 |
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/28/2005 12:58 AM (GMT -6) |   | Let's do something else here. Eternal conscious punishment vs. annihiliationism What's the better biblical position and why? JEE, Laika, Sahid, TGB, erybody! Let's see where you stand with this. Get yer Bibles out, you exegetes you!
I figure let's do this to get off the "universalism" tip to something more "scripturally based". At any rate, my own personal view is to annihiliationism as open view theism is to Arminianism. That is, my view is essentially a variation of annihilationism in that I believe the punishment is eternal in consequence and not necessarily duration. The only real difference is that I have reason to believe that TOTAL annihilation will never occur, and that there will always be a "remnant" of sorts that can be redeemed. (I've discussed elsewhere what this dispositional remnant may be and how that works). So...biblically speaking, if annihiliationism is untenable, then my whole thing is belly-up anyways. If annihilationism stands as biblically viable, then my view should be NO PROBLEM.
So, let's see how biblically smart we all are.
Eternal conscious punishment VS annihilationism
Let's do this.
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 7/28/2005 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi, Meph. I'm not sure whether this should have been in the theological Q&A forum, rather than the open view forum, but I'll take you up if you don't mind that I may be slow in responding sometimes. I assume that by annihilationism you mean the view that wicked people are bodily resurrected, then suffer for some finite period of time in the lake of fire, but then are annihilated and cease to exist. If this isn't what you mean, let me know. If that's your view then we can set aside and ignore the question of the intermediate state.
So to say where I stand from the outset, I believe in eternal conscious punishment (henceforth, ECP). This is primarily because I am not convinced by annihilationist readings of scripture; in other words, it's mainly an exegetical issue. As to the ethical/philosophical side of things, I'll make some comments later, but in any case I develop those in response to what I think scripture teaches.
This is a big topic and I can't address all the arguments that annihilationists have put regarding various scriptures. I'll just give my brief opinion.
To begin with, I think we can all agree that Jesus frequently warned about hell. First the vocab. The word for hell that Jesus typically warns against is gehenna, not hades. On a couple of occasions he talks of cities being cast down to hades (Mt. 11:23, Lk. 10:15), or said hades would not prevail against his church (Mt. 16:18), and the only other use is the Lazarus and the rich man story (Lk. 16:23). Whatever we make of Lazarus and the rich man (parable, using Pharisee's own ideas against them, real description, or whatever), it clearly places the rich man in hades prior to the bodily resurrection, since the rich man's five brothers continue to be alive and well on planet earth (verses 27-28). So the Lazarus and the rich man account pertains to the intermediate state, and is not relevant to this discussion. In short, I don't think hades is relevant to this debate, but if you want to dispute that, we could do so. I don't think that hades and gehenna are the same place; but again that's probably another discussion.
Now for gehenna. Jesus uses it 11 times: in Mt. 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mk. 9:43, 45, 47; Lk. 12:5. It is clear (in my opinion) that gehenna is the final place of punishment for the wicked, after the resurrection, because many of these verses explicitly talk about the body being in gehenna (e.g. Mt. 5:29, 10:28). In the last of the Markan verses (or all three, depending on which Greek texts you go for), the reference to gehenna is followed by the phrase "where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched" (NRSV). This is the first piece of evidence in favour of ECP. It might be possible to read this as meaning that the worm and fire live on while the person is annihilated, but in my view that is not the obvious reading of the verse. In particular, whether literal or a metaphor, "their worm" never dying implies a continuing body on which it feeds (the worm [skolex] was a worm that inhabited and fed on the body of the deceased). It seems to me that Jesus speaks in a very misleading fashion if he was thinking in terms of annihilation.
Another interesting point. In Mt. 10:28 the verb "kill" (apokteino) is contrasted with "destroy" (apollumi), with humans doing the former but God being able to do the later to the body and soul. This might imply an intended distinction between the two.
Another common way that Jesus speaks about hell is fire. Again, most of these verses are not relevant here, except to comment that since there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, obviously conscious existence is involved at some point. It is also worth pointing out that Jesus never adds "until the wicked are no more", or anything like that, which would seem like a highly desirable clarification if that is what he meant.
Now we come to Mt. 25:41, where we are told that "everlasting fire" has been prepared for the devil and his angels. It seems to me again the obvious implication of this that the devil and his angels, and those who join them, will be in the fire forever. The eternal fire has been prepared for (the dative) the devil and his angels; they are the purpose of the fire, not a symbol of God's triumph over wickedness or its consequences, or whatever. The purpose of the eternal fire is the devil and his angels. Again, the annihilationist reading is unnatural in my opinion.
But this interpretation is strongly reinforced by verse 46. There, eternal punishment is contrasted with eternal life, with the same Greek word for eternal and grammatical construction in each case. It is also significant that the word "punishment" (kolasis) is used, not destruction. It is illogical to say that non-existence constitutes a punishment. Otherwise, I was punished for a long time before I was born. Let me ask this question. Suppose that if tonight I and my wife could conceive a son if we "are intimate". Let us call this son who could come into being, Bill. Now suppose that we choose not to conceive Bill, because she is tired and I have a lot of work to do. Does that mean that we have thereby condemned Bill to eternal punishment, since our choice means that he will never exist? You might argue that the anticipation of being annihilated would be very bad; but that suffering of anticipation is not eternal. It stops when the person is annihilated. And once the person no longer exists, I can't see how they can be said in any meaningful sense to continue to be punished, anymore than my hypothetical possible son Bill continues to be punished because he doesn't exist. You can't predicate something real, such as real punishment, of a non-existent being, anymore than you can predicate other real properties of them. In addition to this logical argument, the contrast here seems to imply continued consciousness in both cases. Again, this is the natural reading of the text.
Mk. 14:21 is hard to reconcile with annihilationism. It is hard to see why temporary suffering followed by annihilation would be worse than never being born. The end result is exactly the same.
Regarding the phrase "eternal destruction", the adjective "eternal" is, I think, clearly intended to denote the duration of the destruction. The annihilationist argument that it means "permanent destruction" seems to me to be a stretch; it is the destruction that must go on eternally, not the consequences or aftermath of the destruction.
I'm getting tired now so I'll just give one more scripture. Rev. 14:11. This states that "the smoke of their torment ascends for ever and ever, and they have no rest day or night". I put it to you that this is an instance of semitic parallelism. The second phrase serves to elucidate and re-state the meaning of the first. If so, this is a clear statement of ECP. The book of Revelation is full of semitic solecisms, and this is one of them. This is reinforced by the immediately following parallelism, consisting of phrase 1 = "for those who worship the beast and its image" and phrase 2 = "and for anyone who receives the mark of its name". In other words, the verse consists of two semitic parallels.
A final point. If the Bible intended to teach us annihilationism, why not just make it plain? It would be incredibly easy to do so. That would avoid all these problems of misunderstanding of the many texts which seem to teach ECP on face value. A few words would have sufficed to make the whole thing clear. In addition, this is something which I think we could expect God to be clear about, for obvious reasons. It is not such an academic question as whether the future is settled, or human choices are predetermined. It goes to the very heart of the choice with which we are confronted.
As for the philosophical basis, let me make this point. The main objection to ECP is that it would be cruel and inhumane and unjust in proportion to human sin. To this I would respond by saying that this reflects a human perspective of sin, that fails to comprehend the magnitude of the rebellion of those who unequivocally choose evil, and which looks at our existence and the consequences of our actions only from an earthly perspective. I believe that in this life (with the exception perhaps of those who die in infancy, or are mentally handicapped) we are presented clearly with good and evil in all their fullness, and I believe that everyone makes a choice in full knowledge of what is involved to be one or the other. Our purpose in this present life, which is a probationary period, is to select what we want to be for the rest of our eternal existence. If we choose evil, we receive evil, and we receive for the rest of our existence, which is forever. If we choose good, the same goes. Everyone knows, deep in their heart, what they are doing, I think - at least at some crucial moment in their lives. The point is that each creature God creates must be given a period to choose what they want to become; but that choice, once taken, is permanent. This view imbues our present existence with supreme importance, which I think is reflected in the Bible.
In addition, there is an individualistic core to this objection. It assumes that what we do does not affect the eternal destiny of others. In reality, however, if we go to hell, we do not go alone, but we drag others down with us. What is the rightful punishment for causing someone to go to a place of eternal punishment? Isn't eternal punishment the only appropriate response.
Given that salvation requires an acknowledgement of the depth of our sins, annihilationism, I think, is dangerous to repentence. Are we prepared to say to God, "I am truly sorry for my sins, which I acknowledge before you should be justly punished by eternal torment", or "I am truly sorry for my sins, which I acknowledge deserve torment but I don't think they're really bad enough for eternal torment". Which is the more appropriate response? Which really acknowledges the depth of our sin?
As for the claim that Jesus reconciling "all things" to himself excludes eternal torment, let me make a controversial statement. I think this is a misreading of the text (Col. 1:20). The text speaks of God's desire, not the actual outcome. It states that God was pleased (eudokesen, verse 19) to send Christ to earth with the object of reconciling all things to himself. It does not say that this will actually be achieved. The fact that God desires something does not mean it will come to pass, e.g. God "desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). In 1 Cor. 15:27-28, when it speaks of all things being made subject to Christ, it makes clear that some of these things are made subject as enemies (verse 25). So "all things" will be made subject, but not all will be reconciled, although that is what God would like. Similarly, Ephesians 1:9-10 speaks of God's "will", "good pleasure" and "plan" to gather all things in Christ; but does not state that this will be actually accomplished. All things will be subject to him (Eph. 1:22), but not everything will be reconciled to him or be in Christ. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/28/2005 1:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
But one condition. This is ONLY exegesis. Pure and simple. No philosophy of free will, implications of omnibenevolence, possible worlds, etc. blah blah blah. JUST what the text says. If that's it, I'm in.
Sure, for the most part. Of course, you know that exegesis is part of a larger whole of biblical interpretation. The whole "hermeutical spiral" and all that. So, I'd say ONLY exegesis and relevant theological concerns that emerge from proposed BIBLICAL themes produced inductively from other biblical passages.
But NO philosophical treatises or excurses.
Fair enough, Tom?
For all the bible junkies  ,
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 7/28/2005 2:57 PM (GMT -6) | | | How about comparing these two verses which I will post from the NIV (2 Thessalonians 1:9 and Jude 7)...
2 Thess. 1:9 speaking of the wicked... "they will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of His power"
In order to make "eternal destruction" fit with "eternal torment" most claim that a person is detroyed and regenerated throughout eternity. This, of course has no biblical basis.
Now compare 2 Thess. 1:9 with Jude 7...
"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immortality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."
So here Jude states that Sodom was destroy with "eternal fire", but we do not see to this day Sodom and Gomorrah still burning. Instead, it cannot be found (except Ron Wyatt claimed he found the site of a city chared down to ashes along with many sulfur and brimstone chunks, but that would maybe be another debate). The point is that this "eternal fire" utterly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. | | Back to Top | | |
|
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 7/28/2005 3:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Humphrey,
One comment about Rev. 14:11; The NIV and other translations do not connect the phrase as you did in your post. The NIV is "And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day and night for those who worship the beast and his image..."
I have read commentaries which state according to the context that the first sentence looks ahead to the wicked being destroyed at Christ's return with His angels and, as the verse states, it is the smoke which rises for ever and ever. Then the very next sentence brings us back to where we are in the vision and because of the last seven plagues, those who worship the beast and his image will have no rest night and day. Verse 12 and 13 attest to this because it calls for the saints' endurance and states that those who die in the Lord, FROM THAT TIME ON, will be blessed, and will recieve rest from their labors.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/28/2005 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Albert: Mk. 14:21 is hard to reconcile with annihilationism. It is hard to see why temporary suffering followed by annihilation would be worse than never being born. The end result is exactly the same.
Jeff: I will leave Klock and others to argue the details against eternal torment. But with respect to Mk. 14:21 and it's parallel passage in Matthew, I would say the point of it seems to argue against both universalism AND eternal torment. Christ seems to be saying that Judas' particular sin was SO bad that it would have been better for him had he not been born. This would be empty false-bravado on the part of Christ if, indeed, all unbelievers are to experience eternal torment, anyway. For in that case it would be better for ANY unbeliever to have never been born. It would seem that "better," here, is used in the sense that Job meant when he said "cursed be the day I was born," etc (or however that went). And it seems doubtful that Job was saying "I wish I had died as a fetus so I could go straight to heaven." Or at least that seems like a stretch to me.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 7/28/2005 6:43:29 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 7/29/2005 7:49 AM (GMT -6) | | klock said...
In order to make "eternal destruction" fit with "eternal torment" most claim that a person is detroyed and regenerated throughout eternity. This, of course has no biblical basis.
I don't know who "most people" are, but that seems mere unnecessary speculation to me. I don't see any reason why a destruction could not go on eternally. Destroying some things takes a day; destroying others takes a week; destroying some things takes a year; I don't see any in principle reason that destroying couldn't go on forever. And that is the obvious meaning of the phrase.
klock said...
So here Jude states that Sodom was destroy with "eternal fire", but we do not see to this day Sodom and Gomorrah still burning.
The problem is the Greek here is ambiguous. It could mean that Sodom and Gomorrah themselves underwent punishment by eternal fire, or it could mean that they serve as an example (deigma) or type of those who will undergo punishment by eternal fire, which does not necessarily mean that they underwent eternal punishment themselves. See for example the NIV:
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
This are a number of genuine ambiguities in the Greek. Here are two other perfectly good renderings, I think better than the NIV, which support the ECP position:
Having undergone punishment, they serve as an example of eternal fire.
These who underwent punishment serve as an example of eternal fire.
Both of these have the advantage that they attach the genitive puros aioniou to the preceding noun deigma, rather than to the following noun diken. The phrase diken hupechousai at the end can be considered as separate, and English demands that it then be inserted at the start of the phrase. Whether you take the participle as having the function of a noun or a verb determines whether you get translation 1 or 2 above.
Besides grammatical considerations, there are two other reasons for preferring such a rendering. Firstly, there is consistency with other Bible doctrine, but obviously you won't agree with that. But you may be aware that much of Jude is also found almost word for word in 2 Peter. There is absolutely no doubt amongst scholars that one of these writers copied from the other. So it always pays to check the parallel passage. And here it is (2 Peter 2:6):
and if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example of what is coming to the ungodly;
This verse is unambiguous. It says that Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction was an EXAMPLE of what is coming to the ungodly. This, I think, is conclusive in regard to Jude 7.
klock said...
I have read commentaries which state according to the context that the first sentence looks ahead to the wicked being destroyed at Christ's return with His angels and, as the verse states, it is the smoke which rises for ever and ever. Then the very next sentence brings us back to where we are in the vision and because of the last seven plagues, those who worship the beast and his image will have no rest night and day. Verse 12 and 13 attest to this because it calls for the saints' endurance and states that those who die in the Lord, FROM THAT TIME ON, will be blessed, and will recieve rest from their labors.
Well, sorry to say, the commentaries are wrong. They are ignoring semitic literary conventions. Let's first have a look at some OT examples:
Gen 1:27a:
And God created man in His own image, [STATEMENT]
in the image of God He created him; [PARALLEL]
Ps. 2:3-5
"Let us burst their bonds asunder, [STATEMENT]
and cast their cords from us." [PARALLEL]
He who sits in the heavens laughs; [STATEMENT]
the LORD has them in derision. [PARALLEL]
Then he will speak to them in his wrath, [STATEMENT]
and terrify them in his fury, [PARALLEL]
Is. 40:3
A voice crying: [INTRODUCTORY CALL]
"In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD, [STATEMENT]
make straight in the desert a highway for our God. [PARALLEL]
Now let's return to Rev. 14:11:
And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; [STATEMENT]
and they have no rest day and night, [PARALLEL]
those who worship the beast and his image [STATEMENT]
and whoever receives the mark of his name. [PARALLEL]
Now come on! I think it's pretty clear what's going on here. Keep in mind that Revelation is literally chock full with semiticisms, and it seems clear that whoever wrote it was a native Hebrew/Aramaic speaker who struggled to put things into Greek (hence the many examples of bad grammar), which was a second language to him. In fact the parallelism continues in verses 12-13:
Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, [INTRODUCTORY CALL (like "A voice crying" in Is. 40:3)]
those who keep the commandments of God [STATEMENT]
and hold fast to the faith of Jesus.[PARALLEL]
And I heard a voice from heaven saying, [INTRODUCTORY CALL]
"Write this: Blessed are the dead who from now on die in the Lord." [STATEMENT]
"Yes," says the Spirit, "they will rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them."[PARALLEL]
Incidentally, the parallel in Ps. 2:3 also has an introductory call, which consists of the parallel in verse 2 which introduces it.
You gotta think like a Hebrew!
Jefscott said...
I will leave Klock and others to argue the details against eternal torment. But with respect to Mk. 14:21 and it's parallel passage in Matthew, I would say the point of it seems to argue against both universalism AND eternal torment. Christ seems to be saying that Judas' particular sin was SO bad that it would have been better for him had he not been born. This would be empty false-bravado on the part of Christ if, indeed, all unbelievers are to experience eternal torment, anyway. For in that case it would be better for ANY unbeliever to have never been born. It would seem that "better," here, is used in the sense that Job meant when he said "cursed be the day I was born," etc (or however that went). And it seems doubtful that Job was saying "I wish I had died as a fetus so I could go straight to heaven." Or at least that seems like a stretch to me.
I'll grant that is a reasonable interpretation of the passage, Jeff, though I think it could also be viewed as a warning of eternal punishment. But it's not very strong on its own, I will admit.
Tom said...
Pretty much everything you said resonates with me Humphrey. I can hardly believe we agree on so much! But the devil's in the details. We'll see.
You're a suspicious fellow, Tom!Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 7/29/2005 8:48:17 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/29/2005 8:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Isaiah 34
1 Come near, you nations, and listen;
pay attention, you peoples!
Let the earth hear, and all that is in it,
the world, and all that comes out of it!
2 The LORD is angry with all nations;
his wrath is upon all their armies.
He will totally destroy them,
he will give them over to slaughter.
3 Their slain will be thrown out,
their dead bodies will send up a stench;
the mountains will be soaked with their blood.
4 All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved
and the sky rolled up like a scroll;
all the starry host will fall
like withered leaves from the vine,
like shriveled figs from the fig tree.
5 My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens;
see, it descends in judgment on Edom,
the people I have totally destroyed.
6 The sword of the LORD is bathed in blood,
it is covered with fat—
the blood of lambs and goats,
fat from the kidneys of rams.
For the LORD has a sacrifice in Bozrah
and a great slaughter in Edom.
7 And the wild oxen will fall with them,
the bull calves and the great bulls.
Their land will be drenched with blood,
and the dust will be soaked with fat.
8 For the LORD has a day of vengeance,
a year of retribution, to uphold Zion's cause.
9 Edom's streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!
10 It will not be quenched night and day;
its smoke will rise forever.
From generation to generation it will lie desolate;
no one will ever pass through it again.
11 The desert owl and screech owl [c] will possess it;
the great owl [d] and the raven will nest there.
God will stretch out over Edom
the measuring line of chaos
and the plumb line of desolation.
12 Her nobles will have nothing there to be called a kingdom,
all her princes will vanish away.
13 Thorns will overrun her citadels,
nettles and brambles her strongholds.
She will become a haunt for jackals,
a home for owls.
14 Desert creatures will meet with hyenas,
and wild goats will bleat to each other;
there the night creatures will also repose
and find for themselves places of rest.
15 The owl will nest there and lay eggs,
she will hatch them, and care for her young under the shadow of her wings;
there also the falcons will gather,
each with its mate.
16 Look in the scroll of the LORD and read:
None of these will be missing,
not one will lack her mate.
For it is his mouth that has given the order,
and his Spirit will gather them together.
17 He allots their portions;
his hand distributes them by measure.
They will possess it forever
and dwell there from generation to generation
Gotta love apocalyptic, right? Is Edom still burning?
I find it very interesting that both the statements of Jesus AND Revelation ultimately go back to Isaiah. If you look at Isaiah 6, particularly verse 24
And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.
Reference to the Valley of Hinnom? Possibly.
Who's "they"? The people of the Lord from "all nations and tongues" who have been vindicated by the final judgement! (Isaiah 66:18-23)
Some stuff on "Gehenna"
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=115&letter=G
---------------------------
Something interesting from 1 Enoch 10
www.earlyjewishwritings.com/1enoch.html
6-8
Again the Lord said to Raphael, Bind Azazyel hand and foot; cast him into darkness; and opening the desert which is in Dudael, cast him in there. Throw upon him hurled and pointed stones, covering him with darkness; There shall he remain for ever; cover his face, that he may not see the light. And in the great day of judgment let him be cast into the fire.
15-17
To Michael likewise the Lord said, Go and announce his crime to Samyaza, and to the others who are with him, who have been associated with women, that they might be polluted with all their impurity. And when all their sons shall be slain, when they shall see the perdition of their beloved, bind them for seventy generations underneath the earth, even to the day of judgment, and of consummation, until the judgment, the effect of which will last for ever, be completed. Then shall they be taken away into the lowest depths of the fire in torments; and in confinement shall they be shut up for ever. Immediately after this shall he, together with them, burn and perish; they shall be bound until the consummation of many generations.
Though this is not canonical (it's pseudepigraphical), I do think it's consideration should bear on the subject. It definitely shows the idea of eternal confinement in torment in fire for angels did NOT originate with Jesus.
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 7/29/2005 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | |
klock said...
So here Jude states that Sodom was destroy with "eternal fire", but we do not see to this day Sodom and Gomorrah still burning. Instead, it cannot be found (except Ron Wyatt claimed he found the site of a city chared down to ashes along with many sulfur and brimstone chunks, but that would maybe be another debate). The point is that this "eternal fire" utterly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jude is talking about the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, not the stone buildings.
Jude 1:7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
The subject of verse 7 is "Sodom" and "Gomorrah" and "cities". The subject of verse 7 indulged in gross immorality. The subject of verse 7 will be eternally punished.
Now if the subject of verse 7 are the actual buildings, as you posit, then the buildings indulged in gross immorality. But if the subject of verse 7 are the inhabitants, then the inhabitants indulged in gross immorality and the inhabitants will be eternally punished. With an eternal fire.
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 7/29/2005 8:53:22 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/29/2005 9:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Isaiah: 10 It will not be quenched night and day;
its smoke will rise forever.
From generation to generation it will lie desolate;
no one will ever pass through it again.
Tom: Oh my freaking goodness. Never saw THAT.
Isaiah: And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die
Tom: Oh my stars! Isaiah, you're friggin body-slammin me here.
I gotta go think on this.
Tom
"doGfood itself is good" SahidPost Edited (TGB) : 7/29/2005 9:05:56 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 7/29/2005 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph said...
Gotta love apocalyptic, right?
Proto-Isaiah is 8th century and isn't apocalyptic.
Meph said...
I find it very interesting that both the statements of Jesus AND Revelation ultimately go back to Isaiah.
Right! Because the events of Isaiah represent types of eternal punishment, which is why God ensured such flowery language would be used. Eternal punishment is the antitype to which these events pointed. People could look at Edom and say, wow, eternal punishment will be like that, as they could look at a Passover lamb and say, wow, the Messiah's death will be like that. But that doesn't mean that the death of the Passover lamb was exactly like Jesus' death in all respects: "Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the true form of these realities" (Heb. 10:1). But what is hidden in the OT is made plain in the NT. OT typologies as employed by Jesus and the NT writers find their true meaning in the explicit teaching of the NT.
Similarly, Gehenna can be either the type (the place in Israel) and the antitype (the lake of fire). This was well understood by the Rabbis of Jesus' day.
Finally, and we could get sidetracked onto hermeneutics here, but what makes you think that these prophecies don't have a "double fulfillment" in the eschaton, as the Bible explicitly teaches other prophecies have? Consider the following verses:
The LORD is angry with all nations;
his wrath is upon all their armies.
He will totally destroy them,
he will give them over to slaughter.
Question: When did God destroy all the armies of the nations? Answer: Never. He will at Armageddon, though. The prophecy has its ultimate fulfillment in the eschaton.
All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved
and the sky rolled up like a scroll;
all the starry host will fall
like withered leaves from the vine,
like shriveled figs from the fig tree.
Question: When were the stars of heaven dissolved, and the sky roll up? Answer: Never. They will in the final "day of the Lord", though.
Now to your question:
Is Edom still burning and possessed by desert owls?
Answer: No, but who knows what will happen in the eschaton.
Regarding 1 Enoch, I suspect there are some important translation issues there, but I don't have the original language text (I'm not even sure if it's Greek or Hebrew for 1 Enoch), so I can't say. Does anybody know if it's available on the internet? In any case it's non-canonical so doesn't show much. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/29/2005 9:31 AM (GMT -6) | | HB:
Right! Because the events of Isaiah represent types of eternal punishment, which is why God ensured such flowery language would be used. Eternal punishment is the antitype to which these events pointed. People could look at Edom and say, wow, eternal punishment will be like that, as they could look at a Passover lamb and say, wow, the Messiah's death will be like that. But that doesn't mean that the death of the Passover lamb was exactly like Jesus' death in all respects: "Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the true form of these realities" (Heb. 10:1). But what is hidden in the OT is made plain in the NT. OT typologies as employed by Jesus and the NT writers find their true meaning in the explicit teaching of the NT.
So, we are to apply the typology idea (type and antitype) here....rather than wonder if terminology like "smoke rising forever" can mean something OTHER THAN smoke rising forever? Er, um, ok...
And I don't know, but that "all the stars of the heavens will be dissolved" language...sure seems like apocalyptic type prophetic speech to me. Good figurative stuff.
************************
HB:
Similarly, Gehenna can be either the type (the place in Israel) and the antitype (the lake of fire). This was well understood by the Rabbis of Jesus' day.
I think that was pretty much stated in some of the links on that page I posted. I do think it's interesting the variety of perspectives that they have on Gehenna though.
**********************
HB:
Finally, and we could get sidetracked onto hermeneutics here, but what makes you think that these prophecies don't have a "double fulfillment" in the eschaton, as the Bible explicitly teaches other prophecies have?
This approach seems a little too convenient for me. Can't put my finger on it...but it does.
Let's see what Tom thinks.
***********************
HB:
Regarding 1 Enoch, I suspect there are some important translation issues there, but I don't have the original language text (I'm not even sure if it's Greek or Hebrew for 1 Enoch), so I can't say. Does anybody know if it's available on the internet? In any case it's non-canonical so doesn't show much.
Check that link I posted. It has lots of sites on the books of Enoch. And it DOES show that the idea of eternal confinement in torment in fire for angels did NOT originate with Jesus. I think that's pretty important for the discussion. Why? Because it could be that Jesus's beliefs simply went along with SOME of the beliefs that already existed about "hell"
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 7/29/2005 9:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph said...
So, we are to apply the typology idea (type and antitype) here....rather than wonder if terminology like "smoke rising forever" can mean something OTHER THAN smoke rising forever? Er, um, ok...
Surely, in terms of what the human author intended, this is just metaphor and flowery rhetoric? What do you think he meant? Do you think he secretly thought "smoke rising forever" = "smoke rising for finite duration"? Surely that's extremely implausible. He's just using hyperbole. But note: hyperbole relies on the literal meaning of words for its effect. It isn't an exercise in redefining words, but in using words that have a literal meaning which grossly exaggerates the real meaning. And why shouldn't we, from a NT perspective, interpret it typologically? Are you denying that typological interpretations of OT events are extremely prevalent in the NT?
Meph said...
And I don't know, but that "all the stars of the heavens will be dissolved" language...sure seems like apocalyptic type prophetic speech to me. Good figurative stuff.
Without quibbling further about the definition of apocalyptic, I agree with you, if you are speaking of what the human author intended. But who says God didn't have a deeper meaning, a sensus plenior, that related to the eschaton? There's pretty solid basis for saying that elsewhere.
Meph said...
This approach seems a little too convenient for me. Can't put my finger on it...but it does.
Well if it was good enough for Jesus (Mt. 24:15) it's good enough for me.
Meph said...
Check that link I posted. It has lots of sites on the books of Enoch. And it DOES show that the idea of eternal confinement in torment in fire for angels did NOT originate with Jesus. I think that's pretty important for the discussion. Why? Because it could be that Jesus's beliefs simply went along with SOME of the beliefs that already existed about "hell".
OK, I'll take the link's word for it - although I'd be interested to see the original (which is problematic, because apparently only Greek manuscripts still exist, but they think it was originally written in Hebrew - so you've given us a translation of a translation - and some of the English phrases sound suspicious). But in any case, there were a huge range of beliefs about "hell" at the time. I agree with you that it is likely that Jesus' beliefs were held in common with others of his time - but which others? You can't just pick one text, and assume that's what Jesus believed. You have to show some connection. Better yet, we should just take Jesus in terms of what he says, rather than assuming that he held to the view of someone-or-other else.Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 7/29/2005 9:49:28 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/29/2005 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | | HB:
Surely, in terms of what the human author intended, this is just metaphor and flowery rhetoric? What do you think he meant? Do you think he secretly thought "smoke rising forever" = "smoke rising for finite duration"? Surely that's extremely implausible. He's just using hyperbole. But note: hyperbole relies on the literal meaning of words for its effect. It isn't an exercise in redefining words, but in using words that have a literal meaning which grossly exaggerates the real meaning. And why shouldn't we, from a NT perspective, interpret it typologically? Are you denying that typological interpretations of OT events are extremely prevalent in the NT?
Tom, do you see why I wanted to bring in things other than "just exegesis"? If typology is going to affect this discussion this much, then it definitely becomes a more HERMENEUTICAL issue and a purely EXEGETICAL one.
******************
HB:
Well if it was good enough for Jesus (Mt. 24:15) it's good enough for me.
Don't get it twisted. I'm not saying that the biblical authors didn't consider double fulfillment. The Matthean author seems to go crazy with this stuff in the early chapters. Surely, we all remember the lovely "Out of Egypt, I have called my son", right? (Mat 2:15) What I'm saying is that it seems convenient to use this idea to basically brush aside the possibility that perhaps statements dealing with "forever and ever" or "day and night" are hyperbole that don't have to be taken literally all the time....perhaps even in Revelation.
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/29/2005 10:00 AM (GMT -6) | | HB: (emphasis mine)
But in any case, there were a huge range of beliefs about "hell" at the time. I agree with you that it is likely that Jesus' beliefs were held in common with others of his time - but which others? You can't just pick one text, and assume that's what Jesus believed. You have to show some connection. Better yet, we should just take Jesus in terms of what he says, rather than assuming that he held to the view of someone-or-other else.
Ok, Tom. Think about that underlined part. Now, think about my thinking and the conversations you and I have had about Jesus's humanity in relation to his beliefs and teaching. Next think about the lovely statement in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy...
Article XV
We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.
We deny that Jesus' teaching about scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.
The grounding assumption being that Jesus's humanity can in NO WAY diminish the absolute verity of anything Jesus believes to be true about things with any theological weight (ie. belief in angels, a certain view of hell, etc)
What am I going to say? Let's see if you can anticipate me.
Tom, I'm really trying to keep it exegetical, man. For real.
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/29/2005 10:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi-
Go ahead and just stick to exegesis. What did Jesus (and Peter, and Paul, and John) ACTUALLY believe about hell and the afterlife? Establish THAT. THEN figure out whether or not you embrace it (because it's THE 'biblical' view of hell) or not (because it's not part of 'divine truth' found in the Sciptures). But you won't have to worry about making a choice if you can establish that annihilationism or universalsim is THE 'bibclial' view, right? And only exegesis establishes what is, strictly speaking, THE 'biblical' view. One may not be able to rule out other possibilities, exegetically speaking. It may be enough to show that a view is plausible given other things we believe about God, and leave it at that.
But what'll be interesting is if a case can be made that annihilationism or universalsim is THE 'bibclial' view. If that's established, THEN I'm tempted to think you won't be so down on Jesus' beliefs on the matter. THEN 'what Jesus (and Peter and Paul) believed' will be important. See how arbitrary your view seems? You decide on philosophical grounds that X is true. If Jesus believed X, then Jesus was inspired in believing X. If Jesus didn't believe X, then Jesus was not inspired in believing X; he was just a member of his culture. (But I haven't read the past four posts, so I gotta catch up.)
But I totally LOVED those verses from Isaiah. Oh my goodness.
Tom
"doGfood itself is good" Sahid | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 7/29/2005 10:30 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/29/2005 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
One may not be able to rule out other possibilities, exegetically speaking. It may be enough to show that a view is plausible given other things we believe about God, and leave it at that.
Exacta-friggin-mundo.
If someone can definitively RULE OUT annihilationism as being a plausible interpretation of ALL the relevant biblical texts--I mean, really slam dunk it---, I'd love to see it. I don't think it's possible. Just like I don't think it's possible for annihiliationists to RULE OUT eternal conscious punishment as being a plausible interpretation of the relevant texts. The biblical themes of "punishment", "torment", "perishing", and "destruction" are, IMHO, too strong to say that one is the obvious choice. Even if we primarily consider the New Testament (When we consider more OT texts, things get even hairier.). It seems to me that this is partly why Doc came up with his mediating position on hell in SATPOE.
What's your take, Tom?
PS: I thought you'd like that Isaiah thing.
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/29/2005 9:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: The biblical themes of "punishment", "torment", "perishing", and "destruction" are, IMHO, too strong to say that one is the obvious choice. Even if we primarily consider the New Testament (When we consider more OT texts, things get even hairier.).
Jeff: But if we take the scriptures inductively (which would mean that the OT constrains the meaning of the NT, and not the other way around), plausibility takes on new standards. For THEN, the Isaiah passage is the precedent which serves as a guide to Christ's remarks, UNLESS Christ's remarks are clearly contradictory to Isaiah's. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any way that they contradict each other. Especially once allowances are made for the flexibility of non-technical language. What think you, Tom? Can Christ's statements about gehenna be reconciled with Isaiah, in your opinion?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 7/30/2005 12:53 AM (GMT -6) | | John 3:16 and 10:28 both make a distinction between "eternal life" and "perishing". The contrast is not between "eternal life in heaven" and "eternal life in hell".
Be without fear in the face of your enemies
Be brave and upright
Speak the truth
Safeguard the helpless
That is your oath
---Godfrey of Ibelin | | Back to Top | | |
| 124 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:54 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|