36 Comments

1. 

   Russell McCoy on May 20, 2009 at 9:44 am

   The phrase “spiritual death” is not found in the bible. It is a change from the true biblical teaching that you will in fact die (the second death) if you do not accept Christ.

   Read Curtis Dickinson’s 45 page book called “What the Bible Teaches about Immortality and Future Punishment”.

   The idea that all men’s “souls” are immortal is a corruption of true bible teaching introduced by church fathers who were influenced by the platonic philosophy.

2. 

   Grant on May 22, 2009 at 11:22 am

   Russell, I read your source and was unimpressed with his scholarship. You might take a look at this argument: Christian Apologetics Journal, Volume 1, No.1, Spring 1998. ¥ Copyright © 1998 by Southern Evangelical Seminary THE DESTRUCTION OF HELL: ANNIHILATIONISM EXAMINED By Jeff Spencer Answering the Linguistic Arguments As seen above, to the annihilationist, the words used to describe the fate of the unbeliever such as Ôdestroy,Õ Ôperish,Õ Ôconsume,Õ and Ôcut offÕ indicate a total annihilation of the unbeliever. This claim can be shown to be false. For example, Robert Morey, in his book Death and the Afterlife, answers the claims of the annihilationists by rightly pointing out that, [They] simply assert that these terms mean annihilation. Neither Froom nor those who follow him offer any lexicographical evidence or exegetical material. But starting from their unfounded assumption that these words mean annihilation . . . they always claim the authors were conditional immortalitists. They assume that any piece of literature which uses these words automatically teaches conditionalism.51 The problem with the annihilationists most basic linguistic assumption is that it is simply false. The words which are translated Ôdestroy,Õ Ôperish,Õ Ôconsume,Õ or Ôcut offÕ can mean a number of things, depending on the context, but never refer to the total annihilation of the soul. The only way that annihilation is found in any text is for the annihilationist to read his assumption into the text Ð that words such as ÔdestroyÕ or ÔperishÕ mean annihilation. Once this foundational assumption is overturned, their linguistic arguments are exposed for what they are Ð erroneous. For example, the various forms of the words ÔdestroyÕ or ÔdestructionÕ appear 512 times in the New King James Version. Morey states that Òthey represent 50 different Hebrew words and 12 different Greek words. None of them have the lexicographical meaning of ÔannihilationÕ or Ôto cause something to pass into nonexistenceÕÓ52 Rather, they have a wide range of meaning. The uses of these words in the Old Testament range from men being Òsold into slaveryÓ (Num. 21:29), to donkeys being ÒlostÓ (1 Sam. 9:3, 20), or even to denote a vessel which is ÒbrokenÓ (Ps. 31:12). In no case in the Old Testament are these words speaking of the soulÕs annihilation into nonexistence. Annihilationists refer to several Old Testament passages to affirm that abad refers to annihilation. Yet, a close look at the context of the specific passages shows that their claims are unfounded. For instance they point to Proverbs 11:10, which says, ÒWhen it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices, And when the wicked perish, there is glad shouting.Ó A plain reading reveals that the main idea found is that both the righteous and the wicked have an effect on public life. A city is blessed by the rule of godly men and overthrown by the rule of wicked men. Therefore, the population rejoices when the righteous rule with success, and the public rejoices when the wicked are taken out of ruling positions due, possibly, to physical death. Their influence, or possibly their very life on earth ends. Hence, this proverb has nothing whatsoever to do with the annihilation of the soul of the wicked. Also, annihilationists believe abad verifies their assertions in Psalm 143:12, which says, ÒAnd in Thy lovingkindness cut off my enemies, and destroy (abad) all those who afflict my soul; For I am Thy servant.Ó Again, as with all their linguistic arguments, the context proves their position to be false, and thus, unbelievable. In context, this psalm of imprecation is a plea for the all-powerful God to help the weak and helpless servant by doing away with all of his enemies and those who threaten him. This is not a reference to the annihilation of the soul in hell, but the physical death of the enemy, which according to the psalmist, is an act of GodÕs lovingkindness. The same is true for the New Testament uses of the various forms of the words translated ÒdestroyÓ or Òdestruction.Ó The 12 Greek words that annihilationists claim denote annihilation refer to anything from ÒruinedÓ wineskins (Matt. 9:17), to ÒlostÓ sheep (Matt. 15:24), to ÒspoiledÓ food (John 6:27). However, as we will see, the annihilation of the soul cannot be proved from any New Testament passage. The Greek word for destruction, apollumi, is believed by the annihilationists to refer to the total destruction of the soul in such passages as Matthew 10:28, which says, ÒÓAnd do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.Ó Again, an examination of the context proves that annihilation is not taught in this passage. This is a contrast between two types of fear: the fear of men and the fear of God. Men can destroy the body only, and therefore are not to be feared. However, God, in His omnipotence, has the ability to destroy the body and soul. Theologian John Broadus comments on the meaning of ÒdestroyÓ in this passage: ÒÔDestroyÕ need not mean annihilation, but only ruin, perdition, the destruction of all that makes existence desirable.Ó53 The use of the word destroy in this context can be illustrated in modern speech such as ÒThe Panthers destroyed the 49ers last Sunday!Ó It refers to the defeat and ruin of the 49ers, not the total annihilation of their existence. This passage is teaching that it is Òmuch more important that we avoid GodÕs displeasure, than that of our fellow man.Ó54 Concerning the contextual use of the New Testament words for Òdestroy,Ó Morey accurately concludes that Òan exegetical examination of the texts where these words are found reveals they cannot be arbitrarily defined as annihilationism.Ó55 Furthermore, the words translated into various forms of ÒperishÓ are found 146 times in the New King James Version. There are eleven Hebrew words and ten Greek words which are translated as Òperish.Ó56 The main word, abad, is the same word translated ÒdestroyÓ and, as we have seen above, it is erroneous to assume that it means annihilation. Other Old Testament words translated into a form of the word ÒperishÓ mean various things such as being ÒenslavedÓ (Jer. 48:42), girdles and vessels being ÒruinedÓ (Jer. 13:7, 18:4), the physical death of the wicked (Prov. 11:10), or ÒcuttingÓ a covenant or ÒcuttingÓ timber to build the temple (Gen. 15:18, 1 Kings 5:6). None teach annihilation of the soul. New Testament words translated into a form of the word ÒperishÓ mean anything from a grain of wheat which ÒdiesÓ (John 12:24), to things which are ÒcorruptedÓ by moth and rust (Matt. 6:19-20), to a ÒcorruptÓ mind (2 Tim. 3:8). In the New Testament as well as the Old Testament, like the words translated into a form of Òdestroy,Ó none of the words translated into a form of the word ÒperishÓ in context mean annihilation. The same is true for the words translated into a form of the word Òconsume.Ó These include twenty different Hebrew words and three different Greek words. None mean or refer to annihilation. For instance, in the Old Testament, the words can denote the flies ÒdevouringÓ the Egyptians (Ps. 78:45), skin that is Òmade oldÓ (Lam. 3:4), or walls being ÒconsumedÓ by hailstones (Ezek. 13:13). Again, in no case is annihilation the meaning of the word in the passage. Annihilation is nowhere to be found. The New Testament pattern for the words translated ÒconsumeÓ is exactly the same. The annihilationists claim that the unquenchable fire of hell Òconsumes,Ó or totally destroys, the wicked. This seems to be a reasonable point if you assume that ÒconsumeÓ means annihilation, but looking at the context of the unquenchable fire and the forever rising smoke in Revelation 14:11 exposes this reasoning as flawed. Revelation 14:9-11 states that, If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name. Annihilationists claim that the smoke ascending forever proves that the wicked were consumed by the fire, which naturally consumes that which is place into it. However, notice the very next phrase Ð Òand they have no rest day or night.Ó This is an indication that the torment is continual, ongoing, conscious torment. The wicked are not consumed or annihilated as Stott and company claim, for that would be a break or a ÒrestÓ from the torment of the fire! Furthermore, the torment is said to take place Òin the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.Ó To be annihilated into non-existence is to be taken out of the presence of everyone Ð the completely annihilated have no ÒpresenceÓ Ð therefore this torment cannot be referring to annihilation. If one wants to remain faithful to the Scripture which Òcannot be brokenÓ (John 10:35), one must concede that the torment spoken of in this passage is never-ending, conscious torment. It can be argued that the wicked, at that point, would certainly welcome annihilation. The conclusion is obvious. Once the basic linguistic assumption of the annihilationists (viz. that these key words mean annihilation) is annihilated their linguistic arguments are annihilated too. In no case in the Old or New Testaments do any of these words, in context, refer to the soul being annihilated, that is, going into nonexistence. Like the moral arguments, the linguistic arguments are simply not valid. Answering the Exegetical Arguments The linguistic presupposition of annihilationists also influences their exegesis of the passages which refer to hell. This leads them to the conclusion that unbelievers are annihilated and that the traditional doctrine of hell is immoral and unjust. However, as with their moral and linguistic assertions, the exegetical conclusions are also inaccurate. The following section is an examination of PinnockÕs arguments concerning passages in the Old Testament, sayings of Jesus, the writings of Paul and other New Testament writers. I will attempt to show the error of PinnockÕs conclusions, which are derived from textual eisegesis, or Òreading into the text what the reader wants to say.Ó57 Old Testament. PinnockÕs exegesis of Psalm 37 and Malachi 4:1-2 leads him to believe that the Old Testament teaches annihilation. However, his exegesis proves to be faulty. Psalm 37 is a psalm about dwelling in the Promised Land, trusting and obeying the Lord in the midst of the prospering wicked. It cannot be over-emphasized that the language in the Psalms is poetic, and therefore, often figurative. Psalm 37:2 states of the wicked, ÒFor they shall soon be cut down like the grass, And wither as the green herb.Ó This has nothing to do with the eternal destiny of the wicked, rather it is a statement that even though they now seem to prosper, God will soon extract them from the land which has been promised to Israel, whether by actively killing them (2a) or by their eventual physical death (2b). Even the annihilationists would agree that annihilation is not a slow, withering process as spoken of in 37:2b. Therefore, it is incorrect to believe that verse 2 speaks of annihilation. Pinnock then moves to Psalm 37:9-10 to make his point. The text states that ÒFor evildoers shall be cut off; But those who wait on the LORD, They shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more; Indeed, you will look carefully for his place, But it shall be no more.Ó Again, this is speaking, not of the eternal destiny of the wicked in hell, but their removal from the land. These verses contrast the wicked, who will be cut off from GodÕs blessing, and the righteous, who will inherit the earth and shall not see the wicked prosper any more. The wicked will disappear from the view of the righteous and the righteous will live undisturbed. This passage refers to the earthly destiny of the wicked, not once mentioning the eternal destiny of the wicked. Therefore, verses 9-10 cannot support annihilationism as Pinnock claims. Pinnock also claims Psalm 37:20 speaks of annihilation. However, look closely at the context (18-20): The LORD knows the days of the upright, And their inheritance shall be forever. They shall not be ashamed in the evil time, and in the days of famine they shall be satisfied. But the wicked shall perish; And the enemies of the LORD, like the splendor of the meadows, shall vanish. Into smoke they shall vanish away. This is clearly speaking of GodÕs preservation of the righteous in times of famine and His elimination of the wicked in the famine. Again, PinnockÕs exegesis is unsatisfactory. Malachi 4:1-2 is also cited by Pinnock as an annihilation passage. This passage also uses figurative language to refer to the wicked. It claims that because of divine punishment they will be left with Òneither root nor branch.Ó This means that none of the wicked will escape the judgment of God. Certainly, the wicked are not literal roots or branches, neither is their punishment a literal burning down to ÒstubbleÓ or nothingness. Furthermore, this passage is another comparison between the wicked and the righteous, showing that the same ÒSunÓ which punishes the wicked also makes the righteous glad. Again, Pinnock fails to consider the context and linguistic factors present, viz. figurative language. The Sayings of Jesus. We have already examined JesusÕ saying of Matthew 10:28 and concluded that it does not teach annihilation. Yet, Pinnock offers more evidence that should be dealt with on an exegetical level. He offers passages such as Matthew 13:30ff as proof that Jesus taught annihilation. As above, a balanced exegesis of these verses reveals that Jesus did not teach annihilation. First, Pinnock claims that Jesus, echoing the teaching of John the Baptist in Matt. 3:10-12, taught annihilation in Matt. 13:30 and 40-42, says of the tares (the wicked) that had grown among the wheat: First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn. . . . Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. First, it must be noted that this is a parable which employs much figurative language. The wicked are not literal weeds and they are not stored in a literal barn for literal burning into nothingness. However, the passage is very clear that they will be severely punished at the end of the age. Notice however, that in verse 41 and 42, Jesus ceases with the figurative language to describe the wicked and calls them what they are Ð not tares, but those who are offensive and lawless. He also very plainly states the end of both the wicked and the righteous. While we see the wicked cast into a Òfurnace of fireÓ where there will be Òwailing and gnashing of teeth,Ó we also see that the Òrighteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.Ó Broadus appropriately comments on the destiny of both: There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth departs from the image of consuming the tares, to introduce another thought of horror, and heighten the terrible picture. The use of various images for future punishment should prevent a crude literalism, and falls in with the important teaching that there will be degrees of punishment. But the images must be understood as representing something real. Reuss, with his rationalistic freedom, justly remarks that the furnace and the gnashing of teeth stand in the same position as the shining glory of the righteous Ð both must be accepted as facts, or else both alike referred to the mere popular beliefs of the time; one cannot accept the Bible descriptions of heaven as representing realities, and reject those of hell.58 Jesus was teaching of a literal, fiery, conscious torment in hell when He spoke in this passage. This is also true of all the other passages in which He spoke of hell. He never once affirmed that the unbeliever would be totally annihilated. Rather, he spoke of a hell being as eternal as heaven. In fact, in Matthew 25:46, commenting on the destiny of the sheep and goats, Jesus said, ÒAnd these (goats) will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous (sheep) into eternal life.Ó This passage clearly states that the punishment of hell is as eternal as the bliss of heaven. However, annihilationists claim that the effects of annihilation are eternal (i.e. the annihilated are gone forever), and that is what is meant by everlasting punishment. That is, the punishment, annihilation of the wicked manÕs soul, is eternal but the actual punishing is not. But this is not correct. First, punishment cannot, by definition, be anything but conscious punishment. A car, a book, or a computer cannot be tormented. By its very nature, punishment requires awareness. Gomes states: The mere fact that the wicked are said to experience punishment proves two inescapable facts by the nature of the case: the existence of the one punished, and the conscious experience of the punishment. If either of these two are lacking, then punishment is not occurring.59 Also, this passage says that this conscious punishment is eternal. Annihilationism or extinction of consciousness cannot be read into this passage because annihilation is a one time, instant event. In contrast, the Greek adjective ai?nion in this verse means Òeverlasting, without end.Ó60 This same adjective is used of eternal life (Matt. 25:46) and our eternal God (1 Tim. 1:7; Rom. 16:26; Heb. 9:14). This means that the punishment in hell is as eternal as the believers life in heaven and as eternal as our eternal God. The Writing of Paul and the other New Testament Writers. Pinnock cites several Pauline passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:17 and Philippians 1:28 as evidence of the annihilation, or Òdestruction,Ó of the soul. Pinnock is once again guilty of eisegesis Ð reading his view into these New Testament passages. 1 Corinthians 3:17 is a warning passage which states, ÒIf anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.Ó The temple, many commentators agree, is those who believe in Jesus Ð the Church. From other parts of the epistle, it appears that the false teachers among the Corinthian church taught unholy doctrines. Such teaching tended to defile, to contaminate, and destroy the church, which should be kept pure and holy for God. This passage is a warning that those who spread such false teaching and derision, which render the church of God unholy, bring destruction upon themselves. This destruction, I would argue, refers to the taking of the physical life of the false teacher. However, one lexicon lists this use of the word ÒdestructionÓ as to Òpunish with eternal destruction.Ó61 But whether this punishment refers to the taking of the physical life or to the eternal punishing in hell, it certainly does not refer to the individual being annihilated. The term Òsuggests ruination, or perhaps, desecration in the context, but certainly not the idea of annihilation.Ó62 One would have to bring the preconceived conclusion of annihilation to the text in order see it anywhere in this text. Furthermore, the punishment of those who ÒdestroyÓ the ÒtempleÓ is one that fits the crime Ð they are likewise Òdestroyed.Ó It must be noted that the Church will never be annihilated out of existence (Matt. 16:18), so it is reasonable to conclude that the destruction offered to the offender is not the annihilation of his soul, but strict, severe punishment. Philippians 1:28 is another text offered by Pinnock as proof of annihilationism. It states: Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ; so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; in no way alarmed by your opponents Ð which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God. The meaning of this passage is debated among evangelicals. Other, more plausible explanations have been exegeted from this passage by those who do not hold to annihilationism. The most likely meaning offered for this text is as follows: Because the Philippians were standing firm and not alarmed by their opponents, it could be interpreted as a sure sign that the opponents were likely to be defeated. The fearlessness of the church spoke to the hearts of the opposition, telling them that destruction and defeat were coming. The destruction of the enemies of the God is a common theme throughout Scripture. Paul speaks of their doom in a parallel passage, 1 Thessalonians 1:9, telling us that they Òshall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.Ó One author comments: ÒEverlasting annihilationÓ is an unlikely meaning for the words Òeverlasting destruction. . . Moreover, does it make sense for Paul to depict unbelieversÕ extinction as their being Òshut out of the presence of the LordÓ? DoesnÕt their being shut out from his presence imply their existence? Paul has in mind an irreversible verdict of eternal nonfellowship with God. A person exists but remains excluded from GodÕs good presence.63 In addition, the Greek word in this passage translated Òdestruction,Ó apoleia, is used 18 times in the New Testament. One commentator remarks on the use of the word: Most instances have the intransitive meaning Ôruin, destructionÕ, particularly in the sense of eternal perdition. In the Synoptics there is the way that leads to destruction (Mt. 7:13, apoleia; the opposite is zoe, ÔlifeÕ), while in Paul reference is made to the objects of GodÕs anger ready for destruction (Rom. 9:22). The end of the wicked is apoleia (Phil. 3:19), . . . the beast is said to go to destruction, an assertion that speaks not of a simple extinction of existence, but of an everlasting state of torment and death.64 Other New Testament passages are quoted by Pinnock as supporting annihilation. Yet, when the passages are viewed in their proper context, it becomes clear that Pinnock has read his view of annihilation into the text. For instance, he refers to Hebrews 10:39 and claims that it teaches annihilation. The text encourages the Hebrew Christians by saying, ÒBut we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.Ó The mere fact that this passage is exhorting believers is ample proof that it is not speaking of annihilation. The entire book of Hebrews makes it very clear that some believers were Òshrinking back,Ó moving away from Christ in order to escape persecution. The preceding verse states, Òbut my righteous one shall live by faith; and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in himÓ (10:38 NASB). The book of Hebrews has several strong passages warning the backsliding Hebrew Christians of the consequences of Òshrinking backÓ from Christ (6:1-8; 10:26-39). One consequence is Òdestruction.Ó However, this ÒdestructionÓ is not a reference to hell because salvation is an eternal gift that cannot be lost. The punishment of Òdestruction,Ó in context, is severe discipline from the Lord which can culminate in physical death for the disobedient Christian (10:27; 28; 6:8; cf. 1 Cor. 11:30; 1 John 5:16). Pinnock also refers to several passages in 2 Peter, which he claims teach annihilation. Again, we see Pinnock reading his view into the text. For instance, the Òdestruction of ungodly menÓ (3:7) and Òswift destructionÓ of false teachers (2:1, 3) are seen by Pinnock as teaching annihilation. But a closer examination proves this is not the case. In 2:1, we see Peter comparing the false prophets of his day to the false prophets of the Old Testament. He adds that for their incorrect teaching they will experience Òswift destruction.Ó A comparison of Old and New Testament false prophets is the key to the passage. We see that the standard of accuracy for the Old Testament prophet was 100% accuracy 100% of the time. Deuteronomy 18:20 tells us the fate of a false prophet, ÒÕBut the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall dieÓ (cf. 13:5; 18:22). With this in mind, Peter is setting the same standard for the New Testament false prophet Ð if he prophesies falsely, God shall bring upon him Òswift destruction,Ó which refers to the physical death of the false prophet.65 It does not, however, refer to annihilation. Furthermore, Pinnock points to 2 Peter 3:7 as a reference to annihilationism. This speaks of the day of judgment and destruction of the wicked. However, we have already seen above that the term ÒdestructionÓ need not mean annihilation in any context. This one is no different. The destruction of the wicked is to Òbe punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His powerÓ (2 Thess. 1:9). It is a banishment from the presence of the Lord for all eternity. PinnockÕs exegesis is full of problems, the greatest of which is that he is letting his theology dictate the meaning of the text instead of letting the meaning of the text dictate his theology. He fails to grasp the plain teachings on the subject of hell, which lead the Òfair personÓ to see that hell is a place of conscious, eternal torment away from the presence of God. CONCLUSION Pinnock and StottÕs attempt to disprove the doctrine of eternal, literal hell has not accomplished its goal. Their moral, linguistic, and exegetical arguments for the doctrine of annihilation all fall to the ground due to a lack of reason, lack of lexical evidence, and a lack of good, solid exegesis. In short, Pinnock and Stott have failed to establish annihilationism as true. Moreover, due to the grievous trends in modern theology, the defense of the traditional doctrine of hell must continually be presented. Keep in mind that it was Jesus Christ Himself, more than any other teacher, who taught the doctrine of everlasting, conscious torment for those who do not believe the gospel. And Jesus, being God Incarnate, was certainly in a position to know about the eternal, conscious torment that is awaiting all of those who reject the witness of God in creation, conscience, and Christ. However, one need not experience this eternal 65 The New Testament teaches that Christians can bring destruction upon themselves. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is writing to the church and telling them that because some of them had taken the LordÕs Supper in an unworthy manner, many of them had become weak, sick, or even died (11:30). Furthermore, the apostle John in his first epistle speaks of a sin unto death (1 John 5:16-17). Many expositors agree that this refers to a believer who lives a lifestyle of unrepentant sin which culminates with the premature death of the Christian. God simply punishes the unrepentant believer with the untimely termination of his physical life because of his sinful behavior, much like He did to the sinful Corinthians who sinfully took the LordÕs Supper. This is certainly a sober warning to those of us who belong to Christ. God punishes the sin of His children. He chastens those whom He loves (Heb. 12:6). And if ÒThe LORD will judge His peopleÓ (Heb. 10:30), we should all live a life of continual repentance and confession of sin. For, as the writer of the book of Hebrews point out to the Hebrew Christians who were tempted to fall back into their less persecuted Judaistic religion, ÒIt is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living GodÓ (Heb. 10:31). punishment at all. Though Jesus did clearly indicate the horrendous destiny of those who reject Him, He also offered eternal life and peace with God to those who trust in Him for salvation. Jesus said, ÒFor God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be savedÓ (John 3:16-17).

3. 

   G. Walker on September 29, 2009 at 4:54 pm

   We need to get away from the term 'annihiliate'. It causes endless arguments as to the root meaning of various greek words, and is perhaps not the appropriate one to use. When our physical body dies, is it annihilated? No, it decays and becomes dust. It still exists in some form, however no longer functions as a living body, it cannot be used to see, feel, hear etc. Likewise, we are taught that in the second death, God can destroy the soul. Leaving out the debate aroung the meaning of the word 'apollumi', Jesus is speaking to jews who clearly have a belief that after death their soul will go to sheol, from where God will rescue them. Jesus contrasts this first death with the second, where instead of the soul having another chance at an afterlife, it is eternally destroyed. As the body has undergone decay and is no longer what we call a body, so too the soul. Is this a horrific punishment for those who have perhaps spent time in Hades dreading what is to come, and for all those who face the wrath of God on the judgement day? Yes. To come face to face with the glory of immortal God, to understand He created us with the intentiom of eternal life, but instead to be on death row, to realise that unlike the first death, this is the eternal, unending destruction of their soul, from which their will never be an afterlife, will be truly agonising for those facing such a destiny. Does the bible teach 'annihilation'? It's not the right term. What it does teach is eternal punishment by death of both the body and the soul for those who do not believe.

4. 

   Grant on September 30, 2009 at 6:14 am

   Walker, thanks for your post. In your blog you state a conclusion but do not present evidence for your point. Would you mind stating the evidence here? Thanks

5. 

   wradulov on July 11, 2010 at 6:05 pm

   Dr. Richison:
   I want to thank you for your excellent website. I have used your notes and commentary over the past two weeks in my adult Sunday School class. I have found your analysis insightful and very helpful in explaining the true meaning of scripture.
   Thanks again and looking forward to using your materials in the future.

6. 

   Maya Albert on January 25, 2012 at 2:43 am

   Mathew chapter 10 verse 28, fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell, simply means: God is love,  and he has," faultless memory" and he will surely bring back those who are in the hell, means "sheol / hades" , with his power,   including those who have the hope of  eternal life, which he has put in the mind, "Ecclesiastes 3:11" , that no body can destroy.
    
    

7. 

   Grant on January 25, 2012 at 6:15 am

   Maya, "Everlasting" means everlasting, not some temporal purgatory or hell.

8. 

   william radulovich on June 20, 2013 at 3:25 pm

   Hello Dr. Grant: your argument for the case of eternal, everlasting punishment is very sobering but true.  As you say, annihilation would be the preferred method for the unsaved because then they would not have to be accountable for their sins. I believe this is what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe.  God is just and must be consistent, as you said.  Because He cannot lie, He means what He says and says what He means.  Many churches have strayed away from the doctrine of judgment because it makes people unneasy and uncomfortable. The realization that there is an eternal hell and everlasting judgment is the impetus which drives a person to accept Christ.  Again, thanks for your commentary. 

   Rudy Radulovich 

9. 

   Grant on June 21, 2013 at 7:14 am

   Rudy, the problem with evangelicals today is accommodation. They are so afraid of declaring God's truth unequivocally that they pull their punches when exposing what Scripture have to say. This is to put cultural deference above the Word of God.

10. 

    Rudy on June 21, 2013 at 8:18 am

    Grant: 

    Well said.  Thanks for your response. I think the issue is how does one communicate the truth unequivocally without appearing to be judgmental? I just finished reading Dr. Peter Ruckman's book "1 in 23,000,000" in which he truthfully states that the Bible is the only book in all of 23,000,000 books that has correctly predicted future events, but his tone is very harsh and nasty, condemning all those who don't believe in the KJV Bible and all knowledge gained by non-Christians.  I think one has to state the truth unequivocally but in tone and manner that is direct but not offensive.  I think it is an art.  You do a good job in communicating truth but respecting those who disagree with you. That is what attracted me to your website.  

11. 

    Grant on June 21, 2013 at 9:46 am

    Rudy, I agree. We need to distinguish between message and method. Writers of the Bible and even Jesus himself were judgmental about truth. However, when it comes to approach our speech needs to be seasoned with salt.

12. 

    James Smith on September 19, 2013 at 10:13 am

    I am still trying to figure this out. However, there is one thing you are forgetting — man is mortal. The Bible says this about 50 times. So how can man exist forever in hell — WHEN HE IS MORTAL?  I would like to see someone explain that. The BIble NEVER says that man has an immortal soul.

13. 

    Grant on September 19, 2013 at 10:24 am

    James, it is not correct to say the man is "mortal" forever. It is correct to say that he is finite. A finite person can have "everlasting life." See my studies in http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-corinthians/1-corinthians-1542-44/ and http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-corinthians/1-corinthians-1550-53/ 

14. 

    Grant on September 19, 2013 at 10:30 am

    James, also go to this study and continue through the studies until you finish verses 4 and 5 http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-peter/1-peter-14/ 

15. 

    Grant on September 19, 2013 at 11:05 am

    James, note this article: 

     

    Three important statements will serve to clarify this doctrine concerned with the future life. (1) Immortality is not endless existence or mere existence after death (for dying does not terminate human life). The unsaved go on living after death as do the saved, too. (2) Immortality likewise is not the same as the gift of eternal life, that which is bestowed on all who believe in Christ. (3) Immortality is something related to the material part of man rather than the immaterial. The commonly used phrase immortality of the soul is most unscriptural. The soul is never considered mortal by Scripture.
    Immortality and incorruption, however, are companion terms. As there are two ways of leaving earth for heaven—by death and resurrection or by translation directly from the living state, at the coming of Christ—so many will see corruption and through resurrection put on incorruption, while others because alive when Christ comes shall put on immortality. In the end both groups reach the same estate, that is, a “body like unto his glorious body” (Phil. 3:21).
    It remains to be declared that no believer has yet an immortal body. Only one such body actually exists and is in heaven. Christ it was who did not see corruption (Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:31). He therefore put on immortality over a mortal (dead) body. He is now the only one who has immortality, dwelling in the light (cf. 1 Tim. 6:16), “and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10).

    Chafer, L. S. (1993). In Systematic theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

16. 

    James Smith on September 19, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    I can't follow this explanation. Can you try and explain these sentences another way?  None of this makes any sense to me.

    ————————————————————————–

    Three important statements will serve to clarify this doctrine concerned with the future life.

     

    1) Immortality is not endless existence or mere existence after death (for dying does not terminate human life).

     

       The unsaved go on living after death as do the saved, too.

     

    2) Immortality likewise is not the same as the gift of eternal life, that which is bestowed on all who believe in Christ.

     

    3) Immortality is something related to the material part of man rather than the immaterial.

     

    The commonly used phrase immortality of the soul is most unscriptural. The soul is never considered mortal by Scripture.

17. 

    James Smith on September 19, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    P.S.  Like virtually everyone else in the world, here is how I would define mortal and immortal. >>>

     

    mor·tal 

    play_w2(“M0429700”) 

    1. Liable or subject to death, the opposite of immortality

     

     

    im·mor·tal

    play_w2(“I0050100”) 

    1. Not subject to death:

     

    2. The ability to live forever, or eternal life

18. 

    Grant on September 19, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    James, here is a brief answer to your questions:

    1) Immortality is not endless existence or mere existence after death (for dying does not terminate human life).

     

       The unsaved go on living after death as do the saved, too.

    The body dies but the soul and spirit live on. 

    2) Immortality likewise is not the same as the gift of eternal life, that which is bestowed on all who believe in Christ.

    Non-Chrsitians will live forever but the term "eternal life" is a reference to a by-product of God's life. We will live eternally in fellowship with Him. For example, John 3:16 is an example of Jesus' promise to those who believe in Jesus as their Savior. 

    3) Immortality is something related to the material part of man rather than the immaterial.

    The Bible uses "immortality" for the physical or material part of man and not the soul or spirit. 

    The commonly used phrase immortality of the soul is most unscriptural. The soul is never considered mortal by Scripture.

    As above, the Bible distinguishes between immortality in reference to the Bible and eternal life in reference to the soul and spirit. 

19. 

    James Smith on September 20, 2013 at 2:45 am

     The unsaved go on living after death as do the saved, too.

    The body dies but the soul and spirit live on. 

    WHAT ~!~!~!~?~?~?~!    NEVER, does the Bible say that man is inherently immortal. The Bible clearly states that man is mortal.  It says that about 50 times.

     

    On the contrary, it states that God alone has immortality — (1 Timothy 6:16 ). 

     

     

20. 

    Grant on September 20, 2013 at 8:40 am

    James, note this article by Jeffery Spencer in "Christian Apologetics Journal":

    The Case Against Annihilation

    The traditional doctrine of hell has been held by a preponderance of theologians throughout the nearly two-thousand year history of the Christian church. Hell proves that God is a God of love and that man has free will to accept or reject this love. In opposition to the annihilationist’s teaching of the eternal destiny of the unbeliever, the traditional doctrine states that hell is a place unbelievers will inhabit for all eternity, experiencing the awful consequences of rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, the Bible promises that Jesus will take "vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" (2 Thess. 1:8–9).

    Hell is assuredly not a place where the unbeliever is totally taken out of existence, as Pinnock and Stott would have us believe, but a place of eternal, conscious punishment for the unbeliever which is described in the Scripture as "unquenchable fire" (Matt. 3:12), "damnation" (Matt. 23:33), "furnace of fire" (Matt. 13:42, 50), "blackness and darkness" (Jude 13), a "lake which burneth with fire and brimstone" (Rev. 21:8), and a place "prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41).³⁹

    The remainder of this paper will seek to answer the moral, linguistic, and exegetical arguments forwarded by the annihilationism proponents in order to prove the view false, and thereby upholding the traditional doctrine of hell that is surely taught throughout the Bible.

    Answering The Moral Arguments

    To the annihilationist, the traditional doctrine of hell is "morally flawed" and makes God into an immoral, unjust, unloving God who is more nearly like Satan than God. This is simply not true. In fact, the love and justice of God demand that there is a literal, eternal hell for the

    CAJ 1:1 (Spring 1998) p. 9

    unbeliever.⁴⁰ Dr. Norman Geisler explains that even though unbelievers inhabit in a literal, fiery hell, God is still a God of infinite love. He says, "Absolute love, far from being incompatible with hell, actually demands its existence."⁴¹ God is not in the business of forcing His love on people against their will or forcing people to return His love against their will. That would make the people mere robots and God a type of "divine rapist." God loves man enough to endow him with a free will – the ability to embrace or reject Him. Geisler maintains that "those who do not wish to love God must be allowed not to love Him. Those who do not wish to be with Him must be allowed to be separated from Him. Hell is this eternal separation from God."⁴² To put it another way, hell is God’s loving gift to those who reject Him. To annihilate those who reject Him would be akin to killing a child because he does not obey. Therefore, annihilation is more unloving than allowing the unbeliever to live in hell forever.

    Moreover, the justice of God is not compromised in the traditional doctrine of hell as Pinnock and Stott would have us believe. Geisler states, "The existence of a place of punishment for the wicked after this life is necessary to maintain the justice of God."⁴³ In truth, it is clearly more unjust to "extinguish humans with an intrinsic value than to allow them to continue living in a state with a low quality of life."⁴⁴ In other words, annihilation is more immoral and unjust than the traditional view of hell because it is worse to destroy the life of a valuable creature created in the image of God than it is to allow him to go on living in hell forever, which is what he has chosen by the rejection of God.

    The eternal punishing of the unbeliever in hell also maintains the justice of God because, contrary to the opinion of Stott and Pinnock, it is the punishment that fits the crime. Even though the sin was committed in time, it warrants an eternal punishment because the sin was against an infinitely holy God. Systematic Theologian William G. T. Shedd aptly states:

    Endless punishment is rational, because sin is an infinite evil; infinite not because committed by an infinite being, but against one.. .. To torture a dumb beast is a crime; to torture a man is a greater crime. To steal from one’s own mother is more heinous than to steal from a fellow citizen. The person who transgresses is the same in each instance; but the different

    CAJ 1:1 (Spring 1998) p. 10

    worth and dignity of the objects upon whom his action terminates makes the difference in the gravity of the two offenses.⁴⁵

    Geisler concurs:

    Only eternal punishment will suffice for sins against the eternal God.. .. Furthermore, no sin can be tolerated as long as God exists, and He is eternal. Hence, the punishment for sin must also be eternal.⁴⁶

    Is, therefore, the doctrine of hell unloving and unjust? By no means! God, in accordance with His infinite love, has allowed man to choose his own destiny – heaven or hell. Those who enter hell go completely of their own accord. To put it another way, God does not send anyone to hell – it is the destiny of choice for those who go there. As C. S. Lewis put it:

    There are only two kinds of people in the end: Those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in hell choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.⁴⁷

    Furthermore, hell is a loving gift as a place of separation from God, His people, and the activities that occur in heaven. Geisler adds:

    If God allowed unbelievers to enter heaven, it would be worse than hell for them. How could people who detest prayer and praise to God stand to be sentenced to a place where this activity goes on forever?. .. How could a loving God force people to go there when they don’t want to worship Him but rather hate and ignore Him as they have in this life? It is more congruent with the nature of divine love not to compel people to love Him against their will. Therefore God is actually merciful to unbelievers to provide for them a place consistent with their rejection of Him.⁴⁸

    The annihilationists moral arguments against the traditional doctrine of hell fail completely. Rather than compromising the morality, love, and justice of God, the traditional view of hell proves that God is infinitely loving, moral, and just. Only a God of love could allow man to reject His love. And, as Geisler notes, "Wrath is the result of rejected love.. .. The only place in the universe where people will be free from the perturbations of love is hell. Hell is where love no longer works or woos."⁴⁹

    The God of love has displayed His love for all to see and embrace. However, there are still those who reject it. And God, because He refuses to violate the free will of man, lovingly allows

    CAJ 1:1 (Spring 1998) p. 11

    them to remain as they choose – unrepentant, unconverted, unforgiven. C. S. Lewis comments on the man who has rejected the wooing of God, "He has his wish – to live wholly in the self and to make the best of what he finds there. And what he finds there is Hell."⁵⁰ The existence of a literal, eternal hell truly proves that God is love and man is free.

    Answering The Linguistic Arguments

    As seen above, to the annihilationist, the words used to describe the fate of the unbeliever such as ‘destroy,’ ‘perish,’ ‘consume,’ and ‘cut off’ indicate a total annihilation of the unbeliever. This claim can be shown to be false. For example, Robert Morey, in his book Death and the Afterlife, answers the claims of the annihilationists by rightly pointing out that,

    [They] simply assert that these terms mean annihilation. Neither Froom nor those who follow him offer any lexicographical evidence or exegetical material. But starting from their unfounded assumption that these words mean annihilation. .. they always claim the authors were conditional immortalitists. They assume that any piece of literature which uses these words automatically teaches conditionalism.⁵¹

    The problem with the annihilationists most basic linguistic assumption is that it is simply false. The words which are translated ‘destroy,’ ‘perish,’ ‘consume,’ or ‘cut off’ can mean a number of things, depending on the context, but never refer to the total annihilation of the soul. The only way that annihilation is found in any text is for the annihilationist to read his assumption into the text – that words such as ‘destroy’ or ‘perish’ mean annihilation. Once this foundational assumption is overturned, their linguistic arguments are exposed for what they are – erroneous.

    For example, the various forms of the words ‘destroy’ or ‘destruction’ appear 512 times in the New King James Version. Morey states that "they represent 50 different Hebrew words and 12 different Greek words. None of them have the lexicographical meaning of ‘annihilation’ or ‘to cause something to pass into nonexistence’"⁵² Rather, they have a wide range of meaning. The uses of these words in the Old Testament range from men being "sold into slavery" (Num. 21:29), to donkeys being "lost" (1 Sam. 9:3, 20), or even to denote a vessel which is "broken" (Ps. 31:12). In no case in the Old Testament are these words speaking of the soul’s annihilation into nonexistence.

    Annihilationists refer to several Old Testament passages to affirm that abad refers to annihilation. Yet, a close look at the context of the specific passages shows that their claims are unfounded. For instance they point to Proverbs 11:10, which says, "When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices, And when the wicked perish, there is glad shouting." A plain reading reveals that the main idea found is that both the righteous and the wicked have an effect on public life. A city is blessed by the rule of godly men and overthrown by the rule of wicked men.

    CAJ 1:1 (Spring 1998) p. 12

    Therefore, the population rejoices when the righteous rule with success, and the public rejoices when the wicked are taken out of ruling positions due, possibly, to physical death. Their influence, or possibly their very life on earth ends. Hence, this proverb has nothing whatsoever to do with the annihilation of the soul of the wicked.

    Also, annihilationists believe abad verifies their assertions in Psalm 143:12, which says, "And in Thy lovingkindness cut off my enemies, and destroy (abad) all those who afflict my soul; For I am Thy servant." Again, as with all their linguistic arguments, the context proves their position to be false, and thus, unbelievable. In context, this psalm of imprecation is a plea for the all-powerful God to help the weak and helpless servant by doing away with all of his enemies and those who threaten him. This is not a reference to the annihilation of the soul in hell, but the physical death of the enemy, which according to the psalmist, is an act of God’s lovingkindness.

    The same is true for the New Testament uses of the various forms of the words translated "destroy" or "destruction." The 12 Greek words that annihilationists claim denote annihilation refer to anything from "ruined" wineskins (Matt. 9:17), to "lost" sheep (Matt. 15:24), to "spoiled" food (John 6:27). However, as we will see, the annihilation of the soul cannot be proved from any New Testament passage.

    The Greek word for destruction, apollumi, is believed by the annihilationists to refer to the total destruction of the soul in such passages as Matthew 10:28, which says, ""And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Again, an examination of the context proves that annihilation is not taught in this passage. This is a contrast between two types of fear: the fear of men and the fear of God. Men can destroy the body only, and therefore are not to be feared. However, God, in His omnipotence, has the ability to destroy the body and soul. Theologian John Broadus comments on the meaning of "destroy" in this passage: "‘Destroy’ need not mean annihilation, but only ruin, perdition, the destruction of all that makes existence desirable."⁵³

    The use of the word destroy in this context can be illustrated in modern speech such as "The Panthers destroyed the 49ers last Sunday!" It refers to the defeat and ruin of the 49ers, not the total annihilation of their existence. This passage is teaching that it is "much more important that we avoid God’s displeasure, than that of our fellow man."⁵⁴ Concerning the contextual use of the New Testament words for "destroy," Morey accurately concludes that "an exegetical examination of the texts where these words are found reveals they cannot be arbitrarily defined as annihilationism."⁵⁵

    Furthermore, the words translated into various forms of "perish" are found 146 times in the New King James Version. There are eleven Hebrew words and ten Greek words which are translated as "perish."⁵⁶ The main word, abad, is the same word translated "destroy" and, as we

    CAJ 1:1 (Spring 1998) p. 13

    have seen above, it is erroneous to assume that it means annihilation. Other Old Testament words translated into a form of the word "perish" mean various things such as being "enslaved" (Jer. 48:42), girdles and vessels being "ruined" (Jer. 13:7, 18:4), the physical death of the wicked (Prov. 11:10), or "cutting" a covenant or "cutting" timber to build the temple (Gen. 15:18, 1 Kings 5:6). None teach annihilation of the soul.

    New Testament words translated into a form of the word "perish" mean anything from a grain of wheat which "dies" (John 12:24), to things which are "corrupted" by moth and rust (Matt. 6:19–20), to a "corrupt" mind (2 Tim. 3:8). In the New Testament as well as the Old Testament, like the words translated into a form of "destroy," none of the words translated into a form of the word "perish" in context mean annihilation.

    The same is true for the words translated into a form of the word "consume." These include twenty different Hebrew words and three different Greek words. None mean or refer to annihilation. For instance, in the Old Testament, the words can denote the flies "devouring" the Egyptians (Ps. 78:45), skin that is "made old" (Lam. 3:4), or walls being "consumed" by hailstones (Ezek. 13:13). Again, in no case is annihilation the meaning of the word in the passage. Annihilation is nowhere to be found.

    The New Testament pattern for the words translated "consume" is exactly the same. The annihilationists claim that the unquenchable fire of hell "consumes," or totally destroys, the wicked. This seems to be a reasonable point if you assume that "consume" means annihilation, but looking at the context of the unquenchable fire and the forever rising smoke in Revelation 14:11 exposes this reasoning as flawed. Revelation 14:9–11 states that,

    If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.

    Annihilationists claim that the smoke ascending forever proves that the wicked were consumed by the fire, which naturally consumes that which is place into it. However, notice the very next phrase – "and they have no rest day or night." This is an indication that the torment is continual, ongoing, conscious torment. The wicked are not consumed or annihilated as Stott and company claim, for that would be a break or a "rest" from the torment of the fire! Furthermore, the torment is said to take place "in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." To be annihilated into non-existence is to be taken out of the presence of everyone – the completely annihilated have no "presence" – therefore this torment cannot be referring to annihilation. If one wants to remain faithful to the Scripture which "cannot be broken" (John 10:35), one must concede that the torment spoken of in this passage is never-ending, conscious torment. It can be argued that the wicked, at that point, would certainly welcome annihilation.

    The conclusion is obvious. Once the basic linguistic assumption of the annihilationists (viz. that these key words mean annihilation) is annihilated their linguistic arguments are annihilated

    CAJ 1:1 (Spring 1998) p. 14

    too. In no case in the Old or New Testaments do any of these words, in context, refer to the soul being annihilated, that is, going into nonexistence. Like the moral arguments, the linguistic arguments are simply not valid.

    Answering The Exegetical Arguments

    The linguistic presupposition of annihilationists also influences their exegesis of the passages which refer to hell. This leads them to the conclusion that unbelievers are annihilated and that the traditional doctrine of hell is immoral and unjust. However, as with their moral and linguistic assertions, the exegetical conclusions are also inaccurate. The following section is an examination of Pinnock’s arguments concerning passages in the Old Testament, sayings of Jesus, the writings of Paul and other New Testament writers. I will attempt to show the error of Pinnock’s conclusions, which are derived from textual eisegesis, or "reading into the text what the reader wants to say."⁵⁷

    Old Testament. Pinnock’s exegesis of Psalm 37 and Malachi 4:1–2 leads him to believe that the Old Testament teaches annihilation. However, his exegesis proves to be faulty. Psalm 37 is a psalm about dwelling in the Promised Land, trusting and obeying the Lord in the midst of the prospering wicked. It cannot be over-emphasized that the language in the Psalms is poetic, and therefore, often figurative. Psalm 37:2 states of the wicked, "For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, And wither as the green herb." This has nothing to do with the eternal destiny of the wicked, rather it is a statement that even though they now seem to prosper, God will soon extract them from the land which has been promised to Israel, whether by actively killing them (2a) or by their eventual physical death (2b). Even the annihilationists would agree that annihilation is not a slow, withering process as spoken of in 37:2b. Therefore, it is incorrect to believe that verse 2 speaks of annihilation.

    Pinnock then moves to Psalm 37:9–10 to make his point. The text states that "For evildoers shall be cut off; But those who wait on the LORD, They shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more; Indeed, you will look carefully for his place, But it shall be no more." Again, this is speaking, not of the eternal destiny of the wicked in hell, but their removal from the land. These verses contrast the wicked, who will be cut off from God’s blessing, and the righteous, who will inherit the earth and shall not see the wicked prosper any more. The wicked will disappear from the view of the righteous and the righteous will live undisturbed. This passage refers to the earthly destiny of the wicked, not once mentioning the eternal destiny of the wicked. Therefore, verses 9–10 cannot support annihilationism as Pinnock claims.

    Pinnock also claims Psalm 37:20 speaks of annihilation. However, look closely at the context (18–20):

    The LORD knows the days of the upright, And their inheritance shall be forever. They shall not be ashamed in the evil time, and in the days of famine they shall be satisfied. But the

    CAJ 1:1 (Spring 1998) p. 15

    wicked shall perish; And the enemies of the LORD, like the splendor of the meadows, shall vanish. Into smoke they shall vanish away.

    This is clearly speaking of God’s preservation of the righteous in times of famine and His elimination of the wicked in the famine. Again, Pinnock’s exegesis is unsatisfactory.

    Malachi 4:1–2 is also cited by Pinnock as an annihilation passage. This passage also uses figurative language to refer to the wicked. It claims that because of divine punishment they will be left with "neither root nor branch." This means that none of the wicked will escape the judgment of God. Certainly, the wicked are not literal roots or branches, neither is their punishment a literal burning down to "stubble" or nothingness. Furthermore, this passage is another comparison between the wicked and the righteous, showing that the same "Sun" which punishes the wicked also makes the righteous glad. Again, Pinnock fails to consider the context and linguistic factors present, viz. figurative language.

    The Sayings of Jesus. We have already examined Jesus’ saying of Matthew 10:28 and concluded that it does not teach annihilation. Yet, Pinnock offers more evidence that should be dealt with on an exegetical level. He offers passages such as Matthew 13:30ff as proof that Jesus taught annihilation. As above, a balanced exegesis of these verses reveals that Jesus did not teach annihilation.

    First, Pinnock claims that Jesus, echoing the teaching of John the Baptist in Matt. 3:10–12, taught annihilation in Matt. 13:30 and 40–42, says of the tares (the wicked) that had grown among the wheat:

    First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.. .. Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    First, it must be noted that this is a parable which employs much figurative language. The wicked are not literal weeds and they are not stored in a literal barn for literal burning into nothingness. However, the passage is very clear that they will be severely punished at the end of the age. Notice however, that in verse 41 and 42, Jesus ceases with the figurative language to describe the wicked and calls them what they are – not tares, but those who are offensive and lawless. He also very plainly states the end of both the wicked and the righteous. While we see the wicked cast into a "furnace of fire" where there will be "wailing and gnashing of teeth," we also see that the "righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." Broadus appropriately comments on the destiny of both:

    There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth departs from the image of consuming the tares, to introduce another thought of horror, and heighten the terrible picture. The use of various images for future punishment should prevent a crude literalism, and falls in with the important teaching that there will be degrees of punishment. But the images must be understood as representing something real. Reuss, with his rationalistic freedom, justly

    CAJ 1:1 (Spring 1998) p. 16

    remarks that the furnace and the gnashing of teeth stand in the same position as the shining glory of the righteous – both must be accepted as facts, or else both alike referred to the mere popular beliefs of the time; one cannot accept the Bible descriptions of heaven as representing realities, and reject those of hell.⁵⁸

    Jesus was teaching of a literal, fiery, conscious torment in hell when He spoke in this passage. This is also true of all the other passages in which He spoke of hell. He never once affirmed that the unbeliever would be totally annihilated. Rather, he spoke of a hell being as eternal as heaven. In fact, in Matthew 25:46, commenting on the destiny of the sheep and goats, Jesus said, "And these (goats) will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous (sheep) into eternal life." This passage clearly states that the punishment of hell is as eternal as the bliss of heaven. However, annihilationists claim that the effects of annihilation are eternal (i.e. the annihilated are gone forever), and that is what is meant by everlasting punishment. That is, the punishment, annihilation of the wicked man’s soul, is eternal but the actual punishing is not. But this is not correct.

    First, punishment cannot, by definition, be anything but conscious punishment. A car, a book, or a computer cannot be tormented. By its very nature, punishment requires awareness. Gomes states:

    The mere fact that the wicked are said to experience punishment proves two inescapable facts by the nature of the case: the existence of the one punished, and the conscious experience of the punishment. If either of these two are lacking, then punishment is not occurring.⁵⁹

    Also, this passage says that this conscious punishment is eternal. Annihilationism or extinction of consciousness cannot be read into this passage because annihilation is a one time, instant event. In contrast, the Greek adjective ai.nion in this verse means "everlasting, without end."⁶⁰ This same adjective is used of eternal life (Matt. 25:46) and our eternal God (1 Tim. 1:7; Rom. 16:26; Heb. 9:14). This means that the punishment in hell is as eternal as the believers life in heaven and as eternal as our eternal God.

    The Writing of Paul and the other New Testament Writers. Pinnock cites several Pauline passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:17 and Philippians 1:28 as evidence of the annihilation, or "destruction," of the soul. Pinnock is once again guilty of eisegesis – reading his view into these New Testament passages.

    1 Corinthians 3:17 is a warning passage which states, "If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are." The temple, many commentators agree, is those who believe in Jesus – the Church. From other parts of the epistle,

    CAJ 1:1 (Spring 1998) p. 17

    it appears that the false teachers among the Corinthian church taught unholy doctrines. Such teaching tended to defile, to contaminate, and destroy the church, which should be kept pure and holy for God. This passage is a warning that those who spread such false teaching and derision, which render the church of God unholy, bring destruction upon themselves. This destruction, I would argue, refers to the taking of the physical life of the false teacher. However, one lexicon lists this use of the word "destruction" as to "punish with eternal destruction."⁶¹ But whether this punishment refers to the taking of the physical life or to the eternal punishing in hell, it certainly does not refer to the individual being annihilated. The term "suggests ruination, or perhaps, desecration in the context, but certainly not the idea of annihilation."⁶² One would have to bring the preconceived conclusion of annihilation to the text in order see it anywhere in this text.

    Furthermore, the punishment of those who "destroy" the "temple" is one that fits the crime – they are likewise "destroyed." It must be noted that the Church will never be annihilated out of existence (Matt. 16:18), so it is reasonable to conclude that the destruction offered to the offender is not the annihilation of his soul, but strict, severe punishment.

    Philippians 1:28 is another text offered by Pinnock as proof of annihilationism. It states:

    Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ; so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; in no way alarmed by your opponents – which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God.

    The meaning of this passage is debated among evangelicals. Other, more plausible explanations have been exegeted from this passage by those who do not hold to annihilationism. The most likely meaning offered for this text is as follows: Because the Philippians were standing firm and not alarmed by their opponents, it could be interpreted as a sure sign that the opponents were likely to be defeated. The fearlessness of the church spoke to the hearts of the opposition, telling them that destruction and defeat were coming.

    The destruction of the enemies of the God is a common theme throughout Scripture. Paul speaks of their doom in a parallel passage, 1 Thessalonians 1:9, telling us that they "shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power." One author comments:

    CAJ 1:1 (Spring 1998) p. 18

    "Everlasting annihilation" is an unlikely meaning for the words "everlasting destruction.. . Moreover, does it make sense for Paul to depict unbelievers’ extinction as their being "shut out of the presence of the Lord"? Doesn’t their being shut out from his presence imply their existence? Paul has in mind an irreversible verdict of eternal nonfellowship with God. A person exists but remains excluded from God’s good presence.⁶³

    In addition, the Greek word in this passage translated "destruction," apoleia, is used 18 times in the New Testament. One commentator remarks on the use of the word:

    Most instances have the intransitive meaning ‘ruin, destruction’, particularly in the sense of eternal perdition. In the Synoptics there is the way that leads to destruction (Mt. 7:13, apoleia; the opposite is zoe, ‘life’), while in Paul reference is made to the objects of God’s anger ready for destruction (Rom. 9:22). The end of the wicked is apoleia (Phil. 3:19),. .. the beast is said to go to destruction, an assertion that speaks not of a simple extinction of existence, but of an everlasting state of torment and death.⁶⁴

    Other New Testament passages are quoted by Pinnock as supporting annihilation. Yet, when the passages are viewed in their proper context, it becomes clear that Pinnock has read his view of annihilation into the text.

    For instance, he refers to Hebrews 10:39 and claims that it teaches annihilation. The text encourages the Hebrew Christians by saying, "But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul." The mere fact that this passage is exhorting believers is ample proof that it is not speaking of annihilation. The entire book of Hebrews makes it very clear that some believers were "shrinking back," moving away from Christ in order to escape persecution. The preceding verse states, "but my righteous one shall live by faith; and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him" (10:38 NASB). The book of Hebrews has several strong passages warning the backsliding Hebrew Christians of the consequences of "shrinking back" from Christ (6:1–8; 10:26–39). One consequence is "destruction." However, this "destruction" is not a reference to hell because salvation is an eternal gift that cannot be lost. The punishment of "destruction," in context, is severe discipline from the Lord which can culminate in physical death for the disobedient Christian (10:27; 28; 6:8; cf. 1 Cor. 11:30; 1 John 5:16).

    Pinnock also refers to several passages in 2 Peter, which he claims teach annihilation. Again, we see Pinnock reading his view into the text. For instance, the "destruction of ungodly men" (3:7) and "swift destruction" of false teachers (2:1, 3) are seen by Pinnock as teaching annihilation. But a closer examination proves this is not the case. In 2:1, we see Peter comparing the false prophets of his day to the false prophets of the Old Testament. He adds that for their incorrect teaching they will experience "swift destruction." A comparison of Old and New

    CAJ 1:1 (Spring 1998) p. 19

    Testament false prophets is the key to the passage. We see that the standard of accuracy for the Old Testament prophet was 100% accuracy 100% of the time. Deuteronomy 18:20 tells us the fate of a false prophet, "‘But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die" (cf. 13:5; 18:22). With this in mind, Peter is setting the same standard for the New Testament false prophet – if he prophesies falsely, God shall bring upon him "swift destruction," which refers to the physical death of the false prophet.⁶⁵ It does not, however, refer to annihilation.

    Furthermore, Pinnock points to 2 Peter 3:7 as a reference to annihilationism. This speaks of the day of judgment and destruction of the wicked. However, we have already seen above that the term "destruction" need not mean annihilation in any context. This one is no different. The destruction of the wicked is to "be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" (2 Thess. 1:9). It is a banishment from the presence of the Lord for all eternity.

    Pinnock’s exegesis is full of problems, the greatest of which is that he is letting his theology dictate the meaning of the text instead of letting the meaning of the text dictate his theology. He fails to grasp the plain teachings on the subject of hell, which lead the "fair person" to see that hell is a place of conscious, eternal torment away from the presence of God.

    Conclusion

    Pinnock and Stott’s attempt to disprove the doctrine of eternal, literal hell has not accomplished its goal. Their moral, linguistic, and exegetical arguments for the doctrine of annihilation all fall to the ground due to a lack of reason, lack of lexical evidence, and a lack of good, solid exegesis. In short, Pinnock and Stott have failed to establish annihilationism as true.

    Moreover, due to the grievous trends in modern theology, the defense of the traditional doctrine of hell must continually be presented. Keep in mind that it was Jesus Christ Himself, more than any other teacher, who taught the doctrine of everlasting, conscious torment for those who do not believe the gospel. And Jesus, being God Incarnate, was certainly in a position to know about the eternal, conscious torment that is awaiting all of those who reject the witness of God in creation, conscience, and Christ. However, one need not experience this eternal

    CAJ 1:1 (Spring 1998) p. 20

    punishment at all. Though Jesus did clearly indicate the horrendous destiny of those who reject Him, He also offered eternal life and peace with God to those who trust in Him for salvation. Jesus said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved" (John 3:16–17).

21. 

    Grant on September 20, 2013 at 9:09 am

    James,

    Note further this article about the resurrection of unbelievers from Geisler's Systematic Theology:

    The Resurrection of Unbelievers

    Death will be reversed for all human beings. Everyone, saved and unsaved, will be restored in their pre-resurrection body and made undying (immortal).

    The above references make it evident that the second resurrection is of unbelievers. Again, this is called variously (among other things) the resurrection "to shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan. 12:2); the resurrection of "those who have done evil" and will "rise to be condemned" (John 5:29); and the resurrection of "the rest of the dead" (Rev. 20:5). Whatever the name, it is clearly (1) a second resurrection, (2) after the resurrection of believers, and (3) the resurrection of those who are lost forever.⁷⁷ Of this, John wrote, "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:14–15).

    The Timing of the Unbeliever’s Resurrection

    As already established, the second resurrection is separated from the first resurrection by a thousand years, during which believers will reign with Christ (vv. 4–6). An intervening time period between the two resurrections is both allowed and implied in other texts.⁷⁸

    First, the resurrection of believers is out from "among the dead" (Col. 1:18), implying that other dead bodies are left in the graves when it occurs.

    Second, John speaks of the period of both resurrections as an "hour" (i.e., a long period of time), yet the first resurrection takes only "the twinkling of an eye" (1 Cor. 15:52). Thus, the remainder of the "hour" must transpire before the second resurrection.

    Third, John states emphatically (six times) that there will be a thousand years between the "first resurrection" and the second one when "the rest of the dead" are raised (cf. Rev. 20:3–6).

    The Nature of the Unbeliever’s Resurrection Body

    Although the word immortal is not used of the unbeliever’s resurrection body—since immortal contains connotations of a positive quality of eternal life reserved for only the saved⁷⁹—nevertheless, there are many reasons to believe that the unsaved also will possess physical bodies that will live on forever.

    First, the second resurrection is listed several times in connection with the first resurrection, which is indubitably a resurrection into a never-dying physical body. Since those on both sides of this issue agree that the second resurrection is physical, it follows that it too is into a never-dying body.

    Second, in Revelation 20:5 the lost are designated as "the rest of the dead" who will "come to life,"⁸⁰ the same term used of those in the first resurrection (cf. vv. 4–5), believers, who physically will come out from among the dead.

    Third, Jesus said that both soul and body of unbelievers would be punished in hell (Matt. 10:28). Since the same word⁸¹ is used of both soul and body in regard to hell, since hell is "forever" (Matt. 25:41; cf. 2 Thess. 1:7–9), and since we know that the soul will not be annihilated,⁸² the unbeliever’s body will live eternally as well.

    Fourth, and finally, since the body is part of God’s image (Gen. 1:27), even in unbelievers (Gen. 9:6; James 3:9), were God not to resurrect it forever, He would in effect be conceding victory over it to the devil. However, His Word declares that Christ will reign until He has defeated death (1 Cor. 15:26), and unless physical death is reversed for all people, death will not be completely defeated. Accordingly, marred and lost as God’s image may be in unbelievers,⁸³ even their bodies will be restored to life so that they can remain in their chosen destiny.⁸⁴

    THE THEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR THE RESURRECTION OF THE HUMAN BODY

    As with our conscious survival after death,⁸⁵ the resurrection of all human beings is rooted in both God’s nature and ours. This includes God’s omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omnisapience, and our being created in His image.

    God’s Omnipotence As the Basis for Bodily Resurrection

    Once again, resurrection is rooted in God’s power. If God can do anything that is possible,⁸⁶ then He can raise the dead. If He can create life—and He did⁸⁷—then He can restore it. God’s omnipotence is a necessary condition for our physical resurrection.

    God’s Omnibenevolence As the Basis for Bodily Resurrection

    Another cornerstone for the doctrine of the final resurrection is God’s omnibenevolence.⁸⁸ That God has the power to resurrect the dead does not assure that it will happen; unless God is also all-good, we have no real basis for believing there is hope for a decayed corpse. What is it in God’s nature that prompts Him to want to restore His wayward creatures? Were it not for His mercy, His justice would allow the punishment of death to go unreversed.⁸⁹ Thanks be to God’s omnibenevolence, for on its foundation He is moved to redeem us in both soul and body.

    The Omnisapience of God As the Basis for Bodily Resurrection

    God’s wisdom⁹⁰ is manifest in Christ’s resurrection, for while sin brought death (Rom. 5:12), His sacrificial death reverses the curse to bring us life.⁹¹ Jesus overcame the devil’s victory (of inflicting death on all humankind—Heb. 2:14) by His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:55); as we have seen, in the Cross, Satan struck at the bait of Christ’s humanity and was caught on the hook of His deity.⁹² Without a physical resurrection, the devil would be the winner and God the loser, for he would have brought physical death, and God would not have reversed it by bringing physical life. Anything short of a material reconstruction of the body would spell failure for God’s creative purpose, as correctly noted by Robert Gundry (b. 1935): "Anything less … undercuts Paul’s ultimate intention that redeemed man possess a physical means of concrete activity for eternal service and worship of God in a restored creation" (SBT, 182). Thus, as Paul affirmed, "None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (2:8). But they did crucify Him, and God, in His infinite wisdom, allowed it in order to defeat sin and restore His creation (Rev. 21–22).⁹³

    Our Creation in God’s Image As the Basis for Bodily Resurrection

    The doctrine of humans created in God’s image is also at the basis of the final resurrection. As was shown earlier, that image included the body;⁹⁴ hence, unless physical resurrection occurs, there is no full restoration in the image of God. Since His purpose in creation included humans made in His image, we reasonably conclude that He will work to restore it. To do less would be for God to forsake the completion of His own image, for Him not to be concerned about what is His. Because this is contrary to God—because perfection is rooted in His very nature⁹⁵—the creation of humans in God’s image (including their physical dimension) is a basic biblical truth in which the final resurrection is based.

    ANSWERING OBJECTIONS TO PHYSICAL RESURRECTION

    Many objections have been leveled at the historical orthodox belief that all human beings will be resurrected in the same physical body in which they died. We will examine the basic arguments to sharpen our focus on this doctrine.

    Objection One: Based on Paul’s Calling It a Spiritual Body

    One passage often cited is 1 Corinthians 15:44, where Paul refers to the resurrection body as a "spiritual body" in contrast to the pre-resurrection body, which is a "natural body."

    Response to Objection One

    A "spiritual" body is one dominated by the spirit, not one devoid of matter; the Greek word pneumatikos (spiritual) means a body directed by the Spirit, as opposed to one under the dominion of the flesh. Spiritual here does not mean "immaterial" but "immortal, imperishable":⁹⁶ "That which belongs to the supernatural order of being is described as pneumatikos: accordingly, the resurrection body is a soma pneumatikos [supernatural body]."⁹⁷

    Paul used the same word earlier to refer to the "spiritual rock" that followed Israel in the wilderness from which they received "spiritual drink" (10:4); the Old Testament (cf. Ex. 17; Num. 20) reveals that it was a physical rock from which they got literal water. Further, when Paul spoke about "the spiritual man" (1 Cor. 2:15), he obviously did not mean an invisible, immaterial person with no corporeal body.

    Objection Two: Based on Christ’s Ability to Make Himself Appear

    It is also argued that Christ’s resurrection body was essentially immaterial and invisible and, therefore, not an object observable in our history. The New Testament repeatedly stresses that it could appear,⁹⁸ which implies that it was invisible before it appeared;⁹⁹ each time the text says "he appeared" or "he let himself be seen." Grammatically, the action rests on He who appears, not on the one who sees Him appear. This, supposedly, suggests that Jesus was essentially invisible and, hence, could be seen¹⁰⁰ only when He chose to be (during His resurrection appearances).

    Response to Objection Two

    This argument fails for several reasons.

    First of all, the phrase "he let himself be seen" (ophthé)¹⁰¹ simply means that Jesus took the initiative to show Himself to the disciples, not that He was essentially immaterial. The same form ("He [they] appeared") is used in the Greek Old Testament (2 Chron. 25:21), in the Apocrypha (1 Macc. 4:6),¹⁰² and in the New Testament (Acts 7:26) of human beings appearing in physical bodies.

    In addition, the same event is also described in the active mood: Paul said, "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9:1). If the resurrection body can be seen by the naked eye, then it is not invisible.

    Furthermore, that the same basic word appeared (ophthé) refers to a natural event is supported by standard Greek lexicons. The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament points out that the word is used "of persons who appear in a natural way."¹⁰³ The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes that appearances "occur in a reality which can be perceived by the natural senses."¹⁰⁴ Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament notes that appeared means "He could be seen by human eyes, the appearances were not just visions."¹⁰⁵

    Finally, when Jesus did appear, the event is described by the word horaô ("to see"). Although horaô is sometimes used of seeing invisible realities (cf. Luke 1:22; 24:23), it often means "to see by the naked eye."¹⁰⁶ For example, John uses horaô of seeing Jesus in His earthly body before the Resurrection (6:36; 14:9; 19:35) and also of seeing Him in His resurrection body (20:18, 25, 29). Since the same word for body (soma) is used of Jesus before and after the Resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 15:44; Phil. 3:21), and since the same word for its appearing (horaô) is also used of both, there is no reason to believe that the resurrection body is not the same literal, physical body.

    Objection Three: Based on the Fact That Jesus Could Disappear

    Luke writes of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, "Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight" (Luke 24:31). Jesus also disappeared from the disciples on other occasions (e.g., v. 51; Acts 1:9). If Jesus could disappear suddenly, then His body must have been able to go into an immaterial mode of existence.

    Response to Objection Three

    This reasoning fails; that Jesus "disappeared" doesn’t demonstrate His body’s immateriality any more than it proves that Philip’s pre-resurrection body immaterialized simply because the Holy Spirit quickly transported him some distance away (Acts 8:39). Jesus could have been transported to another place, or He could have stepped into another dimension in His physical body.

    Also, that Jesus appeared repeatedly in the same physical body for some forty days (1:3) to over five hundred different people (1 Cor. 15:6) on twelve different occasions is indisputable evidence that He rose bodily and continued in the same physical body thereafter, including His ascension (Acts 1:10–11).

    Objection Four: Based on Resurrection Appearances Being Called Visions

    The contention that resurrection appearances are called visions is also used to support the immaterial view of the resurrection body.¹⁰⁷ Luke, for instance, records that women at the tomb "had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive" (24:23); likewise, Paul’s experience with Christ on the Damascus Road¹⁰⁸ is called a vision (Acts 26:19). Immaterialists insist that visions are always of invisible, unseen realities, not of physical, material objects.

    Response to Objection Four

    First, Luke 24:23 does not refer to seeing the resurrected Christ, but to seeing a vision of angels. The Gospels nowhere speak of a resurrection appearance of Christ as a vision, and neither does Paul in his 1 Corinthians 15 list.¹⁰⁹

    Second, all post-resurrection encounters with Christ in the Gospels are later described as literal appearances (15:5–8), not as mere visions.

    Third, the difference between a vision and a physical appearance is significant. Visions are of invisible, spiritual realities, such as God and angels. Appearances are of physical entities that can be seen with the naked eye.

    Fourth, the only time the word vision appears to be used of a post-resurrection appearance is in connection with Paul’s experience en route to Damascus. Even here, though, Paul possibly does not refer to Christ’s appearance, but rather to the vision God later gave Ananias,¹¹⁰ to commission Paul for ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 22:10, 15; cf. 9:10–15).

    Fifth, and finally, even if there is some overlap of meaning between visions and appearances, the fact that every appearance is clearly one of Christ in the same physical body in which He died would only allow that the word vision could sometimes refer to the same reality. It would not prove that Christ did not have a physical resurrection body.

    Objection Five: Based on Jesus’ Walking Through Doors

    Many critics of the physical resurrection point to Jesus walking through closed doors to allege that His body could not have been material. This is inferred from John 20:19, which reads: "On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you!’?"

    Response to Objection Five

    A careful reading of this text reveals that it does not actually say Jesus passed through a closed door—it says that even though the doors were closed, Jesus came in. There are natural ways He could have entered without walking through the door. He could have knocked and someone opened it. He could have come in through another opening. He could have disengaged the lock, as the angels did to take Peter out of prison (Acts 12:10). And, of course, Jesus could have performed a miracle to walk through the door in His physical body; this would be no problem, for He who could walk on water (cf. John 6:16–20). Walking on water no more proved that Jesus’ pre-resurrection body was immaterial than Peter’s walk on water proved that his body dematerialized for a moment and then quickly rematerialized (cf. Matt. 14:29).

    At any rate, according to modern physics it is not an impossibility for a material object to pass through a door: it is only statistically improbable. Physical objects are mostly empty space, and what is necessary for one physical object to pass through another is the right alignment of the particles in the two physical objects—not a difficulty for the One who created the body (cf. John 1:3).

    Objection Six: Based on the Irretrievability of the Body’s Particles

    Following the Socinians,¹¹¹ some critics insist that a physical resurrection body would imply "a crassly materialistic view of resurrection, according to which the scattered fragments of decomposed corpses were to be reassembled" (Harris, RI, 126).

    Response to Objection Six

    First of all, within the parameters of the orthodox view, it is unnecessary to believe that the same particles will be restored;¹¹² even common sense dictates that a body can be the same physical body without having the same physical particles.¹¹³ The observable fact that bodies eat food and give off waste products (as well as get heavier or lighter) is sufficient evidence of this; if I gain or lose several pounds, we do not say my body is no longer material or no longer my body.

    Furthermore, regardless, an omnipotent God could certainly bring all of the scattered particles of one’s body together again at the final resurrection. As for those particles shared at one time or another by two or more bodies, there is no difficulty for God, Creator even of dust, to supply the missing particles.

    Finally, again, it is unnecessary to believe that God needs to reconstitute the exact particles of a pre-resurrection body. As mentioned, our pre-resurrection body remains physical, even though its exact physical molecules change (recycle) approximately every seven years. The resurrection body can be the same body as the present one while having new molecules.

    Objection Seven: Based on "Flesh and Blood" Not Being Able to Enter the Kingdom

    Paul said, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50), and from this some have reasoned that the resurrection body cannot be physical. As early as the second century, Irenaeus noted that this passage was being used by heretics in support of what he called their "very great error."¹¹⁴

    Response to Objection Seven

    First, the very next phrase, omitted from the above quotation of 1 Corinthians 15:50, indicates clearly that Paul is speaking not of flesh as such but of corruptible flesh: "nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." Paul is not saying the resurrection body will not have flesh, but that it will not have perishable flesh.

    Second, in order to convince the frightened disciples He was not an immaterial spirit (Luke 24:37), Jesus emphatically said His resurrection body had flesh (v. 39).

    Third, Peter directly said that the resurrection body would be the same body of flesh that went into the tomb and never saw corruption (Acts 2:31). Paul reaffirmed this (13:35), and John implies that it is against Christ to deny that He remains "in the flesh" after His resurrection (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7).

    Fourth, and finally, "flesh and blood" in this context apparently means mortal flesh and blood, that is, a mere human being. Compare Jesus’ statement to Peter, who had just confessed that He is Messiah: "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you" (Matt. 16:17 nkjv). Jesus could not have been referring to the mere substance of the body as such, which obviously couldn’t reveal His identity as the Son of God; rather, "the only correct and natural interpretation [of 1 Cor. 15:50] seems to be that man, as he now is, a frail, earth-bound, perishable creature, cannot have a place in God’s glorious, heavenly kingdom."¹¹⁵ There is nothing in this text that denies the physical nature of the resurrection body.

    Objection Eight: Based on the Difference Between Resurrection and Resuscitation

    Opponents of physical resurrection also maintain that Jesus’ body was not material because His resurrection was more than the mere resuscitation of a physical corpse. They argue that saying His body was the same physical body He had before He was raised is to reduce the Resurrection to resuscitation.

    Response to Objection Eight

    For one thing, Jesus’ resurrection was more than a resuscitation. Resuscitated corpses die again; Jesus’ resurrection body was immortal. He conquered death (Heb. 2:14; 1 Cor. 15:54–55), whereas merely resuscitated bodies will eventually be conquered by death, as in the story of Lazarus, who was raised by Jesus but eventually died again (cf. John 11). Jesus was the first to be raised in an immortal body, one that will never die again (1 Cor. 15:20). However, that Jesus was the first to be raised in an immortal body does not necessitate that His body was immaterial. The Resurrection was more than a reanimation of a material corpse, but not less.

    Further, it does not follow that because Jesus’ resurrection body could not die, it could not be seen—what is immortal is not necessarily invisible. The re-created physical universe will last forever in its recreated state (Rev. 21:1–4), and yet it will be visible. The resurrection body differs from resuscitation not in that it’s immaterial but in that it’s immortal (1 Cor. 15:42, 53).

    Objection Nine: Based on Jesus Appearing in a "Different Form"

    Mark 16:12 declares that "Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them [His followers] while they were walking in the country." From this, some claim that after the Resurrection "we cannot rule out the possibility that the visible form of Jesus had altered in some mysterious way, delaying recognition of him." They suggest that "the expression ‘he appeared in another form’ in the Markan appendix¹¹⁶ encapsulates this" (Harris, RI, 56).

    Response to Objection Nine

    First, there are significant questions about the authenticity of this text: Mark 16:9–20 is not in some of the oldest and best manuscripts.¹¹⁷ In reconstructing the original texts from the known extant manuscripts, many scholars believe the older texts are more reliable, since they are closer to the originals.¹¹⁸

    Second, even granting the passage’s (and thus the verse’s) authenticity, the event of which it is a summary (cf. Luke 24:13–32) says simply that "they were kept from recognizing him" (v. 16). The miraculous element was not in Jesus’ body, but in what God did to the eyes of the disciples; recognition of Jesus was kept from them until their eyes were opened.

    Third, at best Mark 16:12 is an obscure and isolated reference upon which it is unwise to base doctrinal pronouncement.

    Fourth, and finally, whatever "another form" means, it certainly does not mean a form other than His physical, material body. On this very occasion Jesus ate physical food (Luke 24:30), an ability He soon thereafter gave as a proof that He was "flesh and bones" and not an immaterial "spirit" (vv. 38–43). "Another form" probably means that sometimes He appeared in the form of a gardener (cf. John 20), sometimes in the form of a traveler (cf. Luke 24), etc.

    Objection Ten: Based on the Disciples Not Recognizing Jesus

    Another objection to Christ being resurrected in the same physical body is that, if He was, why did the disciples often not recognize Him? Surely if He was in the same physical body He’d have had the same physical recognizability.

    Response to Objection Ten

    This contention misses the whole point: In every such passage, before the appearance was over, the disciples were so absolutely sure it was the same Jesus with whom they’d spent more than three years that they were converted overnight from scared, scattered skeptics to the world’s greatest missionary force! True, there was occasional initial hesitancy in recognizing Him because of darkness, fear, unbelief, and anxiety, but this momentary doubt¹¹⁹ was soon overshadowed by indubitable certainty of what was later called "infallible proofs" (Acts 1:3 nkjv) that it was the same Jesus in the same body, crucifixion scars and all (cf. Luke 24:40; John 20:27).

    Objection Eleven: Based on Jesus Being Raised "in the Spirit"

    According to Peter, Jesus was "put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit" (1 Peter 3:18 nkjv). Some have used these words to suggest that the resurrection body was not material flesh but immaterial "spirit."

    Response to Objection Eleven

    This interpretation is neither necessary nor consistent with the context of this passage and the rest of Scripture.

    First of all, the passage can be translated "He was put to death in the body but made alive by the [Holy] Spirit" (niv); it is rendered with this same understanding in others as well.

    What is more, in the New Testament the parallel between "death" and being "made alive" normally refers to bodily resurrection. For example, Paul declared that "Christ died and returned to life" (Rom. 14:9), and "He was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power" (2 Cor. 13:4).

    Also, the context refers to the event as "the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21), which is everywhere understood in the New Testament as a bodily resurrection.

    Finally, even if "spirit" does refer to Jesus’ human spirit (rather than to the Holy Spirit), it cannot mean Jesus had no resurrection body; otherwise, the reference to His "body" (flesh) before His resurrection would mean He also had no human spirit. Hence, "flesh" in this context refers to His whole condition of humiliation before the Resurrection;¹²⁰ "spirit" refers to His unlimited power and imperishable life afterward (Schep, NRB, 77).

    Objection Twelve: Based on Christ Being a "Life-Giving Spirit" After the Resurrection

    According to 1 Corinthians 15:45, Christ was made a "life-giving spirit" after being raised. Some have presented this passage as evidence that Jesus had no physical resurrection body.

    Response to Objection Twelve

    This conclusion does not follow for reasons similar to those given for the previous argument.

    First, "life-giving spirit" does not speak of the nature of the resurrection body, but of the Resurrection’s divine origin. Jesus’ physical body came back to life only by God’s power (cf. Rom. 1:4); Paul is speaking about its spiritual source, not its material substance.

    Second, if "spirit" did describe the nature of Christ’s resurrection body, then Adam (with whom He is contrasted¹²¹) would not have had a soul, since he is described as "of the dust of the earth" (1 Cor. 15:47). Adam was "a living being" ("soul," Gen. 2:7).

    Third, Christ’s resurrection body is called a "spiritual body" (1 Cor. 15:44), which, as we have seen, is the same description used by Paul for food, drink, and a literal rock (10:3–4).

    Fourth, the resurrection body is called a "body" (soma), which always means a physical body when referring to an individual human (Gundry, SBT, 168).

    In brief, the resurrection body is called "spiritual" and "life-giving spirit" because its source is the spiritual realm, not because its substance is immaterial. Adam’s natural body was "of the earth" (15:47), but just as the one from "earth" also has an immaterial soul, so the One from "heaven" also has a material body.

    Objection Thirteen: Based on Our Being Like Angels in the Resurrection

    Jesus said that in the final resurrection we "will be like the angels" (Matt. 22:30). Angels do not have physical bodies; they are spirits (cf. Heb. 1:14); thus, it is argued that when we are resurrected we will not have physical bodies.

    Response to Objection Thirteen

    This conclusion is unnecessary.

    For one thing, the context is not about the nature of the resurrection body, but whether there will be marriage in heaven. Jesus replied that there will not; He said nothing here about people having immaterial bodies in heaven.

    For another, Jesus saying that "at the resurrection … they will be like the angels in heaven" obviously means that, like angels, we "will neither marry nor be given in marriage." He said we would be like angels in that we would not marry, not in that we will be immaterial.

    THE HISTORICAL BASIS FOR THE RESURRECTION OF THE HUMAN BODY

    The doctrine of the physical resurrection of all human beings is firmly grounded in church history. In countering gnosticism, the early Fathers even chose the strongest term to describe it—the resurrection of the flesh (Gk. sarx), used four times in the New Testament (and once in the Apostles’ Creed) to describe the nature of the resurrection body.¹²²

    Early Church Fathers

    With the exception of scattered unorthodox views (such as Origen’s), the earliest Fathers affirmed that Jesus rose in the same body of flesh in which He was crucified.

    The Apostles’ Creed (c. 150)

    The creed says, "I believe in the … resurrection of the flesh." That the Christian church has always confessed its belief in Christ’s physical resurrection is expressed in this unmistakably clear phrase.

    We may say, therefore, that the entire early Church, in the West and in the East alike, publicly confessed belief in the resurrection of the flesh. In the Western creeds … this confessional formula has retained its place with hardly any exception. Up to the Reformation there is no exception at all. (Schep, NRB, 221)

    Justin Martyr (c. 100–c. 165)

    Converted philosopher Justin Martyr was one of the early church’s great apologists. He not only uses the phrase "resurrection of the flesh," but he also designates it as referring to the flesh (body), not to the soul. He said plainly, "The resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which dies" (ORF in Roberts and Donaldson, ANF, 1.298).¹²³ "He has even called the flesh to the resurrection, and promises to it everlasting life. For where He promises to save man, there He gives the promise to the flesh" (ibid., 297).

    Furthermore,

    When He had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection of the flesh, wishing to show them this also, that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven … "He was taken up into heaven while they beheld," as He was in the flesh. (ibid., 298)

    Irenaeus (c. 125–c. 202)

    The Church [believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them: and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation … and [in] the resurrection from the dead, and ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord. (AH, 1.10.1 in ibid., 1.330)

    Resurrecting the flesh is no problem for God. Since the Lord has power to infuse life into what He has fashioned, since the flesh is capable of being quickened, what remains to prevent its participation in incorruption, which is a blissful and never-ending life granted by God? (AH, 3.3 in ibid., 530)

    Tertullian (c. 155–c. 225)

    With regard to this rule of faith … you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth … at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb … having been crucified, He rose again the third day … will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. (PAH, XIII in ibid., 3.249)

    Athenagoras (fl. second century)

    [That] His power is sufficient of the raising of dead bodies is shown by the creation of these same bodies. For if, when they did not exist, He made at their first formation the bodies of men, and their original elements, He will, when they are dissolved, in whatever manner that may take place, raise them again with equal ease: for this too, is equally possible to Him. (RD, 3 in ibid., 2.150)

    Rufinus (345–410)

    Rufinus, a Latin bishop, wrote "Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed," in which he declared that even the lost particles of the dead body will be restored in the resurrection body. In another statement found in a preface to Pamphilus’s "Defense of Origen," he emphasized the identity of Christ’s body and His flesh:

    We believe that it is this very flesh in which we are now living which will rise again, not one kind of flesh instead of another, nor another body than the body of this flesh.… It is an absurd invention of maliciousness to think that the human body is different from the flesh. (cited by Schep, NRB, 225)

    Epiphanius (c. fourth century)

    The Second Creed of Epiphanius, an enlargement of the Nicene Creed, affirmed:

    The Word became flesh, not undergoing any change nor converting Godhead into Manhood, [but] uniting into his own one holy perfection and Godhead.… The same suffered in the flesh; rose again; and went up to heaven in the same body, sat down gloriously at the right hand of the Father; is coming in the same body in glory to judge the quick and the dead. (TCESF in Schaff, CC, II.37)

    Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315–c. 387)

    Let no heretic ever persuade thee to speak evil of the Resurrection. For to this day the Manichees say that the resurrection of the Saviour was phantom-wise, and not real, not heeding Paul who says, Who was made flesh of the seed of David according to flesh; and again, By the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead. (CL, XIV.21 in Schaff, NPNF, VII.99)

    The Faith which we rehearse contains in order the following: "AND [WE BELIEVE] IN ONE BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS; AND IN ONE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH; AND IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH; AND IN ETERNAL LIFE." (CL, XVIII.22 in ibid., 139)

    Regarding Cyril’s reference to the resurrection body as "the very same body" we have before the final resurrection (XVIII.18 in ibid.), similar views were also held by Gregory of Nazianzen (c. 330–c. 389, a president of the Constantinople Council), Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–c. 395), and Basil the Great (c. 329–379).

    Medieval Fathers

    Augustine (354–430)

    The earliest great Father of the Middle Ages was Augustine, bishop of Hippo, whose extensive and influential writings dominated the medieval church and continue to this day.

    It is indubitable that the resurrection of Christ, and His ascension into heaven with the flesh in which He rose, is already preached and believed in the whole world. (CG, XXII.5 in Schaff, NPNF, II.482)

    The earthly body of Christ was received up into heaven. Already both the learned and unlearned have believed in the resurrection of the flesh and its ascension to the heavenly places, while only a very few either of the educated or uneducated are still staggered by it. (ibid.)

    Far be it from us to fear that the omnipotence of the Creator cannot, for the resuscitation and reanimation of our bodies, recall all the portions which have been consumed by beasts or fire, or have been dissolved into dust or ashes, or have decomposed into water, or even evaporated into the air. (XXII.20.498 in ibid.)

    Anselm (1033–1109)

    The future resurrection of the dead is clearly proved. For if man is to be perfectly restored, the restoration should make him such as he would have been had he never sinned.… Therefore, as man, had he not sinned, was to have been transferred with the same body to an immortal state, so when he shall be restored, it must properly be with his own body as he lived in this world. (CDH, II.III in SABW, 241)

    I do not think mortality inheres in the essential nature of man, but only as corrupted. Since, had man never sinned, and had immortality been unchangeably confirmed, he would have been as really man: and, when the dying rise again, incorruptible, they will be no less really men. For, if mortality was an essential attribute of human nature, then he who was immortal could not be man. (II.XI, in ibid., 255–56)

    Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)

    The soul does not take an airy or heavenly body, or a body of another organic constitution, but a human body composed of flesh and bones and the same members enjoyed at present. (CT, 153 in Gilby, STAPT, 764)

    They have not believed in the resurrection of the body, and have strained to twist the words of Holy Scripture to mean a spiritual resurrection, a resurrection from sin through grace.…

    That St. Paul believed in a bodily resurrection is clear.… To deny this, and to affirm a purely spiritual resurrection, is against the Christian Faith. (SCG, 79 in ibid., 662)

    By conjunction to a soul numerically the same, the man will be restored to matter numerically the same. [Therefore,] although this corporeality yields to nothingness when the human body is corrupted, it cannot, for all that, be an obstacle to the body’s rising with numerical identity.… [Hence,] it is clear that man returns numerically the same both by reason of the permanence of the rational soul and by reason of the unity of matter. (SCG, IV.81.6–7, 10)

    Reformation Confessions

    The Formula of Concord (1577)

    This great Lutheran confession says, "We believe, teach and confess … the chief articles of our faith (of Creation, of Redemption, of Sanctification, and the Resurrection of the flesh). (in Schaff, CC, 3.98)

    This same human nature of ours (that is his own work) Christ has redeemed, the same (inasmuch as it is his own work) he sanctifies, the same [human nature] doth he raise from the dead, and with great glory (as being his own) doth he crown it. (in ibid., 3.99)

    The Saxon Visitation Articles (1592)

    These articles, prepared by Aegidius Hunnius (1550–1603) and other Lutheran theologians in Saxony, declare:

    By this personal union [of Christ’s two natures], and the exaltation which followed it, Christ, according to the flesh, is placed at the right hand of God, and has received power in heaven and earth, and is made partaker of all the divine majesty, honor, power, and glory. (in ibid., 3.183)

    The French Confession of Faith (1559)

    This confession, prepared by John Calvin and his student Antoine de la Roche Chandieu (1534–1591) states:

    Although Jesus Christ, in rising from the dead, bestowed immortality upon his body, yet he did not take away from it the truth of its nature, and we so consider him in his divinity that we do not despoil him of his humanity. (in ibid., 368–69)

    The Belgic Confession (1561)

    This confession, composed in French for the churches in Flanders and the Netherlands, was adopted by the Reformed Synod at Emden (1571) and the Synod of Dort (1618–1619).

    Though he [Christ] hath by his resurrection given immortality to [humans], nevertheless he hath not changed the reality of his human nature; forasmuch as our salvation and resurrection also depend on the reality of his body. (in ibid., 404)

    Finally, we believe, according to the Word of God … that our Lord Jesus Christ will come from heaven, corporally and visibly, as he ascended, with great glory and majesty, to declare himself Judge of the quick and the dead.… For all the dead shall be raised out of the earth, and their souls joined and united with their proper bodies, in which they formerly lived. (in ibid., 433–34)

    The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1571)

    These articles of the Church of England were revised for the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States in 1801. They both declare,

    Christ did in truth rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh and bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day. (in ibid, 489)

    Post-Reformation Confessions

    The Westminster Confession of Faith (1648)

    This confessional standard for orthodox Presbyterians affirms:

    [Christ] was crucified, and died; was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day he arose from the dead, with the same body in which he suffered; with which he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father. (in ibid., 620–21)

    Declaration of the Congregational Union (1833)

    Early Congregationalists and Baptists also held to the physical, material nature of the Resurrection. The Declaration of the Congregational Union of England and Wales speaks of Christ being "manifested in the flesh" and, "after his death and resurrection, he ascended up into heaven." In addition, "The bodies of the dead will be raised again" (in ibid., 731–33).

    The New Hampshire Baptist Confession (1833) likewise acknowledged the material nature of the resurrection body, speaking of raising "the dead from the grave" where the material corpse was buried (in ibid., 748). Other Anabaptist and Baptist groups also affirmed the literal physical nature of the resurrection body (see ibid., 749ff.).

    Not until 1552 was the phrase "resurrection of the body" admitted to the Apostles’ Creed as an alternate reading for "the resurrection of the flesh." Furthermore, even here "the terms flesh and body were regarded as equivalent"; the phrase "resurrection of the flesh" is a "legitimate expression of the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection" (in Schep, NRB, 222, 227). Affirming the resurrection of the flesh is not only the biblical teaching on the Resurrection, but it also has been the universal confession of the orthodox church down through the centuries.

    CONCLUSION

    There is a firm biblical, theological, and historical basis for the belief that the souls of both believers and unbelievers survive death and exist consciously between death and resurrection. These souls will be raised immortal into the same physical bodies in which they existed before death.

    There will be two resurrections. The first is of believers and will occur before the thousand-year reign of Christ; the second is of unbelievers and will happen after the millennium.¹²⁴

    The believer’s resurrection body will be physical as well as immortal and incorruptible. Believers will spend an eternity of bliss in their physical, glorified resurrection bodies;¹²⁵ unbelievers will experience eternal woe in their never-dying resurrected bodies.¹²⁶

22. 

    James Smith on September 20, 2013 at 10:00 am

     A lot of intellectual mumbo-jumbo.

    I would like you to focus in on ONE word — "MORTAL".

     Man is MORTAL — as the Bible clearly states.

     

    mor·tal 

    1. Liable or subject to death, the opposite of immortality

    im·mor·tal

    1. Not subject to death:

    2. The ability to live forever, or eternal life

     

    Now, is there any redefinition for "MORTAL" in ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek?  That is all I would like to know — plain and simple.  I don't see how mortal could possibly be redefined into anything else than the way it is defined above.

     

23. 

    Grant on September 20, 2013 at 10:27 am

    James, obviously mortal involves subject to death. However, the Bible says mortality shall put on immortality: 1 Co 15:^52?in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For ^uthe trumpet will sound, and ^vthe dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. ^53?For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and ^wthis mortal body must put on immortality.

    You statement is a gross oversimplication of all that the Bible has to say about the subject.

24. 

    James Smith on September 22, 2013 at 6:05 am

    Romans 6:23

    23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Ezekiel 18:20

    20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

    REFUTED BY:   Genesis 2:17

    17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

    Adam did not cease to exist.

    ————————————————————

    Matthew 10:28

    28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

    REFUTED BY:   Genesis 6:13

    13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

    The earth did not cease to exist.

    ——————————————————————-

    Man is mortal.  ( Choose any verse you wish to. ) Therefore, man cannot be immortal in hell.

    Only the righteous believers shall — "put on immortality."

     

    You almost had me convinced when you pointed out 1 Corinthians verse  "52"

     But you left out verse "48"

    If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those   who are of heaven.  49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

    50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

     

    Can anyone refute the fact that the Bible says that man is mortal? 

    Refute this, and then I will believe that hell is going to be a literal place of conscious eternal suffering.

    I want to be tested on this.  ( I have to know the truth.)

     

25. 

    James Smith on September 22, 2013 at 6:17 am

    Oops.   And verse 50~!

26. 

    Grant on September 22, 2013 at 7:23 am

    Romans 6:23
    Which death? Physical death or spiritual death. The Bible sets forth a number kinds of death. Here it is spiritual or eternal death
    Ezekiel 18:20
    The context here refers to physical death, not eternal death since this passage relates to the standards of the Mosaic covenant (16:6; Lev 18:5; Deut 30:15-20; 2 Pe 3:9). Persons who sin will die physically bearing the guilt of their own sin. The Hebrew for “soul” is nephish which means simply a person. A “soul” is mind, emotion and will.
    Genesis 2:17
    Yes, physical death. There is no question about the mortality of the body.
    Matthew 10:28
    This verse refutes your own position, that is, God will send both the body and soul to hell. The Greek word “destroy” is apollumi from apo (from) and ollumi (to destroy). This word has a number of uses depending on the context. Note this Greek Lexicon:
    (A) To destroy, cause to perish, trans.: (1) Spoken of things figuratively (1 Cor. 1:19, meaning to bring to naught, render void the wisdom of the wise, quoted from Is. 29:14). (2) Of persons, to destroy, put to death, cause to perish. (a) Spoken of physical death (Matt. 2:13; 12:14; 21:41; 22:7; Mark 3:6; 9:22; 11:18; 12:9; Luke 6:9 [TR]; Luke 17:27, 29; 19:47; 20:16; John 10:10; Jude 1:5; Sept.: Gen. 20:4; Deut. 11:4; Esth. 4:9; 9:16); in a judicial sense to sentence to death (Matt. 27:20; James 4:12). (b) Spoken of eternal death, i.e., future punishment, exclusion from the Messiah’s kingdom. In this sense it has the same meaning as apothn?sk? (599), to die (Matt. 10:28; Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; 9:56). This eternal death is called the second death (Rev. 20:14). In Luke 9:25, to “destroy himself” (a.t.) means to subject himself to eternal death, which is the opposite of eternal life (John 6:50, 51, 58). Physical and eternal death are to be distinguished (John 8:21, 24; 11:25, 26; Rom. 7:10; 8:13).
    (B) To lose, be deprived of, trans. of such things as reward (Mark 9:41); a sheep (Luke 15:4); a drachma or coin (Luke 15:8, 9). See John 6:39; 2 John 1:8; Sept.: Prov. 29:3. To lose one’s life or soul (Matt. 10:39; 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; 17:33; John 12:25).
    (II) Mid. and pass. forms as also 2d perf. apól?la.
    (A) To be destroyed, perish, intrans. Spoken of: (1) Things (Matt. 5:29, 30; 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37; John 6:27; James 1:11; 1 Pet. 1:7). In all these instances the verb must not be thought of as indicating extinction, but only change from one state of being to another. Nothing actually becomes extinct, but everything changes. In Heb. 1:11, “even these heavens will perish” (a.t.) quoted from Ps. 102:27; Jer. 9:11; 48:8; Ezek. 29:8; 35:7, means that these present heavens will be qualitatively changed as well as the earth (Rev. 21:1). The new, redeemed creation and physically redeemed creatures, especially the presently redeemed men with their redeemed bodies, will have a congruous environment in which to live (Rom. 8:19–23). (2) Persons, to be put to death, to die, perish, relating to physical death (Matt. 8:25; 26:52; Mark 4:38; Luke 8:24; 11:51; 13:33; 15:17; John 18:14; Acts 5:37; 1 Cor. 10:9, 10; 2 Cor. 4:9; 2 Pet. 3:6; Jude 1:11; Sept.: Lev. 23:30; Esth. 9:12). Relating to eternal death (see I, A, 2, b), to perish eternally, i.e., to be deprived of eternal life (Luke 13:3, 5; John 3:15, 16; 10:28; 17:12; Rom. 2:12; 1 Cor. 15:18; 2 Pet. 3:9). Those who perish (hoi apolluménoi, who are perishing) means those who are exposed to eternal death (1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15; 4:3; 2 Thess. 2:10).
    (B) To be lost to the owner, such as hair (Luke 21:18), anything (John 6:12). Spoken of those who wander away and are lost, e.g., the prodigal son (Luke 15:24); sheep straying in the desert (Luke 15:4, 6). Metaphorically (Matt. 10:6; 15:24; Sept.: Ps. 119:176; Jer. 50:6; Ezek. 34:4).
    Deriv.: Apollú?n (623), destroyer; ap?leia (684), destruction; sunapóllumi (4881), to destroy with.
    Syn.: katargé? (2673), abolish; kathairé? (2507), to cast down; lú? (3089), to loose; katalú? (2647), to destroy utterly; olothreú? (2645), to destroy; exolothreú? (1842), to destroy utterly; phtheír? (5351), to corrupt; porthé? (4199), to ruin by laying waste, to make havoc; thn?sk? (2348), to die; apothn?sk? (599), to die off or out; teleutá? (5053), to end, to die; apogínomai (581), to die, to become something else.
    Ant.: auxán? (837), to increase; zá? (2198), to live; z?ogoné? (2225), to become alive, quicken; kerdaín? (2770), to gain; ?phelé? (5623), to profit; prokópt? (4298), to advance.
     
    Genesis 6:13
    The word “destroy” in context here is simply physical death. The population of the earth was killed except for a few. The earth was destroyed by water. To use the word “destroy” here as equivalent to “destroy” in Mt 10 is to do exegetical gymnastics!
    Man is mortal.  ( Choose any verse you wish to. ) Therefore, man cannot be immortal in hell.  You almost had me convinced when you pointed out 1 Corinthians verse  "52" But you left out verse "48"
    See my study on this passage: http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-corinthians/1-corinthians-1545-49/
    See my study on verse 50: http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-corinthians/1-corinthians-1550-53/
    Can anyone refute the fact that the Bible says that man is mortal?
    No evangelical denies that the human body is mortal (subject to death). The issue is whether his soul will have “eternal life” (life with God) or whether he will spend eternity in hell.
    James, I hope you do get this straight for your own soul is at state. You are evidently involved in a cult. Cults usually jump around the Bible with pretexts (texts taken out of context) and this is what you do. Please take a serious look at the Bible in context.

     

27. 

    James Smith on September 22, 2013 at 8:09 am

    You misread my email.

    I was agreeing with you that any verses with "die" or "death"

    CANNOT BE USED  to prove  …. ceasing to exist~!

     

    Again —- ONLY the word   MORTAL.

    The meaning of this word cannot be refuted.

    It is the opposite of immortal.

     

    Genesis 2:17
    Yes, physical death. There is no question about the mortality of the body.
    Matthew 10:28
    This verse refutes your own position, that is, God will send both the body and soul to hell. The Greek word “destroy” is apollumi from apo (from) and ollumi (to destroy). This word has a number of uses depending on the context.
     

28. 

    Randall Brown on September 30, 2013 at 7:32 pm

    Dr Grant and all writers, i read a little about what was said, and if i understand it right i agree with  Dr Grant. I will put my two cents in. When the bible talks about sleep it is talking about church age believers, sleep means, sleep with the intapation of waking up, when our soul and spirit comes back with Christ, from the third heaven, at the rapture we will rejoin our bodies and we will have a resurrected body, we will be changed in a twinkling of a eye, with our res urced body. When the bible talks about death it is always talking the seperation of 2 things, at death your soul and spirit are seperated from your body and goes to the third heaven or pardise, for belivers. And for none bilevers, your soul and spirit goes to torments, at the great white throne judgement you will be raised up with a ressuricted body where you can withstand the punishment you will receive day and night, at the second death your soul and spirit are seperated from God forever. Because you didn't put postive volition in Jesus Christ in rev. 22:17 Whosever Will let him take the water of life freely. I read in one of your comments where people will say that they wan't to go to hell and be with their friends, I have witnessed to an individual  and he said the exact same thing, I told him that you wan't have any friends in hell, you all will be to busy with your punishment even the devil wount like you. Everlasting in hell  is awful long to be wrong. Friend in Christ Randall

29. 

    James Smith on October 2, 2013 at 11:03 am

     

    Fallen mankind is mortal —- short, sweet and simple.

    Even a child can understand what that means.

     

    And it is not just the body that is mortal. It is the ENTIRE PERSON THAT IS MORTAL.

     

     

    Romans 6:12

     

    Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.

     

    Obviously, people sinning is a spiritual thing. It is not just the physical body.

     

    Ezekiel 18  20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

     

    So nobody can say that the body is mortal, but the soul is eternal. 

     

    NEVER does the Bible say that the soul, or anything about man is inherently immortal —  NEVER~!

     

    *********************************************************************************************************************

     

    And God does not want man to live forever in his sinful state as Genesis 3:22-24 clearly shows.

     

    Genesis 3:22-24

     

     22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

     

    Only those who have been saved by Jesus Christ will live forever.

     

    John 6:58

    This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

     

    Those who are still in their sins when they die are mortal; and therefore they will cease to exist. THEY ARE MORTAL.  Nobody can refute this. It is a simple Biblical truth that absolutely noone can change or redefine — no how, no way.

     

    AND SO, YOU CAN'T EXIST FOREVER IN HELL IF YOU ARE MORTAL.

30. 

    Grant on October 2, 2013 at 11:14 am

    James, if the body does not go into eternity why does God "raise those who have done evil?"

    John 5:29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

    Obviously God raises the body of those who do not put their faith in the cross to pay for their sins.

    Your argument is a straw man that tries to argue from silence. There many biblical concepts that we use in theology or doctrine that do not appear in the Bible but the idea is clearly there such as John 5:29.