Perish the Thought: How John 6 and 11 Challenge the Traditionalist Reading of John 3:16

 

For God so loved the world,
that he gave his only Son,
that whoever believes in him
should not perish
but have eternal life.

–John 3:16

 

John 3:16 is one of the clearest texts supporting the conditional immortality view. This is because Jesus contrasts the eternal life received by believers with the death they would otherwise receive if they reject him. After all, to die is just what “perish” normally means whenever we use that word of humans. As John Stott noted, when the Greek verb apollymi is used in the middle voice and without a direct object it means to be destroyed in a way that causes someone to perish or die (Stott points to Luke 15:17; 1 Cor 10:9 for physical perishing, and John 10:28; 17:12; Rom 2:12; 1 Cor 15:18; 2 Pet 3:9 for perishing in hell).1John Stott, “Hell and Judgement,” in Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism, eds. Christopher M. Date, Gregory G. Stump, & Joshua W. Anderson, Kindle ed. (Cascade Books, 2014), Kindle locations, 1319-1322.

Traditionalists often respond by arguing that this term in John 3:16 need not refer to the death or annihilation of unbelievers.2William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Olivetree ebook ed., (Baker Book House, no publishing date given), no page given. But beyond a generalized word study of apollymi, most traditionalists do not give a rationale for their interpretation of the phrase “shall not perish.” A few have offered reasons to read it as referring to an unending “perishing” in hell. Continue reading “Perish the Thought: How John 6 and 11 Challenge the Traditionalist Reading of John 3:16”

1. John Stott, “Hell and Judgement,” in Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism, eds. Christopher M. Date, Gregory G. Stump, & Joshua W. Anderson, Kindle ed. (Cascade Books, 2014), Kindle locations, 1319-1322.
2. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Olivetree ebook ed., (Baker Book House, no publishing date given), no page given.

On the Meaning of Destruction in the Bible

If you have been researching the doctrine of hell for any significant amount of time, you are bound to have encountered the debate over the meaning of the biblical language of destruction. Conditionalists like ourselves argue that in contexts of final judgment, Greek words like apollymi (to destroy), apoleia (destruction), and olethros (destruction) consistently communicate that the wicked will actually be destroyed, or ended, by God.1For instance, see Glenn Andrew Peoples, “Introduction to Evangelical Conditionalism”, in Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism, eds. Christopher M. Date, Gregory G. Stump, & Joshua W. Anderson, Kindle ed. (Cascade Books, 2014), Kindle locations, 675-717, 830-838;2See also John Stott, “Judgment and Hell”, in Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism, eds. Christopher M. Date, Gregory G. Stump, & Joshua W. Anderson, Kindle ed. (Cascade Books, 2014), Kindle locations, 1312-1336; John W. Wenham, “The Case for Conditional Immortality”, in Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism, eds. Christopher M. Date, Gregory G. Stump, & Joshua W. Anderson, Kindle ed. (Cascade Books, 2014), Kindle locations, 1915-1939; John Stackhouse Jr, “Terminal Punishment”, in Four Views on Hell, ed. Preston Sprinkle, Kindle ed. (Zondervan, 2016), Kindle locations, 1216-1344.

In response, those holding to the traditional view of hell such as John Blanchard have argued that this language does not denote annihilation when it is used of humans.3John Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell, Kindle ed. (EP Books, 1993), Kindle locations, 4371-4422. Eldon Woodcock examined the terminology, concluding that “the usage of apollymi/apoleia (destroy, perish, destruction) in the NT conveys various nuances of destruction–none of them annihilation causing cessation of existence.”4Eldon Woodcock, Hell: An Exhaustive Look at a Burning Issue, Kindle ed. (WestBow Press, 2012), Kindle locations, 4113-4114. D. A. Carson argues that these words do not necessarily include the sense of “extinction,”5D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism, Kindle ed. (Zondervan, 1996), Kindle locations 11888-11900. and Tim Barnett and Greg Koukl assert that “In the Bible, destruction language is not synonymous with nonexistence.”6Tim Barnett and Greg Koukl, “Hell interrupted: Part 2” [blog], https://www.str.org/solidgroundnovember2017hellinterruptedpart2#.XKG7YfZuJjo, (accessed April 1, 2019). For Douglas Moo, when Paul uses the terms they refer merely to “the situation of a person or object that has lost the essence of its nature or function.”7Douglas J. Moo, “Paul on Hell”, in Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment, eds. Christopher W. Morgan & Robert A. Peterson, Kindle ed. (Zondervan, 2007), Kindle location, 2448.

For the most part, the traditionalist argument revolves around examining the various ways in which the apollymi/apoleia word group is employed in the New Testament and noting a distinct range of meaning attached to this language.

Rethinking Hell has provided good responses to this line of argument, especially in an excellent article by Glenn Peoples, who demonstrates that this reply from traditionalists is susceptible to the charge of the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer.8Glenn Peoples, “The Meaning of ‘Apollumi’ in the Synoptic Gospels” [blog], http://rethinkinghell.com/2012/10/27/the-meaning-of-apollumi-in-the-synoptic-gospels/ (accessed April 1, 2019). In a related article I have built upon Peoples’ discussion, demonstrating how a close reading of the context of Matthew 10:28 allows only the sense of “to kill” for apollymi in that verse.9Darren J. Clark, “Exegesis Interrupted: A Critique if Stand To Reason’s Article ‘Hell Interrupted, Part 2’” [blog], http://rethinkinghell.com/2018/11/13/exegesis-interrupted-a-critique-of-stand-to-reasons-article-hell-interrupted-part-2/ (accessed April 1, 2019). In the current article, I will discuss more broadly some of the biblical and non-biblical examples used by traditionalists to dismiss the conditionalist case from the biblical language of destruction. As noted above, traditionalists typically assume that we must claim that key words like apollymi, apoleia, and olethros mean something philosophical like ceasing to exist, or something scientific like annihilation in the sense of molecular disintegration.10For instance, Robert Morey, Death and the Afterlife (Bethany House Publishers, 1984), 90. Their approach in response, therefore, is heavily weighted towards showing how the words can be used in such a way as to allow some part of the person or thing destroyed to remain after the process of destruction has been complete. I maintain that this is argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of the conditionalist argument, and of how the biblical authors actually use the language of destruction to communicate the end of the wicked at the last judgement.

Rather than examine all instances of destruction language in the Bible, due to space constraints I will focus on texts used to support the most common traditionalist counterclaim. As their argument goes, destruction language for final punishment can instead mean ruin, because there are texts where it does denote that concept. This approach is seen for example in John Blanchard’s argument that apollymi is used to communicate the loss of wellbeing in a way that makes the person useless for their intended purpose.11Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell, Kindle locations, 4400-4402; J. I. Packer makes the same argument in “The Problem of Eternal punishment:, in Crux 26, no. 3 (September 1990): 20. It is also seen in D. A. Carson’s contention that John 3:16 contrasts “two qualitatively different types of existence, one involving a loving communion with God and another lacking it (a state of ‘ruin’).”12Carson, The Gagging of God, Kindle location, 11888. Douglas Moo echoes these statements when he concludes after examining the terms in Paul that “In none of these cases do the objects cease to exist; they cease to be useful or to exist in their original, intended state.”13Moo, “Paul on Hell”, Kindle locations, 2456-2464. As a final example, note Charles Hodge’s understanding of the biblical concept of destruction:

To destroy is to ruin. The nature of that ruin depends on the nature of the subject of which it is predicated. A thing is ruined when it is rendered unfit for use; when it is in such a state that it can no longer answer the end for which it was designed.14Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: The Complete Three Volumes in Four Parts, Kindle ed. (GLH Publishing, no date given), Kindle locations, 30385-40495.

In order to support this view of destruction, traditionalists frequently appeal to the use of apollymi in relation to wineskins (Matt 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37). Their point is that the destroyed wineskins do not go out of existence, but have become leaky and can no longer function as intended, to store the wine.15Moo, “Paul on Hell”, Kindle locations, 2456-2464; Woodcock, Hell, Kindle location, 3717-3726; Woodcock, Hell, Kindle locations, 3717-3726.

We may question the legitimacy of using this characterization of what happens to old wineskins to provide an alternative understanding of “destroy” for key texts like Matthew 10:28 (“destroy both body and soul in Gehenna”). For one thing, when humans are punctured like wineskins we can easily bleed to death, which follows even more swiftly if one of our vital organs is involved.16For a discussion on how this supports the conditionalist reading of Matthew 10:28 see my “Exegesis Interrupted: A Critique if Stand To Reason’s Article ‘Hell Interrupted, Part 2’” [blog], http://rethinkinghell.com/2018/11/13/exegesis-interrupted-a-critique-of-stand-to-reasons-article-hell-interrupted-part-2/ (accessed April 1, 2019). But ancient wineskins didn’t simply develop leaks. Instead, they were sewn together from pieces of sheep or goat skin, which, as leather does over time, would age and become brittle.17Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 1:1-9:50, (Baker Books, 1994), 520. Being filled with heavy liquid, at some point they would essentially explode into torn pieces, an image emphasized by each Synoptic author with the verb “burst” (ῥήγνυμι, rēgnumi).18Frederick William Danker (ed.), et al, A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, 3rd ed., (University of Chicago Press, 2000), 904. If the kind of destruction depicted here is supposed to represent what happens to both body and soul in Matthew 10:28, then it would most naturally communicate a destruction of the person themselves. Humans are sentient, which is fundamentally different from inanimate objects like wineskins. So if the wineskins example applies, that kind of complete destruction would rob a person of life and the faculty of consciousness. Far from showing how the wicked would be left in a ruined state unfit for their intended purpose, this only reinforces the conditionalist view that destruction here deprives people of their very lives.

Other biblical examples cited by traditionalists in support of taking destruction language for final punishment to mean ruin, include the destruction of property by thieves (John 10:10), the idea of perishing gold (1 Peter 1:7), and perishing food (John 6:12, 24).19For instance, see Woodcock, Hell, Kindle locations, 3709-3738. As in the case of wineskins, the kind of ruin inflicted in these examples would normally kill a person. In 1 Peter 1:7, Peter’s point is that even gold will ultimately be done away with in a final fiery judgment (destroyed completely), despite its ability to survive the refining process now.20Karen Jobes, 1 Peter, Kindle ed., (Baker Academic, 2005), Kindle locations, 2424-2425.

In the case of John 10:10 (“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”), this may be an allusion to Ezekiel 34:2-3, where the leaders of Israel are accused of slaughtering the choice sheep for their own consumption.21Grant R. Osbourne, John Verse by Verse, Kindle ed. (Lexham Press, 2018), Kindle locations, 4153-4155. According to J. Ramsey Michaels, “kill” and “destroy” here are part of a metaphor.22J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, Kindle ed. (Eerdmans Publishing, 2010), Kindle locations, 10002-10014. The Greek word for kill is θύω (thuō). It is used of the slaughter of animals (in this context sheep) for food.23Danker (ed.), A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament, 463. As Michaels states,

“The supposition is that sheep are stolen not in order to be added to someone else’s flock, but to be slaughtered for food, and thus “destroyed.” The accent is on “destroy,” for being “destroyed” or “lost” is in this Gospel the very opposite of gaining “eternal life” (see 3:16; 6:39–40). Here the thief comes to “destroy,” while Jesus comes “that they might have life.”24Michaels, The Gospel of John, Kindle locations, 10004-10005.

This is a far cry from Woodcock’s explanation that John 10:10 refers to the mere ruin of items not stolen by the thief, an explanation which does not adequately account for the text in all its details.25Even if Woodcock is correct the kind of destruction a thief could leave (breaking furniture, etc.) would often kill a person. Woodcock, Hell, Kindle locations, 3729–3731.

Similarly, Woodcock’s example of perishing food is quite odd (John 6:12, 27).26Ibid., Kindle locations, 3733-3738. Woodcock is correct that spoiled food is useless for its intended purpose of sustenance, but his insistence that it does not go out of existence flies in the face of the natural observation that essentially nothing is left of food once it inevitably decomposes. It is telling that in John 6:27, Jesus challenges his audience to choose food that “endures to eternal life” rather than food that will perish. This contrast between food which perishes and food which endures forever removes any doubt about what it means for ordinary food to perish. It does not simply mean that the fruit can no longer be used for its intended purpose, but depends on the idea of the ending of the fruit itself through decomposing.

But traditionalists also use the example of the destruction of land in Ezekiel 6:14 and 14:16, which Christopher Morgan frames in terms of its lost fruitfulness.27Christopher W. Morgan, “Annihilationism: Will the Unsaved Be Punished Forever?”, in Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment, eds. Christopher W. Morgan & Robert A. Peterson, Kindle ed. (Zondervan, 2007), Kindle locations, 4943-4950. While it’s true that destroyed land cannot bear fruit, Morgan ignores the fact that such fruitlessness results from the land itself being desolated to the point of no longer supporting or produce life. A search of the Hebrew word for “desolation” used in Ezekiel 6:14 and 14:16 reveals that it is commonly used to communicate the reduction of land and cities to a literal heap, i.e. concrete ruins rather than an abstract concept of ruin, often with an emphasis on no human life remaining there. The picture is one of complete dismantling of what the land and cities once were, so that they became unlivable.28I include the list of references from my stepbible.org search so the reader can verify this. https://www.stepbible.org/?q=strong=H8077a|version=ESV&options=VHNUG&qFilter=H8077a As with the wineskins, if this kind of destruction were to be inflicted upon people themselves, they would not remain alive with some ruined purpose, but would be well and truly dead.

Extra-biblical examples of destruction fare no better. For instance, as an example of the kind of destruction he thinks the Bible has in view, John Blanchard points to the 1992 Los Angeles race riots, in which widespread damage was inflicted on property in various districts.29Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell, Kindle locations, 4405-4422. He writes that “The damage was certainly horrific; hundreds of buildings were gutted, millions of dollars’ worth of damage was done and many people were killed. South central Los Angeles lay in smouldering ruins—but it was not annihilated.”30Ibid. Moo uses the example of a tornado destroying a house, arguing, “The component parts of that house did not cease to exist, but the entity ‘house,’ a structure that provides shelter for human beings, ceased to exist.”31Moo, “Paul on Hell”, Kindle locations, 2459-2469. Similarly, Roger Nicole appeals to wrecked vehicles that are “so damaged and twisted that the car has become completely unserviceable.”32Cited in Alan Gomes, Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell, Christian Research Journal, (Spring 1991), 18; see also Larry Dixon, The Other Side of the Good News: Confronting the Contemporary Challenges to Jesus’ Teachings on Hell, (Christian Focus Publications, 2003), 97.

All of these examples of destruction resulting in loss of function or usefulness do not actually justify taking the biblical destruction language–as applied to final punishment of human beings–to refer to the more limited concept of ruin. They are typically offered to show that the remains of a destroyed person or thing continues in existence, assuming that our view requires destruction to denote non-existence, or molecular disintegration of all constituent parts. But this is not even something conditionalists deny! Instead, the concept they overlook, which they deny and we affirm, is that of the finally unsaved being killed, or rendered lifeless. This concept is all that needs to be investigated through the language of destruction.

With that key question in mind, Matthew 10:28 becomes an important verse helping us to relate human death to the destruction of the wicked in Gehenna (final punishment), establishing that the kind of destruction inflicted is the kind that will kill them completely.33See my article cited above. There is no need for speculation about whether or not there are any “remains” of the body or soul post-destruction, since the point is that the destruction results in a complete death, compared to something only partial and incomplete when inflicted by mere men. Just as a corpse is robbed of all life and consciousness, so also the destroyed person in Gehenna will be lifeless, without any faculty of consciousness. The whole person will be dead and gone. It is this point that traditionalists usually fail to grasp, and the reason most conditionalists find them utterly unconvincing when they are debating the meaning of the biblical language of destruction. In order to do better, traditionalists simply have to abandon their current line of argument that the Bible teaches a kind of destruction that renders the person or thing merely useless for its intended purpose, while somehow preserving its life or essence. This argument is too reductionistic, and is powerless to address the core conditionalist argument from the biblical language of destruction.

1. For instance, see Glenn Andrew Peoples, “Introduction to Evangelical Conditionalism”, in Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism, eds. Christopher M. Date, Gregory G. Stump, & Joshua W. Anderson, Kindle ed. (Cascade Books, 2014), Kindle locations, 675-717, 830-838;
2. See also John Stott, “Judgment and Hell”, in Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism, eds. Christopher M. Date, Gregory G. Stump, & Joshua W. Anderson, Kindle ed. (Cascade Books, 2014), Kindle locations, 1312-1336; John W. Wenham, “The Case for Conditional Immortality”, in Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism, eds. Christopher M. Date, Gregory G. Stump, & Joshua W. Anderson, Kindle ed. (Cascade Books, 2014), Kindle locations, 1915-1939; John Stackhouse Jr, “Terminal Punishment”, in Four Views on Hell, ed. Preston Sprinkle, Kindle ed. (Zondervan, 2016), Kindle locations, 1216-1344.
3. John Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell, Kindle ed. (EP Books, 1993), Kindle locations, 4371-4422.
4. Eldon Woodcock, Hell: An Exhaustive Look at a Burning Issue, Kindle ed. (WestBow Press, 2012), Kindle locations, 4113-4114.
5. D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism, Kindle ed. (Zondervan, 1996), Kindle locations 11888-11900.
6. Tim Barnett and Greg Koukl, “Hell interrupted: Part 2” [blog], https://www.str.org/solidgroundnovember2017hellinterruptedpart2#.XKG7YfZuJjo, (accessed April 1, 2019).
7. Douglas J. Moo, “Paul on Hell”, in Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment, eds. Christopher W. Morgan & Robert A. Peterson, Kindle ed. (Zondervan, 2007), Kindle location, 2448.
8. Glenn Peoples, “The Meaning of ‘Apollumi’ in the Synoptic Gospels” [blog], http://rethinkinghell.com/2012/10/27/the-meaning-of-apollumi-in-the-synoptic-gospels/ (accessed April 1, 2019).
9. Darren J. Clark, “Exegesis Interrupted: A Critique if Stand To Reason’s Article ‘Hell Interrupted, Part 2’” [blog], http://rethinkinghell.com/2018/11/13/exegesis-interrupted-a-critique-of-stand-to-reasons-article-hell-interrupted-part-2/ (accessed April 1, 2019).
10. For instance, Robert Morey, Death and the Afterlife (Bethany House Publishers, 1984), 90.
11. Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell, Kindle locations, 4400-4402; J. I. Packer makes the same argument in “The Problem of Eternal punishment:, in Crux 26, no. 3 (September 1990): 20.
12. Carson, The Gagging of God, Kindle location, 11888.
13. Moo, “Paul on Hell”, Kindle locations, 2456-2464.
14. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: The Complete Three Volumes in Four Parts, Kindle ed. (GLH Publishing, no date given), Kindle locations, 30385-40495.
15. Moo, “Paul on Hell”, Kindle locations, 2456-2464; Woodcock, Hell, Kindle location, 3717-3726; Woodcock, Hell, Kindle locations, 3717-3726.
16. For a discussion on how this supports the conditionalist reading of Matthew 10:28 see my “Exegesis Interrupted: A Critique if Stand To Reason’s Article ‘Hell Interrupted, Part 2’” [blog], http://rethinkinghell.com/2018/11/13/exegesis-interrupted-a-critique-of-stand-to-reasons-article-hell-interrupted-part-2/ (accessed April 1, 2019).
17. Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 1:1-9:50, (Baker Books, 1994), 520.
18. Frederick William Danker (ed.), et al, A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, 3rd ed., (University of Chicago Press, 2000), 904.
19. For instance, see Woodcock, Hell, Kindle locations, 3709-3738.
20. Karen Jobes, 1 Peter, Kindle ed., (Baker Academic, 2005), Kindle locations, 2424-2425.
21. Grant R. Osbourne, John Verse by Verse, Kindle ed. (Lexham Press, 2018), Kindle locations, 4153-4155.
22. J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, Kindle ed. (Eerdmans Publishing, 2010), Kindle locations, 10002-10014.
23. Danker (ed.), A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament, 463.
24. Michaels, The Gospel of John, Kindle locations, 10004-10005.
25. Even if Woodcock is correct the kind of destruction a thief could leave (breaking furniture, etc.) would often kill a person. Woodcock, Hell, Kindle locations, 3729–3731.
26. Ibid., Kindle locations, 3733-3738.
27. Christopher W. Morgan, “Annihilationism: Will the Unsaved Be Punished Forever?”, in Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment, eds. Christopher W. Morgan & Robert A. Peterson, Kindle ed. (Zondervan, 2007), Kindle locations, 4943-4950.
28. I include the list of references from my stepbible.org search so the reader can verify this. https://www.stepbible.org/?q=strong=H8077a|version=ESV&options=VHNUG&qFilter=H8077a
29. Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell, Kindle locations, 4405-4422.
30. Ibid.
31. Moo, “Paul on Hell”, Kindle locations, 2459-2469.
32. Cited in Alan Gomes, Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell, Christian Research Journal, (Spring 1991), 18; see also Larry Dixon, The Other Side of the Good News: Confronting the Contemporary Challenges to Jesus’ Teachings on Hell, (Christian Focus Publications, 2003), 97.
33. See my article cited above.

Biblical Theology Interrupted: Part 2 of A Critique of Stand To Reason’s Article “Hell Interrupted, Part 2”

This is the second part of my response to an article by Tim Barnett and Greg Koukl (henceforth B&K) of the ministry Stand to Reason, called “Hell Interrupted – Part 2.” In their article, B&K attempt to critique the conditionalist reading of the Bible via three interpretive principles drawn from a textbook on hermeneutics by William Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert Hubbard.1 William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 3rd Ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017), 264. In the first part of my response I focused only on their first two principles of interpreting passages and words in their immediate contexts. I avoided addressing their third principle because I believe that technically it isn’t an interpretive principle. In this article I will address this principle in detail. It would be best to begin by quoting this principle in full as B&K articulated it:

Biblical teaching in earlier parts of the Bible…are developed and enlarged in later revelation …. In some instances, God reveals His truth progressively [emphasis added]. Often, the first word is not the complete story. Later revelation gives us the fullest picture, the most complete characterization. Consequently, “where earlier revelation has progressively prepared the way for later formulation of God’s truth, we must give priority to the later [emphasis added].” Put simply, the final word is the last word.

Continue reading “Biblical Theology Interrupted: Part 2 of A Critique of Stand To Reason’s Article “Hell Interrupted, Part 2””

1. William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 3rd Ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017), 264.

Exegesis Interrupted: A Critique of Stand To Reason’s Article “Hell Interrupted, Part 2”

I consider myself an exegete. For seven or so years last decade during my dual degrees at Malyon College–a Baptist seminary in Brisbane, Australia–I developed a passion for biblical hermeneutics and exegesis that remains with me today.1 In this article the term hermeneutics refers to those principles one employs when interpreting and applying a text. Exegesis is the process of applying hermeneutical principles to properly read meaning out of a text. Eisegesis is the hermeneutical sin of reading meaning into a text. At the start of each semester, I would make sure I could fit every single exegetical subject into my schedule. I became capable enough in this area to be employed by the college as their first study skills tutor, a role in which I was responsible for teaching new students hermeneutical and exegetical principles. I point all this out simply to show that I am in a position to recognize when these principles may be incorrectly applied, or not even applied at all. Continue reading “Exegesis Interrupted: A Critique of Stand To Reason’s Article “Hell Interrupted, Part 2””

1.  In this article the term hermeneutics refers to those principles one employs when interpreting and applying a text. Exegesis is the process of applying hermeneutical principles to properly read meaning out of a text. Eisegesis is the hermeneutical sin of reading meaning into a text.

Does Matthew 8:29 Teach the Eternal Torment of Unclean Spirits?

Do the demons expect that one day, Jesus will torment them in hell for ever and ever? And is that what will ultimately happen to them?

The wording of a group of demons in one of the encounters Jesus had with a demon-possessed man is sometimes brought up as indicative of the eternal torment awaiting demons (according to the traditional view of hell):

And they [the demons] cried out, saying, ‘What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?’” (Matthew 8:29).1Unless otherwise noted, all scripture is quoted from the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. 

Some have taken this to mean that demons will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.2Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Thomas Nelson, 1998), 1076.3Michael burgos, Jr., “Hell No: The Terrible Hermeneutics of Annihilationism,” Biblical Trinitarian [blog], posted on October 21, 2016, http://www.biblicaltrinitarian.com/2016/10/hell-no-terrible-hermeneutic-of.html (accessed August 11, 2018).4“Hell,” Let Us Reason Ministries, n.d., http://www.letusreason.org/doct12.htm (accessed August 11, 2018).

Continue reading “Does Matthew 8:29 Teach the Eternal Torment of Unclean Spirits?”

1. Unless otherwise noted, all scripture is quoted from the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
2. Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Thomas Nelson, 1998), 1076.
3. Michael burgos, Jr., “Hell No: The Terrible Hermeneutics of Annihilationism,” Biblical Trinitarian [blog], posted on October 21, 2016, http://www.biblicaltrinitarian.com/2016/10/hell-no-terrible-hermeneutic-of.html (accessed August 11, 2018).
4. “Hell,” Let Us Reason Ministries, n.d., http://www.letusreason.org/doct12.htm (accessed August 11, 2018).

“Hath God said?” A Response to Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and T4G

“You just got a shout out from Al Mohler at T4G.” A friend posted the notice on my Facebook wall while I was at work, and as I could not immediately access the Together for the Gospel (T4G) live video feed, my mind raced until my next short break. What might Mohler have said? I had debated him three years earlier, and he had been kind and gracious, even telling me after the recording was over that he’d love to meet me if I ever find myself on the east coast. I listen to his podcast “The Briefing” almost daily, and share much of his very conservative and Calvinist worldview. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Mohler, and the thought that he might have mentioned me in a positive light excited me.

Sadly, I had been naive. Mohler hadn’t mentioned me specifically; he had mentioned our recent Rethinking Hell Conference in Dallas–Fort Worth. And his comments were not at all positive, but were instead derisive and even mocking. With his brief words, he had misrepresented the conference, the ministry, and the broader conditionalist movement. While the derision and contempt hurt, it was Mohler’s unfair mischaracterizations that frustrated me most. I believe that he should know better.

I tried to contact Mohler, asking if he would be willing to discuss his comments with me, but I have not yet heard back from him. So, in this article I shall respond to his comments and those of his co-panelist Ligon Duncan. If you like, you can hear them in this video before reading on:

Continue reading ““Hath God said?” A Response to Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and T4G”

The Hermeneutics of Conditionalism: A Defense of the Interpretive Method of Edward Fudge

I was recently honored to be published in volume 89 of Evangelical Quarterly. Available for free at my Academia.edu profile, my article argues that, contrary to the claims of critics like Robert Peterson, “when one applies accepted principles of hermeneutics and interpretation in the task of exegeting Old and New Testament texts, one will conclude that they teach conditionalism, and not the traditional view of hell.”1Christopher M. Date, “The Hermeneutics of Conditionalism: A Defense of the Interpretive Method of Edward Fudge,” Evangelical Quarterly 89:1 (2018), 72–73. Here is the introduction, to give you a feel for what I go on to argue:

Continue reading “The Hermeneutics of Conditionalism: A Defense of the Interpretive Method of Edward Fudge”

1. Christopher M. Date, “The Hermeneutics of Conditionalism: A Defense of the Interpretive Method of Edward Fudge,” Evangelical Quarterly 89:1 (2018), 72–73.

The Righteous for the Unrighteous: Conditional Immortality and the Substitutionary Death of Jesus

I was recently honored to be published in volume 18 of McMaster Divinity School’s McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry. My article argues from the atoning work of Christ to conditional immortality and against eternal torment, and will be the basis of my plenary presentation at the upcoming Rethinking Hell Conference 2018 in Dallas–Fort Worth, March 9–10—for which tickets are still available! In the meantime, my article is available for free PDF download. Here are three of the opening paragraphs, to give you a feel for what I go on to argue:

Conditionalists have very often commended their view on the basis of biblical texts that describe hell and final punishment in terms of death and destruction, including those typically cited in support of the doctrine of eternal torment, and this article does not seek to reinvent the proverbial wheel. But in the eyes of some traditionalists, conditionalism is more objectionable on Christological grounds than on any other. Robert Peterson, for example, summarizes how the doctrine of substitutionary atonement should inform one’s understanding of hell: “The cross sheds light on the fate of the wicked,” he explains, “because on the cross the sinless Son of God suffered that fate.” Mistakenly understanding conditionalists to be saying Christ’s human nature ceased to exist on the cross, Peterson insists that the “systematic implications of holding that Jesus was annihilated when he died are enormous. Nothing less than orthodox Christology is at stake.” Such a view, he argues, entails a temporary separation of Jesus’ human and divine natures, thereby violating the Chalcedonian doctrine of the hypostatic union. Alternatively—and equally problematically—Peterson argues that if both of Christ’s natures “ceased to exist between his death and resurrection, then the Trinity only consisted of two persons during that period of time. The Trinity would have been reduced to a Binity.”

Conditionalists, on the other hand, often argue that the doctrine of substitutionary atonement is more consistent with their view of hell than that of their traditionalist critics. Agreeing with Peterson that “Jesus’ death somehow reveals the nature of final punishment,” Edward Fudge observes that “Jesus died; he was not tortured forever. Jesus’ death for sinners does provide a window into the final judgment awaiting the lost. But the view we see through that window is one of suffering that ends in death—not one of everlasting conscious torment.” Glenn Peoples likewise writes, “the New Testament is replete with the language of Jesus dying for sin, for sinners, and for us. Whatever else this might mean, it at least means that in Christ’s passion and ultimately his death we see what comes of sin.” Peoples concludes, “in identifying with sinners and standing in their place, Jesus bore what they would have borne. Abandonment by God, yes. Suffering, yes. But crucially, death.”

Peterson and other critics of conditionalism are right to test it for consistency with an orthodox doctrine of the atonement. Despite their Christological objections, however, conditionalism passes that test quite well—while their own traditional view fares poorly—given the Bible’s teaching of the substitutionary death of Jesus. As the following essay sets out to demonstrate: (1) in the Old Testament, the lives of sacrificed animals substituted for the lives of those who deserved to die; (2) animal sacrifices prefigured Christ’s own atoning sacrifice, likewise described by New Testament authors as the giving of his life in place of those for whom he died; (3) his infinite worth as the God-man enabled him to bear the death penalty deserved by the millions for whom he bore it; (4) by applying his infinite worth to his torment, traditionalists risk unintentionally denying the substitutionary nature of his death, a denial conservative evangelicals are not typically willing to countenance; (5) because Jesus was to be raised, he did not wholly cease to be when he died, but since no resurrection will follow the second death, the bodies and souls of the unredeemed will be destroyed in hell; and (6) although Christians continue to suffer death and will until Christ returns, his substitutionary death shatters its power over the redeemed, guaranteeing their resurrection unto eternal life.

Links

“The Righteous for the Unrighteous: Conditional Immortality and the Substitutionary Death of Jesus,” article in the McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry by Chris Date
http://mcmaster.ca/mjtm/documents/Volume18/18.MJTM.69-92-Date.pdf
The current issue of the McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry, containing Chris’s article
http://mcmaster.ca/mjtm/volume18.htm
Chris Date’s Academia.edu profile, where his article can also be downloaded
https://fuller.academia.edu/ChristopherDate

Conditional Immortality and Angels, Part 2—The Immortality of Angels and Men (Luke 20:36)

In the first part of this series, guest contributor Cody Cook argued from Psalm 82’s condemnation of the divine council that both fallen angels and unsaved human beings will be finally punished with death, rather than with immortal life in everlasting torment. “The ultimate fate of these rebellious angels,” Cook writes, “is capital punishment—death. . . . Though these beings are divine in a general sense, and therefore not susceptible to the fragilities of human experience, they will nevertheless die just like human beings do.”1Cook, C., “Conditional Immortality and Angels, Part 1—The Mortality of Angels and Men (Psalm 82).” http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2018/01/conditionalism-and-angels-part-1-mortality-of-angels-and-men-psalm-82/ But while Cook contends for the mortality of fallen angels and men from Psalm 82, others occasionally argue for their immortality from another passage, one not often cited in the debate over the purpose, nature, and duration of hell. Continue reading “Conditional Immortality and Angels, Part 2—The Immortality of Angels and Men (Luke 20:36)”

1. Cook, C., “Conditional Immortality and Angels, Part 1—The Mortality of Angels and Men (Psalm 82).” http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2018/01/conditionalism-and-angels-part-1-mortality-of-angels-and-men-psalm-82/