| No question
about it, the Bible clearly reveals that immortality is God’s
gracious gift to His saints. But if immortality is a gift that is
given only to the saints, why do millions believe that it is an
inherent quality of the human soul? What does the Bible say about
this subject?
There
is no single doctrine which commands such universal acceptance among
religious adherents over so vast a span of time. Indeed, this doctrine
has been almost synonymous with religion itself. Not one major religion
disputes it and every religious tradition affirms it in one form
or another.
In
the ancient Near East, it dominated religious thought. In African
and Asian tribal religions it is prominent and religions of all
civilizations have endorsed it. It is an important relic of Platonic
thought. In the world of professing Christianity, only a few sects
question it. Seventy-one percent of Americans believe it. It is
the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, the view that the human
soul has a conscious existence immediately after death.
Yet
the Bible, reputedly the authoritative document of the Christian
faith, nowhere teaches this doctrine. It is nothing less than astounding
that the Old Testament, a document of the ancient Near East, roundly
rejects the teaching that the soul consciously survives death when
that teaching was commonplace then, and that the New Testament equally
rejects this doctrine, believed by the vast majority in the first
century.
Amazingly,
the Bible as a religious document is almost unique in its utter
refutation of the view that the real person is the soul inside,
which goes into another world upon the death of the body. This is
no minor issue to be mistaken about. Granted there are some doctrines
which are inconsequential, and no church has all truth and no error.
We all know in part and prophesy (preach) in part. But the true
church, the church divinely commissioned to take the gospel to the
world, must know the fundamental doctrine of what man really is.
Could
God have started a church and continue to actively lead that church
when it does not even know what man is and what happens to him after
death? Is this a minor doctrine?
The
implications for any church which is wrong on this issue are profound.
Immortality of the soul defender John W. Cooper, in his book Body,
Soul and Life Everlasting, says that if the doctrine is not
true then “a doctrine affirmed by most of the church since
its beginning is false. A second consequence is more personal and
existential--what millions of Christians believe will happen when
they die is an illusion.” Would God have led so many believers
into error, or would He not rescue them from that error, if He were,
in fact, the Founder of those churches which believe in the immortality
of the soul?
We
need to dispassionately and without bias examine this critical subject.
One
respected theologian came to what was a startling conclusion for
him: that his church had misled him on this critical issue. Church
of Christ elder Edward Fudge explains in the book which he finally
wrote to show the results of his study, The Fire That Consumes:
The Biblical Case for Conditional Immortality: “I was
reared on traditionalist teaching. I accepted it because it was
said to rest on Scripture. Closer investigation has shown this claim
to be mistaken. Careful study has shown that both Old and New Testaments
teach instead a resurrection of the wicked for the purpose of divine
judgment... so my beliefs have changed--as a result of careful study.”
So
have the views of an even more well-known and renowned theologian
and evangelical apologist, Clark Pinnock. In his chapter on “The
Conditional View” in the well-researched book, Four Views
on Hell, Pinnock, after showing a number of scriptures disproving
the immortality of the soul, wonders aloud why so many churches
should have adopted what would appear an obviously unbiblical view.
An explanation for this, he offers, “exists in a Hellenistic
belief about human nature that has dominated Christian thinking
about eschatology from the beginning. There has been a virtual consensus
that the soul survives death because it is by nature an incorporeal
substance. This assumption goes back to Plato’s view of the
soul as metaphysically indestructible, a view shared by Augustine,
Aquinas, and Calvin. The Greek doctrine of the immortality of the
soul has affected theology unduly on this point—a good example
of the occasional Hellenization of Christian doctrine.”
It
is time we recapture and rescue Christianity from Hellenism!
It
is time we get back to the Bible, especially in light of the fact
that the Protestant Reformation was ostensibly based on sola Scriptura--Scripture
alone! If this claim is true, then why should non-biblical sources
be more influential than Scripture in the formation of Christian
doctrine? Yet defenders of the immortal soul doctrine will protest
that Scripture itself is clear that the soul is immortal. There
are some scriptures which do, indeed, seem to clearly teach an eternal
conscious existence in hell. We can’t ignore these scriptures,
if we accept all biblical texts as the Word of God--but we must
seek to understand them without reading foreign ideas into them.
Revelation
14:10 refers to people who “will be tormented with fire and
brimstone.” Verse 11 says that the “smoke of their torment
goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these
worshipers of the beast and its image.” Now if they don’t
have immortal souls, how will that be possible? Will God give them
immortal souls to facilitate their everlasting punishment? In any
event, those who believe in conditional immortality, like the Church
of God International, reject the notion of everlasting conscious
punishment. So what do we do with a text like Revelation 14:10,11,
which was not smuggled into the Scriptures by Plato?
These
verses seem devastating to our view.
In
Matthew 25:41, Jesus refers to those who will depart into “eternal
fire.” Verse 46 has been especially appealed to by defenders
of the immortal soul view. It says the wicked will go away into
“eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
If “eternal life” means unending life and conscious
existence, then why in the same passage doesn't “eternal punishment”
mean unending conscious existence as well?
Matthew
18:8 says that “it is better for you to enter maimed or lame
than...to be thrown into the eternal fire.” Why would the
fire be eternal if it has nothing to burn and if the wicked are
annihilated, as we teach?
We
need to answer all these texts.
Understanding Aionios,
or How Long Is ‘Everlasting’?
Surprising
as it might seem, “eternal” and “everlasting”
do not always mean never-ending, but can actually mean “age-lasting,”
that is, lasting for a limited period. It is important to bear in
mind that what we have are English translations of the Bible and
that the Scriptures were originally inspired in Hebrew, Greek, and
Aramaic. To study to show ourselves approved, we have to acquire
some rudimentary understanding of the biblical languages. If we
are going to pronounce authoritatively on certain complex doctrinal
matters, we must be equipped.
There
is an easy way to prove that aionios does not always mean
never-ending and that it can mean eternal in its results and consequences.
 |
In
Jude 1:7 we read that Sodom and Gomorrah suffered the “punishment
of eternal fire.” Yet no one believes that Sodom and
Gomorrah are burning now. The inhabitants suffered the punishment
of eternal fire in the sense that they were completely destroyed;
the fire was eternal in its results and effects; it left nothing
to be consumed.
There
can be no dispute about this for there are no cities named
Sodom and Gomorrah burning today! Scripture does not say they
suffered the punishment of Gehenna (hell) fire, so
one cannot reason that perhaps they are suffering (unknown
to us) in hell. They suffered the punishment of a literal
fire which swept through the area. (One scholar points out
that at least seventy times in the Bible the Greek word aionios
qualifies objects of a temporary and limited nature.)
|
The
Hebrew equivalent of aionios in the Old Testament is olam,
which can also mean eternal or everlasting, but is also used in
reference to a limited span of time. To prove decisively that “forever”
or “eternal” do not always mean never-ending, notice
the following passages in which olam obviously means age-lasting
or a limited time.
In
Exodus 12:24 we read that the sprinkling of the blood at the Passover
was to be “an ordinance for ever.” The Aaronic priesthood
was also said to have been a “perpetual statute” (Exodus
29:9; 40:15; Leviticus 3:17). Solomon’s temple was supposed
to have been everlasting (1 Kings 8:13). The ritual of tending to
the light in the tabernacle was to be “a statute for ever”
(Exodus 27:21). All the sacrifices and circumcision were said to
last “forever.” Now how many Christians, even among
law-keepers, are still practicing these rituals which the Bible
clearly says should be observed forever, as part of an “everlasting
covenant”? Clearly, the Hebrew word olam, the equivalent
of aionios in the passages quoted, means age-lasting, to
be in force for the life of the Old Covenant.
Romans
16:25 talks about the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret
“for long ages.” What the reader of the English translations
of the Bible would not know immediately is that the word translated
“long ages” is aionios-the same word translated
“forever” in the passages quoted about eternal fire
and everlasting punishment. It is indisputable, therefore, that
the word carries more than one meaning and cannot, under all circumstances,
be interpreted as eternal in the sense of never-ending.
But
then there is Matthew 3:12, pulled out by immortal soul advocates
to prove their point. It refers to the “unquenchable fire”
which will be unleashed on the lost.
Again,
just as in the case of the “eternal” fire which destroyed
Sodom and Gomorrah, the fire threatened by Jesus here is one which
will accomplish its purpose of utter destruction, one whose purpose
and mission cannot be thwarted by anyone or anything. This is the
sense of the phrase.
To
prove that this is not speculation, turn to Jeremiah 17:27 where
a similar threat was made to a rebellious Israel. Hear the words
of Yahweh: “But if you do not listen to me, to keep the sabbath
day holy...then I will kindle a fire in its [Jerusalem’s]
gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and shall not
be quenched.”
Yahweh
threatened an unquenchable fire that could not be put out by all
the firemen in the world. It would achieve its purpose: the utter
destruction of Jerusalem and its sinning inhabitants. The unquenchable
fire, like the eternal fire, refers to the results and consequences
of its action, not the duration of its time.
Isaiah
34:9,10 is a clincher. Notice the imagery of the punishment proposed
for Edom: “And the streams of Edom shall be turned into a
pitch, and her soil into brimstone; her land shall become burning
pitch. Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go
up for ever [notice this similarity with the Revelation texts quoted
earlier], from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none
shall pass through it for ever and ever.”
Yes,
there it is! The fire would completely destroy Edom; its smoke would
proverbially go up forever, “from generation to generation.”
The land would be desolate no more; it would be completely destroyed.
That the fire would be “eternal” and “unquenchable”
means a fire which no one would be able to quench until it achieved
its purpose. See also Isaiah 1:30,31: “For you shall be like
an oak whose leaf withers, and like a garden without water. And
the strong shall become tow, and his work a spark, and both of them
shall burn together, with none to quench them.”
There
it is—“none to quench them”—clearly meaning
both will burn until they become extinct, annihilated!
|
As
Clark Pinnock has suggested in his essay in the book Four
Views on Hell, “I believe that the real basis of
the traditional view of the nature of hell is not in the Bible’s
talk of the wicked perishing, but an unbiblical anthropology
that is read into the text. If a biblical reader approached
the text with the assumption that souls are immortal, would
they not be compelled to interpret texts that speak of the
wicked being destroyed to mean that they are tortured forever
since according to that supposition they cannot go out of
existence? ...[T]he belief in the immortality of the soul
will necessarily skew the exegesis.”
|
 |
This
is why we have dealt extensively with the discussion of hell, for
at the root of the traditional view of an ever-burning hell is the
false doctrine of the immortality of the human soul.
The
attempt to use Matthew 25:41,46 to prove this false doctrine fails
miserably. The fact is, both the righteous and the damned will have
their fates sealed eternally. The righteous will enjoy unending
life as a reward and the unrighteous will suffer everlasting punishment—their
punishment will be final, inexorable, irredeemable. The unrighteous
will suffer everlasting punishment, not everlasting punishing!
In
his book, Life and Immortality, Basil Atkinson notes that
“when the adjective aionios meaning ‘everlasting’
is used in Greek with nouns of action it has reference to the result
of the action, not the process.” “Thus, the phrase ‘everlasting
punishment’ is comparable to ‘everlasting redemption’
and ‘everlasting salvation,’ both scriptural phrases.
No one supposes that we are being redeemed or being saved forever.
“In
the same way the lost will not be passing through a process of punishment
for ever but will be punished once and for all, with eternal results.
On the other hand, the noun ‘life’ is not a noun of
action, but a noun expressing a state; that is, the life itself
is eternal.”
Finally,
Samuele Bacchiocchi in his insightful book Immortality or Resurrection?
says of aionios, translated “everlasting” or “forever”:
“Ancient Greek papyri contain numerous examples of Roman emperors
being described as aionios. What is meant is that they held their
office for life. Unfortunately, the English words ‘eternal’
or ‘everlasting’ do not accurately render the meaning
of aionios which literally means ‘age-lasting.’”
Explicit Texts on Destruction
While
some have tried to impose their own preconceived ideas on the biblical
texts, a clear reading of the texts which refer to the fate of the
wicked and the lost indicates that their end is destruction. Let's
look at some plain texts.
Malachi
4:1 says that on the Day of the Lord “all evildoers will be
stubble; the day that comes shall burn them up, says the Lord of
hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.”
That text speaks most forcefully of destruction, and utter annihilation.
How could we get any other concept from that text? When we are not
imposing preconceived ideas on the biblical text, it is obvious
that the fate of the unsaved is destruction.
Psalm
37:38 says that “transgressors shall be altogether destroyed;
the posterity of the wicked shall be cut off.”
In
Matthew 13:30, Jesus also uses the imagery of total destruction
to describe the fate of the wicked. The proverbial weeds are gathered
to be burned. The metaphor is of total destruction. In Psalm 37:2,
we read that the wicked will “fade like the grass”;
they “shall be cut off” and “will be no more”
(verses 9,10).
Hebrews
10:27 refers the “fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.”
Defenders of the immortal soul doctrine have often replied to the
avalanche of texts showing that the wicked will be destroyed by
saying that the word destruction is sometimes used to mean “put
out of action.” The example is used of Christ who, as it were,
destroyed Satan the devil through His action on the stake, yet the
devil continues to exist.
It
is amazing the ingenious attempts which are made to preserve a cherished,
inherited belief. While it is true that words do have several meanings,
it takes no linguist with a doctorate to see that the contexts of
words determine meaning. That destruction could possibly mean to
put out of action and that it does take that meaning in one or a
few texts does not mean that we should ignore the clear, ordinary
meaning of the word as it is used in the many other texts of Scripture.
It
is hard to ignore texts like Isaiah 1:28, which says that “rebels
and sinners shall be destroyed together, and those who forsake the
Lord shall be consumed.”
There
is one text that cannot rationally or exegetically be opened to
any other meaning than the one favored by those who deny ever-burning
hell and the immortality of the soul. This text is crystal clear
once one really focuses on it.
We
return to the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were destroyed by
eternal fire and are clearly not burning today. This fire was complete
in its work of utter destruction. Peter says that God turned “the
cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes” (2 Peter 2:6). We don’t
have to wonder whether Sodom and Gomorrah are burning today. Those
cities have been already turned to ashes as a result of the eternal
fire.
So,
clearly, their fire resulted in complete destruction in the ordinary
sense of the word. Let’s go on, for it gets more interesting.
What God did was condemn them to extinction—to annihilation!—not
an unending burning. But it gets even more interesting, and now
we’ll see why there can be no other explanation of this bombshell
of a text against the ever-burning hell and immortal soul concepts.
In the latter part of verse 6, we are told that God “condemned
them [Sodom and Gomorrah] to extinction and made them an example
of those who were to be ungodly,” meaning that the ungodly
will suffer the same fate. What fate? Utter extinction! They will
be turned to ashes (which is exactly what Malachi 4:1 says).
It
could not be clearer! What Sodom and Gomorrah suffered served as
an example of the kind of destruction that awaits the wicked at
the end.
(Other important texts applying the word destruction to the fate
of the wicked are Philippians 3:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:2,3; and 2
Thessalonians 1:9.)
To be continued next issue.
|