Prosperity or Joy?

Prosperity theology focuses too much on joy in our present life – traditional Christianity focuses too little

Prosperity theology is tremendously appealing to many. Pastor Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church is the largest in the US by a comfortable margin.  This theology is also growing in influence at the highest levels of leadership as Pastor Paula White is now leading the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative.

On the surface, the notion that God blesses His faithful followers with health and material wealth is very attractive, but what are the underlying implications and most importantly, what does Scripture say about this theology?

Interestingly, although the popularity of prosperity theology appears to be a contemporary phenomenon, Scripture actually addresses it very early on in the book of Job, thought by many to be one of the oldest books in the Bible.  Here we read the story of Job, a man declared blameless by God Himself, who nonetheless is allowed to suffer horrific tragedy, including the sudden death of his 10 children, the loss of his wealth and physical illness.  So, what does this have to do with prosperity theology? For that answer, let’s look at the response of Job’s 3 friends, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar, to Job’s tragic circumstances.  Plenty of long speeches here but the bottom line is that each of these men accuse Job of causing his own suffering by sinning. This is, in fact, the dark underside of prosperity theology: if God blesses those who are faithful to Him, then those who suffer in this life are not faithful followers of God. If our behavior is the source of our material wealth and health – good or bad - then suffering can be blamed on those who suffer.

Is this Scripturally sound? We need look no further than the book of Job to see God’s condemnation of this belief. First, God Himself declares Job blameless (1:8). Second, God flat out condemns the 3 friends for not speaking truthfully about Him (42:7). And third, Elihu, a 4^th man who appears later in the book, states clearly that God “shows no partiality to princes and does not favor the rich over the poor” (34:19). 

While many scholars state that God offers no explanation in the book for why the innocent suffer, Elihu actually does offer one, stating that suffering is a benefit to people to “to turn them back from the pit, that the light of life may shine on them” (33:29, 30). Notably, God does not condemn Elihu for speaking untruthfully, as He does the other three friends.

On the other hand, at the end of the book, God does provide Job with twice that which he originally had (42:10). If God doesn’t reward His faithful with material prosperity, why did He provide these things to Job? Here we need to look at two important details. The first, is that though God provided Job with another 10 children, this did not restore Job’s loss. While livestock are replaceable, humans are certainly not. The second 10 children were indeed a blessing to Job, but they did not heal the devasting loss he experienced in losing the first 10 – and by all accounts, Job was a highly involved, loving father. 

The second important detail seems to underscore the first. Scripture specifically tells us God gave Job twice what he had lost (42:10). The book goes through the math in detail, providing a count of his original livestock, by category, and children, by gender, in chapter one and a new count of God’s later provision in chapter 42. For each category of livestock, the second amount was indeed twice the first (see table). This was not however the case with Job’s children. He was provided another 10, 7 boys and 3 girls. In keeping with God’s promise and His livestock provision, Job should have been provided an additional 20 children. Scripture says twice, the mathematical count is once – what gives? An important detail is that we are not provided a timeline for the completion of God’s later gifts. If Scripture is accurate – and it is – God must have given back Job’s original 10 children to him to reach the promised  twice total of 20 children. This is also the only possible way to fully restore Job’s losses – give him back the very children he had loved and lost. But they died, how can Job get them back? Only one way, in Heaven, not in this life. It appears that this very old Bible story is providing us with a glimpse of Heaven and eternity.  We will indeed be fully healed in Heaven – that promise is clear. By not restoring Job’s biggest loss during his human lifetime, God acts in a way consistent with refuting the prosperity gospel.

If material wealth is so dangerous why does God ever provide it to His followers? Well, prosperity can provide access to a mission field and Job demonstrated he could be trusted with material wealth, which Scripture teaches us is more often a hindrance than a help in our relationship with God. We tend to think of Job as extraordinary because he remained largely faithful through tremendous trials, however God said Job was exceptional prior to those trials (1:8). Think about that – Job was extraordinary because he remained faithful to God despite his significant wealth and the temptation of self-reliance it encouraged. We even acknowledge this fact in the secular world, Abraham Lincoln is credited with saying “any man can withstand adversity, if you want to test a man’s character, give him power”. 

Refutation of prosperity theology is not limited to the book of Job. Jesus specifically told His faithful followers that “in this world you will have trouble” (John 16:33a). We read throughout the Bible the dangers of material wealth. Jesus said, “…it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the Kingdom of God” (Matt. 19:24). He explicitly warns us "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy…But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”  (Matt. 6:19-21). And Paul tells us that “the love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Tim. 6:10). 

Moving on to physical health, what does God promise us in this life? Despite repeated entreaties, God refused to heal His faithful apostle Paul (2 Cor. 12:7-9), for Paul’s own benefit.  Additionally, Scripture tells us “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23a) and “it is appointed on man once to die” (Heb. 9:27). God promises us that at least once in our life He won’t heal us – and it will be when we’re facing our most mortal peril.  Furthermore, most of Jesus’ disciples were martyred.  Did they suffer these brutal deaths because they were unfaithful?  Certainly not, they were martyred because of their faith.

That is the scripture. What do our own observations teach us about this school of thought? Think of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful people. Are these folks all living God honoring lives? Some are, but all? We need look no farther than some of the world’s brutal dictators to know that this is not true. How about those who suffer? Have the people you observed struggling with finances or disease always been those who lack faith? Of course not. We’ve all seen faithful, godly Christians suffer in this life.

So, if prosperity theology is so easily refuted why is it so popular with so many? For that answer we need to examine how we, non-prosperity Christians, communicate our faith to others.

Prosperity pastors consistently communicate happiness in our present life. Consider this quote from Joelosteen.com:

“as children of God, we are overcomers and more than conquerors and God intends for each of us to experience the abundant life He has in store for us.”                                                  

This is a wonderful quote, which is truthful, joyful and Scriptural.  It does not however identify the definition of an “abundant life” and as we’ve already seen, material wealth and health are not promised by God.  Furthermore, absent from Lakewood Church’s Statement of Faith is any mention of the afterlife, no mention of Heaven, no mention of Hell. Contrast this with statement #10 in the EFCA Statement of Faith.  While Christians may disagree on the nature of Hell, eternal life in Heaven for Jesus’s redeemed is clearly promised in Scripture and is foundational to the Christian faith.  

While prosperity theology focuses too much on the present, we non-prosperity Christians often focus too little on the present. Consider this excerpt from a USA Today opinion column written as a refutation of prosperity theology:

“If you want to know what following the will of God looks like in practice, look at Jesus, who was brutally tortured and murdered on the cross for our sins.  Look at the apostles and martyrs who died on account of proclaiming the Gospel.

These people didn’t receive back what they lost in earthly prizes or see their bank accounts increase.  They sacrificed their lives for the sake of God’s true word in order to receive the gift of heaven.”

-Brendan Clarey, Opinion contributor, USA Today 1/9/2020

As reflected here, our primary focus tends to be on suffering in this life to obtain rewards in the next. In this we are also missing critical Scriptural truth.  God does indeed promise an eternity in paradise for those who accept Him as Lord and Savior. But He also promises us a more abundant life here and now (John 10:10). He promises us peace that passes understanding (Phil. 4:7), godliness with contentment (1 Tim. 6:6), and He directs us to be joyful always (Phil. 4:4). God offers the only true and lasting peace and contentment because His is not dependent on external life circumstances – which are always changing.

It’s important to remember that Christians aren’t alone in suffering in this world – people of all beliefs suffer from illness and poverty.  Even religious persecution is not limited to Christians.  However, Christians are in a unique position to benefit from suffering when it increases our reliance on God, Who is completely in control, loves us and has good and perfect plans for us. (Jer. 29:11).

We all want the same thing, happiness and contentment, we just disagree on how to achieve this.  Prosperity theology is an obvious house of cards – but neither is our joy postponed until after we die.  We get it right now. Maybe we would appeal to more people if we offered the complete truth – it is indeed enormously appealing. 

In his book “The Fruitful Life” Jerry Bridges makes the point that peace is often elusive for Christians because we often do not actually pray for peace but for deliverance from our trouble.  Think about this, deliverance is the opposite of the peace that passes understanding promised by God.  Feeling peaceful because you have no trouble is clearly understandable – it’s also very temporary, lasting only until your next difficulty.  God’s peace is eternal, existing despite our changing life circumstances.

God repeatedly promises us eternal treasure – including peace and contentment starting right now – why would you settle for less?

I have told you these things, so that in Me you may have peace.  In this world you will have trouble.  But take heart!  I have overcome the world.  John 16:33

Thanks for reading.

When It Comes to Hell, We Can’t Afford to be Wrong

A response to Erasing Hell by Francis Chan & Preston Sprinkle

When sharing my annihilationist view with more traditional Christians, their responses generally fall into three broad categories:

1. Hopeful yet cautious enthusiasm (this is wonderful, if true - I need to study it further)
2. Complacency (interesting but not what I believe, nor is it a critical theological issue)
3. Rejection (no way, hell is eternal conscious punishment as I’ve always been taught)

Having been in the first camp myself, always found the other two reactions puzzling. After all, whether or not we ultimately determine annihilation to be true shouldn’t we all prefer it to the traditional view? And if so, isn’t it worthy of further study?  While Francis Chan doesn’t fit neatly into any of the above buckets, his book Erasing Hell provides valuable perspective into the views of the latter two groups.

While Pastor Chan does acknowledge the possibility of annihilation, the book is primarily a defense of eternal conscious punishment, which is the focus of this essay.  Although Chan’s main concern is with universalism (and on this subject we’re in broad agreement), I’m writing this entry strictly from an annihilationist viewpoint.

From a philosophical perspective, Erasing Hell raises the following questions / issues:

Is it Safer to Err on the Side of Communicating a More Extreme Punishment?

While Pastor Chan stresses the need to understand hell correctly, the consequences he sees for getting it wrong are markedly out of balance. He writes, “If I say there is no hell, and it turns out that there is a hell, I may lead people into the very place I convinced them did not exist! If I say there is a hell, and I’m wrong, I may persuade people to spend their lives frantically warning loved ones about a terrifying place that isn’t real.” Pastor Chan’s view of the consequences of communicating a false view of hell appears to be: leading people to hell vs. wasted effort warning people about a hell that doesn’t exist. Clearly the cost of lost souls far outweighs the inconvenience of unnecessary labor. If this perspective is representative of well meaning Christians in groups 2 and 3 above, it’s no wonder they reject the notion of annihilation – it’s not worth the risk of losing people forever. However the consequences Pastor Chan presents are incorrect. Preaching eternal conscious punishment of the unsaved is itself leading people away from God as they either struggle to make logical sense of a concept that is beyond human comprehension or they perceive God’s character in an inaccurate and extremely unappealing light. Either reaction can lead people toward disbelief or more “palatable” views that are extreme in the other direction, such as universalism. We are increasingly seeing this phenomenon today with the enormous popularity of people such as Rob Bell.

Bottom line: the consequences of false doctrine in either direction are the same: lost souls vs. lost souls. Indeed, we can’t get this wrong.

God’s Ways are Infinitely Higher than Our Ways so We Must Not Hold Him to Human Standards

While Chan sees the temptation to minimize the punishment of hell as resulting from human views of justice, in actuality both the doctrines of annihilationism and eternal conscious punishment appeal to human values – albeit very different ones. When considering murderers, pedophiles and others who violently victimize people, who among us doesn’t feel that annihilation is too good for them? Is our sense of human justice satisfied if after judgment Hitler is allowed to merely die? Mine certainly isn’t. While we debate God’s divine justice are we in fact equally ill equipped to understand His divine mercy?

Please know that in no way do I believe there are Christians who thoughtfully applaud the traditional doctrine in all its gory detail but rather that they view annihilation as insufficient punishment (in some cases) and may be giving inadequate thought to the severity of eternal conscious punishment. For more on this subject, see the next point.

Does the Traditional Doctrine of Hell Make Christians Less Compassionate?

Pastor Chan writes about some Christians “who revel in the idea of wrath and punishment.” Reflecting on this observation makes me wonder if subscribing to and defending a view of eternal conscious punishment can actually make us less compassionate toward unbelievers. In our struggle to balance this view with that of a loving and compassionate God, might we unconsciously justify this by distancing ourselves from non-believers and viewing them more negatively – after all they’ve earned this horrific fate, right? Pastor Chan himself provides a case in point. While in some passages he writes of his own struggle to understand the extreme nature of this punishment, in others his words reveal a bias toward minimizing this fate. He writes, “Okay, maybe He should punish extremely wicked people-that makes some sense. But punishment in hell for seemingly good people, or those who simply chose the wrong religion? That feels a bit harsh, at least according to my sense of justice.” A bit harsh? When used to describe never ending conscious torment this is the understatement of all time – even when referring to criminals let alone the relatively well behaved among us. In our rush to defend the indefensible (at least from a human perspective) we may well lose our own balance.

From a scriptural perspective, Pastor Chan addresses verses frequently cited by traditionalists but draws some conclusions with little to no Biblical support.

The Punishment of Those Accepting the Mark of the Beast

Pastor Chan quotes Revelation 14:9-11 as “a depiction of hell”:

“If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he will also 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 in his name.”

While Chan acknowledges in his footnotes that the identity of the beast’s followers is widely disputed, he definitively states “the author here is speaking quite simply of unbelievers.”

These verses cannot be referring to eternal conscious punishment for one simple reason: the specific group referenced is said to be tormented in the presence of the Lamb. Scripture tells us clearly that the unsaved will be separated from Jesus. Jesus Himself commands the unsaved to “depart from Me…” (Matt 7:23) and Paul writes “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord…” (2 Thes. 1:9) They cannot depart yet remain, cannot be in His presence yet shut out of His presence. Cannot – therefore these verses do not support the traditional doctrine.

A secondary point is found in Pastor Chan’s rather creative way of editing this text (immediately after quoting it directly) as “tormented with fire and sulfur … forever and ever”. A quick look back at the text shows that the descriptors “forever and ever” actually refer to the “smoke of their torment” not its duration.

The Fate of Unsaved People Cast into the Lake of Fire

Chan refers to Revelation 20 which states that the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be thrown into the lake of burning fire where they will be tormented forever and ever (v. 10), he also quotes Jesus as stating to the unsaved (goats) “Depart from me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). Chan concludes “So Jesus actually says that unbelievers share the same fate as the Devil and his demons.” This is not what Jesus actually says.  Jesus says that the unsaved are going to the same place but He does not say they share the same fate. Revelation 21:8 tells us that when unsaved people enter the lake of fire it will be the “second death.” Death is a very different fate than that described for the other three beings.

The Meaning of the Phrase “Second Death” and the Adjective “Everlasting”

When addressing the phrase “second death” (Rev. 21:8) Chan proposes the notion of the word “death” being used in a metaphorical sense as it is in other scriptures which refer to unbelievers as “dead” even though they’re physically alive. This is a stretch. Although scripture occasionally uses this term non-literally, it far more often uses it literally, most significantly in the preceding chapter where John uses the same phrase when referring to the second death of Death and Hades. Unless Chan is proposing that Death and Hades continue to exist in God’s new perfect world, second death means what it says.

Chan also spends a lot of time referring to the adjective “everlasting” as suggesting that conscious punishment is never ending, when in fact more straightforward synonyms would be “permanent” or “irreversible” – which are apt descriptions of death and destruction. This view is underscored further by the verses contrasting “life” with “punishment” beginning with John 3:16. If both the saved and unsaved receive eternal life but in different locations, why the contrast?

Bottom line: words like “perish”, “destruction” and “death” mean exactly what they say – and yes, they are indeed everlasting.

Points of Agreement

As I stated earlier, Pastor Chan’s main debate is with universalism and I agree with the majority of his points in this area. While Chan does debate annihilationism, he also acknowledges that it may be true and correctly identifies the most critical issue as the deadline for making a decision, not the duration of punishment. That said, it’s important not to minimize the negative effects of misleading others regarding the very character of our God by misunderstanding the nature of His punishment as well as His mercy. As Pastor Chan says: “When it comes to hell, we can’t afford to be wrong.”

A Final Thought…

Recently spoke with a very youthful yet discerning, budding annihilationist who posed a simple question, “Why did Jesus have to die?” My automatic response, “to pay the penalty for our sin”, to which my insightful friend replied, “Then the penalty for our sin must be death, right? Afterall, even though Jesus suffered a horrible death, He’s not being tormented for all eternity, so if eternal torment is our penalty, it hasn’t been paid.”

“Out of the mouths of babes…” (Matt. 21:16)

Thanks for reading


For a more comprehensive defense of annihilationism please see my post http://emetstone.blogspot.com/2011/12/death-life-biblically-based-exploration.html

Evangelical Universalism – A Theological House of Cards

Gregory MacDonald, a former traditional evangelical Christian, proposes in The Evangelical Universalist that “Christian Universalism” is not a major change to his previous beliefs but in fact holds key elements of the traditional view together better than traditional doctrines of hell.  He begins by outlining the following common beliefs:  the inspiration and authority of the Bible, Trinity, creation, sin, atonement, the return of Christ, salvation through Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone and the eschatological wrath of God-in hell.  Unlike traditionalists, MacDonald also believes:

1.        One’s eternal destiny is not fixed at death.

2.       Those in hell can repent and throw themselves upon the mercy of God in Christ and thus be saved.

3.       In the end everyone will do this.

MacDonald presents both philosophical and scriptural arguments for universalism.  He is an engaging writer however I remain unconvinced.  His philosophical stance is often one-sided and has several logical disconnects.  His scriptural support relies on complex connections between passages, knowledge of original languages offering possible alternate definitions of key terms and awareness of the cultural realities of the time.  He states that one cannot simply “read the Bible” and understand it without this type of external information.  While this sort of knowledge can enhance our understanding of Scripture, I strongly reject the notion that the essential salvation message, of which consequences are an inherent part, is not fully available to those who don’t possess this additional information.  Regarding MacDonald’s broader ideas, following are his key assumptions and points along with my responses:

He limits his debate to the traditional doctrine of hell as eternal conscious punishment.

Limiting his debate to one view of hell while two established doctrines exist, renders his arguments woefully incomplete.  Annihilationism receives only passing mentions despite MacDonald identifying himself as a former annihilationist.  This reader believes the doctrine of annihilationism effectively addresses the vast majority of MacDonald’s arguments – both philosophical and scriptural (for more detail on this doctrine see blog entry http://emetstone.blogspot.com/2011/12/death-life-biblically-based-exploration.html ).

Universalism is not an “essential” belief but rather another “option” for Christians

This is blatantly one sided.  If universalism is true, believing that one’s eternity is fixed at death is harmless – the biggest “danger” is making a decision sooner than necessary.  If on the other hand, death is the deadline for accepting Jesus, a belief in universalism may well result in missing this crucial date and suffering eternal separation from God.  Clearly this is an “essential” belief.    

Free will decisions are dependent on full information and rationality.

MacDonald holds that no fully informed, rational being would choose hell as an alternative to salvation.  Again, this holds if hell is eternal conscious punishment.  Annihilationism effectively counters this – we often see people making decisions in favor of death over life.  Furthermore, the Bible states that those making this choice are fully informed (Romans 1:19-20, 32).  Secondly, MacDonald’s view also includes the ultimate redemption of Satan.  Is Satan also ignorant of the nature of hell?

Evangelism is still critical because hell is to be avoided “at all costs.”

Here’s where MacDonald’s philosophical argument really crumbles under its own assumptions.  If indeed hell is to be avoided at all costs, it will be so avoided.  In other words, if no fully informed, rational person will choose hell, then the moment this knowledge is realized all people will make a decision to accept salvation – no one will go to hell, period.  If on the other hand, despite this knowledge people will still choose to go to hell for a period of time then in fact, hell is not to be avoided at all costs.  These assumptions cannot co-exist – either no one goes to hell or hell is much milder than MacDonald assumes.   The logical conclusion of MacDonald’s argument is that a person who has a penchant for sinful behavior can maximize his “pleasure” by indulging in sin in this life and accepting salvation after death but before punishment.  In this sense, universalism completely undermines evangelism.

If God doesn’t achieve His “will” in saving all it is not a complete victory.

Another one-sided argument.  Does God achieve victory if He seeks a free will relationship with us but designs us in such a way that we are incapable of resisting His love?  Either scenario represents a “defeat”.  So the question becomes which is the more important goal for God?  Additionally, we know from the Bible that God does not force His will (Matt. 6:10).

Jesus and Paul omitted mention of Universalism to avoid diluting the urgency of accepting salvation.

Why would this urgency be any different today?  If Jesus strategically wanted to keep us in the dark regarding the ultimate salvation of everyone, why would He be making this knowledge available at all?  Additionally, the notion that Jesus would be so willfully misleading in His message flies squarely in the face of His repeated statements that He came to testify to the truth (John 18:37) – and was in fact, Himself the truth (John 14:6).

The sheer complexity of MacDonald’s scriptural case prohibits a comprehensive response, do however want to address verses he cites as seeming to explicitly teach universalism:

Rom 5:18:  Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteousness act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

 The word “gift” suggests something that can either be received or rejected.

 1 Cor. 15:22:  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

He seems to be viewing the “all” in the second phrase as equal to the “all” in the first.  The second phrase can also be viewed as, of those who accept Christ, all will be made alive.

Col. 1:20:  and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

In explaining this verse, MacDonald uses the word “redemption” as a synonym for “reconcile”, it is no such thing.  Reconciliation suggests different outcomes for different people.  MacDonald rejects this view of reconciliation on the grounds that the verse goes on to speak of “peace” between God and all things and this peace cannot exist if people are suffering eternal conscious torment.  Again annihilationism addresses this, if those at war with God no longer exist, there will indeed be peace.

Phil 2:11:  and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The demons also know and tremble (James 2:19).  More specifically demons confess verbally that Jesus is Lord but without asking for forgiveness or redemption (Mark 5:6-13).  The act of verbally acknowledging Jesus' Lordship always glorifyies God, but does not in and of itself result in salvation of the speaker.

MacDonald has devoted extensive thought and research to the presentation and defense of Christian Universalism.  However, neither his philosophical nor scriptural arguments stand up well to scrutiny.  Jesus spoke plainly about both salvation and consequences - He made this truth readily available to all.

Your comments are welcome.  Thanks for reading.

 

Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.  John 8:32

Death ≠ Life: A Biblically based exploration of annihilationism

Brought up as an evangelical Christian I learned the prevailing doctrine of Hell as eternal, conscious punishment.  Due to my human limitations, and my love of unsaved family members, this was never an idea of justice I understood nor did it seem in keeping with the teachings regarding God’s character, but I accepted it on faith fully understanding, then and now, that God is not limited by human values.  Years later came across the doctrine of annihilationism.   This holds that after death is judgment and those who have not accepted Jesus as their Savior, during their human lifetime, will be thrown into the lake of fire and annihilated.  This seemed much more in line with a perfectly just and loving God.  That said, human emotion aside, if it’s not found in Scripture it’s not true, period.  And so began my study of the Biblical basis for both doctrines.  Good news: the Biblical support for annihilationism is extensive. 

Let’s begin at the beginning, with God’s promised consequences for man’s first sin.  God tells Adam that as a result of his sin his life will be difficult and in the end he will return to the ground from which he was taken (Gen. 3:19).  Nowhere does God tell Adam he will be suffering for all eternity as a result of his sin.  Furthermore, God then casts Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden specifically so they will be unable to eat of the tree of life and live forever in their new sinful state (Gen. 3:22-24).  All that is written here indicates that the God given penalty for sin is death. 

Fast forward to the New Testament.  Here we learn the Good News: God provided Jesus, His perfect Son, as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.  Those who accept Him are forgiven, redeemed and no longer required to pay the permanent penalty for their sins.  That is indeed wonderful news, but has the coming of Jesus somehow also altered the original death penalty for sin?  There is very little evidence to this effect and abundant evidence to the contrary. 

Here we begin with Jesus’ own words in the quintessential Gospel verse John 3:16: “For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”  Jesus does not offer two alternate locations for everlasting life, Heaven or hell, rather the choices He promises are “everlasting life” or “perishing.”  Based on Jesus own words, the penalty for sin has not changed.  The apostle Paul further confirms this by stating “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”  (Rom. 6:23).  Again, eternal life is promised for the forgiven, death for those remaining in sin.

So how does this actually play out in the end?  For that we take a look at the book of Revelation.  Here we see the judgment of all who have died.  Each person’s destination is indicated by whether or not their name is found written in the “Book of Life”.  Those not found are cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15).  Again, we see an indication of life vs. fire.  To further clarify, John refers to those having “their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone” as “the second death.”  Nowhere are people described as living in this lake of fire.  Jesus Himself refers to hell as a place where both body and soul are destroyed (Matt. 10:28).  Again, there is no indication in these verses that any trace of man survives in hell, on the contrary man is specifically described as perishing, being destroyed and experiencing the second death.

Does hell provide eternal, conscious punishment for any being?  Yes, the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev. 20:10).  This fits the original purpose of hell which Jesus Himself described as “the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41) (as an interesting side note, although God promises death to Adam, death is not included in His stated penalty to the serpent (Gen. 3:14-15)).

Based on these verses hell is:

1.   An everlasting fire

2.   Prepared for the devil and his angels at least three of whom will be tormented in it for all time

3.   The second death for unsaved humans who have earned death as the penalty for sin

So where did the notion of eternal conscious punishment for unsaved people come from?  From both human sentiment as well as scripture interpretation, although this paper will address only the latter (for more detail on the former, please see my blog entry: God Doesn’t Need a PR Firm…Just the Truth).  To that end let’s turn to the actual statement of faith and associated Bible references of the Evangelical Free Church. 

The EFCA’s statement #10 states:

Response and Eternal Destiny

10. We believe that God commands everyone everywhere to believe the gospel by turning to Him in repentance and receiving the Lord Jesus Christ. We believe that God will raise the dead bodily and judge the world, assigning the unbeliever to condemnation and eternal conscious punishment and the believer to eternal blessedness and joy with the Lord in the new heaven and the new earth, to the praise of His glorious grace.

The Scripture references the EFCA cites as support for the phrase “assigning the unbeliever to condemnation and eternal conscious punishment” are: Matt. 25:46; Lk. 16:26; 2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 14:11; 21:6, 8; 22:14, 15 an examination of each follows.

Matt. 25:46: “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”  This is a quote from Jesus who contrasts “eternal life” with “everlasting punishment.”  The punishment is indeed described as “everlasting” but is not referred to as “life” it is in fact, contrasted with life.  Death, with no possibility of resurrection is indeed “everlasting.” 

Luke 16:26: “And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.”  This is from the story of the rich man and Lazarus which is the only passage that, in my view, offers any challenge to annihilationism.  This refers to two men in a conscious state after death, one of which is suffering and the other in comfort.  Jesus refers to the place as “Hades” (v. 23) which, as Revelation shows, is an actual place.  There are however alternate explanations for this passage.  The first is that it’s strictly a parable illustrating the ultimate lesson, stated in verse 31, that certain people will not repent despite overwhelming evidence that Jesus can save them.  The second is that Hades is an intermediate destination.  Hades is actually referred to in Rev. 20:13-14 as delivering up it’s dead for judgment and then being cast into the lake of fire, the second death, itself.  We of course cannot know for sure but in light of the preponderance of Biblical evidence for annihilationism cited elsewhere I find either of these explanations more plausible than interpreting this passage as proof of eternal conscious punishment.

2 Thess. 1:9:  These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.     Here we again see the term “everlasting” but it’s used to describe “destruction”.  Destruction is not survival and it is not conscious.  Again, this describes a permanent ending with no chance of reversal.

Rev. 14:11:  “And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark in his name.” 
 

These verses cannot be referring to eternal conscious punishment for one simple reason: the preceding verse (v.10) tells us the group referenced is to be tormented in the presence of the Lamb. Scripture tells us clearly that the unsaved will be separated from Jesus. Jesus Himself commands the unsaved to “depart from Me…” (Matt 7:23) and Paul writes “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord…” (2 Thes. 1:9)

  Secondarily, the adjectives “forever and ever” here specifically refer to the ascension of smoke.  Additionally, the torment is experienced by those “who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark in his name” – this appears to refer to a specific group described in Rev. 13, not all unsaved people.  Although these people are described as having no rest, this state is not specifically described as lasting forever.   

Rev. 21:6, 8: And He said to me, “It is done!  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.  I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts…But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”  This is actually a strong verse in support of annihilationism, specifically referring to the lake of fire as “the second death.” 

Rev. 22:14, 15:  “Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.  But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.  Here God welcomes His redeemed into His city to again “have the right to the tree of life”, which was denied Adam after his sin.  Life is the given to the redeemed, the unsaved are outside the gates without access to the tree of life.  Although it specifies the sinners, and that they are excluded from the city, nowhere does it state they are alive. 

Based on the above, in my view the Bible strongly supports annihilation.  Happily, this view is also in keeping with a perfect, merciful, loving and just God who:

1. Provides a clear and singular path to eternal life through acceptance of His perfect Son Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
2. Extends forgiveness and salvation to all who truly repent in this life, regardless of their previous sins.
3. Gives us the free will to choose death over life along with the inevitable and just consequence of doing so.

As always, welcome your thoughts and comments.

Thanks for reading.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  John 3:16

God Doesn’t Need a PR Firm…Just the Truth

A reflection on Dr. Albert Mohler’s defense of eternal conscious punishment

OK, let’s put a face on it.  Picture someone you know and genuinely love - an appealing, compassionate person of good character (admittedly by human standards) but one who does not believe in Jesus.  For me this would be my funny, honest and thoughtful brother.  Now picture this person’s face as they experience maximum agony for trillions and trillions of years and beyond – for all time.  Now picture yourself, during this same period, at a banquet table in Heaven with other Christians and Jesus Himself, feasting and having a wonderful time, Jesus, of course, is fully aware of your beloved brother’s everlasting torment. The same Jesus who clearly demonstrated boundless love, compassion, grace, and yes, righteousness, during His human ministry on earth and told us “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.”  John 14:9

When considering the above, even the most ardent supporter of the doctrine of hell as eternal conscious punishment would have to admit their own lack of human understanding of this as justice.  A perfectly legitimate and credible position for supporters of this doctrine would be to refer to Isaiah 55:8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts neither are your ways My ways, says the Lord” and conclude that their limited human perspective prevents them from understanding how this equates to fair justice but, as they believe Scripture supports this doctrine, they accept it on faith.  Perfectly legitimate.

Unfortunately this is all too often not what we communicate, either to fellow Christians or non-believers.  Instead we attempt to explain the unexplainable.  Dr. Albert Mohler is currently at the forefront of this effort.  He has written extensively in defense of this doctrine and quotes theologian Geerhardus Vos who “warned against abstracting the love of God from His other attributes, noting that while God’s love is revealed to be His fundamental attribute, it is defined by His other attributes, as well. It is quite possible to “overemphasize this one side of truth as to bring into neglect other exceedingly important principles and demands of Christianity,” he stressed. This would lead to a loss of theological ‘equilibrium’ and balance….”.1    Humanly speaking, Vos’s words are unconvincing in that everlasting torment for temporal sins is beyond any human capacity to conceive of as “equilibrium” or “balance” - mathematically speaking, it is not equal.  Dr. Mohler however purports that the challenge associated with accepting this doctrine is not our limited human understanding but rather the mindset and values of certain people.  He says, “…modern persons demand that God must be a humanitarian, and He is held to human standards of righteousness and love…”.2 True enough, but the standards to which he refers are by no means arbitrary, rather they arise from our capacity for reason and logic.    Implying that only “modern persons” have this limitation is incorrect. 

Dr. Mohler does attempt to address the apparent lack of balance by stating, "The traditional doctrine of hell argues that an infinite penalty is just punishment for sin against the infinite holiness of God."³  But what does this mean exactly?  Agree with the contrast between our sinfulness and God's perfect holiness but how does this translate into damages?  Has sin during one's human lifetime somehow harmed God for all eternity?  Rather than explaining the doctrine, Dr. Mohler's comparison seems more effective in suppressing any sincere questions, even from Christians who, while correctly believing that they, and all people, are undeserving of Heaven (Rom. 3:23), are made to feel that any notion they have that their unsaved loved ones may not deserve eternal torment is a sign of arrogance and unrepentance.  This doesn't welcome legitimate concerns - it silences them.

Another point made by Dr. Mohler is that the “modern denial of hell” is a rejection of retributive justice.⁴ Not always true.  Here he is grouping two very different alternate doctrines, Universalism and Annihilationism and addressing them as one.  His premise fits the former well - if all ultimately end up in Heaven, whether redeemed by Jesus in this life or not, then there is no permanent penalty for sin – and no reason for the cross.  However, Annihilationism presents a very different story.  This doctrine holds that those who don’t accept Jesus as their Savior - in this life - are annihilated in the lake of fire, in keeping with the Biblical teaching that “the wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23).  How is the death penalty not retributive?  Clearly it is.

Although Dr. Mohler represents only one side of this issue as influenced by human sentiment, in actuality this applies to both sides.  Ironically, viewing hell as eternal conscious punishment may itself be an attempt to hold God to human standards of justice.  When considering murderers, rapists and pedophiles, who among us doesn’t feel that annihilation is too good for them?  Is our sense of human justice satisfied if Hitler is ultimately allowed to merely die?  Perhaps our outrage over easy treatment for this heinous group is overshadowing our compassion for the much larger group of better behaved unsaved people. As we debate our lack of understanding of God’s wrath are we in actuality just ill equipped to understand His divine mercy?  Worth considering.

As Dr. Mohler says: "We must never believe that we can do a public relations job on the Gospel or on the character of God."⁵ Both sides must stop spinning the truth.  Effective evangelism and fair debate demand an honest, clear assessment of our own position as well as that of opposing views.  By communicating an understanding of a concept of punishment, the severity of which is far beyond our human comprehension, we at best damage our own credibility and at worst come off as anything but loving.  Either way we put God, and other Christians, in an unappealing light.

Footnotes:

1, 2:  Doing Away with Hell? Part One

3, 4:  Doing Away with Hell? Part Two
5:  We Have Seen All This Before:  Rob Bell and the (Re)Emergence of Liberal Theology

Is Capital Punishment Biblical?

The 6th commandment states “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13) however killing as punishment for certain crimes has long been considered a valid exception to this commandment.  Our current practice of capital punishment has Biblical roots and is thought by many to be a continuing Biblical mandate.  Christians advocating against capital punishment often base this on extending other Biblical values such as loving your enemies and the necessity of a “consistent value of life” when opposing abortion.  Others, most notably Pope John Paul, have pointed to traditional church teachings referring to execution only in the absence of other options and concluded that the availability of prisons (which were not around during Old Testament times) rules out the necessity of executions.  Still others have pointed to the Old Testament directive to execute people for crimes no longer considered capital offenses (adultery, homosexual acts, violating the Sabbath, disrespecting your parents, etc).  While this sort of logic can be compelling, it goes beyond Scripture.  This is actually not necessary as a careful review of the Bible itself presents much more concrete support for the anti-execution crowd.

A key question when considering this issue is: who is authorized by God to order an execution?  To begin, let’s take a look at the Old Testament instructions on execution.  For capital crimes not including murder, the executioners were stated to be the “congregation” (Num. 15:35) or “the people of the land” (Lev. 20:2).  These terms appear to be synonymous as the nation of Israel was a theocracy.  All citizens were part of the congregation and were instructed to follow Moses and Aaron, the first high priest, and ultimately their successors.  In the case of murder, the only one of these sins still considered a capital offense, there was a provision for the perpetrator to be executed by “the avenger of blood” (Num. 35:19, 21) who was a designated relative of the victim.  However, even in this case, the final judgment of whether murder had been committed was the decision of the congregation (Num. 35:12, 24), effectively authorizing that body exclusively, to order an execution.  The congregation, in turn, was led by the priests and ultimately by the high priest. 

The priests’ conduct and lifestyle was strictly regulated to ensure their ability to intercede for all the people with God – effectively to keep the lines of communication open.  This was a very unique role as the priests bore the sins of the congregation (Num. 18:23), even to the point that the high priest’s death appeared to be substitutionary atonement for those committing involuntary manslaughter (Num. 35:25, 28).  The priests required regular and specific atonement in order to enter the presence of God.  No others were to enter into His presence (Num. 18:22).  Based on all these factors, a compelling argument can be made that God’s intention for execution was that it be an indirect judgment from God Himself through the judgment of a sinless (albeit temporarily sinless through ritual atonement) priest.  Effectively, this rendered a perfect, all knowing, loving, just God as the executioner.  There is no question regarding God’s qualifications to render such judgment.

Translating these Biblical directives to a secular government is an unsupportable stretch.  Compared with the proscribed lifestyle of the Old Testament priests and their unique role, judges today are not God’s representatives and thus are sorely unqualified to hand down the death penalty.  This begs the theoretical question (since it’s clearly illegal): if we had spiritual leaders following the directives given in the Old Testament would they then be qualified to order executions?

Christians have to reply with a resounding “no” on several accounts.  First, the role of priest as intercessor and substitutionary atonement has been made forever obsolete by the permanent atonement of Jesus death – no such high priests can exist anymore.  This fact alone supports the anti-death penalty argument because no one is currently qualified, nor authorized by God, to make these decisions. 

An additional side point can be made that perhaps the role of the “avenger of blood” was specifically revoked in the New Testament when Paul communicated that vengeance belongs to God alone (Rom. 12:19).

Another, less concrete example arises from Jesus statement that He came to “fulfill the law” (Matt. 5:17b).  The Bible states that the “wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23a).  While we know that Jesus’ death fulfills this penalty for His followers by enabling them to have eternal life after death (Rom. 6:23b), might a case be made that His death also fulfilled the earthly penalty of capital punishment?  This particular point admittedly requires thinking beyond Scripture but bears consideration.

A more intriguing idea is the case to be made that Jesus abolished legal execution even before His death.  For this we look at the story of the adulterous woman (John 8:2-11).

In brief, the religious leaders bring a woman to Jesus who was caught in the act of adultery.  They cite the Old Testament law requiring her to be put to death and ask Jesus to rule on the matter.  Jesus replied that whoever among them was sinless should cast the first stone.  Slowly but surely each person drops their stone and leaves.  Jesus then tells the woman that He does not condemn her either and she should go and sin no more.

Many view this as a beautiful story of Jesus' mercy to a sinner convicted of, what was then, a capital crime.  But beneath the surface we see a timeless story that confronts the practice of execution by highlighting its extreme shortcomings – serious flaws around corruption and bias that continue in our justice system today.

To understand this we need to examine the punishment for adultery in Leviticus 20:10.  This verse clearly states that both the man and the woman were to be put to death.  Upon bringing this woman to Jesus the priests stated that she had been caught in “the very act” of adultery (John 8:4).  Since the act takes two, where was the man?  It appears that God’s designated judges, the priests, were applying the law unequally – valuing one class of citizen over another.  God did not merely imply impartiality in judgment, He directly commanded it (Lev. 19:15). These leaders were directly violating God’s laws – their judgment was affected by bias and maybe influence, as we continue to see today. 

Jesus responded with a clear directive, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7).  Since the Old Testament required execution, by the congregation, for adultery, this raises a very interesting question: did Jesus abolish this Old Testament law?  There are Christians who would argue that He did exactly that however Jesus states clearly that He did not come to abolish the law (Matt. 5:17a).  So how can His directive be reconciled with upholding the law?

First, it’s important to distinguish between the law and the punishment for breaking the law.  In this case, the law stated that adultery was a sin.  Jesus affirmed and upheld this law when He told the woman to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11b). 

Stoning was the penalty for breaking the law.  In the case of adultery, the people, under the direction of the priests, were the lawful executioners.  So did Jesus change this law?  His requirement was that the executioners be sinless.  As the executioners were mere people, this prerequisite seems to be impossible.  Isn’t adding an insurmountable obstacle to the practice of lawful punishment effectively changing the law?

To answer this we go back to the required practices for priests.  Although priests were not born, nor were they permanently, sinless, the mandated practice of atonement rendered them temporarily sinless whenever they entered the tabernacle and communicated with God.  Again, these practices were designed to keep the lines of communication with God clear.  In the case of this adulterous woman, the religious leaders’ clearly corrupt judgment is evidence that they’ve fallen out of communication with God and were currently in a sinful state.  Jesus did not change the law he merely clarified it by pointing out that due to their disobedience they were no longer qualified, under the already existing requirement, to be “sinless” judges.  The brilliant irony of Jesus' directive is that it wasn't dependent on any prior sins the priests committed, rather He caught them "in the very act" (to use their own words) of willfully disobeying God's command to be impartial in judgment (Lev. 19:15).  They had no leg to stand on and as scholars of Torah, they had to know this.  Jesus was in fact upholding the law – the priests in this case were not. 

In summary, although a number of emotional and practical appeals have been made by Christians against the death penalty, we need go no further than Scripture itself for a compelling argument against its continuance:

1. The Old Testament has no precedence for execution ordered by a secular court.
2. Because of Jesus’ death, priests are no longer God’s designated representatives leaving us with no qualified judges in this area.
3. Jesus’ Himself rendered the priests unqualified to judge even prior to His death due to their disobedience in applying judgment.

The Bible does not appear to offer any support for our current practice of capital punishment – we’d be a better people without it.

Your comments are welcome. 

Thanks for reading.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.  Deuteronomy 29:29