Literal Hell

Question #1:  Is the eternal punishment in Hell an eternity of physical torment with torture and a real literal physical fire? Or is it an eternity of mental torment with a symbolic fire? Or is it both?

Luke 16:23: And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Could this be symbolic?

Response #1:  Every place where the eternal state of unbelievers is discussed, the matter seems to be put in as straightforward a fashion as possible. I don't find any symbolism in this or in any other such passages (although the Luke passage is talking about the pre-judgment state of unbelievers which, while terrible, is not as bad as the lake of fire will be). It seems to me that eternal judgment even if it were being described symbolically (and I don't see how any of the passages that discuss it can be made into such) would still have to be painful. And if it is painful, what is the distinction? If the fire is a symbol of pain, then there will pain whether or not the fire is a symbol. So this is sort of circular: torment is torment. I don't see any need or reason to take these scriptures in anything but the straightforward way they offer themselves. I do think it is very dangerous to assume or to suggest or to teach that somehow "hell doesn't really exist" or "hell isn't really hell" or "hell isn't really so bad", and that is going to be the effect if not the purpose of an unjustified symbolic interpretation. All that does is give false comfort to those who may be headed in that direction. Believe me, those who reject God don't need any additional encouragement. Generally speaking, they have already blotted out the truth He has bestowed upon them through universal natural revelation (where the idea of a just God who will call them to account is a truth that once was clear to them from contemplating life and the universe). Removing eternal condemnation from their path in any respect and to any degree only lessens the chance, however slim, that they might some day turn to Him. Fire is scary. If we reduce what the scriptures say to "mental only" torment, most people will assume that it'll be tolerable, when that is exactly the opposite of what the scriptures teach.

We all have a "portion" in eternity. For believers, we all have a share in Jesus Christ and a place in the New Jerusalem forever, and eternal portion of blessing analogous to but exceeding in blessing to a degree yet unimaginable the portion each Israelite received on reaching the promised land. But for unbelievers, those who rejected God's offer of eternal life while yet in this life, their portion is in the lake of fire.

(7) The one who conquers (i.e., maintains the victory of faith to the end of life: 1Jn.5:4) will inherit these things (i.e., the blessings of the New Jerusalem), and I will be His God and he himself will be my son. (8) But as for the cowardly and unbelieving and foul and murderers and the sexually immoral and those involved in the occult and idolaters and all those who are liars (i.e., all who for a variety of reasons rejected Christ) – their portion (i.e., "inheritance") will be in the lake burning with fire and sulfur which is the Second Death.
Revelation 21:7-8

For a complete treatment of these issues please see the following links:

The Last Judgment

The Lake of Fire

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #2: 

I have been told that death in the bible refers to separation (Rom 6:2,11,23; 7:4,8,9,11; 8:35; Gal. 2:19; Eph 2:1,5).", But a brother in christ believes that the second death is annihilation. He said:

What do you think?

Response #2: 

The list given is an apples and oranges comparison. The word nekros means "dead" – it is an adjective; the word apothnesko means "die" – it is a verb; the word thanatos is the only word in this list meaning "death" per se – it is a noun. To base an argument on different vocabulary may have some merit, depending upon how it is done, but failing to see that these are all different parts of speech invalidates any argument which fails to take these important distinctions into account. Further, all the words for death and the dead and dying as used in the Greek New Testament are conventional Greek words used for at least a thousand years by the time of the writing of the New Testament – and it would have been quite a shock to the millions of secular Greeks that used them that death somehow didn't really refer to literal death as their primary meaning. My point is that there is no way that the vocabulary would ever support a thesis of annihilation of the person after death. This is a theological question and has to stand or fall on what the Bible actually has to say about the state of unbelievers after death.　

Secondly, the word used in Revelation 20 for death is (effectively by the time of writing of the NT especially) the only word for death (i.e., the noun form): thanatos. And it is always, in the NT, the word used for death (used nearly 100 times in the NT). So despite what the list tries to imply, this is not some "unique" word for death but rather is the word that the man on the street in the first century A.D. would use for death irrespective of the Bible.

Thirdly, while death is used in a variety of ways in the NT (see the link: in BB 3B "The three aspects of death"), nevertheless, all of them are real. Death is always "real", whether it is spiritual death, physical death, or eternal death. I suppose this person's argument is that since physical death is "real" in the sense that the corpse is lifeless, therefore eternal death ought to resemble that state. This ignores the fact that "lifelessness" from God's perspective is quite different from what secular human viewpoint would think. Unbelievers are "dead" to God even though they have breath in their physical bodies (spiritual death). Leaving this aside, however, beyond all argument an unbeliever is "dead" even by this person's definition, when they die physically. And yet, "dead" as they are, "really dead" by this definition, yet in this "dead" state they still are conscious in Torments (cf. the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:9-31), and they will still be able to appear before the Lord at the last judgment to be judged according to their deeds (Matt.25:31-46; Rev.20:11-15). Now if while they are really and truly physically dead they even now experience torments, and on that last day will be able to see and hear the Lord and be judged for their lives to be shown how their deeds were not sufficient for salvation absent faith in Christ, on what basis can we say that when they are cast into the lake of fire they will not "really" be experiencing the second death, even though they are likewise conscious at that point? In fact, if they were annihilated when cast into the lake of fire, this wouldn't be much of a punishment, since they would be unaware of any further suffering, having been annihilated. Whereas scripture is very clear about the continuation of the suffering for those excluded from the kingdom and instead thrust out into the darkness of the lake of fire, where the weeping and gnashing of teeth last for all eternity – it is "eternal punishment" (Matt.25:46):

The notion of oblivion has in fact been a (false) comfort to many unbelievers in the history of the world often via a variety of philosophies and false religions. But it is a myth. Dying after rejecting Jesus, whether actively or passively, is a horrible thing to contemplate, because there will be no "peace in the grave" for such individuals: rather, like the devil whose example they are following, they will have all eternity to contemplate the folly of their decision (see the link: "Three questions in Isaiah: #3: 'Please explain the meaning of "their worm" in Isaiah 66:24'".

In the One in whom we have been saved from that wrath to come, the One with whom we shall blissfully enjoy the New Jerusalem forever, or Lord and Master Jesus Christ.

Bob L.
 

Question #3: 

I forwarded your response and received this:

Whew!!!

Response #3: 

Translations of scripture are useful tools, especially for those who do not know the original languages, but they must be understood grammatically and in terms of their actual use of language even in English in order to get any benefit out of them when it comes to careful analysis of this sort. Grammar is very important – otherwise we do not necessarily understand the particulars of the language as they are being used. To take the last part of this latest e-mail first and quickly, the word apollumi is also a verb, not a noun, and so falls into the same category of an "apples to oranges comparison". In the first e-mail, the analysis of the "specific words" is taken from a concordance – looks to be Strong's. Not a bad tool, but no substitute for the original Greek New Testament. Anyone with a solid grounding in English grammar understands that there is a big difference between a noun and a verb. The fact that Strong's lists different translations used for a word in the KJV has nothing to do with "the price of tea in China". That is because every translation of every Bible verse is an attempt to fit an English meaning into a Greek context (or Hebrew). Take away the context, and you take away the significance of the particular English translation. What I mean, put as directly as I can put it, is the mere fact that Strong's lists a possibility for translation does not mean that translation is capable of being fit into every place where the Greek word occurs. For example, Strong's lists "fame" as one possibility for the Greek word logos, and in rare circumstances that would be an acceptable translation. But that does not in any way give us the right to translate John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Fame." Simply put, there is just no substitute for actually knowing the language.

As stated before, the word for death in Greek is thanatos – none of these other words mean "death". Now, for example, there are words such as apokteino, a verb, which means "kill" but this one is sometimes translated "put to death". Because English is permitted to use a paraphrase verb-noun combination which includes the word "death" to translate this Greek verb (e.g., "put-to-death") does not make this verb a noun. That is because it cannot mean "death" on its own. The other examples given suffer from the same fatal grammatical/logical flaw and need not be discussed in detail for that reason.

Secondly, as pointed out before, "death" and "dead" are used in a number of ways in scripture. To take but a few examples. Jesus tells the reluctant follower in Matthew 8:22 to "let the dead bury their dead" – if the former were physically dead they would be unable to comply. In Luke 15:24 the prodigal son "was dead, but now is alive" – since he was never physically death this must be referring to spiritual death. And in Acts 10:42, Jesus is the Judge of the living and the dead – but these physically dead have to have consciousness and some corporeality in order to be judged, even while dead. The link provided previously ("The Three Aspects of Death") discusses this issue at great length, and one can find this sort of discussion in any standard evangelical systematic theology (i.e., not only is this position not unique to my teaching, but I know of no orthodox evangelical systematic theology that does not teach such a distinction in the biblical types of death).

Finally, the essence of the entire argument of "annihilation" here really rests on the claim that because Revelation 21:4 says "there will be no more death", that therefore unbelievers face obliteration. Now, being fair, it is very difficult to see the logic of this in the first place, let alone understand how one would ever come to the conclusion just from this scripture that such a state of affairs is necessarily and incontrovertibly the case. Far to the contrary, the statement in Revelation 21:4 is in fact made in the context of the believer's eternal future, and while it is thus certainly true that believers will never be subject to death again after the resurrection, for "the last enemy that shall be done away with is death" (1Cor.15:26), it is nowhere even implied that this has anything to do with the future of the unbeliever. What both of these verses clearly refer to is the everlasting life that we believers will possess with Jesus forevermore without even bringing the status of unbelievers into the picture.

In short, there is simply no scriptural evidence that even suggests that unbelievers will be obliterated, whereas the verses provided in the previous e-mail show quite clearly that their suffering is eternal. For in fact, we know from Jesus Himself that "their worm never dies" (Mk.9:48) that the fire is "eternal" and "never quenched" (Matt.25:41; Mk.9:48), that their punishment is "eternal" (Matt.25:46), that they will wail and gnash their teeth forever (Matt.8:12; 13:42; 13:50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; 13:28). Now since the lake of fire lasts forever (compare Matt.25:41 with Rev.19:20 and 20:10), and since the second death is the lake of fire (Rev.20:14: 21:8), then by necessity this particular "second death" will last forever for unbelievers, even as physical death has been abolished for believers. I see no validity in an argument that seeks to require a just God to vary punishment, because the crime is the same for all fallen angels and all unbelieving human beings: rejection of God's mercy in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. So to conclude, it would be well to consider two individuals who are not angels and who are very specifically said to face eternal torment in the lake of fire, namely the beast and the false prophet:

And the same is true for all who chose to follow them and their master the devil by receiving the mark of the beast:

In the blessed knowledge that in Jesus Christ we will never experience such a thing!

Bob L.

Question #4: 

The same guy who believes that souls will be completely destroyed and quoted the same passages to prove it said:

I'm not sure how to reconcile the eternal fire (punishment) of Jude 1:7 with Sodom and Gomorrah no longer burning. Thanks in advance!

Response #4:

The "judgment of eternal fire" is future, not past. The KJV, as is often the case, is deliberately ambiguous here, saying "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire", but it would better to translate "going to be suffering . . .". The verb form here, hypechousi, is in the present tense. It definitely does not mean (and in the context almost certainly cannot mean) "having suffered" (for one thing, the best ms., Sinaiticus, has an indicative rather than a participle, but none of the mss. suggest an aorist which would be required for the meaning your correspondent is trying to induce). But "suffering" doesn't work either, for either interpretation. What we have here is an incipient future use of the present, not unheard of in Classical Greek but more common in the NT (it is essentially a Hebraism as Jude is unconsciously mixing Hebrew syntax, where this happens with the basic present forms all the time, to his Greek, where it is somewhat less common in "good" Classical Greek). To make a long story short, it is more difficult in the canons of NT Greek to make this verb look backward than it is to have it look forward (and that is equally true if one prefers to read a participle here). That is also what fits into the context we have here as well.

In its context, Jude 1:7 is referring both to the judgment on the fallen angels (as the point to be explained) and to the judgment of the unbelieving human beings of Sodom and Gomorrah (to whom these fallen angels are compared). Both will undergo a judgment of eternal fire (i.e., the lake of fire); the unbelievers are already in torments; the fallen angels involved in the Genesis 6 attempt to destroy true humanity are in Tartarus (2Pet.2:4). Neither are yet in the lake of fire but all will end up there – that is why the "judgment of fire" described in Jude 1:7 is "eternal". Notice it is to that future judgment of fire, the lake of fire, that the verse refers, not primarily to the fire and brimstone rained down on those towns – because, obviously, that did not affect the fallen angels at all who are the primary subject of Jude's discussion here (Sodom and Gomorrah are an illustration). Note also that in Jude 1:6 these fallen angels are being "reserved" for the future judgment (exactly as Matthew 25 and Revelation 20 teach; cf. 2Pet.2:4). And after all, Jude 1:7 does say "eternal fire". If words in the Bible mean anything, this would have to mean what it says – forever. Whatever other contradictions of logic someone may think they have found (and I don't see them here for the reason advanced above – the translation is confusing because the Greek is not simple), that does not allow the negation of clear statements such as this, at least not according to any orthodox hermeneutic system of which I am aware.

2nd Peter 2:6 would also benefit from a better translation than the KJV provides – not that it is out and out wrong, but the opening phrase is also misleadingly translated in that it admits of an interpretation which equates the "turning into ashes" with the fact that the Lord "condemned" them. In fact, the aorist participle of tephroo has antecedent action (as usual with aorist circumstantial participles of this sort), so that a more literal translation would be "having turned them into ashes, He condemned them". The destruction comes first, then the condemnation – to be carried out in full at some later point. No doubt the two are related in one sense (there has been a temporal judgment), but the eternal condemnation of the inhabitants is a separate thing, and that judgment along with its eternal manifestation has not yet occurred.

Thus I see not a sliver of contradiction here. The Bible is consistent throughout on this subject, and that explains why you will be unable to find many (if any – I know of none) serious theologians in the history of the Church who subscribe to the annihilation theory. That is a significant point in that on almost every other subject there is less than unanimity in traditional theology (to say the least).

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #5:  

This is his response to your email, and It seems a bit confusing. Here it is:

What do you think? Thanks in advance!

Response #5: 

None of these passages or arguments even suggests, let alone proves, the theory of annihilation. This person continues to base his theory on the spin he wishes to impart to certain English words. For example, "immortality" is what believers have, not unbelievers, and we should hardly equate being conscious forever in the lake of fire "immortality" (the Bible doesn't) or take scripture to task because it doesn't express things in the terms we might prefer. Indeed, the whole point of the punishment of being in the lake of fire is that it is "death", specifically, the "second death"; but that it lasts forever and that the experience of it last forever, scripture makes clear.

In the interest of time, we'll take a look at Malachi 4:1 as an example (since he makes a special point of it). That passage clearly refers to the destruction of the unbelieving followers of antichrist at our Lord's return. Many if not all of the other passages adduced in support of this theory are likewise referring to the physical deaths of the wicked. But to assume that because a person is physically put to death by the Lord that ipso facto they will undergo annihilation in eternity is missing half a dozen or so logical steps. There is certainly nothing which prevents our Lord blasting antichrist's followers off the earth at the Second Advent, throwing them into torments, and then judging them with all the other unbelievers at the end of time.

The explanation given in my last e-mail of Jude 1:7 is lucid enough for someone with a rudimentary grasp of English grammar to understand, but it is clear from what was said that it was not read carefully. I stand by it.

Once again, the Bible is really very clear on this subject, as virtually everyone who has a genuine regard for scripture has concluded:

1) The lake of fire lasts forever (compare Matt.25:41 with Rev.19:20 and 20:10).

2) The second death is the lake of fire (Rev.20:14: 21:8).

3) Therefore the "second death" will last forever.

All this I have said before, two or three times in one way or another, but without what I would deem a responsive answer. So unless and until the previous e-mail is adequately addressed, I am unwilling to follow down this rabbit hole any further (since it is leading nowhere). I certainly don't lay this at your feet, but at this point on this particular exchange I have to advise you that it is my policy not to continue to respond to disputants like your friend when their discourse reaches the point of unresponsiveness or lack of civility – otherwise I would be doing little else with my time than talking to people who are really not even interested in listening.

Finally, this person has introduced a number of additional and quite extraneous arguments into the mix in his last e-mail. These are neither here nor there for the purposes of our present discussion, however, for your benefit, here are some links in case you would like to get some biblical answers on any of them.

On the subject of "soul" (not a separate "organ" and not capable of being "lost") versus spirit, please see the link: in BB 3A "The Human Spirit"

On the subject of unbelievers who may or may not have received the gospel, see the link: "What about those who never heard of Christ?"

On the subject of infant salvation, see the link: "Are the children of unbelievers lost?"

On the subject of the unforgivable/unpardonable sin, please see the links:

In BB 3B: "Apostasy and the Sin unto Death"

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #6: 

Thanks for your studies. Concerning what happens after death - why does the Bible say (after Christ's death) that David was still in the grave? You said all go to heaven or hell after death (after Christ's death and resurrection). Please see below concerning this, and please read this tract:

Response #6: 

Dear Friend,

For what torments is like, see Jesus' description in Luke 16:19-21 – it's unequivocal. As to the final state of the lost after their resurrection unto death, see Revelation 20:11-15, an equally unambiguous passage. In both cases, there is complete consciousness of those involved (i.e., no "soul sleep" as is true of believers as well; see Rev.6:11; 7:9 and 2Cor.5:3 Greek not English: explained at the following link: "Our Heavenly, Pre-Resurrection, Interim State").

As to David, no doubt you are referring to Peter's Pentecost speech where he says at Acts 2:29: "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day." (NIV). I don't know how else Peter could have expressed the obvious fact that David had died and was buried and that his body had decayed in the grave (making it clear that Psalm 16 is talking about the Messiah, David's greater Son our Lord). But nothing in this verse in English or Greek can reasonably be made to suggest that David is not presently in heaven with the rest of departed Church. He certainly is (cf. Heb.11:40).

I am somewhat puzzled about the applicability of the rest of the information you have included here (not to mention the fact that I am in serious disagreement with you on quite a number of major assumptions you are making about Christian doctrine, the relationship of the "soul" and spirit in particular; see the link:  in BB 3A "The Human Spirit"). So I will leave it to you to consider the above and write me back if you have any further questions on this matter.

In the Name of the One who has made a place for us with Him in heaven until His glorious return, the One who died for us, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Bob Luginbill

Question #7:  

Thank you for your prompt reply. I will surely consider those passages, though I have learned that if there are , for example, 10 passages that say one thing clearly, and maybe two that seem to contradict (which we know cannot be true of the Word of God), then it is safer to go with the greater evidence. Ecclesiastes says plainly, 9:5 "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any [thing] that is done under the sun (in this life)." And also, "9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for [there is] no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. (nor worshipping God, nor experiencing the bliss of eternal life...)" The fact is, the Bible plainly states that only God is immortal...until that day when Christ comes, and then our mortality will put on immortality, right?

1 Cor. 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

15:51 Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality.

15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." Praise the Lord! This is the hope we have...

So, only God is immortal (and ,maybe, several whom He has taken - Elijah, Enoch, Moses (remember, the devil contended with the angel over his body)

Sir, you talk about "soul sleep", and say there is no such thing - but our soul is life (that God breathed into Adam to make him a "living soul" - and Christ Himself said that Lazarus was "asleep" when he had been dead three days. So that WAS a "soul" that was "asleep"... It seems so plain to me. Did you know that the idea of an eternal suffering in "hell-fire", was not always a belief of the Church of God? It was the Roman church, in its fear-mongering, that created that theology. Yes, I believe the "wicked" (unsaved) will suffer greatly in fire - but the Bible is also clear that that will come to an end, Malachi t4:1 " For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do [this], saith the LORD of hosts.

I find peace in the realization that while the righteous are basking in the light of Christ, there won't be, somewhere where God can see (for He sees all) suffering and agony for ever and ever. This would mean that there is no end to sin, because what the tormented are thinking about, even speaking about Yahweh, would be sin.

Again, thanks for your reply. God bless,

Response #7:

In my experience, the Bible never contradicts itself. It is only that very often interpreters of scripture fail to correctly understand one or both passages wherein lies some "apparent contradiction". Very often too that failure is due to a misunderstanding of the original text in the original language, or a flaw in the systematic theology employed (whether realized or not), or even to a lack of due diligence. The Bible only has to say something once for it to be true. Therefore my method it seems is somewhat different from yours, and I believe the difference to be critical. If ten passages seem to say one thing but one passage clearly says another, it may well be that the one passage is misunderstood. However, in my experience and observation, it is often just as likely that the ten passages have been at least partly understood in error (often from some preconception about what the Bible really does or does not teach or because the person is using an English translation and repeating the misconceptions of the translators, etc.). In my experience and observation that "one passage" is often our salvation, because it is often the one safety net that keeps us from going astray by forcing us to reconsider everything from the ground up. Giving full and equal weight to all scripture is what orthodox theology is all about. So I would never wish to discount the clear meaning (or what seems to me to be the clear meaning) of any passage of scripture, even in the face of what I might otherwise think ought to be true. Very often we human beings are guilty of proceeding on all sorts of logical assumptions without even realizing what we are assuming. When we get doctrinaire about what we assume (especially if we don't even realize we are making an assumption) our capacity for learning and change begins to evaporate altogether. After all, the Bible is not logical, it is theological, and it teaches all sorts of things that to human logic are contradictory, but which in the wisdom of God are not so at all. For example, there is no conflict between the divine decree of history and human free will in history, even though many famous theological systems have spent their strength on trying to resolve this "logical inconsistency". Nothing is impossible for God, after all, and when scripture teaches two things we find inconsistent, we need to remember that the problem may very well lie with us and not with scripture.

Case in point is the Ecclesiastes passage you offer here. In my previous e-mail I suggested you have a look at Jesus' description of Lazarus and Abraham in paradise below the earth conversing with the rich man in torments, and also to the several passages in Revelation which describe the saints awaiting resurrection, many of whom have just come out of the Great Tribulation. In the first passage, the three mentioned have conversations, so are clearly conscious; in the second set of examples we also see living, waking, conscious behavior. It is certainly true that in both cases, and in the case of every departed human being, lost and saved, the body returns to dust (with a very few notable examples: Enoch, Moses, Elijah). Yet as Paul tells us in 2Cor.5:3 "and even though we are disrobed (i.e., suffer the death of these physical bodies), we shall not [even then] be found naked (i.e., we will have interim bodies between the time of our deaths and the resurrection, should there be a gap)". Even though this is irrefutably the Greek text (i.e., it is not a matter of a few variant readings: this is the text), most versions, operating from the assumption that this translation must somehow be wrong because the translators can't understand it or don't agree with it, do not reflect what scripture actually says. But if they had followed the rule I suggest at the outset of this e-mail, at least non-specialists would be able to discern from the English versions what is patently clear upon careful consideration: there is an interim "tent" or "body" for the spirit provided for all who die, whether they are taken to heaven (prior to the ascension to paradise below the earth) or to torments (to await the resurrection of the unjust and their final state in the lake of fire).

To return to your Ecclesiastes passage, I suppose I can see how on first blush it might seem to be inconsistent with the above. But then, one would equally have to accept based on your interpretation of this passage that it teaches that there is no resurrection of the dead at any time, if all is irrevocably lost at death (and I assume that you accept the resurrection of the dead as a necessary foundation of the Christian faith – please clarify if you do not!). In fact, I do not see a contradiction at all, when Ecclesiastes is correctly understood. The theme of Solomon's great book is the vanity of life – without God. "All is pointless!" is only true without God in the mix, and in the section you reference in chapter nine, Solomon begins as is often his wont in this book by telling us that he is relating an "evil under the sun" (v.3), that is, something that is grievous when human beings look at it objectively from a secular point of view. Solomon is preaching to those who live life and view life as if there were no God, and is showing them, by way of human logic divinely inspired, that if that were the case then everything would be pointless so that all their striving is entirely in vain. This is something people ought to know but in truth most human beings do live their lives as if they were immortal, and Solomon's book is God's great gift to such people, reminding them that they are not going to live forever in these bodies and showing them that their lives are thus entirely pointless – unless they turn to God ("remember the One who created you"; Eccl.12:1). So while taken out of context, bereft of their reason for being, these verses may seem to support the annihilation of the person after physical death, in truth what they are doing is making unbelievers face up to the fact that this is precisely the logic of the philosophy with which they are living their godless lives. Until they accept their pointlessness apart from God, they will never "sober up" and turn to God.

1st Corinthians 15:50ff. is another passage which has proved confusing to many people. Indeed, it has proved so confusing that the Greek text was garbled in a number of manuscript traditions, especially in verse 51. Blessedly, we are in possession of several early manuscripts (Sinaiticus in particular) which allow us to establish the true text. Here is how I translate the critical verses:

Again, these verses, correctly translated, blend perfectly into the accepted doctrine of resurrection in its three phases for believers (as taught earlier in chapter 15) and its single, final judgment for unbelievers.

As to the "soul", this goes back to what I was saying in the introductory paragraph to this e-mail. The word "soul" is a Germanic one, and is not really a perfect fit for the words which actually occur in the Bible. It is often though not always used to translate the Hebrew word nephesh and the Greek word pysche, neither of which means anything like what the average person means when he/she says "soul". The "soul", if that is the word we choose to use, is not a separate organ or entity; it is rather the inner person and can alternatively be thought of as the "mind" or the "heart" – and indeed scripture uses both of these words as synonyms for the nephesh-psyche. The "soul" is where the spirit and the body come together, it is the confluence of our inner person in its entirety where we make our choices and decisions. In eternity, there will be no need for such distinctions since at that point there will be no tension between the body's indwelling sin and the human spirit's present desire (at least on the part of believers) to serve God. The "soul" or heart or (inner)-person is the battleground where our will chooses for God or fails to do so (following either the flesh or the spirit influenced by the Spirit), and the almost universal failure to appreciate this critical distinction between what the Bible actually teaches and what people "assume" about there being a "soul" as distinct from the human spirit has been responsible for breeding many other false doctrines. It would take a long and extended discussion to set this right so in the interest of space and time I encourage you to see the following link where all of this is made clear: "The Creation of Adam (and the Human Spirit)" in BB 3A.

As to Lazarus, Christ was clearly speaking of his body which in physical death gives the appearance of sleep. But we cannot take from this description of his "being asleep" that Lazarus was unconscious in paradise (cf. 2Cor.12:1-5). No one present with Jesus could see into paradise or be expected to realize that in the (in his case temporary) after-life that Lazarus was fully conscious. This "being asleep" is a euphemism along the same lines of "the grave" which is in fact only the resting place of the physical body (but that is the only thing we can see here on earth). So while "sleep" and "grave" describe the physical, earthly situation we can see, they do not preclude a spiritual consciousness in paradise. When Jesus tells the repentant thief, "I tell you the truth; today you will be with Me in paradise", we do not imagine they will both be sleeping, do we? Jesus, while in paradise, made a "proclamation of victory" to the Genesis six angels in Tartarus (1Pet.3:19) – not possible when asleep. This euphemism is for the benefit of us who remain in life, giving us comfort that our departed loved ones are free from the toil and trouble of this world (if they were believers), and we might be forgiven for taking your point of view – if it were not for the extensive evidence scripture provides to the contrary.

As to church history, I give its chronicling of Catholic teachings very little credence. According to Revelation's description of the seven church era's, the very first era which followed the age of the apostles, namely, the era of Ephesus, "left its first love" – by which I understand scripture to mean that in that very first post-apostolic generation/era the Bible came to be little valued in terms of its detailed teachings (see the link, in CT 2A, "Ephesus"). That certainly jibes with what little we do know about those early days. So I am not concerned with how the Bible was or is received by those who are not really interested in its teachings anyway, whether historically or contemporaneously. I am concerned greatly with what it actually says and what it actually means. As to the idea of eternity in hell, well, it certainly should get people's attention. It got the Roman governor Felix's attention (cf. Acts 24:25), but like Felix the amazing thing to me is that most unbelievers cope with the reality of judgment after death by putting it out of their minds entirely rather than by turning to God – the very thing they ought to do is the very thing they have chosen decidedly not to do.

As to the passage in Malachi, I don't even see a way on the face of it to make it say that unbelievers will not spend eternity in the lake of fire. But speaking of clear passages about eternal damnation, here is one that would seem to be irrefutable (and there are plenty of others: e.g., Is.64:24; Matt.25:41; Mk.9:48; Rev.19:20; 20:10; 20:15; 21:8; cf. Dan.7:9-11; cf. Rev.14:10-11):

I certainly have no wish to see unbelievers subjected to this. But much more importantly we know the Lord "is not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (2Pet.3:9; cf. Ezek.18:23; Matt.18:14; Jn.12:47; 1Tim.2:4; 2Tim.2:24-26). The problem is that human history is entirely about choice, our choice in response to God through Jesus Christ and first and foremost Jesus Christ who by His choice died that we might have that choice.

Life is serious business. If it were just and righteous just to brush our sins away regardless of whether or not we wish to honor the sacrifice of the One who died to make that possible, there would be no point in any of this going on. Indeed, God could have made us all incapable of sin and rebellion in the first place. But then we wouldn't be who and what we are; we wouldn't be us. God has so designed history that we are blessed to have the opportunity to be saved by responding to our Lord Jesus in faith, and Jesus died so that every human being might have that same opportunity. But the chance and the choice to be saved are also the chance and the choice to reject that gracious provision of God the Father in the gift of His Son, and without both sides of this equation, there would be no true choice at all.

In the Name of the One who died that we might come to Him in faith and have eternal life through His blood shed to wash away our sins, our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob L.

Ichthys Home