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.

Let me affirm from the outset that I am in full agreement with the notion of progressive revelation, and that the fuller revelation must be given priority in shaping our understanding of doctrine. However, as an exegete I am compelled to point out that we cannot utilize this as a principle of interpretation because we can only determine what constitutes further or fuller revelation after the exegesis of the relevant passages has been completed. Only then can we properly integrate the data into a biblical or systematic theology that accounts for instances where further revelation was given. This is why Klein et al. include their comments on progressive revelation in a section entitled, “The Fruits of Interpretation.”² Ibid., 569-601. They see the task of theologizing as being dependent on sound exegesis.³ Ibid., 585. To be sure, exegesis and theologizing go hand in hand but without sound hermeneutical principles to guide the process, “theology, at best, will not rise above human wisdom, and, at worst, will be false, misguided, tendentious, and even dangerous.”⁴ Ibid., 585. They seek to guard against “a self-structured theology that promotes its own self-serving agenda”⁵ Ibid., 585. by outlining two other principles of theologizing. Namely, they assert that “a theological affirmation must reflect the Bible’s total teaching, not only some select or isolated texts,” and “legitimate theology respects and articulates the Bible’s own emphases.”⁶ Ibid., 585-587. There is another principle, but this has to do with expression of the theology to today’s audience so is not as relevant to the issue I am discussing.

It is within the context of Klein et al.’s discussion of the need to ensure our theology reflects the total teaching of the Bible that we find where B&K have drawn their third interpretive principle.⁷ Ibid., 2585-586. In that section Klein et al. describe the factors interpreters must note in order to develop a well-balanced theology: the clearer and more frequently texts speak to an issue, the more weight we should give to them as the building blocks of our theology; the more a doctrine can be found in a range of contexts and genres in the Bible, the stronger the biblical evidence; conversely, isolated texts and those falling in more obscure genres should be given less weight as evidence for our theology. So, while B&K are correct to identify that progressive revelation is an important issue, they omit discussing the factors affecting how we perceive this to unfold in the Bible.

As Klein et al. state, a key aspect of understanding progressive theology has to do with how “some earlier truths prepared the way for people to understand and accept what God said and did in subsequent events.”⁸ Ibid., 586. While most will agree with this, we are still left with the question of how we can maintain a proper relationship between the tasks of exegesis and theologizing. D. A. Carson has produced an article entitled “How to Read the Bible and Do Theology Well” where he seeks to outline the proper way we should approach this issue.⁹ D. A. Carson “How to read the Bible and do theology well”,

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-bible-and-theology-don-carson-nivzsb/ Carson includes progressive revelation in his discussion of biblical theology (BT). According to Carson, whereas exegesis is the careful reading of individual texts according to sound hermeneutical principles (exegesis), BT is concerned with answering the question, “How has God revealed his word historically and organically?”¹⁰ See my first article in this series where I define and apply the principles of hermeneutics and exegesis. The emphasis in BT is on first studying individual books or corpuses (e.g. the Pentateuch, The Synoptic Gospels, The Pauline correspondence), and then tracing the development of themes across the whole Bible.

Exegesis and BT go hand in hand as we study the Bible. While exegesis focuses on analysis of individual passages, BT is concerned with the synthesis of our findings. BT should be based on sound exegesis, which serves to control our BT because it forces us to ensure our reading of the Bible has warrant in the text. However, since exegesis in not undertaken in a vacuum, BT is necessary because it provides important information affecting how we approach individual texts. We thus approach the interpretation of individual texts with a new perspective and new questions suggested by BT, allowing us to improve our exegesis. Carson calls this a “feedback loop,” where information from each discipline is utilized to improve the other.

There is, however, a question over whether the insights from BT should take a central role in our exegetical methodology and be applied while we interpret individual texts, or whether BT should assist us near the end of the exegesis as a of way to double check our exegesis. If interpreters apply insights from BT by choosing to elevate certain themes above others then their exegetical methodology is wide open for the abuse of eisegesis (reading meaning into the text). The only valid way to prevent this is to suspend the impulse to draw from BT until the exegesis of the text has been completed. Thus it is a much better safeguard to complete the exegetical process first, than it is to prematurely attempt a theological synthesis of exegetical findings.

Both exegesis and BT are essential for ensuring that systematic theology (ST) remains grounded in the text. ST organizes doctrine according to extra-biblical categories. BT mediates how exegesis influences ST, because it provides us with a big picture view of the biblical message through a greater appreciation of how its themes are taken up and developed in later parts of the Bible (promise and fulfilment; type and antitype; anticipation and consummation). This means that as we may proceed with the task of synthesizing the exegetical data into a coherent picture, recognizing that we are better able to understand the impact of progressive revelation on our theologizing. For Carson, BT is critical for how we can recognize progressive revelation, because BT

… often focuses on the turning points in the Bible’s storyline, and its most pivotal concern is tied to how the New Testament uses the Old Testament, observing how later Scripture writers refer to earlier ones.¹¹ D. A. Carson “How to read the Bible and do theology well”,

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-bible-and-theology-don-carson-nivzsb/

Progressive revelation thus relates more to our study of BT because of this discipline’s ability to detect how the NT utilizes the OT in its expression of biblical themes.

This too is how BT can help with our exegesis as it alerts us to when and how later biblical authors are using earlier parts of the Bible (called the Analogy of Scripture). It is another matter, however, when later texts are used to circumvent the conclusions drawn from good exegesis of earlier texts. Since our conclusions about how the NT utilizes the OT in any given passage must be drawn from what has warrant in the text, we are brought back to the necessity of undertaking sound exegesis of these texts. This, then, will inform us where and when progressive revelation applies in our understanding of the overarching biblical storyline, and will help eliminate incorrect conclusions about how ongoing revelation applies to our understanding of the biblical teaching on hell.

I am now in a position to comment on B&K’s use of their third “interpretive” principle. They begin by arguing that the OT speaks only of this earthly destruction of the unrighteous and not to the annihilation of the wicked at the last judgement. Focusing on Clark Pinnock’s appeal to Psalm 37 as clear evidence of annihilation of the wicked,¹² Clark Pinnock, “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent”, in Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism, edited by Christopher M. Date, Gregory G. Stump and Joshua W. Anderson. Kindle edition, (Eugene, Origen: Cascade Books, 2014), Kindle locations 1552-1563. B&K assert that “in this very Psalm (like many others), David contrasts the earthly fate of the wicked with the earthly fate of the righteous (emphasis in original).¹³ Specifically, B&K point to statements like “fade like grass and wither like the herb” (v 2), “they will be cut off and be no more” (v 9-10), “they will perish and vanish like smoke” (v. 20), and “be altogether destroyed” (v 38). For instance, they maintain that language like “they will be cut off” (Ps 37:9) normally refers to being killed (c.f. Ex. 9:15; 31:14; Num. 15:32-36; Dan. 9:26) so that only the physical death of the wicked is in view in the entire psalm. To B&K, it is irrelevant if conditionalists cite a thousand OT verses along these lines, since if they refer to the “earthly” death of the wicked this must disqualify them as evidence for the final annihilation of the wicked.

There are several points to consider in response. The exegesis provided by B&K here simply does not address the psalm’s terminology, in particular where it seems to be talking about the fate of the righteous and wicked as being final. As Mark Corbett has argued, at points throughout the chapter the righteous are said to “remain forever” (v. 18) and are “preserved forever” (v28). The righteous “shall inherit the land and dwell upon it forever” (v. 29).¹⁴ Mark Corbett, “Psalm 37 – A Song of Annihilation”, https://rethinkinghell.com/2018/05/09/psalm-37-a-song-of-annihilation/ Throughout the psalm a contrast is made between the righteous who will be “preserved forever” and the unrighteous who will “wither away,” such that “the future of the wicked will be cut off.” Psalm 37 suggests that God’s actions as described are permanent, and so extend beyond the end of this age and into the next. By their selective quoting from the psalm, B&K give a false impression that it only applies to this age. As such, they give the false impression that the OT has nothing to say on the final fate of the wicked.

Even if what B&K argue about this psalm was the case, proponents of eternal conscious torment (ECT) acknowledge at least some OT verses as speaking to the question of hell, such as Isaiah 66:24 and Daniel 12:1-3.¹⁵ For instance, see Denny Burk, “Eternal Conscious Torment” in Four Views on Hell, second ed., Kindle ed. (Grand Rapids: Michigan, Zondervan, 2016), 21-26; Robert A. Morey, Death and the Afterlife (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 1984), 114-115 and 117-118. Chris Date has demonstrated that these verses in fact provide better support for conditionalism than they do for ECT.¹⁶ Chris Date, “Episode 7: Traditionalist Objections Answered with Chris Date,

https://rethinkinghell.com/2012/10/04/episode-7-traditional-objections-answered-with-chris-date/ Indeed, a good case can be made that Malachi 4:1 speaks to an eschatological judgement that completely destroys the wicked.¹⁷ See Joseph Dear, “Malachi 4:1-3 and the Final Destruction of the Unrepentant”, http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2017/07/malachi-41-3-and-the-final-destruction-of-the-unrepentant; Eugene H. Merrill, “Malachi”, in Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, rev. ed., Kindle ed., (Grand Rapids: Michigan, Zondervan, 2008). Moreover, many specific instances of divine judgement in the OT such as the great flood and God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah–whether they are “earthly” or eschatological–are referenced by the NT in contexts where the eschatological judgement is being discussed (c.f. Mark 9:48; Matt 3:11-12; 13:36-42; 24:36-44; Luke 17:22-30; 2 Peter 2:4-9). The NT authors perceived that the OT examples of this-worldly judgment enlighten us on the nature of the final punishment, and those NT authors explain specific ways in which this Analogy of Scripture applies between the earthly context of those judgments and the final punishment of the wicked. It seems that B&K have been satisfied with just dismissing many OT “earthly” judgements and asserting that they have somehow demonstrated the conditionalist argument lacks support in the OT.

One of the best ways to identify instances of progressive revelation in relation to the question of hell is to examine how precisely the NT develops the OT rather than assuming that it supersedes it. In my first article I demonstrated that by following the first two hermeneutical principles outlined by B&K, the evidence falls entirely on the side of the conditionalist reading of Matthew 10:28. Interestingly, BT provides an insight to help confirm this. In Psalm 37:20 the wicked are said to perish and to vanish away. In the Septuagint (LXX), the word used for perish is ἀπόλλυμι (apollymi, “to destroy”) and in this context can only mean that the wicked are killed (there is no room for the idea that the wicked are left in a state of living ruin). There is no doubt that Matthew knew of this because he has already quoted the same psalm earlier in his Gospel (c.f. Psalm 37:11; Matt 5:5). I am not arguing here that this should be used to prove that Matthew used ἀπόλλυμι with the sense of “to kill.” The exegesis has already proven that. But what Psalm 37:20 does demonstrate is that Matthew was well aware of the language of Psalm 37, which lends credibility to the idea that he may have utilized the normal OT language of earthly death to speak of the fate of those thrown into Gehenna (c.f. the emphasis on destruction in the psalm and in Matt 10:28).

The more one detects where the NT uses the OT, the more one see how our exegesis reflects the general teaching of the Bible. It is compelling that when the NT authors do draw directly from the OT to speak of the ultimate end of the wicked they do so to emphasize the idea of death or complete destruction. Mark 9:48 clearly uses Isaiah’s “…their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched” (c.f. Is 66:24) in his description of what happens in Gehenna. Whatever else we might say about this, since in Isaiah the context involves slain human corpses, the worms and fire do not speak to what is consciously experienced. When Mark utilizes the imagery of the undying worm and the unquenchable fire he does not qualify it in any way to suggest conscious suffering is in view. Furthermore, when Matthew does employ the same imagery in 3:12 of unquenchable fire, he qualifies through the use of certain words and images that this unquenchable fire burns to ash that which is thrown into it. Matthew goes on later in the Gospel to draw from Daniel 3:6 (c.f. also Malachi 4:1) the imagery of a super-heated furnace to emphasize that this is indeed what happens to the wicked at the end of the age (Matt 13:40-42).¹⁸ I will outline these points further in a future article. It is only then that the “righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matt 13:43), which is itself a clear allusion to Daniel 12:3. Luke uses the OT episodes of the great flood and the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah as prototypes of the judgement that will occur when Christ is revealed (Luke 17:26-37). Jesus is very specific that the judgements of the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah involved destruction, and this can only be understood as a reference to the death of the sinner.¹⁹ Glenn Andrew Peoples, “Fire and Flood: How the New Testament Uses the First Testament to Teach on Final Punishment”, https://www.afterlife.co.nz/articles/fire-and-flood/ In Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6 the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is also used as an example of how God will burn the wicked to ashes in the eschatological judgement; Peter expressly teaches that this turning to ashes was not merely what was observed to happen on earth, but was also what is awaiting the wicked now. These are only some of the instances where the NT authors draw upon the OT to help describe the nature of the final punishment, but they always communicate the complete destruction of the wicked. Since B&K ignore this completely in their argument from progressive revelation, they have missed addressing the strength of the conditionalist case.

The next phase of B&K’s argument involves a contrast between Matthew 10:28 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9 to demonstrate progressive revelation in the NT. Their contrast turns on simply stating that the former verse provides no information on hell, while completing limited exegesis for the latter verse to make their point. As they conclude this section of their argument they assert that their reading of these verses is

… completely in keeping with our rule regarding progressive revelation. The Old Testament gives us part of the picture, the New Testament provides the rest.

As a general note, even B&K do not apply their third principle to interpret the text. To be sure, they do attempt some limited exegesis of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 but it is only after they have reached their conclusion about the meaning of that verse that they invoke their third rule. With respect to Matthew 10:28, they discuss no exegetical detail, simply preferring to state their conclusion regarding its lack of clarity. I can see no evidence elsewhere in their exegesis of these verses where they do employ their third “interpretive principle” to interpret a text. If they do not employ their own principle as part of the interpretive and exegetical process, then they haven’t demonstrated how anyone else should either.

Besides this, their contrast of Matthew 10:28 with 2 Thessalonians 1:9 to demonstrate progressive revelation is tenuous and odd, considering that most Evangelical scholars would hold that 2 Thessalonians was composed before Matthew’s Gospel.²⁰ Fee, Gordon D., The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, Kindle ed. (Grand Rapids: Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 241; Jeannine K. Brown, “Matthew, Gospel of”, in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2nd ed., edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown & Nicholas Perrin, (Downers Grove: Illinois, InterVarsity Press, 2013). In his article, Carson writes that to properly account for the true significance of progressive revelation one must organize “the Bible’s historical material into its chronological sequence …” At the very least, B&K ought to have ensured that they got this right before making their argument.

Focusing on their exegesis, since they seem to assume a definition of annihilation as “being zapped out of existence,” all they would need to do is show that any part of the context depicts a felt experience (the mention of “affliction” in v6), and they would then have disproved that “eternal destruction” conveys the idea of annihilation. However, conditionalism leaves room for the wicked to experience conscious affliction, and the emphasis is on capital punishment through such a process of destruction looks nothing like the definition assumed by B&K. As Demler and Tanksley point out:

On its face, “affliction” leading to “everlasting destruction” at the revealing of Christ from heaven sounds a lot like the punishment that conditionalists believe will befall God’s enemies.²¹ Fee, Gordon D., The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, Kindle ed. (Grand Rapids: Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 241; Jeannine K. Brown, “Matthew, Gospel of”, in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2nd ed., edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown & Nicholas Perrin, (Downers Grove: Illinois, InterVarsity Press, 2013).

If B&K had engaged more with Grice’s article on 2 Thessalonians 1:9,²² Peter Grice, “Annihilation in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (Part 1): Destroyed by the Glory of His Manifest Presence”. http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2016/11/annihilation-in-2-thessalonians-19-part-1-destroyed-by-the-glory-of-his-manifest-presence and the followup article by Ronnie Demler and William Tanksley,²³ Ronnie Demler and William Tanksley, “Annihilation in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (Part 2): Separation or Obliteration?—The Present Controversy”, http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2016/12/annihilation-in-2-thess-1-9-part-2-separation-or-obliteration then this might have been apparent to them.

Part of their argument turns on emphasizing that the eternal destruction experienced by the wicked will be staged away from the presence and glory of the Lord. B&K interpret “away from” as spatial language indicating that the wicked will be banished into another place altogether. However, they do not provide anywhere near enough discussion in their exegesis of that verse to support their case. In their article, Demler and Tanksley focus on the Greek preposition ἀπό and discuss whether this word means “from” (denoting a causal and source sense) or “away from” (denoting a “spatial” aspect). They discuss the technical aspects of this word, drawing from the traditionalist scholar Charles L. Quarles’ argument for reading ἀπό as having a causal sense.²⁴ Charles L. Quarles, “The ἀπὸ of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and the Nature of Eternal Punishment,” WTJ 59 [1997], 201–11. Unlike Demler and Tanksley, B&K do not mention the best scholarship on the meaning of ἀπό in this context. Consequently they posit an unnatural reading of Isaiah 2:10 (the source of Paul’s language in 2 Thess 1:9) where they interpret “from the terror” and “from the splendour” as having a locative sense, suggesting someone attempting to hide from their own emotions.²⁵ Cf. Demler and Tanksley on this “… in Isaiah people are not hiding in a place separated away from their terror; they are hiding because of the presence of their terror. This meaning of “from” is far more common in Hebrew and Greek than modern English, but is still recognizable to us as when someone says “I turned white from terror.” “Annihilation in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (Part 2): Separation or Obliteration?—The Present Controversy”, http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2016/12/annihilation-in-2-thess-1-9-part-2-separation-or-obliteration As Demler and Tanksley correctly observe,

“… in Isaiah people are not hiding in a place separated away from their terror; they are hiding because of the presence of their terror. This meaning of “from” is far more common in Hebrew and Greek than modern English, but is still recognizable to us as when someone says “I turned white from terror.” (emphasis theirs)

Even if the idea of separation in a spatial sense is in view in Isaiah 2:10, the traditionalist scholar Quarles notes that the destruction faced by the sinner does not come from being away from God’s presence.²⁶ Charles L. Quarles, “The ἀπὸ of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and the Nature of Eternal Punishment,” WTJ 59 [1997], 204. Rather, the destruction comes through encountering God’s presence and glory. B&K’s misunderstanding of Isaiah 2:10 has led them to misinterpret 2 Thessalonians 1:9 in terms of separation and to import the ideas of alienation and ruin into the destruction language used by Paul in that verse. They thus have no way of explaining how the idea of unending destruction can be said to occur “when he (Christ) comes on that day to be glorified in his saints” (2 Thess 1:10). B&K have thus failed to provide an exegetically sound reading of 1 Thessalonians 1:9. When this is considered alongside my comments on their handling of Psalm 37, I have no hesitation in stating that they have built their argument from progressive revelation on zero exegetical evidence. As such, I find that their argument from their principle of progressive revelation is completely devoid of merit.

In many ways B&K illustrate how traditionalists typically assume that progressive revelation develops in the direction of the traditional view of hell. This has led them to ignore detail in Psalm 37 and other verses in the OT supporting conditionalism. It has also led them to propose a unique theory of progressive revelation within the NT itself that is plagued with problems. If B&K were better able to exegete Matthew 10:28 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9 then they would have avoided this. Better exegesis would alert them to how the NT authors utilized the OT to teach that the wicked are completely destroyed at the last judgment. They would be able to construct a BT on the final fate of the wicked that conforms to the biblical data.

I am aware that B&K represent only one example of traditionalist handling of progressive revelation, so in my next article I will survey and compare conditionalist and traditionalist approaches to BT and progressive revelation.

Liked it? Take a second to support Rethinking Hell on Patreon!