Annihilationism

[hedrick]

As Bernstein documents, developments in the idea of punishment after death happened over a period of hundreds of years, among Greeks, Romans, Jews, Christians, and later, Islam. It's relevant to give the Jewish views, because Jesus used terms that he hearers would likely have understood based on current Jewish use. But we need to leave room for a distinctive view. I claim that Jesus' emphasis on forgiveness, and Paul's on a final victory, with everyone in Christ, should give us the idea that Christian belief ought to be different from the general ancient culture. Admittedly, Christianity as it developed ended up not being different from the general culture.

 

[Der Alte]

As far as I can tell from the lexicon I use, aionios is eternal, not for an age. However it has a variety of non literal uses. Like eternal gates, and eternal fires. It can also be used of things having to do with God.
An example of non-literal use that's relevant to this discussion is Jude 6: "And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day." Note that the eternal chains were only until final judgement.
That reflects Enoch: "Bind ˓ʿAśel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness (Greek: σκότος): and make an opening in the desert, which is in Daddu’el (see Milik, Enoch, 30), and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness (σκότος), and let him abide there forever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgment he shall be cast into the fire." (Quoted from the Word commentary on Jude)

"An example of non-literal use that's relevant to this discussion is Jude 6: "And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day." Note that the eternal chains were only until final judgement."​

"eternal" only modifies the word chains not the duration of the confinement.

 

[hedrick]

"An example of non-literal use that's relevant to this discussion is Jude 6: "And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day." Note that the eternal chains were only until final judgement."​

"eternal" only modifies the word chains not the duration of the confinement.

But it’s an example of eternal being used for something that isn’t literally eternal. Furthermore, it’s unlikely that there are actual physical chains confining a supernatural being. Surely the term chains refers to the confinement. Should we expect to find some steel chains lying around in hell forever that used to be used on these angels?

 

[Der Alte]

* * * Actually that’s pretty dubious. First, Sheol and Gehenna are different things. Sheol is the remnant of the original OT idea of the dead, good and bad, being basically shades. In the NT that had become Hades, which was often regarded as temporary until the final judgement. * * *

I quoted this from the Jewish Encyclopedia.

"When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [שׁאול/Sheol]] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10)."​

 

[hedrick]

I quoted this from the Jewish Encyclopedia.

"When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [שׁאול/Sheol]] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10)."​

Here's part of the article in TDNT:

"In respect of the duration of this sojourn, there can be no doubt that it was originally thought to be everlasting (→ n. 2). Independently of the changes in the conception of Hades mentioned, this view lived on where only a partial doctrine of the resurrection was taught.8 On the other hand, where a general resurrection was expected,9 the stay in Hades was thought to be limited in time, as everywhere in the NT.

'The fact that there were these different views as to which souls are in Hades, and for how long, meant that there were great variations on this question in the Judaism of NT days."

 

[Der Alte]

But it’s an example of eternal being used for something that isn’t literally eternal. Furthermore, it’s unlikely that there are actual physical chains confining a supernatural being. Surely the term chains refers to the confinement. Should we expect to find some steel chains lying around in hell forever that used to be used on these angels?

I wonder how the 1st century Christians would have understood Jude? Desmos, chains also refers to physical infirmities.

 

[hedrick]

I wonder how the 1st century Christians would have understood Jude? Desmos, chains also refers to physical infirmities.

The angels were confined due to illness? According to Louw-Nida the word isn't very specific. Chains, bonds, fetters. But none of this affects my original point that the eternal confinement wasn't literally eternal.

In fact the more i read the more it's clear that in whatever sense Gehenna might have been "eternal", depending upon interpretation, many, most or all got out of it.

Thus Jesus' various talk about punishment didn't imply that people never got out, even if the fires were said to be eternal. Unlike the Talmud, he didn't talk about how that worked. One possibility is that during his time period "All Israel has a share in the world to come" hadn't yet been qualified, so he could assume his audiences would understand it that way. (It's not likely that he was talking about the fate of Gentiles in his teaching.)

Note: I'm not saying that all 1st Cent Jews thought this. There are plenty of sectarian documents with apocalyptic of various sorts. But we don't really know what normal Jews during the early 1st Cent thought. It's likely that they thought most people got out of Gehenna, and it's plausible that all did.

 

[hedrick]

It’s less clear what Jesus could assume about people who didn’t come out of Gehenna. If any. One early view, quoting from Bernstein

“After twelve months their body is consumed and their soul is burnt and the wind scatters them under the soles of the feet of the righteous” (Rosh Hash. 17a; p. 64).

this was based on Mal 4:3

Malachi 4:3 (NRSV): And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the Lord of hosts.

This could well be reflected in Matt 10:28. Here’s the Hermeneia commentary on that verse

“Especially close to Matt 10:28* are: 1 Enoch 22.13 (the souls of the sinners will not be raised on the day of judgment); 1 Enoch 108.3 (along with their eternal torture, reference is made to killing the spirits); b. Ros Has. 16b.34 (= Str-B 4.1033 = t. Sanh. 13.4–5: Sinful Israelites are tortured for twelve months in Sheol, then body and soul are destroyed and they become dust, in contrast to sectarians, apostates, Epicureans, etc., who are tortured eternally). For additional sources see Paul Volz, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1934) 321.”

But another treatment

these will go down to Gehinnom and be punished there for all generations, as it says, “And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isa. 66:24). The sages continue, “Gehinnom will be consumed but they will not be consumed, as it says, ‘and their form shall wear away the nether world (Sheol)’” (Ps. 49.15). For “they that strive with the Lord shall be broken to pieces” (1 Sam. 2.10). The Amora R. Isaac b. Abin explained, “And their faces shall be black like the sides of a pot”; to which Rabba (A3 B) added that no matter how beautiful they were before, they “shall be called ‘sons of Gehinnom’” (Rosh Hash. 17a; p. 65).

As this combines various rabbis, it’s not clear what it all means. And this s later than the 1st Cent.

 

[Butch5]

You have NEVER refuted anything I have ever posted. Your arguments are nothing more that "You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh huh!"
When you are ready to have a real discussion let me know.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Butch5]

This strikes me as advocacy scholarship. As a more neutral source I'd suggest Alan Bernstein's book "Hell and its Rivals."

It's not a neutral source. I posted it mainly for the historical aspect. It's easy to show that annihilation is what the Bible teaches.

 

[Butch5]

Garbage. I only got this far.

"Take a phrase like aionas ton aionon. This phrase shows up several times in the Greek New Testament (Romans 20:10, for example) and has been traditionally translated as “forever and ever”.
But here’s the problem. Aión means “Age”, not “forever”. And even worse, ton means “of”, NOT “and”. For example, Abraham was the father of (ton) Isaac. ALL THREE WORDS of this phrase are completely mistranslated. What it actually says is “Ages of the Ages”."​

The guy who wrote this does not know what he is talking about. "ton" is the definite article i.e. "the."
I have shown more than once that "aionios" means "eternal." Here are two verses from my list of 26.
For example,

John 3:15-16
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionios] life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionios] life.​

In these two verses Jesus parallels "aionios" with "should not perish," twice. Did Jesus lie? Because according to your anonymous source "aionios means age" not eternal. If that is true then Jesus' followers will eventually perish in an indeterminate age.
.....Link to the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible. Read it and see how many times "aionios" is translated "eternal." Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church for 2000+ years. Who better than the native Greek speaking Greek scholars know the meaning of Greek words.

https://www.worldhistory.biz/download567/The_Orthodox_Study_Bible_-_St.pdf

Yes, it's the word "the". It's in the genitive case which translates "of the". And, what you failed to address is that "ton" absolutely doesn't mean "and" which is how it's often translated

 

[hedrick]

So while Jesus’ threats of hell likely would have been understood as temporary for most people, it’s far from clear whether people would have made any assumption about the minority. Live options include everyone gets out of hell, those who don’t are destroyed, and some kind of continuing punishment.

As you know, my reading of his focus on Gods forgiveness makes the third option unlikely, nor do I think a continuing Gehenna is consistent with Paul.

 

[Der Alte]

It’s less clear what Jesus could assume about people who didn’t come out of Gehenna. If any. One early view, quoting from Bernstein
“After twelve months their body is consumed and their soul is burnt and the wind scatters them under the soles of the feet of the righteous” (Rosh Hash. 17a; p. 64).
this was based on Mal 4:3
Malachi 4:3 (NRSV): And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the Lord of hosts.
This could well be reflected in Matt 10:28. Here’s the Hermeneia commentary on that verse
“Especially close to Matt 10:28* are: 1 Enoch 22.13 (the souls of the sinners will not be raised on the day of judgment); 1 Enoch 108.3 (along with their eternal torture, reference is made to killing the spirits); b. Ros Has. 16b.34 (= Str-B 4.1033 = t. Sanh. 13.4–5: Sinful Israelites are tortured for twelve months in Sheol, then body and soul are destroyed and they become dust, in contrast to sectarians, apostates, Epicureans, etc., who are tortured eternally). For additional sources see Paul Volz, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1934) 321.”
But another treatment
these will go down to Gehinnom and be punished there for all generations, as it says, “And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isa. 66:24). The sages continue, “Gehinnom will be consumed but they will not be consumed, as it says, ‘and their form shall wear away the nether world (Sheol)’” (Ps. 49.15). For “they that strive with the Lord shall be broken to pieces” (1 Sam. 2.10). The Amora R. Isaac b. Abin explained, “And their faces shall be black like the sides of a pot”; to which Rabba (A3 B) added that no matter how beautiful they were before, they “shall be called ‘sons of Gehinnom’” (Rosh Hash. 17a; p. 65).
As this combines various rabbis, it’s not clear what it all means. And this s later than the 1st Cent.

I acknowledged all of this at the beginning of my post. My post shows that the concept of "hell" was not acquired from the Greeks after the time of Jesus as some groups argue. Or as some argue the concept of "hell" was derived from Dante's Inferno in the 14th century.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes, it's the word "the". It's in the genitive case which translates "of the". And, what you failed to address is that "ton" absolutely doesn't mean "and" which is how it's often translated

Oh? I know about the genitive case. I studied Greek, and Hebrew at the graduate level almost 4 decades ago. The writer you quoted did not know that so everything he wrote is tainted. Does the insertion of the copulative "and" significantly change the meaning?

 

[hedrick]

I acknowledged all of this at the beginning of my post. My post shows that the concept of "hell" was not acquired from the Greeks after the time of Jesus as some groups argue. Or as some argue the concept of "hell" was derived from Dante's Inferno in the 14th century.

Right.

 

[Butch5]

Oh? I know about the genitive case. I studied Greek, and Hebrew at the graduate level almost 4 decades ago. The writer you quoted did not know that so everything he wrote is tainted. Does the insertion of the copulative "and" significantly change the meaning?

You assume to know what the author knows. Maybe he kept it simple for people who don't know Greek. either way the phrase means ages of the ages, not forever and ever. Again, "ton" does not mean and. Just like aion does not mean forever.

 

[Der Alte]

You assume to know what the author knows. Maybe he kept it simple for people who don't know Greek. either way the phrase means ages of the ages, not forever and ever. Again, "ton" does not mean and. Just like aion does not mean forever.

Still wrong! Please don't presume to tell me what you think I know etc. I will tell you what I know.
The doubling of words for emphasis is a Hebraism e.g.; "King of kings, Lord of Lords, Amen, amen, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't most of the NT written by Jews?
Let's take a short look at the OT the word "Olam" which is translated "for ever" 335 times in the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tanakh, i.e. Old Testament. Don't you think that the native Hebrew speaking scholars who translated the JPS know what "olam" means?

JPS Isaiah 9:7
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. [Olam] The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.​

In this verse God, Himself tells us the meaning of Olam

JPS Exodus 15:18
18 The LORD shall reign for ever and ever.​

If Olam means "for ever" in Isa 9:7 then it must mean for ever in Ex 15:18 and most other verses unless it is used figuratively as it is in some verses, e.g. Deuteronomy 15:17.
In the following verses "Olam" is doubled for emphasis. "for ever and ever"
JPS Exodus 15:18, 1Ch 29:10, Psa 9:5, Psa 10:16, Psa 21:4, Psa 45:6, Psa 45:17, Psa 48:14, Psa 52:8, Psa 104:5, Psa 119:44, Psa 145:1, Psa 145:2, Psa 145:21, Psa 148:6, Isa 30:8, Isa 34:10, Jer 7:7, Jer 25:5, Dan 7:18, Dan 12:3, Mic 4:5
When Jews wrote the N.T. quite evidently they used Hebraisms in their writings see e.g.

Hebrews 1:8
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
JPS Psalms 45:6
6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.​

 

[Butch5]

Still wrong! Please don't presume to tell me what you think I know etc. I will tell you what I know.
The doubling of words for emphasis is a Hebraism e.g.; "King of kings, Lord of Lords, Amen, amen, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't most of the NT written by Jews?
Let's take a short look at the OT the word "Olam" which is translated "for ever" 335 times in the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tanakh, i.e. Old Testament. Don't you think that the native Hebrew speaking scholars who translated the JPS know what "olam" means?

JPS Isaiah 9:7
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. [Olam] The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.​

In this verse God, Himself tells us the meaning of Olam

JPS Exodus 15:18
18 The LORD shall reign for ever and ever.​

If Olam means "for ever" in Isa 9:7 then it must mean for ever in Ex 15:18 and most other verses unless it is used figuratively as it is in some verses, e.g. Deuteronomy 15:17.
In the following verses "Olam" is doubled for emphasis. "for ever and ever"
JPS Exodus 15:18, 1Ch 29:10, Psa 9:5, Psa 10:16, Psa 21:4, Psa 45:6, Psa 45:17, Psa 48:14, Psa 52:8, Psa 104:5, Psa 119:44, Psa 145:1, Psa 145:2, Psa 145:21, Psa 148:6, Isa 30:8, Isa 34:10, Jer 7:7, Jer 25:5, Dan 7:18, Dan 12:3, Mic 4:5
When Jews wrote the N.T. quite evidently they used Hebraisms in their writings see e.g.

Hebrews 1:8
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
JPS Psalms 45:6
6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.​

You said, "The writer you quoted did not know that so everything he wrote is tainted." you presumed to know what the writer knows.

I'll repeat, ton does not mean and.

You said olam must mean forever, What is you evidence?
God said Olam, the translators said forever and ever.

 

[Der Alte]

You said, "The writer you quoted did not know that so everything he wrote is tainted." you presumed to know what the writer knows.
I'll repeat, ton does not mean and.
You said olam must mean forever, What is you evidence?
God said Olam, the translators said forever and ever.

Still wrong. The writer said "ton" means "of." That is basic Greek 101 "ton" does not mean "of" it is the definite article "the." If he doesn't know the simple stuff like that any thing about Greek he writes is questionable.
Read my post I clearly explained my reasoning.
Read JPS Isaiah 9:7 then read Exodus 15:18. What does "olam" mean in Is 9:7? Does or does not "olam" mean the same thing in both verses?

 

[Butch5]

Still wrong. The writer said "ton" means "of." That is basic Greek 101 "ton" does not mean "of" it is the definite article "the." If he doesn't know the simple stuff like that any thing about Greek he writes is questionable.
Read my post I clearly explained my reasoning.
Read JPS Isaiah 9:7 then read Exodus 15:18. What does "olam" mean in Is 9:7? Does or does not "olam" mean the same thing in both verses?

You presumed to know what someone else knows. You assume he doesn't.

I read your post. I asked for your evidence. You haven't given it. Can you produce some evidence showing that olam means forever?