Second Death in John's Writings

The phrase "second death" appears in four verses in Revelation:

Revelation 2:11 [KJV] He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

NA28 Ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. Ὁ νικῶν οὐ μὴ ἀδικηθῇ ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ δευτέρου.

There does not seem to be any significant textual difference between the so-called Textus Receptus and the NA28 at Revelation 2:11.

To be hurt or injured (ἀδικηθῇ) by the second death is already some hint at what the second death constitutes.  However, it is necessarily a bit vague.  In the New Testament, it is not used of annihilation or even conventional death.  It often refers to receiving an injustice, though in this case it seems to relate more to physical harm as in Revelation 9:10 with the scorpions.

Thus, the second death is portrayed has having the ability to injure people (though not those who overcome).

Revelation 20:6 [KJV] Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

NA28 μακάριος καὶ ἅγιος ὁ ἔχων μέρος ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ πρώτῃ· ἐπὶ τούτων ὁ δεύτερος θάνατος οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν, ἀλλ’ ἔσονται ἱερεῖς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν μετ’ αὐτοῦ [τὰ] χίλια ἔτη.

The TR has "ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος" instead of "ὁ δεύτερος θάνατος" and does not include the bracketed [τὰ].  The meaning seems to be the same. 

The word "power" here is part of the coordinated words ἐξουσίαν and ἐπὶ, which together refer to having "power over" something, effectively a question of authority or jurisdiction.  The angel that had "power over" fire is mentioned in Revelation 14:18 and God is said to have "power over" the plagues in Revelation 16:9, for example. 

Thus, the second death is portrayed has having effectively a jurisdiction, or authority, though not over those who are part of the first resurrection.

Revelation 20:14 [KJV] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

NA28 καὶ ὁ θάνατος καὶ ὁ ᾅδης ἐβλήθησαν εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρός. οὗτος ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερός ἐστιν, ἡ λίμνη τοῦ πυρός. 

The TR (of the KJV) has "οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ δεύτερός θάνατος" (this is the second death) rather than "this second death is the lake of fire" (my translation of the NA28).  I have not carefully studied the textual evidence for the difference between the readings.

Under either reading, the sentence serves to explain what the "second death" is with reference to the lake of fire, as opposed to the opposite.

Revelation 21:8 [KJV] But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

NA28 τοῖς δὲ δειλοῖς καὶ ἀπίστοις καὶ ἐβδελυγμένοις καὶ φονεῦσιν καὶ πόρνοις καὶ φαρμάκοις καὶ εἰδωλολάτραις καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ψευδέσιν τὸ μέρος αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ λίμνῃ τῇ καιομένῃ πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ, ὅ ἐστιν ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος.

TR δειλοῖς δὲ καὶ ἀπίστοις καὶ ἐβδελυγμένοις καὶ φονεῦσιν καὶ πόρνοις καὶ φαρμακεῦσιν καὶ εἰδωλολάτραις καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ψευδέσιν τὸ μέρος αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ λίμνῃ τῇ καιομένῃ πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ ὅ ἐστιν δεύτερος θάνατος

While there are some minor differences between the NA28 and TR text, it seems that the relevant phrase, "ὅ ἐστιν ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος," is essentially the same between them (regardless of whether the articles should be present or not, a question I have not yet carefully examined).

In Revelation:

• John uses "ὅ ἐστιν" in Revelation 2:7 to introduce an explanation of the location of the tree of life;
• John uses "ὅ ἐστιν" in Revelation 20:12 to explain which book was opened; and
• John uses "ὅ ἐστιν" in Revelation 21:17 to associate the 144 cubit measurement "of a man" is "of an angel."

Based on such usage, the most we can say is that like TR Revelation 20:14, the point seems to be link the "lake of fire" and the "second death." 

What are the Eternal Habitations of the Wicked?

Usually, I think of Matthew as the Gospel with the clearest presentation of Hell.  On the other hand, Luke contains at least one surprisingly explicit reference in addition to (and shortly before) the parable of the rich man and Lazarus:

Luke 16:9  And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

The phrase translated "that, when ye fail" is literally "that, when you've ceased" (ἵνα ὅταν ἐκλίπητε - hina otan eklipete).  The concept here is the death of the person. Hebrews 1:12 uses the word (negated, of course) to explain that God will never die.  

Standing alone, this phrase of the verse might seem to support annihilation.  If we are gone like the sun is gone from the sky during an eclipse, that sounds a bit like annihilation.   

What comes next, however, undermines annihilation.  These wicked people, when dead, have an everlasting habitation (τὰς αἰωνίους σκηνάς - tas aionious skinas).  These "tents" (σκηνάς) are eternal (αἰωνίους).

The unjust steward, accused of wasting his master's money, made his involuntary retirement plans by favoring the master's creditors with a debt reduction at his master's expense.  He wasn't going to be able to work as a steward ever again, but at least there would be people who were in his debt, who would take him into their homes and treat him as a friend.

In this he was at least consistent: he served money and he squandered money.  By contrast, we should serve God and take appropriate care of the good things He gives us.

Where will you be?  I would rather be a porter in God's house than dwelling in the tents of wickedness (Psalm 84:10). 

Bonus Response to C. Jaye Cox's Annihilationism Arguments

I posted a rebuttal of what I see as CJ's top seven arguments for annihilationism (link).  There's another argument that didn't make it to the top seven.  

The extra argument goes that if the punishment for sin is an eternity in hell, then Hitler is getting the same punishment as the kindest, most outwardly righteous unbeliever (for example, Mother Theresa).

I don't know who was the first writer to address this topic, but I'm confident in saying that the most memorable treatment of this issue was tackled by Dante Alighieri in "Inferno."  

Dante provided one way in which Hell could provide varying degrees of eternal torment to sinners.  Dante is not inspired, but Dante's imagination provides a fairly simple way in which God can punishment sinners eternally without punishing sinners identically. 

Rebuttals to C. Jay Cox's Seven Arguments for Annihilationism

C. Jay Cox has seven arguments for annihilationism.  In the following discussion, I respond to and rebut each of them, in advance of a debate he and I have planned.  His points are listed as "CJ" and mine as "TF."  This is not an attempt to replace the debate, but rather, hopefully, to improve the quality of the debate.  

CJ1. The Doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment Implies "Sadism" which is Contrary to God's Nature

CJ typically argues this point from verses that talk about God desiring all to come to salvation or not taking any pleasure in the death of the wicked.

TF1A:

One flaw with this argument is the assumption that inflicting pain on others is sadism. Other motives can include a motive to help the person (as in the case of surgeons and dentists) or even apathy (as in the case of narcissists). It's simply assuming the worse of God to assume that God's motive for Hell is sadism.  God's self-motivation is, at least, his own glory.

TF1B:

Another flaw is that CJ has to admit that Scripture itself portrays God as tormenting the devil (and the beast and the false prophet) forever:

Revelation 20:10

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

In the past, CJ has expressed some uncertainty about the interpretation of this verse.  Nevertheless, even if CJ were to deny the most straightforward meaning of the text and claim that this was just a metaphor, still this is a description of God's actions that God applies to Himself.

Furthermore, recall that the damned are sent to receive the same punishment as the devil:

Matthew 25:41

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

That is a punishment of everlasting fire.  The only obvious reason that the fire is described as "everlasting" is that it will continue doing what it does forever.

TF1C:

Furthermore, while God is not sadistic, CJ must have misunderstood the passages he quoted, because God describes himself not as apathetic about punishing the wicked, nor as saddened by his task, but this way:

Psalm 2:4

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Psalm 37:13

The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.

Psalm 59:8

But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.

Proverbs 1:26

I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;

Likewise:

Rom 9:22

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Hebrews 10:30-31

For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

CJ2: Eternal Punishment for Temporal Sins is Unfair but God is Fair

CJ typically appeals to the Lex Taliones or the like

TF2A: See TF1A above, as Scripture says God will punish the devil eternally.

TF2B:  The Lex Taliones is a civil law for crimes by humans against humans.  There are other punishments in the civil law of Moses including the death penalty for proselytizing false religions, engaging in witchcraft, or violating the sabbath.  So, while the punishments are just, they are not always of the same kind as the crime, as in the Lex Taliones.  Also, the punishments for crimes against God are much more severe than against humans.  You aren't punished under the law of Moses for crimes against humans unless you cause an injury.  You cannot injure God, but you are still punished for crimes against God.

TF2C: Sins against humans are serious, but sins against God are much more severe, because they are an offense to the dignity of the eternal God.  No temporal punishment is sufficient to pay one's debt.

TF2D: Even if one could pay the debt of punishment by a period of time in hell, Scripture does not suggest that the lost ever become holy.  Thus, we have every expectation that the wicked will continue to sin in Hell.

Ecclesiastes 11:3

If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be.

Jeremiah 13:23

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Matthew 25:30

And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Revelation 16:8-11

And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.  And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, and blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

CJ3: Eternal Life is the Opposite of Death

TF3A: The Scriptures contrast "eternal life" with a variety of expressions including those that suggest some kind of death ("perish" in John 3:15; "lose it" (namely life) in John 12:25; and "death" in Romans 6:23) but Scripture also contrasts eternal life with "everlasting fire" Matthew 18:8, with "everlasting punishment" in Matthew 25:46, with "corruption" in Galatians 6:8, and with "shame and everlasting contempt" in Daniel 12:1, as well as abiding under God's wrath in John 3:36 and thirsting in John 4:14.  Furthermore, Revelation makes it clear that the lake of fire is the second death (Revelation 21:8).

TF3B: Additionally, the Scriptures explain that Eternal Life is something we have now, not only in the future, and that it is union with Christ.  

1 John 5:11

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

John 17:3

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

TF3C: Further to TF3B, this is why the second death is described in terms of separation from God:

2 Thessalonians 1:9

Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

And contrast:

Jude 24

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

TF3D: Further to TF3D this was pictured for us in the Old Testament in multiple cases where sin is not permitted in the presence of God:

Genesis 3:8

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

Genesis 4:16

And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

Jonah 1:10

Then were the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto him, Why hast thou done this? For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the LORD, because he had told them.

Leviticus 22:3

Say unto them, Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD.

Jeremiah 52:3

For through the anger of the LORD it came to pass in Jerusalem and Judah, till he had cast them out from his presence, that Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon.

TF3E: Also, the death and life contrast applies to the present state:

John 5:24

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

CJ4: 4. Hell is Constantly Described as a Fire as Burning Up of Chaff, Trash, and Human Sacrifices (Gahenna is reference to this)

TF4A: There are multiple illustrations of hell and of God's wrath.  Fire is one of the illustrations.

TF4B: Even when fire is mentioned, burning up is not the constant point.  Compare Revelation 20:10, quoted above.

TF4C: There are other, fundamentally different, illustrations, such as everlasting chains or chains of darkness (Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4) and darkness (Job 10:22; Proverbs 20:20) mist of darkness (2 Peter 2:17) blackness of darkness (Jude 13) or outer darkness (Matthew 8:12; Matthew 22:13; Matthew 25:13).

Ecclesiastes 11:8

But if a man live many years, and rejoice in them all; yet let him remember the days of darkness; for they shall be many. All that cometh is vanity.

CJ5: This Fire is the Second Death, a Literal Death (as opposed to Eternal Life)

TF5: The lake of fire is something capable of torturing the devil and his angels, which are spirits.  Moreover, it's not just that the wicked are thrown in, they have a place there.  The lake of fire is the second death.  Yet the punishment is also darkness.  That's because both darkness and fire are both symbols of suffering due to pain and fear, see Revelation 16:8-11 above.

CJ6: Wicked are constantly described as Perishing, Dying, Being Destroyed, Being given to Destruction

TF6: There are definitely those descriptions, but since there are other descriptions (see above), they must be harmonized.  Notice, for example, that the beast and false prophet are cast alive into the lake of fire.

Revelation 19:20

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Likewise, Korah is described as going down to the abyss alive:

Numbers 16:33

They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation.

Likewise, the grave is described as a prison:

Job 17:16

They shall go down to the bars of the pit, when our rest together is in the dust.

It's a prison that will not hold believers:

Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

CJ7: Hades is a place of torment but is Destroyed

TF7A: The verse in mind is this:

Revelation 20:14

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

TF7B: In context, death and hell are symbols of the places of the lost, since the lost were "in them":

Revelation 20:13

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Indeed, these are places to which there are keys:

Revelation 1:18

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

It is true that they are also personified in chapter 6, but there is no reason to treat Revelation 20:14 as referring to those personifications rather than the places of Revelation 20:13.

Revelation 6:8

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

TF7C: Keep in mind that death and hell (as places) are essentially synonymous in Hebrew thought, see 2 Samuel 22:6, Psalm 18:5, Psalm 55:15, Psalm 116:3, Proverbs 5:5, Proverbs 7:27, and Habakkuk 2:5. Similarly, there is fascinating passage in which they are both places and seemingly personified in Isaiah 28:15 and 18.

-TurretinFan

Where are all the ashes?

 If Annihilationists were right, one might expect to see the end of the wicked more often equated with non-existence.  Of course, not all Annhilationists say that man ceases to exist, sometimes they will say he is reduced to ashes.

One nice thing about the ashes argument is that there is a Biblical "ashes" motif that it can be drawn from.  For example, at Genesis 18:27, Abraham calls himself "dust and ashes" (עָפָר וָאֵֽפֶר).  The Hebrew word for ashes, transliterated 'epher, is used about two dozen times in the Old Testament.

The first is Abraham's usage.

The second/third is in the ordinance of the red heifer, which is burned up, reduced to ash, the ashes are gathered up, and then placed in a clean place outside the camp.  Even the person who touches the ashes is considered ceremonially unclean.  The purpose of the sacrifice is the purification of sin. (Leviticus 19:1-10)

Many are ashes that are applied to the body as a sign of mourning (2 Samuel 13:19, Esther 4:1, 3, Isaiah 58:5, 61:3, Jeremiah 61:3, Ezekiel 27:30, Daniel 9:3, Jonah 3:6)

Several are in the book of Job.  In Job 2:8, Job sits down amongst the ashes with a potsherd.  In Job 13:12, Job compares his friends to ashes and bodies of clay.  In John 30:19, Job complains that he has become like dust and ashes.  In Job 42:6, Job repents in dust and ashes.

The afflicted person in Psalm 102 complains that he has eaten ashes like bread (Psalm 102:9).

Psalm 147:16 compares the hoarfrost to scattered ashes.

Lamentations 3:16 describes a person having their teeth broken with gravel and covered with ashes.

The main two places of interest to annihilationists are two places where they are described in ashen terms.  

The first is Ezekiel 28, regarding the destruction of the King of Tyre.  In this passage, a picture is painted of the King of Tyre that describes him in lofty terms, but then calls for his destruction in terms of a fire coming from inside of him, devouring him, turning him to ash, and him becoming nothing more than a terrifying experience for those who saw it, concluding with "never shalt thou be any more."  (Ezekiel 28:19)  This end is similar to those described by Ezekiel 26:21 (where it is about the city of Tyre) and Ezekiel 27:36 (also about the city of Tyre).  The most natural understanding, therefore, of this pericope is that it is about the destruction of the city of Tyre as such.  Interestingly, one of the defensive strategies that the men of Tyre used was to set their own ships on fire and kamikaze attack Alexander the Great's causeway.  It was initially effective, apparently, but ultimately they suffered a humiliating defeat.

The final reference is Malachi 4:3, where the wicked are describes as being "ashes under the soles of your feet" in the day that comes that burns the proud like stubble in an oven.  If this were the only, or the dominant description of the afterlife, then annihilationism would be a lot more tempting. 

I would be remiss if I did not point out that another word for ashes was used in Exodus 9:8&10 to describe the ashes that Moses sprinkled toward heaven, resulting in the plague of boils. Likewise, there is a further word for that can mean fat or the ashes thereof (deshen), which is used of sacrificial ashes in Leviticus 1:16, 4:12, 6:10-11, 7:10, and 1 Kings 13:3&5.  The only place where deshen might be of particular interest to annihilationists is in Jeremiah 31:40, describing a valley of dead bodies and ashes.  This may be awkward, though, as that valley is described as being holy to the Lord.

The New Testament refers to the same sackloth and ashes practice (interestingly in reference to a hypothetical preaching of the gospel to Tyre) at Matthew 11:21 and Luke 10:13.  Likewise, the New Testament mentions ceremonially cleansing ashes (apparently of the red heifer) Hebrews 9:13.    

Finally, the English word "ashes" is typically used as part of the translation of the verb in 2 Peter 2:6, which refers to the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrha.

While the Old Testament speaks of some kind of annihilation of the city of Tyre, there is not any closely similar statement made regarding unbelievers.  The closest would be 2 Peter 2:6, which we may consider under a separate post.

In short, if annhilationism were correct, one would expect the Scriptures to be more full of ashes than they are.  They are not ash-free, but certainly the few mentions of ashes are not really enough to justify annihilitionist reliance on them over against explicit didactic teachings on the subject.

Ignatius an Annhiliationist?

 In a recent video, Chris Date (CD) claims that Ignatius of Antioch was an annihilationist (link).  CD generally uses the term "conditional immortality" to describe his position.  

Before getting into a discussion of Ignatius himself, CD includes the bizarre claim that Tatian of Adiabene (c. 120-180) is the "oldest Christian advocate of eternal torment" (30:45 in video) Not only do we see such teachings in 1 Clement (which CD disputes as we analyze here), Polycarp (which CD also disputes as we analyze here), and Ignatius of Antioch (as discussed below) but even more clearly in others, such as Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), First Apology, Chapter 52: "For the prophets have proclaimed two advents of His: the one, that which is already past, when He came as a dishonoured and suffering Man; but the second, when, according to prophecy, He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils." (link)  CDlater weakly concedes (around 43:10 in the video) that Justin Martyr seems in some places to be ECT and in some places annihilationist.  Nevertheless, the quotation above is an extremely clear statement of eternal conscious torment.  I suspect, and perhaps we'll be able to investigate this more another time, that the problem is CD's optimistically annihilationist hermeneutic of the early Christian writers.  

CD finally begins to discuss Ignatius' teaching around 47 minutes into the video (link to point). CD states that he's going to be working from what he refers to as the "middle recension" of Ignatius.  There is actually remaining debate over what exactly the original text of Ignatius is, and where there are differences amongst the recensions, relying on a variant reading is a tricky matter.

The first piece of evidence that CD points to is actually evidence in support of eternal conscious torment.  Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 16, states, "If, then, those who do this as respects the flesh have suffered death, how much more shall this be the case with any one who corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such an one becoming defiled [in this way], shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him."  The longer recension is somewhat different on this point, reading: "And if those that corrupt mere human families are condemned to death, how much more shall those suffer everlasting punishment who endeavour to corrupt the Church of Christ, for which the Lord Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God, endured the cross, and submitted to death!"  The difference in meaning is not significant if Ignatius held to ECT, and indeed the reference to "everlasting fire" is a reference to ECT. The only reason to read it otherwise is based on hoping that Ignatius is just using Biblical language and that the annihilationist interpretation of everlasting fire is correct.   There is, quite frankly, no sound reason to think this.  We can and will discuss the annihilationist interpretation of everlasting fire, but for now suffice to say that this is an example of Ignatius affirming the eternal torment view.

The second piece of evidence that CD points to is Ignatius' Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 5.  There, Ignatius writes, "Seeing, then, all things have an end, these two things are simultaneously set before us—death and life; and every one shall go unto his own place." (shorter recension)  The longer recension is more expansive but has the same core: "Seeing, then, all things have an end, and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God’s precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life." (longer recension).

I should be quick to point out that "go to his own place" points to death not simply as a biological state, but rather to a place.  This view is, naturally, more compatible with the ECT view than its annihilationist alternative.

CD argues that Ignatius "consistently" uses death to mean simply biological death.  CD is wrong about that.  For example, Ignatius uses "death" to refer to spiritual death in his Epistle to the Trallians, Chapter 11: "Flee, therefore, those evil offshoots [of Satan], which produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies." (shorter) "Avoid also the children of the evil one, Theodotus and Cleobulus, who produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies, and that not a mere temporary death, but one that shall endure for ever." (longer)

Notice, by the way, that the editor who produced the longer recension affirmed everlasting punishment (as pointed out above), so the editor that says "death ... that shall endure forever" is referring to ECT.  This should be basically an aside, since the longer recension is presumably not the original.

It is a bit vexing to deal with this issue of CD claiming something is used consistently one way, presenting evidence to allegedly support that claim, and then it turning out that CD has not included the counter-evidence. 

CD even points to Ignatius' Epistle to the Smyrnaeans Chapter 2, which states: "And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits." (shorter) The longer recension doesn't discuss this divestment of bodies.

I really cannot approve of CD's excerpting of "and be mere evil spirits" in his effort to make Ignatius look more like an annihilationist than Ignatius was.

Moreover, CD refers the reader to Igantius' Epistle to the Smyrnaeans Chapter 5, which states: "But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death." (shorter - longer is essentially the same on this point)  Note that being enveloped with death once again cannot refer to biological death, because it is that they area already experiencing.

CD then points to Smyrnaeans 7, which states: "Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again." (shorter) "They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the resurrection." (longer) The textual variation seems markedly significant here.  Nevertheless, even assuming the shorter recension is accurate, the sense of "rise again" is probably best understood as "rise again with Christ" as opposed to being a claim that there is only a resurrection of the just.

CD next turns to Ignatius' Epistle to the Trallians, Chapter 2, where Ignatius states: "ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, ye may escape from death." (shorter) "ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, by believing in His death, ye may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection." (longer)  I note that the longer seems to convey the sense meant by the shorter.  More pointedly, though, believers do not escape from just ordinary death in the sense of not experiencing ordinary death.  Instead, they escape from death by resurrection from the dead to eternal life.  I can appreciate why this statement, by itself, could be taken in an annihilationist sense, but it doesn't directly address the issue.

CD talks briefly about the sense of the word, life, namely that it is not necessarily a special technical term.  I suppose probably some people argue this, but since I don't, I'll pass this by, except in one particular.

On the second or third slide of his presentation about Ignatius' use of "life," CD comes to the place in Ignatius' Epistle to the Trallians, Chapter 9, where Ignatius states: "He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life." (shorter) (the longer has no equivalent statement)  Even setting aside the troubling textual variant issue, the statement "apart from whom we do not possess the true life" is a statement of the ECT position on what eternal life is, as distinct from the annihilationist/reductionist view that reduces life to biological life.

Likewise, in the keystone evidence that Chris presents, the off-quoted passage of Ignatius in Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 20: "breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ."  (Schaff only provides a single recension here, and I haven't taken the time to investigate which it is.) there is a similar expression of life that matters being life "in Jesus Christ."  CD seems to overlook this important qualifier.  CD claims that "life" and "dying" here have no special theological significance, but it should be obvious that Ignatius who longed for martyrdom did not think that the bread of the Eucharist would stop him from suffering martyrdom.  The idea that there is no special theological significance is totally unthinkable.

CD goes so far as to change Ignatius' words in the spoken part of the presentation, to go from "prevent us from dying" to "cures death and makes it possible for us to rise immortal."  That change in wording is significant to CD's claim that Ignatius' terms don't have special theological significance, but they are not the words that Ignatius used.  In point of fact, "prevent dying" means you don't die, whereas "cures death" means raises to life after you die.  Of course, Ignatius does affirm the resurrection of the believers, but one to a new life in union with Christ, which is what the ECT position teaches.

What about Apollymi?

Sometimes a person who is an annihilationist will argue as follows (Please note that I'm not endorsing any aspect of this representation except the spelling of the lexical form of the Greek word):

1) The most common description of the fate of the wicked is that are destroyed, using the verb, ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi or apollymi).

2) The verb ἀπόλλυμι is the same verb used by certain apparently annihilationist Greeks to describe their own view, as well as by Athenagoras to describe a view he rejects in favor of the eternal conscious torment view.  

3) Therefore, an annihilationist understanding of "perish" should be understood as the meaning of ἀπόλλυμι in passages that speak of the fate of the wicked.

I answer:

A) Reading minority Greek views of the afterlife into New Testament usage is a terrible, terrible hermeneutic.  While the New Testament uses Greek, and while Hellenistic views are part of the cultural background of the New Testament, the "mainstream" Greek view of the afterlife was not annihilation, but continued conscious existence as a disembodied spirit in a place of the dead.  So, it makes little sense to apply the seemingly minority views of certain Greek philosophers.

B) We cannot simply adopt the dominant Greek understanding of the afterlife.  After all, Paul consciously rejects the Greek view by teaching a resurrection from the dead, which the Greeks rejected as foolish (see Paul's message on Mar's Hill, Acts 17). So, just because Greek mythology regarding the afterlife is anti-annihilationist, is in itself insufficient to resolve the question. 

C)  There is no undisputed New Testament usage where the verb ἀπόλλυμι refers to annihilation of body and soul. While this may seem like a trivial point, it distinguishes this discussion from cases where a word has an undisputed meaning in other parts of the New Testament.  In this case, however, the annihilationist meaning is never the undisputed meaning.  

D) In the places where the meaning of the verb ἀπόλλυμι is undisputed, it has a semantic range similar to the English word, "lost."  The meaning is very context dependent.  If a ship is lost at sea, we never see it again.  If you get lost driving to Grandma's house, you arrive an hour late.  If a sheep is lost, a shepherd goes and finds it.  If soldiers are lost in battle, a funeral is appropriate. Similarly, as shown below, while the word usually just means to kill a person, there is a wide range of meanings.

E) In at least one relatively undisputed place, the meaning of  the verb ἀπόλλυμι referring to a human loss of life cannot be interpreted in annihilationist sense: "He that findeth his life shall lose it (the disputed use; cf. John 12:25): and he that loseth (the undisputed use) his life for my sake shall find it." (Matthew 10:39; and the same again in Matthew 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24-25)  The undisputed use here does not refer to annihilation, but simply death from which the person is resurrected.  

F) The verb ἀπόλλυμι in some form occurs about 92 times in about 86 verses in the NT, and about 271 times in about 263 verses in the canonical books of the Septuagint. The following surveys the NT use.

Most often the meaning is something like "kill" or "die":

- Matthew 2:13 Herod wants to kill the young child

- Matthew 8:25 (Mark 4:38; Luke 8:24) The disciples woke up Jesus because they thought they would die in the storm

- Matthew 10:39 (as mentioned above and similarly Matt. 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; Luke 17:33) speaks about people being martyred for Christ

- Matthew 12:14 (Mark 3:6; Mark 11:18; Luke 19:47) Jewish leaders plot to kill Christ

- Matthew 21:41 (Mark 12:8; Luke 20:16) Master of the garden will kill the wicked husbandmen

- Matthew 22:7 King killed the murderers

- Matthew 26:52 Sword will kill those who use it

- Matthew 27:20 Jews ask Romans to kill Jesus

- Mark 9:22 Devil tried to kill possessed man by quasi-suicide

- Luke 6:9 Killing on the sabbath

- Luke 9:56 Jesus didn't come to kill people

- Luke 11:51 Zacharias was martyred

- Luke 13:33 Jesus must die at Jerusalem

- Luke 15:17, 24, and 32 Prodigal son was dying of starvation and was presumed dead

- Luke 17:27 (2 Peter 3:6) Flood killed everyone except Noah and his family

- Luke  17:29 Fire from heaven killed those of Sodom 

- John 11:50 better to prevent the whole nation from dying

- John 18:14 better for Jesus to die instead of the people

- Acts 5:37 Judas of Galilee died

- 1 Corinthians 10:9-10 Rebellious Israelites killed in the wilderness by the serpents and the destroyer

- Jude 5, 11 Rebellious Israelites killed in the wilderness

Sometimes the meaning is something like "lose" in the sense of not having the thing any more:

- Matthew 5:29-30 losing an eye or a right hand (by being plucked out or cut off) rather than being cast into hell
- Matthew 10:42 (Mark 9:41) not losing the reward (a seemingly idiomatic usage) for giving a cup of cold water
- Luke 21:18 losing a hair from your head
- 2 John 1:8 not losing a reward

Sometimes the meaning is something like "spoil" in the sense of the thing going bad:
- John 6:12 uncollected fragments of food going to waste
- John 6:27 food going bad

Sometimes the meaning is something like "ruin" or "spoil":
- Matthew 9:17 (Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37) Breaking old wine skins by putting new wine in them
- John 10:10 Thief comes to destroy (the word in question) in addition to stealing and killing
- Romans 14:15 (1 Corinthians 8:11) Don't hurt your brother with your Christian meat-eating liberty
- James 1:11 of the decay of flowers
- 1 Peter 1:7 of the decay of gold

Sometimes the meaning is something like "misplaced":

- Matthew 10:6 & 15:24 The lost sheep of the house of Israel

- Luke 15:4, 6 the 100th sheep that was lost

- Luke 15:8-9 the 10th silver piece that was lost

Sometimes the meaning is similar to mentally ruin:

- 1 Corinthians 1:19 the wisdom of the wise will be destroyed  in parallel to prudence being despised 

Dead without resurrection:

- 1 Corinthians 15:18 (if there is no resurrection then ...)

Disputed (at least I assume they would be) passages:

- Matthew 10:28
- Matthew 10:39 (the first usage in that verse, as discussed above)
- Matthew 18:11 & 14
- Mark 1:24 & Luke 3:34 (about devils)
- Luke 13:3, 5
- Luke 19:10
- John 3:15-16
- John 6:39
- John 10:28
- John 12:25
- John 17:12 and 18:9 (regarding Judas)
- Romans 2:12
- 1 Corinthians 1:18
- 2 Corinthians 2:15
- 2 Corinthians 4:3, 9
- 2 Thessalonians 2:10
- Hebrews 1:11
- James 4:12
- 2 Peter 3:9 (cf. 6)

We could (and perhaps in a future post we will) distinguish the disputed uses into various categories.  For example, sometimes "those who perish" or "the lost" is a collective term for those who are not saved.

A Traditionalist Response to John Stott's (and others') Arguments for Annihilationism

The title of this blog post refers to an interesting article by Robert A. Peterson, who was (and I believe still is) professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary.  (Here is a link to the article.)

The arguments answered include the following:

1. The "Vocabulary of Destruction" Argument
2. The Hell-Fire Imagery Argument
3. The Justice of God Argument
4. The "Universalist Passages" Argument
5. The Conditional Immortality Argument

One serious question I would have for my friends and acquaintances who hold to, are sympathetic to, or are considering the annihilationist position: does this exhaust the major divisions of the annihilationist arsenal?  I'm not asking whether you find Peterson's responses to be comprehensive and compelling, although I personally found many of them useful.  Rather, I'm asking whether he has identified the major points of dispute.  Is there some other major argument area that needs to be addressed?

-TurretinFan

Supplement Response to Chris Date on Result Nouns

This post is heavily reliant (to the point that it would be plagiarism if I did not give full credit) on Adam Blauser's comment in the previous post. 

First, he provided an article that states:

Deverbal nouns that allow a result interpretation often allow an event interpretation too.
In order to separate the different meanings of a deverbal noun, one usually employs distributional
tests. If we assume result objects to be concrete entities then result object nouns
should be usable in complement positions of verbs which require concrete objects:

(1) a. Die F¨alschung wurde der Polzei ¨ubergeben.
‘The forgery was handed over to the police.’

b. Er ber¨uhrte versehentlich seine Verletzung.
‘He inadvertently touched his injury.’

c. Er verbarg seine neuste Erfindung im Keller.
‘He hid his newest invention in the basement.’

d. Die Beurteilung wurde ihm gestern zugesandt.
‘The assessment was sent to him yesterday.’

He points out that words like "injury" and "forgery" are deverbal result nouns, yet one can easily think of contexts in which the focus is not on the result, but upon the action. Consider:

His back was injured during the first quarter of last night's game. During the injury, he also hurt his left forearm.

Likewise:

He could have honestly worked for the money necessary to buy a house in the time the forgery took.

Notice how, in each of those instances, it doesn't seem to make much sense to say that the only or primarily result is in view. While one might think that we are talking about the results of the act of injuring occurring, it is much more rational to assume that we are talking about when the act of injuring itself took place, especially since it is connected temporally with another event, namely, the "hurting" of his forearm. The same thing can be said of the second example. "The forgery" clearly refers to the making of the false document, with no focus on the result, especially when it is coupled with a parallel reference to a process verb ("worked") and a reference to time.

His point (he used different but similar illustrations) that, even if Date were correct that "punishment" were a deverbal result noun, he would have to argue that the context favors a result interpretation, not an event/process/manner interpretation.

He goes on to state:

However, it gets even worse when he deals with the Greek and the Hebrew. From a historical linguistics perspective, the Greek term κολασις has the ending -σις, which is typical of words that are nominalized forms of actions. Consider the following:

ερημοω-to lay waste [to a city] ερημωσις-destruction, depopulation

κρινω-to judge κρισις-judgment

ζητεω-I seek ζητησις-investigation

ελευσομαι-I will come ελευσις-coming

πιπτω-I fall πτωσις-a fall

As can be readily seen, the meaning "the action itself as a noun" is typical of Greek nouns formed by adding the ending in -σις to the root. However, this is why historical linguistics can never settle these issues. The reason is that some of these nouns would go on to develop resultant meanings, for example, ποιησις comes from the Greek verb ποιεω which means "to do." While ποιησις *can* mean "the act of doing something" [James 1:25], most of the time, it means the result of doing something, namely, "a work."

However, in Matthew 25:46, the "result" meaning very clearly cannot be sustained, as it is put in parallel with "eternal life." Living is something that will be done eternally, and thus, why would anyone think that punishment is something that will not be done for all of eternity? Even though this is my final point, I think it is what I would want to emphasize. Meaning in language cannot be taken from historical linguistics or semantic categories. Semantic classification is, itself, subject to change by multiple factors, including context, background assumptions, etc. Thus, when we discuss the deverbal character of nouns, how they morphologically came into existence, or their meaning, we cannot simply give universal labels, but must consider how this particular term is understood in the light of the communal and authorial context of our target text. If we don't do that, we can fall badly into the fallacy of defining words by roots, and thus, a person who is feeling "awful" is "full of awe!"

I want to underscore what I see as his most crucial point. Words can have a range of meanings, known as the "semantic range" of the word. When there is a question about which meaning of the range of meanings applies, the very best clue to that meaning is the immediate context.

Recall that, above, "injury" and "forgery" are deverbal result nouns (generally speaking), yet clues from the sentence allowed us to recognize that they were being used in a "event" or "manner" sense. Likewise, when "eternal punishment" is placed in parallel with "eternal life," we are given an unmistakable clue that the "event" or "manner" sense is intended.

Thus, while my previous post sinks Mr. Date's argument, even if Mr. Date were correct about punishment being (generally speaking) a result noun, Mr. Date's argument is still sunk.

-TurretinFan

Punishment is a Deverbal Manner Verb - Response to Chris Date

In his constructive speech (in a recent debate with Joshua Whipps), Mr. Date alleged that noun "punishment" is a "deverbal result noun." He stated:

Linguists call this a deverbal result noun: a noun referring to the results of its corresponding verb.

He cites no authority for this contention. The noun "punishment" is a deverbal noun, but it is not a deverbal result noun (as previously discussed in the comments box here).

Roget's Thesaurus provides the following entry for "punishment":

Definition: penalty
Synonyms: abuse, amercement, beating, castigation, chastening, chastisement, comeuppance, confiscation, correction, deprivation, disciplinary action, discipline, forfeit, forfeiture, gallows, hard work, infliction, just desserts, lumps, maltreatment, mortification, mulct, ostracism, pain, penance, proof, punitive measures, purgatory, reparation, retribution, rod, rough treatment, sanction, sequestration, short shrift, slave labor, suffering, torture, trial, unhappiness, victimization, what for
Antonyms: encouragement, exoneration, praise, protection, reward

(Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third)

As you can see, most of the descriptions of "punishment" are of processes, not of results. The punishment may be the beating, whereas the hoped-for result is correction of behavior.

Thus, for example, "eternal punishment" would be similar to "eternal abuse," "eternal amercement," "eternal beating," "eternal castigation," etc. When each of those words is modified by "eternal," what is referred to is the duration of the process, not the duration of the effect. An "eternal beating," is a beating that does not have an end, in contrast to something like an "eternal scar" which would be a scar that would last forever.

So, "punishment," like "walk," is a manner noun, not a "result" noun. Mr. Date quotes from Augustine who says that people wouldn't consider capital punishment as measured primarily by its duration. This is true, but it misses the point. Capital punishment is severe regardless of its duration, because of the kind of punishment it is. But "eternal punishment" is specifically a comment on the duration of the punishment.

The lexical analysis is a little complex (see here and here), but it should be intuitive, particularly when you see the synonyms above.

Punishment describes a manner of treatment, not the result of that treatment. Thus, "punish" is more like "walk" (a manner verb) than "go" (a result verb) - it's more like "wash" (a manner verb) than "clean" (a result verb). It tells you more about the process than about the outcome. But "punish" and "punishment" are about the process.

Therefore, Mr. Date is all wet in his linguistic claim. Linguists may refer to a category of "deverbal result nouns," but Mr. Date has not identified any that treat the noun, "punishment," that way.

-TurretinFan

P.S. Incidentally, while Mr. Whipps and I advocated for the same side in our respective debates against "conditionalism" (aka annihilationism), our presentations are quite different.

Annihilationism / "Conditionalism" Debate

I recently debated the topic of Annihilationism in the specific form of "Conditionalism."  The debate can found in two sections (link to first part)(link to second part). Thanks very much to Chris Date (the moderator) as well as to Ronnie (my opponent) for this debate.

Debate Announcement - Conditionalism Debate

Lord willing, I will be debating Ronnie of Consuming Fire on the topic of what he calls "Conditionalism"  (Debate announcement and chance to submit "audience questions" here.), which evidently holds to the idea that those in hell will eventually be consumed by the fire there (leading others to describe it as "annihilationism").