Today we’ll take a look at a number of confusing scriptures that seem to indicate that hell is a place where the wicked are consciously tormented forever. We’ll look at texts that talk about weeping and gnashing of teeth as well as the how the worm will not die nor the fire be quenched. We’ll consider biblical phrases like “eternal punishment,” “eternal fire,” and “everlasting contempt.” Last of all we’ll analyze two verses in Revelation that use the language of eternal torment to describe the final punishment.
—— Notes ——
State the Doctrine Simply
The biblical punishment for the wicked is destruction not an eternal life of torture. This is why we find scores of text that use words like perish, cut off, and death to describe the fate of the wicked.
Texts that Support This Teaching
Gen 2.17; 3.19, 22-23; 5.5; Ps 37.2, 9, 10, 20, 22, 27, 28, 34, 36; Mal 4.1-3; Mt 3.12; 7.13-14; 10.28; 18.8-9; Jn 3.16; Rom 6.23; Gal 6.8; 1 Tim 1.17; 2 Tim 1.9-10; Heb 10.26-27; 2 Pet 2.6; 3.6-7; 1 Jn 5.11-12; Jud 1.6-7
Logical Arguments that Support This Teaching
If Jesus paid our penalty for sin and the penalty for sin is eternal conscious torment, then Jesus had to suffer eternal conscious torment. However, Jesus suffered temporary torture followed by death.
What does it say about God that he set up our world to be such that those who refuse him must suffer day and night forever and ever without relief? How is he a God of love?
Justice is proportional so if a man sins for 80 years, he should not suffer eternally. If God punishes people infinitely for a finite number of sins, then this is unjust.
Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth in Fire/Outer Darkness
Matthew 8.11-12 (cp. 13.42)
11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
“weeping and gnashing of teeth” says nothing about the duration of a punishment. If someone faces judgement they are likely to weep and gnash, whether it is temporary or ongoing.
“weeping” connotes grief and “gnashing of teeth” anger not suffering
In the stoning of Stephen the mob got so angry that gnashed their teeth
Acts 7.52-54
52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, 53 you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.” 54 Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. [NASB: “they began gnashing their teeth at him”]
Acts 7.54 ἔβρυχον τοὺς ὀδόντας
Matthew 8.12 ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων.
Unquenchable Fire, Worm Does Not Die
Matthew 3.11-12
11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
unquenchable fire is a fire that cannot be put out
it refers to the quality of the fire not to its duration
have you ever seen a fire raging so hot, you could not put it out if you tried?
think of forest fires in California; they are unquenchable
Mark 9.47-48
47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’
This verse quotes from Isaiah 66.24
Isaiah 66.22 “For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your offspring and your name remain. 23 From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the LORD. 24 “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”
the context is indubitably eschatological as evidenced by v22 and the entire chapter
this scene picture rotting corpses that maggots are eating and raging fire is consuming, not living beings
imagine a final battle where many soldiers lay dead, their corpses strewn about on the battlefield, soaking it with their blood. The victors come through and collect all the bodies to bury or burn them. What sort of fire would it take to burn dead and partially decomposed cadavers? Only an intensely raging inferno could hope to burn them.
Recalling Jesus’ words “their worm does not dire and the fire is not quenched” refers to the worm and the fire not to living beings or even the dead bodies. The corpses’ worms will not die, presumably until they consume all that they can. Likewise, the fire remains unquenched and burning hot until it consumes whatever fuel is available.
Daniel 12.2
2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
first note the contrast
the righteous get “everlasting life”
the wicked get “shame everlasting contempt”
it would violate the parallelism for the wicked to get everlasting life in hell
shame and contempt can refer to either the wicked person’s feelings or the righteous
Isaiah 66.24
24 “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”
the word translated “abhorrence” here is the same as the word “contempt” in Daniel 12.2–דֵּרָאוֹן, and these are the only two places in the Hebrew Bible where that word occurs. The context of Isaiah 66.24 is the final judgment and the “abhorrence” or “contempt” is certainly not felt by the dead, maggot-infested corpses, but by the living who see the macabre scene and experience revulsion.
Matthew 18.8
8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.
first, “eternal” modifies “fire” not the experience of those thrown into it
even if the fire last forever, we have no reason to assume those thrown into it will miraculously regenerate to allow eternal torment
possibilities for eternal fire
the fire burns forever. After consuming the unrighteous, the fire continues to burn for all time as a memorial
“eternal fire” is prophetic hyperbole, maybe in that it’s experience is so painful that it seems like it goes on forever or that it does in fact go on for a long period
The fire may burn throughout the millennium age. At the end of the millennium the devil gets thrown into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet were (Rev 20.10)[2], but they were thrown in at the coming of Christ (Rev 19.20)
“eternal fire” is “fire of the age (to come)”, in other words it’s the kind of fire that belongs to that age. It’s age-to-come fire as opposed to this-age fire.
eternal = αἰώνιος, αἰώνιον = age-ish
Jude 1.7
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
How long did the fire God sent down on Sodom and Gomorrah last?
The angels say “the LORD has sent us to destroy it” (Gen 19.13)
The fire was going to be extremely intense. Leaving the city wasn’t good enough to find safety. “Escape to the hills, lest you be swept away.” (Gen 19.17). The destruction destroyed an entire area. “24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven. 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. (Genesis 19.24-25)
Genesis 19.27-28
27 And Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD. 28 And he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the valley, and he looked and, behold, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace.
this is what Jude calls “a punishment of eternal fire”
The biblical focus is on intensity not duration. In fact, there’s nowhere that tells us how long the fire burned.
Also, Jude does not say S&G was an example of eternal fire, as if eternal fire would be like S&G is like it, except it would go on forever. Rather Jude says S&G “serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” What S&G suffered was eternal fire!
2 Peter 2.6
6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
S&G got turned to ashes and extinction
Jonah 2.5-6
5 The waters closed in over me to take my life; the deep surrounded me; weeds were wrapped about my head 6 at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever; yet you brought up my life from the pit, O LORD my God.
Jonah’s prayer from within the fish includes his feeling that he had been locked away in the ocean forever, but in the next breath he recounts how God brought his life from the pit
so, αἰώνιος can refer to the feeling of lasting forever, as when enduring intense suffering (in this case drowning)
Matthew 25.41, 46
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. …46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
We’ve already discussed eternal fire, but this verse really fits well with Rev 20.10, 15 (discussed in just a minute or two)
eternal punishment can refer to
1: a punishment that one experiences for a long time or forever
2: a punishment whose effects continue forever
ie. the death penalty is an eternal punishment because once it’s carried out it is irreversible and lasts forever, however the experience of execution may have been very quick
Other examples of a “noun of action” include “eternal judgment” (Heb 6.2), “eternal salvation” (Heb 5.9), “eternal redemption” (Heb 9.12)
in all these cases it’s a judgement whose results lasts forever, a salvation that lasts forever, a redemption that lasts forever, a punishment that lasts forever
Revelation Texts, Tormented Day and Night Forever
Revelation 14.9-11
9 And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 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.”
Revelation 20.10
10 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.
Revelation uses a lot of symbology and visions
important to distinguish between the vision and the reality it points to
no question that in John’s vision he saw a fire where people were tormented day and night forever and ever
however, he also saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast w/ 7 heads and 10 horn. do we take that literally?
this woman represents Babylon, the final human city opposed to God
the smoke of her (Babylon’s) torment goes up forever and ever
Revelation 19.2-3
2 for his judgments are true and just; for he has judged the great prostitute who corrupted the earth with her immorality, and has avenged on her the blood of his servants.” 3 Once more they cried out, “Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up forever and ever.”
this hyperbolic language hearkens back to the destruction of Edom
Isaiah 34.9-11
9 And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into sulfur; her land shall become burning pitch. 10 Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever. 11 But the hawk and the porcupine shall possess it, the owl and the raven shall dwell in it. He shall stretch the line of confusion over it, and the plumb line of emptiness.
is there a place in the Middle East where Edom used to be that goes on burning year after year?
imagery of torment and smoke rising forever connotes fierce and irreversible destruction not ongoing suffering
what we see with Edom and Babylon is the same as those who get the mark of the beast
they will be destroyed
after all, we’re told the lake of fire just is the second death
Revelation 21.8
8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Revelation 20.14
14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
so getting tormented in the lake of fire is the image, but the meaning is destruction
similarly, the image is of a beast, but the interpretation is of a kingdom opposing God
[2] Note the translation difference between ESV “where the beast and the false prophet were” and the NASB “where the beast and the false prophet are.” The verb “to be” is not present so it’s up to the translator what tense to use.
1 thought on “Theology 8 — Challenging Annihilationism”
I appreciate your willingness to consider questions from folks like me who are always searching. Thanks for helping me “find my identity”. Before finding your website and knowing there was such a being as a “restorationist” or “biblical unitarian”, I came to my own conclusions about several so-called “doctrines” that had long bothered me. For example, Jesus is not God, the trinity was a pagan overlay onto Christianity when Christianity was ultimately corrupted in the fourth century, one may not be able to “lose” their salvation – but they can certainly “forfeit” it by deciding they no longer want Jesus as the authority for their life; and that if I wanted truth I would have to go further back in history to the first three centuries. When I wrote my book, one of my core tenets was, “The unexamined belief is not worth embracing”; which was a modification of what Socrates said about life in general. After publishing it I continue to learn, which brings me to where I am with this idea of annihilationism. I am heading to the website you recommend next, but before I do that these are my thoughts about this class.
Three key issues that I saw while listening were (1) translation; choosing how to translate a word that has more than one application – and staying in context; (2) the tendency we all have to stray further and further away from scripture as we discuss our ideas and why we think they are valid; and (3) choosing when we want to be “literal”, “figurative”, “metaphoric”, or “hyperbolic” in our discussion.
Matthew 10:28 – “fear Him who can ‘kill’” – “Kill” has two words with nuanced differences in meaning, each of which has a figurative and literal application. One is simply “put to death” which is used for the body. The other has a broader or fuller application of “destroy, die, lose, mar, perish” with regard to the soul. Both words are figurative or literal. In context, Jesus is talking about whom to “fear” and the point is that God is our all-powerful refuge. I think using this verse to say that God destroys our souls is definitely taking it out of context.
Romans 6:23 – “The wages of sin are death.” The word for “death” is an adjective, not the verb. “Death” is a figurative description not the actual state of being dead. In English we might use them interchangeably and that might allow us to loosely apply them but I think God inspired different words for a specific reason.
I think we must be very careful when we try to present what we think are “logical arguments.” Are they really logical? Or are they an attempt to put God in one of our boxes?
(1) Penal Substitution is a “belief” – a belief based on what? Some guy got an idea and wanted to find scripture to support it? This is the very definition of making the Bible say whatever you want it to say. Penal substitution is a man-made construct for law and order that determines sentencing and punishment, or “paying the price” of a wrong. This topic opens the broader issue of the teaching of “substitutional atonement” that only came about in the 11th century (1098). The effort to tie this teaching to the Old Testament sacrificial system forgets the idea that the animal was not killed as a substitute, the substitute was the “scapegoat” that lived and was set free. Jesus did not “take our place”, Jesus “propitiated” – appeased, placated, expiated – our rebellion toward God by the gesture of “shedding His blood for the remission of sin.” The word for remission is aphesis which means to release from imprisonment or bondage. We are all born in bondage to sin and Jesus’ sacrifice releases us from that. Penal substitution should not be used as any sort of “logical” approach for the idea of annihilationism. It is also an idea that should not be applied to what Christ accomplished.
(2) Cruelty of God. The first issue with this point was who is man to question the character of God. Or worse yet, cast dispersion on the “character of God”.
Asking, “If He is a God of love and mercy why does He need to set up a world where people are tormented forever?” ignores the issue to ask an emotional question. “That is the cruelest thing anyone could go through” is another emotional argument that detracts from the issue. One student brough up justice and the response was, “It’s not just justice; it’s a question of Gods character itself.” I would disagree and say it is a matter of justice. Remember, man is not being sentenced to hell, he is being sent there because he was never reconciled to God during his lifetime. Big difference. God is not being cruel. Using this emotional argument ignores the main issue of choosing to live a life ignoring God.
(3) Proportional Judgment – again this is an anachronism, applying modern legal standards to God’s judgment. How much you suffer is proportional to how much you sin. Jesus said so. However, how “long” you are “punished” has nothing to do with the degree of punishment. The degree of punishment varies with what might be “more tolerable” based on the individual circumstances.
Matthew 8:11-12 – “has no timeline attached to it” This scripture has nothing to do with the final judgment. That could be a reason why “there is no mention of fire”. The context is the example of the Centurion – a non jew – being blessed – or “reclining at the table with Abraham – – -“ in the Kingdom WHILE THE SONS OF THE KINGDON ARE THROWN INTO OUTER DARKNESS where there is suffering. Again, hyperbolic language that describes the destruction of Old Testament Israel and the new covenant Jesus usured in.
Act 7:52-54 – “Gnashing of teeth” is easily both pain and anger. You cannot “choose the one that fits” and insist that is the only explanation of the term.
Matthew 3:12 – again an interpretation issue. To say “unquenchable” does not mean that it cannot be put out is like saying “asymmetric” does not mean that something is
“not symmetric” The word is asbestos which is a contraction using “a” for “not” (just like in English with “a”symetric) connected with “sbennumi” for “extinguish” or “quench”. This word most clearly declares that this fire cannot be put out. How it continues – the “God thing” – or buy what means it is fueled – our human application – is really a moot point. Saying a fire needs fuel is again putting the Creator God in one of our finite boxes.
Whether figurative or literal, the fire cannot be extinguished. Trying to explain that unquenchable refers to the “quality of the fire versus the duration” is creating a narrative that is definitely adding to the context. Putting a fire out has nothing to do with how it previously burned. The irony is that “asbestos” took on the exact opposite meaning of “cannot catch fire” with the development of asbestos insulation.
Mark 9:47-48 – In this passage the word “asbestos” is replaced with “ou” “sbennumi” which simply means “not quenched”. Why do some manuscripts remove verses 44 and 46 where the point is iterated two more time as in verse 48? In addition to the point in Matthew that the fire cannot be put out, this passage is telling us three times that the fire is not ever put out. To say God cannot create a fire that does not need any fuel is utterly ridiculous. Stop and think about what is really being said here. God begat Jesus beyond our physical realm. That is the main miracle but there are so many more.
Isaiah 66:24 – The discussion of dead bodies “magically regenerating” as the fire burns them is definitely eisegesis, “reading in” to the context something that is not said. Why focus on the literal use of dead bodies when this is clearly metaphorical and hyperbolic “prophecy language”. If you are going to say a passage is a vision and metaphorical don’t arbitrarily choose parts that you want to make literal so it can be used to support an idea that is not even part of the original passage. There are always opportunities to “recognize what’s going on here”, but even then care must be taken not to “read in.” There is no “assumption” that anyone thrown into the fire “will miraculously regenerate” because there is no mention of anyone being thrown into the fire.
Daniel 12:2 – “Our solution is to say” – – – and the “if anybody disagrees with that I don’t know what to do.” Saying that they would be held in contempt ignores the definition of contempt. Contempt is not just an emotion or attitude; it is also disobedient or disrespectful action based on that evil emotion. Besides if we are resurrected to perfection, we could not engage contemptuous actions. The meaning is disrespect, disobedience, intense dislike (hate). None of these emotions are any sort of the fruit of the spirit that we who are finally completely righteous would be able to engage. We must always think through the second and third order of effects before making a statement that circumvents actual meanings of words.
They are awaking – being resurrected – to everlasting contempt. If the “solution is to say” they are merely being held in contempt for ever there is no reason for them to be brought back to life. They are being resurrected to live out their contemptible state of being willfully disobedient or openly disrespectful, which was their state before dying or their state upon Jesus’ return. They have to exist in order to do what this verse is saying they will do.
To say they receive the “effect” but not the “experience” is definitely reading into the context. Context is king. This is not a comparison of the actual life versus actual annihilation; it is the comparison of two different life experiences. One is a good life the other is a miserable, contemptible life, both of which require actual life.
Matthew 18:8 – Yes the “everlasting” in this verse modifies the fire and there is no mention in this verse of the “experience.” This distinction is assuming the unsubstantiated concept of the “experience” versus the “effect.”
Possibilities – One can certainly introduce hyperbole and get creative, but don’t mention all sorts of possibilities, all of which are equally possible, so you can choose your preferred possibility. Your choice is no more valid than any of the other options because none of them are specified. Just because you can’t see the “biblical everlasting fire” today “on Google Earth” is a ridiculous anachronism. Clearly the “everlasting fire” is the everlasting form of punishment. Why are metaphors and hyperbole not accepted in this passage?
Malachi 4:3 – Ashes under your feet – Does not “prove” anything. This is cherry picking at its worst.
2 Peter 2:6 – Everlasting fire can turn “stuff” into ashes and extinction – – – but that does not mean the metaphoric fire stops burning.
Jonah 2:5 – Forever may sometimes not mean eternity as in this emotional expression from Jonah – however, it would have been eternal if God had not “brought him up”. From his perspective at the time of his prayer, it WAS eternal.
Matthew 25 – the effect lasts forever – not the experience. Saying that execution is a “punishment” that lasts forever is a play on words. Punishment is imposing undesirable consequences for actions. By nature, this must be an “experience” – – – not an “effect.” Also note that judgment and punishment are not synonymous with each other. Which word is used in each context? The punishment in Matthew 25:46 is kolasis which is correction, punishment, and torment. The judgment in Hebrews 6:2 it is krima which is a decree, passing of judgment or sentencing. It might be easy for us to conceptualize the judgment and not the punishment. However, if the bible says the punishment is everlasting I think we should err on the side of the experience being everlasting.
Revelation 14:9-11 – This is a vision not to be taken literally. Why is death here literal and not metaphorical? This is the problem with hermeneutics and arbitrarily choosing when we want to say one vision is literal but another is not. In the various texts that teach destroyed, cut off, be no more – when do we read literal and when do we read metaphoric or hyperbolic. Why can’t “death” and “hades” be metaphorically destroyed, cut off, or no longer exist?
I am not writing this as any type of rebuttal to “affirm my position” because quite frankly I am still open to the idea. My only issue is that since becoming more focused on my studies and why I believe in a certain way, I have seen that all of us, to some degree, bring a pretext to our study. At some point we stop being diligent in “dissecting the word” and choose to accept a teaching. That teaching is usually – to some degree – extrabiblical in the sense that it is not specifically articulated in scripture. In the end, the only non-negotiable truth is that Jesus is the only way truth and life and no one comes to the Father except through Him.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
I appreciate your willingness to consider questions from folks like me who are always searching. Thanks for helping me “find my identity”. Before finding your website and knowing there was such a being as a “restorationist” or “biblical unitarian”, I came to my own conclusions about several so-called “doctrines” that had long bothered me. For example, Jesus is not God, the trinity was a pagan overlay onto Christianity when Christianity was ultimately corrupted in the fourth century, one may not be able to “lose” their salvation – but they can certainly “forfeit” it by deciding they no longer want Jesus as the authority for their life; and that if I wanted truth I would have to go further back in history to the first three centuries. When I wrote my book, one of my core tenets was, “The unexamined belief is not worth embracing”; which was a modification of what Socrates said about life in general. After publishing it I continue to learn, which brings me to where I am with this idea of annihilationism. I am heading to the website you recommend next, but before I do that these are my thoughts about this class.
Three key issues that I saw while listening were (1) translation; choosing how to translate a word that has more than one application – and staying in context; (2) the tendency we all have to stray further and further away from scripture as we discuss our ideas and why we think they are valid; and (3) choosing when we want to be “literal”, “figurative”, “metaphoric”, or “hyperbolic” in our discussion.
Matthew 10:28 – “fear Him who can ‘kill’” – “Kill” has two words with nuanced differences in meaning, each of which has a figurative and literal application. One is simply “put to death” which is used for the body. The other has a broader or fuller application of “destroy, die, lose, mar, perish” with regard to the soul. Both words are figurative or literal. In context, Jesus is talking about whom to “fear” and the point is that God is our all-powerful refuge. I think using this verse to say that God destroys our souls is definitely taking it out of context.
Romans 6:23 – “The wages of sin are death.” The word for “death” is an adjective, not the verb. “Death” is a figurative description not the actual state of being dead. In English we might use them interchangeably and that might allow us to loosely apply them but I think God inspired different words for a specific reason.
I think we must be very careful when we try to present what we think are “logical arguments.” Are they really logical? Or are they an attempt to put God in one of our boxes?
(1) Penal Substitution is a “belief” – a belief based on what? Some guy got an idea and wanted to find scripture to support it? This is the very definition of making the Bible say whatever you want it to say. Penal substitution is a man-made construct for law and order that determines sentencing and punishment, or “paying the price” of a wrong. This topic opens the broader issue of the teaching of “substitutional atonement” that only came about in the 11th century (1098). The effort to tie this teaching to the Old Testament sacrificial system forgets the idea that the animal was not killed as a substitute, the substitute was the “scapegoat” that lived and was set free. Jesus did not “take our place”, Jesus “propitiated” – appeased, placated, expiated – our rebellion toward God by the gesture of “shedding His blood for the remission of sin.” The word for remission is aphesis which means to release from imprisonment or bondage. We are all born in bondage to sin and Jesus’ sacrifice releases us from that. Penal substitution should not be used as any sort of “logical” approach for the idea of annihilationism. It is also an idea that should not be applied to what Christ accomplished.
(2) Cruelty of God. The first issue with this point was who is man to question the character of God. Or worse yet, cast dispersion on the “character of God”.
Asking, “If He is a God of love and mercy why does He need to set up a world where people are tormented forever?” ignores the issue to ask an emotional question. “That is the cruelest thing anyone could go through” is another emotional argument that detracts from the issue. One student brough up justice and the response was, “It’s not just justice; it’s a question of Gods character itself.” I would disagree and say it is a matter of justice. Remember, man is not being sentenced to hell, he is being sent there because he was never reconciled to God during his lifetime. Big difference. God is not being cruel. Using this emotional argument ignores the main issue of choosing to live a life ignoring God.
(3) Proportional Judgment – again this is an anachronism, applying modern legal standards to God’s judgment. How much you suffer is proportional to how much you sin. Jesus said so. However, how “long” you are “punished” has nothing to do with the degree of punishment. The degree of punishment varies with what might be “more tolerable” based on the individual circumstances.
Matthew 8:11-12 – “has no timeline attached to it” This scripture has nothing to do with the final judgment. That could be a reason why “there is no mention of fire”. The context is the example of the Centurion – a non jew – being blessed – or “reclining at the table with Abraham – – -“ in the Kingdom WHILE THE SONS OF THE KINGDON ARE THROWN INTO OUTER DARKNESS where there is suffering. Again, hyperbolic language that describes the destruction of Old Testament Israel and the new covenant Jesus usured in.
Act 7:52-54 – “Gnashing of teeth” is easily both pain and anger. You cannot “choose the one that fits” and insist that is the only explanation of the term.
Matthew 3:12 – again an interpretation issue. To say “unquenchable” does not mean that it cannot be put out is like saying “asymmetric” does not mean that something is
“not symmetric” The word is asbestos which is a contraction using “a” for “not” (just like in English with “a”symetric) connected with “sbennumi” for “extinguish” or “quench”. This word most clearly declares that this fire cannot be put out. How it continues – the “God thing” – or buy what means it is fueled – our human application – is really a moot point. Saying a fire needs fuel is again putting the Creator God in one of our finite boxes.
Whether figurative or literal, the fire cannot be extinguished. Trying to explain that unquenchable refers to the “quality of the fire versus the duration” is creating a narrative that is definitely adding to the context. Putting a fire out has nothing to do with how it previously burned. The irony is that “asbestos” took on the exact opposite meaning of “cannot catch fire” with the development of asbestos insulation.
Mark 9:47-48 – In this passage the word “asbestos” is replaced with “ou” “sbennumi” which simply means “not quenched”. Why do some manuscripts remove verses 44 and 46 where the point is iterated two more time as in verse 48? In addition to the point in Matthew that the fire cannot be put out, this passage is telling us three times that the fire is not ever put out. To say God cannot create a fire that does not need any fuel is utterly ridiculous. Stop and think about what is really being said here. God begat Jesus beyond our physical realm. That is the main miracle but there are so many more.
Isaiah 66:24 – The discussion of dead bodies “magically regenerating” as the fire burns them is definitely eisegesis, “reading in” to the context something that is not said. Why focus on the literal use of dead bodies when this is clearly metaphorical and hyperbolic “prophecy language”. If you are going to say a passage is a vision and metaphorical don’t arbitrarily choose parts that you want to make literal so it can be used to support an idea that is not even part of the original passage. There are always opportunities to “recognize what’s going on here”, but even then care must be taken not to “read in.” There is no “assumption” that anyone thrown into the fire “will miraculously regenerate” because there is no mention of anyone being thrown into the fire.
Daniel 12:2 – “Our solution is to say” – – – and the “if anybody disagrees with that I don’t know what to do.” Saying that they would be held in contempt ignores the definition of contempt. Contempt is not just an emotion or attitude; it is also disobedient or disrespectful action based on that evil emotion. Besides if we are resurrected to perfection, we could not engage contemptuous actions. The meaning is disrespect, disobedience, intense dislike (hate). None of these emotions are any sort of the fruit of the spirit that we who are finally completely righteous would be able to engage. We must always think through the second and third order of effects before making a statement that circumvents actual meanings of words.
They are awaking – being resurrected – to everlasting contempt. If the “solution is to say” they are merely being held in contempt for ever there is no reason for them to be brought back to life. They are being resurrected to live out their contemptible state of being willfully disobedient or openly disrespectful, which was their state before dying or their state upon Jesus’ return. They have to exist in order to do what this verse is saying they will do.
To say they receive the “effect” but not the “experience” is definitely reading into the context. Context is king. This is not a comparison of the actual life versus actual annihilation; it is the comparison of two different life experiences. One is a good life the other is a miserable, contemptible life, both of which require actual life.
Matthew 18:8 – Yes the “everlasting” in this verse modifies the fire and there is no mention in this verse of the “experience.” This distinction is assuming the unsubstantiated concept of the “experience” versus the “effect.”
Possibilities – One can certainly introduce hyperbole and get creative, but don’t mention all sorts of possibilities, all of which are equally possible, so you can choose your preferred possibility. Your choice is no more valid than any of the other options because none of them are specified. Just because you can’t see the “biblical everlasting fire” today “on Google Earth” is a ridiculous anachronism. Clearly the “everlasting fire” is the everlasting form of punishment. Why are metaphors and hyperbole not accepted in this passage?
Malachi 4:3 – Ashes under your feet – Does not “prove” anything. This is cherry picking at its worst.
2 Peter 2:6 – Everlasting fire can turn “stuff” into ashes and extinction – – – but that does not mean the metaphoric fire stops burning.
Jonah 2:5 – Forever may sometimes not mean eternity as in this emotional expression from Jonah – however, it would have been eternal if God had not “brought him up”. From his perspective at the time of his prayer, it WAS eternal.
Matthew 25 – the effect lasts forever – not the experience. Saying that execution is a “punishment” that lasts forever is a play on words. Punishment is imposing undesirable consequences for actions. By nature, this must be an “experience” – – – not an “effect.” Also note that judgment and punishment are not synonymous with each other. Which word is used in each context? The punishment in Matthew 25:46 is kolasis which is correction, punishment, and torment. The judgment in Hebrews 6:2 it is krima which is a decree, passing of judgment or sentencing. It might be easy for us to conceptualize the judgment and not the punishment. However, if the bible says the punishment is everlasting I think we should err on the side of the experience being everlasting.
Revelation 14:9-11 – This is a vision not to be taken literally. Why is death here literal and not metaphorical? This is the problem with hermeneutics and arbitrarily choosing when we want to say one vision is literal but another is not. In the various texts that teach destroyed, cut off, be no more – when do we read literal and when do we read metaphoric or hyperbolic. Why can’t “death” and “hades” be metaphorically destroyed, cut off, or no longer exist?
I am not writing this as any type of rebuttal to “affirm my position” because quite frankly I am still open to the idea. My only issue is that since becoming more focused on my studies and why I believe in a certain way, I have seen that all of us, to some degree, bring a pretext to our study. At some point we stop being diligent in “dissecting the word” and choose to accept a teaching. That teaching is usually – to some degree – extrabiblical in the sense that it is not specifically articulated in scripture. In the end, the only non-negotiable truth is that Jesus is the only way truth and life and no one comes to the Father except through Him.
Thanks for hearing me out. Now on to the website!