Jump to content
IGNORED

Daniel 12:2 and hell


DarrenJClark

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  85
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   10
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/17/2018
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Joulre2abba said:

In every response I gave one, as you have here, or more throughout my post as a whole. So in saying that I gave no other at all in the Bible is a gross inaccuracy.

Concerning your offered text, Rev.17:8.. as already stated in this post, 2Thes.1:8-9 speaks of sinners in the same fate as the Beast

I did not say you only cited one verse, I was admitting that Rev 20:10 is the one verse in the Bible that has any mention of torment in he context of the final fate of the wicked.  You cited other verses but none pf them have the language of eternal torment of the all the wicked you need.  You are responding to an argument I did not make.

I have addressed 2 Thess 1:8-9 and all your texts with reasons why I disagree and wait for you to speak to those specific arguments.  Reciting the same texts without addressing my exegesis does not refute my exegesis.  I am always will to explain further my exegesis.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  85
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   10
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/17/2018
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Joulre2abba said:

For that matter you have not given any prooftext that refutes the texts that I have given. As it is, the new testament is an updated revelation of the old.

Well, my post was about Daniel 12:2.  I have engage you on the verses you cite to try and show you why I disagree.  That does not mean I do not have verse I can cite.  I have done that above in response to your other comments.  Here are some of them Matt 3:12; 10:28; 13:40-42; 18:8-9; John 3:16; 2 Thess 8-10; Jude 7; 2 Peter 2:6.  These are didactice passages not the apocalyptic genre that Revelation is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  85
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   10
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/17/2018
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Joulre2abba said:

Yes, which brings me to the question of why you fault me on doing just that.

I wrote, "The highly symbolic nature of the genre warns against just taking a flat reading and there are ample reasons to think John wanted us to read this verse as teaching the destruction of the wicked. "

 

You read torment in Rev 20:10 as a flat, literal statement, do you not?  That is what I am talking about.  It is what you are doing when you just cite that verse.  In his massive commentary on Revelation, considered by most other scholars to be the best on Rev, Beale warns against reading seemingly literal statements in Rev literally.  When I have time I will find the quote for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  85
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   10
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/17/2018
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Joulre2abba said:

Daniel 12:2 didn't pretend to speak to demons, so I never said that it did. That makes you arguing over it all on your own.

Col.2:14-15 .. to triumph over the demons through the cross.. is their eternal defeat. And therefore 1Cor.2:8 shows their lack of insight.

The rulers and authorities in that text is a reference to Eph.6:12. But I assumed that you knew this. Pardon me.

These show what I bring to them and that you have nothing to bring to it but an empty criticism.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Joulre2abba said:

The word Hades is the Greek word for the Hebrew word Sheol, and the English word for both is Hell.

That is a bad translation tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  463
  • Content Per Day:  0.20
  • Reputation:   175
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/08/2017
  • Status:  Offline

23 minutes ago, DarrenJClark said:

//I appeal to the new testament texts as does the apostle Paul or other writers of the epistles... //

 

No.  The NT authors appeal to the OT,

I see that I need to clarify. I appeal to the new testament texts as Paul and the other writers of the epistles appeal to the old testament texts. Or, I appeal strictly to the revelations within the new testament that the old testament doesn't have.

23 minutes ago, DarrenJClark said:

so much so that it has become a specialized field of study in NT research.  There is even a massive commentary on the use of the OT by the NT edited by D. A. Carson now available.  By comparison the NT authors barely quote each other. 

They might not quote each other, but they don't write any disagreements either. None of them authored any of the branched-off theologies that are spoken of as gospel today.

23 minutes ago, DarrenJClark said:

// because we are all living under the new covenant of God through Jesus Christ and not under the old covenant as if there was no new covenant.//

We know about the new covenant by examining how the NT authors use he OT to develop their theology not just by the mere fact they do appeal to the OT.  I am not denying anything you are saying here. 

The new testament authors exhibit a development or a revelation on a theme.

23 minutes ago, DarrenJClark said:

//The new testament explains more accurately through greater revelation than that of the old. But perhaps you prefer to avoid what's in the new because it doesn't agree with your premise.//

The thing is, when you look at how the NT authors do use the OT when speaking of the final fate of the wicked it is always taking up language and imagery speaking to complete destruction and they always use this imagery to speak of utter destruction.  You never get them changing this language so it means eternal conscious torment, ever.  

The matter of language still speaks loudly and clearly in what Jesus said concerning the rich man in hell being conscious of torment just as Abraham in the upper region was conscious in paradise (Lk.16:25).

 

23 minutes ago, DarrenJClark said:

Check it out for yourself in verses like Matthew 3:12; 13:40-42;

Mat.3:12 His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Gathering the wheat, but burning the chaff is an effect occurring to one group of people. Compare 1Cor.3: 12-15 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

It is "the wood, hay and stubble" of the righteous that is burned up.

Neither Matthew nor Paul is talking there about what sinners experience in hell.

Mat.13:40-42 is talking about what sinners experience in hell. The difference is evident by using "tares".. "stumbling blocks".. "those who commit lawlessness". And "weeping and gnashing of teeth". None of those words or phrases are in Mat.3:12 or in 1Cor.3:12-15.

23 minutes ago, DarrenJClark said:

John 3:14-16; 2 Thess 1:9; Jude 7; 2 Peter 2:5-6; Rev 14:11; c.f. Rev 19:3. 

John 3:14-16 I would add vs 17-20. In vs.16 "Those who believe shall not perish, but have eternal life." As I understand it, hell is eternal just as heaven is. Therefore those who don't believe remain spiritually dead and upon physical death go to the eternal existence in hell, until the White Throne judgement, then are sent back for the second death in hell. The word "eternal" should be obvious as to it's meaning. If destruction means a total cessation of existence then the word "eternal" should be changed to oblivion.

I'll just use abbreviated quotes in the remaining scripture references.

2Thes.1:9 ".. eternal destruction".. not eternal oblivion.

Jude 7 ".. exhibited in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire".. implies continuous.

2Pet.2:5-6 ".. condemned Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, reducing them to ashes" is only speaking of the once alive people who physically were citywide cremated. The word "eternal" is not mentioned.

Rev.14:10-11 The words "tormented" and "forever and ever".. "having no rest day and night". How does anyone get "unconscious" from that?

Rev.19:2-3 "He has judged the great harlot who was corrupting the earth with her immorality. And her smoke rises up forever and ever." It would seem that God isn't concerned about air pollution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  463
  • Content Per Day:  0.20
  • Reputation:   175
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/08/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, DarrenJClark said:

//I pointed to Rev.20:10 regarding the eternal torment factor. //

 

Yes you did and I gave several reasons why that verse cannot automatically be interpreted as you read it.

And, you are entitled to say that. I clearly do not agree with you.

 

1 hour ago, DarrenJClark said:

If you just move on without addressing those points you can't just come back later as if this verse proves your point.  At some point you have to address the arguments I made.

I have been addressing them. But that is not to say that I must follow your lead.

1 hour ago, DarrenJClark said:

//There are other verses such as Mat.25:41 which specifically puts sinners in the same punishment as the devil and his demonic host, 46 speaks of sinners //

And? 

Answer your own "and".

1 hour ago, DarrenJClark said:

Matthew has already informed us that the fire in Gehenna will destroy the wicked.  In Matthew 3:12; 10:28; 13:40-42; and 18:8-9 he specifically teaches that complete destruction is view.  Why not let Matthew's own words guide you on what he means with this kind of  imagery?

You apparently equate "destroy" with complete cessation of the spirit of man. However that is your invisible insert.

Mat.3:12, 13:40-42 does not teach that "complete destruction" by your interpretation is in view.

Mat.10:28 ".. are unable to kill the soul.. fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Unless and until you can give more detail of it's meaning.. I would take the position that it remains in dispute that you are using it correctly.

Question: how is the body destroyed in hell? [scriptures?]

Question: what is the soul exactly?.. how is it destroyed in hell? [scriptures?]

Question: using any number of scriptures (Eccles.12:7; Job 32:8; Prov.20:27; 1Thes.5:23) that specifically mention the spirit of man.. it apparently isn't destroyed in hell.

1 hour ago, DarrenJClark said:

Matthew's theology of judgement is another academic interest of mine.

//2Thes.1:8-9 speaks of sinners paying the penalty of eternal destruction (in hell).//

Paul does not mention hell but I do agree that he is speaking to the final fate of the wicked.  Notice that this eternal destruction is inflicted on the wicked on that day Christ returns.   See verse 10.  How do you suppose that destruction can happen just on that day when he comes if it is an eternal destroying?  Is it not much less of a contradiction to say they will be destroyed completely forever?

2 Thessalonians 1:10 

"when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed."

When you are arguing from the verse you cite make sure you include all the relevant detail. 

That entire thing confuses me as to who wrote what.

1 hour ago, DarrenJClark said:

//The wording of Jn.5:29 is strongly similar to Dan.12:2.//

Daniel 12:2   "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." 

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."

 

Again, and? 

What I put there isn't supposed to have an "and" after it.

1 hour ago, DarrenJClark said:

Notice that in both Daniel 12:2 and John 5:29 only the righteous receive life.  The wicked do not. 

When you're arguing from the verse you cite make sure you include the relevant detail. The wicked do not what?

Dan.12:2 "the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt". John 5:29 "those who did evil deeds to a resurrection of judgement."

1 hour ago, DarrenJClark said:

John has already been clear that those not believing in Christ will perish (John 3:16) and will go on to say that only believers will not die again in the next age (John 11:26). 

A superfluous additional verse in the midst of repeating previous verses already covered.

1 hour ago, DarrenJClark said:

I can explain my exegesis of these verses in more depth if you wish.  Suffice to say, John is saying the wicked will die, not live forever.   

 

The verses of "eternal destruction" .. don't mean as you erroneously interpret "not live forever".. but it means "destruction of the wicked is ongoing for eternity".

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  463
  • Content Per Day:  0.20
  • Reputation:   175
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/08/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, DarrenJClark said:

I wrote, "The highly symbolic nature of the genre warns against just taking a flat reading and there are ample reasons to think John wanted us to read this verse as teaching the destruction of the wicked."

You read torment in Rev 20:10 as a flat, literal statement, do you not?  That is what I am talking about.  It is what you are doing when you just cite that verse.  In his massive commentary on Revelation, considered by most other scholars to be the best on Rev, Beale warns against reading seemingly literal statements in Rev literally.  When I have time I will find the quote for you.

The context decides whether a text is to be read literally or metaphorically. There is a danger to read a literal meaning as metaphorical because that opens the door to what Peter calls a private (not inspired of God) interpretation.. which you are doing in saying that the wicked don't live forever or exist in the torment of hell forever. That sort of idea has to be read in there without any scriptural support for it on literal or plain reading terms.

If any of the Bible teachers and scholars I accept to be teaching sound doctrine suggest to read and follow Rev.Beale's teachings then I might consider it, but until then I stand on what I've learned from them and my own Bible studies with the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  463
  • Content Per Day:  0.20
  • Reputation:   175
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/08/2017
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, DarrenJClark said:

 

That is a bad translation tradition.

In light of all of the many articles on the internet that speak on the subject, your statement can only be described as a succinct opinion that has very little or no doctrinal weight on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  85
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   10
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/17/2018
  • Status:  Offline

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 11:14 AM, Joulre2abba said:

In light of all of the many articles on the internet that speak on the subject, your statement can only be described as a succinct opinion that has very little or no doctrinal weight on the matter.

I have taken my time to respond because I have been busy at work.  Sorry for the tardy response.  I dislike the way I was responding in piecemeal fashion in separate posts so have put all this together in one post here.  It gets too difficult to track the flow of thought otherwise.

 

 

//I appeal to the new testament texts as Paul and the other writers of the epistles appeal to the old testament texts. Or, I appeal strictly to the revelations within the new testament that the old testament doesn't have.//

 

Speaking only to the question of those texts relating to the final judgment and punishment, there are numerous occasions when the NT authors use the OT language and images of destruction and death.  Examining how they use the OT in these instances it very informative.  In those instances like Matthew 25:46 where the OT is not utilized you can read back and see that throughout his Gospel he does employ the OT to tell us exactly what this punishment will look like. 

 

There are, strictly speaking, not that many instances of revelation within the NT where they have not used the OT.  Even Rev 20:10 is prefaced by a sustained appeal to the OT.  My friend Dr Webb Mealy published his PhD on this very subject thesis (see his book The End of The Unrepentant for a more recent expression of this thesis).  I am not in total agreement with his conclusions yet, but the point I wish to make is that even here the new revelation flows from the NT use of the OT.  Studying how they do that is one of my academic interests, as is studying how Matthew develops his theme of judgement throughout his narrative.

 

//They might not quote each other, but they don't write any disagreements either. None of them authored any of the branched-off theologies that are spoken of as gospel today.//

 

Following what I have just written you can verify just how consistent they are when they do utilize the OT.  On the question of the final fate of he wicked the difference between you and I is simply over whether they survive the punishment.  I am an Evangelical and a lifelong Baptist who holds to every core doctrine in Evangelicalism.  Evangelical Conditionalism, the movement to which I belong, sets the question of hell in the framework of normal Evangelical soteriology.  Further, a good portion of my exegetical work on the relevant texts is facilitate by observations made by several Evangelical commentators (I own hundreds of commentaries and other books so my research is comprehensive).  Whatever branched off theology you have in mind I guarantee you that I do not hold to it. 

 

// The matter of language still speaks loudly and clearly in what Jesus said concerning the rich man in hell being conscious of torment just as Abraham in the upper region was conscious in paradise (Lk.16:25).//

 

And what are we explicitly told here? 

 

1. Well, the episode occurs immediately after the death of Lazarus and the Rich Man, who is in Hades.  Most commentators I have recognize this is speaking to the abode of the dead and the intermediate state. 

 

I do not think we have a picture of an upper region overlooking a lower region as if the location of Abraham is in another environment altogether.  In this episode Abraham and the Rich Man can talk to each other.  It is true that the Rich Man lifts his eyes, but as I. H. Marshall notes in his commentary The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC, pg636-637), “the fact that the rich man ‘lifted his eyes’ (c.f. 6:20) to see Lazarus does not necessarily indicate that the latter was above him; the phraseology is stereotyped (see especially 2 Sa. 18:24).”  I suggest all you need to do is read Like 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”  

 

I can check other commentators on this question if you like but it should be clear that even if Abraham is standing on an elevated side of the great chasm he is still within the same environment of Hades. 

 

Hades is the Greek word used here.  I will comment below on the translation problems of rendering that word as hell.

 

2. Yes, the rich man does experience torment but that is nowhere in this episode identified as a punitive result.  That is, we are not told that God is not punishing him with fire as part a judgement on him.  It is simply the result of being in that environment, where there are flames.  I maintain that this picture of the intermediate state is fundamentally different to those instances in the NT where the last judgement is mentioned and the imagery of fire is used to unequivocally communicate the complete destruction of the wicked.  I will comment on those verses below in response to your rejoinders.

 

//Mat.3:12 His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Gathering the wheat, but burning the chaff is an effect occurring to one group of people. Compare 1Cor.3: 12-15 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

It is "the wood, hay and stubble" of the righteous that is burned up.

Neither Matthew nor Paul is talking there about what sinners experience in hell. //

 

I find it interesting that you have to go away from the context of Matt 3:12 to try and explain your reading of it.  As it stands all you are doing is seeing the word chaff in Matthew and the reference to wood, hay and, stubble in 1 Cor 3:12 and assuming they are speaking to the same point.  Paul does not mention chaff while in Mark only chaff is mentioned.  Does that not alert you to the possibility that they are speaking to two different points?  I would like to see you provide some comment from the context of Matt 3:12 that would support the idea it is about the church as Paul is using it.

 

Looking at the context in Matthew 3, there is some debate in scholarship over whether the Baptist is referring to the church only with his “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” in Matt 3:11.  However, even those scholars arguing that this relates to the church go on to speak of Matthew 3:12 as using a second metaphor from fire to make a point about the eschatological and final judgement.  The best lexicons like BDAG treat “unquenchable fire” in that verse as being synonymous with the eternal fire of Matthew 18:8-9; 25:41 while other lexicons like Louw-Nida relate it to Mark 9:48 where the same imagery is used in relation to Gehenna (hell), the place where the wicked are punished.  That is all highly suggestive that Matt 3:12 is indeed referring to the last judgment of the wicked and not merely to the purification of the righteous in the church.

 

//Mat.13:40-42 is talking about what sinners experience in hell. The difference is evident by using "tares".. "stumbling blocks".. "those who commit lawlessness". And "weeping and gnashing of teeth". None of those words or phrases are in Mat.3:12 or in 1Cor.3:12-15.//

 

Yes!  Matt 13:40-42 is referring to what the wicked experience in hell.  Notice the same basic point is the same here as it is in Matt 3:12.  In each case that which is thrown into the fire is burned to ash.  That is literally what the Greek, κατακαίω (katakaiō) means.  That is what happens to these stumbling blocks and those committing lawlessness, they are burned to ash.  The fact there is weeping and gnashing of teeth fits with this perfectly.  Would you not weep and gnash your teeth if you were being burned to ash like that?

 

If you like I can go into much more depth on how Matthew uses the OT in 3:12 and 13:40-42.  In this second passage he is drawing from Daniel to make his point.  Let me know of you want to explain how he is doing this.

 

 

//John 3:14-16 I would add vs 17-20. In vs.16 "Those who believe shall not perish, but have eternal life." As I understand it, hell is eternal just as heaven is. Therefore those who don't believe remain spiritually dead and upon physical death go to the eternal existence in hell, until the White Throne judgement, then are sent back for the second death in hell. The word "eternal" should be obvious as to it's meaning. If destruction means a total cessation of existence then the word "eternal" should be changed to oblivion. //

 

What you should do is let the context tell you what John means.  In John 3:14  Jesus alludes to an episode in the OT where God directs Moses to attach a bronze snake onto a pole and to lift it up (Num. 21:4-9).  The Israelites were being killed by a plague of snakes and by looking at the elevated bronze snake they could live despite already having been bitten by the snakes.  John uses this episode in a typological way to express the one point that Christ’s elevation on the cross brings true and everlasting life.  Whereas in the wilderness episode the elevation of the bronze snake brings earthly life for the Israelites, in John 3:14-16 Jesus’ elevation on the cross brings “eternal life” for those who believe in him.  Yet Jesus literally says nothing to indicate he wants you to interpret perishing as unending dying.  He develops the typology to teach the idea that only those believing in him have eternal life.  Those who do not believe in him still just die. 

 

You can verify this for yourself.  The Greek word for “perish” he uses is a common word for “destruction”, ἀπόλλῡμι, but is here being used in the middle voice, and intransitively (i.e. where a verb does not need a direct object to make sense), which simply means “to suffer destruction” or “to perish”. When ἀπόλλῡμι is used elsewhere in the Gospel it is clearly to express either that food will decompose completely (c.f. 6:12; 27), or as a synonym for dying (10:10; 11:50; 12:25).  Jesus will go on to speak of this in terms of passing from death to life (5:24; 11:24-25). “Perish”, then, is John’s way of emphasizing that those not believing in Christ will just die.  If Jesus meant to convey the idea of a never-ending existence of perishing in John 3:16 then we might have expected him to speak of “eternal perishing” or to use terminology that indicates ongoing life for those rejecting him.  

 

By the way I leave room for the idea that hell is eternal, it might or might not, but either way my reading would fit.  You seem to have brought the idea to John 3:16 that the wicked live forever just as the righteous do, but that just is not what the very words of this verse say.  What you are doing is called eisegesis (reading into the text) and what I am doing is called exegesis (reading out of the text). 

 

As for your definition of destruction as oblivion, only you have brought that to this discussion, not me.  So if you are responding to the argument that the destruction and death language of the Bible means “to annihilate” or “to go out of existence” then you are responding to claim I do not make. 

 

The idea of a spiritual death is not found in John 3:16 either.  That is just you bringing that idea to the text. 

 

 

//2Thes.1:9 ".. eternal destruction".. not eternal oblivion.//

 

Who said it was?  My challenge to you is to explain how eternal destruction can be inflicted at the time when Jesus comes on that day.  It makes much more sense to say they were destroyed in a way that deprived them of life and that destruction is eternal.  It makes no sense to say that the never-ending experience of being eternally destroyed will occur on that day.  It is up to you how you respond.

 

I recognize that I need to explain to you what my understanding of the destruction and death language of the Bible is, which I will do in time.  I am just responding you your comments for now and then we can move on.  There is a lot of ground to cover.

 

 

//Jude 7 ".. exhibited in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire".. implies continuous.

2Pet.2:5-6 ".. condemned Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, reducing them to ashes" is only speaking of the once alive people who physically were citywide cremated. The word "eternal" is not mentioned. //

 

Jude 7 in no way implies an unending and continuous experience, despite the word eternal being used there.  These two NT authors are pointing to a tangible instance of divine judgment.  S&G had long been regarded as the paradigm case of divine judgment (Deut 29:23; Isa 1:9; 13:19; Jer 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lam 4:6; Hos 11:8; Amos 4:11; Zeph 2:9; Sir 16:8; 3 Macc 2:5; Jub. 16:6, 9; 20:5; 22:22; 36:10; T. Asher 7:1; Philo, Quaest. Gen. 4:51; Josephus, BJ 5.566; Matt 10:15; 11:24; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12; 17:29) (see Richard Bauckham’s WBC commentary on Jude, 2 Peter for these references) and both Jude and Peter are pointing to them as visible examples of what God’s judgment will look like.  Their point both Jude and Peter are making is that you can go and look at the area where the destruction happened and verify they have been destroyed by fire.  That destruction obviously looks like total destruction, not partial destruction where they continue to exist.  Most scholars view 2 Peter 2:6 as explaining Jude 7 further.  That destruction was one where the people were indeed burned to ash.

 

 

The Greek word behind “exhibited” is πρόκειμαι (prokeimai).  When used in the passive voice as it is in Jude 7 it meansto be open to public view, be exposed” (see the lexicons BDAG, Louw-Nida).  So, the idea is that the example S&G provides is in some way visible to Jude’s audience at the time when he wrote that letter.. 

 

The Greek word for “undergoing” is ὑπέχω (hupechō), and is in the form of a participle.  In Greek the tense of participles communicate time relative to that of the controlling verb in the sentence.  In this case, that governing verb is “exhibited” is πρόκειμαι (prokeimai).  Grammatically, S&G are presently displayed as and example and undergoing punishment. 

 

Note that the idea of undergoing punishment might imply an experience but in the Greek it does not necessarily do this.  In fact, there is ample evidence in the Bible where S&G is referred to as an illustration of sin and divine punishment, but this is never depicted as presently suffering a punishment.  This analysis bears out in studies of the use of “exhibited” (πρόκειμαι, prokeimai) with “undergoing” (ὑπέχω, hupechō) in extrabiblical literature where this terminology is used to refer to the past with the present tense in ways that do not imply the present example is intended to communicate a contemporaneous experience.  You can check out Josephus’ use of this terminology in his The Jewish Wars: Book I-VII (Wars of the Jews 6.103), where he encourage his fellow Jews to surrender to the Romans by pointing to Jehoiachin the past king who is set forth as an example of those who are undergoing destruction at the hands of an enemy.  Of course, Josephus is not saying the Jehoiachin reign and death hundreds of years earlier stands literally and visibly before his audience.  He goes on to indicate that he means this is cognitively present in their collective memory.  This is how that terminology is being used in Jude 7. 

 

You also need to consider that the vast majority of scholarship argues for good reason that there is a very strong literary relationship between Jude and 2 Peter so that 2 Peter 6 is often thought of as explaining Jude 7 further.  2 Peter 6 is telling you what the future eschatological punishment of the wicked will do to them – burn them to ashes thus condemning them to extinction.

 

It is very difficult to deny that this is what he means the future punishment with be like irrespective of whether the word eternal is used.  

 

//Rev.14:10-11 The words "tormented" and "forever and ever".. "having no rest day and night". How does anyone get "unconscious" from that?

 

Rev.19:2-3 "He has judged the great harlot who was corrupting the earth with her immorality. And her smoke rises up forever and ever." It would seem that God isn't concerned about air pollution.//

 

It is recognized by most scholars that the imagery of ever ascending smoke is drawn from Isaiah 34:10 which picture the desolate and dead land of Edom.  John himself uses this same imagery in Rev 19:3 to picture the complete destruction of Babylon (c.f. Rev 18:21-24 for context).  The ever-ascending smoke signifies completed destruction on ongoing destruction.  As for “having no rest day or night”.  In the Greek that is literally in the present tense so relates to the act of worshiping in that scene.  It literally refers to them having no rest while worshipping the Beast only.

 

//You apparently equate "destroy" with complete cessation of the spirit of man. However that is your invisible insert. //

 

No, I just let the word means what it means.  I do not define the death and destruction language of the Bible as “to annihilate” or “to go out of existence”.  “Death/to kill” refers to the loss of life – no life = to conscious existence.  Words like apollymi (to destroy) are applied to things like wineskins, which ae said to be shredded.  You do that to a person you kill them.  I exegete each verse carefully to makes sure I am reading them in context.   

 

Mat.3:12, 13:40-42 does not teach that "complete destruction" by your interpretation is in view.

 

See my comments above.  Being burned to ash is complete destruction, the kind of destruction that kills.  No life, no consciousness.   

 

Mat.10:28 ".. are unable to kill the soul.. fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Unless and until you can give more detail of it's meaning.. I would take the position that it remains in dispute that you are using it correctly.

Question: how is the body destroyed in hell? [scriptures?]

Question: what is the soul exactly?.. how is it destroyed in hell? [scriptures?]

Question: using any number of scriptures (Eccles.12:7; Job 32:8; Prov.20:27; 1Thes.5:23) that specifically mention the spirit of man.. it apparently isn't destroyed in hell.

 

I recently posted on Matthew 10:28.  I will paste my comments here.

 

I think Matthew 10:28 is evidence against the idea that the wicked will suffer eternal conscious punishment (ECP) in hell for several reasons.

 

Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. "

 

1. The Greek word for destroy is apollymi and when it is used of one person destroying another in the Synoptic Gospels it always clearly means to kill (e.g., Matt. 2:13; 12:14; 21:41; 27:20; Mark 3:6; 9: 22; Luke 6:9).  Jesus is here just using the language as he normally uses to indicate the body and soul (whole person) will be killed in Gehenna.
 

2. There is parallelism in Matthew 10:28 which means the verbs "to kill" and "to destroy" should be seen as synonyms. 


3. In the preceding context of the verse Jesus had commissioned the disciples (Matt 10:1-13) and informed them that they faced persecution as they completed their mission (10:16-20).  Jesus reassures the disciples by telling them that they will receive assistance form the Holy Spirit to speak boldly in the face of their persecution (10:19-20) but does not address the threat of death (10:21).  This is the specific concern that Matt 10:28 is addressing.  Jesus will go on in Matt 10:39 to encourage the disciples to remain faithful to him.  In that verse he uses apollymi with the passive sense of losing one's life.  To lose one's life in the service of Christ means one will find life.  There is an identifiable flow of thought that informs us of what Jesus intended to say.  Therefore, the surrounding context tells us exactly what Jesus meant when he used apollymi to refer to the destruction of the body and soul in Gehenna. 

 

4. While it is true that apollymi can be used with the sense of "to ruin" that is only in relation to inanimate objects or plants.  Insisting that this shade of meaning is available in Matthew 10:28, when nothing in the context would indicate this meaning is in view, constitutes the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer.  That is the fallacy of assuming all shades of meaning of a word are automatically available for interpretation in all contexts.  There is nothing in the context nor the verse itself that tells us that the "to ruin" meaning is in view in 10:28 or that the killing/destruction in view is the kind that would leave someone alive and conscious.  

 

Since apollymi is being used with its usual sense of "to kill" and the context tells us this is exactly what was intended, I conclude that Matthew 10:28 teaches that the body and the soul (the whole person) will be killed (as in all life taken away like when capital punishment is inflicted on someone) in Gehenna (hell).  This verse is thus evidence against the idea that the Bible teaches ECP.

 

In Matthew 10:28 Jesus is telling you that the body and soul will be killed.  That is the deprivation of life.  There will be no life left and no part of the person left undestroyed so that he or she will remain conscious.  This is not some funky apollymi = to annihilate, or to cause to cease to be.  It is just the normal means od to kill that is in view – it is the loss of life.   

 

I wrote

 

//Notice that in both Daniel 12:2 and John 5:29 only the righteous receive life.  The wicked do not.//

 

You responded

 

//When you're arguing from the verse you cite make sure you include the relevant detail. The wicked do not what? 

Dan.12:2 "the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt". John 5:29 "those who did evil deeds to a resurrection of judgement." //

 

I thought it was obvious I am arguing that the wicked are not explicitly said to have eternal life in any of those verses.

 

Only the righteous receive eternal life.  The wicked are never said to receive life of any kind.  Yes they are resurrected but this is to a punishment that will kill them.

I wrote

 

//John has already been clear that those not believing in Christ will perish (John 3:16) and will go on to say that only believers will not die again in the next age (John 11:26).//

 

You responded

 

//A superfluous additional verse in the midst of repeating previous verses already covered.//

 

Not so.  The Greek in John 11:26 is literally πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα and reads “the one believing in me will never die forever”.  This is said in the narrative of the physical death and resurrection of Lazarus.  Jesus is using the emphatic language οὐ μὴ (not, not = never) and the usual phraseology for saying something will occur or endure forever (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, into the age).  He is stating his main point that of that passage that since he is the resurrection then believers will never die again.  That precludes those interpretation of eternal life in John as simply a qualitative life of eternal blessing.  Eternal life necessarily involves never dying again and John is at pains to emphasize that only believers will indeed live forever.

 

 

// The verses of "eternal destruction" .. don't mean as you erroneously interpret "not live forever".. but it means "destruction of the wicked is ongoing for eternity".//

 

Prove it.  I do not mean just quote verses but lay out your positive exegesis like I am to show why your reading of these texts are to be read as you say they do.

 

// The context decides whether a text is to be read literally or metaphorically. There is a danger to read a literal meaning as metaphorical because that opens the door to what Peter calls a private (not inspired of God) interpretation.. which you are doing in saying that the wicked don't live forever or exist in the torment of hell forever. That sort of idea has to be read in there without any scriptural support for it on literal or plain reading terms.

If any of the Bible teachers and scholars I accept to be teaching sound doctrine suggest to read and follow Rev.Beale's teachings then I might consider it, but until then I stand on what I've learned from them and my own Bible studies with the Lord. //

 

Then you would be interested to note that Beale wrote the following,

 

Some commentators contend that since Revelation sometimes explicitly explains the meaning of an image in a vision there is a “presumption that, where expressions are not explained, they can normally be interpreted according to their natural [i.e., literal] meaning, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.” Therefore, a number of authors of both popular and scholarly commentaries contend that one should interpret literally except where one is forced to interpret symbolically by clear indications of context. But the results of the analysis above of 1:1 indicate that this rule should be turned on its head: we are told in the book’s introduction that the majority of the material in it is revelatory symbolism (1:12–20 and 4:1–22:5 at the least). Hence, the predominant manner by which to approach the material will be according to a nonliteral interpretative method. Of course, some parts are not symbolic, but the essence of the book is figurative. Where there is lack of clarity about whether something is symbolic, the scales of judgment should be tilted in the direction of a nonliteral analysis. (Beale, G. K. (1999). The book of Revelation: a commentary on the Greek text, p. 52).

 

The thing is Beale does not always consistently exegete the text (who really does) so his arguments have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  It is no different to those highly regarded Evangelical annihilationist commentators on Revelation like Ian Paul and Richard Bauckham.

 

 

I also made a comment that the flat translation of Sheol, Gehenna, Tartarus, and Hades as hell is a bad translation tradition.  You responded with,

 

//In light of all of the many articles on the internet that speak on the subject, your statement can only be described as a succinct opinion that has very little or no doctrinal weight on the matter.//

 

Actually, it is commonly recognized in commentaries that there is a problem with jut translating these words with hell and it has led to problems with exegesis.  That tradition entered the English translation tradition with the likes of Wycliffe and Tyndale and over the past 100 years modern translators have been moving away from it.  If you start out thinking Luke 16 is about hell because Hades is translated as Hell then you are going to begin with a false assumption that it speaks to hell and the final state of the wicked when it does not such thing.  It is literally set in Hades and speaks only to the intermediate state.  It pays to be as accurate as one can when exegeting texts and this includes identifying when bad translation is obscuring the teaching in some way.

 

 

I am willing to continue to explain my exegesis as we go along.

 

God bless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  463
  • Content Per Day:  0.20
  • Reputation:   175
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/08/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

I have taken my time to respond because I have been busy at work.  Sorry for the tardy response.  I dislike the way I was responding in piecemeal fashion in separate posts so have put all this together in one post here.  It gets too difficult to track the flow of thought otherwise.

Either way.. the post is quite long.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

//I appeal to the new testament texts as Paul and the other writers of the epistles appeal to the old testament texts. Or, I appeal strictly to the revelations within the new testament that the old testament doesn't have.//

Speaking only to the question of those texts relating to the final judgment and punishment, there are numerous occasions when the NT authors use the OT language and images of destruction and death.  Examining how they use the OT in these instances it very informative.  In those instances like Matthew 25:46 where the OT is not utilized you can read back and see that throughout his Gospel he does employ the OT to tell us exactly what this punishment will look like. 

An eternal one.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

There are, strictly speaking, not that many instances of revelation within the NT where they have not used the OT.  Even Rev 20:10 is prefaced by a sustained appeal to the OT.  My friend Dr Webb Mealy published his PhD on this very subject thesis (see his book The End of The Unrepentant for a more recent expression of this thesis).  I am not in total agreement with his conclusions yet, but the point I wish to make is that even here the new revelation flows from the NT use of the OT.  Studying how they do that is one of my academic interests, as is studying how Matthew develops his theme of judgement throughout his narrative.

I would not be in agreement with him either.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

//They might not quote each other, but they don't write any disagreements either. None of them authored any of the branched-off theologies that are spoken of as gospel today.//

Following what I have just written you can verify just how consistent they are when they do utilize the OT.  On the question of the final fate of he wicked the difference between you and I is simply over whether they survive the punishment.  I am an Evangelical and a lifelong Baptist who holds to every core doctrine in Evangelicalism. 

 

There's the presbyterian church sign that says "There ain't no hell" And just down the road there's the baptist church sign that says "The hell there ain't".

Southern baptists call hell "an eternal, conscious punishment". They are known for being "hellfire and brimstone" preachers.

I have not been aware that there is any other kind of baptist.. so if not for the internet I likely would not have known.

I myself am Methodist in background. I do not agree with any modern changes in doctrine however.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

Evangelical Conditionalism, the movement to which I belong, sets the question of hell in the framework of normal Evangelical soteriology. 

You have stated that you don't hold to the "branched off theology".

The conditionalism of eternal punishment is outside of what the Bible states. Those who promote it have stated that "there is a growing number of evangelical Christians who reject the majority doctrine of "eternal conscious torment".

It would mean that the growing number don't believe the straightforward doctrines taught in the Bible anymore.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

Further, a good portion of my exegetical work on the relevant texts is facilitate by observations made by several Evangelical commentators (I own hundreds of commentaries and other books so my research is comprehensive).  Whatever branched off theology you have in mind I guarantee you that I do not hold to it. 

It would seem that you have a different view on what's normative by which you make your claim.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

// The matter of language still speaks loudly and clearly in what Jesus said concerning the rich man in hell being conscious of torment just as Abraham in the upper region was conscious in paradise (Lk.16:25).//

And what are we explicitly told here? 

1. Well, the episode occurs immediately after the death of Lazarus and the Rich Man, who is in Hades.  Most commentators I have recognize this is speaking to the abode of the dead and the intermediate state. 

I do not think we have a picture of an upper region overlooking a lower region as if the location of Abraham is in another environment altogether. 

The distinction is in the terms refered to within the account that Jesus spoke of "upper region = paradise" which Jesus called "Abrham's bosom".. and "lower region = torment".
In order to think that there isn't any distinction, one would have to discount what Jesus said and reclassify or re-identify what Jesus said.

I for one would not do such a thing while others allow themselves that way of interpretation which veers off from the truth and and into what is not truth.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

In this episode Abraham and the Rich Man can talk to each other.  It is true that the Rich Man lifts his eyes, but as I. H. Marshall notes in his commentary The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC, pg636-637), “the fact that the rich man ‘lifted his eyes’ (c.f. 6:20) to see Lazarus does not necessarily indicate that the latter was above him; the phraseology is stereotyped (see especially 2 Sa. 18:24).”  I suggest all you need to do is read Like 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”  

The right way to read it is to keep the context and environment described. The distance is the factor. For Abraham spoke of "a great gulf betwixt we here and you (the rich man) there." To seek to use any verse that agrees with one's veered off thinking is not correct exegesis.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

I can check other commentators on this question if you like but it should be clear that even if Abraham is standing on an elevated side of the great chasm he is still within the same environment of Hades. 

As said previously "hades" is merely the Greek word for the Hebrew word Sheol which refers to the nether region.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

Hades is the Greek word used here.  I will comment below on the translation problems of rendering that word as hell.

 

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

2. Yes, the rich man does experience torment but that is nowhere in this episode identified as a punitive result.  That is, we are not told that God is not punishing him with fire as part a judgement on him.  It is simply the result of being in that environment, where there are flames. 

There is nothing in scripture to support that statement. Or would that interpretation be the case with the antichrist, the false prophet, and all wicked sinners as well? That they aren't getting punished in a firey hell but they just happen to be in that environment.

That dog won't hunt.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

I maintain that this picture of the intermediate state is fundamentally different to those instances in the NT where the last judgement is mentioned and the imagery of fire is used to unequivocally communicate the complete destruction of the wicked. 

So as to nullify the purpose of an eternal punishment?

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

I will comment on those verses below in response to your rejoinders.

 

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

//Mat.3:12 His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Gathering the wheat, but burning the chaff is an effect occurring to one group of people. Compare 1Cor.3: 12-15 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

It is "the wood, hay and stubble" of the righteous that is burned up.

Neither Matthew nor Paul is talking there about what sinners experience in hell. //

 

I find it interesting that you have to go away from the context of Matt 3:12 to try and explain your reading of it. 

 

There are such things as supportive references, my Bible is full of them. However, it's not likely that any Bible worth it's salt will use the veered off verses that you and those do who promote conditionalism.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

As it stands all you are doing is seeing the word chaff in Matthew and the reference to wood, hay and, stubble in 1 Cor 3:12 and assuming they are speaking to the same point.  Paul does not mention chaff while in Mark only chaff is mentioned.  Does that not alert you to the possibility that they are speaking to two different points?  I would like to see you provide some comment from the context of Matt 3:12 that would support the idea it is about the church as Paul is using it.

You would have to consult the editors, publishers of my Bible. But I'd take the challenge and say that "chaff" is comparative to "stubble", and "barn" is comparative to the gatherings of the harvest. Which compares with the "gathering" done concerning the saints in the rapture. The saints therefore standing before Jesus who inspects our works wether they be of precious or unworthy fruits.

The context of the verse references are obvious to be speaking of those things.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

Looking at the context in Matthew 3, there is some debate in scholarship over whether the Baptist is referring to the church only with his “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” in Matt 3:11.  However, even those scholars arguing that this relates to the church go on to speak of Matthew 3:12 as using a second metaphor from fire to make a point about the eschatological and final judgement. 

 

The Holy Spirit and fire burns off the unrighteousness to purify the "temple" dwelling place of the Holy Spirit which is the inner-being of the converted.

To those who are unrepentant sinners in hell, the unrighteousness remains, the sinner unpurified. Therefore they remain in hell for eternity.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

The best lexicons like BDAG treat “unquenchable fire” in that verse as being synonymous with the eternal fire of Matthew 18:8-9; 25:41 while other lexicons like Louw-Nida relate it to Mark 9:48 where the same imagery is used in relation to Gehenna (hell), the place where the wicked are punished.  That is all highly suggestive that Matt 3:12 is indeed referring to the last judgment of the wicked and not merely to the purification of the righteous in the church.

Matthew 3:12 did not use words to indicate that it refered to sinners, therefore to believers. Mat.18:8-9 is speaking to believers. The apostle Paul wrote that the believers were willing to pluck out their eyes (gal.4:15).

Mat.25:41 is said to sinners. Mrk.9:48 is to sinners.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

//Mat.13:40-42 is talking about what sinners experience in hell. The difference is evident by using "tares".. "stumbling blocks".. "those who commit lawlessness". And "weeping and gnashing of teeth". None of those words or phrases are in Mat.3:12 or in 1Cor.3:12-15.//

Yes!  Matt 13:40-42 is referring to what the wicked experience in hell.  Notice the same basic point is the same here as it is in Matt 3:12.  In each case that which is thrown into the fire is burned to ash. 

No, I said that Mat.13:40-42 is of the sinner while Mat.3:12 is of the believer. While you said that they are the same, speaking to the sinner.

The difference is glaringly clear, but you choose not to see that.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

That is literally what the Greek, κατακαίω (katakaiō) means.  That is what happens to these stumbling blocks and those committing lawlessness, they are burned to ash.  The fact there is weeping and gnashing of teeth fits with this perfectly.  Would you not weep and gnash your teeth if you were being burned to ash like that?

I thank God that I will not experience such a thing, so I don't waste my time in imagining it. But that verse proves against the sinners being reduced to ash because they weep and gnash their teeth over their mistakes for eternity. None who are burned to ash could do those things.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

If you like I can go into much more depth on how Matthew uses the OT in 3:12 and 13:40-42.  In this second passage he is drawing from Daniel to make his point.  Let me know of you want to explain how he is doing this.

//John 3:14-16 I would add vs 17-20. In vs.16 "Those who believe shall not perish, but have eternal life." As I understand it, hell is eternal just as heaven is. Therefore those who don't believe remain spiritually dead and upon physical death go to the eternal existence in hell, until the White Throne judgement, then are sent back for the second death in hell. The word "eternal" should be obvious as to it's meaning. If destruction means a total cessation of existence then the word "eternal" should be changed to oblivion. //

 

What you should do is let the context tell you what John means. 

 

How different that you with your conditionalism, don't.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

In John 3:14  Jesus alludes to an episode in the OT where God directs Moses to attach a bronze snake onto a pole and to lift it up (Num. 21:4-9).  The Israelites were being killed by a plague of snakes and by looking at the elevated bronze snake they could live despite already having been bitten by the snakes.  John uses this episode in a typological way to express the one point that Christ’s elevation on the cross brings true and everlasting life.  Whereas in the wilderness episode the elevation of the bronze snake brings earthly life for the Israelites, in John 3:14-16 Jesus’ elevation on the cross brings “eternal life” for those who believe in him.  Yet Jesus literally says nothing to indicate he wants you to interpret perishing as unending dying.  He develops the typology to teach the idea that only those believing in him have eternal life.  Those who do not believe in him still just die. 

We know from the account of the rich man and Lazerus that those who do unrighteousness do not just die. We know that they are tormented unendingly. There's no hope of it ending not even if any righteous person could give water to quench that torment for even a small space of time. The only hope is to believe the Bible and believe in Jesus the Son of God and Savior from sin and death.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

You can verify this for yourself.  The Greek word for “perish” he uses is a common word for “destruction”, ἀπόλλῡμι, but is here being used in the middle voice, and intransitively (i.e. where a verb does not need a direct object to make sense), which simply means “to suffer destruction” or “to perish”. When ἀπόλλῡμι is used elsewhere in the Gospel it is clearly to express either that food will decompose completely (c.f. 6:12; 27), or as a synonym for dying (10:10; 11:50; 12:25).  

The numbers are not connected with any Bible book name so they are unusable as attempted references. I will not take the time to go on some extended hunt to match them up appropriately. For fairness sake, they are discounted as support for your conditionalism.

Perish is refering to the physical body.. therefore the destruction process of it. However, the Bible clearly indicates that people who die still exist either in hell or heaven.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

Jesus will go on to speak of this in terms of passing from death to life (5:24; 11:24-25). “Perish”, then, is John’s way of emphasizing that those not believing in Christ will just die.  If Jesus meant to convey the idea of a never-ending existence of perishing in John 3:16 then we might have expected him to speak of “eternal perishing” or to use terminology that indicates ongoing life for those rejecting him.  

So your way seems to be to make a point by ignoring all that is said about "perish and eternal punishment", but the apostles speak of eternal punishment.. therefore the apostles understood Jesus when he said in Mat.25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." And Mat.25:41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels." And Dan.12:12 "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt." 

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

By the way I leave room for the idea that hell is eternal, it might or might not, but either way my reading would fit. 

There is only one way that the scriptures "fit".. hint.. it's not your conditionalism way.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

You seem to have brought the idea to John 3:16 that the wicked live forever just as the righteous do, but that just is not what the very words of this verse say. 

 

In the context of John 3 Jesus is focusing on what change is wrought when believing in him. But in other verses he states the eternal punishment factor.

If it seems to you that I indicated that the wicked live forever out of John 3, then that's a signicant achievement that even you are aware of.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

What you are doing is called eisegesis (reading into the text) and what I am doing is called exegesis (reading out of the text). 

Let's be clear here. Conditionalism requires eisegesis, while reading the plain text that there is eternal punishment for the wicked is exegesis.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

As for your definition of destruction as oblivion, only you have brought that to this discussion, not me. 

 

I used "oblivion" in respect to "non-existence" which is what you claim rather than what the Bible states of eternally existing punishment for the wicked.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

So if you are responding to the argument that the destruction and death language of the Bible means “to annihilate” or “to go out of existence” then you are responding to claim I do not make. 

If you are not conveying that then why do you avoid or ignore "eternal punishment"?

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

The idea of a spiritual death is not found in John 3:16 either.  That is just you bringing that idea to the text. 

Did I?

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

//2Thes.1:9 ".. eternal destruction".. not eternal oblivion.//

 

Who said it was?  My challenge to you is to explain how eternal destruction can be inflicted at the time when Jesus comes on that day.

 

Did the apostle Paul indicate that it would occur on that day? The issue of when was not my purpose for using the text.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

  It makes much more sense to say they were destroyed in a way that deprived them of life and that destruction is eternal.  It makes no sense to say that the never-ending experience of being eternally destroyed will occur on that day.  It is up to you how you respond.

As I said, I didn't say when it would happen so one wonders why you bring it up as though I did.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

I recognize that I need to explain to you what my understanding of the destruction and death language of the Bible is, which I will do in time.  I am just responding you your comments for now and then we can move on.  There is a lot of ground to cover.

On the contrary, many of the posts have been going over ground that has already been covered. So I'm not interested in continuing further.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

//Jude 7 ".. exhibited in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire".. implies continuous.

2Pet.2:5-6 ".. condemned Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, reducing them to ashes" is only speaking of the once alive people who physically were citywide cremated. The word "eternal" is not mentioned. //

Jude 7 in no way implies an unending and continuous experience, despite the word eternal being used there. 

Jude 7 says "They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

To read that then say that it means something else is called eisegesis (reading into the text). I use your example. Yet you have stated in this post that you don't do it.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

These two NT authors are pointing to a tangible instance of divine judgment.  S&G had long been regarded as the paradigm case of divine judgment (Deut 29:23; Isa 1:9; 13:19; Jer 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lam 4:6; Hos 11:8; Amos 4:11; Zeph 2:9; Sir 16:8; 3 Macc 2:5; Jub. 16:6, 9; 20:5; 22:22; 36:10; T. Asher 7:1; Philo, Quaest. Gen. 4:51; Josephus, BJ 5.566; Matt 10:15; 11:24; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12; 17:29) (see Richard Bauckham’s WBC commentary on Jude, 2 Peter for these references)

It's not a matter in dispute so the statement and one verse reference is all that's needed.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

and both Jude and Peter are pointing to them as visible examples of what God’s judgment will look like. 

 

Examples from a natural physical sense but also useful from an eternal punishment sense. The Bible itself is evidence concerning eternal punishment. Jesus in recounting the incident of the rich man and lazerus said that Abraham pointed to the Bible as all that's needed for anyone to know about an eternal punishment to avoid.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

Their point both Jude and Peter are making is that you can go and look at the area where the destruction happened and verify they have been destroyed by fire.  That destruction obviously looks like total destruction, not partial destruction where they continue to exist.  Most scholars view 2 Peter 2:6 as explaining Jude 7 further.  That destruction was one where the people were indeed burned to ash.

You are putting the emphasis on what can be naturally observed. I used the verses because they spoke of eternal punishment.. which can't be seen.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

The Greek word behind “exhibited” is πρόκειμαι (prokeimai).  When used in the passive voice as it is in Jude 7 it meansto be open to public view, be exposed” (see the lexicons BDAG, Louw-Nida).  So, the idea is that the example S&G provides is in some way visible to Jude’s audience at the time when he wrote that letter.. 

The Greek word for “undergoing” is ὑπέχω (hupechō), and is in the form of a participle.  In Greek the tense of participles communicate time relative to that of the controlling verb in the sentence.  In this case, that governing verb is “exhibited” is πρόκειμαι (prokeimai).  Grammatically, S&G are presently displayed as and example and undergoing punishment. 

Note that the idea of undergoing punishment might imply an experience but in the Greek it does not necessarily do this.  In fact, there is ample evidence in the Bible where S&G is referred to as an illustration of sin and divine punishment, but this is never depicted as presently suffering a punishment.  This analysis bears out in studies of the use of “exhibited” (πρόκειμαι, prokeimai) with “undergoing” (ὑπέχω, hupechō) in extrabiblical literature where this terminology is used to refer to the past with the present tense in ways that do not imply the present example is intended to communicate a contemporaneous experience.  You can check out Josephus’ use of this terminology in his The Jewish Wars: Book I-VII (Wars of the Jews 6.103), where he encourage his fellow Jews to surrender to the Romans by pointing to Jehoiachin the past king who is set forth as an example of those who are undergoing destruction at the hands of an enemy.  Of course, Josephus is not saying the Jehoiachin reign and death hundreds of years earlier stands literally and visibly before his audience.  He goes on to indicate that he means this is cognitively present in their collective memory.  This is how that terminology is being used in Jude 7. 

You also need to consider that the vast majority of scholarship argues for good reason that there is a very strong literary relationship between Jude and 2 Peter so that 2 Peter 6 is often thought of as explaining Jude 7 further.  2 Peter 6 is telling you what the future eschatological punishment of the wicked will do to them – burn them to ashes thus condemning them to extinction.

In this post you said. "So if you are responding to the argument that the destruction and death language of the Bible means “to annihilate” or “to go out of existence” then you are responding to claim I do not make."

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

It is very difficult to deny that this is what he means the future punishment with be like irrespective of whether the word eternal is used.

 

When Jesus or any other speaks of punisment after death the word "eternal" is always used. And is always meant to be there. Only one who accepts the unbiblical conditionalism will state as you have been doing.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

//Rev.14:10-11 The words "tormented" and "forever and ever".. "having no rest day and night". How does anyone get "unconscious" from that?

 

Rev.19:2-3 "He has judged the great harlot who was corrupting the earth with her immorality. And her smoke rises up forever and ever." It would seem that God isn't concerned about air pollution.//

 

It is recognized by most scholars that the imagery of ever ascending smoke is drawn from Isaiah 34:10 which picture the desolate and dead land of Edom.  John himself uses this same imagery in Rev 19:3 to picture the complete destruction of Babylon (c.f. Rev 18:21-24 for context).  The ever-ascending smoke signifies completed destruction on ongoing destruction.  As for “having no rest day or night”.  In the Greek that is literally in the present tense so relates to the act of worshiping in that scene.  It literally refers to them having no rest while worshipping the Beast only.

How can anyone still worship what has been destroyed? That would not be possible. So the application of the "present tense" is to be elsewhere, not on an act of worship.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

//You apparently equate "destroy" with complete cessation of the spirit of man. However that is your invisible insert. //

No, I just let the word means what it means.  I do not define the death and destruction language of the Bible as “to annihilate” or “to go out of existence”.  “Death/to kill” refers to the loss of life – no life = to conscious existence. 

 

You said however, "2 Peter 6 is telling you what the future eschatological punishment of the wicked will do to them – burn them to ashes thus condemning them to extinction."

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

Words like apollymi (to destroy) are applied to things like wineskins, which ae said to be shredded.  You do that to a person you kill them.  I exegete each verse carefully to makes sure I am reading them in context.   

If you were, then you wouldn't be contradicting yourself as you've done.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

Mat.3:12, 13:40-42 does not teach that "complete destruction" by your interpretation is in view.

See my comments above.  Being burned to ash is complete destruction, the kind of destruction that kills.  No life, no consciousness.   

That the Bible doesn't teach... it says "eternal punishment" which means consciousness to experience it unendingly.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

Mat.10:28 ".. are unable to kill the soul.. fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Unless and until you can give more detail of it's meaning.. I would take the position that it remains in dispute that you are using it correctly.

Question: how is the body destroyed in hell? [scriptures?]

 

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

Question: what is the soul exactly?.. how is it destroyed in hell? [scriptures?]

Question: using any number of scriptures (Eccles.12:7; Job 32:8; Prov.20:27; 1Thes.5:23) that specifically mention the spirit of man.. it apparently isn't destroyed in hell.

 

I recently posted on Matthew 10:28.  I will paste my comments here.

 

I think Matthew 10:28 is evidence against the idea that the wicked will suffer eternal conscious punishment (ECP) in hell for several reasons.

Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. "

1. The Greek word for destroy is apollymi and when it is used of one person destroying another in the Synoptic Gospels it always clearly means to kill (e.g., Matt. 2:13; 12:14; 21:41; 27:20; Mark 3:6; 9: 22; Luke 6:9).  Jesus is here just using the language as he normally uses to indicate the body and soul (whole person) will be killed in Gehenna.
 

The physical body at death has to be buried, it doesn't go to hell. Therefore destroy in hell does not mean "kill".

The rich man in hell (Lk.16:14-31) had thirst, he felt the torment. Abraham never told him that he'd soon be out of his misery because he was getting his just due of eternal punishment.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

2. There is parallelism in Matthew 10:28 which means the verbs "to kill" and "to destroy" should be seen as synonyms. 

In one verse it uses the word "kill" regarding the body but not the soul. In the second verse it uses the word "destroy" regarding both soul and body in hell. So, "kill" is not synonomous with "destroy".

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

3. In the preceding context of the verse Jesus had commissioned the disciples (Matt 10:1-13) and informed them that they faced persecution as they completed their mission (10:16-20).  Jesus reassures the disciples by telling them that they will receive assistance form the Holy Spirit to speak boldly in the face of their persecution (10:19-20) but does not address the threat of death (10:21).  This is the specific concern that Matt 10:28 is addressing.  Jesus will go on in Matt 10:39 to encourage the disciples to remain faithful to him.  In that verse he uses apollymi with the passive sense of losing one's life.  To lose one's life in the service of Christ means one will find life.  

 

Therefore Jesus is talking about two kinds of life.

1. physical temporal

2. spiritual eternal

Both eternal existence in either hell or heaven.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

There is an identifiable flow of thought that informs us of what Jesus intended to say.  Therefore, the surrounding context tells us exactly what Jesus meant when he used apollymi to refer to the destruction of the body and soul in Gehenna. 

At death the physical body ceases to function. As does the awareness of the brain. On a medical aparatus it registers as dead.

Therefore the destruction of the spiritual body, and the corruption of the soul can only occur in hell.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

4. While it is true that apollymi can be used with the sense of "to ruin" that is only in relation to inanimate objects or plants.  Insisting that this shade of meaning is available in Matthew 10:28, when nothing in the context would indicate this meaning is in view, constitutes the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer. 

 

You said, "Words like apollymi (to destroy) are applied to things like wineskins, which ae said to be shredded."

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

That is the fallacy of assuming all shades of meaning of a word are automatically available for interpretation in all contexts.  There is nothing in the context nor the verse itself that tells us that the "to ruin" meaning is in view in 10:28 or that the killing/destruction in view is the kind that would leave someone alive and conscious.  

 

Exercise that rule concerning yourself. .. saying that "kill" and "destroy" are synonomous when they aren't.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

Since apollymi is being used with its usual sense of "to kill" and the context tells us this is exactly what was intended,

 

There are two verses in Mat.10:28 with differing meanings. That's clear because of the two different results.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

I conclude that Matthew 10:28 teaches that the body and the soul (the whole person) will be killed (as in all life taken away like when capital punishment is inflicted on someone) in Gehenna (hell).  This verse is thus evidence against the idea that the Bible teaches ECP.

I've already stated that the physical body is not in hell so it can't be speaking of "the whole person". 

The mistakes due to your presuppositions are not resulting in accuracy of conclusion.

The Bible clearly states "eternal punishment" which cannot be carried out if the wicked sinner is "killed" in hell and therefore not experiencing any of the punishment for eternity.

Yours is the unbiblical "idea" that seeks to ursurp over the knowledge of God stated by Jesus, and the apostles.. all getting their knowlege from God himself via the Holy Spirit.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

In Matthew 10:28 Jesus is telling you that the body and soul will be killed.  That is the deprivation of life.  There will be no life left and no part of the person left undestroyed so that he or she will remain conscious.  This is not some funky apollymi = to annihilate, or to cause to cease to be.  It is just the normal means od to kill that is in view – it is the loss of life.   

I wrote

//Notice that in both Daniel 12:2 and John 5:29 only the righteous receive life.  The wicked do not.//

You responded

//When you're arguing from the verse you cite make sure you include the relevant detail. The wicked do not what? 

 

Dan.12:2 "the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt". John 5:29 "those who did evil deeds to a resurrection of judgement." //

 

I thought it was obvious I am arguing that the wicked are not explicitly said to have eternal life in any of those verses.

Only the righteous receive eternal life.  The wicked are never said to receive life of any kind.  Yes they are resurrected but this is to a punishment that will kill them.

I wrote

//John has already been clear that those not believing in Christ will perish (John 3:16) and will go on to say that only believers will not die again in the next age (John 11:26).//

You responded

//A superfluous additional verse in the midst of repeating previous verses already covered.//

Not so.  The Greek in John 11:26 is literally πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα and reads “the one believing in me will never die forever”.  This is said in the narrative of the physical death and resurrection of Lazarus.  Jesus is using the emphatic language οὐ μὴ (not, not = never) and the usual phraseology for saying something will occur or endure forever (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, into the age).  He is stating his main point that of that passage that since he is the resurrection then believers will never die again.  That precludes those interpretation of eternal life in John as simply a qualitative life of eternal blessing.  Eternal life necessarily involves never dying again and John is at pains to emphasize that only believers will indeed live forever.

John 11:26 is surrounding the topic of death therefore Jesus is assuring the person that though the righteous person physically dies they will be raised up to eternal life that is free from the troubles of the world.

The topic of what happens to the unrighteous dead are not in view in that conversation. So you are reading into it that he was saying that only those who believe will live forever.

If I was to read into it, I could say that every time Jesus talked about eternal life it was an unsaid reminder that those who don't believe will be in hell experiencing eternal punishment.. based on those scriptures where he did speak of both the believers to have eternal life and the unbelievers to have eternal punishment.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

// The verses of "eternal destruction" .. don't mean as you erroneously interpret "not live forever".. but it means "destruction of the wicked is ongoing for eternity".//

Prove it.  I do not mean just quote verses but lay out your positive exegesis like I am to show why your reading of these texts are to be read as you say they do.

With everything you've said I've responded with verse references to prove what I say. So the proof is already there.

If you are talking about cut/pasting Hebrew or Greek and the translations, that is not my method. Therefore it's not appropriate of you to require it of me. As a polite request on your part, I take priviledge to decline.

If you don't follow with what I do post then I suggest that we discontinue posting each other.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

// The context decides whether a text is to be read literally or metaphorically. There is a danger to read a literal meaning as metaphorical because that opens the door to what Peter calls a private (not inspired of God) interpretation.. which you are doing in saying that the wicked don't live forever or exist in the torment of hell forever. That sort of idea has to be read in there without any scriptural support for it on literal or plain reading terms.

 

If any of the Bible teachers and scholars I accept to be teaching sound doctrine suggest to read and follow Rev.Beale's teachings then I might consider it, but until then I stand on what I've learned from them and my own Bible studies with the Lord. //

 

Then you would be interested to note that Beale wrote the following,

Some commentators contend that since Revelation sometimes explicitly explains the meaning of an image in a vision there is a “presumption that, where expressions are not explained, they can normally be interpreted according to their natural [i.e., literal] meaning, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.” Therefore, a number of authors of both popular and scholarly commentaries contend that one should interpret literally except where one is forced to interpret symbolically by clear indications of context. But the results of the analysis above of 1:1 indicate that this rule should be turned on its head: we are told in the book’s introduction that the majority of the material in it is revelatory symbolism (1:12–20 and 4:1–22:5 at the least). Hence, the predominant manner by which to approach the material will be according to a nonliteral interpretative method. Of course, some parts are not symbolic, but the essence of the book is figurative. Where there is lack of clarity about whether something is symbolic, the scales of judgment should be tilted in the direction of a nonliteral analysis. (Beale, G. K. (1999). The book of Revelation: a commentary on the Greek text, p. 52).

Due to the function of this kind of posting it's not immediate as to whether I commented on the book of Revelation alone, or whether I meant any scripture in the new testament as well as the old.

Since Beale sounds accurate in that statement it boggles me as to how you come up with the interpretations that you have concerning the scriptures discussed that are not out of Revelation.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

The thing is Beale does not always consistently exegete the text (who really does) so his arguments have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  It is no different to those highly regarded Evangelical annihilationist commentators on Revelation like Ian Paul and Richard Bauckham.

I don't know either one of them so I couldn't comment either way.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

I also made a comment that the flat translation of Sheol, Gehenna, Tartarus, and Hades as hell is a bad translation tradition.  You responded with,

//In light of all of the many articles on the internet that speak on the subject, your statement can only be described as a succinct opinion that has very little or no doctrinal weight on the matter.//

 

Actually, it is commonly recognized in commentaries that there is a problem with jut translating these words with hell and it has led to problems with exegesis.  That tradition entered the English translation tradition with the likes of Wycliffe and Tyndale and over the past 100 years modern translators have been moving away from it.  If you start out thinking Luke 16 is about hell because Hades is translated as Hell then you are going to begin with a false assumption that it speaks to hell and the final state of the wicked when it does not such thing.  It is literally set in Hades and speaks only to the intermediate state.  It pays to be as accurate as one can when exegeting texts and this includes identifying when bad translation is obscuring the teaching in some way.

As far as it goes, there is a second death for the wicked so in that sense the "eternal punishment" is suspended during the time that all are standing before the Great White Throne Judgement. However the Bible in no way indicates that their resumed punishment isn't eternal.

On 3/25/2019 at 12:34 AM, DarrenJClark said:

I am willing to continue to explain my exegesis as we go along.

God bless.

 

Like I've already stated, the topic has been suffiently covered to my satisfaction. Perhaps I should have right up front stated that I would only post three replies at the most. Beyond that is beyond what I'd wanted to do. Excuse me for not saying anything sooner. My excuse it that I'd begin replying with saying that in mind, but then it would slip my mind when it came time to push the "submit reply" button.

May you find another to discuss this topic with to your hearts content if that much is what satifies you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...