I thank God for the ministry of William Lane Craig. I have personally
been helped by his writings and his videos. His teaching is a model of
excellence in two important ways. First, what he teaches is God’s truth. I’m
not claiming he gets every detail correct but, overall, he is teaching and
defending important truths taught in God’s Word. Second, he is a model of how
to use good, clear, reasoning. The following critique of Craig’s recent
response to a question about Condtional Immortality (also called
annihilationism) doesn’t change any of this. It does show, in my opinion, that
even the best of Christian teachers can occasionally give poorly reasoned
answers.
Recently, a listener/reader of Dr. Craig sent him a question about
the nature of hell. The questioner very
briefly presented some biblical arguments in favor of conditional immortality and asked for Craig’s response. Craig posted his response in
the Question of the Week portion of his website. You may read both the question and Craig’s response here. In the rest of this post I will analyze
Craig’s response.
1. The claim that eternal torment is well-attested
in Scripture
Dr. Craig begins with a general assertion that Scripture supports
eternal torment. He then quotes one verse which apparently he intends as an
example of Scriptural support for eternal torment:
It seems to me that the traditional
view that hell implies eternal, conscious torment is reasonably well-attested
in Scripture. “These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction,
separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (II
Thessalonians 1.9).
I’m not sure why Craig believes that 2 Thessalonians 1:9 supports
eternal torment. He doesn’t tell us. Based on a previous answer Dr. Craig gave to
a question about hell (see this video
from Rethinking Hell) he may be focusing on the word “separated”. If so, his
case is quite weak since the word “separated” is added by some translators but
is not in the original Greek text (for an in-depth discussion of this
translation issue you may read helpful articles here and here).
Or perhaps Dr. Craig feels the phrase “eternal destruction”
supports the doctrine of “eternal torment”. While the Greek word for
destruction here, olethros, has a
range of meaning that doesn’t seem to completely rule out torment, it turns out
that this is one of the words used earlier in Greek philosophy specifically and
explicitly to refer to the annihilation of souls:
And, Cebes, I believe, granted that
the soul is more lasting than the body, but said that no one could know that
the soul, after wearing out many bodies, did not at last perish itself upon
leaving the body; and that this was death—the
destruction [Greek: olethros] of
the soul, since the body is continually being destroyed. (From Phaedo 91d, by Plato.)
I certainly would not have chosen 2 Thessalonians 1:9 as an
example of scriptural support for eternal torment. But then again, there aren’t
any better options since Scripture does not actually support eternal torment.
Like other conditionalists, I found that the handful of proof texts often given
to support eternal torment all actually support annihilationism when examined
with proper exegetical care (for example, you may read this post about Matthew 25:46, or this series on the two oft-quoted passages in Revelation).
2. An irrelevant and questionable belief
Craig goes on to state a belief he has:
Denials of this doctrine spring
primarily, I believe, from emotional abhorrence and noncogent philosophical
objections.
If you read the question which Craig is responding to you will
find no hints of emotional abhorrence. Nor are the brief arguments made philosophical
in nature. The arguments are entirely biblical and exegetical. Of course, Craig
seems to be referring to people in general and not just the author of the
question. But how does Craig know the primary motives of those who deny conditional
immortality? I’ve been immersed in the writings, discussions, and debates associated
with conditional immortality for about 9 years now. Over and over again I hear
the same testimony from those who, like myself, have shifted from belief in eternal torment to belief in
conditional immortality. The testimony is that the shift was driven by the
study of Scripture.
But even if some people reject the doctrine of eternal torment because
they find it emotionally abhorrent (which it is!), what would this have to do
with whether or not the doctrine is true? Christians have sometimes been
accused of believing in a perfect eternal life after death because such belief
is emotionally attractive. In fact, it is very emotionally attractive. That
doesn’t mean it isn’t true!
As far as the charge of “noncogent philosophical objections”,
Craig gives neither examples nor evidence that this is the case. In my
experience, conditionalist arguments are overwhelmingly exegetical rather than
philosophical in nature. The few philosophical arguments which are made in favor
of conditional immortality have biblical and logical support.
3. Craig vs. the Apostle Peter on meaning of Old
Testament Prototypes
Next, Craig responds to the questioner’s use of Old Testament
examples of judgment as giving support to annihilationism:
First, it’s just bad hermeneutics to
take Old Testament “prototypes” as the interpretive key to New Testament
doctrine on the state of the damned after death. You risk imposing some
accidental feature of those stories onto New Testament teaching, which may be
contrary to that feature.
It is true that not every detail of Old Testament judgments are representative
of final judgment. However, Craig seems to reach a conclusion about which features
are relevant that is not consistent with the conclusion reached by the Apostle
Peter:
. . . and if he reduced the cities of Sodom and
Gomorrah to ashes and condemned them to extinction, making them an example of
what is coming to the ungodly; (2 Pet. 2:6 CSB17)
Peter does not see reducing people to ashes as an accidental
feature of God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, but specifically as “an
example of what is coming to the ungodly.” Being turned to ashes is much more consistent with annihilationism than it is
with eternal torment!
4. Existence vs. Life, zōē vs. bios
Now we come to a common traditionalist argument repeated here by
Craig. The Bible clearly states that the penalty for sin is death. It does so
in contexts referring to ultimate outcomes (see Romans 6:23). If the normal
definition of death is used, this seals the case in favor of conditional
immortality. One of the great strengths of the doctrine of conditional immortality
is that it flows naturally from the normal everyday meaning of words like perish,
death, destruction, burned up, and consumed. I have studied the Greek words
behind these English words and consistently find that in-depth word studies
lend further support to conditional immortality. However, Craig and other
traditionalists have a different view. Craig writes,
The most fundamental failing of your
argument is the failure to appreciate that everlasting existence
is not the same as everlasting life. The damned in hell have everlasting existence
but not everlasting life.
The distinction between eternal life and eternal existence may
sound convincing at first. However, the doctrine of eternal torment does not
require merely eternal existence, but eternal conscious existence. And in all
our universal experience only living creatures are conscious and can experience
torment. Annihilationists like myself believe that after God’s judgment
something like ashes or dust may remain from the ungodly. It’s possible that the
ashes and dust will exist eternally, perhaps as a testament to God’s righteous
judgment and victory over all evil. But ashes and dust, even if they exist
eternally, cannot be tormented.
To support his claim that “death” as final punishment doesn’t mean
what “death” normally means, Craig goes on to offer one piece of linguistic biblical
evidence. This evidence is a distinction he claims exists between two Greek
words for life: zōē and bios. Craig writes,
In the New Testament everlasting life
is not bios
(physical life, from which our word biology derives), but rather zōē
(spiritual life). The damned, even if they have physical life, having been
resurrected, do not have zōē.
Craig notes the interesting fact that our English word “biology” comes
from the Greek word bios. This fact
may sway some readers to accept his claim that bios refers to physical life whereas zōē refers to spiritual life. But the meaning and etymology of words in
English today do not determine the meaning of Greek words used in the New
Testament. Craig could just as well have noted that a Greek word for animal, zōon (see Hebrews 13:11, for example),
is closely related to zōē and that
our words for zoo and zoology are derived from these Greek words. But those facts
would not have helped his case.
The correct way to determine the meaning of words like zōē and bios is to look at examples of how they were used by Greek authors.
The New Testament does not appear in a vacuum. It’s message, images, hopes, and
language are all deeply rooted in the Old Testament. In terms of language, the
New Testament authors often draw from the Greek Translation of the Old
Testament they used, the Septuagint (LXX). Let’s begin by looking at some
examples of how zōē is used in the
LXX and see if they fit Craig’s claim that zōē
mean “spiritual life”:
CSB17 Genesis
1:30 for all the wildlife of the earth, for every bird of the sky, and for
every creature that crawls on the earth-- everything having the breath of life (zōē) in it-- I have given every green
plant for food." And it was so.
CSB17 Genesis
3:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent: Because you have done this, you
are cursed more than any livestock and more than any wild animal. You will move
on your belly and eat dust all the days of your life (zōē).
CSB17 Judges
16:30 Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines." He pushed
with all his might, and the temple fell on the leaders and all the people in
it. And those he killed at his death were more than those he had killed in his
life (zōē).
The above examples do not support his claim. I looked at all 184
uses of zōē is in the LXX. It appears
to me that it’s basic meaning is simply “life” in the same ordinary sense that
we use that word in English every day.
In the New Testament we also find examples of zōē being used to refer to the normal meaning of “life”:
CSB17 Luke
16:25 " 'Son,' Abraham said, 'remember that during your life (zōē) you received your good things, just
as Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here, while you are in
agony.
CSB17 Philippians
1:20 My eager expectation and hope is that I will not be ashamed about
anything, but that now as always, with all courage, Christ will be highly
honored in my body, whether by life (zōē)
or by death.
CSB17 James
4:14 Yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring-- what your life (zōē) will be! For you are like vapor
that appears for a little while, then vanishes.
Do any of the examples above support Craig’s distinction that zōē refers to a type of spiritual life
distinct from normal life in this world?
As for bios, it can be used
to mean the same thing as zōē, but in
the New Testament it often refers to material possessions (see Luke 15:12, 1
John 3:17).
Moving on to the phrase “eternal life”, Craig is correct that this
phrase uses the word zōē. But I see
no reason that zōē should not have its
normal meaning in this phrase. If zōē
meant something like “fellowship with God” than we would expect the phrase “eternal
life” to be contrasted with “eternal separation”. If zōē meant something like “glorious life”, then we would expect “eternal
life” to be contrasted with something like “eternal misery”. In fact, “eternal
life” is contrasted with perishing (John 3:16 and 10:28) and with death (Romans
6:23). This further supports the conditionalist view.
As for the concept of “spiritual life”, it’s important to remember
that the phrases “spiritual life” and “spiritual death” are not used in the
Bible. The Bible does sometimes use the words “death” and “life” metaphorically.
This non-literal usage does not teach eternal torment. On the other hand, a
phrase which the Bible does use and which is relevant to our discussion is “the
second death”. The phrase “second death” supports the view of annihilationism. “Second
death” simply means dying a second time. I defend and explain this meaning of death and second death here.
Conclusion
As stated at the beginning of this article, I thank God for the
ministry of Dr. Craig. Yet, even highly gifted and godly Christian teachers can
be wrong sometimes. I’m convinced that Craig is wrong about the nature of hell.
When examined carefully, the evidence he gives to support the doctrine of
eternal torment does not hold up. On the other hand, there is no reason to
reject the plain teaching of Scripture that the unrighteous will eventually
perish (John 3:16), have both their bodies and souls destroyed by God (Matthew
10:28), and be burned to ashes (2 Peter 2:6).
No comments:
Post a Comment