What About Physicalism and Soul Sleep? (Part 1: Scope)

“What happens when we die?”
“Do conditionalists believe in soul sleep?”
“What about the issue of dualism vs. physicalism?”

At Rethinking Hell we hear these kinds of questions often. They are good questions about interesting topics! However, they officially fall outside of our discussion area, as we focus on Evangelical Conditionalism and the Hell debate.

This article explains why that is the case. We will consider the scope and importance of Evangelical Conditionalism, and review its main tenets about life, death, resurrection, immortality, and annihilation. We’ll also encounter the lens of biblical holism, which will clarify how things are best framed and discussed.

Let’s begin by posing a question of our own, which better encapsulates our work at Rethinking Hell:

“What is the ultimate destiny of human beings?”

This question determines the broad scope of the Evangelical debate on Hell, since each of the three main views affirms some correlation of final punishment and final reward. On Universalism, those who are finally punished are also eventually saved. On Conditionalism, eternal destruction is the privation of eternal life (just as death is the privation of life), and this eternal life or immortality is awarded to the saved only. On Eternal Torment, all will live forever in either Heaven or Hell, so to experience eternal bliss is simultaneously to avoid experiencing eternal misery.

If we keep this profoundly important controlling question in mind, we will be able to recognize the boundaries of the debate.

The initial questions are different. They’re not about our ultimate destiny in any direct sense. Instead, they fall into one of two categories of Christian theology: anthropology and the intermediate state.

    • Anthropology is the study of human beings, particularly in terms of how we are constituted (constitutional anthropology).
    • The Intermediate State refers to a person’s condition or whereabouts in the interval between their death and resurrection.

We may ask, do people have a non-physical spirit or soul? Most Christians have answered “yes” to this question, many simply assuming it as the only option for our faith.

Is the soul conscious during death? Most have believed this too, often elaborating on what that conscious experience might be like for the saved and the unsaved.

But there is an alternative minority view, where the soul is believed to enter a state of unconscious “sleep” between death and resurrection. In the Protestant tradition this “soul sleep” view was held by the Anabaptists, and notable Reformers Martin Luther and William Tyndale.

As if that weren’t controversial enough, a perspective called Christian physicalism goes further. On physicalism, the human constitution is basically physical, lacking any soul/spirit of a different nature. The view is sometimes called materialism to reference physical matter, or monism to emphasize its singular nature as distinct from dualism.

Importantly, Christian physicalists–like all Christians–believe that God is Spirit, and that He created and sustains all things in existence, including ourselves. This differs markedly from a naturalistic physicalism in which our brains and bodies are the result of unguided causes. It affirms that whatever the precise structuring of human beings may be, we were designed purposefully and intricately, wholly complete in the image of our Creator. Should that constitution suffer decay and dissolution in death, our Creator is able to restore us to life again–even if we cannot fathom how.

Christian physicalists also affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ, his death on the cross for our sins, and his resurrection–placing their trust in him as their Lord and Savior.

For these reasons, the occasional suspicion and even animosity directed at Christian physicalists is unwarranted. As a non-physicalist myself I can make this observation without prejudice. When self-styled heresy hunters turn this into a hill to die on, they show themselves to be uninformed.

Or worse, uncharitable, when it comes to the specific doctrinal concern that the union of Christ’s divine and human natures be maintained during his death–if the critic insists that physicalists must deny this, when in fact they typically affirm it. Sincere affirmations of faith take precedence over supposed logical implications. Whatever the strength of arguments about physicalism implying heresy, critics must stop short of dictating that such things are actually believed by others.

Even so, physicalists have provided their response on logical grounds. Rethinking Hell representative Chris Date, for instance, who happens to hold to physicalism, has explained that the person of Jesus Christ subsists in both divine and human natures, and if Jesus ceased to be conscious as a human being during death, his human nature still continued to exist (especially so since the Father did not permit him to undergo decay; Acts 2:27).

Not only is the union of natures preserved, but the related criticism that the divine being is affected doesn’t hold up either. As far as atonement is concerned, the notion of substitution requires only human death, albeit that of a sinless human of infinite value (Heb 2:17; Col 1:22). But for the death of the incarnate Son to effect some change in the Trinity is not possible even in principle, since it occurs in time, yet God transcends created time.

As far as Conditionalism is concerned, our statement of belief in this area is simple: Jesus died, by which we mean ceased to live–not ceased to exist, was destroyed, was annihilated, or anything else. To affirm this biblical truth as a statement of historic fact, is not to invoke any view of anthropology or the intermediate state.

Now, at first blush physicalism might seem incompatible with soul sleep, given that it offers no soul to be disembodied at death. But both views are functionally similar in terms of rejecting a conscious intermediate state. That is likely to be the focus whenever the two are being lumped together.

Physicalism can even be functionally similar to dualism, depending on who you ask. Non-reductive physicalism, for instance, is not unlike property dualism in some respects. Some physicalists are primarily concerned to reject only certain types of dualism and various problems they see: cartesian dualism, bodily non-essentialism, etc. Yet they may still conceive of a person’s essence being held in God’s care during death, which to some ears sounds like a kind of distinct soul.

So it turns out that not everyone uses these terms in the same way. How much tension really exists between two given views will vary depending on the specifics.

There are still legitimate controversies and debates in these areas of course. But if they can be bounded by points of agreement–about death and resurrection for instance–we are able to focus on other worthwhile things, such as rethinking the doctrine of Hell.

 

The (Supposed) Point of Tension

At times, the question of immortality as a property of the soul has been in dispute between Annihilationism and Eternal Torment. This framing might have been helpful at times, but on strictly logical grounds, we must reject its assumption that if the soul survives death, this guarantees its permanent future.

That notion is more at home in Plato’s thought than in Christianity. According to his metaphysics, human souls always existed in an eternal and unchanging realm, and are indestructible by virtue of having no constituent parts. For the soul to survive death is just a function of its participation in the eternal realm, a demonstration of its permanent resilience.

“The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is a Greek doctrine; it’s not a Christian doctrine.”

–Paul Copan1Paul Copan, Extinction or Corrosion?, 14:10, Rethinking Hell Conference 2020

“The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is a pagan doctrine and not a Christian one at all.”

–Gordon Fee2Gordon Fee, First Corinthians Series (Part 9), Youth With A Mission Lausanne, 1977

In Christianity, souls are created, and included in the set of “all things” sustained in existence by God for however long as He determines. Instead of being baked into the structure of reality, our eternal future ensues from God’s judgments at a future event (Acts 17:31). Even if we do have inherently immortal souls–something rejected by Martin Luther and increasingly today by proponents of Eternal Torment–God is still able to annihilate, to “destroy both soul and body in Hell” (Matt 10:28). Our final destiny is therefore a matter of His sovereign will and power, not of human anthropology or whatever means or mechanisms He may choose to implement.

“That the soul survives the grave is not a testimony to its indestructibility or of its intrinsic immortality. The soul as a created entity is mortal. It survives the grave only because it is sustained and preserved by the power of God.”

–R. C. Sproul3R.C. Sproul, The Origin of the Soul

Now, if the claim is that God equipped souls with innate immortality because every person will ultimately live forever according to His will, on either Universalism or Eternal Torment, this just begs the question. God could easily have done so instead because some (not all) will use this capacity forever. The most we could argue in this area is that God made souls capable of subsisting in death because more still needs to take place via resurrection. This persistence of the soul still only occurs for a temporary, intermediate time period, and relates only to a part of us–the situation is incomplete in both respects. An act of God is needed, and will someday occur, in order to bring each person back to life inclusive of all their constituent parts.

When we insist upon a biblical and Christian approach, we gain much clarity on the crucial role of God himself in this matter. As P. T. Forsyth explains,

A sure belief in immortality does not rest where philosophy puts it, but where religion puts it. It is not founded on the nature of the psychic organism, but on its relation to Another . . . I do not remember where we have Christian warrant for believing that man was created immortal . . . If my immortality is due to God’s gift, it is due to his incessant gift and creation, and not to an infinite lease on life which He signed at the beginning . . . In the Bible the supreme interest and the final ground of immortality was not the continuity of the organism, physical or psychical, but of a relation. The ground of the belief was not that such an organism must go on, but that a life in God, and especially in the risen Christ, could not die.4 P.T. Forsyth, A Sense of the Holy, Wipf and Stock, 1996

Immortality is still very central to the Hell debate today, just not as a property of the soul or as a function of disembodied continuance. Straightforwardly, it’s the notion of ultimately living forever (everlasting life), which is a question of fact about the future. To whom this applies is answered differently by the different views of final punishment. We Conditionalists say that immortality is a gift given only to the saved, and forfeited by others who will be destroyed in Gehenna. Traditionalists and Universalists, on the other hand, affirm everlasting life for all.

The real question of immortality in Christianity–“Who ultimately lives forever?”–is something we can only know if God has revealed His intention to us. Therefore, instead of trying to derive an answer from human composition or postmortem conditions, we must look for it more directly, in the pages of the Bible.

 

Importance: our biblical standard

Shouldn’t we still seek to integrate our own beliefs in different areas? Yes, generally speaking a robust and well-formed theological belief system is good to pursue. We should explore and build connections between different doctrines, and test those relationships through logical argument.

Those involved in the Hell debate do tend to be theological types, who find detailed models satisfying, and love to discuss and debate all the finer points. Still, there is a time and place for boundaries, and for keeping beliefs distinct.

We understand this intuitively when it comes to the gospel message. The content of the gospel is meant to be accessible and clearly communicated to people from all walks of life, not just theologians and logicians. The message should not be saddled with more complex ideas, or clouded by concepts foreign to it. If we do seek integration with other beliefs, in principle they should not be permitted to modify the gospel. Better to be right about the gospel, than right about everything else instead.

We are saved through faith in Jesus, not by our knowledge of many facts or prowess in logical consistency. Faith, the apostle Paul reminds us in terms of matters of “first importance,” believes the good news of the death of Jesus Christ for our sins, his burial, his resurrection, and his post-resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15:1-4).

Our topic of ultimate destinies is similar, as a matter of great importance for us all. In fact there is some overlap with elements of the gospel message. Paul goes on in that passage to treat the topic of “the resurrection of the dead,” which in Hebrews 6:1-2 is listed as foundational doctrine alongside “eternal judgments.” Those two items comprise the main areas of interest for Conditionalism, along with the work of Jesus Christ in death and resurrection, and the account of Adam and Eve.

So we operate on fairly sacred territory, so to speak, and should be mindful of the theological scaffolding for our discussion: protology, eschatology, soteriology and damnation (first things, last things, salvation, and final punishment).

Having that awareness can help prevent too many missteps like category errors, wrong assumptions, unjustified inferences, and so on. If you’ve ever discussed theology with someone prone to making those mistakes, or who keeps “jumping around all over the place,” you’ll appreciate the need for a little structure and self-regulation in how we think and communicate.

For controversial topics like ours those problems are only compounded by personal bias, social interests, and a desire to be proven right. We too easily emphasize and reject only the weakest forms of opposing views, even outright caricatures, and ignore the best representations. These things produce frustration and confusion, instead of clarity and understanding. If we don’t attend to topical boundaries when needed, and allow too much obfuscation of already challenging subjects, sooner or later we’ll find ourselves embroiled in endless controversies that do nothing to edify (1 Tim 4:7).

Fortunately in that regard, beliefs in the areas of anthropology and the intermediate state aren’t of primary importance in matters of Christian faith. They might even be considered tertiary and somewhat speculative. That being the case, we have the option to be agnostic about them. Unlike matters that are more clearly revealed, maybe we just don’t have enough information here either way. Or if we do, maybe we’re still investigating, or have become stuck not knowing how to finally resolve things. If that’s where you find yourself, don’t be pressured into accepting or rejecting beliefs that aren’t of primary importance. Don’t be afraid to say you don’t know.

 

Statements and Boundaries

We see now why anthropology and the intermediate state are typically absent from statements of faith for the broad Evangelical bodies, such as the World Evangelical Alliance, the UK’s Evangelical Alliance, and the USA’s National Association of Evangelicals. In addition to affirming primary doctrines already noted, such statements typically also highlight belief in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the nature of God as Trinity, the present work of the indwelling Holy Spirit, the future return of Jesus Christ, and the future resurrection of the saved and the unsaved. All of these basic beliefs should be givens implied by the term “Christian,” and are important both for faith and for unity. They are certainly implied by the term “Evangelical,” which we embrace in our banner “Evangelical Conditionalism.”

A lengthier statement known as the Reforming Catholic Confession, which is aimed at unifying the Protestant world, likewise does not cover anthropology or the intermediate state. Regrettably though, as I’ve pointed out in a previous article, not only is its wording conspicuously weak in affirming the resurrection of the saved (Dan 12:2-3; John 5:29; Acts 24:15)–it fails to even mention the resurrection of the unsaved! This is vital doctrine, the outright denial of which is considered heretical (2 Tim 2:17-18; 1 Cor 15:12-19). So if anything should be concerning in these areas we deal with, it’s the all-too-common neglect of future resurrection. With future resurrection affirmed, we enter the domain of eschatology at the return of Christ, the main area of focus at Rethinking Hell.

Naturally there are still Christian groups and contexts in which one is required to affirm something about an intermediate state or human constitution. But across the broad Evangelical world and beyond, we can legitimately disagree over their details. By acknowledging where we could be mistaken we find greater unity in Christ, and are able to fellowship and minister together despite any differences on non-primary matters. This applies within the Evangelical Conditionalist movement too. For an outline of our diversity of belief on other matters, see the Statement on Evangelical Conditionalism.

Our official statement concludes by saying that no belief of anthropology or the intermediate state is “a logical requirement or consequence” of Conditionalism. Those categories are technically out of bounds for our purposes, not only since they’re not directly about final punishment, and since they’re not of foundational importance, and since we have a diversity of opinion about them anyway, but also because this really is fitting and proper for the best framing of our view.

None of this means that they are not interesting and important in their own right, or cannot be integrated with Conditionalism. We’ve previously published guest articles from authors presenting their own integrated schemes, here and here. Individual perspectives are one thing, but the general approach to Evangelical Conditionalism has broad utility. It’s both well-founded in the literature, and well-represented in the dialogue today. In the next part of this series we’ll encounter this model and review its main tenets. An outline of our view is worth exploring for its own sake, and should be useful to have in one place. It will also help to clarify why it’s not necessary to attend to beliefs in others areas, such as anthropology and the intermediate state.

References
1 Paul Copan, Extinction or Corrosion?, 14:10, Rethinking Hell Conference 2020
2 Gordon Fee, First Corinthians Series (Part 9), Youth With A Mission Lausanne, 1977
3 R.C. Sproul, The Origin of the Soul
4 P.T. Forsyth, A Sense of the Holy, Wipf and Stock, 1996

“Conditional Immortality”—What it means and why it’s the best label

Alas! The hell debate has a terminology problem. First, traditionalism is nondescript and sometimes considered pejorative. It’s also not quite accurate: there were several traditions in early Christendom, with eternal torment dominating in the Western church from around the fourth century. Next, universalism can refer to the inclusivist outlook on world religions, which evangelical universalists typically deny in favor of an eternal opportunity to respond to the gospel. Finally, conditionalism (short for Conditional Immortality) is sometimes reduced to a view about the mechanics of human mortality/immortality instead of pertaining to ultimate destinies in the context of eschatology.

The addition of some expanded terms to our deck, like “eternal torment” and “universal salvation” (or “ultimate reconciliation”), helps us to compensate for some shortcomings. However, despite many proposals, no viable alternative set of terms has emerged that is clear and consistent across all three positions. For better or worse, it seems that these terms are here to stay, including the well-established shorthand labels. Continue reading ““Conditional Immortality”—What it means and why it’s the best label”

A Case for Conditionalism

What is conditionalism? Basically, there are three views on hell, and they are all represented within evangelicalism. There is traditionalism, universalism and conditionalism. Setting aside for the moment that there are different varieties among these views, I will speak in general terms about each position:1Most seem to believe in a form of “separationism.” Along with this is a form of “lewisianism” in which all who are in hell, ultimately choose it, and hell’s door is locked from the inside (C.S.Lewis). Yet there are those, like N.T.Wright, who suggest a kind of “dehumanization,” that those who refuse to respond to the gospel, and only worship themselves, “that after death they become at last, by their own effective choice, beings that once were human but now are not,” but however, he admits that this is wandering into “territory that no one can claim to have mapped” (N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church [New York, NY: Harper One, 2008], 183.). To illustrate this, some point to Smeagol’s ghastly transformation into Gollum in the LOTR Trilogy. Yet, ironically, Gollum is eventually annihilated in the volcanic fires of Mount Doom.

  • The predominant view is traditionalism which is the perspective that we are all eternal beings who will live forever either in heaven or hell.2The label “traditionalism” suggests that the alternate views are not found in church tradition, which is untrue. Within this view are two alternatives as to the nature of hell. Eternal torment is the more “traditional” view where the unbeliever is tormented in literal fire. Eternal separation is a softer and increasingly popular view where the unbeliever is eternally separated from God – in this view the fire is treated as a metaphor. In either of these, the unbeliever will never die or be freed from this state of punishment. This is the view I grew up with and came to believe for most of my life.
  • Universalism is the view of hell as a place of burning which is refining and purifying with the ultimate purpose that all will eventually come to a place of repentance and restoration with God and then enter Heaven. The length of time for this purified repentance will vary for each unbeliever, but God’s love, according to Universalists, is powerful enough to bring all to repentance and restoration. In other words, hell will eventually empty itself and cease to be.
  • And just briefly, because it will be fleshed out more: conditionalism is the view that we are not all eternal or immortal beings, unlike God. Eternal life and immortality is “conditional” upon faith in Jesus Christ, and is given only as a good gift, not as a curse. When the condition of salvation is not met, hell is a place of complete destruction and annihilation. In this view, the unbeliever eventually perishes and ceases to be.

Continue reading “A Case for Conditionalism”

References
1 Most seem to believe in a form of “separationism.” Along with this is a form of “lewisianism” in which all who are in hell, ultimately choose it, and hell’s door is locked from the inside (C.S.Lewis). Yet there are those, like N.T.Wright, who suggest a kind of “dehumanization,” that those who refuse to respond to the gospel, and only worship themselves, “that after death they become at last, by their own effective choice, beings that once were human but now are not,” but however, he admits that this is wandering into “territory that no one can claim to have mapped” (N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church [New York, NY: Harper One, 2008], 183.). To illustrate this, some point to Smeagol’s ghastly transformation into Gollum in the LOTR Trilogy. Yet, ironically, Gollum is eventually annihilated in the volcanic fires of Mount Doom.
2 The label “traditionalism” suggests that the alternate views are not found in church tradition, which is untrue.

The Neglected Doctrines of Resurrection and Bodily Transformation

Today in Protestant circles we still hear a lot about the immortality of the soul, despite this doctrine being passionately rejected by Martin Luther 500 years ago.1 Martin Luther, “Assertio Omnium Articulorum M. Lutheri per Bullam Leonis X. Novissimam Damnatorum,” article 27, Weimar edition of Luther’s Works, Vol. 7, pp. 131,132. But we rarely hear of the immortality of the body, an important feature of resurrection, nor do we even hear that much about resurrection in general!2 For example, the otherwise commendable Reforming Catholic Confession fails to include the resurrection of the unsaved, and only alludes to a resurrection of the saved by mentioning “glorified bodies” (even this much requires additional understanding to link the two concepts). Will anyone rise physically from the dead, like Jesus did? Will everyone rise from the dead—or only the saved? And if all will rise, will the bodies of all be fitted with immortality, never to die again—or only those of the saved?

These kinds of questions are essential for assessing any doctrine of salvation and damnation, and yet they are often absent from the hell debate, and from broader discussion. Both heaven and hell are widely seen as ethereal destinations, to be arrived at immediately upon dying. But this truncated version of the biblical schedule of events renders resurrection and final judgment superfluous, even incoherent. Why were the unsaved sent straight to hell before Judgment Day, the very point at which they will be sentenced to hell? And if the saved and the unsaved already reside in the place where they’ll spend eternity, why bring them out? If they are brought out in resurrection, only to be shortly sent back there but this time in a physical form, how can those realms be suited to both physical and nonphysical habitation?

Continue reading “The Neglected Doctrines of Resurrection and Bodily Transformation”

References
1 Martin Luther, “Assertio Omnium Articulorum M. Lutheri per Bullam Leonis X. Novissimam Damnatorum,” article 27, Weimar edition of Luther’s Works, Vol. 7, pp. 131,132.
2 For example, the otherwise commendable Reforming Catholic Confession fails to include the resurrection of the unsaved, and only alludes to a resurrection of the saved by mentioning “glorified bodies” (even this much requires additional understanding to link the two concepts).

Warned of Sin’s Wages: A Concise Explanation of Death in Genesis 2:17 and Romans 6:23

In Genesis 2:17, God’s warning “you will certainly die” (מֹות תָּמֽוּת) refers to the penalty or consequence of Adam and Eve’s sin, should they disobey God’s command not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They had been given free access to the Tree of Life in order to “live forever” (Gen 3:22 cf. 2:16), but this ongoing privilege would be forfeited if they ate fruit from the other tree, which was “good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom” (Gen 3:6). They did succumb to this temptation, after believing the serpent’s lie that they would not surely die. This resulted in the introduction of human death into the world—death as normally and universally understood; sometimes called “physical death.”1I recommend against using qualifiers like “physical” and “biological” if they can be avoided, since they can imply an unhelpful dichotomy with a so-called “spiritual death.” They can also unduly provoke interest in mechanisms of bodies and souls that might attend death, but which don’t need to be qualified in the ordinary use of “death.” If qualification is needed, I suggest “ordinary death.” We should always think about death functionally, as the negation of life. So we should not think of “the second death” as categorically different from “the first death” (terminology the Bible never uses). On both occasions, death still brings life to an end, even if the second time around this may be complete and permanent (Matt 10:28). Romans 6:23 refers simply to “death” because the universal wages of sin is not first, second, physical, or spiritual: it’s just death, the ending of life.

. . . for in the day that you eat from it you will certainly die” (Gen 2:17)

The most common objection to the above is that if ordinary human death is in view, Adam and Eve apparently did not die “in the day” that they ate (Gen 2:17). But this is to misunderstand the Hebrew idiom “in the day” and the special function of “certainly die,” which, along with attention to context, must inform our reading of the English (lest we misread the warning with modern assumptions). As Walter Kaiser explains:2Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Baruch, “Hard Sayings of the Bible” (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p. 92, emphasis in original.

It is just as naive to insist that the phrase “in the day” means that on that very day death would occur. A little knowledge of the Hebrew idiom will relieve the tension here as well. For example, in 1 Kings 2:37 King Solomon warned a seditious Shimei, “The day you leave [Jerusalem] and cross the Kidron Valley [which is immediately outside the city walls on the east side of the city], you can be sure you will die.” Neither the 1 Kings nor the Genesis text implies immediacy of action on that very same day; instead they point to the certainty of the predicted consequence that would be set in motion by the act initiated on that day. Alternate wordings include at the time when, at that time, now when and the day [when] (see Gen. 5:1; Ex. 6:28; 10:28; 32:34).

In other words, “you will certainly die” became true instantly, as a kind of death sentence or curse. In the Hebrew, this phrase is a language construct known as an infinitive absolute.3The infinitive absolute here is paired with a finite verb of the same root, roughly as “dying-die,” for what Gotthelf Bergsträsser describes as “a peculiarly Hebrew hybrid of verbal noun and verbal interjection of imperative character.” The infinitive absolute is a verbal noun, referring not to the actual dying of Adam and Eve, but to dying itself in the abstract. Then the interjection of “die” carries a similar condemning sense to the sentiment, “Die! Die!,” only without such intensity and animus. Intensification is one function of the infinitive absolute, but in Genesis 2:17 the other main function is served: certification. Death is being certified, or made certain. Since in context the infinitive absolute emphasizes certainty, and lends this effect to the whole construction, it should be read nominally, i.e. functioning as a noun or label–not merely as a death that is incidentally certain, but as a thing called “dying-die” or “certainly-die,” that in turn carries that implication. Therefore we must conclude, even before we learn that this is indeed how it is used elsewhere, that the construct functions as a kind of sentence or curse. It has no exact equivalent in English, and should be read not as a statement about when death will occur, but rather to emphasize the certainty of death being incurred.

Not only is the language different to our own way of speaking, but the general concept is different to our own way of thinking, due to very different cultural contexts. When someone incurs the death penalty today, it happens well after the crime was committed, and is handed down in a courtroom after a formal process to convict. None of that was available or needed in Genesis, because God himself had declared what would happen. So it makes sense in this context to focus on God’s warning becoming true and certain the very moment the “crime” would occur. Simply put, the transgression would make certain the death. Beforehand, they were not going to die. But once they sinned, they were going to die. Even if this is a little unfamiliar to us, we can still see how it is simple and straightforward.

So the timing of the death event was never specified in God’s warning, which was about the logical immediacy of the outcome of death, not its temporal immediacy. Both logical and temporal immediacy may be discerned in the idiom “in the day,” but any temporal immediacy here pertains to death becoming certain, not to death itself. As Kaiser pointed out in the quote above, there is simply no “immediacy of action.”

To confirm that modern Hebrew scholars have correctly understood the ancient nuances behind “In the day you eat, you will certainly die,” we can consult the ancient Aramaic rendering of Genesis 2:17 in the Targum Jonathan. It reads, “in the day that thou eatest thou wilt be guilty of death.”4See J. W. Etheridge, “The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch,” 1862, 1865. This is clear and not prone to any misreading. But although our conventional translation is less clear and doesn’t preclude misreadings, it still adequately approximates the Hebrew. Misreadings can occur for different reasons, especially the intrusion of modern assumptions and expectations. For example, from a concordist desire to avoid any suggestion that human death never existed beforehand (based on one’s view of human origins). Or, as we often see at Rethinking Hell, based on the goal of defending eternal torment instead of death. Another reason is just the translation tradition for this well-known verse, which prefers formal-equivalence here since this is a solemn utterance of God with such far-reaching implications for humankind. Regardless, the way it is rendered in the Targum suffices to show that at the time of Jesus, people understood God’s warning to be about ordinary death.

Continue reading “Warned of Sin’s Wages: A Concise Explanation of Death in Genesis 2:17 and Romans 6:23”

References
1 I recommend against using qualifiers like “physical” and “biological” if they can be avoided, since they can imply an unhelpful dichotomy with a so-called “spiritual death.” They can also unduly provoke interest in mechanisms of bodies and souls that might attend death, but which don’t need to be qualified in the ordinary use of “death.” If qualification is needed, I suggest “ordinary death.” We should always think about death functionally, as the negation of life. So we should not think of “the second death” as categorically different from “the first death” (terminology the Bible never uses). On both occasions, death still brings life to an end, even if the second time around this may be complete and permanent (Matt 10:28). Romans 6:23 refers simply to “death” because the universal wages of sin is not first, second, physical, or spiritual: it’s just death, the ending of life.
2 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Baruch, “Hard Sayings of the Bible” (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p. 92, emphasis in original.
3 The infinitive absolute here is paired with a finite verb of the same root, roughly as “dying-die,” for what Gotthelf Bergsträsser describes as “a peculiarly Hebrew hybrid of verbal noun and verbal interjection of imperative character.” The infinitive absolute is a verbal noun, referring not to the actual dying of Adam and Eve, but to dying itself in the abstract. Then the interjection of “die” carries a similar condemning sense to the sentiment, “Die! Die!,” only without such intensity and animus. Intensification is one function of the infinitive absolute, but in Genesis 2:17 the other main function is served: certification. Death is being certified, or made certain. Since in context the infinitive absolute emphasizes certainty, and lends this effect to the whole construction, it should be read nominally, i.e. functioning as a noun or label–not merely as a death that is incidentally certain, but as a thing called “dying-die” or “certainly-die,” that in turn carries that implication. Therefore we must conclude, even before we learn that this is indeed how it is used elsewhere, that the construct functions as a kind of sentence or curse.
4 See J. W. Etheridge, “The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch,” 1862, 1865.

Introduction to Evangelical Conditionalism: The Doctrine of Eternal Torment Was Not Universal in the Early Church

 

Many people incorrectly believe that, save for a few nut jobs, cults, and liberals who don’t care about the Bible, Christians of all stripes have always believed that hell is a place of eternal torment. For this reason, many are wary to even consider any alternative ideas like evangelical conditionalism (also called annihilationism). The idea that no one will live forever in hell, but will instead be destroyed and fully killed, sounds like some new age nonsense. Many think that Christianity simply has always taught that hell is a place of eternal torment, and only recently does anyone deny this because people today are just too soft and too sentimental to handle the truth. However, this assessment is not correct.

Continue reading “Introduction to Evangelical Conditionalism: The Doctrine of Eternal Torment Was Not Universal in the Early Church”

“Fixing John 3:16”—500 Years After the Reformation

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The most famous verse in the Bible is broken.

What the Bible says is not the problem, of course. But—and here’s the scandal—the message of John 3:16 has been dramatically changed.

What’s actually broken is the popular understanding of the verse. It turns out, this towering text has been widely and wildly misunderstood. For a long, long, time.

That’s quite a problem! And it’s not going to just fix itself. According to a growing number of Bible scholars and teachers around the world, something must be done to set the record straight.

Continue reading ““Fixing John 3:16”—500 Years After the Reformation”

Annihilation in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (Part 1): Destroyed by the Glory of His Manifest Presence

Note: This article is part of a series. Here, Part 1 presents a consistent, straightforward conditionalist understanding of 2 Thessalonians 1:9. Since conditionalists question the NIV’s interpolation (“and shut out from”)—practically the only time we would quibble with any modern English translation—Part 2 will cover the more complex issues raised by a traditionalist reading, showing that the simple face value reading is correct. All references are from the ESV unless otherwise noted.

2 Thessalonians 1:9 is one of those texts which first convinced me to take the idea of annihilation seriously. Not just in isolation, where it seems obvious that destruction due to Christ’s coming is the point, but in the context of what is being said in the first couple of chapters of the epistle. (The NRSV even uses the word “annihilating” a mere eleven verses later concerning the “man of lawlessness,” which is intriguing enough on its own!) The overall impact of the passage I think should give anyone pause about this issue, since it portrays the day of judgment and the fire of judgment differently from familiar expectations from Christian tradition. Too often, our critics treat a single word of this verse as an isolated proof-text, or suggest that’s how we treat it, when of course each side must give due consideration to the fuller structural context.

“Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power”—2 Thessalonians 1:9, KJV

Our conditionalist reading is that the glorious presence and power of the Lord directly causes the punishment of “destruction,” which is indeed “everlasting” as God’s permanent judgment. Let’s explore how this makes the best sense. Continue reading “Annihilation in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (Part 1): Destroyed by the Glory of His Manifest Presence”

Conditional Immortality—An Acceptable View?

What does Conditional Immortality affirm and deny?

As a Christian doctrinal position, conditional immortality affirms that immortality—living forever and never dying—is a gift from God given only to the saved (1 Tim 6:16; Rom 2:7; 2 Tim 1:10; 1 Cor 15:54; John 6:50-51; John 11:25-26; Luke 20:36).

It also tacitly rejects universal immortality, the view that all people ultimately will live forever. Since this is a tenet of both eternal torment and universal salvation, conditionalism necessarily denies those two positions.1Conditionalism therefore also rejects universal salvation’s stipulation of a universally-met condition for immortality. It does not technically deny the idea of an inherently immortal soul, since this is no guarantee of a person ultimately living forever (God is able to destroy body and soul in a final judgment).

Conditional immortality, or conditionalism, is expressed in terms of a reward of “eternal life” for the saved, and an “eternal punishment” for the finally unsaved (Matt 25:46). The punishment is an “eternal judgment” of death instead of life, since the wages of sin is death (Heb 6:2; Rom 6:23). This requires an “eternal destruction” of “body and soul” (2 Thess 1:9 cf. Matt 10:28).

Although the biblical label for that event is “the second death,” it can also be called annihilation (conditionalism and annihilationism may be used interchangeably). Whereas the concept of death indicates the forfeit of life but doesn’t specify duration, annihilation speaks of a death that is a permanent loss of life, and destruction of the whole person. Since God is the source and sustainer of life (Acts 17:25; Heb 1:3; Rev 2:7 cf. Gen 3:22), this kind of demise may be considered a consequence of eternal separation or severance from God.

(more…)

References
1 Conditionalism therefore also rejects universal salvation’s stipulation of a universally-met condition for immortality.

Lessons from a Tragedy at the Cincinnati Zoo

On Saturday, May 28th, 2016 a four-year-old boy climbed past some barriers and fell into the gorilla exhibit at the Cincinnati Zoo. The boy’s life was in danger. In order to save him, zookeepers shot and killed Harambe, a large, male gorilla.

This story—which is tragic on many levels—can nevertheless help us to think about several questions that often arise in the brotherly debate between those who believe in eternal conscious torment and those who believe in annihilationism. Specifically, I would like to draw out three lessons. Continue reading “Lessons from a Tragedy at the Cincinnati Zoo”