Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
John,
You are the reason why I am looking into hell. In particular your case for
annihilationism in response to the traditional church view.
My material comes mostly from J.I. Packers response to his dear
respected friend John Stott and a chapter on Hell from Don Carsons The
Gagging of God.
Typically the annihilationist points to passages in scripture in which hell is
described as a place of destruction to show that hell cannot be a state
that is experienced eternally. I would argue that these passages should be
interpreted with alongside passages on hell as a collective whole rather
than in isolation.
Jude 6 and Matthew 8:12, 22:13; 25:13 show that darkness signifies a
state of deprivation and distress, but not of destruction in the sense of
ceasing to exist. Only those who exist can weep and gnash their teeth, as
those banished in darkness are said to do.
An example in point would be in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 where Paul explains
the meaning of punished with an everlasting [eternal, ouionios]
destruction by adding and shut out from the presence of the Lord. This
phrase by affirming exclusion, rules out the idea that destruction means
extinction. Only those who exist can be excluded. In Greek the natural
meaning of the destruction vocabulary (noun, ocethros; verb apollumi) is
wreaking, so that what is destroyed is henceforth non-functional rather
than annihilated, so that it no longer exists in any form at all.
The Greek word for destruction can also refer to lost as it does in the lost
coin in Luke 15 and as it also refers to the ruined wine skin of Matthew
9:17. Similarly the jar of oil poured on Jesus feet is translated as a waste
in Matthew 26:8. Was the content of the jar annihilated when it was
poured on Jesus feet? Me thinks not.
Nowhere in scripture does death signify extinction, physical death is
departure into another mode of being, called sheol or hades, and
metaphorical death is existence that is God-less and graceless.
John Stotts response would be to say that the fire itself is termed eternal
and unquenchable but it would be very odd if what is thrown into it
proves indestructible. Our expectation would be the very opposite; it
would be consumed forever, not tormented forever. Hence it is the smoke
(evidence that the fire has done its work) which rises forever and ever.
However, this reading runs contrary to common sense. Our expectation
would be that the smoke would die out once the fire had finished its work.
Besides, with such a reading what are we to make of the very next verse:
There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his
image.
Mark 9:47-48 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is
better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two
eyes and be thrown into hell, where "'the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.
Biblical commentator Matthew Henry describes the soul as food for the
worm, if the soul is what sustains the worm and the worm never dies then
neither does the soul. If the worm that eats (presumably maggots) does
not die, then what keeps them alive once they have devoured all people?
Why should the fire burn forever and the worms not die if their purpose
comes to an end?
So at every point the linguistic argument simply fails. To say that some
texts, taken in isolation, might prove isolation proves nothing when other
texts evidently do not.
Romans 9:22-24
22
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power
known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathprepared for
destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to
the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24 even
us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the
Gentiles?
On the contrary it is only sin that remains unpunished that detracts from
Gods glory in the universe. When God triumphs over evil through eternal
punishment the depths of his mercy will be revealed. (Dont forget that I
am a Calvinist through and through)
Does the God who told us to love our enemies intend to wreak
vengeance on his own enemies for all eternity?
Yes justice must prevail. Vengeance in the purest sense belongs to the
Lord. As a wise earthly father would not permit his children to use sharp
objects whilst using them himself, so it is with our heavenly father and
vengeance.
What about the apparent threat of Matthew 10:28: And fear not them
which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him
who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell.
Ive have already stated that destruction cannot be taken to mean
annihilation but rather brokenness on the basis of other scripture
describing hell.
Why should the annihilationist even fear in this instance? Surely, there is
nothing to fear but the thought of cessation of existence.
I hope this helps to explain the reason for a doctrine of hell that includes
eternal mental torment.
Miriam