Back in 2011, when Rethinking Hell was just a verb, our own Chris Date, on his Theopologetics podcast, conducted a respectful but very hard-hitting interview with Dr. Larry Dixon on the subject of hell. Dr. Dixon is professor of systematic theology at Columbia International University, and the author of The Other Side of the Good News.
My own editorial comments: It was a pretty huge deal! Dr. Dixon and his written defense of traditionalism are well-respected and oft-quoted in the debate on hell, and Chris while irenic and fair proved to be quite a challenge to Dr. Dixon’s arguments for the traditional doctrine. Not bad for someone who was still early in the process of rethinking hell at the time! I recommend that traditionalists and conditionalists alike listen to the interview, and we would love to know what you think of this exchange.
“Episode 62: The Other Side,” Theopologetics [podcast], hosted by Chris Date, October 20, 2011, http://www.theopologetics.com/2011/10/20/episode-62-the-other-side/ (accessed May 27, 2013).
“Episode 63: Lake of Fire,” Theopologetics [podcast], hosted by Chris Date, October 21, 2011, http://www.theopologetics.com/2011/10/21/episode-63-lake-of-fire/ (accessed May 27, 2013).
16 thoughts on “Featured Content: Chris Date Interviews Larry Dixon on Hell”
The whole problem of hell is caused by the 4th century evaluation of the New Testament as jigsaw puzzle that’s produced by one manufacturer and supposed to all fit together in the end. If you stop reading it that way, and read it as scholars began to do long ago — each author is self-contained and not intended to agree with the others — you will see that Paul and John both clearly taught that believers are resurrected and unbelievers cease to exist. This is clear from Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15, and in John where he has Jesus say “Whoever believes in me will not die, and if he does die, he will rise again.” There is no concept of hell here. John/Paul represent a Sadducean/Samaritan form of Christianity (despite the bogus claims that Paul was a Pharisee) that teaches that prior to Christ’s resurrection there was to be no resurrection but Jesus’ resurrection established the resurrection and only for believers. The Synoptics (despite their bogus hostility to the Pharisee) developed out of a Pharisaic view of the afterlife in which, even if Jesus had not come, there would be a resurrection of the just and unjust, the just to go to heaven and the unjust to hell. Acts, of course, is an attempt to harmonize the Saduccean/Samaritan view of Paul and John into oblivion in favor of the Synoptists views, which also is why Acts claims Paul was a Pharisee (its just misdirection). There is, then, no one “New Testament answer” to the question of the afterlife. There are two: The Christian Saducee/Samaritan answer as found in John and Paul, and the Christian Pharisee answer as found in the Synoptics and Acts.
Thanks. We can readily agree with “Paul and John both clearly taught that believers are resurrected and unbelievers cease to exist” without needing to subscribe to your theory of the biblical documents. The semantic logic of annihilation is basically the same whether or not one holds to a resurrection of the wicked, so it’s not surprising to encounter any biblical author tracking with this logic, which they do very consistently. We do hold to the resurrection of the wicked, so for us as Evangelicals we believe in a post-mortem annihilation (a second death). But the salient point is that the logic of annihilation doesn’t in any way exclude this, which is why it is compatible with your formulation. Said another way, the resurrection of the wicked is an important, yet redundant detail in this regard.
I got that this is your position, and I respect that. However, I disagree with the idea that to Paul the wicked would be resurrected, because he is very clear this is not the case in 1 Cor 15. In verses 17 and 18 “If Christ was not raised…then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.” Why would those who fell asleep in Christ have perished (i.e. ceased to exist)
if Christ was not raised? Because Paul assumes the unjustified cease to
exist when they die, and if Christ was not raised nobody would be
justified. Then in verse 23 “But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.” Those who are Christ’s, that is the saved only, will be resurrected. It is only through the unnecessary mixing of Paul/John with the Synoptics that your view arises. That Paul does believe in torment followed by ceasing to exist in the case of the unsaved who are found still living at Christ’s coming is clear from 2nd Thessalonians 1, but that he believes the unsaved will be resurrected to be tormented before ceasing to exist in not supported by any text in any of the epistles.
Howbeit, “torment and anguish on every soul of man that doeth evil” in Romans 2 can be used to suggest that for Paul those who die and are never raised do nevertheless undergo torment before ceasing to exist — but they are not raised bodily to undergo this torment, but are tormented only in their soul.
It’s just not “very clear” from 1 Cor 15 that Paul thought the wicked would not be raised. It is clear, however, that immortality is the inheritance of the righteous only—a critical distinction, for the matter of what one is raised “unto” is important (Daniel 12:2). Paul’s concern, and frame, is the fate of the righteous. This convention was strong in the 1st century, precisely due to the logical redundancy I referred to above. It’s an in-group concern of the ekklesia, or anyone supposing themselves to be part of it, and not really helpful to force it into a systematic mold conforming to our own habit of also nailing down the fate of the wicked.
If Paul assumed that “if Christ was not raised nobody would be justified,” and I agree that he did, the implication is that he has rejected the fallback position of justification under the Law, which he does say elsewhere. That being the case, his conclusions “our faith is foolishness” and “we are to be pitied of all men” and “eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” bespeak a rejection not just of resurrection, as though he were harkening Sadduceanism in order thereby to extend it, but of the whole scheme. The whole thing would be a farce: we may as well side with Epicurean hedonism, he intimates.
Your theory seems to require that Paul have been a Sadducee. Since the contention there was about which group best interpreted the Law, I can’t see it as even plausible that a former Sadduccee would boast to believers at Phillipi that he was “concerning the law, a Pharisee.” (Phil 3:5).
Even if you are right that Paul started out a Sadduccee, we know he had a major rethink of his theology particularly on this issue, so it remains implausible that he wouldn’t have fallen in line with the Phariseean admission of Daniel 12:2. That was the alternative perspective he was marinated in, were he Sadducee, and if we’re going to say he went on to split the difference in dialectical fashion, we’d need clear evidence of that.
And Acts 2:6 doesn’t provide it, since while you say it is “just misdirection,” Paul cannot have misdirected with an aspect of what he was on trial for (“the resurrection of the dead”)—that had to be related to his charge for it to have caused controversy rather than laughter—and in fact the debate would have ensued had he truthfully (according to you) stated he was Sadducee. Why lie when there’s absolutely no need? Especially if you’re on trial for your life!
But of course, Paul studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) the Pharisee (Acts 5:34), which should be the end of the matter. Your theory says that we cannot take statements in Acts at face value, because the agenda is to favor Phariseeism over Paul, but that is ridiculous on Lukan authorship. Those who take this further, appeal to Paul’s apparent ignorance of a Phariseeical high priest whom he should have known, however, this is said in ignorance of Josephus who informs us that Ananias had been deposed for misconduct, replaced, and upon the murder of his successor, Ananias had simply resumed illegitimately, whereupon Paul either genuinely didn’t know of Ananias’ return, or wished more expediently to exploit opinion over its illegitimacy.
It is interesting to hear another perspective, but I doubt we’ll find much traction on the theological question of the resurrection of the wicked, since you hold to a different hermeneutic and bibliology to all of us in the project.
It is true that I “hold to a different hermeneutic and bibliology.” Ultimately, that’s the weakness I see with your position. I think your project is doomed to failure because it isn’t a significantly enough “different hermeneutic and bibliology”. It will collapse back into the traditional belief in everlasting torment at some point because its built on the same “hermeneutic and bibliology” that the NT is a jigsaw puzzle that is meant to be harmonized rather than a record of a religious moment that embodies both unity and diversity. There is certainly unity in regard to Jesus’ status, and yet much diversity in afterlife views and even soteriology as Matthew clearly includes works in a place Paul would not. Until the church will recognize these things (already recognized by scholars in academia) we are stuck with the same ole same ole views of original sin as a damnation to fiery eternal torment in hell and so on. Your view isn’t challenging enough to the status quo to even make a dint.
And believing ever word of Acts about Paul studying at the feet of Gamaliel, and so on, its very quaint.
There is no reason for Christians to abandon their belief in the reliability of the written word of God which claims to be inspired by God. If we can’t believe scripture then why should we believe that Christ died for our sins and if we don’t believe that Christ died for our sins then there is no reason to remain Christian.
1 Corinthians 15
17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
If first principles of historiography are considered “quaint,” then so be it. There is simply no reason to take it otherwise, especially considering the corroboration of Phil 3:5, which you didn’t address. You also ignored my argument that there is no compulsion for Paul to lie about his affiliation in Acts 23:6, especially while under scrutiny for piety and orthodoxy by penalty of death, when in fact the truth would serve equally to divide the floor, either way. But it is quickly becoming “quaint” that you are even interacting with us here, since you don’t share our foundational commitment to the plain sense reliability of particular texts within the canon, let alone the evidence of their overall coherence. This simply isn’t a forum for form or redaction criticism, nor for that matter, unfalsifiable conspiracy theories.
Further, you argued that John knows nothing of the resurrection of the wicked; I pointed out that John 5:28,29 tells us otherwise; you opted not to respond to this. This is half of your theory gone: John and Paul give us a different theology to the Synoptics and Acts, you say.
What’s left of your argument is the assertion that Paul was a Sadducee, against the weight of evidence, so he wouldn’t have held to the resurrection of the wicked, you say. Even though Acts 24:15 has him saying before Festus, “There shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.” You ask us to believe that Paul’s traveling companion and scribe had an agenda to pervert Paul’s position on this, which is far-fetched at best. And the only positive textual evidence you offer (and don’t charge with deception) is Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15. But your interpretive misstep there is to think that talk only of a resurrection of the righteous somehow precludes any resurrection of the wicked. If I decide to speak exclusively of Mac computers one afternoon, to an audience of Mac users, does that mean I don’t believe in PCs?
I think you have misunderstood our project. We’re not seeking to maximise our challenge to the status quo. We’re not interested in original sin. We’re not even looking to harmonize texts or author’s perspectives. We’re simply reporting that each biblical author who speaks to the question of the final fate of the unsaved, speaks in terms most compatible with the annihilationist/conditional immortality view. Since we are right about that, it would seem, our project is more likely to succeed than fail.
The most devastating blow to your theory about John, over against the synoptics, is that John does have Jesus saying quite explicitly that there is a resurrection of the damned (echoing Daniel 12:2):
“Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.”—John 5:28,29
Thanks for posting this.
From minute 36:
http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2013/04/how-to-not-be-deceived-bamboozled-or-snookered-session-3.html
Thanks for this preview. It’s good to read someone having looked carefully at the different understandings and leaning towards annihilation.
Jacoby writes that the Biblical basis of the traditional, eternal torment, view is Luke 16, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, and Revelation 14:10-12, 20:10,15.
Jesus says the rich man is in Hades, the intermediate state which is not eternal. This can only be taken to support eternal torment if Hades is seen as the same place as Gehenna. Despite the long assumption that Hades and Gehenna are the same place, there is no Biblical support for this assumption, rather strong Biblical indications that they are different – eg Hades thrown into the lake of fire. Jacoby writes that he explains more about Hades in his chapter 10…
Rev 14:10-12 is also a description of Hades. Not only do we have the same language as in Luke 16, the rest of the chapter makes it very clear that this is before the Final Juudgement, ie in the intermediate state.
Rev 20:10 tells us the eternal fate of the devil, the beast and the false prophet. These are not human beings and we cannot learn from here what happens eternally to any humans. Rev 20:15 tells us that unrepentant wicked humans are thrown into the lake of fire, BUT it specifically does not say that they are tormented in that fire. Numerous other Bible verses tell us that the end of the wicked is their destruction.
Jacoby calls C S Lewis a traditionalist, quoting The Problem of Pain. The Great Divorce was written later. There we have Lewis’ final word on the subject. There we see a hell with a way out, hardly traditional. Too many people choose to ignore Lewis’ bus taking people to the possibility, only possibility, of moving from hell to heaven. Lewis was entirely in tune with Jesus saying that he has the keys of Hades. (Rev 1:18)
If you’re going to take the Great Divorce as Lewis’ “final word” on the subject, then you’d best take the ending of the book more seriously — Lewis penned his muse reminding him not to take the images in the dream too seriously. I do admit that Lewis was engaging in a kind of universalism in that book (look who his muse was!), but even in that book he didn’t seem to take it very seriously — and don’t forget that in the same book he also seemed to take a kind of progressive annihilationism briefly.