I posted the following in a Facebook group that defends Annihilationism/Conditional Immortality. There's very minimal editing.
How would annihilationists respond to the following observations that proponents of ECT [Eternal Conscious Torment] like myself might make. I'll limit myself to Matthean passages when it comes to the Synoptics.
...and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.- Matt. 24:51 ESV
It seems to me that in this parable the servant is killed by being "cut in pieces" and THEN AFTERWARDS gathered with (other?) hypocrites. Then they all consciously weep and gnash their teeth (whatever the reason for the weeping and gnashing, and whatever its meaning). How could someone gnash/weep after he's been "killed"? This seems (at least to me) to better fit in with Eternal Conscious Torment because the killing is figurative, not literal. I'm assuming this parable is supposed to teach the same eschatological lesson as the different parable surrounding Matt. 13:42.
41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,
42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.- Matt. 13:41-42
I also assume that cutting in pieces in the first parable is equivalent to being thrown into the fiery furnace in the second parable. In both instances things are done to the wicked which would normally kill them, yet they continue to personally exist to consciously weep and gnash. If the killing in the first parable is metaphorical, then why not in the second parable with the fiery furnace?
There are other parables in which weeping and gnashing are referred to in Matthew [e.g. the surrounding verses of Matt. 8:12; 13:50; 22:13; 25:30]. In every instance there doesn't seem to be any indication that anything further happens to end their consciousness or physical and/or psychological torment. In the one surrounding 22:13, the servant is bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness (cf. 8:12; 25:30). What would be the point in binding him if the binding will be loosed by burning? It seems to make more sense that the binding is supposed to represent restriction. Just as being "cast out into outer darkness" suggests being barred from entering the kingdom, as when the gates of a city are closed at night and people are exposed to dangerous nocturnal animals. I'm not saying the passages teach the danger of animals (or of demons in hell). Only that the parables allude to the culturally understood safety of being inside the city walls during the night and how this is analogous to entrance or exclusion from the Kingdom.
The parables in chapter 8, 22 and 25 refer to darkness, while the parables in 13:42 and 13:50 refer to fire. Being in darkness and fire in the the natural (literal) world would result in contradictory experiences. Since where there's fire there's usually an absence of darkness. This suggests that both the darkness and fire are figurative. The darkness referring to things like lack of safety, peace and acceptance by God (cf. the Aaronic Blessing where God's face metaphorically shines upon someone in graciousness [Num. 6:24-26]). If so, then the fire may not be literal as well. In which case, annihilation or extinguishing might not occur either. Notice how Paul describes the judgement of hell as "AWAY from the PRESENCE of the Lord and from the GLORY of his might" (2 Thess. 1:9b). That seems to be what "eternal destruction" is in the first part of that verse (2 Thess. 1:9a). Which is in keeping with the fact I already referred to. That nothing is said to happen after their weeping and gnashing of teeth in Matthew. Contrary to annihilationist expectations, it doesn't say that they're later killed after some time. On the contrary, they're killed BEFORE being gathered with the hypocrites to weep and gnash.
Our Lord knowing that His audience was familiar with competing Jewish views of eschatological judgment (including ECT and a rejection of ECT, among many others) why didn't He consistently and solely use fiery imagery, and one which always ended in consumption by fire? Also, why would He even use the term "ETERNAL fire" since it could be (mis?)interpreted to mean both the fire *and* the CONSCIOUS torment is eternal?.
Also, I think ECT arguments for "death" and "life" being qualitative has more strength than conditionalists are willing to grant. Especially in the Johannine corpus which is especially linked to OT wisdom literature with its focus on morality. Folly isn't intellectual stupidity, but moral failure. Even in the historical books. Take for example, Deut. 30:19.
"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,..."- Deut. 30:19
Life and death in this passage isn't literal physical death, but blessing or cursing in relationship to God. It seems to me that the Second Death in Revelation needs to be seen in light of the qualitative sense of life and death in the rest of the Johannine corpus. Especially since sufferings of the damned are specifically portrayed as eternal (Rev. 14:11b; 20:10b). The ingenious way conditionalists get around these passages isn't completely persuasive. Especially since 1. it requires advanced hermeneutics to come to such (right or wrong) conclusions, and 2. would entail that the Holy Spirit inspired these passages to give a prima facie (surface) meaning that's the exact opposite of what it REALLY means. Johannine passages referring to "life" and "death" don't seem to me to be proleptic (or at least not *merely* so). The following Johannine passages suggest (to me) a qualitative sense of "life" and seem to teach that believers have it NOW.
John
3:36 He that believeth on the Son HATH eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God ABIDETH on him.
5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, HATH eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but HATH passed out of death into life.
6:63 It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life.
8:12 Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.
1 John
3:14 We know that we HAVE passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not ABIDETH in death.
3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer HATH eternal life abiding in him.
5:12 He that hath the Son HATH the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life.
5:13 These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye HAVE eternal life, [even] unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God.
These are some of the reasons why I left the Conditionalist camp about 20 years ago.
The following are some excerpted responses to my post on Facebook along with my rebuttals. I've combined responses of various people and removed their complete names for the sake of their privacy. Because some of the responses are similar, my rebuttals are sometimes repeated. Their comments will be in purple. I may not have perfectly indicated when a comment is or isn't from Glenn Andrew Peoples.
//You're the first I've met who moved from annihilationism to traditionalism. Are you aware of others?//
20 years ago I held the heresies of Armstrongism. I'm sure many former Armstrongites who are now Evangelical hold to ECT (though, not all).
//I'm not sure the text demands weeping and gnashing of teeth AFTER dismemberment/burning. It simply says that there is weeping and gnashing of teeth in the place where the dismemberment/burning takes place.//
While that's logically possible, I don't think that's the natural reading of the text. The parable abruptly ends with gnashing. Leaving us hanging. Maybe because they continue to gnash.
//Not sure why you reference burning in this context? Binding hand and foot and exposing someone to the elements and wild animals will result in their death.//
Being excluded from the city of the New Jerusalem, it's declared in Rev. 22:11:
'Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy." '- Rev. 22:11
Suggesting (or at least in keeping with) the wicked/filthy continuing to exist forever and sinning.
//Traditionalists seem to live the NIV on this verse. "Away from" is poorly supplied by the translators. Pretty much every other mainstream translation gets the translation right. Destruction is from the presence of the Lord, not something that happens away from the presence of the Lord.//
My interpretation is still consistent with that translation. Besides, if destruction is what annihilationists believe, saying it's destruction from the presence of the Lord is superfluous. Almost redundant.
//Everywhere else in scripture that 'gnashing of teeth' is used, it's an action of anger, not pain. It hasn't nothing to do with pain throughout the rest of scripture.//
I have no problem including anger in that reaction from theirs. But there's also weeping. I suppose that weeping can result from anger, but it can also result from emotional and/or physical pain. For example regret, disappointment etc. Things also consistent with ECT.
//Sodom and Gomorrah underwent eternal fire, and were destroyed. Let scripture expound upon itself. That's what Jesus did in the Gospels.//
Antitypes and realities are usually greater than their types and shadows. Job's temporal blessings after his trial are only shadows or types of the eternal blessings he'll receive at the eschaton. The OT land promises to Abraham that he'd inherit the Promised Land is fulfilled in the NT by him inheriting the entire earth. It's as if a millionaire promised you a car and a golf club (putter), and he ends up giving you a car dealership and the deed to a golf club resort. The Conditionalist interpretation of the eschatological "eternal fire" that Sodom's and Gomorrah's "eternal fire" typified are equivalent, not greater in kind or degree. It's the exact same punishment.
"If the righteous is repaid on earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner!"- Prov. 11:31
If the reward of the righteous in the next Age will be greater than his reward in this Age, why would the recompense of the wicked be the same in both Ages?
//The conditionalist might harmonize it by proposing that the passage doesn't give a chronology; it actually lists _four_ punishments, one of being cut in half; one of being gathered with the hypocrites, and two punishments of more or fewer lashings. The two lashing punishments are obviously mutually exclusive (and therefore not chronological), but the gathering and the cutting are obviously not. So the obvious solution is to take the list as non-chronological.//
That's a logically possible solution, but is it likely? Seems Ad Hoc to me. The natural reading seems (to me) to be chronological. A non-chronological reading seems to be theologically driven rather than exegetically driven. Notice how consistently the gnashing is the last thing mentioned throughout the variations of the various parables that include gnashing. The parable abruptly ends with gnashing. Leaving us hanging. Maybe because they continue to gnash eternally.
//As Stuart pointed out, additionally, the gnashing part of the passage doesn't say who's doing the gnashing. It should not be the people who were cut in half (even assuming the chronology); the obvious source is the other hypocrites.//
But the servant(s) are grouped together with them. The natural reading is that that's because they're all hypocrites and receive the same fate. In which case, the other hypocrites previously were also burned or cut in pieces and yet nevertheless gnash when they shouldn't be able to since they've been already killed.
// "Burning up" tares (I emphasize that the tares were said in the parable to be "burnt up") and gathering grain into storehouses is supposed to set the context for this dichotomy.//
Where in either of the parables in Matthew 13 are they said to be "burnt UP"? Which translation? the ESV, ASV and KJV say they will be gathered in order to burn them. The ASV uses the phrase "burn up" at Matthew 3:12 and Luke 3:17.
However, think about it. Wheat isn't normally kept in a barn indefinitely. It is eventually eaten UP. Does that mean the righteous don't actually gain *eternal* life because God will eat UP the righteous? Similarly, the burning UP of the weeds/tares doesn't necessarily imply they cease to exist. The main point of the parables are to inform us of the ultimate separation of the righteous who are accepted and the rejection and punishment of the evil as worthless.
//So what is burned here? All lawbreakers AND all causes of stumbling.//
And the emphasis of the passage(s) is that they are separated and taken OUT of the Kingdom.
//Personal and impersonal evil are gathered together, and the final result is that there is no evil, but only righteousness finally able to shine. This text is emphatically about the utter destruction of the wicked by a very hot fire.//
The "fires" (whether literal and/or figurative) of Gehenna are termed "unquenchable". Admittedly, that doesn't prove that they continue to burn eternally, since the Conditionalist interpretation is that the fire isn't quenched by some outside force. Rather they extinguish of themselves once the original fuel source is consumed. HOWEVER, "unquenchable" fire is also consistent with it actually burning indefinitely too.
//That location is where they weep and gnash; the duration and time of the weeping and gnashing is not stated.//
And so it's consistent with ECT. Especially since the text doesn't explicitly say they eventually cease to weep and gnash.
//You're simply assuming that torment always continues unless there's a reason for it to stop, whereas this is impossible if life only continues while God gives it. This cannot therefore be evidence against conditional immortality.//
Moving to the book of Revelation, being excluded from the city of the New Jerusalem, it's declared in Rev. 22:11:
'LET THE EVILDOER STILL DO EVIL, AND THE FILTHY STILL BE FILTHY, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy." '- Rev. 22:11
Suggesting (or at least in keeping with) the wicked/filthy continuing to exist forever and sinning.
//We've mentioned that being bound hand and foot is adequate reason to die; but in all the other cases as well (aside from the ones above),//
But the angels are said to be kept in eternal chains (Jude 1:6). Hell is prepared for the devil and his angels/demons. They don't have physical bodies that will eventually be consumed by physical fire. If dualism [i.e. bipartite or tripartite anthropology] is true, then humans have immaterial souls that could be indefinitely punished like demons. Why assume angelic and human punishment will be drastically dissimilar so that angels are punished eternally, but humans temporarily? Also, I think the case for human dichotomy or trichotomy is very strong.
Jude says (1:13) that false (human) shepherds cast "up their own SHAME like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever." Apparently their shame and experience of black darkness [which I interpreted as the opposite of the shining of God's countenance] will be conscious and forever.
Jude is also the book that refers to the "punishment of eternal fire" which Conditionalists point out isn't currently and perpetually burning. However, as I said to someone else....
Antitypes and realities are usually greater than their types and shadows. Job's temporal blessings after his trial are only shadows or types of the eternal blessings he'll receive at the eschaton. The OT land promises to Abraham that he'd inherit the Promised Land is fulfilled in the NT by him inheriting the entire earth. It's as if a millionaire promised you a car and a golf club (putter), and he ends up giving you a car dealership and the deed to a golf club resort. The Conditionalist interpretation of the eschatological "eternal fire" that Sodom's and Gomorrah's "eternal fire" typified are equivalent, not greater in kind or degree. It's the exact same punishment.
"If the righteous is repaid on earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner!"- Prov. 11:31
If the reward of the righteous in the next Age will be greater than his reward in this Age, why would the recompense of the wicked be the same in both Ages?
//not that "the penalty for sin is being left outside."//
"OUTSIDE [the city] are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who LOVES [not loved past tense] and PRACTICES [not practiced] falsehood." - Rev. 22:15
Rev. 22:15 is consistent with eternal conscious existence of the wicked (as is Rev. 22:11 as I pointed out above). Notice that Rev. 22:15 is in contrast to the righteous in the previous verse.
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates."- Rev. 22:14
The contrast this passage is giving is not that one group will live forever while the other group will cease to exist. Rather, that one group has access to God's blessings while the other group does not.
//Within that parable, the binding outside of the palace would kill the man due to exposure.//
That's eisegesis, not exegesis. You're adding that to the text. It might be true, but you can't derive that from the text. In which case, it might be a wrong inference.
//No, he doesn't. That word "away" is inserted by the ESV translators in complete defiance of how they translate in all other cases....//
My interpretation is still consistent with a translation of "destruction FROM the presence of the Lord" (removing "away"). Besides, if destruction is what annihilationists believe, saying it's destruction from the presence of the Lord is superfluous. Almost redundant.
// If eternal destruction meant an experience being away from Jesus, it would have to never finish. //
I don't see how that undermines my tentative position. Yeah, they'll never again have the chance of being restored to fellowship with God, Christ and the Spirit.
//If, on the other hand, it actually means being destroyed, that destruction happens with fire and mighty angels that come from His presence, and then it's permanent -- but they _pay_ it by the experience that happens during that Day of Wrath.//
And their torment before the angels and the Lamb is described as lasting forever in Rev. 14:10-11:
10 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and THEY HAVE NO REST, DAY OR NIGHT, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."
Remember that "presence" can refer to 1. location and proximity and/or 2. to relational nearness, intimacy and fellowship. Rev. 14:10-11 seems to use the word in the sense of #1, while 2 Thess. 1:9 uses the word either in both senses or only in sense #2.
//Because fire imagery wasn't appropriate for the feast parables showing that some would be excluded from the Kingdom.//
I don't know what you're referring to.
//..you think it means fire that burns the things in it forever (even if they wouldn't live forever normally, and even though the same parable says the wicked won't receive "eternal life").//
Do you believe that demons will be consumed and be burnt up like humans? Presumably you hold to a materialist or physicalist anthropology, and a spiritual angelogy. Will the fire of Gehenna for men be the same kind for demonic angels?
//Dead means dead, at least sometimes.//
True. But Jesus also said "Let the dead bury their dead". I take that to mean, let the spiritually dead bury their physical dead.
//The first one doesn't do what you claim at all -- it portrays the smoke as eternal, not the torment. In no other place in the Bible does the smoke go up for the same timespan as the thing the smoke is pointing to. (Sodom? Destroyed, and THEN its smoke went up. Same for the Great Whore Babylon.)//
But Rev. 14:11 states, "THEY HAVE NO REST DAY OR NIGHT" in connection to "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever". The "no rest" of the wicked in verse 11 is in contrast to the "rest" of those who die "in the Lord" verse 13 [just two verses away]. If the "Rest" of the righteous is eternal, then it only makes sense that the "NO Rest" of the wicked it eternal as well.
//The second one isn't about the people you claim it's about. It's about the three monsters, not "the damned."//
That's a logically possible and ingenious interpretation. But what if the false prophet and beast are personal human individuals rather than symbolic for something else? Especially since the two are grouped with the personal Devil and all three are said to "be tormented day and night forever and ever."
//You make ALL of the passages in John that mention life or death require advanced hermeneutics, while you claim we're making a mistake to require two passages within the vision of the Apocalypse require advanced hermeneutics.//
A qualitative sense of life and death is not "advanced" hermeneutics. Especially since that seems to be the meaning in at least some passages (as you yourself admit). However, the detailed eschatological interpretation of these passages in Revelation and Jude that Conditionalists (like our beloved Chris Date) employ is very complicated by contrast.
//Your argument here also ignores that in other places Jesus speaks of eternal life as a future gift of God, such as Luke 20:35 or Mark 10:30, or Paul in Rom 2... //
A qualitative interpretation is consistent with degrees or levels of quality.
//In fact I don't think it's talking about final judgement, but I'm not 100% sure about that.//
I think the natural reading is about final judgment. Compare it with the ending of the book of Revelation. Notice what's said about those who are outside the gates of the city of New Jerusalem. The imagery is similar.
14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
15 OUTSIDE are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.- Rev. 22:14-15
// It's not obvious that it's the person who has been cut up or reduced to ashes is the one weeping and gnashing.//
If (in this particular parable) the people weeping and gnashing weren't also judged by being cut up previously, who are they? The servant is gathered with them for some reason. Are they grouped together even though one person is cut up and the rest are weeping/gnashing? Isn't the cut up servant a case of synecdoche where a part represents the whole? That is, that that particular servant's experience represents and is an example of the experience of a larger group who are similarly like him in guilt.
// This would be quite obvious to the listeners who would have well known what happens to a person once they are burned to ashes and cut to pieces.//
So, which is it, they are cut to pieces or or burnt or both? To do both would be overkill (literally). Or are some cut to pieces and others burnt? The parallels of the different parables to me suggest that cutting to pieces and being burned figuratively refer to the same thing. Namely, punishment in hell (whatever it is literally, which may include, among other things, real fire).
The people who weep/gnash are sometimes said to have been previously 1. thrown into outer darkness, and/or 2. cut in pieces, and/or 3. bound hand and foot, and/or 4. cast into a furnace of fire. There's no suggestion that their weeping and gnashing ever ceases.
Of the six places in Matthew where weeping and gnashing are mentioned, only two refer to being cast into a furnace. The other four places end abruptly and leave us hanging. As if that were their permanent lot. Which would be consistent with ECT. Here are the ending verses in the ASV.
8:12 but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.
22:13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.
24:51 and shall cut him asunder, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.
25:30 And cast ye out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.
//Re Matthew 24, it seems to me this parable is directed at the disciples, not to the lost.//
I haven't been a Dispensationalist in about 20 years, but that sounds very Dispensational. Christ is talking in the context of the nation of Israel being His mission field and how some will positively and negatively respond to His gospel. All, Israelites were supposed to be servants of YHVH. The disobedient and unbelieving of them by extension represent all those who will finally and ultimately reject the gospel. Your interpretation is unlikely since in Matthew 24 he's not disciplined by (remedial) scourging, but cut in pieces (i.e. killed). The parable in Luke 12 isn't a more or less parallel of the type I was discussing. Though, I do think it too deals with final judgment. Also, it's not clear that the beating in Luke 12 is remedial. In fact, the fact that they aren't killed by cutting or burning is consistent with ECT. Interestingly, that fact is used by Universalists to argue for Universalism. Yet, if one rejects Universalism (as they should), then a more consistent reading would open up to ECT. Same with the parables talking about being placed in prison until they pay the last penny (Matt. 5:26, Luke 12:59). Will they eventually be released (as per Universalism/apokatastasis)? Isn't more often the case that people in prison can never earn enough money inside to pay for their debts? In which case, they remain inside indefinitely.
//You ask about jesus "why didn't He consistently and solely use fiery imagery, and one which always ended in consumption by fire". But I think he did.//
No He didn't. As I pointed out, in Matthew alone, out of the 6 times weeping & gnashing are mentioned, only twice is fire mentioned (as far as I can tell). In the other 4 times fire is not mentioned and they are either excluded from the Kingdom (3) or are cut in pieces (1); with nothing more said about them other than their weeping and gnashing which occurs AFTER being casting out or dismembered. That's completely consistent with ECT.
//I don't see how eternal fire could be (mis)interpreted to mean anything other than complete destruction.//
That's not the only description of the final state of the lost. As I've pointed out there are passages which don't end with them being burned up, AND there are passages in Revelation where they are described as enduring torment eternally. Not to mention the fact that Matt 25:46 is, at the very least, consistent with ECT and not just Annihilationism. In fact, I think the natural reading (even if it were the wrong/incorrect reading) is ECT.
//..you need to make an extremely strong argument to make me believe that death means living forever in anguish and there just isn't one. //
"The Hebrew word Rephaim has two distinct meanings: first, in poetic literature it refers to departed spirits whose dwelling place was Sheol. It is a figurative description of the dead, similar to our concept of a ghost. The second meaning of Rephaim is “a mighty people with tall stature who lived in Canaan.” "
https://www.gotquestions.org/Rephaim.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/rephaim
I think the case for an intermediate state is strong from both the OT and NT. The rephaim are the dead who are nevertheless conscious. Therefore, your claim that dead means dead without qualification is false. Death isn't synonymous with cessation of existence and consciousness. The rephaim are described in the OT as being conscious. Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (while likely not referring to real persons), is nevertheless likely teaching a literal intermediate state where the dead wicked are tormented similar to how angels are kept in eternal chains (Jude 1:6).
// Here we see the end of the devil, the beast, the lost death and hades, basically all of God's enemies are destroyed. //
That's the exact opposite of what Revelation teaches concerning the Devil, the Beast and the False Prophet. Notice what Rev. 20:10 actually says...
"and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, AND THEY WILL BE TORMENTED DAY AND NIGHT FOREVER AND EVER."
Depending on one's eschatology, Rev. 14 might refer to all eternally lost human beings.
And the smoke of their torment goes up FOREVER AND EVER, and they have NO REST, DAY OR NIGHT, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."- Rev. 14:11
//This fits absolutely perfectly with 1 Cor 15:25-26 where it says all Gods enemies will in the end be destroyed (the last being death itself). So harmonious I love it. //
The only description of God's enemies in that passage is that they are put under Christ's feet. That's hardly a description of cessation of life since victorious Kings who placed their foot/feet on their foes did so to those who were ALIVE (NOT dead). It was a form of humiliating them and declaring publicly that they were overcome and conquered. If they weren't conscious they wouldn't feel the shame, dishonor, humiliation and defeat.
// Firstly, even if I grant that these are depictions of ECT, then you still have to deal with the fact that these are highly symbolic visions of apocalyptic nature.//
It's not like there weren't some contemporary Jews who believed in ECT, or intertestamental literature that either explicitly (in some cases) or likely (in other cases) taught ECT (at least for some of the wicked, if not all). There were such Jews. Also, many passages in the Synoptics could be interpreted to teach ECT (though the certainty of their interpretation is obviously in dispute among Traditionalists, Conditionalists and Universalists).
//...a symbolic vision of the lost being destroyed like in the winepress of Gods wrath where there is so much blood it fills a valley, this is not a description of torment, it's a description of death.//
But those passages don't go on to explicitly teach that their consciousnesses will be terminated at some future point. WHEREAS the passages I point to DO EXPLICITLY speak of eternal conscious torment. That's the NATURAL reading of the texts (plural). While Conditionalists might be right in their interpretation, they must nevertheless explain away the natural explicit reading of eternal conscious torment with the (figurative?) evidence of smoke ascending up forever and ever. Conditionalists have to argue that while the texts ***SPEAK*** of ECT, they don't ***TEACH*** ECT. Which is a counter intuitive interpretation.
"..other things also thrown into the lake specifically CANNOT be tormented, like hades, or death. "
And therefore it is not referring to their literal death [since Death and Hades were never alive], contrary to common Conditionalist claim that death/dead just means death/dead. Though, "Death and Hades" might refer to the false pagan gods who figuratively "rule" the underworld.
// I admit torment is an odd image to use to signify the destruction of the beast, but given that torment is elsewhere used to portray destruction... //
While "destruction" is consistent with ECT, ECT is not consistent with the Annihilationist definition of destruction. That's why Conditionalist interpretations of these passages is an uphill battle for them, not a downward one as in the case for traditionalists. Condtionalists have to use a lot of complex explaining away.
//...and that death will also be destroyed and all God's enemies will be destroyed. //
If the death of Death and Hades in the Lake of Fire is not literal "death" as defined by Conditionalists, then why assume the the death of humans in the Lake of Fire is literal "death" as defined by Conditionalists?
//...it's not up to me to complain that God should have used a different symbol...//
What is symbolized by the explicit statements of "their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night," and "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever"? That doesn't sound like symbolic language, but literal. The surrounding stuff is clearly symbolic, but (1) eternal (2) conscious (3) torment can't seem to be symbolic of anything else. Much less the exact opposite of (1) temporality, (2) unconsciousness and (3) pain-freeness.
//...you want to make the Holy Spirit be saying that death means living forever in anguish, and eternal life being living forever with God in bliss. Think about it, it's quite a substantially bigger stretch to make death (which is in non-apocalyptic literature where symbolism is no where near as strong or prevalent) mean living forever in anguish.//
But if dualism and an intermediate state is real, then there are dead people who are still "alive" (i.e. consciously exist). There are many evidences for both. For example, Paul's statement that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5) and that heaven is where "the spirits of just men made perfect" reside (Heb. 12:23) prove dualism and an intermediate state. Also, the OT teaches that the dead (including the wicked dead) in sheol are conscious (as does the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man). Study the subject of rephaim in the OT. Notice that the Law forbade necromancy. Why not just say that it was impossible since the dead don't exist and are not conscious? BTW, the passages in Ecclesiastes and Psalms don't explicitly teach the dead are unconscious. Only that they are not among the living and therefore don't necessarily know what's going on in the world of the living. The rephaim are mentioned in Isa. 26:14; Job 26:5; Isa. 14:9-10; Ezek. 32:21. Compare with Phil. 2:10, Rev. 5:3, 13 which refer to people "under the earth" who are apparently conscious in sheol.
"All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, "No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Thus his father wept for him."- Gen. 37:35
Some scholars have translated and interpreted Gen. 37:35 as having Jacob say that he's so saddened by the death of Joseph who can not live long enough to enjoy life among the living, that he'll join Joseph in sheol. Also, Jacob wrongly thought that Joseph was eaten by an animal. And so, sheol couldn't mean the grave (at least in this context).
In Gen 35;18, word translated "life" in the ESV can also be translated "soul". In which case, it might suggest Rachel's soul [nephesh] was departing her body. The same is true for 1 Kings 17:21 where the prophet prayed, "...let this child's life [or SOUL/nepesh] come INTO him again" Compare Acts 20:10 where Eutychus falls from the window. Paul says "his life [or soul/psyche] is IN him". The Psalmist said after he died he expected to be "received into glory" (Ps. 73:24). Clearly some Jews believed in an intermediate state. Otherwise the disciples wouldn't have feared ghosts (Matt. 14:26; Mark 6:49).
//Some suggest I should question all of that simply because of a few obscure and symbolic verses in Revelation, which to me are better support for CI than ECT anyway.//
It's clear to me that the OT teaches an intermediate state. The NT should be interpreted in light of that and in light of the fact that intertestamental Jews and Jewish literature often taught an intermediate state (with some even teaching ECT). Many also taught a preliminary tormenting punishment in sheol in anticipation of future punishment in Gehenna (just like Lazarus and the Rich Man). Given that background, I think many NT passages more naturally suggest ECT. The NT wasn't written in a historical, cultural and theological vacuum. Like I said, Jesus knew there were different views regarding eschatological punishment. Yet he used terms like "ETERNAL fire", "UNQUENCHABLE fire" and "EVERLASTING punishment" which could have easily (and more naturally?) been interpreted to teach ECT. Also, if I'm not mistaken, some intertestamental literature which used the language of "burning UP" sometimes also taught ECT. So, "burning UP" many not necessary exclude ECT. Either because those writers were self-contradictory, OR they didn't take "burning UP" language to (necessarily) teach annihilationism.
//3. The Bible gives us a hope for the future when there will not be any more evil, there will not be any more death, where creation will be redeemed along with the saved.//
Revelation portrays the eschaton as having excluded the wicked from the City of God. They are OUTSIDE, not non-existent. Jesus says in Matt. 25:46 that the wicked "GO AWAY into eternal punishment". Jesus plenty of times says they are CAST OUT into outer darkness.
//I think conditionalism better fits penal substitutionary atonement theory, since the penalty Jesus paid is his death, not in his suffering eternal conscious torment.//
If the punishment of sin is eternal permenant death, then Jesus didn't pay for our sins because Jesus didn't remain permanently dead. On the other hand, if temporary torment is the punishment of sin, then the wicked should be granted access to the Kingdom of God after they've suffered long and hard enough (in terms of quantity, quality, intensity, temporality). Their sins have been atoned for by themselves. Now they should be able to either enter the Kingdom, or start again and either earn their way to heaven, or accept Christ's imputed righteousness.
//Sure, Jesus wasn't annihilated, but we are not saying annihilation is the penalty for sin either, we're saying it's death, and that is the penalty Jesus paid.//
I don't see how this isn't either sophistry or a misuse of semantics. Jesus died and wasn't annihilated yet was able to to enter the Kingdom. Since, the wicked die their first death, then why can't they enter the Kingdom too (assuming a physicalist or materialist anthropology)? Didn't they already pay for their sins by dying? Also, why not just refuse to resurrect the wicked? That way they've paid for their sins. You might say they need to know what they died for. But, that still involves Double Jeopardy. Meaning, sinners suffer the punishment of their sins twice by dying twice. Or maybe the punishment also includes the suffering that precedes extinction. That's consistent the parable in Luke 16 (and other OT and intertestamental writings) which seems to teach torment for the wicked in sheol during the intermediate state. Notice too that it if one holds to a form of Conditionalism that affirms a tormented intermediate state for the wicked, then it seems unfair that the wicked in sheol who died millennia ago will suffer in sheol much longer than those who die near the end of this Age. There are logical ways around this apparent unfairness (which I won't mention), but they seem very ad hoc. It's much simpler to say that all the wicked will suffer eternally.
Finally, why would Jesus tell us the parable of Lazarus and "Dives"? Didn't he know He'd be giving us the impression that:
1. there is a conscious intermediate state (thus undermining Soul Sleep and materialism/physicalism) for both the righteous and wicked. BTW, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude as well as Revelation also suggest an intermediate state,
2. the punishment for sins includes SUFFERING TORMENT not just "death",
3. Lend some credence to *SOME* of the speculations of Jewish intertestamental literature regarding death and the eschaton,
4. The "flame" in Hades (which apparently is the NT counterpart of OT Sheol) that "Dives" is tormented with is not literal and physical fire, and therefore the punishment of Gehenna might not be limited to physical fire (which is suggested by the fact that the Devil is cast in the the Lake of Fire even though he's not a physical being)
Also, why are some angels eternally kept in everlasting chains (Jude 1:6), while the Devil (who is arguably the most wicked of the demons) is extinguished in the Lake of Fire? If the Devil isn't annihilated even though he's cast into the Lake of Fire, why assume the humans who are cast there will be annihilated? In fact, Jude 1:13 seems to be saying that humans who were false shepherds will suffer a similar fate as the angels in verse 6, and that it will be eternal and conscious (cf. 2 Pet. 2:9).
Should we remove Luke, 1st Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude and Revelation from the Canon because they seem to teach an intermediate state (and often one that's tormented for the wicked)? Arguably the books of Hebrews (12:23), 2nd Corinthians (5), Philippians (1) and Luke (23:43) teach an intermediate state for the saved.
//...and actually, a lot of the main denomination managed to reform, which surprised me (and made me very happy!).//Same here. I read with joy "Transformed by Truth" by Joseph Tkach on the reforms of the WCG (now called Grace Communion International). I independently came to Evangelical convictions the same time as the WCG did, but I didn't realize it until much later. BTW, many of them still hold to conditionalism. I think that's fine because I don't think it's a heretical position to take. I'm still open to switching back to Conditionalism.//Look again -- that verse is a present-day statement made to the present-day reader of the text; the future prophetic vision ended with Rev 22:6.//A few hours ago after reading some commentaries I concluded that Rev. 22:11 may (likely?) not be prophetic of the Eternal State. So, I won't use that passage anymore for that purpose. So, I'll grant you that.//My studies indicate that "from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" is _causitive_ -- the wicked are being destroyed because that's what the Lord's presence does to unholy things.//Even if that's the case, the meaning of the term "destroy" in this context is still in dispute. It can mean something like "ruination". Compare Isaiah's statement, "woe to me for I am undone/ruined" (Isa. 6:5). Of course one word is Greek and the other is Hebrew. Nevertheless sinners in God's presence feel ruined. Isaiah wasn't annihilated, so maybe the wicked in 2 Thess. 1:9 aren't either.I've collected my rebuttals in this thread in my blogpost here:http://misclane.blogspot.com/2017/08/cut-in-pieces-killed-yet-gnashing.htmlBased on my rebuttals to others in this thread (which you might not have read), how would you respond to the following?Assuming that Gehenna and the Lake of Fire are the same, why is the Devil cast into it? Being an immaterial being, physical fire can't hurt him. Therefore, the fire(s) of Gehenna cannot be limited to physical fire. The fire(s) of Gehenna not being physical is consistent with the "flame" in Hades that torments "Dives" in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man as also not being physical fire. Some might say that this was a parable and not literal. I personally agree that Lazarus and Dives may not be real persons. Nevertheless, I do think the parable suggests the reality of an intermediate state.If there is no intermediate state, why would Jesus tell us the parable of Lazarus and "Dives"? Didn't he know He'd be giving us the impression that:1. there is a conscious intermediate state (thus undermining Soul Sleep and materialism/physicalism) for both the righteous and wicked. BTW, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude as well as Revelation also suggest an intermediate state,2. the punishment for sins includes SUFFERING TORMENT not just "death",3. Lend some credence to *SOME* of the speculations of Jewish intertestamental literature regarding death and the eschaton,4. The "flame" in Hades (which apparently is the NT counterpart of OT Sheol) that "Dives" is tormented with is not literal and physical fire, and therefore the punishment of Gehenna might not be limited to physical fire (which is suggested by the fact that the Devil is cast in the the Lake of Fire even though he's not a physical being)Also, why are some angels eternally kept in everlasting chains (Jude 1:6), while the Devil (who is arguably the most wicked of the demons) is extinguished in the Lake of Fire? If the Devil isn't annihilated even though he's cast into the Lake of Fire, why assume the humans who are cast there will be annihilated? In fact, Jude 1:13 seems to be saying that humans who were false shepherds will suffer a similar fate as the angels in verse 6, and that it will be eternal and conscious (cf. 2 Pet. 2:9).Should we remove Luke, 1st Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude and Revelation from the Canon because they seem to teach an intermediate state (and often one that's tormented for the wicked)? Arguably the books of Hebrews (12:23), 2nd Corinthians (5), Philippians (1) and Luke (23:43) teach an intermediate state for the saved.
Glenn Andrew Peoples wrote:
//"Besides, if destruction is what annihilationists believe, saying it's destruction from the presence of the Lord is superfluous"
[Annoyed Pinoy], just on this single point, actually this is common language in the Scripture ("destroyed from / perished from" etc to indicate removal or simple non-presence or existence).
For some examples, have a look at an article I wrote on this:
http://www.afterlife.co.nz/2014/bible/new-testament/everlasting-destruction-from-the-presence-of-the-lord/
So the language of being destroyed from God's presence offers no support for ECT. //
I'll add your comments to my blogpost with your full name included since you mention that You wrote the article you link to in your comments (which I want to quote). Besides, you're a well known Conditionalist so you wouldn't fear being "outed". Though, I'll remove your name if you wish.
I agree that Robert Morey's book has its flaws, nevertheless Morey points out that the same word used in 2 Thess. 1:9 is used in 1 Tim. 6:9 He writes:
QUOTE
First, the Greek word olethros, according to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (p. 443), means "the loss of a life of blessedness after death, future misery."
The word olethros is translated "ruin" in 1 Tim. 6:9 to describe the lost and wretched spiritual condition of someone who lusts after riches. Then in verse 10, Paul amplifies their "ruination" by saying that they have "wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many a pang." In this passage, it is clear that olethros does not mean annihilation but "ruination" or "spiritual misery or
wretchedness."
In this light, it is not surprising to discover that olethron aionion in 2 Thess. 1:9 is translated as "eternal ruin" or "everlasting ruin" by Goodspeed, Wuest, New English Bible, Twentieth Century New Testament, etc. The wicked face "ruination," not annihilation.
END QUOTE
A form of the word is also used in 1 Thess. 5:3 regarding humans (it seems) being destroyed in this Age. Yet if they were completely destroyed, then they wouldn't/couldn't be resurrected since true destruction is permanent. Additionally, if dualism and an intermediate state is true, then they weren't *really* and truly destroyed because they continued to consciously exist. And I believe the case for #1. an immaterial aspect to human ontology (bipartite or tripartite) and #2. an intermediate state is VERY strong. This poses a problem for Conditionalists who believe in #1 and #2.
Turning the guns back on a physicalist/materialist Conditionalist position, if such Conditionalists say they really were destroyed, but they were reconstituted via resurrection and so that doesn't violate the Conditionalist definition of "destroy", it's still not a permanent "destruction". Even assuming that that Conditionalist response works, the person would seem to suffer the injustice of Double Jeopardy because he dies twice. Moreover, one can philosophically argue that the reconstituted person really isn't the same person but rather a duplicate copy. That is, a different person who has the memories of the original person. Claiming it's the same person violates the Law of Identity whereby A is A. In which case you have a new human being created de novo with false memories who will be punished with death for the sins of another person who has already died (and therefore already paid for his own sins). Think of the clones in Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie The 6th Day. It would be petty and unjust for a human being to punish a clone for the crimes of the original even if he shared the same memories. How much more unjust would it be for God to do so?
//If this is the intention, the picture is rather like that of the fate of Nadab and Abihu who died when they offered “strange fire” before the Lord in Leviticus 10. There, “fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD” (v. 2). The Hebrew word translated “before” literally refers to the “face” (פָּנֶה, paneh). The same is true in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, where Paul, on this view, describes a fire that literally comes from the “face” (πρόσωπον, prosopon), creating a striking similarity between the two passages.//
Similarly, either Nadab and Abihu were destroyed by YHVH using physical fire and/or His glorious presence. Yet, presumably you believe they will be resurrected in the future. In which case, the same comments I just made about those "destroyed" in 1 Thess. 5:3 applies.
// But what is the Lord going to do to them? Isaiah writes that the haughty looks of men will be brought low and the lofty pride of men will be humbled (v. 11) so that only God will be exalted. But after the enemies of God have tried – in vain, let us remember – to escape “the terror of the LORD” and “the splendour of his majesty,” what does he do to them? What does their impending fate consist of? We are not told...//
But maybe we have been told. In fact, you might have referred to it already. You wrote, "Isaiah writes that the haughty looks of men will be brought low and the lofty pride of men will be humbled (v. 11) so that only God will be exalted." Verses 11 and 17 might refer to that final judgment. While it's true verse 17 (which describes the humbling of haughty) precedes verse 19 (which describes hiding in rocks/caves), the reverse is the case in verses 10 and 11. In verse 10 YHVH sarcastically says in derision and irony that they would do well to hide in rocks (presumably) because of the looming danger of the next verse which threatens that in that day "[t]he haughty looks of man shall be brought low, and the lofty pride of men shall be humbled, and the LORD alone will be exalted in that day." So, I think a better case can be made that the punishment just IS the humbling of the wicked. That's consistent with the Traditionalist interpretation of Daniel 12:2 which says the wicked will rise to "shame and everlasting contempt". The advantage of my interpretation of Isaiah 2 is that the nature of the final judgment is actually described, whereas your interpretation leaves us hanging and in doubt as to what it might be.
//The wicked may have wished to hide from God’s presence in safety, avoiding judgement altogether, but now that it is upon them, in perhaps a terrible irony, they will leave his presence after all, because the Lord will destroy them.//
And thus giving comfort and solace to those who don't fear annihilation, but do fear eternal conscious torment.
//They will not escape God’s presence on their own terms – in safety, avoiding judgement, kept hidden from the Lord. Rather they will face him in judgement and then be destroyed, thus removed from his presence forever.//
Yet Rev. 14:10b-11 states, "[they]...will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the PRESENCE OF THE LAMB. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have NO REST, DAY OR NIGHT, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."
In this passage the wicked are tormented in the PRESENCE of Christ FOREVER contrary to your claim that they will one day cease to be in God's presence and will one day have "rest". Which—to come full circle—is consistent with my interpretation of Isaiah 2. The word "presence" in reference to God is used in different senses. Satan can be in God's "presence" in one sense without being consumed (cf. Job 1:12; 2:7).
The psalmist said:
7 Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your PRESENCE?
8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!- Psalm 139:7-8
If "sheol" in verse 8 refers to the abode of the dead (righteous or wicked) prior to the Cross and not merely the grave [which may be the case in other contexts], AND IF the wicked dead are in God's presence in sheol enduring a "flame" of punishment (Luke 16:24), then it would seem that it's the presence of God that's tormenting them (cf. Heb. 12:29) during the intermediate state, yet they are not consumed. If so, then why must final judgment entail extinction? Especially given that some angels are sentenced to everlasting chains (Jude 1:6), while the Devil who is arguably the most evil creature to EVER live will be extinguished in the Lake of Fire. That seems really unjust to me. And so, it seems to me that when Matt. 25:41 says, Gehenna is "ETERNAL fire PREPARED for the Devil and his angels", I take it that the it will be an eternally conscious punishment for ALL demons (not just some). If so, then that would seem to settle the controversy of the proper interpretation of "ETERNAL punishment" in verse 46 in favor of the Traditionalist view regarding humans. Since the same word is used for "eternal", and the suggestion that human punishment will be similar to the demons'. Unless one wants to argue that the punishment for humans is substantially/categorically different than for demons even though they end up in the same place. With Gehenna antecedently being prepared FIRST for the Devil (either chronologically and/or logically/conceptually). I say chronologically since demons might already be in Gehenna or its precursor (cf. Jude 1:6). So, the nature of Gehenna is primarily/originally "spiritual fire" (so to speak) rather than merely physical fire.
The Devil not being material can't be hurt by physical fire. Merely material humans cannot be hurt by the "spiritual fire" the Devil will suffer (whatever that is). Yet, if the fires of hell are (at the very least) spiritual (if not also physical) then that's consistent with human dualism and human ECT.
//St Paul’s claim in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 – on the face of it – constitutes a problem for the traditional view of eternal punishment, strongly favouring annihilationism.//
Finally, even assuming that Paul personally believed and taught annihilationism, that doesn't necessarily mean the BIBLE teaches annihilationism. Paul might have been mistaken in his understanding of Gehenna, yet the Holy Spirit may have inspired his use of words when penning 2 Thessalonians to be consistent with ECT. For example, assuming (ad arguendo) that Unconditional Election is true, Peter's injunction to make one's "calling and election sure" is consistent with Unconditional election even if he may have personally believed in Conditional election. Inspired Scripture trumps the personal errors of even inspired Apostles. While everything they officially taught in their Apostolic office was inerrant & infallible, not all their personal beliefs were such.
Glenn Andrew Peoples wrote:
//On review it looks like you have not acknowledged the point that "destruction from..." actually isn't superfluous, even if "destruction" means what annihilationists say it does.//
//Could you just take a moment and acknowledge that "destruction from" really would *not* be superfluous, even if "destruction" means what annihilationists say it does?//
I concede that if "destruction" and "presence" in that verse mean what Conditionalists mean, then I grant that it's not superfluous. That's why I gave reasons to question the condtionalist meaning of those terms ("destruction" and "presence") in that verse. I don't believe the case for or against the traditionalist position stands or falls on this verse.
"Presence" is used in the Bible in different ways. As I argued in my OP, one of the ways presence is used with respect to the LORD is in the sense of having safety, peace, blessing and prosperity on account of God's gracious acceptance and favor. Compare the Aaronic Blessing where God's FACE/PRESENCE metaphorically shines upon someone in graciousness.
24 The LORD bless you and keep you;
25 the LORD make his FACE to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
26 the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.- Num. 6:24-26
I also argued that "olethros" and a form of the word is used in two other NT passages and how it can't mean "destruction" in the Conditionalist sense, strictly speaking. Then I tried to show how your attempt to use Moo's citation of Isaiah 2 may have backfired on your own position.
That's a brief review of my previous response to your article.
Here's a new argument from 2 Kings 13:23.
But Jehovah was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet.- 2 Ki 13:23
If I'm not mistaken, this passage is saying that when the House of Israel would eventually be taken into captivity it would be a case of the "destruction" (in a manner of speaking) of Israel from YHVH's "presence". If this interpretation is correct, then here's a case where destruction from the presence of YHVH doesn't follow the Conditionalist understanding, but rather my understanding of the loss of God's favor.
Glenn Andrew Peoples wrote:
//This seems rather beside the point. Yes, those who dwell forever in the presence of the Lord will, doubtless, have those things.//But the Jewish understanding is that those who don't have God's favor are not in God's presence. So, it's not beside the point.//Where that expression is used in the Old Testament, it means to have disappeared altogether.//Even granting that, that's disappearance from the physical world. Not necessarily from existence altogether. That's why I pointed out in my comments to other people in this thread that the issue of the intermediate state is highly relevant. Because if the same people who have been destroyed from the presence of the LORD still consciously exist in an intermediate state, then they weren't "destroyed" in the Conditionalists sense of the word, strictly speaking. And I gave a brief defense of dualism and an intermediate state in those posts which were directed to other people.//You appeal to the use of the word in 1 Thess 5:3 as a case where it cannot mean completely destroy, But this appears to be false. The word simply refers to people in a disaster upon whom sudden destruction comes. Nothing here implies that there is any sense in which they are still alive.//The same point about an intermediate state applies here.//Thayer is not a reliable source. He is engaging in creative fancy when he says "the loss of a life of blessedness after death, future misery." The word absolutely never means anything like this. I would suggest a more reputable Lexicon like Bauer's work. Thayer's is never cited in scholarly work and would certainly not be used in, for example, Seminary. His Lexicon is notorious for a strong theological bias.//I didn't know that. Thanks for informing me.//You think it cannot mean total destruction, because you personally think God cannot raise the dead if every part of them has died.//I do think it poses a real philosophical problem for physicalist/materialist Conditionalism. That can't just be ignored by Conditionalists. If they've seriously addressed it, I'm not aware of it. Admittedly, I'm way behind in terms of the contemporary literature in defense of Conditionalism.//Well now you are straying from the subject of Hell strictly speaking, but you will at least agree that it means the destruction of the physical person.//But clearly anthropology is a related and essential topic to address when it comes to eschatology. Yes, I will "agree that it means the destruction of the physical person."//Rather, traditionalists believe that the lost will be bodily raised from the dead and will be in a state of torment forever.//I'm open to either the Traditionalist or Conditionalist positions. Though, I currently lean toward the former. I'm also open to the possibility of a Traditionalist view that the body might eventually be burnt up, but the conscious souls might persist eternally. Similar to how the immaterial spirits of demons will (ISTM) be punished for all eternity.On account of the nature of Progressive Revelation the story of humans comes before that of angels. Even though angels were created and (likely) Fell first. When Conditionalists begin with the nature of human eschatological judgment it seems they are putting the cart before the horse. Since angels fell first and since Christ says Gehenna was first prepared (conceived of and designed?) for the Devil and his angels, then shouldn't we see human punishment in Gehenna in light of the mode of angelic punishment? Especially if the case for human dualism is strong? If some or all demons will suffer spiritual ECT, then shouldn't the spiritual nature of ECT among angels be considered the default position regarding human judgment, until further revelation informs us otherwise?It seems to me that eschatological [LAST things] judgment should not be straight-jacketed by earlier Old Testament Revelation. Especially when later revelation -in the Progressive development of Revelation- is clearer on it than the former.Rather the opposite should be the case. The New Testament should rule over and explain the Old Testament in terms of interpretation. For example, the latter Antitypes and Realities explain and are usually greater than the earlier Types and Shadows. That's why I never found it persuasive when Conditionalists pointed to Jude 1:7 and Sodom and Gomorrah's experience of "punishment of eternal fire" as revealing to us the nature of final eschatological fire. Another example would be the rewards in this life and those at the eschaton.If the righteous is repaid on earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner!- Prov. 11:31God's OT promises are analogous to a Billionaire promising to give you a Ferrari and a golf club (putter), then in the end giving you a Ferrari Dealership and the deed to a 200 acre Golf Club resort. God promised Abraham the Promised Land, but ended up giving him the globe, even the entire universe. Rewards in this Age are emblematic of the greater rewards in the next Age. Yet, given Conditionalism, the punishment in the next Age is, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as in this Age. It seems to me that CI disrupts the symmetry.If we allowed the OT revelation to rule over the NT, then we would tend to end up with the opposite of correct theological positions. For example, the OT teaches it's wrong to justify the wicked (Prov. 17:15; 24:24). Yet that would appear (at least on the surface) to contradict Rom. 4:5 where it is said that God "justifies the ungodly". Or take the OT teaching on merit and obedience to God's law which makes us acceptable before God. While that's true in one sense given the New Covenant, in another more fundamental sense we aren't justified by our own works. The NT clarifies in what sense our works are pleasing to God, while at the same time denying salvation is on the basis of works. If we allowed the older OT revelation to rule over the fuller & newer NT revelation, that would lead to things like Unitarianism, or the continued binding nature of the entire Mosaic Law and Covenant, etc. Modern Jews reject Jesus partly because they don't see two Advents of the Messiah in the Tanakh, and see other NT teachings contradicting the Hebrew Bible. Another example would be how a surface reading of the Torah could lead one to infer a physicalist/materialist anthropology with no afterlife. The Sadducees seemed to have come to that conclusion because they rejected the Progressive Revelation given in the rest of the OT, viz. the Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (writings). The NT should inform, and expand our interpretation of the OT, instead of the OT limiting our interpretation and application of the NT. It's almost as if Conditionalists read the Bible like Unitarians. Admittedly the preponderance of the evidence (especially in the OT) is in favor of Annihilationism, but that doesn't prove it's true. Since, I've shown how NT teaching counter-intuitively SEEMS (not in reality) to contradict OT teaching on various topics.
Glenn, I have a question for you. Do you believe at least some demons will suffer ECT?
Glenn Andrew Peoples wrote:
//Can we explicitly agree, then, that this doesn't support ECT (which teaches that the lost will physically live forever) and that it favours CI? //I'll agree that it doesn't necessarily support ECT. But I won't agree that it definitely favors CI.//This will have erased two arguments so far: Destroyed from the presence of the Lord is not redundant, on CI,//Sure, I agree that given a CI interpretation, it's not redundant. Meaning, it's internally consistent/coherent. But that doesn't settle the issue of whether the CI interpretation is correct.//...and the meaning of olethros does support CI.//I'm not sure of that. If that's your position, then you seem to be committed to the interpretation that the use of olethros in 1 Tim. 6:9 means destruction as you take it in 2 Thess. 1:6. The people described in 1 Tim. 6:9 might be interpreted to mean they were destroyed while still physically living. Unless, you take it proleptically.
Glenn Andrew Peoples wrote:
//...you chose to appeal to 1 Thes 5:3, and we afterwards agreed that in context it refers to physical death.//I'm not even certain of that. When I used to be a confirmed Pre-Millennialist I would definitely have agreed. I've lost that confidence now that lean more toward Amill or (esp.) Postmill.//...while ECT teaches that the lost will never physically die, after resurrection.//That's the most common version of ECT. But like I said, I think ECT is consistent with an alternative position where the physical body is eventually burnt up, but the conscious spirit and/or soul remains alive.//For this reason, the fact that we have (apparently) agreed that physical death is involved means that you *should* see this as support for conditionalism.//I don't see why it is that I logically "should". I'll have to re-read your argument to understand why.I should have phrased my statement the following way, "you [would then] seem to [have to] be committed to the interpretation that the use of olethros in 1 Tim. 6:9 means destruction as you take it in 2 Thess. 1:6."//I haven't even mentioned 1 Tim 6:9.//okay//I agree that this is ambiguous and could have either of those two meanings. It could be metaphorical, where the people weren't literally destroyed but nonetheless got into trouble.//If you can say/acknowledge that 1 Tim. 6:9 may not refer to physical destruction, why do you insist and are confident that it means physical destruction in 2 Thess. 1:9?//It could be proleptic, calling them destroyed because they will be, based on how they are living.Or of course it could be literal. Plenty of people, through lifestyle or the relationships they got into, died because of their money.//But then this only addresses their physical death by natural means and ordinary providence *before* the eschaton, not by Christ who would (per CI) destroy them entirely (body and soul) at the eschaton. In which case, 1 Tim. 6:9 would allow for a destruction of the body but the continuation of the soul. Your argument then would have to assume a priori a materialist and/or physicalist anthropology for the definition of "olethros" to be the same in BOTH passages. But as you know there are proponents of CI who are dualists.//So I do not think this one example will do the work you need it to.//But the burden of proof is not on me to demonstrate that "olethros" *never* means physical death, nor is the burden of proof on me to demonstrate that it *always* means something other than physical death. We both know words have semantic range. Rather, the burden of proof is on proponents of CI (whether dualistic or monistic) to demonstrate that it ALWAYS means physical death simpliciter assuming monistic CI (or at least always INCLUDES death given the option of dualistic CI). Which means those who hold to monistic CI would have the additional burden of proof to demonstrate physicalism and/or materialism. Which entails being able to undermine and refute the case for dualism (bipartite or tripartite).
The following is by someone other than Glenn Andrew Peoples:
//but why do you think the translators chose the "wrong" one?//
I don't have the positive belief that they chose the wrong one, or that the definitely right one is "ruin".
//What I'd ask is why you think the translators unanimously choose the word "destruction" in this case, when you think it doesn't literally mean to be destroyed, but rather to be ruined.//
Maybe many of the translators themselves aren't sure and therefore opt for "destruction" because it can include (or be a synonym for) the concept of "ruin", whereas if they opted for "ruin" It would exclude the concept of "destruction".
I'm not a Koine Greek or Biblical Hebrew scholar. Nor am I very good at grammar. However, here's another issue that maybe should be explored. Is it possible that the phrase "away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" is a case of Semitic parallelism? IF so, then would/could that be evidence against the CI interpretation of "destruction"?
// In other words, you require we interpret the symbolic as literal, and the literal as symbolic. You have it the wrong way around! You don't interpret the clear verses of scripture in light of the more obscure difficult to understand verses. The majority of scripture is far clearer that the end of the lost is death, dying, destruction, perishing, being burned to ashes etc. //
I think the passages in the Gospel about hell are, if taken literally, self-contradictory. For example, it's a place of fire, but it's also dark. A place of where one is cut up in pieces (and presumably dead), only to afterward weep and gnash teeth posthumously. That to me shows that they are (at least partly) figurative. However, when the Bible says people are in torment forever, it's difficult to interpret that as figurative of something else. What is that something else? Especially since consciousness and the awareness of pain is not something that is normally figurative of something else. Chocolate can be figurative of something else, but the description of the conscious experience of tasting and enjoying chocolate FOREVER is something that would normally not be interpreted as figurative of something else that's also temporary. It explicitly says it's forever. This should have some weight especially since the concept of ECT was floating around in Jewish thought at the time.
You address Jude 1:6 with the next verse, but verse 13 suggests humans will endure condemnation consciously forever (cf. 2 Pet. 2:17). If they are temporary chains, why call them eternal chains. That's gives the wrong impression. The exactly OPPOSITE impression. Given the parallels between a Biblical conception of the Divine Council that Dr. Mike Heiser has pointed out and the parallels between it and pagan pantheons and demonology, many pagan myths have the demons punished everlastingly in a conscious manner. Jude and Peter seems to accommodate that. Even using the Greek word tartaroo. While not all Jews believed it, the concept of ECT existed in the Interestamental Jewish literature that Jesus' listeners would have been familiar with. Some of these writers used annhilationist sounding language even though some of them seemed to also believe in ECT. Which means annihilationist language doesn't, by itself, settle the issue. Since apparently some Jewish could believe in ECT and use extinguishing type language. Jesus knowing the disputes among Jews regarding eschatological judgment would have been wise to ONLY use annihilationist language were CI true. Yet He nevertheless didn't hesitate to modified words like "fire" and "punishment" with words like "eternal/everlasting" and "unquenchable" which (while not settling it for ECT as a slam dunk), is completely consistent with ECT. IMO, the natural reading of those passages, given background cultural/theological information, is that they teach ECT.
//Do you have any reason to say they're not sure, as opposed to 100% unanimous?//Even if they were 100% unanimous, are you sure that they mean by "destruction" what CI folk mean by it? There's a semantic range for English words too, not just Greek or Hebrew.// Destruction in English means "the act or process of damaging something so badly that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired" (M-W's Learner's Dictionary).//How do we know that Paul wasn't using hyperbole or a figure of speech? Even in our modern times when we say sports team X "destroyed" team Y, we don't mean what CI means by "destroy". The Bible isn't a textbook on science or modal logic. It's statements aren't propositions completely striped clean and ready to be used in deductive syllogisms. Much of it is poetry and not straight prose. The informational and propositional content needs to be mined from things like figures of speech. That's because the Bible uses normal human patterns of speech. It's not written in an artificial and 100% efficient language like mathematics, or programming code, or the Vegan language in the movie Contact <g>. BTW, E.W. Bullinger lists over 217 types of figures of speech used in the bible. See his book Figures of Speech Used in the Bible:Words like "destruction" can be easily be employed in non-literal senses. Whereas descriptions like those in Revelation of individuals being tormented forever and ever, with no rest or respite day or night are more difficult to explain away as being non-literal.//Can you expand on that, please?//You know more about grammar than I do. So, you'd have to determine whether there's any possible merit in what I suggested.
//Where's the hyperbole there? Do you see it? What is it hyperbolic _of_? Is God playing a game with them?//
I lean toward partial preterism. This isn't the place to expound partial preterism, but for those who do know about it, they'd know what I mean. Nevertheless, YHVH "Coming in Judgment" language used in the OT was often figurative. It's these very same type of images that are used in the NT. When these types of judgments were fulfilled in the OT against pagan nations they weren't literal. Nor am I certain whether those descriptions in 2 Thess. are of the 2nd Advent or the events surrounding destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Either way, they can be fulfilled figuratively.
"From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty."- Rev. 19:15
When it says that a sharp sword comes out of Jesus' mouth to strike down nations, is that literal? I hope you see what I'm getting at.
//So long as the torment is not "forever" it can result in destruction, leaving the victim completely crushed by the torment.//
And yet whatever you view torment to be, it says it's going to be forever. The natural reading of the passages is that torment is......wait for it.....torment. You're now the one wanting to take a less than literal meaning of the word torment for theological reasons, not exegetical ones because it cuts against the grain of the theology of CI.
//But let me ask more strongly: You think a beast with seven heads and ten horns being tormented forever and ever night and day while there is "no more night" and "no more pain" is best explained as being _literal_?//
When it comes to Rev. 14:10-11, the earlier context says in the previous verse (9), "If ***ANYONE*** worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,..." These individuals appear to be human individuals. When it comes to the punishment of the various beasts in Daniel and Revelation, sometimes it refers to individuals, other times it refers to some human and/or demonic system or institutions or government. In which case,the punishment is distributively applied to the individuals who are guilty. For example, a tax penalty for a group can be spoken of both in a collective and/or distributive and individualistic sense without having to always make it clear in which sense it's being used. Because it's understood.
//When a vision -- like seeing the beast cast into the lake of fire -- and an angel explaining the vision to you seem to disagree, don't you think the angel _explaining_ it should be given priority?//
I don't see how that undermines my explanation above.
2 thess. 1:9 refers to fire, 2 thess. 2:8 refers to the breath of Christ destroying, and Rev. 19:15 says it's a sharp sword that comes out of Christ's mouth to destroy His enemies. Which is it? Is it fire, or breath or a sword? Or are you going to combine and harmonize them so that it's Christ's breath in the shape of a sharp sword but instead of being made out of metal, it's made out of fire? Clearly, figures are being used to describe these types of judgement.
//That's the language used by Revelation, the book you're about to tell me I have to take literally.//
I never said, nor have I ever in my 30 years being a Christian believed, that we ought to take the book of Revelation literally in its entirety. Not even when i was a Pre-Millennialists. We should read the Bible according to its genres and its intended meaning. The book of Revelation is apocalyptic literature and we ought to interpret the figures figuratively, while at the same time derive literal meaning behind it. For example, in Rev. 5:6 when Jesus is said to look like a lamb who was slain with seven eyes and seven horns, that's not literal. The literal meaning behind the figures is that Jesus is like a lamb who was slain in atonement. His seven eyes represent omniscience and providence (2 Chron. 16:9), while His seven horns represent completely authority and power (cf. the many use of "horn" in Daniel). Seven of course being the number of perfection and fullness.
//(never mind that it's not the fate of humans, but rather of seven-headed beast and company)//
Rev. 14:9 says the fate is for "ANYONE worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,
". Meaning, anyone who willingly agrees with and participates in the evil works of the beast and image. The mark on the forehead represents knowledge and consent, while the mark on hand represents participation and "doing". Since, we do our work with our hands. When it comes to eternal conscious torment in Rev. 14; 19; 20 , how can that represent non-eternal, non-conscious absence of torment? Rev. 14 talks about "No Rest, day or night" forever.
// I take the word "torment" literally in Revelation 14, just not in Rev 20 where it happens to non-physical beings who can't actually literally be tormented,//
A case could be made by some people that the beast and false prophet are individual human beings. I don't positively hold that view. But it makes some sense since the devil is a personal individual, why would he be lumped together with a beast and a false prophet who aren't personal individuals. Especially when the term "false prophet" normally refers to individual human beings elsewhere in Scripture. Nevertheless, even assuming that the beast and false prophet are proximately representative of something non-individual, they may still ultimately represent human individuals. Just as the Devil in Rev. 19:20 and 20:10 might represent the demonic horde, so the beast might represent all evil governmental leaders and institutions, and the false prophet represent all false prophets and false religions. All of whom will endure ECT.
//That doesn't mean "every person the beast ruled will be thrown into a river of fire;" it means that the power of THEIR KING will be taken away.//
Those who willingly serve and follow their evil king. Given an Amillennialist and/or Postmillennialist interpretation, that King could represent all evil kings and kingdoms. Both in the book of Revelation and throughout the OT (e.g. Daniel) the term "king" sometimes represents the actual personal king, and/or his kingdom, and/or those in his kingdom who serve and follow him. That is, those whom he leads. See for example Nebuchadnezzar's dream of a statue. That the word "king" can represent his kingdom and/or his servants whom he leads and who follow him is something I've heard commentators of all stripes acknowledge. Whether Pre-Mill, Amill, or Postmill. Whether Futurist, Preterist, Idealist, or Historicist.
Like I said in my last post I really can't spend time on discussing this topic at present. So, i have just one question. IF Peter and Jude were alluding to or quoting the Book of Enoch, and IF the book of Enoch taught ECT for some conscious beings (e.g. demons, or fallen angels, or nephilim etc.), would it imply that both Peter and Jude believed some conscious agents will suffer ECT in Gehenna?
My Ongoing Post Discussion Thoughts:
Click on the post label "annihilationism" for more blogposts on the topic.
Does Conditional Immortality believe the cessation of consciousness is necessary condition of death? If so, and if they agree that Jesus the divine person didn't lose consciousness, then doesn't that entail that Jesus never died? Traditionalists who believe in an intermediate state have no problem saying that death doesn't involve a cessation of consciousness since the dead remain conscious during the intermediate state.
See the following blogpost by Steve Hays where he makes comments that could be used to support a qualitative sense of life and death.
Choose life! by Steve Hays
I suggest checking out Mt 13:40 where Jesus says what will be similar between the parable and actuality. Its also helpful to look at the greek word used for what happens to the chaff - katakaiō. It means to burn down to the ground or to consume wholly.
ReplyDelete