Friday, June 21, 2019

25 Problems in 25 Minutes, A Response to Dr Pat Zukeran’s Typical Argument Against Annihilationism




A few weeks ago (on May 29th), Dr. Pat Zukeran spoke against the doctrine of annihilationism on his podcast which is part of the ministry he leads, Evidence and Answers. Since I believe the Bible teaches annihilationism, I’ve decided to provide a point by point response to his 25 minute talk.

Looking at the Evidence and Answers website, it appears that Dr. Zukeran is a solid evangelical Christian who has a valuable ministry helping people to understand God’s truth and guard against the many lies that saturate the world we live in. What I have in common with Dr. Zukeran is far more important than the difference I will be focusing on in this post. Perhaps providentially, Dr. Zukeran posted another podcast on June 3rd on the topic of “the improbable planet.” In this podcast he interviews Dr. Hugh Ross and discusses some of the many amazing things about the way God made our planet earth which are unique and give glory to God as our Creator. It turns out, without knowing anything about Dr. Zukeran and his ministry, that the very same day I posted a blog post on the same topic (God Created the Earth to be Inhabited). I share this to emphasize that while I strongly disagree with Dr. Zukeran on the specific issue of the nature of hell, I also thank God for him and his ministry overall and sincerely pray that God will continue to use Evidence and Answers to bless, help, equip, and strengthen God’s people and to win people to Christ.

I did not choose to analyze Dr. Zukeran’s arguments against annihilation because of how poor his case is compared to others, but precisely because it is so typical. I have been interacting with people who defend the doctrine of eternal conscious torment for about nine years now. Most of the problems I see in Dr. Zukeran’s talk are similar to the types of problems and errors I have heard many times in many settings from those who believe in eternal torment.

In reading my critique, keep in mind that Dr. Zukeran only speaks for twenty-five minutes. Perhaps if he had presented his case in a setting that allowed more time, he would have addressed some of the issues I will discuss here. However, in my experience, attempts to defend eternal torment are plagued by similar problems whether the presentation is book length or in the form of brief comments. No amount of argumentation or skill at presentation can make a wrong interpretation of the Bible correct.

After taking notes on Dr. Zukeran’s talk I noticed I had identified 25 issues. Since the talk is 25 minutes long, this makes for a catchy title for this blog post. However, I admit that some of the issues could be combined and others could have been broken up into more than one issue.

Before addressing the 25 problems with his arguments in the podcast, I will address one foundational error in thinking that I found not in the podcast, but in an article Dr. Zukeran wrote in 2012.

A Foundational Problem:  Assuming all human souls are unconditionally immortal

Dr. Zukeran wrote:
“First of all, Christians agree with the immortality of the soul, acknowledging that man is composed of material and immaterial components. At death, the physical body dies but the immaterial essence of man, comprised of his soul and spirit, lives in an eternal and conscious state either in heaven with Christ or in Hell, eternally separated from Him.” (from the article, “The Three Views of Eschatology” by Dr. Pat Zukeran)

My response:
Although not part of his podcast, I include this quote from an earlier article by Dr. Zukeran because a wrong belief about the immortality of all human souls is one of the deepest roots of the error of eternal conscious torment. Contrary to what Dr. Zukeran states, there are and have been many Christians who do not agree that human souls are inherently immortal. The Bible never says anything like “All people will live forever,” or “the soul is immortal.” Instead, the Bible consistently presents immortality as something that is conditional. According to the Bible, we will only live forever if we believe in Jesus. In fact, for this reason, the doctrine of annihilationism is also often called conditional immortality. Conditional immortality is easy to see in many Bible verses. Here are three examples:








To read more on the topic of conditional immortality see this blog post:  What is Conditional Immortality?

The 25 Problems

What follows is a discussion of the 25 problems I heard in the podcast. For each problem I include a time marker which should make it easy to find Dr. Zukeran’s remarks and listen to them in context if desired.

Problem #1 The claim that unbelievers will live eternally separated from Christ

Dr. Zukeran:  “People who do not know Christ will spend eternity separated from God quarantined in a place called hell” (1:14)

My response: Today it is common for Christians to emphasize hell as a place of eternal separation from God. Because our sins do separate us from God (Isaiah 59:2) and because Jesus tells those whom He never knew to depart from Him (Matthew 7:23) this may sound plausible, but there are problems. One problem with this view is that there is no reason to think that anyone completely and finally separated from God, who is the source of all life (John 1:4), would continue to live. In fact, when Adam and Eve sinned, God intentionally barred their access to the tree of life so that people would not live forever in a fallen state (Genesis 3:22). At the end of the book of Revelation, we see again that the redeemed have access to the tree of life, but the unsaved do not. This indicates that God still does not want the unsaved to live forever.

Another problem is that when Christ sends people away from Him at the final judgment, they are cast into the lake of fire. We are told in several passages that their fate is exactly what one would expect if someone was thrown into something like a lava pit. They are completely burned up (Matthew 3:12, Matthew 13:30) and turned to ashes (2 Peter 2:6). Once they are reduced to ashes, of course they are no longer conscious and can no longer be tormented.

To read more about the unrighteous being burned up completely and reduced to ashes, you may read this blog post: Downburned and Ashified.


Problem #2 An implication that the horror of eternal torment is the motive for belief in annihilation

Dr. Zukeran: “For many this [eternal torment] is a horrific idea, as a result some believe that the unsaved are annihilated . . .” (1:25)

My response: I feel that overall Dr. Zukeran treats his brothers and sisters in Christ who believe in annihilationism with respect. He even refers to at least some annihilationists as “fine theologians” (1:35). That’s the way it should be when we have theological differences over secondary (but important) issues. Nevertheless, he does imply belief in annihilationism is a reaction to feeling that eternal torment is a horrific idea. Of course, eternal torment is horrific, but many of us came to belief in annihilationism simply because we came to see that the Bible teaches annihilationism. It was biblical study and not emotional response that motivated our move from belief in eternal torment to belief in conditional immortality. When arguing against a view, we should be careful not to assume wrong  or low motives on the part of those who hold the view.

I shared the reasons for my own move to annihilationism in a two part sermon. You may view it on YouTube here:




Problem #3 Annihilationism is misrepresented as souls being snuffed out of existence

Dr. Zukeran: “annihilationism is the doctrine that the souls of the wicked will be snuffed out of existence rather than being sent to a place of everlasting conscious torment in hell” (2:10)

While the above statement could be defended as being true is a very limited and narrow way, it is really misleading. Annihilationists like myself believe the following:

1. The unrighteous will be raised in physical bodies to face judgment (John 5:29).
2. Annihilation allows for any amount of finite suffering either before finally perishing or in the process of perishing. This suffering will be proportional to a person’s guilt in God’s eyes so that some people will suffer more than others. The process of judgment and destruction will be terrifying and will result in weeping and gnashing of teeth.
3. After a limited (but significant!) amount of conscious suffering, the main and final penalty for sin is death. This second death involves the destruction of both the body and soul. This penalty is permanent. It lasts forever. It involves missing out on an eternity of joy with our Savior and other saved people.

I have never heard any of my evangelical conditionalist friends (and I know many) describe annihilation as simply souls being snuffed out of existence. That language makes annihilationism sound like no big deal. Annihilation is a very big deal.

If you want to read more about why annihilationism is a punishment to be feared, you may read this blog post:



Problem #4 Underestimating the breadth and depth of the Biblical case for annihilationism

Dr. Zukeran:  “there are several scriptures that they point to” (2:39)

Dr. Zukeran, like many who defend eternal torment, does not appear to be aware of the breadth and depth of the biblical case for annihilationism. I realize he only had 25 minutes, but he could have said something like “annihilationists claim many verses support their view, but we have time to look at just a few examples.” Instead he implies that there are just “several” verses we point to. The truth is that there is a wealth of biblical data that supports annihilationism, from Genesis to Revelation. Here is a list of 58 texts which I have shared before as supporting annihilationism:




The above list is by no means exhaustive. In fact, I’m convinced that almost all of the texts frequently quoted to support eternal torment, when read in context and interpreted with proper exegesis, actually support conditional immortality. The few that don’t fit in this category don’t really favor either view.

The above verse list features in a ten minute explainer video which you may view here:




In addition to the list in my video, the excellent group Rethinking Hell (I’m a part of their ministry team) has a list of verses on the topic of hell.


Problem #5 Claiming that Annihilationists believe the word “perish” implies nothingness

Dr. Zukeran:  “many annihilationists believe that to perish implies a state of nothingness, that you no longer exist” (4:55)

My response: This one is a little more subtle. I’ve heard this basic misunderstanding many times before, so it is worth addressing. It is true that conditionalists like myself see the word “perish” in many verses as pointing towards annihilationism. For example, think about John 3:16:

For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16 CSB17)

In John 3:16 Jesus gives the two possible fates for each person who has ever lived: (1) believe in Him and have eternal life or (2) perish. Both the common meaning of perish and the fact that perishing is contrasted with having eternal life point towards annihilationism.

However, it is not true that that annihilationists (at least the majority of those I interact with) think the word perish “implies nothingness.” Instead, we think that perishing involves the loss of life. It is true that we also believe that the unrighteous will be reduced to ashes, but this further detail of being reduced to ashes is not something we believe because of the word “perish,” but because of words in the Bible that mean being completely burned up and turned to ashes. If you think of ashes as “nothingness,” then it is accurate to say that I believe that those who perish eventually are reduced to “nothingness.” But the word “perish” by itself does not mean “nothingness.” Nor does it mean the loss of existence, although it certainly does mean the loss of conscious existence (what we normally call “life”). In this present age, when someone perishes a part of them, their soul, may continue to have conscious existence. However, at the final judgment God will destroy both the bodies and the souls of those He casts into hell (Matthew 10:28). Therefore, every part of the person perishes in final judgment.

There’s more to this. We’ll discuss some of the Greek words used to describe the fate of the unrighteous below.

Problem #6  Dr. Zukeran is wrong about the meaning of olethros.

Dr. Zukeran: Referring to 2 Thessalonians 1:9, “. . . the term destruction is the Greek word olethros. Now the fundamental thought is not annihilation, not by any means, but unavoidable distress and torment. That’s what it means there by destruction” (5:45).

My response:  Dr. Zukeran does not give any linguistic evidence that olethros “is not annihilation” nor that it means “unavoidable distress and torment.” The two main types of evidence that could have been given to support his claim are indirect evidence from Greek lexicons or direct evidence from sentences from Greek manuscripts that use olethros in a way that makes the proposed meaning obvious. I didn’t find “unavoidable distress and torment,” or even just “distress and torment,” or even just “distress” or just “torment” in any of several Greek lexicons I just checked for the definition of olethros. Perhaps Dr. Zukeran was using a different Greek lexicon than the ones I checked. If so, he didn’t tell us. I don’t know of any sentences from ancient Greek writings where the meaning Dr. Zukeran proposes for olethros is obvious (and I’ve studied this word extensively). On the other hand, “complete destruction” is a definition found in lexicons (this definition is found in the Friberg Lexicon, and similar definitions such as “utter ruin” and “destruction” are found in other lexicons). Perhaps even more importantly, there are examples of an ancient Greek author using olethros in a context where it is clear and unambiguous that he was using this word to refer to annihilation of human souls after death. Here are two such quotes from Plato. After each quote I have included a link where the quote can be read in context in both English and the original Greek:

But he might say that no one knows beforehand the particular death and the particular dissolution of the body which brings destruction (olethros) to the soul, for none of us can perceive that.  Phaedo, 88b

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 (apollumi) itself upon leaving the body; and that this was death—the destruction (olethros) of the soul, since the body is continually being destroyed. Are those the points, Simmias and Cebes, which we must consider?”  Phaedo, 91d

You may read an excellent, in depth, two part article on 2 Thessalonians 1:9 here: part 1 and part 2.


Problem #7 It is wrong to assume that eternal must refer to an eternal process as opposed to an eternal result

Dr. Zukeran: Again, referring to 2 Thessalonians 1:9, “Everlasting destruction would not be annihilation for annihilation takes but an instant and it is soon over. If someone undergoes everlasting destruction than they have everlasting existence. So, the term destruction here is speaking of everlasting distress and torment” (6:03)

First, annihilationism does not require that “annihilation takes but an instant.” The process may be prolonged and involve prolonged suffering. More importantly, the phrase “eternal destruction” does not need to refer to a process of destruction that goes on forever. A more likely and natural interpretation is that “everlasting destruction” simply means a destruction that once completed, lasts forever. Once destroyed, the unrighteous will never, for all of eternity, be restored. This is an important teaching. God is capable of restoring things that have been totally destroyed and He has promised to do precisely this when He resurrects all human bodies, including those turned to dust centuries ago or vaporized by nuclear bombs. However, God will never, for all eternity, restore the destroyed bodies and souls of the unrighteous after the final judgment.

You may read a helpful article related to this topic on the Rethinking Hell website:  The Meaning of Destruction in the Bible


Problem #8 Destroyed cars in a junkyard do not support the doctrine of eternal torment

Dr. Zukeran: “Dr. Norman Geisler uses this illustration. The cars in a junkyard have been destroyed, but they are not annihilated, they’re simply beyond repair and unredeemable. That’s the same condition we find the people who are in hell. They are in everlasting distress and torment. That’s what it means when Paul says the unsaved are in a place of everlasting destruction” (6:27)

Cars were never conscious to begin with, so when they are destroyed, of course they do not lose consciousness. Further, the cars in the junkyard are not experiencing any distress or torment. Finally, we need to recognize that words have a range of meaning rather than one simple meaning. Just browse through any dictionary and you will quickly see confirmation of this fundamental characteristic of words. Just because a word like destruction (or the Greek equivalent, olethros) can in some cases refer to a situation that does not fit annihilationism does not mean that in other contexts the word is not used to refer to annihilationism. In fact, we have already shown that olethros was used by an ancient Greek writer to refer to annihilationism (see problem #6, above).


Problem #9 When referring to the final fate of people, apoleia (and its related verb, apollumi) is wrongly claimed to refer to being lost and ruined while still existing as a conscious person

Dr. Zukeran: While discussing 2 Peter 3:7, he says: “Now the Greek word for destruction in 2 Peter 3:7 is apoleia. In the New Testament this word refers to the unsaved who instead of becoming what they could have become all is lost and ruined. All the joy and meaning and purpose that eternal life was ever meant to be is now lost and ruined” (7:20).

My response: Again, words have ranges of meaning. The precise meaning that is applicable in any given sentence is determined by the context. It is true that apoleia can mean lost or ruined when referring to coins, wineskins, or sheep. But when referring to the people, by far the most common meaning is the person perishing (passively) or being killed (actively). This meaning supports annihilationism, yet we can get even more specific. Like olethros, apollumi was used by Greek authors specifically to refer to the annihilation of human souls. Here are a few examples:

They fear that when the soul leaves the body it no longer exists anywhere, and that on the day when the man dies it is destroyed and perishes (apollumi), and when it leaves the body and departs from it, straightway it flies away and is no longer anywhere, scattering like a breath or smoke. - Plato,  Phaedo, 70a
And they are discomposed when they hear it said of any one, he is perished (apollumi), or he is gone, or he is no more   - Plutarch, NonPosse, 26
“. . . for God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere by-work, and that we should perish (apollumi) and be annihilated (aphanizo).” – Athenagoras, Apology, Chapter 31

I have two articles that show that the same words that biblical authors repeatedly use to describe the final fate of the unrighteous are used by other ancient Greek authors to refer to annihilation. The quotes above are from these articles, which contain more quotes and evidence. You may read the article here:



               
Problem #10 Mark 14:21 is treated as an annihilationist proof text

Dr. Zukeran: “Now in Mark chapter 14, verse 21 Jesus states . . .” (9:12)

Dr. Zukeran discusses Mark 14:21 in the category of the several verses he says annihilationists point to in order to support our view. We already pointed out in problem #4 that, like many traditionalists (traditionalist is a term often used to refer to those who believe in eternal torment), Dr. Zukeran appears to be unfamiliar with the breadth and depth of the biblical case for annihilationism. This problem is compounded by the fact that of the few annihilationist support texts he discusses, he includes Mark 14:21. If you look back up in problem #4, you’ll notice that Mark 14:21 is not even on my list of 58 texts that support annihilationism. Neither is it on the list of 48 annihilationist proof texts listed on the Rethinking Hell website (which, despite being shorter than my list includes some verses which my list does not). In fact, in over nine years of extensive reading and discussing on this topic, I don’t remember a single time an annihilationist referred to Mark 14:21 as evidence for annihilationism over eternal torment. I think I remember it being used to support annihilationism against universalism, but that’s a different discussion. Like many traditionalists whom I’ve heard argue against annihilationism, to me it sounds like Dr. Zukeran is not very familiar with the arguments for the view that he is opposing. Given how little time he had to address this, why not include one of the more popular annihilationist texts like some I’ve mentioned above (Matthew 10:28 and John 3:16) or one of these:

CSB17 Genesis 3:22 The LORD God said, "Since the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not reach out, take from the tree of life, eat, and live forever."

CSB17 Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go through it.

CSB17 2 Peter 2:6 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

Dear reader, before you reject or argue against annihilationism, I urge you to spend some time reading and/or listening at the Rethinking Hell Website, or looking at my own collection of resources on this topic that are collected at Mark’s Resources on Hell.


Problem #11 The claim that passages like Psalm 37 do not teach annihilationism is poorly supported

Dr. Zukeran: Speaking of verses like Psalm 37:20, he says “In the proper context these verses do not teach annihilationism” (11:20).

My response: The only evidence Dr. Zukeran gives to support his claim is examples where the Hebrew word abad, translated “perish” in Psalm 37:20, means “lost.” While abad can indeed mean to be lost, as when describing sheep that have gone astray, the word frequently means to destroy (actively) or to perish (passively) in a way that fits well with annihilationism. Here are some examples:

CSB17 Deuteronomy 11:4 what he did to Egypt's army, its horses and chariots, when he made the water of the Red Sea flow over them as they pursued you, and he destroyed them completely; (abad is translated, “destroyed completely”)

CSB17 Jonah 1:6 The captain approached him and said, "What are you doing sound asleep? Get up! Call to your god. Maybe this god will consider us, and we won't perish (abad)."

Since abad can mean either to be lost like sheep or to perish like men drowning in the sea, how do we know which meaning was intended in verses like Psalm 37:20? Dr. Zukeran was correct when he mentioned the importance of context. Look at all of Psalm 37:20:

CSB17 Psalm 37:20 But the wicked will perish; the LORD 's enemies, like the glory of the pastures, will fade away-- they will fade away like smoke.

This verse tells us that the wicked will perish (abad) and it also tells us that they will fade away like smoke from a burned field. Does that sound to you more like being lost or being annihilated? We should also look at the context of the entire psalm. Psalm 37 contains a list of parallel phrases describing the fate of the unrighteous:




It’s hard to imagine a list of phrases that would sound more like annihilation!

You may read more about how Psalm 37 supports annihilationism here:  Psalm 37, A Song of Annihilation


Problem #12 An unsupported claim that the majority of biblical passages support eternal conscious torment

Dr. Zukeran:  “In fact, the majority of biblical passages build a very strong case that indeed those who do not know Jesus Christ will be eternally separated from Him in a conscious state of torment forever and ever.” (11:34)

This claim simply is not true. If one went by Scriptures which, based on a very simple, literal, straightforward reading, would appear to support either eternal conscious torment or annihilationism, there are many more verses that support annihilationism. There are no actual contradictions in Scripture. The relatively few Scriptures that are claimed as support for eternal torment, upon further study, either actually support annihilationism or are neutral.

In addition to the resources listed so far, and those to come, below are links to two good articles by Reese Watt where he looks at the weight of biblical evidence. While supporters of eternal torment may want to move some of the verses into different categories, Reese’s articles show that claims of broad biblical support for eternal torment are not supported by a fair minded review of biblical evidence.



Problem #13 The incorrect claim that eternal punishment requires eternal conscious existence

Dr. Zukeran: Referring to Matthew 25:46, “To experience eternal punishment, or eternal suffering, means one is in a state of conscious existence.” (12:25)

My Response: Matthew 25:46 is one of a handful of verses frequently claimed by traditionalists as proof that the unrighteous will experience eternal conscious torment. Here is the verse:

CSB17 Matthew 25:46 "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Like many others, Dr. Zukeran assumes that eternal punishment must mean eternal suffering. However, he fails to notice that Jesus teaches that only the righteous will have eternal life. If one does not live forever, one cannot suffer forever. You must be alive to suffer. That’s common sense. What then, does “eternal punishment” mean?

“Eternal punishment” is like “eternal judgment” (Hebrews 6:2). Eternal judgment does not refer to a process of judging that goes on forever. Rather, it refers to a judgment which, once complete, is permanent and has eternal results. God will never change His mind after the final judgment. Likewise, eternal punishment is not a process of punishing that goes on forever, but rather a punishment which, once complete, is permanent and has eternal results. Annihilation is an eternal punishment.




To read a more detailed discussion of Matthew 25:46, see this blog post:



Problem #14 Annihilationists like myself agree that aiōnon means everlasting

Dr. Zukeran: “the Greek word there [Matthew 25:46] is aiōnon which literally means everlasting” (13:12)

My response: Like most others who teach annihilationism from an evangelical prospective, I completely agree that aiōnon literally means “eternal” or “everlasting.” Annihilationism is an everlasting punishment for the simple reason that it lasts forever. While both annihilationism and eternal torment qualify as eternal punishment, universalists have a big problem with the phrase eternal punishment. Universalists, not annihilationists, are the ones who frequently argue that aiōnon does not mean eternal. In fact, I have written a three part blog series giving detailed linguistic evidence that aiōnon means eternal. You may read it, starting with part 1, here:



Problem #15 The story about the rich man is poor support for eternal torment

Dr. Zukeran:  “In this parable there is a dialog that goes on between the rich man and Father Abraham showing you that after the physical death of the body the unsaved are in a conscious state in eternal torment”  (15:15)

My response: It is true that in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the rich man is described as being in torment in flames and he is obviously conscious. However, this is not relevant to the issue of what happens to the unsaved at final judgment for the following reasons:

1. The parable is not about final judgment. The parable describes what is called the “intermediate state.” It refers to a time in between when a person dies on earth and when they are raised to face final judgment. It says nothing at all about what will happen at the final judgment.

2. The rich man is depicted as being in “hades” which is not the same place as hell (Greek: Gehenna). Hell (Gehenna) is where God will destroy the bodies and souls of the unrighteous (Matthew 10:28). In fact, hades will itself be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14). So, what happens in hades is not necessarily the same as what happens in hell.

3. The rich man is described as being in torment, and as an annihilationist I have no problem with that. Jesus does not say the torment will go on forever. There is a huge difference between torment and eternal torment.

4. All of this assumes that the description of the rich man in torment in Hades after death is literal. However, as Dr. Zukeran himself acknowledges, this is a parable. Some elements of the parable are very likely symbolic. But even if the whole story is completely literal, points 1-3 above show that it still would not give any support for eternal torment because it is not about the final, eternal state of the unrighteous.


Problem #16 It is wrong to think that the worms and fire are being used to torment living people

Dr. Zukeran: Referring to Mark 9:43-48, he says “In other words, Hell is a place that exists eternally and the unrighteous will go there to an eternal existence” (16:30)

My response:  Like Dr. Zukeran, I used to assume that the worms and fire mentioned by Jesus in Mark 9 were being used to torment living people. But that was before I realized that Jesus was quoting part of the last verse in Isaiah. Compare the two passages

ESV Mark 9:47-48 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'

ESV Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." (Isa. 66:24 ESV)

The worms and fire are not tormenting living people. They are consuming dead bodies. This makes sense because all throughout history there have been two common ways that dead bodies are disposed of: either they are eaten by worms and turned to dust, or they are burned with fire and turned to ashes. This makes a lot more sense than using fire and worms to torture people forever.

The “fire is not quenched” means that it cannot be put out by anyone. But after the bodies are gone, it can go out on its own. If you returned home one day to find your house burned to the ground and surrounded by fire engines, you would not agree if the fire chief said, “We succeeded in quenching the fire” (I heard this helpful example from Chris Date). The fire going out after there is nothing left to burn is not the same as it being intentionally quenched. Likewise, the worms will not die until their job of turning dead bodies to dust is complete. “Not die” is not the same as “never die.”


#17 The souls and bodies of the unrighteous do not have different fates

Dr. Zukeran (referring to Luke 12:4-5)
18:06 “the soul goes on to exist in an eternal state separate from the body”
and
18:20 “Jesus is warning that there’s an immaterial part of us, the soul, that exists beyond the death of the body in an eternal state which can be thrown into hell which is everlasting. The body dies once and Jesus says there is nothing more that can be done, but the suffering of the soul in hell, that lasts for eternity. That’s why Jesus says in contrast to the body that once it’s dead it’s over, fear the one who can bring you to judgment and cast your soul in hell where that is everlasting torment”

My response: While discussing Luke 12:4-5, Dr. Zukeran speaks as if the souls of the unrighteous will have a different eternal condition from their bodies. I’m not sure he actually believes this, but that’s what it sounds like from the quotes above. Here is what Luke 12:4-5 says:

ESV Luke 12:4-5 "I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do.But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!

This passage tells us that God will throw people into hell, but it does not tell us what He will do to them there. It does not tell us that their soul will exist in “an eternal state separate from the body” nor that your soul in hell will experience everlasting torment. However, in a similar passage in Matthew, Jesus gives us more information:

ESV 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.

There are two important facts to notice. First, the same thing will happen to both the body and the soul of anyone who is cast into hell. Second, what happens to the body and soul is not everlasting torment. Rather, the body and soul are destroyed in hell. The Greek word for destroy here is apollumi, which was discussed above in problem #9.


Problem #18 It is wrong to take Revelation 20:10 literally and apply it to the unrighteous

Dr. Zukeran, speaking of Revelation 20:10: “so the lake of fire is a place where the unrighteous are thrown and they will be tormented there day and night forever and ever”

My response: The book of Revelation consists of visions from God that use symbols and images to communicate His truth. Some of these images are shocking and bizarre, like seven-headed monsters and a prostitute drunk with the blood of Christians. Some of the things John sees in the visions from God are literal, but the visions also contain many symbolic elements. Most evangelical commentators on Revelation do not expect there to be a literal seven headed monster in the future, nor a literal prostitute drunk with blood. But how do we know which parts of John’s symbol laden visions are symbolic and which are literal? Well, sometimes the meaning of a symbol is revealed to John. Here are two examples:




It’s easy to see the pattern. John sees something in a vision. What he sees is a symbol that refers to something we are already familiar with. The same pattern occurs with the lake of fire. Dr. Zukeran quotes part of Revelation 20:15, but he leaves off the part of the verse where the literal meaning of the lake of fire is stated. Dr. Zukeran said, “And in verse 15 of chapter 20 it states ‘. . . and if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life he was also thrown into the lake of fire’ which in verse 10 John said is a place of torment” (20:00). Reading the rest of the verse shows that the vision of the lake of fire is symbolic and that what literally happens is that the unrighteous die a second time:



I’ve provided much more detail backing up an annihilationist interpretation of Revelation 20 in a blog post here:


#20 A second broad claim that the weight of Biblical evidence supports eternal torment is unsupported

Dr. Zukeran: “the weight of the biblical passages in the Bible from Old to New Testament teach that the unrighteous are in a state of conscious existence eternally suffering torment in hell” (20:43)

My response: Problem #20 is similar to problem # 12, but here Dr. Zukeran specifically mentions the Old Testament. Yet there is no verse in the entire Old Testament that mentions eternal torment. This fact creates a major problem because God Himself gave us a principle of fair warning. When administering justice, it is best to warn people ahead of time what the consequences of their sins will be. There are  warnings in the Old Testament, beginning in the early chapters of Genesis, that fit annihilationism very well. But there is nothing that fits eternal torment. That means that if eternal torment is true then for more than half of human history there was no warning of the main punishment for sin, a punishment so terrible and severe that every other punishment is insignificant in comparison.

To read about this biblical principle of fair warning and how it applies to the nature of hell, you may go to this blog post:



Problem #21 A major theological argument for annihilationism is not mentioned

Dr. Zukeran: Referring to philosophical arguments for annihilationism, he says “mainly there are three” (21:12).

My response: Given his limited time, it is understandable that Dr. Zukeran could not address all arguments for annihilationism (there are so many good ones!). What he calls philosophical arguments could also be called broad theological arguments. These are arguments that instead of depending on direct statements in specific verses pointing to annihilationism (we’ve already seen a lot of these), depend on looking at how annihilationism or eternal torment harmonize with broad theological truths drawn from the Bible. He mentions three, but he leaves out an important one.

The argument he left out states that annihilationism is a much better fit for the doctrine of substitutionary atonement than is eternal torment. Jesus bore the penalty for our sins on the cross. The Bible places special emphasis on what happened to His body as the payment for our sins:

CSB17 Colossians 1:22 But now he has reconciled you by his physical body through his death, to present you holy, faultless, and blameless before him—

The physical body of Christ experience a severe but limited time of suffering and then died. When His body died, His body was no longer conscious until it was resurrected out of death. After the second death, the unrighteous will never again be resurrected. Like what Jesus experienced as our substitute, annihilationism involves a limited time of conscious suffering that ends in death. However, if eternal torment is correct, then the unrighteous do not die at final judgment in the same way that Jesus died. In both the case of annihilationism and eternal torment, the penalty Christ experienced for our sins is different in so far as it is not permanent. It is reversed by resurrection. However, the Bible emphasizes that Jesus died for our sins, and His death was a very physical death. But this type of physical death is precisely what will never happen to the unrighteous after judgment if eternal torment is correct. Thus, annihilationism harmonizes with the foundational Christian doctrine of substitutionary atonement far better than eternal torment does. We should also keep in mind the many thousands of animals that were killed (not tormented) as a picture of substitutionary sacrifice throughout the Old Testament.

You may read more about this here:  What does the Bible mean by death?


Problem #22 The strength of the biblical case for proportional justice is not recognized

Dr. Zukeran: Referring to philosophical arguments for annihilationism, he states, “the first one is that eternal punishment violates God’s justice” (21:18).

My response: I’ll respond to the four counterarguments from Dr. Norman Geisler that Dr. Zukeran references in problems #23 and #24 below. First, I want to point out that the nature of God’s justice is indeed a very strong argument against eternal torment. The principle of proportional justice is not something that originated in human minds, but in God’s revealed will. It is God who taught that:

CSB17 Exodus 21:23-25 If there is an injury, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound.

And in the New Testament we are told that God will “repay each person according to what they have done” (Romans 2:6). What human has ever caused God eternal torment? Eternal torment for sins committed in a short human life is grossly and obviously unjust.

To read more on this issue, see: What is the Second Death? Part 5, Eye for Eye


Problem #23 There’s no reason God should allow people to continue to sin forever

Dr. Zukeran: Giving the first two reasons that Dr. Norman Geisler provides to justify eternal torment, Dr. Zukeran says,  “First, eternal punishment is inflicted on a sinner who does not repent and since he continues in his sin up to death and on into eternity he is reasonably punished by God forever” (22:07) and “Second,  no sin is acceptable as long as God exists and God is eternal, hence punishment for sin must also be eternal” (22:14).

The argument that God keeps punishing sinners forever because they keep sinning in hell forever might sound plausible except for two facts. First, there is simply no good reason for God to allow them to continue to sin forever. As soon as their annihilation is complete there will be no more sin. Secondly, the Bible indicates that God will judge people for sins committed in this lifetime. This is indicated by the fact that books are opened which contain their recorded sins and their judgment is based on what is  written in these books (also, see 2 Corinthians 5:10). The Bible says nothing at all about continued sins in hell being continually judged.


Problem #24 Neither the Bible nor logic teaches that because sins are committed against an infinite, timeless God they should be punished by eternal torment

Dr. Zukeran: Referring to Dr. Geisler’s third and fourth justifications for eternal torment, he says “Sin against an infinite God is an infinitely wicked sin and worthy of infinite punishment” (22:40) and “only eternal punishment will suffice for sins against the eternal God” (22:50).

My reply: It’s true that who we sin against does matter and it is true that sinning against our great God, our Creator and Lord, is very serious and results in serious consequences. However, just because God may be considered infinite and timeless does not mean that people who sin against Him deserve infinite, timeless punishment. The Bible never says anything like that. Who one sins against is not the only factor considered in determining the punishment. A factor that the Bible specifically teaches is taken into account is the amount of knowledge or ignorance a sinner has:

Luke 12:47-48a And that servant who knew his master's will and didn't prepare himself or do it will be severely beaten. But the one who did not know and did what deserved punishment will receive a light beating.

Since no human even begins to fully comprehend our infinite God, this principle would seem to imply that no person deserves infinite punishment. Further, Jesus specifically teaches that some will receive a “light beating.” How could this refer to eternal torment? Even if in some sense people do deserve an infinite punishment, in a way annihilationism is an infinite punishment if one measures the punishment by how much is lost (an infinite amount of joy during eternity with God) rather than by how much pain one experiences. Rather then trying to weigh out these factors ourselves, we should trust what God says about the unrighteous perishing (John 3:16) and being burned to ashes (2 Peter 2:6).

To read a more in depth analysis of the “sin against an infinite God requires eternal torment” argument, here are two articles at Rethinking Hell, the first by Joseph Dear, and the second by myself:




Problem #25 The two annihilationist arguments that he didn’t get to are good arguments!

Dr. Zukeran: He mentioned these two philosophical arguments, but due to the time limit on his broadcast he did not have a chance to discuss them. (1)  “eternal punishment violates God’s mercy” and (2) “eternal punishment violates the universal nature of God’s victory.”

My response: Instead of saying that eternal torment violates God’s mercy, I would say it does not appear to be consistent with his goodness. While God is indeed incredibly merciful, it’s not obvious to me that He will be showing mercy on judgment day to the unrighteous who rejected His love and salvation. However, everything God does is good, and while justice is good, as pointed out above torturing people forever is not consistent with justice.  The second argument Dr. Zukeran mentioned but didn’t get to time to discuss is also quite strong in favor of annihilationism. The Bible teaches that God’s great purpose is to unite all things in Christ (Ephesians 1:10). Evil is completely eliminated if annihilationism is true (and it is!), but if the eternal torment view were correct, evil would continue to exist forever, and some things would continue to exist which would never be united with Christ.

You may read a little more about these philosophical arguments (plus an overview of other annihilationist arguments) here:



Conclusion

The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
(Prov. 18:17 CSB17)

Many Christians, including myself, grew up hearing only the eternal torment view of hell. If one already believes in eternal torment I can see how a presentation against annihilationism like Dr. Zukeran’s might reinforce their belief in eternal torment. Thankfully, more and more Christians are taking a serious look at the biblical case for annihilationism/conditional immortality. And many are becoming convinced by the biblical evidence that the Bible does not teach eternal torment for the unrighteous. Rather, it teaches that those who believe in Jesus will live forever, and everyone else will not live forever.

Having pointed out what I view as 25 problems with Dr. Zukeran’s argument against annihilationism, there is a risk that you might think I don’t respect him or value his ministry. Not true! Of course, I disagree with his arguments against annihilationism, but as mentioned above I thank God for Dr. Zukeran’s ministry and pray that God will continue to bless and equip people through it. As I glanced through some of his material on other topics, I thought that if I had time I could probably write a post on 25 thousand points where we agree!

One of the things we apparently agree on is that this issue, namely the nature of hell and final punishment, is important to a lot of people and worth discussing. May God bless and guide us as we study His Word and seek His truth together.

Note: I sent a draft of this blog post to Dr. Zukeran a few days before posting it. I would be delighted to discuss this topic with him or anyone associated with his ministry.
Note 2: This post has been updated with minor spelling/grammatical corrections. 



Hebrews 13:16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others . . .

No comments:

Post a Comment