2. "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Rev. 20:10

Greg left the rev verse out of his recent  "why believe in hell" sermon, but I've always wanted someone to help me eliminate the tormented part and the forever and ever part. Anyone want to give me the nutshell version of how they do it? Do we just call it crazy-apocalyptic-talk and move on?

selah

Post Edited (selah) : 11/6/2009 11:19:02 AM (GMT-6)

“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell. Matt. 10: 28.

Selah,

Well, what I would NOT want to do is offer the lame sort of answer that a certain well-respected universalist, Dr. Hanson, offered back in the 19^th century. He said:

The reader of these verses and the accompanying language will observe that Jesus is exhorting his disciples to have entire faith in God. The most that men can do is to destroy the body, but God “is able,” “hath power” to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. It is not said that God has any disposition or purpose of doing so. He is able to do it, as it is said (Matt. 3: 9) he is “able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” He never did and never will raise up children to Abraham of the stones of the street, but he is able to, just as he is able to destroy soul and body in Gehenna, while men could only destroy the body there. Fear the mighty power of God who could if he chose [my italics here], annihilate man while the worst that men could do would be to destroy the mere animal life. It is a forcible exhortation to trust in God, and has no reference to torment after death. Fear not those who can only torture you-man-but fear God who can annihilate (apokteino).

That’s not very helpful at all. Not only is this lame, but it’s also unsuccessful. Notice the italicized part (mine). He says we are supposed to fear a God who "could if he chose to" annihilate us. But how are those who are as convinced of universal salvation as Hanson is fear God’s choosing to do so? Hanson claims that the Bible reveals to us that God in fact will not choose to do so, that he in fact has willed the salvation of all. How does Hanson really feel the warning he says this verse ought to elicit in us? I don’t see how he can feel it at all. How can you be afraid of God's power to do what he's promised he will never do?

So if universalism is true, then this verse has to have an explanation other than what Hanson offers.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 11/8/2009 8:06:22 AM (GMT-6)

T

Love you Corey!... Love you Tom... Got you both on my prayer list!

Post Edited (selah) : 11/10/2009 8:23:11 AM (GMT-6)

Selah: We disagree because I'm saying there are DEstruction verses in scripture that have to square with your interpretation of verse 19. The question is: Are some created things really destroyed or not? If not, why is destruction such a central theme throughout scripture? And if so, how can all things be redeemed if some are destroyed (or even if ONE is destroyed)?

Tom: Ah, OK. So what’s happening is we have some universal-type texts and some destruction-type texts that on the surface of it can only be reconciled (universally reconciled, ha!) be bending one to the other. We either interpret the destruction-type texts as being the more plain and straight-forward of the two and then just argue that what the universal-type texts REALLY mean is something compatible with the destruction of some, OR we do the reverse—we argue that universalism has more in its favor and then attempt to ‘fit’ the destruction-type texts into a universal vision. I do with the latter and you go with the former. You read ‘destruction’ and can’t imagine it meaning anything but annihilation and then deal with the consequences for the universalism texts while I can’t imagine the universalism texts meaning anything but universalism and then deal with the consequences for the destruction texts.

That’s what’s going on.

I’ll admit that both sides in this have their difficult passages to deal with. But you and I are doing the same KIND of thing basically. You don’t want to dismiss the emphasis upon “destruction” (which you think speak clearly) by saying everybody eventually makes it. So you think I’m dismissive of the passages you think speak clearly. At the same time, I don’t want to dismiss the emphasis upon eventual universal reconciliation (which passages I think speak clearly) by saying some are annihilated. Thus I think you’re dismissive of the passages that I think speak clearly.

I think the scales in the end tip in my favor. But the only way I can prove it is if our “gang” all goes out to a jazz dinner club when I get home and you get up on the floor with each of Greg, Ty, Dwayne and me and dance (one at a time). When that happens, the spirit of universalism will possess your soul and you’ll never be the same again!

Tom

I’ll get back atcha on those “destruction” verses!

Selah: I think the redemptive work of Christ CAN and WILL reign supreme even WHEN he sends some of his creation into destruction.

Tom: Right. God annihilates his competition. He melts those who disagree into non-existence and so is left with those in whom his redemptive work reigns. And let’s be clear on something else too. We’re not talking about just some, i.e., a minority, who are destroyed. It’s most, the vast majority of those who have ever lived, who are annihilated. That would follow from your reading of Mat. 7.13 (only “few” find life).

But back to Col. 1. I think this really does harm to Paul’s argument in Col. 1. Keep the passages tied together by noticing the movement from the “all things” created to the “all things” that Christ reigns supreme in. They’re the same “all things.” What God creates is eventually won, eventually affected by the redemptive work of Christ, “every knee” eventually bows and names him Lord (Phil. 2). To say that Christ isn’t effective for most, destroys (hehh, destroys) the unity of the passage, the way Paul moves from all things created to all things redeemed and affected by the redemption of Christ. Remember, your Mat. 7.13 has to mean that only a very “few” eventually make it. The vast majority of all those God loves and wants to reach are irrevocably lost and annihilated. I can’t imagine how Paul’s writing Col. 1 here while believing that Christ will in the end be supreme only in very few but that this is Christ reigning in all things because the vast majority in whom he never reigned supreme are not longer around to be counted. So Jesus is Lord of all! Yeah, well, he melted the majority who didn’t conform. So of course he’s Lord of all; all that remained. I just don’t see THAT in Col. 1 or Phil. 2.

But let’s talk about “destruction.” Let’s take as an example one your mention, 2Th 1.9. It’s arguably as bad as it gets.

I’ll post Tom Talbott’s comments in a separate post. Can’t get any better.

Tom

Tom Talbott on 2Th 1.9:

Ask yourself this question: Where in the world did the idea of being “shut out” or “excluded from the presence of the Lord” come from? Certainly not from the Greek text. If you have any doubt about this, compare II Thessalonians 1:9 with another text whose relevant grammar and phraseology is identical to it, namely Acts 3:19: “Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.” A literal translation of both texts would include the expression “from the presence of the Lord.” So let us suppose that I should translate Acts 3:19 as follows: “…so that refreshing times might come and shut you out or exclude you from the presence of the Lord.” That in essence is what some translators have done to II Thessalonians 1:9. It is just that bad.

The sole reason some translators have for injecting into the text the idea of being shut out or excluded from the presence of the Lord is that the Greek “apo,” like the English “from,” can sometimes mean “away from.” As Leon Morris has pointed out, “This is certainly the meaning . . . in Isa. 2:10,” where we read: “Enter into the rock, and hide in the dust from the terror of the Lord, and from the glory of his majesty.” It is also the meaning in Revelation 6:16, where the Kings of the earth and others cry out to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb . . ..” But in these texts, the verbs “to hide” and “to conceal” determine the correct translation. When we try to hide or to conceal ourselves from the presence of the Lord--an impossible task--we are indeed trying to get away from that presence. In the context of II Thessalonians 1:9, however, we find no relevant verb, such as “to hide” or “to conceal,” no relevant subject of the action, and no other grammatical device that would entitle us to translate “apo” as “away from”; and in the absence of any such grammatical device, the result of such a translation is simply grammatical nonsense.

Worse yet, when translators try to avoid grammatical nonsense in their English translations by injecting into the text such foreign words as “shut out from” or “excluded from,” which alter the basic meaning of the text, they end up with a conjunction, something like “eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord.” So it then looks as if the adjective “eternal” qualifies the injected noun “exclusion” as well as the correct noun “destruction,” and this in turn makes it look as if we have here a doctrine of eternal separation from God. But the idea that one can justifiably read all of this into the one little preposition “from” is simply preposterous, and the King James Version, which speaks simply of “everlasting destruction from (apo) the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power,” is both more literal and less theologically biased at this point.

Even if one were to set aside the issue of grammatical nonsense, moreover, the context renders the “away from” translation quite absurd anyway. When Paul spoke of “the presence of the Lord” in verse 9, he clearly had in mind the Lord’s appearance “in flaming fire” (see verse 8); and similarly, when he spoke of destruction in verse 9, his figure suggests, not destruction away from the flaming fire, but destruction that precisely results from the flaming fire. Or consider the expression “glory of his power.” The destruction of the wicked is clearly a manifestation or an expression of his power; it is hardly an escape from it. Just as the Lord’s appearance will bring times of refreshment for the righteous, according to Acts 3:19, so it will bring destruction upon the wicked, according to II Thessalonians 1:9. The idea of separation is simply nowhere to be found here.

So now we must ask: Just what is the destruction of which Paul speaks, if it is clearly not an eternal separation from God?

--------------------------------

Selah, let me add some comments from another friend, Jason, who comments about this same verse:

JASON: A little more detail concerning verse 9, for those who don’t have access to a Greek text.

“…they will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power....”

The word “punished” is simply the word “justice”…. Knoch's literal concordance, though, translates it properly: justice. The whole paragraph (in our English way of thinking) is saturated with references to justice…[Tom: he talks about the references to “just” and “justice” in the context, never mind that…]

The third word (tisousin) is only found here in all the NT and is a verb meaning “to value.” Guesses as to its meaning range from “incur” to “pay.” But maybe it ought to mean “to value” (or more grammatically, will value).

So we have those who did not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ “being brought to value the justice of...” of what?

To value the justice of that next phrase, (olethron aionios): “eternal ruination.” … That’s admittedly a strong word, but it isn’t necessarily a hopeless one.

St. Paul prays for the flesh of Stepmom-Sleeping Guy to be “handed over to whole-ruination so that he may be saved in the day of the Lord.” (1Co. 5:5).

--------------

OK, to complete Tom Talbott’s comments on 2Th. 1.9

In the first place, Paul clearly did view destruction as annihilation--that is, the annihilation of the thing destroyed, namely the flesh. But in I Corinthians 5:5 the primary meaning of ‘flesh’ is not ‘body’; hence the destruction of the flesh is not the destruction of the body and does not imply disembodied existence. It implies instead the destruction of sin or a sinful nature. As Morris himself has put it in another context: ‘The flesh in this sense denotes the whole personality of man as organized in the wrong direction, as directed to earthly pursuits rather than the service of God.’ And the flesh in this sense must be annihilated entirely.

So Morris’ remark about a disembodied state has no relevance at all in the present context. Neither does ‘destruction’ signify, for the individual whose flesh is destroyed, ‘the loss of all that is worthwhile, utter ruin.’ It no doubt does imply the ruin of something; but within the context of I Corinthians 5:5, it could not possibly imply the ultimate ruin of the individual whose flesh is destroyed. For that individual, it implies just the opposite: the gain of all that is worthwhile, utter blessedness; for Paul here presented ‘the destruction of the flesh’ and ‘the salvation of the spirit’ as two sides of the same coin. So here, anyway, destruction is explicitly a redemptive concept.

Note also two additional points about the context of I Corinthians 5:5: First, the sin concerning which Paul was so exercised, a man’s living with his father’s wife, was one that he regarded as utterly heinous; it was ‘of a kind that is not found even among pagans’ (5:1). And second, the punishment he prescribed had a real retributivist flavor to it: ‘Let him who has done this be removed from among you’ (5:2--RSV). Paul went on to pronounce judgment on the man in the name of the Lord Jesus (5:4) and ordered the Corinthians to deliver him ‘to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.’ Given the harsh tone of Paul’s remarks--as harsh as anything we encounter in the first chapter of II Thessalonians--one might never have guessed that Paul intended the punishment for the man’s own good, had Paul not explicitly said so; his tone was not the kind that would suggest a mere chastening of a believer, something akin to parental chastisement. And yet, as frightening as the idea of delivering someone to Satan may be, the resulting destruction of the flesh is precisely what would make possible, Paul seemed to think, the redemption of the man himself. Paul thus demonstrated how, on his own view, even harsh punishment, the kind that may appear vengeful and unforgiving, can in fact serve a redemptive purpose.

---------------------

One last comment on “destruction” from another friend, Bob:

I have a few thoughts about “destruction.” Consider the following verse in 1Pet 1.7:

... that the testing of your faith, more valuable than gold which is being destroyed through fire and being tested, may be found for the purpose of praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Peter compares the testing of the faith of disciples with the testing of gold being refined through fire. He writes of the gold is “being destroyed” through fire. We all know that fire doesn’t annihilate gold. It may melt it, but it never annihilates it. So what was Peter saying?

----------------------

My only interest in Bob’s comments is the fact that “destruction” is used of something in a non-annihilationist and redemptive sense. Just as gold can be subjected to “destruction” SO THAT what’s valuable is redeemed (like the man in 1Co 5.5), the same approach can be taken to 2Th. 1.9.

I love Jason’s comments and his read of 2Th 1.9. Together with Talbott, I’d read it something like:

o we have those who did not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ “being brought to value the justice of...” of what?

“…they will be brought to value (or perhaps ‘pay’) the justice of age-abiding ruination coming from the presence of the Lord and the majesty of his power.”

But just as this “olethron” (this “ruination”) can be a redemptive thing (as it is in 1Co 5.5), there’s no reason to think it HAS to be that HERE in 2Th 1.9. The wicked suffer the just consequences of the consuming ruination of their sinful flesh so that THEY are redeemed. “Eternal” (aionios) in v. 9, as you MUST know, doesn’t not necessarily mean temporally everlasting. It can and does refer to finite lengths of time. It takes its cue form context.

Tom