Eternity in Hell and the Criteria for Destruction, Contra Annihilationism

Historical Christianity has defined the destiny of the unrepentant wicked as eternity in Hell. Eternal conscious torment, or ECT for short. In contrast, some of the aberrant sects, mainly the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists, have claimed that the wicked are sent to Hell, but are then burned up there. A doctrine known as annihilationism, because the spirits of the wicked are annihilated. This doctrine has recently found new traction in broader evangelical circles.

In support of their doctrine, these sects point to references to destruction, such as the words of Jesus in Matthew 10:28: "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." Eternal existence, they say, is not destruction. 

However, what is key is how a word is used in the Bible, which is not necessarily the same as its use is common conversation.  

In II Peter 3:6,that apostle says that "the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished." The word translated "deluge" here is a different tense of the same verb translated destroy in Matthew 10:28, but referring to the Flood of Noah. I must ask the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists,was the world destroyed, that is, eliminate from existence, by the Flood? And they must concede that it was not. After all, we still walk up on the same earth. Neither, then do they have grounds for climbing that the spirits of the wicked are eliminated from existence after a certain time in Hell.

Destruction, then, is tormented punishment in place of a prior freedom to act in wicked rebellion. ECT fulfills that definition.

God's Proper Love for Himself

"Regarding the guilty sinner, it is the perfection of God's being that requires and effects the maintenance of God's holy being - His Godhead! - by the infliction on the sinner of the punishment due the assault on, and denial of, the holy being of God. Ultimately, this deserved punishment is eternal, awful hell. As the heart, center, and foundation of the gospel of salvation, it is the substitutionary suffering of the punishment for sin by God Himself in the human flesh of Jesus, thus executing and satisfying His righteousness, which then is (legally) imputed to the elect but guilty sinner by means of the sinner's faith in Jesus Christ."

- Rev. David Engelsma, "Gospel Truth of Justification," pp. 151-2 

It is popular among American evangelicals to make claims about God or the Christian faith with statements that begin with, "Since/If God loves everybody, then He..." must forgive everything, or cannot send people to hell, or can't elect some people but not others. 

What one never hears is statements that begin with, "Since God loves Himself above all else..." 

And that is why there is so much bad theology among those professing evangelicals, such as universal salvation, annihilationism, the absence of discernment, etc. 

In the quote above, Engelsma effectively makes that rare statement, and then gives one of its implications. "Since God loves Himself, He loves His own holiness, which requires that He judge sin." We see this in Scripture in, for example, Habakkuk 1:13: "You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong, why do You idly look at traitors and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?" The prophet takes the opposite tack from the modern evangelical. His plea to God is that He would recall His love for Himself and thus judge those who act contrarily to that nature. 

So that is the challenge I make to those who spout syrupy nonsense about the love of God. While they want the world to believe that God loves every rebel who spits in His face, I ask, "What about God's love for Himself?"

The Eternal Reality of Hell Contra Annihilationism

 I have noticed a curious trend among professing evangelicals to adopt the doctrine of annihilationism. That doctrine holds that the wicked who are sent to Hell are burned into nothingness. That is, contrary to the traditional belief, there is no such thing as the eternal, conscious consignment of the wicked to a state of punishment. They are annihilated, hence the name. 

Historically, this doctrine has been associated with the sects, primarily the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh-Day Adventists. But in our recent times, it has become mainstream. Even the otherwise orthodox teacher, the late John Stott, adopted it. The spread is because of a growing embarrassment among many over the supposed harshness of the doctrine of an eternal, conscious punishment in Hell. I have been told that annihilationism serves to remove one stumblingblock that keeps unbelievers from accepting the Gospel. 

My response is this: Removing every distinctive doctrine of Christianity would make it more palatable to unbelievers. But, what then do you have left? You have unbelief. You would certainly have no Christianity, and no Jesus. Not in any meaningful sense. The unbeliever hasn't moved to a position of faith. Rather, faith has become unbelief. I cannot accept that as a means of evangelism. 

Furthermore, how does truth change in order to make it palatable to those who deny it? If someone believes that two plus two equals 749, do we stop saying that it really equals four in order to make math palatable to him? I would hope not! 

The proper question is not what the unbeliever thinks, but rather what does God say? 

In answer to that, we have God's word on the subject in Revelation 20:10: "[Then] the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." There is no equivocation here! The torment of the wicked is eternal. They never escape. God's justice never finds satisfaction in mere ashes. 

The problem with the annihilationist assumptions about unbelievers is the acceptance that the stated reason for unbelief is the true reason. The Bible tells us that unbelief is a cover, not an issue in itself. Every person knows that there is a God, and that we are answerable to Him. The issue is that, apart from the intervention of the Holy Spirit, every person hates that knowledge, because he loves his sin. Since those two things are incompatible, he must either give up his sin or give up his knowledge of God. His choice? He chooses to suppress his knowledge of God (Romans 1:18-19). Appeasing him by doing away with the doctrine of eternal Hell does nothing to address that deliberate choice. It is like taking an antibiotic in an effort to cure a virus. 

Annihilationism, Eternity, and the Consequences of Truth

In our day, there is a growing movement to deny that the Bible teaches an eternal judgment in Hell. Rather, these people say, the spirit of the wicked is destroyed. This doctrine, annihilationism, was formerly limited to the cults, namely the Seventh-Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses. However, it is now becoming increasingly popular among professing evangelicals, at least in America.

In contrast, Scripture describes the suffering of the wicked in this way: "The fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit. He opened the shaft of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft rose smoke like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke from the shaft. Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any green plant or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were allowed to torment them for five months, but not to kill them, and their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it stings someone. And in those days people will seek death and will not find it. They will long to die, but death will flee from them" (Revelation 9:1-6).

What John reveals here is that the wicked, in the face of their just suffering for that wickedness, will seek escape from their suffering through death, but death will be denied to them.

Annihilationists will often portray themselves as morally superior to those of us who hold the traditional view of Hell. In addition, they claim that unbelievers are more open to the "Gospel" if they remove the stumblingblock of eternal Hell. It is supposedly contrary to modern sentiments.

I have several problems with that perspective. For one thing, one doesn't tailor truth to suit the preferences of an enemy of that truth. Reformulating Christianity to suit unbelievers - the same problem I have with many megachurches - is to move it from suiting the preferences of God to suiting His enemies. How can that be considered  a good thing? Furthermore, by failing to give the unbeliever the biblical judgment on his unbelief, you deny that unbeliever the necessary information for weighing his situation. Many unbelievers are perfectly content to live as heathens now, just to puff into smoke at death. And that is exactly the pseudo-Gospel that the annihilationist gives him. If he never learns better, then that unbeliever will spend eternity in Hell, but his blood will be on the hands of the annihilationist (Ezekiel 3:18).

The Dual Judgment as a Refutation of Annihilationism

In interactions with annihilationists, I always insist that the Christian at death is immediately ushered into the presence of Jesus in Heaven (see II Corinthians 5:8 and Philippians 1:21-23), and the wicked are immediately delivered to Hell (II Peter 2:9). Their usual response is, "Then what is the Judgment for?" And I can see why they ask.

In John 3:18-21, we have these words from Jesus: "Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But

Apostle John

whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God." Notice His words: "Whoever does not believe is condemned already." In other words, the judgment for sin occurs in life, unless atoned by the blood of Christ through faith. Judgment is not waiting for the end of history when Jesus returns. 

Does that mean that there won't be a great Judgment at the end of history? Not at all. As Paul tells us in II Corinthians 5:10: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." See also II Timothy 4:1 and Revelation 20:12.

Is there a contradiction here? Of course not. Rather, the two passages are talking about two separate things. We are truly judged at death: "It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). Then what happens at the final judgment is told to us in John 3:21, quoted above: "Whoever practices the truth comes into the Light, so that it may be seen clearly that what he has done has been accomplished in God." The final Judgment is public, unlike the judgment that occurs at each person's death. In it, the works of each person are revealed, so that the justice of God is revealed to all, whether men, angels, or demons. The wicked are revealed in their wickedness, so that the glory of God's justice is displayed. At the same time, the wicked acts of the godly are also revealed, so that the glory of His grace is also displayed. 

The Fellowship of the Dead Precludes "Soul Sleep"

There the wicked cease from troubling,
     and there the weary are at rest.
There the prisoners are at ease together;
     they hear not the voice of the taskmaster.
The small and the great are there,
     and the slave is free from his master.
- Job 3:17-10 

Regarding the spirits of the deceased, the Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses teach distinct, though related, doctrines. SDA's claim that the spirit is unconscious, remaining with the body until the resurrection and judgment. Witnesses, on the other hand, teach the annihilation of the spirit at death, to be recreated at the judgment. This is in contrast to the historic Christian doctrine, which is that the spirit passes to the place of its eternal repose, whether Heaven or Hell, conscious in bliss or torment, until the judgment, when the spirit is rejoined to the body in the resurrection, its eternal state confirmed, and both body and spirit return to its place. 

Both groups argue from Bible verses, often from the more-obscure portions, that address the state of the bodies of the dead, and then commit a bait-and-switch, assuming that those verses also describe the state of the spirit. That is a simple logical fallacy, and is erroneous. 

The verses above are an example. As verse 17 says, the weary are at rest in death, and verse 18 adds that they are at ease. That immediately precludes the Witness doctrine; non-existence is not resting or being at ease. However, what of the SDA's "soul sleep"? 

Notice that the spirits of the dead are at ease together. Being unconscious in their graves would not be being together. Notice also what the weary dead enjoy: freedom from their taskmasters and slavemasters. How does a person enjoy freedom when he is unconscious? The Adventist intermediate state is not that described here (or in the rest of Scripture).

God's Justice and the Eternality of Hell

Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses (mainly, but others, too) hold to the doctrine of annihilationism, the supposed destruction of the wicked in the great judgment. They reject the traditional teaching of an everlasting judgment in Hell. In fact, they object to the nature of God, as suggested by the doctrine of eternal punishment.

The resurrection is described in a couple of places in Scripture. However, Daniel 12:2 is clearest in naming resurrection to what: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

I specifically use this verse, because others get twisted, such as Revelation 14:11, "The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever." Annihilationists claim that the smoke might be eternal, but that doesn't imply that the torment is, too. They never explain how smoke can continue to rise from fuel which has been exhausted.

However, Daniel mentions neither flames nor fire, but explicitly states that it is the contempt for the wicked that is everlasting. Someone will surely object that the object of the contempt doesn't have to continue eternally in order for the contempt for it to remain. But is that really a rational objection? Can we expect the emotional reaction to something to outlast that thing into eternity? No, even the strongest of reactions must fade without further stimulation by their object.

Annihilationists make hysterical protests against the supposed injustice of God for punishing eternally sins which were only temporal. That is the essence of their error, mistaking sinful acts, which do, indeed, occur in time, not eternity, for sin itself. The wicked aren't judged primarily for the sinful acts that they committed, but rather for the wicked and rebellious hearts from which those acts arose (Matthew 15:18-20). While annihilationists are complaining about the morality of God, they are glossing over the sinfulness of the wicked. When the wicked die, and pass into eternity, they do not cease to be wicked. Rather, they continue to hate God and curse Him in Hell, earning for themselves continuing punishment.

God is perfectly just and moral. It is His annihilationist critics who are not.

The Spirits of the Dead: Where Are They?

While their specifics are different, both Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists hold to a version of "soul sleep." That is, they hold that the spirits of the dead are unconscious (SDA's) or dissolved (JW's) from the time of death until the resurrection. This is in contrast to the understanding of orthodox Protestants that the spirits of dead pass immediately either into heaven (II Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:21-23) or into hell (II Peter 2:9). As the Scriptures say, there is no gap between death and judgment (Hebrews 9:27).

Personally, I cannot understand the interest that SDA'a and JW's have in maintaining their soul sleep doctrine. How does it contribute to the Christian life to believe it?

But, as I have said before, the psychological element is not the only one. The Scriptures are also contrary to it. Use the "annihilationism" tag below to see those other comments. Here I want to add one more.

In Romans 8:38-39, the Apostle Paul gives us a wonderful promise of God: "I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Notice that he explicitly includes "death." Even death shall not separate the true believer from the love of God.

Is that not what the doctrine of soul sleep says, especially as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach it? They hold that the dead person spends the indefinite period of time between his death and his resurrection without any experience of God's love. Yet, that is contrary to God's promise, as given us by Paul.

Another consequence of this doctrine is the hope it gives to the unbeliever. Unbelievers imagine that death is far from them, so they can continue in their illusion of autonomy from God. If SDA'a and JW's are adding an indefinite period, even thousands of years, after death, does that not increase the illusion of freedom for the unbeliever? Surely encouraging unbelief is an offense to God: "If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:18). Our duty is to warn the unbeliever, not to encourage him!

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Immortality of the Soul

According to Jehovah's Witnesses, upon death a person's spirit disintegrates, to be recreated by God at the resurrection. Their official website says, "the soul dies when the person dies; it is not immortal. Since a person is a soul, to say that someone died is to say that his soul died." In addition to being unbiblical, that sentence is deceptive. I will address the first problem, and then come back to the second.

The Watchtower has a problem with selecting isolated verses, then putting their particular spin on them, while ignoring everything else the the Bible says on the matter. This doctrine is a case in point.

In Acts, chapter 7, Stephen the Deacon gives an evangelistic sermon to a crowd of Jews, who are incited against him. Incited so severely that they stone him. As he lay dying, Stephen uttered a final prayer: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (Acts 7:59). Just by itself, this verse refutes the Watchtower doctrine. If Stephen's spirit would disintegrate when he dies, then what does he expect Jesus to receive? This man of the Lord obviously expected his spiritual essence, not just to survive the death of his body, but even to go to be with his Savior, thus ruling out any concept of Purgatory, too.

And now, for the deceptive element in the Watchtower comment quoted above. It correctly states that a person is a soul (Genesis 2:7). Then it says that to say a person has died is to say that his soul has died. That is equivocation of the most egregious kind. They use "soul" to mean a person and "soul" to mean spirit in the same sentence, treating them as identical. They aren't. If they are going to use "soul" to mean a person, which, I grant, is a biblical usage, then simple integrity would require them to have used "spirit" in the second usage. Yet, they didn't, deliberately obfuscating one thing for the other.

So, I have this question for Jehovah's Witnesses: If the Watchtower is going to use deception to prove their doctrine, why do you want to follow their teachings? Do you not want a religion based on integrity?

The Eternity of God's Judgment: Contra Annihilationism

I have directed my attention before to the Millerite doctrine of annihilationism, the belief that the wicked will not suffer for eternity, but rather be eternally destroyed. This view is found most-publicly among Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses (the details vary, but my comments will cover both). Both

William Miller

groups devote a lot of attention to the Revelation, yet they have completely missed what it says on the subject.

In Revelation 14:9-11, John reports the announcement of an angel: "If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of His anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."

The angel describes several elements of this judgment which are relevant to this issue. First, the punishment will be in the presence of the faithful angels and Jesus Christ. That is, there are witnesses to the continuing punishment. If the wicked are merely annihilated, then what is there for Jesus and the angels to witness? Second, the smoke of their torment rises forever. In other words, the punishment does not have an end. Also, since it is torment, the wicked are conscious. They are not unconscious, as some liberals claim. What kind of demented Judge would Jesus be, if He remained to witness the punishment of an anesthetized prisoner? And third, and most importantly, the wicked have no rest. There is no relief, no cessation of their punishment. That one phrase itself is the opposite of what is asserted by the Millerites.

There is a question that isn't really related to this matter, but is, no doubt, coming to the mind of some who read this. How can it be just for there to be eternal punishment for the sins of a life of limited duration? While that is a common question, it is really asked without much consideration. First, the punishment of a crime is proportional, not only to the action, but also to the victim. For example, a man who kills his neighbor is not punished as severely as a man who kills the president. And, since all sin is an assault on the eternal, holy God, how can the punishment be limited to the nature of a mere man? Furthermore, the question is actually based on a circular presupposition, i. e., that the wicked in Hell ceases to be active, is asleep, or in some other way disconnected from what is happening. On the contrary, all social restrictions are removed, so all the wicked in Hell are free to proclaim their hatred of God without ceasing, and in the vilest language known to created beings. Therefore, the wicked continue to sin, and, thus, to earn judgment.

"Soul Sleep": Biblical History Says Otherwise

The Seventh-Day Adventists (and some other smaller groups) teach a doctrine of "soul sleep," i. e., the believe that the spirits of the dead are unconscious until the resurrection. The Jehovah's Witnesses - who come from the same Millerite roots - have a similar doctrine, holding that the spirits of the dead are actually annihilated, to be re-created at the resurrection.

Both doctrines are contrary to the orthodox, biblical view that the spirits of the dead are either in heaven (II Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:23) or in hell (II Peter 2:9), waiting to be rejoined to their bodies at the resurrection, to face the great judgment.

In addition to those verses, the concept of "soul sleep" runs contrary to the historical events described in Scripture.

In the Old Testament, we have accounts of two men who were whisked away to heaven, without first undergoing physical death. The first was Enoch, of whom we read (Genesis 5:24), "Enoch walked with God, and [then] he was not, for God took him." The other was the Prophet Elijah, of whom we read (II Kings 2:11), "Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." Since neither man died, it cannot be asserted that his spirit went to sleep or was annihilated, can it?

In the New Testament, the Gospel writers (Matthew 17:1-13, Mark 9:2-13, Luke 9:28-36, see also II Peter 1:16-18) tell us of the Transfiguration of Jesus, at which His disciples saw Him with Elijah and Moses. If Elijah and Moses are unconscious, or more so if they are annihilated, how could they appear with Jesus?

Moreover, we have the testimony of Jesus to the Sadducees: "As for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living" (Matthew 22:31-32). The Sadducees had attempted deceptively to talk about life in the resurrection - deceptive because they didn't believe in the resurrection. In response, the Lord rebukes them, because God isn't God in some hypothetical future, but now, to the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who had been long dead. They are alive now, He tells the Sadducees, and God is their God now! 

Soul sleep (or annihilation) is a false doctrine, contrary, not just to the doctrinal assertions of Scripture, but also to the experiences of the saints in Scripture.

There is No Escape for the Wicked by Annihilation

As is commonly known, the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists both deny the doctrine of a conscious, eternal punishment in Hell. Rather, they advocate a doctrine commonly known as "annihilationism," the belief that the wicked will be destroyed at the judgment. Thus, the punishment would be instantaneous, rather than eternal. There are other groups that also teach this doctrine, but the Witnesses and the Adventists are the best known.

The proper question is, Is their claim biblical? They would agree with me that this is the proper issue. They would say "yes," but I would definitely say "no." Why do I hold my opinion? One reason is Isaiah 48:22: "'There is no peace,' says the Lord, 'for the wicked.'" This isn't my only reason; for more, use the "annihilationism" tag at the bottom of the this article.

"There is no peace," say the prophet. They will have no respite from their judgment. And this isn't what some people claim, an eternal punishment for a limited time of sin. I agree, that would be unjust. Rather, those in Hell have all their restraints of culture and upbringing removed, and give free vent to their hatred of God. Just as they continue to curse Him for eternity, they continue to suffer the consequences for eternity. "There is no peace." Is that not the moral of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)? notice that the Rich Man never asks to be released from Hell. Rather, he asks for a modicum of relief, just a drop of cooling water (verse 24). And even that he doesn't want from Jesus - because he despises Him - but rather from Lazarus! Yet, he is denied even this minuscule respite, for "there is no peace for the wicked."

What About Those Who Have Never Heard of Jesus?

This question gets asked by all sorts of people: atheists, universalists (both the liberal and the supposedly-evangelical varieties), annihilationists. Anyone who opposes the justice of God eventually pops out this question as a final trump card. It really isn't so much.

Consider the Psalms.

In Psalm 19:1-4, David wrote:
"The heavens declare the glory of God,
     and the sky above proclaims His handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
     and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
     whose voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out through all the earth, 
     and their words to the end of the world."

In a poetic fashion, David here describes God's revelation of Himself in the creation. The inanimate creation doesn't use literal speech, obviously. However, the beauty, order, and balance of the universe tells us that it came from the hands of a God who provides both beauty and sustenance for His creatures. This is also described in Psalm 104:10-16, where various creatures are described looking to the hand of God to provide for their daily needs. Poetry, true, but does it not eloquently reveal that dumb animals have more spiritual sense that do most people?

An anonymous Psalmist made a similar point in Psalm 98:2: "The Lord has made known His salvation; He has revealed His righteousness in the sight of the nations." This time it isn't physical sustenance that is the topic, but rather the holy nature of God and the salvation that He has provided His people. That is, if dumb animals can depend on God for their daily bread, then men should know to look to Him, not just for bread, but for our spiritual welfare, too.

It is this latter revelation that the Apostle Paul describes in Romans 1:18: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." But Paul looks at the other side of the equation. Where the Psalmists had described God's providential benefits to animals and to His people, Paul focuses on God's revelation of His wrath against unbelief. That is to say that there is no such thing as someone who has is ignorant of God, righteousness, and salvation or wrath. Rather, every man, woman, and child in the world has that information in every sensation coming to him from the world around him. However, the unbeliever hates that knowledge and suppresses it, puts it out of his consciousness, thinking thereby to avoid accountability for it.

So, in response to the question asked in the headline above, I ask a different question: should ignoring the truth exempt a person from accountability for that truth?

Does Job Teach "Soul Sleep"?

"Why did you bring me out from the womb?

     Would that I had died before any eye had seen me and were as though I had not been, 

     carried from the womb to the grave.
Are not my days few?
     Then cease, and leave me alone, that I may find a little cheer
before I go—and I shall not return—
     to the land of darkness and deep shadow,
the land of gloom like thick darkness,
     like deep shadow without any order, 
where light is as thick darkness."

- Job 10:18-22 

The book of Job is often considered the earliest biblical book, set in a time before the revelations given to the faithful, even in the first books of the Old Testament. That means that Job was dealing with harsh spiritual experiences with very little knowledge of God's covenants or of His dealings with believers in history. Thus, we cannot look to him for an advanced theology of eternal life or the destinies of men. Some, as we can see in Job 19:25-27, but nothing compared to what a modern Christian knows as we read the book.

Given that limitation, what does he describe here? He is miserable, as can only be expected, after losing not just his material wealth, but also his ten children, all in one calamitous moment. In his misery, he is wishing that he had never lived. In the verses above, he is lamenting that he had not died at birth, so that the gap between birth and death would have been brief, with no opportunity for hardship. But now, his only relief is in the knowledge that his suffering will soon end in death, so that he can have a little cheer in that knowledge before he goes. Ah! Goes where? Not into the grave to sleep until the resurrection, but rather to a dark place. Not "dark" in the sense that he won't be able to see, but "dark" in the sense of unknown. As I pointed out above, he didn't have the revelation that we have of heaven and Christ's presence there. Job feared the realm of death, not as a bad place, but simply as a place about which he had no knowledge. Yet he had enough knowledge that he was headed to a place, one from which he could - hypothetically, but not actually, for now - return, a place that he calls "a land."

Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses like to find obscure verses in the Old Testament to deny the orthodox view of the afterlife. Their view is that the souls of the dead are in the grave, unconscious, with their bodies, a doctrine often called "soul sleep." However, even the earliest and most-obscure passages refute their error.

Job with His Friends

I also have a broader view of "soul sleep" here.

---

In Eternity, Will Christians Sorrow Over Loved-Ones in Hell?

This is a question that I have been asked by both Seventh-Day Adventists (because they believe in the annihilation of the wicked) and atheists (who don't appear to stop and think that - in their worldview - all their loved ones have simply ceased to exist; is there no sorrow over that?). I expect that Jehovah's Witnesses ask it, too.

The answer to their question is, "No, Christians will not sorrow, whether for this or for any other reason." The Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "The ransomed of the LORD shall return and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away" (Isaiah 35:10). And the Apostle John agreed (Revelation 21:4): "[God] will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." These are general considerations; there shall be no sorrow, over any matter, in glory.

But specifically on this issue, there will be no sorrow. It is true that, in this life, we sorrow over such things, because we do not yet have the perspective we will have in our glorified state. We still view things according to the values of our fallen state, that is, we look at the situation as sinners. Yet, even now, the scriptures urge us to place the holiness and justice of God ahead of our distorted emotions. In Psalm 9:16, David advises, "The Lord has made Himself known; He has executed judgment; the wicked are snared in the work of their own hands." And in Psalm 51:4, the same writer tells of himself, "Against You, You only, have I sinned and done what is evil in Your sight, so that You may be justified in Your words and blameless in Your judgment." And further, in Psalm 58:10, David realizes, "The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked." Notice that: when we are no longer sinners, in our glorification, we will have the perspective of God, and place His holiness ahead of our creaturely preferences. Logically, who matters more: God? Or your relatives?

David's point, in these Psalms, is that the justice of God's judgment is based on against whom sin is committed. Sin isn't naughtiness, as has become the common view in our society. It is an act of treason against our Creator, He Who made us and has provided the world we live in, the food, air, and water we require for survival, and the human comforts that make our lives enjoyable. To sin against Him after such gifts is wicked enough. However, if you further consider the gift that He has given in His Son, who suffered, bled, and died, how horrific we must now see sin to be. For this, God has said (Psalm 81:11-12), "My people did not listen to My voice; Israel would not submit to Me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels." He has allowed us to pursue the consequences of our own choices and actions. Can there be any injustice in Him now?

The Puritan theologian Thomas Watson said, "The reason why sin committed in a short time is eternally punished is because every sin is committed against an infinite essence, and no less than eternity of punishment can satisfy. Why is treason punished with confiscation and death, but because it is against the king's person, which is sacred; much more that offense which is committed against God's crown and dignity  is of a heinous and infinite nature, and cannot be satisfied with less than eternal punishment."

Yet, we must go further: God has allowed us, not only to pursue our own wicked choices, but also opportunities to awaken and repent of those choices. In Jeremiah 26:3 and 13, He said to Israel, "It may be they will listen, and every one turn from his evil way, that I may relent of the disaster that I intend to do to them because of their evil deeds... Now therefore mend your ways and your deeds, and obey the voice of the Lord your God, and the Lord will relent of the disaster that He has pronounced against you." And in Revelation 2:21, "I gave her [i. e., Jezebel] time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality." Has He been unfair? Unjust? Clearly, He hasn't. So, how can anyone claim to have been wronged when He finally carries out the judgment which He has, so far, withheld? 

Now, to refer back to the question with which I began: Will Christians sorrow over loved-ones in Hell? No, we won't. Rather, we will rejoice that the holiness of God has been vindicated. In contrast, unbelievers will indeed suffer sorrow in the life to come, not just for their suffering loved-ones, but because of the judgment for their own personal sins. In fact, you will sorrow, not for loved-ones in Hell, but because of antipathy toward loved-ones in Heaven! If such sorrowing is a horror, something to be avoided, then the solution is to repent of your unbelief. Then, not only will you be freed from your condemnation, but you will also have a message of hope for your loved-ones. Rather than picture them in Hell, suffering for their sins, picture them saved from condemnation, never to suffer sorrow again. As John also says (Revelation 14:13, see also Job 3:17), "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on. 'Blessed indeed,' says the Spirit, 'that they may rest from their labors!'"

Jesus versus "Soul Sleep"

The Seventh-Day Adventists hold to a doctrine referred to as "soul sleep." Their belief is that the intermediate state, i. e., the state of the soul, is a condition of unconsciousness. This is in contrast to the view of orthodox Christians, who believe that the soul enters its eternal state (Hebrews 9:27), whether in heaven (Luke 16:25, 23:43, John 5:24) or in hell (John 3:18, II Peter 2:9), to be joined by the body at the resurrection, at which time the final judgment will confirm each person's eternal state.

Jesus addressed this question indirectly when He was challenged by the Sadducees, who denied the doctrine of resurrection (Matt. 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20:27-40). In His answer (Matt. 22:31-32), Jesus reminds them, "As for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living." In rejecting the error of the Sadducees, Jesus describes the patriarchs as alive now, and worshiping God now. His whole argument would be meaningless if those men were in their graves, unconscious, with no relationship with God in their current state.

Another passage in which the Redeemer addresses this question is John 14:2-3: "In My Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to Myself, that where I am you may be also." If Jesus is going somewhere, from which He will return to us, where will that be? It can't be the grave; what meaning could there be for rooms built for us in the grave? Rather, He is obviously referring to heaven (see Acts 7:56, Col. 3:1, and Hebrews 1:3). Between His first and second Advents, Jesus is working to prepare for those who die during that same period. Would a Seventh-Day Adventist or Jehovah's Witness claim that He is preparing this home with the expectation that no one will make use of it? That would be futility, indeed.

The Jehovah's Witness have a distinct, though related, doctrine, that the souls of both believers and unbelievers are annihilated at death, to be reconstituted at the judgment. The words of Jesus in this story are even more telling against their doctrine. The SDA's and JW's share a common origin, but have diverged significantly. I don't know when they diverged on this doctrine, or who diverged from whom.

Who Are the Sons of God?

Before I start, I want to say that nothing I am about to say should be taken to refer to the only-begotten Son of God (John 1:14). That is a class that belongs to Jesus alone, and cannot be shared with any other human being.

This matter comes up because of a discussion I had recently over the issue of Hell. This was part of the same discussion that inspired my prior post on annihilationism. This Seventh-Day Adventist friend of mine stated that she thought that it was a violation of the Fatherhood of God to believe that He would consign some of His sons and daughters to eternal punishment. My friend was stunned when I objected that the damned are not the sons of God, for only believers can bear that title.

In the same hymn of the Incarnation that I quote above, we read (John 1:12), "To all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become the children of God" [emphasis mine]. These believers are contrasted with those who "did not receive Him" in the verse before. So, the Apostle John clearly portrays the relationship of son to Father as the result of faith, not birth or creation.

The Apostle Paul adds his own authority to this definition (Romans 8:14-15): "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God... [Y]ou have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!'" And in Galatians 3:26, "in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." And in II Corinthians 6:18, "'I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me,' says the Lord Almighty." So, again, we see that the relationship of human sons to the divine Father is based on faith, not nature. Only Jesus Christ is the Son of God by nature.

Often we see this "fatherhood of God" discussion, when liberals try to turn everyone into an implicit Christian. That isn't the problem with my friend. Rather, she was trying to justify a doctrine which I can only call a heresy, a misunderstanding of the status of unbelieving men and women.

In his book, A Theology  of the New Testament, Fuller Seminary Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Theology George Eldon Ladd says on this issue (p. 86), "It is not as Father that God cares for the birds [Matthew 6:26], and it is not as Father that God bestows His creaturely blessings on those who are not His children [Matthew 5:44-45]. The Fatherhood of God belongs to those who have responded to the divine seeking love and have submitted themselves to God's Kingdom. God seeks men, not because He is their Father, but because He would become their Father" [emphasis added].

Contra Annihilationism: "Destruction" is not the Same Thing as "Extinction"

As exemplified by the late John Stott, the philosophy of annihilationism has been spreading, even among professed evangelicals. Annihilationism is the belief that unbelievers do not suffer eternal punishment in hell, the traditional view, but rather are extinguished, either at death or at the final Judgment. While it has been connected historically to the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists (and their Armstronist offshoots), this heresy has been gaining acceptance in more otherwise-traditional churches.

I am currently reading the book Hell under Fire, edited by Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson. While the book deals with evangelical universalism as well as annihilationism, I am currently reading just the annihilationism portion. In it is a chapter by theologian Douglas Moo, entitled "Paul on Hell," pp. 104-5. In it, he addresses the argument of annihilationists that "everlasting" and its synonyms refer to irrevocable extinction, rather than to continuous punishment. The Greek words at issue are olethros and apollumi/apoleia. He says: "Leaving aside, for the moment, judgment texts, none of the key terms usually has this meaning [i. e., 'irrevocable'] in the Old and New Testaments. Rather, they usually refer to the situation of a person or object that has lost the essence of its nature or function... The key words for 'destroy' and 'destruction' can also refer to land that has lost its fruitfulness (olethros in Ezek. 6:14; 14:16 [LXX]); to ointment that is poured out wastefully and to no purpose (apoleia in Matt. 26:; Mark 14:4); to wineskins that can no longer function because they have holes in them (apollumi in Matt. 9:17); Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37); to a coin that is useless because it is 'lost' (apollumi in Luke 15:9); or to an entire world that 'perishes,' as an inhabited world, in the Flood (2 Pet. 3:6). In none of these cases do the objects cease to exist; they cease to be useful or to exist in their original, intended state."