Third post in a series on annihilationism. In my previous post, I introduced the doctrine and discussed some New Testament texts that address the narrow question, How will sinners be punished after death?
In this post (divided into two parts), I want to widen the scope of our inquiry and examine several relevant theological concepts:
- God’s justice;
- Christ’s atoning sacrifice; and
- The consummation of God’s saving activity.
Prologue
The saying, “can’t see the forest for the trees”, is relevant to the art and science of interpreting scripture. We must be able to shift our perspective back and forth from the individual verses (the trees) to the teaching of scripture as a whole (the forest), with each perspective illuminating the other.
In the previous post, our attention was focused on the trees: i.e., individual verses. What does Revelation 20:10 say? What does Matthew 10:28 say? In other words, we were doing exegesis.
But scripture can also be approached from the other direction, using systematic theology as our starting point. Here we focus on the big theological picture: the forest. What does the Bible as a whole teach about the origins and destiny of the human race? About justification? About God’s character?
Exegesis and systematic theology are like the chicken and the egg. Logically, one of them had to come first, but it is impossible for either to exist without the other. The overall message of scripture must inform our interpretation of individual verses; but the interpretation of individual verses must determine our understanding of scripture as a whole.
Sometimes we allow systematic theology to determine the exegesis of a problematic verse. Consider the core doctrine of Protestantism: justification by faith alone. The doctrine precludes us from taking Matthew 16:27 at face value:
The Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.
The verse seems to say that we will be judged on the basis of our works. And this is not the only such statement in the New Testament: Romans 2:5-6, 1 Peter 1:17, Rev. 20:12-13 — these verses, penned by a cross-section of New Testament authors, all say the same thing.
We disregard the obvious interpretation because of the theological system we operate within. Justification by faith functions as a controlling principle; other verses must be interpreted in a way that is consistent with it.
In this post, I want to shift perspective. Let’s bring the fruits of systematic theology to bear on the issue we’re investigating: whether hell is a place of eternal torment.
1. God’s justice
God is just: that is a core Christian conviction shared across denominational lines. Individual verses must be interpreted in a way that does not contradict that core conviction.
It is a basic principle of justice that the punishment must “fit” the crime (i.e., be proportionate to the harm done by the offender). The principle is grounded in scripture. It is found in Leviticus 24:19-20 —
If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. (Similarly Exodus 21:23-25)
This text makes people squirm a little, because it advocates justice, strictly meted out. It seems harsh by comparison to Jesus’ call for mercy in Mt. 5:38ff.
Our feelings notwithstanding, Lev. 24:19-20 serves a noble purpose. It sets an upper limit on the punishment that may be inflicted in response to a crime. It outlaws vengeance: If you tear out my eye, I will tear out both of your eyes and cut off your ear for good measure.
The text tells us something significant about justice, including the justice of God. It tells us that punishment must have an upper limit.
Let’s face facts: infinite torment in hell is not a proportionate punishment. Therefore it is inconsistent with the justice of God.
No matter what terrible sins a human being may commit, those sins are finite in scope. If I cause someone else to suffer, his suffering will be only so intense — and no more. It will continue for a certain period of time — and then it will end.
To torment me eternally would inflict an infinite punishment on someone who has caused a finite amount of harm. This is precisely the objection raised by John Stott, who is an evangelical author. “Fundamental to the biblical vision of justice”, he writes,
is the belief that God will judge people “according to what they [have] done” (e.g. Revelation 20:12), which implies that the penalty inflicted will be commensurate with the evil done. This principle had been applied in the Jewish law courts, in which penalties were limited to an exact retribution, “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (e.g. Exodus 21:23-25). Would there not, then, be a serious disproportion between sins consciously committed in time and torment consciously experienced throughout eternity?1
Note Stott’s reference to Revelation 20:12. Earlier, I pointed out that this is a problematic text from the Protestant perspective. But here is a context in which the verse makes perfect sense.
When an unsaved person stands before the judgement seat of God, God will judge him or her “according to what he has done”. That is, the punishment will not be less than he deserves, and the punishment will not be more than he deserves.
As with Leviticus 24:19-20, the upper limit of the sentence must be “fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” Anything more would be vengeful and therefore inconsistent with God’s justice.
2. Christ’s atoning sacrifice
The justice of God is a core Christian conviction shared across denominational lines. That Christ died to atone for our sins is another such conviction.
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree …. By his wounds you have been healed. (1Pe. 2:24)
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh …. (1Pe. 3:18)
Jesus bore the penalty for our sins in his own body. And the penalty was — eternal torment? No! Jesus bore the penalty for our sins by “being put to death”.
Edward Fudge presents this as an argument in support of annihilationism:
The simple truth is that Jesus died; he was not tortured forever. Jesus’ death for sinners does provide a window into the final judgment awaiting the lost. But the view we see through that window is one of suffering that ends in death — not one of everlasting conscious torment.2
By dying, Jesus bore the full penalty for our sins in his body. And that is exactly what we would expect, based on the apostle Paul’s statement:
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Ro. 6:23).
The wages of sin is death? Of course it is: the Old Testament said so long before Paul did:
In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. (Gen. 2:17)
The soul who sins shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4)
What could be clearer than this? The soul who sins shall die; the wages of sin is death; “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1Co. 15:3).
On the other hand, nowhere in scripture are we told, the wages of sin is eternal torment; much less, Christ is suffering eternal torment for our sins.
Theological considerations, pt. 2, will be posted in about a month.
Previous posts in the series:
• … to reconcile to himself all things
• Eternal torment: the New Testament texts considered
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
originally posted March 2006
1David L. Edwards and John Stott, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue, InterVarsity Press, 1989, p. 318.
2Edward W. Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue, InterVarsity Press, 2000, p. 204.
Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. I sometimes take the liberty of inserting paragraph breaks where I deem them appropriate.
Eternal torment: theological considerations, pt. 2 « Spirit and Psyche said,
January 8, 2009 at 1:37 am
[...] recap what I said in the previous post: Jesus bore the penalty for our sins in his own body. And the penalty was, he was put to [...]