Introduction:
Last year when Kirk Cameron announced he had come to accept annihilationism as the Scriptural view of hell, there was an explosion of responses from traditionalists from around the globe explaining why he was in error. Craig Ireland is one such traditionalist. Whilst Ireland is, as far as I know, not known on the global stage, he does seem to have a robust following in Brisbane, Australia. He posted several blog articles on his Substack page. I first encountered him on Facebook, where I noticed his posts had gained quite some attention from a very large number of annihilationists.1I am no longer on Facebook, which removed my account on the mistaken conclusion that I have been impersonating the real Darren J. Clark. That seems to warrant this short response. My intention with this article is to engage with Ireland’s charge that annihilationists are hermeneutically inconsistent, a charge he levels in his Substack article, Death by a Thousand Comments: What Three Thousand Annihilationists Taught me about Annihilationism. My main point is, though Ireland engaged with numerous annihilationists online, he does not appear to be aware of the stronger exegetical arguments for conditionalism.
In his article, Ireland gives two examples of annihilationist hermeneutical inconsistency, which I will discuss separately.
Matthew 25:46:
The heart of Ireland’s criticism of annihilationists handling of Matthew 25:46 is the way they would treat the word αἰώνιος (aiōnios) as it is used in this verse. Specifically, Ireland reports that;
Annihilationists frequently argued that aionios means “age-long” or “pertaining to the age” rather than “everlasting.” They insisted that the punishment could be finite in duration while life is infinite.
The basis of his response is the argument that the same word (αἰώνιος, aiōnios) used twice in the same sentence must have the same meaning. This is an ancient argument. The earliest expression of this argument I have found is from Augustine.
Then what a fond fancy is it to suppose that eternal punishment means long continued punishment, while eternal life means life without end, since Christ in the very same passage spoke of both in similar terms in one and the same sentence, “These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal!” If both destinies are “eternal,” then we must either understand both as long-continued but at last terminating, or both as endless. For they are correlative,–on the one hand, punishment eternal, on the other hand, life eternal. And to say in one and the same sense, life eternal shall be endless, punishment eternal shall come to an end, is the height of absurdity. Wherefore, as the eternal life of the saints shall be endless, so too the eternal punishment of those who are doomed to it shall have no end.2Saint Augustine, The Complete Works of Saint Augustine, Kindle ed. (No publisher given, 2013), Kindle loc. 21975-21981.
In the past I have contemplated the worth of pointing out that traditionalists making this argument could run into problems if universalists were to make the same argument about Romans 5:18. It is not simply that ‘all’ (πᾶς, pas) is used twice in the same sentence. There are parallel prepositional phrases which mirror that found in Matthew 25:46;
Matthew 25:46
And these will go away into eternal punishment (εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον),
but the righteous into eternal life (εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον).
Romans 5:18
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men (εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους)
one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men (εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους).3Edit: Thomas Talbott makes this point in his
‘The whole point of such a parallel structure, so typical of Paul, is to identify a single group of individuals and to make two parallel statements about that single group of individuals, and the practical effect is therefore to eliminate any possibility of ambiguity. The very ones who came under condemnation, as a result of the first Adam’s act of disobedience, will eventually be brought to justification and life, as a result of the second Adam’s act of obedience.’
Being a traditionalist, Ireland does not think that all will finally be justified. Yet universalists would be able to use his own argument against him, insisting that since the same word ‘all’ (πᾶς, pas) is used twice in the same sentence, then Romans 5:18 must be interpreted as saying all will be justified. I have no doubt Ireland would be able to think of a response of some sort, but he still will be subject to the charge that he treats ‘all’ (πᾶς, pas) with a different sense. His only viable option is to argue that πᾶς does mean ‘all’ in both clauses in Roman 5:18, but the individual clauses ‘one trespass led to condemnation for all men’ and ‘one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for fall men’ refer to different groups of people. In the first clause, the idea is all who are in Adam and sinned are condemned, while in the second clause, the idea is all who are in Christ are justified and find life. Ireland would only need to argue that not all end up being in Christ so they are not included in the group referenced in Romans 5:18b. “All” (πᾶς, pas) is taken with the same sense in each clause, but two different groups are in view. This helps shed light on the fallacy of Ireland’s argument. The mere fact the same word is used twice in the same sentence with the same sense does not necessarily mean the exact same concept is communicated in the clauses in which they are used.
Bringing this back to Matthew 25:46, I do think that αἰώνιος (aiōnios) means ‘eternal’ both times it is used there. However, this does not necessarily support the conclusion that since the righteous will live forever, then the unrighteous will also experience their punishment forever. A key point to make at this juncture is at a conceptual level being dead permanently does qualify as an eternal punishment. Johnathan Edwards (while arguing against conditional immortality) explains it this way;
For, if it be owned, that Scripture expressions denote a punishment that is properly eternal, but that it is in no other sense properly so, than as the annihilation, or state of non-existence, to which the wicked shall return, will be eternal; and that this eternal annihilation is that death which is so often threatened for sin, perishing far ever, everlasting destruction, being lost, utterly consumed, See. and that the fire of hell is called eternal fire, in the same sense that the external fire which consumed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha is called eternal fire, Jude 7. because it utterly consumed those cities, that they might never be built more; and that this fire is called that which cannot be quenched, or at least not until it has destroyed them that are cast into it. If this be all that these expressions denote, then they do not at all signify the length of the torments, or long continuance of their misery; so that the supposition of the length of their torments is brought in without any necessity, the Scripture saying nothing of it, having no respect to it, when it speaks of their everlasting punishments; and it answers the scripture expressions as well, to suppose that they shall be annihilated immediately, without any long pains, provided the annihilation be everlasting.4Jonathan Edwards, The Works of President Edwards: With a Memoir of His Life, (G. & C. & H. Carvill: 1830), 401.
Edwards is saying that if the annihilation of the person is permanent, then it truly does mean the punishment of that person is eternal. From my perspective, this means that ‘eternal punishment’ can legitimately refer to the eternal privation of life of the punished. Their punishment is truly eternal. Ireland might have other arguments to bring to bear against this reading of Matthew 25:46a, but he cannot press his argument from the dual usage of αἰώνιος because I – and all the leaders of the Rethinking Hell team – accept it does mean ‘eternal’ both times it is used there.
The meaning of ἀπόλλυμι:
Ireland also takes aim at annihilationists over the word ἀπόλλυμι;
The same inconsistency appeared with apollumi, the Greek verb often translated “destroy” or “perish.” Annihilationists pressed the word into meaning “cessation of existence.” But apollumi does not require this meaning. The lost sheep was apollumi. The lost coin was apollumi. The prodigal son was apollumi. All three maintained existence. The word means ruin, loss, devastation, and separation. It never means extinction.
While it is true that ἀπόλλυμι is polysemous, it is also true that the way this verb is used in each context dictates which meaning is in view. For instance, though ἀπόλλυμι means ‘lost’ in Luke 15:24 and 32, it means ‘perish’ in Luke 15:17 where the prodigal son exclaims, ‘I perish (ἀπόλλυμι) here with hunger!’ I doubt Ireland would think that the son meant anything other than that he was close to death. Likewise, there are distinct differences in saying a coin is lost (Luke 15:8) and talking about losing a hand or eye (Matt 5:29-30). The coin is lost because it has been misplaced, while body parts are lost because they are severed from the body and so are destroyed. I doubt Ireland thinks Matthew 5:29-20 has Jesus saying eyes and hands could be misplaced. Context matters. Often when words like ἀπόλλυμι are used in one context, some of its possible nuances are not available because of that context. Ireland knows this.
Ireland would likely push back on the contention that even the prodigal son would not cease to exist when he died. This is obviously because he can say the son’s soul remains alive, though his body died. This is a view that many conditionalists also hold. This brings us to the much quoted statement from Matthew 10:28, which many think is explicit on this point. However, even granting Ireland’s point of view that Matthew 10:28a teaches humans have a soul that cannot be killed, Matthew 10:28b has in view a scenario where the soul is killed along with the body in Gehenna.
Glenn Peoples has an article called The Meaning of “Apollumi” in the Synoptic Gospels, in which he does a stellar job of showing that when ἀπόλλυμι is used in the Synoptics in a context where one person (or group of people) is said to ‘destroy’ another person, the idea in view is always that they intend to slay that person. Peoples provides several examples to demonstrate this. I think his point can be made even more clearly when we note that Matthew uses ἀπόλλυμ interchangeably with a standard verb for ‘kill’, ἀποκτείνω (apokteinō).
Matt 2:13, Herod is about … to destroy (ἀπόλλυμι) him;
Matt 12:14, Pharisees … conspired … to destroy (ἀπόλλυμι) him;
Matt 14:5 though he wanted to put him to death (ἀποκτείνω);
Matt 16:21 they will kill him (ἀποκτείνω), and he will be raised on the third day;
Matt 21:35 the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed (ἀποκτείνω) another;
Matt , 21:38 Come, let us kill (ἀποκτείνω) him;
Matt 21:39, they… killed (ἀποκτείνω) him;
Matt 21:41, He will put those wretches to a miserable death (ἀπόλλυμι);
Matt 22:6, the rest seized his servants… and killed (ἀποκτείνω) them;
Matt 22:7 The king … destroyed (ἀπόλλυμι) those murderers;
Matt 23:34, some of whom you will kill (ἀποκτείνω);
Matt 23:37, the city that kills (ἀποκτείνω) the prophets;
Matt 24:9, they will … put you to death (ἀποκτείνω);
Matt 26:3-4, the chief priests and the elders … and plotted together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him (ἀποκτείνω).
Matt 27:20 the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to … destroy (ἀπόλλυμι) Jesus.
Ἀποκτείνω and ἀπόλλυμι are synonymous when used in the context of one person killing another. Matthew does not deviate from this at any point in his Gospel. This means Matthew used ἀπόλλυμι in Matthew 10:28b because he wanted to say the soul and body can be killed in Gehenna — and this is necessary, since Jesus just said to not fear those who cannot kill the soul. In these contexts, there is no semantic range of ἀπόλλυμι.5Peoples makes this point in his article linked above.
The question for Ireland, then, is what does he think happens to a person whose soul has been killed along with the body? Ireland, like most traditionalists, may simply not give an answer, though it is easy enough to do so. If the soul is killed along with the body. then there can be no conscious existence of the person. Conditionalists need not argue that ἀπόλλυμι means ‘to render non-existent’. We simply follow the exegesis, noting how Matthew normally uses ἀπόλλυμι in various contexts.
Conclusion:
Ireland employs standard arguments against conditionalist exegesis, claiming we apply our interpretive principles selectively. He may have interacted with a large number of annihilationists who offered numerous exegetical arguments. But his article shows his criticism of conditionalist exegesis is generally superficial and betrays his lack of awareness of what Chris Date or Glenn Peoples might argue when defending our view of hell. If Ireland ever happens to read this article, I hope that he is prompted to investigate the more robust arguments offered for conditionalism at Rethinking Hell.
| ￪1 | I am no longer on Facebook, which removed my account on the mistaken conclusion that I have been impersonating the real Darren J. Clark. |
|---|---|
| ￪2 | Saint Augustine, The Complete Works of Saint Augustine, Kindle ed. (No publisher given, 2013), Kindle loc. 21975-21981. |
| ￪3 | Edit: Thomas Talbott makes this point in his
‘The whole point of such a parallel structure, so typical of Paul, is to identify a single group of individuals and to make two parallel statements about that single group of individuals, and the practical effect is therefore to eliminate any possibility of ambiguity. The very ones who came under condemnation, as a result of the first Adam’s act of disobedience, will eventually be brought to justification and life, as a result of the second Adam’s act of obedience.’ |
| ￪4 | Jonathan Edwards, The Works of President Edwards: With a Memoir of His Life, (G. & C. & H. Carvill: 1830), 401. |
| ￪5 | Peoples makes this point in his article linked above. |
One thought on “Cutting through the noise: How Craig Ireland misses the best of conditionalist exegesis”
I have engaged with him (Ireland) on FB a few times, and have found him to be disingenuous in every interaction. He likes to set up straw men so he can knock them down, but refuses to engage in substantive dialog.