Afterlife

One of the consequences of becoming an annihilationist, or a believer in conditional immortality, is that my sense of the certainty of eternal life has been diminished. By that I mean to say that as I gave up the idea of hell and the idea that our true selves are inherently immortal apart from our physical bodies, I eventually lost the certainty of Heaven. Heaven became replaced in my mind with a future physical resurrection of some sort, at which point I would be fully "alive" or conscious.

Now even that has faded somewhat and what I am left with is uncertainty. What does it mean for a person to die? What really happens to them?

Amidst all of the hell controversy spurred on by Rob Bell, who as a typical, high-profile, emergent refuses to be clear about where he stands, or to lay out with any certainty the path that he is on, I have revisited the idea of annihilation and universalism.

The chief flaw in universalism is the problem it has with evil within a "Christian/biblical" framework. Christian Scripture is clear that that there are people who choose evil and refuse to turn from evil to good. What happens to these people after death in universalism? Most Christian universalists consign them to a temporary hell in which they eventually see the error of their ways and repent and join the Kingdom of God.

Lately everyone is referring to C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, which portrays a hell whose gates are "locked from the inside" and populated by willing people. Evangelicals have latched onto Lewis' idea and it is frequently postulated as an alternative to the fiery versions of hell put forth by others. It's an improvement on the traditional doctrine of hell...but still not very satisfying.

In The Great Divorce those who are in hell remain mostly unconvinced by the inhabitants of Heaven despite the great lengths that the inhabitants take to persuade them. Though Lewis portrays the possibility that they can all choose Heaven, almost none of them do. This isn't very "universalist" in scope. The hell-dwellers don't seem to have any more access to the reality of God than they did in their earthly lives, which eliminates the idea that after death an encounter with the divine would be more tangible and easily understood than it is in ordinary, physical life.

Lewis writes a new story that is only slightly different than the old one....that those who are in hell want to be there and have chosen to be there on some level.

What are the options before us? Eternal torment, extinction, no extinction but the possibility of choosing to remain ignorant of God and live in hell...which is ultimately unsatisfying but also not fiery.

In my more evangelical days, I remember longing for Heaven/Resurrection as an event that would make me perfect and holy. I imagined how wonderful it would be to not be tempted to make bad choices, to always be loving and kind, to always know the truth in any given situation. It was a soothing idea.

However, even when I thought about this future me, I wondered how much of "me" would be left. In my mind, so much of what constitutes "me" and my personality are inseparable from the likes and dislikes and all-too-human tendencies, many of which would seem to melt away in this other-worldy perfection I was imagining. How "me-like" would I be?

Lewis plays with this theme a little in The Great Divorce when a painter is aghast at the idea that he won't be known by his painting, because there are many great painters in Heaven and all of them are there only to serve and not to worry about their own contributions or uniqueness. The painter doesn't like this at all and rushes back to hell.

Lewis' point is that concern for individual recognition is selfish and ungodly.

Yet...isn't that what the hope for an after-life is all about...that we will continue on in some way as individual beings recognized and reunited with those who are particular to our own lives and stories? We would be happy to see anyone in Heaven, but we most want to see our departed family members and friends. We want individual redemption and recognition, not universal, general salvation.

Lately, when I ponder what will happen to me when I die, I am left with much uncertainty. Unraveling how Scripture truly portrays the afterlife, and losing the sense of inerrancy of Scripture, has made me unsure of just about everything.

How can I know what happens when Scripture argues with itself? How can I speak of things for which I have no experience or evidence?

Honestly, I don't know anymore. All I have is a vague hope that God will remember me. That when my breath returns to God that there will be something worthy enough of me to be retained in His mind.

This is not a very "Christian" concept but one that makes sense to me.

At this point I hope that the good in me will be remembered while the evil in me is forgotten. Maybe those who cultivate evil in their hearts will be wholly forgotten. Maybe feeding our dark side ultimately erases the part of us that is worthy of remembrance.

Death, annihilation, being forgotten....isn't this what we want to have happen to evil?

Perhaps the idea of sanctification is a metaphor for making more and more of ourselves worth remembrance in God's eyes, keeping what is good in us and discarding that which isn't.

Asleep, Not Dead

In the comments on one of my posts, Buz brings up a point I haven't addressed yet.  I am aware that in order to make the case for annihilation, I have to deal with some Scriptures which would seem to contradict it.  I hadn't gotten to that post yet, because I  was getting a little burned out and figured I would pace myself.

If we're dealing with the New Testament's ideas about death and resurrection, it's important to go back and re-read familiar Scriptures and evaluate them on the basis of what they actually say, rather than how we interpret them in the 21st century.

Buz brings up a reference to Jesus saying that God "is not the God of the dead but of the living." That's actually a great Scripture to look at in its context and think about the implications of what Jesus is talking about.  In Matthew 22, Jesus is confronted by the Sadducees who didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead.  They were early materialists without any belief in resurrection, angels or spirits. In order to try and trap Jesus, they pose a question about Levirate marriage:

Matthew 22:23-33

²³That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.²⁴"Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. ²⁵Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.²⁶The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.²⁷Finally, the woman died. ²⁸Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"

 ²⁹Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.³⁰At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. ³¹But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ³²'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." ³³When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

Notice that the Sadducees don't ask what the relationship between the woman and her seven husbands will be in Heaven, after their death. No, they are clearly referring to a future, physical resurrection, not an intermediate state.  Though we know the Sadducees didn't really believe in the resurrection, the way they pose the question informs us about what those who did affirm resurrection believed.  It doesn't indicate any sense of conscious existence before the resurrection.

The most compelling point is made by Jesus.  When he says,"He is not the God of the dead, but of the living," it is a direct reference to resurrection.  He isn't saying, "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive in some spiritual place, conscious of their surroundings...therefore they are 'alive'". Instead, the basis for declaring them "alive" is clearly their future status in the resurrection.

I've referred to Jairus' daughter and Lazarus in my post on Easter, but because the post was focusing on Christ's resurrection, I didn't plunge into the Annihilation/Conditional Immortality subject once again. However, we must consider how Jesus spoke about death and life.  In the gospels, besides raising himself, he only raises three other people; Jairus' daughter, Lazarus, and the son of a widow.  In the case of Jairus' daughter and Lazarus, he describes them as being asleep. Especially in the case of Jairus' daughter, Jesus is adamant over the use of the term, telling the mourners that she is not dead, simply asleep.  It's repeated in Matthew, Mark, and Luke in much the same way.

Matthew 9:23-25 

²³When Jesus entered the ruler's house and saw the flute players and the noisy crowd, ²⁴he said, "Go away. The girl is not dead but asleep." But they laughed at him. ²⁵After the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took the girl by the hand, and she got up.

and about Lazarus:

John 11:11

¹¹After he had said this, he went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up."

In raising the dead man in Luke, he doesn't refer to him as being asleep, but he does raise him by directly addressing his body.

Luke 7:12-15

¹²As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out—the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her.¹³When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her and he said, "Don't cry."

 ¹⁴Then he went up and touched the coffin, and those carrying it stood still. He said, "Young man, I say to you, get up!" ¹⁵The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother.

Very matter of fact, no?

The terminology continues on through Acts and through Paul's epistles.  In Acts as Stephen is being stoned:

Acts 7:59-60

⁵⁹While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." ⁶⁰Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.

It does not escape my attention that Stephen refers to his "spirit" in this section. I'm going to address that in another section with other verses like it.

In Acts 13:35-37, referring to the death of King David:

³⁶"For when David had served God's purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his fathers and his body decayed. ³⁷But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

Paul almost exclusively uses asleep to describe believers who have died.

1 Corinthians 11:30

1 Corinthians 15--all throughout this passage

1 Thessalonians 4 and 5-several uses throughout the chapters.

If we're looking at the cumulative weight of the way death and resurrection are discussed, the case for Conditional Immortality becomes very strong.  If Conditional Immortality is the correct way of viewing human life, then there is no such spiritual place as Hell...as we currently understand it.

Annihilation and Judgment..updated

The frequent theme in the Old Testament of a person's sin having consequences to the 3rd and 4th generation has always been confusing to me.  Why are future descendants held responsible for their ancestor's actions? Other than having the bad luck of being related to someone who has really messed up, what part do they have in what happened?  None that is evident.

However, if the concept of immortal souls in hell is taken off the table, these curses take on a new perspective. For very serious sins, the consequences are extended. Punishment of the violator isn't adequate.  If man is mortal, he can only die once, and then nothing.  The gravity of the situation becomes more powerful if the violator knows that even after he has passed on, the ones closest to him will still be paying the price for his actions.  Instead of eternal punishment without end, there is extended punishment and collateral damage.  

A prime example of earthly punishment being worked out in an earthly realm, instead of an immaterial one, can be found in 1 Samuel, chapter 2, wherein Eli and his sons receive judgment; Eli's sons because of their sinful behavior and lack of integrity as priests, Eli because of his lack of action in restraining them.

1 Samuel 2:22-36 

²² Now Eli, who was very old, heard about everything his sons were doing to all Israel and how they slept with the women who served at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. ²³ So he said to them, "Why do you do such things? I hear from all the people about these wicked deeds of yours. ²⁴ No, my sons; it is not a good report that I hear spreading among the LORD's people. ²⁵ If a man sins against another man, God ^[a] may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who will intercede for him?" His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.

 ²⁶ And the boy Samuel continued to grow in stature and in favor with the LORD and with men.

Prophecy Against the House of Eli

 ²⁷ Now a man of God came to Eli and said to him, "This is what the LORD says: 'Did I not clearly reveal myself to your father's house when they were in Egypt under Pharaoh? ²⁸ I chose your father out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, and to wear an ephod in my presence. I also gave your father's house all the offerings made with fire by the Israelites. ²⁹ Why do you ^[b] scorn my sacrifice and offering that I prescribed for my dwelling? Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?'

 ³⁰ "Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: 'I promised that your house and your father's house would minister before me forever.' But now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained. ³¹ The time is coming when I will cut short your strength and the strength of your father's house, so that there will not be an old man in your family line ³² and you will see distress in my dwelling. Although good will be done to Israel, in your family line there will never be an old man. ³³ Every one of you that I do not cut off from my altar will be spared only to blind your eyes with tears and to grieve your heart, and all your descendants will die in the prime of life.

 ³⁴ " 'And what happens to your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, will be a sign to you—they will both die on the same day. ³⁵ I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who will do according to what is in my heart and mind. I will firmly establish his house, and he will minister before my anointed one always. ³⁶ Then everyone left in your family line will come and bow down before him for a piece of silver and a crust of bread and plead, "Appoint me to some priestly office so I can have food to eat." ' "

No message of fiery torment. The message is sobering in and of itself.  Earthly punishment. Earthly judgment. Who needs the concept of hell to be terrified?  This passage is pretty breath-taking without any mention of it.

When God gets mad, people die....physically die. 

These parts of the Old Testament are hard for Christians to read and explain.  Our faith is firmly grounded in Christ's redemptive work; grace, mercy, forgiveness.  Reconciling those attributes with a large portion of the Old Testament is sometimes sketchy, even more so if hell is on the table.  It's bad enough for someone to die and simply cease to exist as a result of God's judgment, but then possibly to be in hell forever?  That's hard to explain.

Hardwired into the 10 commandments, the 2nd commandment specifically, is God's earthly judgment:

Exodus 20:5-6

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, ⁶ but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

There is no mention of hell or description of anything remotely close to it in this, the first formal manifestation of God's "rules".  Over and over throughout the Old Testament, God's judgment equals death and consequences in the material world. 

continued the next morning....

Not too long ago I discussed some of the things I'd been thinking about in the comments section of a particular blog.  One of the commenters wrote:

I could never understand the atheist point of view, but then recently, I was able to see it as they see it, and it made me weep. The idea of my loved ones just ceasing to exist after death? ugh!

this may sound weird, but I think I’d rather that they go to Hell than that they be annihilated. (Of course, I myself would rather be annihilated :D) Annihilation makes everything meaningless.

I thought that was an interesting point of view, though I'm not so sure his departed love ones would agree with it!

Yet, intuitively it does make some sense and may explain the development of the idea of  life after death.  We don't like the idea of non-existence. At least in hell there is the sense that we are still "us".  We're miserable, but we're there. 

In a strange way it's an egotistical concept.  The possibility that we won't continue on forever in some form is so inconceivable to us and our sense of self, that we say silly things about preferring hell over non-existence. Someone with better qualifications than me needs to unpack the philosophical/psychological implications of such a declaration. 

as an interesting foil....It's important to note that when God first puts forth an explanation of his nature, it's one of eternal existence:

Exodus 3:13-15

13. Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"

14. God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'

15. God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD,  the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.

Who is this God who speaks to Moses?  The God who is.  Wonderfully vague and yet apt. He is defined simply by his existence and his eternal nature. There is nothing to compare him to, nothing with which to define him, other than his very being. 

It stands in stark contrast not only to the many "gods" that were worshipped in the Middle/Near East, but also to the nature of human beings.

          *********

My next few posts on this subject will hopefully bring some relief from the looming prospect of God's judgment.  This Sunday is Easter and I hope to finish off my thoughts in light of The Resurrection.

Annihilation and Hell

A good starting point in this discussion would be to detail what common Christian conceptions of Hell are. In movies and books, it's always portrayed as a fiery underground; flames, lava, burning demons and people. This image has its roots in Jesus' own words:

Matthew 5:21-22

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago,'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again anyone who says to his brother,'Raca'[a term of contempt] is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

See...Jesus uses fire and hell in the same breath. That must mean it is exactly how we have imagined it, right?

Actually, the word Jesus used in the Greek is Gehenna, a place outside of Jerusalem where human sacrifice to an Ammonite god had been performed by several kings in Israel's history. A later king, Josiah, desecrated the place because of this horrible practice and it became a trash heap. People would burn their trash there. Executed criminals and dead animals were taken and disposed of there.

Jesus often used the image of fire when speaking of judgment. It's important to remember, however, that fire destroys things. If a house burns down to the ground, it no longer exists. The ashes are left, but nothing remotely resembling a house is left. The frightening image of eternal torment by fire isn't really represented in the image.

If Gehenna was a place where criminals' bodies were burned after their conviction, I think it's fair to say that Jesus is saying that that's what we're in danger of encountering; being convicted by God's judgment and having our bodies consumed by fire. It's death and destruction, not conscious torment.

Many Christians have theorized about what Hell is like. Nowadays it's considered unfashionable to proclaim the fire and brimstone version of Hell. In contrast, we can find descriptions of Hell as being "separation from God"...whatever that means. What people who describe Hell in this way are saying is something like this: People who reject Christ will die and "live?" in this sad place and know that they will have to live there forever without God. Because God is the source of everything good, then Hell will be a miserable place. Those in Hell will see the joy of those who have eternal life and will be tormented in their souls because they know that they will never, ever be able to enjoy God's presence in that way and that they have been rejected by Him. This will eat at them and make them "burn" in agony.

Other common views of hell:

The Orthodox Church: teaches that Heaven and Hell are the same place...being in the presence of God. For those who love God it is inexpressible joy. For those who hate God it is torment. They so hate him that they cannot bear his presence, which cause them misery.

The Catholic Church: teaches something similar to the "separation" from God concept. People who do not love God have put themselves into self-imposed exile from God.

NT Wright, a bishop in the Anglican Church: Theorizes that perhaps those who do evil and choose not to worship God somehow lose their humanity.

This opens up a possibility: that a human being who continually and with settled intent worships that which is not God can ultimately cease completely to bear God’s image. Such a creature would become, in other words, ex-human: a creature that once bore the image of God but does so no longer, and can never do so again.

This is an evasion. So what if they are "ex-human"? Tormenting millions of dogs for eternity would be just as repugnant. I also believe the answer is unsatisfactory because it could be used to view non-believers as less worthy of God's love and portray them as being inferior to believers. I don't think that's what Wright is aiming for, but misunderstanding never stops those bent on finding justification for being awful towards others who don't share their beliefs.

People often say that Jesus talks about Hell more than anybody in the Bible. In some ways, they are correct. However, it's a misleading argument based on the fact that other than Jesus' instances, there are few references to Hell in the New Testament at all. If you do a common word search for "hell" in an NIV translation, you'll only find 14 uses of the word. Several of those uses occur together in Jesus teachings and represent a particular conversation with His disciples, wherein he uses the word multiple times in a few sentences. Only 2 instances occur outside of the gospels, one of which is the use of the term as a descriptor--James 3:6, and the other referring to angels and their punishment, not humans--2 Peter 2:4.

When it comes to the gospels, there aren't 12 separate teachings about Hell. A few uses of the word occur as adjectives, such as Jesus calling the Pharisees sons of hell. He's not teaching anything about the doctrine of hell in such a use. At most, Jesus refers to Hell 4 times throughout the gospels. I'm only counting the actual teachings. If He says the same thing in 3 different gospels, it doesn't count as 3 separate mentions because the gospels are reiterating one instance, not relating entirely new conversations.

The most prominent use comes from Matthew 5:29-30. Jesus says it's better to gouge out your eye, or cut off your hand rather than have your whole body go to hell.

He reiterates this in Matthew 18:9 :

⁹And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Notice how he contrasts entering life against being thrown into hell? He is saying that it is better to have a living, imperfect body than a whole one burning in that trash heap called Gehenna. This verse clarifies all those scary sections about cutting off body parts instead of entering hell. Would you rather be one-eyed, going about your life, or have beautiful eyes decaying in death?

Besides this clarification, I think it's important to realize that Jesus is shocking us into evaluating our choices, not telling us that we should literally chop off our hands and gouge out our eyes....just in case some of you are contemplating disfiguring yourselves.

It is kind of funny that we would take the Hell portion of these verses literally, but not the dismemberment part. Some of us don't think it's too much for Jesus to be describing a place of eternal torment, but we do think it's too much for him to actually mean we should cut off our limbs. There's something backwards in that.

Having dealt with the fact that there are very few uses of the term Hell in the New Testament, I would like to caution that word searches are a very basic way of trying to get to the bottom of something and by no means should it be the last word in this exploration. It's only a partial attempt at dealing with the concept. Explaining the concept of judgment and punishment will be far more important than making a case for annihilation based on the scant use of the term Hell.

That's one the next posts I'm going to be working on.

Annihilation--an introduction

It's probably fairly obvious to anyone regularly reading my blog, that I have been toying with the idea of annihilation for quite a while.  It's been percolating in my brain off and on for a couple of years, but has been gaining momentum and clarity for me in the last several months, I'm sure prodded on by my father's sudden passing in October.

His ashes sit in a carved, mahogany box on the top of one of my bookcases, his life condensed into a 5 pound bag of gritty, gray matter. It's what we all become eventually, so don't suppose me too morbid. I'm only matter-of-fact about it.

Considering myself a Christian, a believer in Jesus, I had to think...really think....about what I thought had happened to my father. He was an atheist. Not only was he an atheist, but he was rather mocking of any type of religion or belief in salvation. So, one couldn't even make the argument that he was an ignorant atheist who had never been exposed to the Gospel. He'd heard it plenty and decided that it wasn't for him. From a Christian perspective, he died without excuse.

I broached this subject once with my brother, a fellow believer, curious how he was handling my father's death. I had already been considering annihilation, and had been reserving my judgment on the matter, not becoming too emotional about the eternal aspect of my father's death. I was sad, but not consumed with images of him being tormented forever. However, I knew, or at least thought, my brother was more conservative than I was. I was afraid of what he might be thinking and struggling with.

He responded that his pastor, a pastor of a Nazarene church, had comforted him with the thought that there's no way to know what my dad was thinking about when he passed. Perhaps he made a last-minute profession of faith or appeal to God for forgiveness and was welcomed into Heaven. I thought the likelihood of that was infinitesimally small, but was not willing to smash this hope of my brother's. I did briefly mention that I wasn't so sure that I believed in an eternal hell anymore, but didn't go into details. It was a conversation that I knew my brother wasn't ready for, and neither was I, honestly.

As I contemplated  the comfort my brother's pastor had tried to give him, I grasped the fact that Christians of every stripe really don't want there to be a hell. Who would? Yet, because of certain Scriptures and Church tradition, if we claim to believe in what would be called "orthodox"  Christianity, we must contend with the concept of hell, an eternal place of agony or torment.

Each flavor of Christianity has ways of getting around hell. Whether it's through interceding for those who have died in the hopes that you will help them escape purgatory--which is not quite the same as hell, but awfully close--or believing, as the Catholic church does, that people who have never heard the Gospel can be saved even though they are not Christians if they have a sort of natural/general faith in God, or whether Protestants take the God-only-knows route my brother's pastor did, our evasions and manipulations are pointing to a deep problem.

The problem, simply stated, is how do we proclaim a loving God and an eternal Hell? Can those two concepts co-exist and make sense?

Now, this is something that atheists and non-believers take Christians to task for in any in-depth discussion. Often the argument from their side is that a loving God wouldn't let evil exist or have a place of eternal punishment. Their main objection, besides the emotional one that we all have about hell, takes root in a rejection of God's judgment. They not only reject hell, but any concession that God has a right to judge humans, or that humans have somehow committed actions worthy of God's negative judgment.

That is not the angle from which I am reconsidering hell. I am not a Universalist. I don't believe that everyone is "going to Heaven". I don't believe that everyone will have eternal life. I do believe that God will judge people. I do believe that God demands justice.  He offers each of us forgiveness through Jesus Christ, but if we choose to reject him, then we stand alone before God.

All that to say....I don't think God is soft on sin and evil. I don't think Hitler will be singing praises to Jesus in eternity with Stalin singing harmony. Evil exists. Consequences for evil exist. God is merciful. He is loving. He is also just, and we must contend with that side of Him as well.

I'm going to try and lay out what I believe about all this, and how I came to believe it, in several posts.  I'm still working some things out, so if you're reading this and want to give me some food for thought either for or against the existence of hell, feel free to comment.  I find I do my clearest thinking when I am trying to answer someone, discovering exactly how I feel as I simultaneously attempt to communicate it to someone outside of my head.