some traditionalist scholars praising it such as Jerry Walls.

For a broader view of the family dynamic, see Universal Salvation: The Current Debate. Reasonably respectful, though there is some sniping as to be expected, since the potatoes by this time have gotten quite cold.

Robin Parry, who is a lovely fellow, has written a book on the topic that I find quite attractive--though not enough to be an Evangelical Universalist (again). I found it far more persuasive than Talbott's and it merits some consideration.

For the traditionalist side of the family table, there are many books and a few of them are helpful. That may sound like a bit of a snipe, and it is. Unlike God, I'm allowed to not play favorites.

The singular best text that was written to explicitly defend the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment is Hell Under Fire. That said, there are issues within and the best chapter is Douglas Moo's contribution on Paul. The chapters that object to annihilationism and universalism likely won't change the mind of either party, and we're inclined to keep those potatoes at our end of the table thank you very much.

However, if one is a philosophy nerd, Jerry Walls' Hell: The Logic of Damnation is helpful. It is not the kind of book you break out at the dinner table (none of these are), but if one is partial to C.S. Lewis, one might find it attractive.

Judith Gundry-Volf's contribution (entitled "Universalism" pgs956-961) in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters directly tackles the topic of Pauline Universalism. She concludes that, “universalism may perhaps be best defended as an implication of some statements in Paul.” I found her case remarkably compelling. 

For those of us who prefer large books that are heavy enough to beat a goat to death with, Edward Fudge's The Fire that Consumes (edited by Robin Parry) is the standard weapon of choice. He tackles both Testaments and does so in a persuasive manner. Richard Bauckham notes that the book "is likely to remain a standard work to which everyone engaged with this issue will constantly return."

Hans Schwarz, Eschatology, is a helpful survey of the relevant biblical, scientific and theological terrain of the current landscape. Some may bristle at his rejections of both AN and UR, and many Dispensationalists will take offense as well, but its a great text. I reviewed and praised it here.

Samuele Bacchiocchi is a 7th Day Adventist (and pretty shockingly conservative, even for many conservatives) and he defends a synthesis of physicalism and annihilationism. I find some of his work a bit too general but his larger arguments are helpful and its a free pdf. Enjoy.

Oscar Cullmann is always awesome. I recommend him highly too, even for such a slim book its quite potent. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection from the Dead?

For a great site dedicated to the topic of final punishment, enjoy the Rethinking Hell site.

I write this post mostly due to the fact that I just finished a research paper for Dr. Oliver Crisp, and I'm so full of hell that I need to write this to decompress. Now, where are those potatoes?

NQ

Vignettes About The Rethinking Hell 2014 Conference

It’s difficult to process the amount of sheer memory that has stored itself in my mind during this past week. Much of this is recounted now, and I have little doubt that my memory is a bit shaky, like the IRS.

As Greg, Aaron, William and I packed ourselves into a rental van for a 24 hour trip to Texas from southern California, the only things I were concerned about included the following:

Don’t drink a lot because you don’t want to be the guy who has to pull over and water the bushes.

Please please please allow the AC in our car to be awesome.

And, ultimately, don’t let us break down on one of the many hundred mile long isolated stretches of desert.

But beyond that, when the four of us made it to our destination in Houston, Texas, we settled into a rather comfy routine of running around like chickens with our heads cut off. In between registration, setting up books, driving people around and trying to find the time to eat, we more or less figured out everything 

Thursday. Well, mostly. We went through our individual schedules and prayed that Chris Date would make it to Houston on time.

But, by God’s grace, Greg and I collapsed in our respective beds just before early Friday morning. Maybe around 1ish.

Friday was the easy day. Well, should’ve been. I ate a peanut butter sandwich and drank a few things and slept until noon. I spoiled myself until noon when I got up and was shuttled to the Lanier Theological Library again to, well, finish up everything. The entire Rethinking Hell group was there and it was nice to meet and greet amidst the chaos.

Then Chris Date showed up and it became a party.

Well. We shook hands and danced in a circle and plotted to sneak out the first edition of the KJV from the library. Only one of those is true, really.

Then registration happened. In between getting a ten-minute downpour that would’ve embarrassed a Seattle native, a few others and I were responsible for registering 140 people. That was intense. I worked in a movie theater for three years and I was the only idiot they brought in one Christmas morning to work the entire concession stand. If you are one of the few people to don’t go see a movie Christmas morning, it’s like being the only literate one in a room full of screaming children.

But registration went fine and I got to shake hands with a few people before the chaos diminished and William and I just sat in the dining hall while John Stackhouse gave his much-lauded plenary. Despite spending 24 hours in the same car as William, we still found time to talk about awesome things, sometimes related to theology.

Then some stuff happened and we all went about finishing up everything. Greg Stump was the Best from the West, working everything out rather nicely. So major props to him. I don’t remember much from Friday night because, well, everyone was dog-tired and everything became a game of shuffle along until you manage to crash back into your bed at the hotel.

Then 7am rolled around faster than it had any right to do so, and we were all back at the Lanier library at 8 for the entire day of breakouts, conversation, lunches, more breakouts, Glenn People’s plenary and the much-anticipated panel of 5 ‘hellions.’

As a side note, apparently I unconsciously adopted both a Texas accent and an Australian accent. I said Pee-tah instead of, well, Peter. I say this to let Peter Grice know that it wasn’t intentional; its just he has a really cool accent.

Since I’ve been asked several times about how my paper went, and I can’t say much beyond this: I enjoyed presenting it, and I got some decent pushback from Tom Talbott. I don’t remember the singular details, and being somewhat tentative in speaking off the cuff, but overall it was helpful. I enjoyed talking to a few folks afterword, which allowed me to clarify.

Amazingly, I got no pushback about my view of human anthropology. I was highly prepared to respond to almost any question, but none of the responses included that. So maybe my view isn’t that crazy.

Then Daniel, William, Joey, Glenn, Wes, Ralph Bowles and I went to legit Tex Mex. Quite good. I got myself a fruity drink and a disapproving raised eyebrow from our awesome waiter when I ordered that. It was good, my Sopa de Tortilla.

So the rest of the day was spent listening to Ronnie Demler’s great presentation, and meandering around the inner light that is the Lanier library. I saw books on ancient Greek, fragments of manuscripts and early editions of Bibles. Very cool. Mark Lanier is a cool cat.

Saturday climaxed in several ways. First of firsts, Glenn Peoples delivered his plenary, which was great. Insightful, provocative and entertaining. It ended with some brief Q&A and then we were off to dinner.

I don’t remember dinner, so someone from RH will refresh my mind on that. Oh wait. Wes suggested Whataburger. So I had that. Decent. Above average.

Myself and Dr. John Stackhouse

Then it was the final evening, the showdown. J. Lanier Burns (DTS), Shawn Bawulski (LLC), and Thomas Talbott (Willamette) all showed up to dialogue with Edward Fudge and John Stackhouse. It was over 90 minutes of back and forth, and it was really cool. There were some rough patches, as is to be expected when there are as many passionate people in one spot, but overall the dialogue was cordial and friendly, with things getting downright giddy in some instances (I think Dr. Burns and Edward were chuckling to themselves several times).

And Saturday ended with the tear down of all the materials and the stumble back to the hotel lobby for some … drinks. The entire RH team crowded around a small table, sipping and laughing and about ready to collapse.

Then it came to an end with a sermon by Dr. Stackhouse at Edward’s church, and our 24-hour drive back to southern California.

It was wonderful to finally meet my online friends and colleagues, and to meet some new ones. Speaking to Tom Talbott and getting his signature was pretty cool. Sharing drinks with the rest of the guys was great. The standout moments for me with often when it was just myself and another sitting down and chatting.

Whether it was with Peter Grice in the gym at Edward’s church.

Whether it was with Daniel Sinclair in the dining hall.

Whether it was with everyone else. It was great and I am so glad to have been there and done that.

Blessings.

--Nick

Rethinking Hell: A Review

Edward Fudge’s book “The Fire That Consumes” is a very strong case for conditional immortality (or annihilationism). Fudge's work has the bonus of also being the most comprehensive text on the subject, one that actually includes the relevant Old Testament backgrounds. This is missing from much of the debate on eternal punishment and it is to be commended.

This book has moved into the top tier in regards to the literature on the nature and duration of final punishment. The list of contributors Chris Date, Greg Stump and Josh Anderson have assembled is impressive, ranging from the ancient of days (early 20th century) to present day. They include:

E. Earle Ellis. Clark Pinnock. John Stott. John Wenham. Anthony Thiselton. There are plenty more, but this should wet your appetite. 

I will get the negatives out of the way first.

NEGATIVES:

There is some overlap, as is to be expected when you are dealing with biblical texts. Some may find this difficult to wade through, but perhaps a better way to see it as through and exhaustive. Almost every text is examined and every argument at least considered. This repetition illustrates the consistency of annihilationist exegesis.

This doesn’t reflect the book, but I would’ve enjoyed more interaction with universalism, especially within its current more evangelical form. But, safe to say, the book does just fine on it's own.

POSITIVES:

• The positives, I more or less mentioned in the beginning.
• It is exhaustive (E. Earle Ellis include early church fathers and the OT).
• It takes into account the Old Testament imagery and literature in a way that unites the testaments instead of dividing them (Ellis for example, including Fudge's JETS article).
• It presents a robust evangelical engagement with Scripture and esteems the authority of God’s word (most of the authors and contributors would be described under the umbrella of a generous orthodoxy).
• It is charitable (but certainly passionate c.f. Pinnock) in its disagreements with traditionalism. Too often we are prone to shrieks and scratching. Not so with this work.
• It includes scholars from around the spectrum: Pinnock (open theist), Swinburne (Orthodox), Philip E. Hughes (Reformed), Christopher Marshall (Pacifist), and British (ACUTE).
• And I’m mentioned in the acknowledgements. So that’s pretty cool too.

Stand out essays for me are E. Earle Ellis, "New Testament Teaching on Hell"; Ralph G. Bowles, "Does Revelation 14:11 Teach Eternal Torment?" (hint, no it doesn't); Kim G. Papaioannou, "The Development of Gehenna between the Old and New Testaments." All of the essays are helpful, but the level of exegetical and historical detail in these essays is above and beyond. 

For an ongoing review, see Scot McKnight's review of our book.

Rethink Hell. Start with Fudge and this. If you prefer the kindle version, we have that too.

4.5 out of 5.

--Nick

Andrew Jukes, Universalism & The Critique of Annihilationism

This is taken from Andrew Jukes' essay, "The Restitution of All Things." I post this here not because I agree with it (I find a lot of his answers quite unsatisfying) but because it presents a case from a universalist perspective against annihilationism. Its a very rare thing.

The truth is, death for man is simply an end to, and separation from, some given form of life which he has lived in. Death to God is separation from His world of light, by the destruction, through the lie of the serpent, of the divine life of light and love in us. Death to sin, the exact converse of this, is the separation from the world of darkness, by the destruction, through the truth, of the dark life of unbelief and self-love. The death wrought by the law is the end of, and separation from, our fallen carnal life of self-sufficiency; while what is commonly called death, namely the death of the body, is simply our separation from the outward world, in which we live, as partakers of its outward life, while we are in the body. Once let us see that there are three worlds, each having its own life,—a light world, a dark world, and this outward seen world,—and then what is said in Scripture of the new birth, or of the varied deaths we pass through, becomes at once self-evident. For the only way into any world is by a birth into it, even as the only way out of any world is by a death to it. We have by sin died to God's light-world, to fall into and live in a spirit-world of darkness. We must by the truth, that is by Christ, die to this dark spirit-world, to return to live in God's light-world. The outward birth and death of the body, and its life, have only to do with the outward seen world.

For this reason it is that the word "destruction," as used in Scripture, never means annihilation. Take for instance the words of the 90th Psalm, "Thou turnest man to destruction: again Thou sayest, Come again, ye children of men." Can "destruction" here be annihilation? Is it not rather that dissolution which must take place if fallen creatures are ever to be brought back perfectly to God's kingdom. So, again, Job says, (Job 19:10,) "He hath destroyed me on every side, and I am gone"; and again, (Job 9:22,) "This one thing I said, He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked." But does he mean to say that he is brought to non-existence, or that the "perfect" will be so destroyed that they will exist no longer? So, again, St. Peter says, (2 Pet. 3:6,) "The world that then was perished." So, again, of the present heavens and earth it is said, (Heb. 1:11-12,) "They shall perish, . . . and be changed." So, again, both of Israel and Jerusalem it is said, (Deut. 30:18; Jer. 12:17; 15:6;) that they shall be "destroyed" and "perish." But does any one suppose that therefore they will be annihilated? So, again, as to the expression, "them that perish," sometimes translated "the lost"; (see 2 Cor. 4:3; 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15;) do we not know that these "lost," though they "perish," still exist, and exist both as "lost" ones and as "saved" ones, as text on text will testify abundantly. So as to the righteous, in the well-known passage of Isaiah; (Isa. 57:1;) "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart";—is this "perishing" non-existence? So, again, where we read, in Psalm 83:16-18, "Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek thy name, O Lord: let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame and perish; that men" (literally "they," for the word "men" is not in the Original,) "may know that Thou, whose name is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth;"—men are to be "confounded for ever and perish, that they may know Jehovah." So as to the question, "Wilt Thou shew wonders to the dead? Shall the dead arise and praise Thee? Shall thy loving-kindness be declared in the grave, or thy faithfulness in destruction?"—is the true answer, Yes, or No? Is not the "losing" or "destruction" of our fallen life the only way to a better one? Does not our Lord Himself say more than once, (Matt. 10:39; 16:25; John 12:25;) that the way to "save our life," or "soul," is to "lose it," or "have it destroyed," in its fallen form, that it may be re-created?

These last words should of themselves settle this question, for in one place, (Matt. 10:39,) they occur in immediate connexion (see Matt. 10:28,) with those other well-known words, as to "fearing him who can destroy both body and soul in hell," which are constantly quoted by some to prove, as they think, that "destruction" must be non-existence. And yet, in the very closest connexion with these words, our Lord repeats this self-same word, "destroy," (in our Authorized Version translated "lose"—it is the word ἀπόλλυμι, on which some build so much,) to express that death and dissolution of the soul, which, so far from bringing it to non-existence, is the appointed way to save it. Christ saves it, as we have seen, by death; for being fallen into sin, what is needed is "that the body of sin should be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." (Rom. 6:6.) The elect, that is the first-fruits, are the living proof of this. A "new man" is created in them, and the "old man" dies and is destroyed, while yet he in whom all this is done remains through all the same person. It may be, and is, a riddle, like "dying, and behold we live: having nothing, and yet possessing all things"; yet it is only the riddle of the Cross, that "by death God destroys him that has the power of death." Therefore, though destruction, like death, may be, and is, a ceasing from some particular form of life which has been lived in by man, yet it is never non-existence absolutely; rather it is the means to bring the fallen creature into a new life, a chaos being ever the necessary condition for a new creation.

--Nick

Hell and the Nature of Being Built to Last: A Rebuttal to J.I. Packer

"Second, belief in the outright annihilation of nonbelievers after final judgment (as opposed to an eternal punishment) seems to me biblically illegitimate. I suspect some Christians whose loved ones die without accepting Christ are tempted to embrace the annihilationist view. Scripture, however, seems to show that one aspect of human dignity is that we are built to last. Whether for joy or for sorrow, our souls are eternal."

J.I. Packer, known as a capable theologian, has gravely misunderstood and mischaracterized the annihilationist position. There are multiple issues within this section, but I do not have the time (or patience) to sift through each one. Since this is a popular retread on twitter and the Internet, allow me to offer a brief rebuttal. I had thought about responding to the entire article, but time limits me.

One, Packer gives us no reason to see annihilationism as biblically illegitimate. By tying it with the "annihilationists are emotional" argument, he ceases to give any respectable response as a straw man is easier to beat up than the annihilationist argument is to genuinely refute. He doesn't offer the consideration that those who hold to the view do so because of exegesis and a high view of Scripture.

Two, I have no moral qualms with eternal conscious torment (though I do -- now --  because I think it is false). Frankly, this is insulting. Several of my friends and relatives have passed on, and this had no prompt in my abandoning of the traditional view of hell. God's justice would be satisfied in eternal conscious torment, if such a view were true. In fact, the idea that I would never see them again is tragic and one that I wish I wouldn't have to experience.

Three, a central aspect of human dignity is that we are created, not that we are built to last. Packer seems to place a high view of humanity in his comment, whereas the annihilationist (Reformed or otherwise) would simply shrug and say that YWHW is the only Creator and thus has the final say over the created. If I were a Calvinist, and had such a view of YHWH, very little would change since I am utterly dependent on YHWH as my very source and existence.

As someone who leans towards Weslyanism, I find this coordinate as well.

Four, Packer offers a detached assertion that our souls are eternal. This is nowhere stated in Scripture and it simply assumed on his part. He doesn't address that Paul spoke of those who seek "immortality" (Romans 2), that Jesus offers "eternal life" (Synoptics especially Matthew and John) and that only YHWH is immortal (Romans 1:23, 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:16; see also Wisdom Literature and Sriach 17:30 which states that human beings are not immortal).

I think much more could be said, but I'm out of time and need to rush off. Thanks for reading.

For the source, enjoy it here.

For a comprehensive examination of the biblical data (one that I find compelling and moderately persuasive, see Edward Fudge "The Fire that Consumes" and Andrew Perriman "The Coming of the Son of Man."

--Nick

To What End Hell? A Brief Discourse

I think the most interesting part of the entire "hell" debate is how often everything devolves into proof texts and theological quandries. Specifically, "people choose to go to hell" or "all means all" or "God is too nice" and so on and so forth. My thoughts on this topic have been hinted at elsewhere but for the moment I want to conduct a little exercise.

I'm going to list a series of passages that I believe at face value support each view. This is not to say advocates of each view appeal to each verse, but these are the common verses I would appeal to if I was to defend each view.

Universalism --

Philippians 2:5-11. Romans 5:12-21; 11:32-26. Colossians 1:15-20. Ephesians 1:10-11; 20-22. John 3:16. 1 Corinthians 15:22-28. 2 Corinthians 5:17-19.

Annihilationism/ Conditional Immortality --

John 3:16-17. Matthew 10:28; 25:41, 46. Ecclesiastes 9:5. Jude 7. Romans 6:23. Malachi 4:1-3. Revelation 20:10-15. 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10. Isaiah 66:24. Matthew 18:8.

Eternal Conscious Torment --

Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10-15. Matthew 25:46. C.S. Lewis (yes, this is a joke).

You will notice that save for the Universalist position, Conditionalists and Traditionalists share common texts, often engaged in systemic discussions over tenses and the like. The Universalist has two issues to address: how to engage the "negative" texts in a faithful way, and how to build a positive case.

The Conditionalist and Traditionalist have an easier job, in that they appeal to varying interpretations of many of the same texts, thus not needing to answer the set of "positive universalist" texts.

In short, the three views are overlapping but there is a strong disconnect between Universalism and the other two views. Certainly Conditionalists and Universalists share a common view of the final victory of God, but the similarities are slim. Same with Traditionalists and Conditionalists regarding "final and irrevocable" punishment.

One of the few flaws in Edward Fudge's masterful The Fire That Consumes was in regarding his treatment of Universalism. Though I know Edward to be a generous soul and love his ministry, he never tries to explain the Universalist texts that seem to contradict his own interpretation. In my eyes, this is a missed chance to incorporate various prima facie contradictory verses.

This is in some ways indicative of the entire modern hell debate: Universalists react strongly against Traditionalism while more or less ignoring Conditionalism, and so on and so forth. To be fair, you do have a little bit in Thomas Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God addressing annihilationism but it is brief and doesn't do the contradictory perspective justice. Each side seems to react more towards a specific view at the exclusion of another view.

Conditionalists and traditionalists, in order to answer for themselves, need to bring Universalism into the dialogue in order to not only understand their point of view, but how to speak up. I know Edward Fudge and Robin Parry are friends, so this may have happened in private but I am looking forward to a massive anthology that incorporates all views in multiples voices that allows for dissention and dialogue.

Let's get Thomas Talbott, Robin Parry, David Congdon, Edward Fudge, Glenn Peoples, I. Howard Marshall, Robert Peterson and Christopher Morgan all together and duke this out. No more speaking past each other. Each side must explain the other texts.

Of course, I may be speaking to the choir but this is an issue that has bugged me since the beginning.

Thoughts?

--Nick

"So, are you a Universalist?"

A good friend of mine asked me point blank if I was a Universalist. At first, I floundered around, trying to figure out a politically advantageous answer. I mentioned a few bits about philosophy, the background of the entire debate and just stopped when it hit me:

"I don't know."

Let me both explain and qualify.

I think Scripture contains many things that are both grandly clear and sublimely ambiguous. I think the debate over libertarian free will, compatibility and determinism is one maybe that we aren't privy to. At a glance, the Old Testament seems to advance a form of openness and the New Testament counters that with much of what Paul writes, particularly in Romans(1). That does not mean we can't choose a valid option (or that they don't all have something going for them), but it does mean that I'm not convinced that Scripture all that entirely consistent in giving us one way to look at that one example. Maybe so for this doctrine of hell as well.

I don't know if everyone who isn't elect and/or chooses to reject God will be burned forever or will be eventually irreversibly destroyed. I just don't know.

Maybe the Bible doesn't want us to know, or even more dramatically, maybe God doesn't want us to know. G.K. Beale in his commentary on the Apocalypse of John seems aware of the possibility of universalism at the end of the letter being possible and he does his best to counter this. Universalist theologian Robin Parry does the same, concurring that there is indeed tension between open city gates and a lake of fire, opting for his legitimate hermeneutical bias in favor of the restoration of all things(3).

I remember a biblical scholar speaking on Origen and Universalism and to paraphrase from memory, the scholar concluded that both "Paul and Origen seemed both particularly exclusive and strongly universalistic." In other words, Origen and Paul mentioned the beauty of universal salvation in one context (specific churches e.g. Colossae) and the terrifying possibility of complete destruction in his first letter to the Thessalonians. This isn't to say I agree with the scholar, but I definitely see the tension exhibited.

Maybe God doesn't want us to know.

Knowing many of us, to know everyone will be saved could to lead to laziness. On the other hand, knowing many of us in the same way, we are very quick to use metaphorical fire to frighten "belief" into an endangered soul that ultimately leads to the possibility of apostasy or hostility towards the church. The wonderful conditionalists at ReThinking Hell have been irenic in their many conversations with me on this most difficult doctrine.

I just don't know.

I would resonate most strongly with Thomas Johnson who says,

"The case for universalism is stronger than is usually realized. God's saving love for the world is a prominent biblical theme from Genesis through Revelation. God is the Lord and Savior of all and does not want any to perish but all to be saved. God provided salvation, forgiveness, justification, and reconciliation for all, indeed for all creation. Eventually, everyone will confess Jesus Christ as Lord. Yet, we do not know how God's judgment works out with respect to individuals." (2).

I suppose it boils down to faith. Faith in the power of the Spirit to bring forth salvation and that, somehow, all would eventually reach their telos. The justification for hope that "all would be saved" is indeed something many theologians of the past and present have embraced (Balthazar, Moltmann, Volf, Walls and others).

The God who saves assures us that that He is loving and just, no one escapes from his justice and that He will be "ta panta en pasin" in 1 Cor. 15:28. I tend to take solace in this, and Scot McKnight is generous to include those that are"eschatologically agnostic" into the fold of simply not being able to at this current time fix a tension seen in Sacred Scripture. There is indeed hope beyond this life. I take great comfort in that.

--Nick

Sources:

1). Incidentally, open theism is a budding research project for me. Consider a possible thought change on this one. Maybe?

2). T.F. Johnson, "Universal Salvation? The Current Debate" pg97. In spite of his comment, Johnson is not a universalist, instead suggesting that annihilationism is the best option based on the data.

3). Gregory MacDonald aka Robin Parry, "The Evangelical Universalist" pg133-34. This remains the best case for universalism that I have read, and I'm impressed with some of his exegesis on the Apocalypse of John.

Three Views on Hell: A Universalist Response to Annihilationism

Jason Pratt:

Chris doesn't mention the goats' narrative and thematic contexts in Matt 25's judgment. But I did as evidence for universalism!

The goats are explicitly part of the Shepherd's flock. Jesus in John 10 insists that none of His flock shall be lost, contrasting this (10:10) to the brigand who comes to {apolesê}. Does the Shepherd hopelessly apollum His flock?! Flattering Jesus as a brigand gets one of Jesus' servants thrown outside with the goats (by application) in another Matt 25 parable!

Jer 7:32-33 (echoed at Jer 17:27) refers to God's wrath poured on Jerusalem that (per 7:17) won't be quenched. The wrath didn't continue, but Jerusalem wasn't annihilated: God often promises, including in Jeremiah, to restore her!

Isaiah 30:27-33: Israel has been shattered by YHWH such that no human could remake them, and aren't penitent yet when the Assyrians overrun them (vv.15-17). God still promises they shall eventually repent and be restored with great blessings. YHWH smites the invading Assyrians to death in Gehenna valley; but calling it "Topheth" indicates YHWH rejects what happens there.

Sodom suffering "eternal fire" doesn't count as evidence for annihilation, since YHWH prophecies Sodom shall be at least resurrected (Matt 10:15, 11:24 par) and apparently restored to friendship with Israel (Ezekiel 16).

Chris affirms general resurrection, so even the bodies at Isaiah 66 (much moreso their souls) aren't annihilated. Those who feel shame are the people, who had themselves been rebelling against God again, going out to give the corpses a proper burial: sacrificial mercy to fallen enemies.

Jesus explains the unquenchable fire's spiritual purpose in Mark 9:49-50: the fire salts into peace (both ancient treatments for infection), so maggots consume a person's corruption (nasty though the treatment may seem to the person.) Jesus ends Matt 18 by warning apostles to have mercy on enemies!

Matt 5:30 warns believers, amid contexts about loving our enemies; not hating lest we go to Gehenna; and being sent to prison for refusing reconciliation. Torment isn't annihilation; and release involves reconciliation.

Christ scours the chaff off each grain in Matt 3:12 / Luke 3:17; the imagery fits tough-love salvation from sin. In JohnBapt's Malachi 4:1-3 reference, "every evildoer" burned like chaff, whose roots and branches will be set ablaze, includes the rebel Israelite leaders (to whom JohnBapt was specifically speaking) from Mal 3:1-7: but there it's a refining fire that surely will save them from sin!

Jesus says the wheat and the weeds are the "sons of the kingdom" and sinners respectively. But Jesus also warns "sons of the kingdom" who don't expect those outside the kingdom to be saved, with a related threat (Matt 8:12)!

As for Paul's "vengeance" ("justice" in Greek, which shall come to be value/honored by those who experience it) of flaming fire at 2 Thess 1:7-8, why doesn't it refer even more directly to Isaiah 2 and its extended prophecy where (unlike Isaiah 66) there are specific parallel phrases?--and which predicts the punished people will eventually serve God loyally in peace with their former enemies!

The prodigal son's father draws an explicit parallel between being lost (a cognate of {apollumi}) and being dead.

Jesus doesn't say at Matt 10:28 (or Luke's parallel) that God will destroy body and soul in Gehenna, only that God can do so. Jesus instantly follows this (in Luke as well) by talking about God's concern even for small birds. This thematically parallels another saying about God valuing people much more than birds. Jesus shortly afterward (6:27-28, Matt 6:28-30) draws a similar analogy about God's provision for flowers which, explicitly unlike even people of little faith, are effectively annihilated with fiery furnace imagery! God values people more than to annihilate them.

Annihilation happens in the Day of YHWH, the Great Sabbath when God rests from finishing His work. But Jesus challenges regarding the sabbath (Luke 6:6-11 and parallels): "Is it allowed on the sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save a soul or to destroy?" GosMark uses "kill" instead of "destroy": "kill" is the meaning of {apollumi} in mind. Matthew directly connects this (via Isaiah 42) to Jesus' mission to save those whom God's people aren't expecting.

"Restless" people (Chris' description) aren't annihilated. The term for refining gold fits more with Malachi 3 than Isaiah 34. The Temple imagery parallels sacrifices being cleaned and offered to God as a pleasing incense. The verses after Isaiah 34:10 reveal animals living safely in the area, and God healing the region along with its people. When St. Paul cites Malachi 1:2 at Romans 9:13, he indicates the result of "Esau" (Edom) being "hated": "'The older will serve the younger'". This, not annihilation, fits Jacob's prophecy: Esau shall be blessed in Jacob.

Tyre wasn't permanently destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, nor even by Alexander later: Jesus evangelized many people from Tyre, and prophesied Tyre (and Sodom) would find judgment day more tolerable than Galilee! Annihilation isn't more tolerable than annihilation.

Chris thinks God overcomes death by sentencing sinners to permanent death!

If stopping an abstract kingdom's dominion parallels annihilation, God must annihilate every sinner along with our rebel dominion.

Daniel 2:44: God did not simply destroy the Roman kingdom but transformed and incorporated it into Christ's new kingdom.

Dan 7:27 refers to a king (not a kingdom) whose kingdom and dominion shall not be annihilated (in the sense required).

The false prophet and the devil are thrown into the lake of fire along with the beast to be tormented into the eons of the eons: but annihilation cannot involve continuing "torment", and the beast cannot be tormented if the beast is only an abstract kingdom.

Rev 19:20: Christ slays the final rebel kings in language directly echoing the salvific 23rd Psalm! The "kings of the earth" (same phrase) show up in chapter 21 following Christ into the New Jerusalem, bringing the nations' glories with them; echoing Ezekiel's similar prophecy that even the kings of Israel's enemies will reconcile with her in the day of YHWH.

Editor:

The original post.
The longer critical response.

Three Views on Hell: A Universalist response to Eternal Torment

Jason Pratt:

Num 16:30: if the "literal" fire killing the same rebels in verse 35 isn't literally hell (and I agree it isn't), why is the pit in verse 30?

Matt 3:12: the verse 11 fire Christ baptizes with, is regarded as salvific. The threat and the result parallel Christ's explanation for the unquenchable fire at Mark 9:49-50.

Matt 5:22: important contexts include a get-out-of-prison clause (v.26) and the rationales for each punishment (hating, and not reconciling with one's brother).

Matt 5:29-30 parallels a saying from Matt 18/Mark 9. In GosMark Christ explains everyone will be salted by the fire into peace. GosMatt includes a repeat of the 100th sheep, and a warning (to the apostles!) against insisting on hopeless punishment (yet with a get-out clause: be merciful!)

Matt 8:12 warns the kingdom's sons (Matt 13:38) who don't want others saved. Christ admonishes someone for asking if only few are saved (Luke 13:29); and punishes someone trying to flatter the king as a thuggish tyrant (Matt 25:30). Christ also warns His chief followers who abuse others (Matt 24:51).

(Ditto Matt 25, per my own essay.)

I take such warnings seriously!--they affect how I interpret material such as the wheat and the weeds!

Jude 7 doesn't end the scriptural story, or there would be no judgment for those spirits later, much less a resurrection for at least the human sinners.

Rev 14:9-11 verbally involves refining gold (scripturally tough but saving love), so long as people continue (per the Greek grammar) worshiping the beast and accepting the mark. John afterward (15:1-4) reports a time when everyone gratefully glorifies God (which rebels cannot acceptably do). Loyal souls have (per the Greek) come out from the beast and from his image and from his number, so were in those things before; to stand on the fiery sea of glass before the throne (which in Temple typology was for cleaning sacrifices to be a pleasing burnt aroma to God). Being victorious over sin elsewhere in RevJohn involves sinners ceasing to sin.

Rev 20:15 doesn't indicate the lake of fire and brimstone is hopeless. (Fire and brimstone were ancient remedies to save a person from infection, as were maggots, not-incidentally.) Subsequent chapters show people after the lake of fire judgment being seriously and successfully evangelized by the sanctified Church (cooperating with God). Another flashforward (21:1-4) reveals there will be total success, even though impenitents must suffer.

Luke 16:19-31 doesn't say the rich man will never repent; it only shows him not penitent for his sins. The chasm isn't "broad" enough to prevent communication, and certainly cannot be "broad" enough to prevent God's omnipresence: especially if the fire, per other scriptural evidence, is the Holy Spirit Himself! RevJohn's final chapters show the Church evangelizing and bringing to salvation such people after the fiery judgment; and 1 Peter 3 & 4 arguably indicate Christ Himself doing the same in hades. "Then who can be saved!?" "With God all things are possible!"

What does TKJ suggest in place of annihilation's "one size fits all" punishment?--any hopeless punishment is still equally hopeless for everyone being so punished! Neither Chris nor I am suggesting impenitent sinners ever escape: even annihilation may follow ages of punishment. How does ECT avoid TKJ's appeal to the punishment being proportionate to the crime? Anyway, universalists don't regard sin's severity as being greater than the omnicompetent God's grace: where sin exceeds grace hyperexceeds, for not as the sin is the grace.

I certainly agree that 2 Thess 1:9's referential context indicates St. Paul isn't talking about annihilation; but I find the grammar and referential contexts do indicate Paul is talking about eventual salvation of those so punished.

"If all will be saved, why not just do what I want because even though the punishment will hurt, it will stop eventually and I’ll be in bliss?" No one primarily concerned with salvation from their sins, instead of only from inconvenient results, would ask such a question. Until such people seek salvation from sin, God will lead and teach them, by punishment as necessary, even into the eons of the eons.

Are universalists mistaken that retribution means bringing rebels back under loyal tribute to proper authority? I think non-universalists have the greatest challenge to show Godly retribution means making sure rebels never return to loyal tribute to God!

If (as I agree) Romans 1 represents a free, informed decision about rejecting God, I think TKJ will have a difficult time showing support that even God's presence wouldn't be enough for such people (namely all of us) to change their minds; since then God would be impotent to save any sinner at all. I routinely find in the scriptures that God can save sinners despite sinners already having a perverse view of God. Calvinists and universalists typically agree that God is competent enough to save sinners no matter how perverse they are. (Sometimes Arminians, too, at least rhetorically in evangelism.)

As to Satan and rebel angels, my soteriology isn't based on what rebels insist on (although as a rebel and chief of sinners myself, like St. Peter, St. Paul and the publican, I am well aware of how people sin against what light they can see); but rather on what God does and is capable of.

Moreover, any argument hinging on God insistently respecting creaturely free will, has basically refuted itself if God allows creatures to permanently lose, or never to have, freedom to repent (much less freedom to ever do righteousness).

Last, I'm amazed that TKJ thinks God only reconciles with "His people" (never saying to those who are not His people "You are My people" for example); and even more amazed that TKJ thinks God only reconciles with repentant people (instead of loving us first to send Christ to reconcile us through the blood of the cross while we are still God's enemies.)

I have usually found Calvinists and Arminians both agree with me (and St. Paul in Romans for that matter) on this!

Editor:

For the longer responses, enjoy them here.
For Kurt's original post.

Three Views on Hell: An Annihilationist Response to Universalism

Joseph Dear:

This post is my condensed response to the case for Universalism by Jason Pratt. For a more comprehensive response, please visit ReThinking Hell.

Surprised by Hell

Pratt’s overarching theme is that passages traditionally used to refute universalism actually help prove the doctrine. The exegesis of three key passages/groups of passages make up most of Pratt's essay. I will thus spend most of my response explaining why they do help to refute universalism after all.

Paying Justice (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10)

Pratt’s first two points are dependent on Isaiah 2-5 teaching universalism. But even a cursory reading of the chapters shows that this is not the case. A lot of emphasis is put on hope, but that hope is explicitly for only a remnant who survive (Isaiah 4:2-3). Chapter 5 follows suit. There is no universal reconciliation there to begin with.

Furthermore, translating the verse as ‘pay the justice” doesn’t change the meaning. Nothing inherent in the Greek or context makes it mean they value their destruction. To pay the justice to one who seeks “vengeance” is suffer a penalty (such as annihilation), which they do because Christ comes in “vengeance.”

Point #3 is more substantial, although there is ambiguity regarding the use of olethros (“destruction”) in 1 Corinthians 5:5 (only one of several uses of olethros). Paul says that the man’s “flesh” will be destroyed. If “flesh” is a metaphor for sinfulness, which is what Paul often means by “flesh,” then Paul really is talking about destroying it completely (as Paul’s ultimate aim is to destroy sinfulness, not just reduce it). If literal flesh is in view, then it really depends on what was to happen when the man was excommunicated. Ultimately, we have some ambiguity, but while that helps universalism some, it doesn’t do much for it.

The Unforgivable Sin

Even if we grant that Jesus was saying that that generation was worse than it was before in Matthew 12:43-45, that doesn’t change what Jesus said in Verse 32! It simply isn't mutually exclusive from the interpretation that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven.

The whole thrust of this section is this: As evil as they were, “such a state was not beyond Jesus’ salvation--or there wouldn’t have been a controversy at all.” No explanation of how the existence of controversy proves universalism is given at all, and the rest is not exegesis, but philosophy.

Pratt also argues that Jesus says He will forgive all sins in Mark 3:28, which reads “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter;” However, the sentence continues: “but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” I almost shouldn’t have to even address this. To take the first half of the sentence as being so literal that the second half, which qualifies the first, cannot mean anything like what it says, is just not how you treat language.

Once again, it comes down to this:: “Is our sin superior to God’s grace?--or does God’s grace hyper-exceed our sins?” We already know what the answer must be, so why should we even bother studying that the Bible has to say?

The Sheep and the Goats (Matt 25:31-46)

The reference to a shepherd and his flock is not as telling it seems. Matt 25:31-46 is not a story about a shepherd that is symbolic of what will happen at the judgment. It’s a straightforward description of future events (albeit probably with some figurative language). Jesus was just saying that he’ll separate the two sides, and appealed to a common profession where things are distinguished. It was just an analogy made in passing. There’s nothing that suggests it was meant to be a key part of what Jesus was saying.

Secondly, even if the mention of sheep and goats was some key metaphor, it wouldn’t be very fitting to Pratt’s universalist interpretation. Indeed, the goats are specifically baby goats, but that does not mean that they will grow spiritually and end up like the sheep. No matter how much a goat grows, it will never be a sheep. Sorry if that sounds pedantic, but if this is a key metaphor, than it matters what the parts are. They aren’t just separated by development and age. They are two different kinds of animals. A goat will never become a sheep.

The Positive Case

- Isaiah 25, Isaiah 45, or Hosea 13-14: I invite the reader to examine these passages and see that they don’t say what Pratt says.

- 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. So long as annihilationists include the devil among those destroyed, God is all-in-all at the end of time just as universalists believe. All that opposes Him is destroyed, so there is nothing in existence for which He is not “all-in-all.” And although there is reference to “all men” in 1 Corinthians 15:22, “all” doesn’t always mean literally every person who has ever lived. Firstly, Paul only mentions believers among the resurrected in the very next verse. Secondly, those who Paul is speaking of rise in “glory” and “power” in Verse 43. This clearly does not include the unsaved, who rise to shame and damnation (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29).

- Philippians 2:14: If God destroys all that opposed Him, all that is left will be those that bow before Him.

- “Eonion/aionios.” The readers of our essays will have to investigate the issue for themselves, which they should do, as it quite fundamental to the question of universalism.

Conclusion

The passages that appeared to go against universalism still do so. Pointing out elements of the context without addressing the central claim doesn’t change that. Appealing to God’s grace doesn’t change that, at least not if we are to let the Bible guide our theology. I don’t know why God saves only some when He certainly has the power to save everyone, and having so many loved ones who do not believe, this isn’t just a lofty, theoretical problem for me. Nevertheless, the Bible teaches what the Bible teaches.

Three Views on Hell: An Annihilationist Response to Eternal Torment

Chris Date:

What follows is a point-by-point response to my esteemed debate opponent, T. Kurt Jaros, whose essay affirmed the traditional view of hell as a place of eternal, conscious separation from God. Each text or issue responded to appears in bold.

A more comprehensive response can be found here at Rethinking Hell.

INTRODUCTION

Jaros cites John 10:26-30 as a metaphorical use of fire, but fire and burning are not mentioned. The text indicates that only those who follow Jesus will be granted eternal life, and that those who do not will perish. Traditionalists, contrary to this text, teach that unbelievers will live forever and never die.

A REAL HELL

Numbers 16:30 is irrelevant. The ground opened up and the men fell alive into Sheol—the grave, the pit, or perhaps the conscious intermediate state of the dead. All mankind will one day come out of Sheol (or Hades), and Revelation 20:13-15 says it will be thrown empty into hell.

In Matthew 3:12 “unquenchable fire” means what it always does in the Bible: a fire which cannot be extinguished, and hence will irresistibly and completely consume (Eze. 20:47; Jer. 17:27). Jesus uses the word katakaiō, translated “burn up” by the NASB, which means to burn down completely. He says that unbelievers will be completely destroyed by a fire which cannot be prematurely put out.
Matthew 13:41-42 and 50 also use katakaiō, and Jesus says that as the chaff is burned down completely in a furnace of fire—hearkening to Malachi 4:1-3 in which the wicked are reduced to ashes—so, too, will the wicked.

Matthew 5:22 and 29-30 use the word Gehenna to refer to hell, which referred to the valley of the sons of Hinnom, otherwise known as Topheth, which was “the valley of slaughter” where scavenging creatures cannot be prevented from fully consuming dead corpses (Jer. 7:32). Isaiah 30:33 likens it to a funeral pyre. This in stark contrast with Jaros’ position which is that the bodies of the risen wicked will never die.

Matthew 18:8-9 refers to the place of “eternal fire” as Gehenna, and Jude 7 uses “eternal fire” to refer to the fire which came down from heaven and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying them. Hence the parallel in 2 Peter 2:6 says Sodom and Gomorrah were reduced to ashes. Though perhaps a type or prefigure of hell, in Jaros’ metaphorical view, the anti-type that is hell, being neither brief nor involving fire, is in no way like the type. Eternal fire, therefore, refers to the fire of the eternal God which destroys, not to fire in which the wicked will consciously burn forever.

Matthew 25:41-46 says that “eternal punishment” is punishment by “eternal fire,” so we know what eternal punishment is: being destroyed, never to live again. The duration of capital punishment is measured, not in the time it takes to die, but in the time during which a criminal is no longer part of the living. Annihilation—the ultimate capital punishment—qualifies as an eternal punishment, as even Jonathan Edwards admitted.

Matthew 8:12 does not tell us how long the unredeemed will weep and gnash. Matthew 13 does, which, as we’ve seen, says the wicked will be completely destroyed. Weeping and gnashing will last only until the unsaved die in hell.

Revelation 14:9-11 is symbolic, apocalyptic imagery. It hearkens to Isaiah 34:8-10 which prophesies the destruction of Edom, whose buildings no one expects to burn forever. Though the harlot of Revelation 18 is tormented (vs. 7, 10, 15), and smoke rises forever from her torment (Rev. 19:3), the interpreting angel says in Revelation 18:21 that the city she represents will be destroyed. Smoke rising forever, then, hearkening to the smoke Abraham saw rising from the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:28), symbolizes permanent destruction.

Revelation 20:10-15 is, again, imagery which symbolizes permanent destruction. Like the beast of Daniel 7, the fate of the beast in Revelation symbolizes the destruction of the city it represents. Death and Hades, despite being abstractions incapable of torment, are thrown into the fire, representing their permanent end. John interprets the imagery for us in Revelation 20:14, telling us plainly that it symbolizes the second death of the wicked. In Revelation 21:8, God also tells us that the lake of fire symbolizes the second death.

Finally, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is virtually irrelevant. It doesn’t speak of hell at all, but of Hades, the intermediate state.

ETERNAL DESTRUCTION

2 Peter 2:6 likens the destruction of the wicked to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; 2 Peter 3:7 likens the destruction of ungodly men to the destruction of the ungodly by Noah’s flood. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and those who perished in the flood, were all killed.

In the verses leading up to 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Paul refers back to Isaiah 66:15, whose chapter ends with the lifeless, stinking, rotting corpses of the wicked. This is the “eternal destruction” Paul says awaits the unsaved: being destroyed and rendered completely lifeless, never to live again.

Capital punishment is the penalty reserved for the most heinous of crimes, and therefore annihilation accounts for the severity of sin. Degrees of punishment can be accounted for either by degrees of shame in the wake of one’s annihilation, or in varying degrees of suffering during it.

CONCLUSION

Jaros introduced his essay by pointing to a passage which strongly implies that the wicked will not receive eternal life, and will instead perish. All but two of the texts he cites proved to be far better support for the final annihilation of the wicked, and the two which remain have nothing to do with final punishment in the first place. Jaros claimed that annihilationism is inconsistent with the character of God, and doesn’t account for the severity of sin or for degrees of punishment, none of which hold up to scrutiny. And when he very briefly addresses passages indicating that the risen wicked face destruction, he dismisses them by arbitrarily selecting one of a Greek’s words meanings from its semantic range and applying it where it doesn’t fit the context.