Thomas Fretwell’s Fallacies on Evangelical Annihilationism

J. D. Gallé | Wednesday, 8 May 2019

        Thomas Fretwell, in an article published on Creation Ministries International’s website entitled ‘Is Christianity Unbelievable? Review of a Book by Influential UK Christian Radio Show Host’ (9 Apr. 2019), under the subheading ‘Eternal punishment?’, writes:

One other area where the author [Justin Brierley] says his views have been revised is his understanding of hell. Departing from the traditional view of hell as an eternal reality after death[,] Brierley explains that his present understanding “is one that theologians call ‘annihilationism’” (p. 184)—a view that basically says hell is the end of existence for the unsaved. Although he states that “there are a growing number of significant Christian leaders” who hold this view, it is a frank denial of the plain teaching of the New Testament, not least the Lord Jesus Himself ([…]). Consequently, it is still considered to be an unorthodox view in today’s Church, held only by a minority of professing evangelical leaders.[1, 2]

        There are several problems with Fretwell’s assertions and characterisations of the doctrine of annihilationism. Firstly, evangelicals who hold to the teaching of the final annihilation of the unrighteous no more deny the ‘eternal reality’ of eschatological punishment than do advocates of the conventional view of everlasting, conscious torture. Adherents of both positions maintain the everlasting, permanent, and irreversible nature of the divine verdict to be passed upon the wicked on Judgement Day.
        Secondly, it is true that evangelical proponents of annihilationism believe that the future punishment of those who are not saved will reach its climax in the termination of their existence. That is not to say, however, that the unrighteous will not suffer mentally and/or physically (in their resurrected bodies) for a period of time prior to being finally exterminated. They will certainly be conscious on the day of judgement when they are held to account for their lives and are banished from the presence of the Lord Jesus, the holy angels, and his people, into age-lasting punishment (see Matt. 7.21–23; 25.41, 46).

        Thirdly, regarding the charge that annihilationism is a ‘frank denial of the plain teaching of the New Testament, not least the Lord Jesus Himself’, I beg to differ. I would invite Fretwell (and others of his opinion), if he has not already, to carefully read Edward Fudge’s monumental work, The Fire That Consumes (2011).[3] A strong biblical case for the final extinction of the wicked has already been made. It is therefore incumbent upon advocates of the conventional view of interminable torment to counter annihilationists’ actual scriptural and theological arguments.
        Fourthly, I must confess that I fail to appreciate the significance of the observation that, at present, annihilationism is a minority position within the realm of evangelicalism. This is a form of the argumentum ad populum (argument to the people) to which Fretwell is appealing. Ironically, it is precisely this form of argumentation that young-earth creationist organisations such as Creation Ministries International (rightly) frown upon when employed by opposing voices to dismiss their cosmological stance. Protestants/evangelicals who maintain a sola or prima scriptura hermeneutical view need not baulk at adopting, or considering the adoption of, the doctrine of annihilationism because of the paucity of its proponents. As always, with regard to faith and practice, scripture must be the final authority.

Notes

        1. Fretwell’s article may be read in its entirety at <https://creation.com/unbelievable>.
        2. The book under review by Fretwell is Justin Brierley’s Unbelievable? Why, after Ten Years of Talking with Atheists, I'm Still a Christian (London, UK: SPCK, 2017).
        3. Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, 3rd edn (Cambridge, UK: Lutterworth Press, 2012 / Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011).

Original content copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.


Latest revisions: corrected a misplaced apostrophe in par. 5 (22 Sept. 2019); emended ‘heading’ to ‘subheading’ in par. 1 (21 Oct. 2021); emended scriptural abbreviation (10 Nov. 2021); altered ‘scarcity’ to ‘paucity’ in last paragraph (11 Oct. 2022).

Clark H. Pinnock on the Gravity of Annihilationism

        [W]hatever hell turns out to be like, it is a very grim prospect. Though annihilationism makes hell less of a torture chamber,[1] it does not lessen its extreme seriousness. After all, to be rejected by God, to miss the purpose for which one was created, to pass into oblivion while others enter bliss, to enter into nonbeing—this will mean weeping and gnashing of teeth. Hell is a terrifying possibility, the possibility of using our freedom to lose God and destroy ourselves. Of course we do not know who or how many will be damned, because we do not know who will finally say No to God. What we do know is that sinners may finally reject salvation, that absolute loss is something to be reckoned with. I do not think one needs to know more about hell than that.

 

Clark H. Pinnock, ‘The Conditional View’, in William Crockett (ed.), Four Views on Hell, 1st edn, Counterpoints: Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1996), p. 165

Copyright © Clark H. Pinnock, 1996. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Four Views on Hell (1996),[2]* see the links to the following websites:

• Zondervan Academic (HarperCollins Christian Publishing)
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Notes

        1. That is, ‘less of a torture chamber’ than the conventional view of ‘hell’. The traditional understanding of the future and final state of the unrighteous is that they are to experience endless bodily and soulish suffering in Gehenna/the lake of fire, along with the Devil and his angels.
        2. Twenty years after the release of the first edition of Four Views on Hell (1996), an entirely new edition of this volume has been released under the same title with four different contributors contending for four discrete perspectives on the doctrine of eschatological punishment. See Preston Sprinkle (ed.), Four Views on Hell, 2nd edn, Counterpoints: Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2016).  —J. D. Gallé

(Revised second note on Thursday, 28 October 2021.)

Addendum (21 Sept. 2022).  Clark H. Pinnock (1937–2010) died on Sunday, 15 August 2010, aged seventy-three.

• Christian Post
  
• Christianity Today

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

Matthew 3.12 and Traditionalist Translational Bias in the Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

J. D. Gallé | Friday, 10 March 2017

        The CSB[1] translates Matthew 3.12 in such a way that it is apt to reinforce belief in the doctrine of eternal, conscious punishment amongst its (principally) conservative evangelical readership:

“His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn. But the chaff he will burn [katakausei] with fire that never goes out [puri asbestō].”[2]

        By way of contrast, the BSB,[3] LEB,[4] MEV,[5] Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (2011), NASB,[6] NET,[7] and NKJV[8] translate katakaiō as ‘burn up’, and six of the seven preceding English Bible translations render pur asbestos as ‘unquenchable fire’.[9]
        The trouble with the CSB’s rendering of Matthew 3.12 is that it is interpretational in nature, potentially (if not very likely) misleading, and reflective of traditionalist translational bias. A fire that never goes out conforms well with the conventional notion that the wicked will be preserved for ever in a place of torment (i.e. ‘hell’), but such a reading of Matthew 3.12 is not derived from the actual text.

Katakaiō 

[K]ατακαίω [katakaiō] means not only to burn, but “to consume” by fire ([…]). It is used in relation to burning the gates of the Jerusalem temple (1 Mac. 4:38), of books (Acts 19:19), trees and grass of the earth (Rev 8:7), weeds (Matt 13:40), and chaff […] [Matt 3:12].[10]

Pur Asbestos

[T]he image of unquenchable fire throughout the Old Testament prophets, […] [describes] fire that cannot be resisted or put out. Not surprisingly, such a fire consumes, reduces to nothing and burns up whatever is put in it (Ezek 20:47-48; Amos 5:6; Mt 3:12).[11]

Commenting on Mark 9.43 and the ‘unquenchable fire’ of Gehenna, Kim Papaioannou observes:

[Ἄσβεστον (asbeston)] qualifies the nature of the πῦρ [pur], namely, that it cannot be put out by a third party. It is thus a description of the nature of the fire without any reference to duration.[12]

Conclusion

        When left unmolested by the traditionalist biases of certain English Bible translation committees, Matthew 3.12 can readily be seen as providing solid support for an annihilationist understanding of the future and final judgement of the unrepentant. The contrast John the Baptiser sets forth in this text is one of preservation and destruction. As wheat is gathered and preserved in a barn at the time of harvest, the righteous will be preserved from the wrath of God on Judgement Day. Conversely, as chaff is discarded and consumed at harvest time, the unrighteous will not be so preserved, but completely destroyed (see Matt. 13.30, 40).
        Regrettably, the Christian Standard Bible obscures this rather plain reading of Matthew 3.12 in two ways. The CSB (1) blunts the force of the term katakaiō (‘burn up’, ‘consume’) by rendering it simply as ‘burn’; and (2) reads duration into pur asbestos where such a consideration is absent (i.e. the ‘fire that never goes out’).

Notes

        1. Christian Standard Bible (2017). All emphases in scriptural quotations have been added by the author.
        2. Compare Matthew 3.12c in the Holman Christian Standard Bible (2009): ‘“But the chaff He will burn up [katakausei] with fire that never goes out [puri asbestō].”’
        3. Berean Study Bible (2016).
        4. Lexham English Bible (2012).
        5. Modern English Version (2014).
        6. New American Standard Bible (1995).
        7. New English Translation (1996–2006).
        8. New King James Version (1982).
        9. The NET reads ‘inextinguishable fire’.
        10. Kim Papaioannou, The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus: Gehena, Hades, the Abyss, the Outer Darkness Where There Is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013), p. 69 n. 55.
        11. Edward William Fudge, ‘The Teachings of Jesus’, in idem and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000), p. 38.
        12. Papaioannou, The Geography of Hell, p. 34.

Original content copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2017, 2018, 2021. All rights reserved.

Addendum.  Readers are encouraged to consult the volumes cited in this article (see nn. 10 and 11 above).


Latest revisions: 19 February 2018 (all colons dividing chapters and verses of scriptural references have been converted to full stops; added a comma in n. 10; altered a ‘cf.’ to ‘see’); 24 February 2018 (abbreviated a scriptural citation; converted one semi-colon to a comma); emended note 11 (9 Oct. 2021); altered one scriptural abbreviation (2 Dec. 2021).

Does ‘Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth’ Denote Ongoing Suffering in the Synoptic Gospels?

J. D. Gallé | Tuesday, 4 October 2016

Preface

        The following article, ‘Does “Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth” Denote Ongoing Suffering in the Synoptic Gospels?’ (4 Oct. 2016), is a revised/reworked, expanded, and retitled version of my earlier piece, ‘Does “Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth” Denote Suffering in Scripture?’ (16 Jan. 2015).


Does ‘Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth’ Denote Ongoing Suffering in the Synoptic Gospels?

        For the best and most detailed exposition of the ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ texts that I am presently aware of, see Kim Papaioannou’s recently published work on the doctrine of final punishment as set forth in the Synoptic Gospels, The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus (2013).[1] As it turns out, the phrase does not indicate what Robert Peterson and fellow traditionalist interpreters typically assume that it does: externally inflicted pain experienced by the unrighteous in ‘hell’ throughout eternity. Rather, it is an expression intended to denote the acute, internal emotional response of those finally excluded from the kingdom of heaven/God (Lk. 13.28; cf. Matt. 8.12).

        Throughout Scripture, when a person or group is said to gnash or grind his/her/their teeth at another, it invariably denotes a hostile, wrathful response directed against a perceived party of injury or offence (see Ps. 112.10; Acts 7.54). It does not signify the external imposition of suffering, pain, or torment that will be undergone by the unjust in Gehenna.[2, 3] Weeping likewise arises from a negative psychological state, stemming from sadness or despair. The lost will be be grieved beyond measure (weeping) and enraged at God and Christ for not inheriting the kingdom (gnashing their teeth). Any physical suffering the unrighteous may undergo as a result of divine retribution being meted out on them on the day of judgement is not the point being emphasised in these texts.
        Lastly, it must be noted that not one of the ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ texts (Matt. 8.12; 13.42, 50; 22.13; 24.51; 25.30; Lk. 13.28) provides any warrant or expectation that this response will carry on unendingly.[4] How long the activities of wailing and teeth-gnashing are to continue is not a factor under consideration in these passages. Even so, Peterson insists on reading everlasting torment into these texts largely due to his unwillingness to re-examine the one foundational assumption underlying his entire study on the nature of final punishment: universal human immortality. For this reason Peterson is left with no choice but to define the scriptural language of death and destruction in such a way that the supposition of general immortality is left unscathed.[5] Unfortunately, much of Peterson's argumentation is circular in nature and his exegesis suffers greatly on key texts as a result.[6]

Conclusion

        Firstly, in the Synoptic Gospels the expression ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ specifically pertains to the visceral, emotional response of the unrighteous following their banishment or removal from the heavenly kingdom. These two emotions are grief and anger (or rage). The response of the excluded is one that issues from an internal state: a state of mental distress resulting from their great disappointment in being rejected from the kingdom of heaven/God. The phrase is not used with reference to any external infliction of pain or suffering that the unrepentant may experience as remuneration for their sins on Judgement Day. Bodily torture is not in view.
        Secondly, in respect of duration, the seven ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ passages are silent regarding how long the wicked will endure their condition of psychological misery.[7]
        Thirdly and finally, in the light of the foregoing considerations, none of the ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ texts located in the Synoptics can be used as positive support for the teaching of endless torture. These passages should therefore no longer be employed by adherents of the conventional view of ‘hell’ as proof texts for eternal, conscious punishment.

Notes

        1. Kim Papaioannou, The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus: Gehenna, Hades, the Abyss, the Outer Darkness Where There Is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013), pp. 175–233. See also idem, ‘Shedding Light on the Outer Darkness: A Fresh Look at the Language of Hell’, Ministry: International Journal for Pastors vol. 84, no. 9 (Sept. 2012): 19–22, <https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2012/09/shedding-light-on-the-outer-darkness>.

        2. Contra Robert A. Peterson, Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1995), pp. 51, 164–5, 167–8; idem, ‘The Foundation of the House: Scripture’, in Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000), pp. 139, 159.
        3. This common misunderstanding and misapplication of the expression ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ has been observed by Edward William Fudge (‘A Conditionalist Response to Traditionalism’, in idem and Peterson, Two Views of Hell, pp. 197–8):

Peterson asserts that “Scripture repeatedly explains the effect of hellfire on those cast into it; it brings great pain” (p. 139). As proof he refers to Jesus’ mention of “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Like all traditionalists, Peterson reads into this language the meaning he needs to prove. He completely ignores the Bible’s own usage of “gnashing of teeth”—a phrase consistently indicating great anger.

        4. As noted in Papaioannou, The Geography of Hell, pp. 190, 240–1. See also David J. Powys, ‘Hell’: A Hard Look at a Hard Question: The Fate of the Unrighteous in New Testament Thought, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1997 / Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), p. 283.
        5. That is, metaphorically, paradoxically, counter-intuitively.
        6. See, for example, Peterson’s treatment of Matthew 3.12; 10.28; 13.40; John 3.16, 36; 2 Peter 2.6; 3.6–7, 9; and Jude 7 in Hell on Trial and Two Views of Hell. (For complete references of the two aforementioned titles, see n. 2 above.)
        7. Nevertheless, we do find evidence in one pericope indicating that the weeping and gnashing of teeth will – rather, must – come to an end: Jesus’ exposition of the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13.36–43). As the tares will be bundled and burned up at the time of harvest, so it will be in the case of the unrighteous at the close of the age (v. 40). Contrary to the conventional view, the imagery of fire and consumption strongly suggest destruction, not preservation in torment.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.

Addendum.  Readers are encouraged to consult the literature cited in this article. See especially note 1 (above).

Latest revisions: 1 November 2016 (altered one word in n. 7); 5 November 2016 (altered ‘Jesus’s’ to ‘Jesus’ ’ in n. 7); 17 January 2017 (converted ‘InterVarsity Press’ to ‘IVP Academic’ for citation in n. 2; hyphenated one term); 3 April 2017 (minor emendations made to some references); 12 July 2017 (added three commas); 25 December 2017 (converted an en dash to a colon in n. 4); 19 January 2018 (all colons dividing chapters and verses of scriptural references have been converted to full stops); 23 February 2018 (some scriptural citations abbreviated [e.g. ‘Matt.’ to ‘Mt ’]; added brackets to n. 3; replaced ‘and’ with ampersand in n. 4); 24 February 2018 (removed a hyphen in one place); 11 May 2019 (replaced ‘e.g.’ with ‘for example’ in n. 6); 23 May 2019 (replaced ‘I.e.’ with ‘That is’ in n. 5; altered preposition in n. 6); added further detail to n. 1 (18 Sept. 2021); altered scriptural abbreviations (31 Oct. 2021); emended n. 6 (25 Feb. 2022); slightly emended citation in n. 3 (13 Aug. 2022); emended n. 1 (7 Sept. 2022); reverted a portion of n. 2 to its earlier, original form (26 Sept. 2022).

Is Salvation about Hell-avoidance? A Response to Gregory A. Boyd

J. D. Gallé | Thursday, 16 June 2016

        In an endnote from The Myth of a Christian Religion (2009), Gregory Boyd writes:

Many today embrace the erroneous view that getting “saved” is about avoiding hell.[1] The biblical concept of salvation is not about avoiding the consequences of sin (hell) but about being freed from the sin that leads to those consequences. It’s about being empowered to walk in a Kingdom way that leads to eternal life, not death.[2] This is why the New Testament speaks of salvation as something that has happened, is happening, and will happen.[3, 4]

        What is presented here is a rather obvious case of a false dichotomy. Human salvation consists of both the deliverance from the power and consequence(s) of sin. In other words, it is a case of both-and, not either-or. As Boyd and I are in basic agreement on salvation entailing deliverance from sin’s power, it is upon the latter point that I will dwell: salvation is from the penalty of sin.

Jesus on salvation from Gehenna

        Jesus solemnly warns of the adverse eschatological fate awaiting those who fail to take even extreme measures to overcome the stumbling block of indulging in illicit lust (i.e. covetousness): they will be cast into Gehenna (Matt. 5.29–30). (Elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus defines Gehenna as a place where soul/life and body are destroyed [10.28].) Jesus tells his hearers that it is better for an individual to have a single member of his or her body perish (an eye, a hand) than to lose his or her entire person in Gehenna (the ‘whole body’, 5.29–30). This is one instance where Jesus attempts to motivate those who would be his disciples to obedience by taking the necessary precautions to avoid the negative outcome (i.e. consequence[s]) of sin.[5] Persevering disciples of Jesus will be saved from Gehenna; the unrighteous will not (see 18.8–9; 25.41).

Paul on salvation from the wrath of God

        Other NT evidence corroborates the truth that an integral aspect of salvation is deliverance from sin’s penalty. For example, Paul states that God’s wrath is already present in some way against those who persist in unrighteousness, ungodliness, idolatry, and suppression of the truth of God as sovereign Creator (Rom. 1.18–32). For those who abuse the kindness of God and fail to respond in repentance in the present age, the day of judgement will be a day of wrath (2.4–5). ‘There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek’ (v. 9).[6] For those who ‘do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury’ (v. 8). Conversely, having been declared righteous by the blood of Christ, believers will be saved from the future wrath (5.9). An integral aspect of salvation, then, is the avoidance of the negative divine judgement against sin.[7]

Notes

        1. With regard to the nature of future punishment (i.e. ‘hell’), since 2008 or earlier Boyd has apparently adopted the position of annihilationism. See Gregory A. Boyd, ‘The Case for Annihilationism’ (19 Jan. 2008): <https://reknew.org/2008/01/the-case-for-annihilationism>.

        In an earlier publication, Boyd attempted to advance a kind of hybrid between endless, conscious punishment and final annihilation. See idem, ‘A Clash of Doctrines: Eternal Suffering and Annihilationism’ and ‘A Separate Reality: Hell, das Nichtige and the Victory of God’, in Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001), pp. 319–37 and 338–57. In the end, Boyd’s former attempt at amalgamating endless torture and final annihilation resulted in a variation of the conventional view.
        2. It is not entirely clear whether Boyd intends ‘death’ to be taken in a literal or metaphorical sense. If the former, this would comport well with the doctrine of final annihilation.
        3. I believe Boyd is essentially correct that human salvation may be properly distinguished in three tenses: past (initial), present, and future (final, eschatological).
        4. Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Religion: Losing Your Religion for the Beauty of a Revolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), p. 218 n. 1 (par. 1), emphases in original. To visit Boyd’s website, see <https://www.reknew.org>.
        5. In another place, Jesus stresses both positive and negative sides of eschatological judgement in terms of (positively) entering life/the kingdom of God or (negatively) being cast into the Gehenna of fire (Mk 9.43, 45, 47; cf. Matt. 18.8–9).
        6. All scriptural quotations are taken from the English Standard Version.
        7. That negative outcome culminating in death (see Rom. 6.23a).

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.

Latest revisions: 19 June 2016 (one sentence slightly emended); 16 September 2016 (minor emendations made to par. 5; one note added); 18 September 2016 (n. 7 revised); 2 October 2016 (minor emendations); 6 October 2016 (minor revision made to reference in n. 5); 15 January 2017 (omitted a term in par. 3; added ‘in Matthew’s Gospel’ to brackets in par. 4; added capitalisation to one term in par. 5 [i.e. ‘Creator’]; 3 April 2017 (minor emendations made to some references); 21 April 2017 (added ‘s’ to the URL code in n. 4); 26 February 2018 (minor editorial revisions); 26 May 2019 (inserted comma in n. 1); added italics for emphasis in par. 1 (18 Oct. 2021); made assorted, minor modifications to n. 1 (19 Nov. 2021); modified one word in n. 6 (21 Feb. 2022).

When Silence Speaks Louder than Words: No Scriptural Attestation to the Undying Human Soul

J. D. Gallé | Tuesday, 3 November 2015

        On 4 January 2015, Sha, an Amazon reviewer, wrote the following in his review for the volume Four Views on Hell (1996)[1]: ‘One thing is for sure, whatever hell is I don’t want to go there. I lean towards the traditional view, even if we find it hard to understand for many reasons. I reject the annihilation view [sic] in that I believe man has an eternal spirit/soul.’[2] In response, I wrote: ‘Where do you get the notion that humans possess eternal/immortal souls or spirits from Scripture?’ (24 Apr. 2015). Today, over six months later, I decided to check and see what might have become of Sha. As it turns out, he has since gone on to review several other products. It would appear that death has not prevented him from communicating. Nevertheless, I have yet to receive a response from him.

         The truth is that Scripture never utilises terms like ‘immortal/incorruptible’ (aphthartos) or ‘eternal’ (aidios, aiōnios) to describe the human soul (psuchē) or spirit (pneuma). In fact, the only time we read of an ‘eternal spirit’ in Scripture, the designation most likely refers to either the Holy Spirit or the pre-existent, pre-incarnate spirit of Christ (pneumatos aiōniou, Heb. 9.14). Suffice it to say, such language is never employed by the scriptural authors to describe some aspect of human nature that is incapable of dying or insusceptible to perishing.
        The reason why the question of common or innate immortality is so pertinent to the discussion of final punishment is simple: once two destinies, the irreversiblility of divine judgement, and human immortality are admitted as biblical data, the exegesis of any and all texts pertaining to the future and final punishment of the unrighteous can be taken in no other way than as lending support to the conventional teaching of endless torment.

        Believers who adhere to the doctrine of final annihilation do not dispute that there will be two destinies for humankind or the irreversible nature of divine judgement in the age to come. Some will inherit final salvation; others will be condemned. We only call into question the notion that all humans are (or will be) endowed with immortality.

Conclusion 

        Sha is to be commended for his candidness in admitting (in so many words) that his acceptance of the presupposition of universal human immortality is what has led him to exclude even considering the possibility of final annihilation as the fate of the unrighteous. Sadly, not all proponents of the conventional view are quite so forthcoming (or self-aware). Here we have a clear example of one’s understanding of anthropology determining one’s view of eschatology.
        As for Sha’s belief that humans possess eternal souls or spirits, we are only left to ponder why he chose not to defend this notion from a single text or citation from Scripture. My suspicion as to why Sha remained silent in the face of the rather simple question posed to him is because no such scriptural text exists.

Notes

        1. William Crockett (ed.), Four Views on Hell, 1st edn, Counterpoints: Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1996).
        2. See Sha’s review and my original comment: <https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RGQFMT5QWEH39/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0310212685>. (As from January 2021, Amazon has eliminated the comment feature on reviews. My comment is therefore no longer present [9 Oct. 2021].)

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.


Latest revisions: 6 November 2015 (minor alterations); 13 November 2015 (subtitle added); 12 May 2016 (minor emendation made to note); 7 October 2016 (emended title and book citation slightly; two minor emendations made to par 2.); 1 November 2016 (hyphenated two terms in par. 2); 15 January 2017 (minor punctuational alterations made to par. 3); 23 February 2018 (one note added; one colon converted to a full stop; altered subtitle slightly); 28 February 2018 (added one preposition to par. 3); corrected the phrase ‘call in to question’ to ‘call into question’ in par. 3 (1 Aug. 2021); emended nn. 1 and 2 (9 Oct. 2021); added a paragraph break (5 Oct. 2022).

Conditional Immortality: an Interchange

J. D. Gallé | Monday, 11 May 2015

Preface

        What follows is a recent interchange I had online with a fellow believer on the topic of conditional immortality. The exchange is slightly abridged from its original form. I have made a few minor revisions to my response below.


Conditional Immortality: an Interchange

Linda D. Gabriel: I did not read this whole book [Rob Bell, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2011)], because frankly, I didn’t want to waste my time. From the parts of the book that I have read, Rob Bell often sounds a lot like the serpent in the Garden of Eden who said to Eve, “Did God really say…?” I have one question for Mr. Bell: What Bible are you reading?

J. D. Gallé: To be fair, the majority of the Christian world does not believe that anyone truly dies, but everyone lives for ever: some in everlasting torment, others in everlasting bliss. In other words, the majority of Christians believe that the final ‘death’ of the wicked, in actuality, is everlasting life in suffering. The serpent in Genesis cast doubt on God’s word that the disobedient will die. How is it, then, that (according to the conventional view) everyone lives for ever?

Gabriel: I’m not exactly sure I’m following if you side with Bell or not. Here’s the thing: no one lives forever in a physical mortal body, but the soul is immortal and will spend eternity somewhere — with God, or separated from God and in torment. This is the part that Bell doesn't seem to agree with. Man did in fact die when Adam sinned in the Garden — died spiritually, and introduced physical death into the world as well as a part of the curse of sin. Thus every man is “born dead” and will remain spiritually dead unless God gives him spiritual life — hence the term “born again.”

Gallé: The warning of death for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Genesis 2.17 cannot be taken in a purely ‘spiritual’ sense. Unless you are willing to argue that we are to understand the tree of life in some strange, esoteric sense, the threat of death is best understood as the reversal of life, the return to non-life, non-consciousness. After the first man’s transgression, Adam is told that he will return to the dust from which he came by the Creator (Gen. 3.19). In the light of the creation account of Genesis 1–3, to say that death is a return to non-life and a form of de-creation fits well with the narrative. Yahweh banishes Adam from the garden of Eden in order that he may not become immortalised in his fallen state. We are not left to infer as to how this is accomplished. Without having access to the tree of life, the death of the first man is made a certainty (Gen. 3.22–24; 5.5; Rom. 5.12; 1 Cor. 15.21–22). Immortal human life is linked with a positive relationship to God and is thus derivative; it is not an innate human quality as a result of creation or being made in the image of God. You will search in vain in the Genesis account for the notion that humans possess immortal souls or spirits (or, I might add, anywhere in the entirety of Scripture).

Gabriel: Genesis 2:7 describes the creation of man as being very unique from all other creation: God breathed into man, and he became a living soul.

Gallé: I am not denying the unique role of humankind in the economy of God’s creation as recounted in the Genesis narrative. The notion I am contending against is that Genesis provides us any indication that humans have been given immaterial, immortal souls that will survive the body after death. I do not believe such a reading can be sustained. The term nephesh is used throughout Genesis to refer to animal life (Gen. 1.20, 21; 2.19; 9.10) as well as human life (2.7; 12.5). Not once is it used in Genesis to refer to disembodied life, human or animal.

Gabriel: I believe that Scripture teaches that when Adam sinned against God in the Garden, he brought physical death into the world and would himself experience death. (Obviously he didn’t drop down dead on the spot.) See Romans 5:12; Eph. 2:1; Romans 6. But whereas before he sinned he had a spiritual relationship with God, after he sinned this relationship was cut off and Adam became spiritually dead in his relationship with God. In many places it talks about man being dead in sin, and that only by the Spirit can a person be made alive. This again is obviously speaking about a person who is physically alive, but not spiritually. I think if I am understanding you correctly, we agree on this point.

Gallé: In choosing to eat of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve breached their relationship with the Creator by their disobedience. I suppose one may refer to their resulting alienation from God as a kind ‘spiritual death’ if he or she wishes, but I personally do not find the terminology particularly helpful. The death our first parents were warned of was physical in nature. We are provided no indication in Genesis that there is (or will be) any survival of the person’s consciousness after death. Death involves the dissolution of the entire person and his/her relationship with the environment, animal life, human life, and God. This, in my view, is what makes the believer’s future hope of participating in the resurrection life of Jesus Christ at his return so pivotal. Even believers will not be made immortal until the second advent of Christ (see 1 Cor. 15.50–55).

To reiterate what I stated earlier, death will inevitably result when persons are alienated from God; immortality is conditioned upon a positive relationship with the Creator. The two are inseparable.

Gabriel: But it sounds like you’re saying that if a person is not saved/does not have a relationship with God/is without Christ when he dies, then he ceases to exist.

Gallé: I have defined death in terms of a return to non-life and non-consciousness, yes.

Gabriel: How do you explain Heb. 9:27, where it says it is appointed unto man once to die, and then judgment?

Gallé: Read Hebrews 9.27 and 28 (ESV): ‘And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.’ I do not believe the context will bear out the notion that persons are immediately judged upon death. Christ first came as a purification offering for sins (see Heb. 1.3b), but when he returns he will come for the final salvation of his people. From the perspective of the dead it will be as though no time has elapsed when they are raised to judgement.

Gabriel: How can a person who is dead stand before God to be judged?

Gallé: The righteous and the unrighteous alike will be raised and judged according to their works. These two resurrection events, the resurrection of the just and the resurrection of the unjust, will not occur prior to the return of Christ. I am not certain whether the unrighteous will be raised and judged at the second advent of Jesus or after a literal one thousand year millennial reign of Christ and the saints. That said, it is certain that the righteous dead will be raised to immortal life at the parousia.

Gabriel: [1] And Jesus himself taught about hell, [2] and the wicked going to a place of “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” To what was he referring then?

Gallé: (1) It is undoubtedly true that Jesus taught his disciples of a future day of judgement prior to his final ascension. The term Gehenna (i.e. ‘hell’) primarily occurs in Matthew (5.22, 29–30; 10.28; 18.9; 23.15, 33); seven of its twelve occurrences in the New Testament are found in Matthew’s Gospel. Jesus refers to the Gehenna of fire (tēn geennan tou puros) in Matthew 18.9 (cf. 5.22) interchangeably with the aiōnion fire (to pur to aiōnion) in Matthew 18.8 (cf. 25.41). In the light of the future judgement scene depicted in Matthew 25.31–46, we must understand that no one will be cast into the aiōnion/Gehenna of fire prior to the final judgement (Matt. 25.41).

(2) The phrase ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ occurs six times in Matthew (8.12; 13.42, 50; 22.13; 24.51; 25.30) and once in Luke (13.28). For a detailed exposition of the seven ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ texts, see Kim Papaioannou, The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus: Gehenna, Hades, the Abyss, the Outer Darkness Where There Is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013), pages 175–233. I do not maintain that the ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ expression is to be understood as the infliction of externally imposed pain, nor do I believe that it carries the sense of ongoing duration.

Addenda

Addendum A (n.d.).  Scriptural quotations marked ‘ESV’ are taken from the English Standard Version, 2011 anglicised text edition.

Addendum B (10, 24 Apr. 2023). For noteworthy literature supporting the conditional immortality of humankind and the ultimate extinction of the faithless and evildoers from both biblical and theological perspectives, see my relevant Amazon Idea List by visiting the following web page*:

• Annihilationism: Eschatological Punishment (‘Hell’) as the Eventual Extirpation of the Unvirtuous

Original content copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2023. All rights reserved.

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website or via my Amazon Idea Lists. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.


Latest revisions: 1 November 2016 (modified and added two citations to brackets); 13 January 2017 (added hyphenation to three terms and converted brackets to commas in one place); 7 February 2017 (added a comma in one place; added hyphenation to one term); 24 February 2018 (altered title ‘Conditional Immortality: An Exchange’ to ‘Conditional Immortality: An Interchange’; converted thirty colons to full stops; altered abbreviation ‘pp.’ to ‘pages’); altered one word in preface (12 Jul. 2021); altered one scriptural abbreviation (23 Nov. 2021); updated web-page link for Addendum B (19 Nov. 2024).