|
INTRODUCTION |
|
|
This study is designed as a comparison of two doctrinal
views existing within Christian circles on the subject of life after death
and eternal punishment. On one side of the issue are the conditionalists,
who believe in the concept of "soul sleep" (apparently
annihilation of existence that requires recreation) and temporary
punishments meted out to the wicked (with eventual annihilation again),
and on the other side we have the so-called "traditionalists"
who believe in the continued existence of the soul after the death of the
body, and that the wicked will be tormented forever in a place called Gehenna. |
Only when we take all things into consideration and lay
them side-by-side are we ready to make an intelligent decision. It is
important not to be influenced by our preconceived notions of what we
think God should do or not do. It is our duty to determine what God has
said and to accept it on faith, allowing him to reveal it to us as time
goes on. Since the "traditionalist" view is in the majority, we
will allow them to answer the bold claims of the conditionalists. The two
works I have chosen to stand side by side are "The Fire That
Consumes," by Edward W. Fudge (Conditionalist; pub. in 1982) and
"Death and The Afterlife" by Robert Morey (Traditionalist; pub.
in 1984). These represent the best of both sides, and are the most recent
scholarly works available on this subject. Each incorporates the works of
those who have gone before, and enlarges on them. On the left hand
side of each page, I will comment on and present the Conditionalist
argument (which is challenging the "traditionalist" view), and
on the right side I will publish the "traditionalist" comments
or refutation of this view. We trust this study will prove enlightening to
you, as we feel that there are excellent points made on both sides. Fudge defines the real issue in the controversy thusly: The real issue between traditionalists and conditionalists is nothing other than this: Does Scripture teach that the wicked will be made immortal for the purpose of suffering endless pain; or does it teach that the wicked following whatever degree and duration of pain God may justly inflict, will finally and truly die, perish and become extinct forever and ever? p. 425 The objections raised by the traditionalist to this statement would no doubt be: It is a poor choice of words to say that the wicked will be made immortal, as Adam was made to live forever without being immortal. He was given a body that was designed to function forever in its environment. Immortality is a gift only to the redeemed, and the term is applied to the resurrection body, not the soul. |
|
Introduction |
I |
|
Also, objection would be made to Fudge's use of the
terms "die" and "perish" to refer to annihilation,
rather than assuming a Biblical setting. We have no sympathy with those who argue against what they believe God has said or who elevate reason over revelation or who choose to walk by feeling when it goes against the direction of faith. The conclusions presented here rest on detailed exegesis of the Bible teaching prayerfully considered according to accepted rules of interpretation consistent with the highest view of Scripture. Our question finally is: What does Scripture actually teach? That is really the only question that matters. That is where the discussion of the subject should take place and all conclusions be reached. The Bible is God's Word written, and whatever it actually teaches must be the only authoritative source and measure of our faith. p. 395 And if the nature of "everlasting destruction" is to be perpetual conscious torment, if Scripture uses "fire" and "worm" to signify the most horrible pain, and if God has revealed this doctrine to scare millions into heaven, then no one who believes the Bible has any right to object. Nor should theologians try to vindicate God's justice in the matter or preachers to alleviate the pain. Furthermore, as Constable pointed out, there is no practical value in discussing whether such pain is to be figurative or literal if the biblical language is meant to convey thoughts of everlasting conscious pain in the first place. Constable explained: "If there be a literal fire consuming, and a literal worm gnawing, we know the exact pain produced: if the fire and the worm be figurative, they are figurative of a pain and suffering such in intensity as would be produced by the literal agents. Nothing then is really gained by rejecting the literal view...or by changing the bodily pains...into suffering and anguish of the mind. If the descriptions of Scripture are figures, they are at the same time true figures: if they are not to be understood literally, they must yet be understood as giving us the truest and best ideas possible of the real anguish and misery of hell." |
"On no hypothesis can we understand hell as
other than a scene where pain and anguish, mentally or bodily, or both, of
the most intense and terrible nature, are endured by all who have any
existence there. Hell cannot by any artful handling of words, by any
skillful manipulation of phrases, be toned down into a place other than of
the most fearful kind....The real question is, not whether they are
literal or figurative, but whether the pains they point to and portray are
pains to be endured forever; or are pains which sooner or later produce a
destruction of the sentient being from which there is no recovery." # p. 414-415 Fudge makes his point well, and most of his opponents
would not argue the point with him. Hell is a most undesirable place to
be, whether it be temporary or permanent. We will now begin this comparison with a discussion of: Greek Philosophy or Bible Doctrine? |
|
Introduction |
II |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
Greek Philosophy or Bible Doctrine? |
|
|
Fudge offers a challenge to traditionalists: What traditionalist authors have never done is to take up the numerous passages in support of final extinction, then show where conditionalists have either misused the text, ignored the context, eliminated crucial information or added data not found in the Word of God itself. They have themselves, on the other hand, ignored the rich teaching of the Old Testament, falsely presumed a uniform intertestamental view, and interpreted the New Testament pictures and language on the basis of later philosophical tradition and ecclesiastical dogma rather than ordinary, accepted methods of scriptural exegesis. p. 434 If Norris is correct on this point (that the Church based its arguments on Platonic Dualism), conditionalists such as Constable and Froom stand on solid ground in charging traditional "orthodoxy" with Platonic presuppositions even if they sometimes overstate their case in terms of technicalities and philosophical niceties. If this is true, and it appears to be, it is hard to overemphasrze its importance for the doctrine of final punishment. For if one begins with a dualistic view of man and presupposes the immortality of every soul (whether inherent, created or bestowed), the only evident ultimate alternatives for the wicked are unending conscious torment or eventual restoration. Since the Scriptures so clearly eliminate the second possibility traditional orthodoxy from about the fourth century has clung tenaciously to the first. The other alternative--penal suffering culminating in total extinction--although apparently supported by both Old and New Testaments throughout and echoed on the face by the earliest church fathers was ruled out of the question during the fourth and fifth centuries on the basis of philosophical presuppositions. Whatever criticisms one might raise concerning Froom's work, the evidence all leads to the conclusion that on this fundamental point he is absolutely correct. p. 364 Fudge claims that traditionalists use an "imaginary standard Jewish view" to try and prove that the Jews of the first century believed in the existence of the soul after death and eternal torment. This is necessary for Fudge to refute, as it is a key point upon which his whole argument stands or falls: We wish that all who share Calvin's devotion to the authority of the Scripture would let the Bible itself interpret what it says about the end of the wicked rather than interpreting it in the light of an imaginary "standard Jewish view" of the first century or a philosophical presupposition (which is explicitly denied but subconsciously held) that souls are imperishable even in the Lord God's consuming fire of the Age to Come. |
Morey says: In "The Fire That Consumes," we read that
"the Conditionalist arguments have never been squarely met....This
subject has not been discussed in the open by the best minds and methods
of mainstream evangelical scholarship....The Conditionalist
arguments...have simply been ignored." The author goes on to label
the orthodox as "traditionalists" and to refer to them as such
throughout his book to give the impression that the only reason why the
orthodox believe in etemal punishment is because of the influence of
church tradition. One of the key words in this controversy centers around
the word immortal, and who will be and who won't be immortal.
Additionally, the word incorruption is important, and the
consideration of who possesses incorruption and who won't. Just as
opponents of the doctrine of the Trinity have long claimed that the
doctrine is a result of Platonic philosophy, the conditionalists claim
that the "traditionalists" have borrowed the concept of the
soul's existence after death from the Greek concept of the immortality of
the soul, even though this is denied by the other side. It is important to note the difference between the early Christian conception of eternal life and the widespread Hellenistic assumption of the immortality of the soul. Although the Bible speaks, like classical paganism, of man as having a soul as well as a body, it does not see him as consisting essentially of a soul imprisoned in a fleshly body, as Platonism and much Hellenistic spirituality did. It sees him as a unity of soul and body... Those from the Hellenistic world who did not recognize man as essentially a soul-body unity, but rather as a spirit temporarily embodied in flesh, found this interpretation of Jesus unattractive, |
|
Greek Philosophy or Bible Doctrine? |
1 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
|
Our concem in this study is not a reactionary one against the traditionalist view but an exegetical one based on what the Scriptures appear to actually teach repeatedly, consistently and as emphatically as human language is able to express. p.381 Fudge Campaigns that we need to "get our act together" and weed out "Greek philosophy" from true Biblical doctrine: The Return to a Biblical Anthropology. Around the world in recent years, the conviction has been increasing that traditional orthodoxy needs to launch an "antipollution" effort aimed at filtering out pagan ideas of Greek philosophy which early Christian apologists took for granted and which passed largely unnoticed through the centuries to the present day. Chief among these "Grecian" remnants said to contradict Biblical teaching is the idea that man's "soul" is an entity separate from his body which can remain conscious even when the body is dead, and that it possesses (unlike the body) some quality which makes it indestructible." p. 408 |
and frequently diminished his full humanity, sometimes denying it altogether." (from Heresies p. 31) Fudge attacks the Christian apologists of the second and third centuries and charges them with developing their support of the traditional view by the use of Platonic philosophy. He does not differentiate between using the way of thinking of the people of the day with their actual doctrines. One who believes in any of the major doctrines of the church today must acknowledge that you must argue your point in the language of the people you are speaking to, which includes adopting their way of reasoning. But it does NOT mean that we adopt their false religious concepts that are opposed to the word of God and that contradict it! So there is a difference between the two that Fudge fails to address. Just because a concept is not explicit in the Bible does not make it wrong or dangerous. It is not wrong to use literary or philosophical principles to explain the Biblical revelation of God. We are simply concerned about proper, logical thinking. What makes it wrong is when we, by using certain arguments, detract from or destroy the simple and clear significance of a Bible text. Harold O.J. Brown says this about the influence of Hellenistic thinking upon doctrine: It is evident that trinitarian theology required the
aid of Hellenistic concepts and categories for its development and
expression, but they were the tools by means of which the implications of
the New Testament were realized; they were not foreign concepts imposed
upon an essentially simple message. |
|
Greek Philosophy or Bible Doctrine? |
2 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
Progressive Revelation |
|
|
Though failing to really consider the subject of progressive revelation, Fudge nevertheless touches on the fact that much of what the Old Testament reveals about life after death is piecemeal. Fudge realizes that the New Testament fills in much information somewhat foreign to the Old Testament (yet which does not contradict it). This is precisely where the traditionalist is able to refute the conditionalist. Fudge says: The earlier Scriptures foreshadow, hint, suggest, outline, prefigure, illustrate and promise. The New Testament Scriptures fill in the details, flesh out the bones, tint the coloring, fine tune the picture and complete the canonical revelation. We are still in the dark concerning life and immortality until Jesus brings them to light in the gospel (2 Tim. 1:10). It is no less true that God's wrath also is hidden until it is revealed in the gospel (Rom. 1:15-18). Someone has said that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, while the New is the Old revealed. The comparison has much merit. p. 87 In the Psalms and Proverbs we find David and Solomon
using much the same language as that of Job's companions--but this time
with apparent divine sanction. According to numerous Psalms, the wicked
will go down to death and Sheol, their memory will perish, and they will
be as if they had never existed. On the other hand, God will rescue the
righteous from death and they will enjoy Him forever (Ps. 9; 21:4-10;
36:9-12; 49:8-20, 52:59, 59, 73; 92). Proverbs offers the same hope. The
wicked will pass away, be overthrown, be cut off from the land, be no
more, their lamp put out. The godly will endure and their house will
stand, for they have an everlasting foundation (Prov. 2:21, 22; 10:25;
12:7; 24:15-20). Yet beneath the surface and between the lines, one suspects that there is more to the story than this. For Job's problem also rises in Psalms and Proverbs. Where do we see all this happening to the wicked? They often prosper in life and the righteous die. Is that all there is to God's justice? Do the wicked escape so easily? Because of this apparent injustice, such passages as these may fairly be said to suggest a final reckoning and judgment of the wicked beyond |
Morey says: PROGRESSIVE REVELATION The author of Hebrews stated in Hebrews 1:1,2 that God spoke to the fathers through the prophets in bits and pieces and in many different ways. The entirety of God's revelation was not given to humanity in a single instant but was dispersed in different ways to different people over several thousand years. Each new revelation was like a piece of a cosmic puzzle. Even when the last of the Old Testament prophets had all the pieces which were given to those before him, he still could not understand the total picture. It was only after the coming of Christ that the last remaining pieces were supplied and the puzzle completed. The progressive character of revelation can also be understood in terms of a gradual unfolding of biblical truths which began quite vague, but slowly, little by little, came to be understood in absolute clarity. Revelation is thus progressive in a theological sense as well as in a historical sense. Each new revelation was like a turn of the knob on a pair of binoculars which would eventually change the initial blurred vision of the seer to the point of crystal clarity. The implications of the progressive character of God's revelation has direct bearing on the issue of what the Bible says about death and an afterlife. First, this means that we cannot base our understanding of death and an afterlife solely upon passages found in the Old Testament. Since the Old Testament prophets awaited the coming of the New Testament to supply them with the last pieces of the puzzle before the whole picture could be seen, we must recognize that the vision of the Old Testament prophets was intrinsically blurred and, as a result, was vague on most of the details. p. 23 Second, the priciple of progressive revelation also means that Biblical words will change in their meaning as the understanding of God's people deepens. Each new revelation meant a deeper understanding of some aspect of divine truth. Thus, we must not assume that a biblical word will have only one meaning which transcends the division between the Old and the New Testaments. Two errors are commonly made in this regard. Some read the vagueness of the Old Testament into the New Testament and fail to appreciate the final clarity of the New Testament. They state that the meaning of Sheol in the Old Testament determines the meaning of Hades in the New Testament. Thus there is no further or deeper meaning in the New Testament. Once one discovers the meaning of the Old Testament meaning of the concept of Sheol, this is to be transported in its entirety into the New Testament with no deletions or additions. p. 23 |
|
Progressive Revelation |
3 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
|
temporal death. But they give absolutely no information concerning such events, nor do they even explicitly require it. It is an implication drawn from the moral principles of divine government which are revealed. Six psalms in particular strongly point in this direction. p. 90,91 |
Third, we will expect to find that the Old Testament will be unclear and vague in its teaching on death and an afterlife. We will not expect or demand that the Old Testament will be precise in its usage of such words as "soul," "spirit," or "sheol." The clarity of the New Testament need not be eisegetically read back into the Old Testament. Neither should we read the vagueness of the Old Testament into the New Testament and declare with some modern liberal theologians, such as Jungel, that the New Testament as well as the Old Testament is vague about death. Instead, we should appreciate the distinctive vagueness of the Old Testament and the distinctive clarity of the New Testament. We should avoid leveling the distinction between the testaments. p. 24,25 > |
|
Progressive Revelation |
3b |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
Key Words--"olam" and "aionion" |
|
|
The definition of Biblical words is important in any study such as this, and both sides concede that words often have different shades of meaning, depending on how they are used. Scholars are not so ignorant (as the cults are) as to believe that words in the Old and New Testament such as Sheol, Hades, soul, etc. have only one possihle meaning. However, metaphorical meanings convey the same impact as a more literal rendering. Fudge says: We grant to traditionalists the fact that words like "perish," "destroy," "die" and "corrupt" all have metaphorical usages at times. We point out, however, that figurative meanings are possible only because of primary meanings. We also remember the accepted principle of interpretation which calls for primary meanings of words in straightforward, nonallegorical prose unless there is some reason to regard the language otherwise. Scripture never indicates that it intends less by these words than their ordinary meanings would suggest when it applies them to the final state of the wicked. p. 429 Perhaps the most important key words to consider are the Hebrew olam and the Greek aionios, both used to convey the ideas of an indefinite time period as well as the concept of eternity. When the Septuagint was translated from Hebrew into Greek for the Greek speaking Jews, olam was generally translated as aionios. Conditionalists try and deal with passages such as Rev. 20:10 by stressing that in the Old Testament the Hebrew word olam (translated in the Greek as aionios forever) sometimes did not mean "forever" in our modern-day usage, which is true. Fudge says: Petavel points out that Scripture frequently uses aion.
aionios and their Hebrew counterparts (olam in various forms) of
things which have come to an end. The sprinkling of blood at the Passover
was an "everlasting" ordinance (Ex. 12:24). So were the Aaronic
priesthood (Ex. 29:9, 40:15, Lev. 3:17), Caleb's inheritance (Josh. 14:9),
Solomon's temple (1 Kings 8:12,13), the period of a slave's life (Deut.
15:17), Gehazi's leprosy (2 Kings 5:27)- and practically every other
ordinance, rite or institution of the Old Testament system. These things
did not last "forever" as we think of time extended without
limitation. They did last beyond the vision of those who first heard them
called "everlasting," and no time limit was then set at all.
According to this view, held by Petavel, Froom and others, this is the
meaning of aionios or "eternal" in the Bible. It speaks
of unlimited time within the limits determined by the things it modifies.
Yet Beecher--a critic of the orthodox doctrine of hell--denies that this
is a proper definition, |
Morey says: The failure to avoid reductionistic and simplistic definitions is based on the hidden assumption that once the meaning of a word is discovered in a single passage, this same meaning must prevail in every other occurrence of the word. For example, it has become quite fashionable to restrict the meaning of the word "soul" to "physical life" because this was probably what it meant when it was used by Moses to refer to the immaterial life priciple within animals (Gen. 1:20) or within man (Gen. 2:7). Once the annihilationists and some neo-orthodox writers demonstrated that the word "soul" in Gen. 2:7 (KIV) probably means "living beings," they then pronounce that this is the only definition of soul which is allowed. Whenever other passages are presented where the context demands another definition of the word "soul," they lay these passages aside and retreat to Gen. 2:7. As long as they fail to understand the progressive character of revelation and the resulting deepening understanding of words and concepts, they will be stuck in Gen. 2:7. The resistance to the idea that what soul meant to Moses was probably not what it meant to David or Paul is based on their unconscious assumption that the Bible is one book written at one time. Thus as we approach the biblical term which describes the immaterial side of man, we will not attempt to develop artificial definitions based upon the absolutizing of the meaning of a word in a single passage but recognize that a contextual approach will reveal a wide range of meanings. p. 44,45 This observation highlights once again the linguistic burden under which the conditional immortalitists labor. The translators of the Septuagint did not use a term such as bios which a conditional immortalitist would have chosen. The translators used psuche, which culturally and linguistically referred to the immortal soul of man. If the authors of Scripture and the translators of the Septuagint wanted to teach that man did not have a transcendent self which survived death and that man was composed only of physical life, then they would have avoided all words which would have indicated that position. The linguistic fact that they used those words which were everywhere understood to refer to the immortal and invisible soul of man reveals that they did so because they believed in the immortality of the soul. p. 50 Morey on olam and aionios: We must remark at this point that the
annihilationists have the habit of misapplying texts. They consistently |
|
Key Words--Olam and Aionios |
4 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
|
noting that the Mosaic ordinances and the possession of Palestine "might have lasted to the end of the world, but did not." (Beecher, History of Opinions, p.149) Fudge then gives a definitive study of the Greek word aionios. He then draws a conclusion based upon his definition that the traditionalist would immediately object to. Fudge says: We have seen that the adjective aionios distinctly carries a qualitative sense. It suggests something that partakes of the transcendent realm of divine activity...Unless we coin a more appropriate word such as "aionion" or "aionic," this aspect of aionios is best represented by the word "eternal." We have also seen that the adjective aionios has a temporal aspect, indicating something that will never end. God Himself has no limitation, including the limits of time. The Age to Come partakes of that limitlessness... This unending aspect of aionios is best represented by the word "everlasting" until someone finds a word more appropriate. Finally, we have seen that when the word aionios modifies words which name acts or processes as distinct from persons or things, the adjective usually describe the issue or result of the action rather than the action itself. This is indisputably true in four of the six New Testament occurences. There is eternal salvation but not an eternal act of saving. There is eternal redemption but not an eternal process of redeeming. The eternal sin was committed at a point in history, but its results continue into the coming age which lasts forever. Scripture pictures eternal judgement as taking place "on a day," but its outcome will have no end. In the light of this usage, we suggest that Scripture expects the same understanding when it speaks of "eternal destruction" and "eternal punishment." Both are acts. There will be an actual destroying, an actual punishing. Both the destroying and the punishing will issue in a result. The resultant Punishment of destruction will never end. p. 49,50 Fudge continues by discussing Hebrews 9:12, which speaks of Christ having obtained "eternal redemption": This redemption (Hebrews 9:12) is also "eternal" in the sense of everlasting. Not that the act or process of redeeming continues without end. Christ has accomplished that once for all! Our author specifically makes the point that Christ did not have to suffer "many times since the creation." Rather, "He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. 9:25,26). But this once-for- all act of redeeming, which is finished, will never be repeated and can never be duplicated, issues in a redemption which will never pass away. "Eternal" speaks here again of the result of the action, not the act itself. Once the redeeming has taken place, the redemption remains. And that "eternal" result of the once-for-all action will never pass away. p. 45 |
put forth dozens of passages which actually pertain to the fate of the wicked in this life as if these passages were speaking of the final punishment of sinners after the resurrection. This habit confuses the issue and ignores the "this world" context of these passages. Since olam is the key word in the Old Testament which is used to speak of the final state of the righteous and the wicked, we will limit our investigation to it. The word olam is found 420 times in the Hebrew Bible. Brown, Driver and Briggs define it as meaning (I) antiquity, i.e., the distant past, (2) a long duration in the present, (3) indefinite unending future of everlastingness, eternity. Langenscheidt defines olam as: "time immemorial, time past, eternity, distant future, duration, everlasting time, life time; pl. ages, endless times" (p. 243). Girdlestone summarizes olam's meaning in Synonyms of the Old Testament (p. 317): "Eternity is endlessness; and this idea is only qualified by the nature of the objects to which it is applied, or by the direct word of God. When applied to things physical, it is used in accordance with the revealed truth that the heavens and earth shall pass away, and it is limited by this truth. When applied to God, it is used in harmony with the truth that He is essentially and absolutely existent, and that as He is the Causa Causarum and without beginning, so in the very nature of things it must be held that no cause can ever put an end to His existence. When the word is applied to man's future destiny after the resurrection, we natually give it the sense of endlessness without limitation." THE EXEGEIICAL CONSIDERATIONS The word "everlasting" (olam) is a word which describes a contrast between things. It is a contrastive word in that whenever something is clled everlasting, we must ask, "Everlasting as contrasted to what?" Olam is used to speak of the past, the present and the future. When speaking of the past, whenever God is said to be "from everlasting" (Ps. 90:2), this is in contrast to the present world, which had a beginning. God is thus "beginningless," or "eternal" as contrasted to this world. When "everlasting" is used of things which existed before one or more generations of man, they are called "everlasting" in the sense that they are "old" or "ancient" as contrasted to a present generation (Ezek. 36:2). When olam is used of things which to the biblical authors were present realities which would transcend the life span of their own generation, they were called "everlasting." Thus while generations of man come and go, the mountains still remain. They are therefore called everlasting in Hab. 3:6 (K]V). The Mosaic administration was called everlasting because it transcended generations (Ex.12:17). God is the God of Israel "forever" in the sense that He is the God of perpetual generations (Ps. 48:14). In this sense, olam simply means "perpetual throughout generations," not "eternal" in the sense of beginninglessness or endlessness. This is why the word for "generation" (dor) is also used to indicate time in Hebrew Scriptures. We can speak of abiding things as "everlasting" in contrast to the brief time span of a generation. |
|
Key Words--Olam and Aionios |
5 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
|
Fudge also comments on the use of aionios in Matt. 25:46, where it says that the wicked will go away into "eternal punishment", but the righteous to eternal life:At the same time, the life and the punishment of this passage (Matt. 25:46) are never to end. They are "eternal" in the sense of everlasting But we need to note, as in the five cases above, that "punishment" is an act or process. In each case so far, and indisputably in the first four, the act or process happens in a fixed period of time but is followed by a result that lasts forever. In keeping with that scriptural usage, we suggest that the "punishment" here includes whatever penal suffering God justly issues to each person but consists primarily of the total abolition and extinction of the person forever. The punishing continues until the process is completed, and then it stops. But the punishment which results will remain forever. p.48 |
Olam is also used of the future. When it is used of
God's future, He is described as being "to everlasting," i.e.
endless as contrasted to this present world which shall have an end (Ps.
90:2). Thus in Ps. 102 the beginning and end of the world is contrasted to
the endlessness or eterniy of God (vv. 12. 25-28). Morey on "judgment," "redemption" & "everlasting": We fail to see how the annihilationists are correct
in their attempt to make "judgment" into a verb, i.e., a word of
action. It is a noun, not a verb. Yet, this is exactly how
annihilationists argue. They begin their argument by defining
"judgment" as "a word of action." They ridicule the
idea of an eternal act or process of judging. They then state that the
results of judging are eternal but not the process. |
|
Key Words--Olam and Aionios |
6 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
|
Their fundamental error is the same as when they argue from "everlasting mountains" to prove that "eternal punishment" is not eternal. They have taken aion and aionios out of their respective biblical and temporal contexts and connected passages which contextually referred to different ages. When discussing passages where aion and aionios describe the final state after the resurrection, it is illegitimate, hermeneutically speaking, to bring up passages which deal with things in this present age. p. 132,133 EXTENDED COMMENTARY BY MOREY ON AIONIOS: The word aion is found in the Septuagint 308 times. Except for about 20 cases, where it is used to translate such words as ad, it is always used as the Greek equivalent of olam. In the later Jewish apocalyptic literature, the
contrast between the temporary present age and the endless or etemal age
to come was greatly intensified. This dichotomy, dualism or contrast
between the present order and the final order is summarized in Strack and
Billerbeck in Kommentar Zum Neuen Testement Aus Talmud und Midrasch
in Vol. IV, 799ff. For example, in Slav. Enoch we find "this aion"
(66:7) is contrasted to the "endless aion" (50:2, 66:6a). While
the present order will end, the final order means "endless etemity"
(65:3ff). The same idea is found in Syriac Baruch and especially in 4th
Ezra. In Mark 3:29, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is called an "eternal sin" because it will always be eternally viewed by God as a sin, and no forgiveness is possible in this present age or in the final state to come: "It shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come." (Matt. 12:32) Once again the annihilationists pretend that the
word "sin" in Mark 3:29 is a verb. The word "sin" is
actually in its noun form and is not a word of action. Christ is simply
saying that God will look upon this sin as unforgivable for all time and
etemity. We must also point out that the book of Revelation
as well as 2 Peter and Jude clearly depends upon Jewish apocalyptic
literature from which much of their imagery, phraseology and language is
derived. The plural usage of aion in "unto the ages of the ages"
meant etemity of process or duration in this literature. Just the plural
form itself speaks of absolute eternity of duration in such places as Eph.
2:7, "the ages to come." |
|
|
Key Words--Olam and Aionios |
7 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
|
|
In Hebraic usage, when aion or aionios were used to speak of the final order of things, they always meant an etemity of duration or endlessness. In this passage, Christ clearly equates the metaphor of "etemal fire" with "eternal or unending punishment" as the final state of Satan and his angels after the resurrection. p. 137 What is exegetically crucial is to discover what eis
tous aionas ton aionon meant in every instance other than where the
fate of wicked angels and men is described. |
||
|
Key Words--Olam and Aionios |
7b |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
Immortality and the Soul |
|
|
Fudge notes that the traditional view has its difficulties: For orthodox writers through the centuries--from the apologists of the second and third centuries after Christ, to Augustine, to Calvin, to Reformed theologians today--have usually been careful to qualify their claim that man is immortal. His immortality, they say, means that something about him survives physical death and ensures a life beyond the grave. They emphasize that he is not immortal the same way God is. For man's immortality was a gift from his Creator- and that same Creator is at perfect liberty to require it back again! Man is immortal or "deathless," they say, in the sense that physical death will not be his final end. But that does not mean he is inherently indestructible. Just as Christian advocates of general immortality have qualified their view by saying that God can annihilate the soul, so Christian "mortalists" have recognized that God can grant deathlessness and incorruptibility to any person He wishes. In the view of the first, the final annihilation of the wicked is possible-if God so wills. In the view of the second, the eternal preservation of the wicked is possible-if God so wishes. The crucial question does not really concern man's natural mortality or immortaliy, therefore, for both sides concede the ultimate point to the greater sovereignty of God. The issue really becomes a matter of exegesis. Since God is able to preserve or to destroy His human creature, what does Scripture indicate that He will do to those He finally expels to hell? p. 56,57 Fudge comments on the early Fathers, and seems to give the idea that Justin Martyr and Tatian were conditionalists, which is not true. They believed in the continued existence of the soul, but not in the Platonic view of the immortality of the soul. Fudge makes general statements about these early Fathers, but does not tell us who "they" are: They freely borrowed the Platonic conception of the
soul, the chief characteristic being its separability from the body. When
these Christian defenders argued for the resurrection and last judgment,
they often used the pagan doctrine of immortality to show that these
things were not "logically absurd." |
Morey attacks the inconsistency of conditionalists: It is on this point that the annihilationists are greatly inconsistent. First, they disagree among themselves as to what the patristic literature teaches. One affirms and the other denies that the literature reveals a belief in the immortality of the soul. Second, those who admit that the early fathers believed in a conscious afterlife and eternal punishment attribute such belief solely to the influence of pagan philosophy. They downgrade the importance of church history and emphasize that it is the Bible, and the Bible alone which should influence our beliefs. On the other hand, there are those who claimed that all the early church fathers believed in annihilationism and soul sleep. They stressed that the early fathers must have received their beliefs from the apostles. Thus, Leroy Froom claims, "The Apostolic Fathers were all conditionalists" (The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers, Vol. 1, p.803). p.57 Morey establishes the view on the soul or "inner man" at the time of Christ: ESO, ESOTHEN: INNER MAN The New Testament authors clearly believed that man
had a dual nature. They refer to the body as "the outer man" and
the soul/spirit as the "inner man" in such places as Rom. 7:22
and Eph. 3:16. |
|
Immortality and the Soul |
8 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
|
This raises a most interesting point. For if man depends wholly on God for his existence day by day, and if the wicked are banished absolutely from God's presence and are deprived of any divine blessing, the question must arise how they can continue to exist for any period of time. But there is more. Not only does Scripture say throughout that life in any dimension is a gift of God; it is also a matter of record that "immortality" and "incorruption" are promised as exclusively to the righteous as are "glory" and "honor" (Rom. 2:7, 10; I Cor. 15:42-44, 50, 54). All will be raised, but some will "rise to live" while others will "rise to be condemned" (John 5:28, 29; Dan. 12:1, 2). On this matter traditionalist writers have for the most part been strangely silent. When they have spoken, they have often applied to the wicked descriptions of the resurrected body which Paul reserves for the righteous alone. Such an indiscriminate use of terms characterizes the writings of Athenagoras, Augustine and Chrysostom, and it has been carried on by traditionalist advocates since. Calvin was aware of this problem, though he never seems to have met it head-on. Luther posed the difficult question himself but refused to give it much thought. It has often been observed that his chief concern was justification, not eschatology. Many modern authors, both Catholic and Protestant, seeing no biblical stepladder down from this tightrope, simply leap into the philosophical net of the immortaliy of the soul. p. 174 Here we simply observe that the church fathers, without important exception, stressed that man's immortality is derived, not inherent, and that the future continuance of his "immortal soul" rests entirely in the hands of God, who made him. So far as the end of the wicked is concerned, that is the important consideration. p. 69 Fudge likes to present Luther as being among the ranks of those who defended the conditionalist approach: Luther said little about man's supposed natural
immortality or about his "soul" as a separable part of his
being. He wrote on many occasions of death as a "sleep." Between
death and resurrection, Luther pictured the deceased as having no
consciousness of anything-although this sleep was sweet and peaceful for
the righteous. In the resurrection, believers would hear Christ's gentle
voice calling them and arise. Their period of death would then seem only a
moment, as when one falls asleep at night and "instantly" wakes
to find the morning. Fudge boldly states that the Bible does not teach the immortality of the soul, and that the burden of proof is on those who are assuming it teaches thusly. Fudge says: |
The conditional immortalitists have never wrestled with the patently clear passages which speak of a dualism or contrast between the physical life of the body and the transcendent life of the soul or spirit. p. 63,64 The Septuagint clearly "presupposed that the psuche
will be separate from the body and will spend some time in the
underworld." The same is clearly seen in the apocalyptic and
pseudepigraphical works. "The soul lives on after death" (Ps.
Phocyledes, 105 ff.). It then returns to God (Apc. Fsr. 7:3 6:4), is
received by angels (Test. A. 6:5; Test. Tobi 52), where it goes to the
underworld (S. Bar. 21:23; Apc. Esr. 4:12; Saphoneas Apc. 1:1). Josephus states that the Essenes and all Jews except
the Sadducees believed in the immortality of the soul (Wars II,
154-159,163,166). Morey notes: At the beginning of the Reformation, even Luther himself toyed with the idea of soul sleep as a quick and clean answer to the Catholic teaching of purgatory. But later writings reveal that he changed his mind. Statements in his commentary speak of a conscious afterlife: "In the interim [between death and
resurrection], the soul does not sleep but is awake and enjoys the vision
of angels and of God, and has converse with them." First of all, the "traditionalists" do not believe in the Platonic concept of the immortality of the soul OR that the Bible teaches it; rather the continued existence of the soul after death, as well as that the wicked are given a body that can exist forever under their new circumstances. Additionally, they believe that the Bible is full of proof of this. The Hebrew word rephaim occurs eight times in the Old Testament, and only has one meaning. It is translated literally as "shades" or "ghosts," or "departed spirits." There is no other literal definition. Since that cannot be disputed, Fudge attempts to write off the Old Testament usage of this term as mere poetry; a false religious concept borrowed from the pagans around Israel and included as part of the inspired Word of God without any identification as to its fallacy. |
|
Immortality and the Soul |
9 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
|
It is not enough today to say that the Bible assumes the immortality of the soul even though it does not teach it. John W. Wenham throws down the gauntlet. That "so important a truth should not be explicitly taught is strange. The onus of proof is on those who say it is assumed." p.55 Fudge passes off as insignificant one of the major arguments for the Old Testament proof of belief in the existence of the soul after the death of the body. That is the Hebrew word rephaim, translated only as "departed spirits," "shades" or "ghosts": Although individuals are sometimes pictured as
carrying on conversations in Sheol or engaging in other such lifelike
pursuits (Isa. 14:9-18), they are not whole persons but mere Shades,
personified for dramatic purposes. + The state of the deceased cannot be
called "life" in any meaningful sense. It is "such a pale
and pitiful reflection of human existence that it has no longer any
reality, and is only a metaphorical expression of nonbeing." + They are the rephaim (Job 26:5; Ps. 88:10; Prov. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16; Isa. 14:9, 26:19). "For the member of the community of Israel, the dead were beyond his interest for they had ceased to live and praise Yahweh" (Burns, "Mythology of Death", p. 339). p. 83,84 By bypassing such clear references to the afterlife or writing them off as "poetry," Fudge can make a statement like this: Harry Buis, a responsible and respected author of
the traditionalist view, begins his book practically with the warning that
the Old Testament "contains little information about the
eschatological future of the individual, and almost all of this is
concerned with the future of the godly rather than that of the
ungodly." He also cautions against the common tendency to read
"back into the Old Testament concepts which were not held until much
later in the history of doctrine." But, he notes, a high view of
inspiration does call for us to read the Old Testament in the brighter
light of the New. |
He says that we should not suppose that the Hebrews actually believed it! Yet there is nothing to indicate that they should not or did not. The texts should be allowed to speak for themselves, as Fudge so often emphasizes in other areas more suited to his position. Morey comments on the rephaim:. Third, the condition of those in Sheol is described
in the following ways: SOUL SLEEP--Morey comments: It would be appropriate at this point to deal with
the doctrine of "soulsleep," which is continually surfaced by
the annihilationists in order to refute conscious torment in both the
intermediate and eternal state. Since these surrounding cultures indisputably believed in a conscious afterlife, their use of the word "sleep" to describe their dead obviously cannot mean that they believed the dead were unconscious. |
|
Immortality and the Soul |
9b |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
|
SOUL SLEEP Fudge also denies that the New Testament, especially in such passages as Matthew 10:28, teaches that the soul is separate from the body and can exist without it: Lest one read into Matthew's account any Platonic dualism regarding man's being, we have Luke's record of the same words: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him" (Luke 12:4,5). This passage does not teach the immortality of every man's soul; it teaches rather that God can kill the soul as well as the body. Unless Jesus is making idle threats, the very warning implies that God will execute such a sentence on those who persistently rebel against His authority and resist every overture of mercy. # # [Cullmann writes: "We hear in Jesus' saying in Matthew 10:28 that the soul can be killed. The soul is not immortal. There must be resurrection for both (body and soul); for since the Fall the whole man is "sown corruptible'" (Oscar Cullmann Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? pp. 36-37). For similar statements see earlier chapters here on immortabty of the soul. p. 173 So far as Jesus' own teaching on final punishment, we have found it in every point agreeable to the Old Testament witness and limited in its major features to teaching found there. Rather than absorbing the fanciful details of intertestamental apocalyptlc, Jesus borrowed some of its language when useful to communication, but he expressed ideas found in the prophets and illustrated by Old Testament examples of divine judgement. so far as comparing Jesus' teaching on hell with that of his contemporaries, Strawson makes six observations, then draws five conclusions. our study confirms them all. p. 210 |
Thus, the mere presence of the word
"sleep" in scripture as a methaphor for death cannot logically
be used as an argument for soul sleep. As Jeremias stated: " The
notion of soul-sleep is just as foreign to the N.T. as to Judaism; the
image of sleep is introduced simply...as an euphemistic description of
death. Morey gives scriptural support In 2 Peter 2:9, the condition of the ungodly between death and resurrection is described in virtually the same terms as Peter used in verse 4 to describe the condition of the angels in tartarus. The ungodly are kept for the day of judgment while being consciously tormented. The punishment is not future but a present experience of the ungodly while they await their final sentence. This has been pointed out, by such commentators as Alford, A.T. Robertson and Vincent as the only grammatical interpretation possible. The classic Lutheran commentator, R.H. Lenski, states that the ungodly are held for Judgment day while they are being punished. lTerein] markedly repeats the [Teroumenos] used in v. 4 and refers to keeping them in hell as the added participle shows: "while being punished" ("under punishment," RV.; not final; "to be punished" A.V.). Peter is obviously drawing a parallel between the torment of angels and the torment of sinners as they await the day of judgment. Having already mentioned the murky darkness of tartarus in 2:4, Peter in 2:17 speaks of the unrighteous as sharing in the same fate as the angels. Thus he speaks of "the darkness" which had already been mentioned in 2:4 : " These are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved." What is important for us to note is that the wicked will be cast into "the murky netherworld of deep darkness." They are pictured as dwelling in murky tartarus where their lot is torment. p. 138,139. Philippians 1:21-23: |
|
Immortality and the Soul |
10 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
|
Unless Paul believed that the death which released him from the trials of this life was to introduce him at once to the presence of Christ and a state of blessedness, we see no adequate reason for the struggle between his desire to depart and be with Christ and his anxiety to labor still for the advancement of the Redeemer's Kingdom on earth. If he believed that he was to remain for an indefinite time without consciousness in the grave his zeal for men's salvation and his contempt of personal dangers and trials in the pursuit of that object, would lead him to desire to live as long as possible, on account of the importance of his ministry to mankind. On the other hand, if we suppose him to have regarded his attainment of the joys and rewards of heaven as simultaneous with his departure from this world, we have then an adequate explanation of this perplexity. Given the context and the grammatical construction of the passage, there is no legitimate way to escape the truth that Paul desired to depart this life and to be with Christ. p. 211, 212 Hebrews 12:22-24: "No distinction in meaning can be pressed between 'spirits' here and 'souls' there....lt is plain that, for him, the souls of believers do not need to wait until the resurrection to be perfected. They are perfected already in the sense that they are with God in heavenly Jerusalem." In this glorious picture described by the author,
the earthly saints join in the worship which resounds from myriads of
angets and disembodied spirits of fellow saints who have departed this
life. These saints were justified through faith while on earth and are now
perfected and completed in heaven. |
|
|
Immortality and the Soul |
11 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
Sheol and the Grave |
|
|
Sheol is the Hebrew word for the place of the dead. The
real question is: Is there conscious activity in Sheol, and is it a place
where the dead exist in some sort of shadowy, nether worldish existence?
Or is Sheol simply a poetic synonym for the grave or death itself? Etymology and Translation. According to
Gaster, the word "Sheol" does not appear in any non-Hebrew
Semitic literature yet discovered, other than as a loan-word from the
Hebrew. That situation is subject to sudden change, based on overnight
discoveries in biblical archaeology). The etymology is uncertain. Most
modern scholars seem to think it comes from a root meaing "ask"
or "inquire." Older writers sometimes suggested a root meaning
"to bury one's self." The idea of something hidden
appears in synonyms of several languages. The German holle comes
from hohle, a cavern (kin to "hole" in English). The
Greek Hades literally means the "unseen" realm. The
English word "hell" comes from the Anglo-Saxon helan,
which meant "to cover" or "to hide." (repeated from the previous section): Although individuals are sometimes pictured as
carrying on conversations in Sheol or engaging in other such lifelike
pursuits (Isa. 14:9-18), they are not whole persons but mere Shades,
personified for dramatic purposes.+ The state of the deceased cannot be
called "life" in any meaningful sense. It is "such a pale
and pitiful reflection of human existence that it has no longer any
reality, and is only a metaphorical expression of non-being." |
Morey provides an excellent & comprehensive study of Sheol: SHEOL AND ITS INHABITANTS Given the principle of progressive revelation, it is
no surprise that the Old Testament is vague in its description of Sheol
and the condition of those in it. While the Old Testament prophets stated
many things about Sheol, they did not expound in any measure of depth on
this subject. Another reason for this vagueness is that a conscious
afterlife was so universally accepted that it was assumed by the biblical
authors to be the belief of anyone who read the Scriptures. Since it was
not a point of conflict, no great attention was given to it. p. 77 1. Sheol is a shadowy place or a place of darkness
(Job 10:21,22; Ps. 143:3). Evidently it is another dimension which is not
exposed to the rays of the sun. |
|
Sheol and the Grave |
12 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
|
+ They are the rephaim (Job 26:5; Ps. 88:10; Prov. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16, Isa. 14:9, 26:19). "For the member of the community of Israel, the dead were beyond his interest for they had ceased to live and praise Yahweh" (Burns, "Mythology of Death", p. 339). p. 83,84 Because the Old Testament defines man's life by his relationship to God, Sheol is evil. It removes man from his place on earth, where he lived and rejoiced in God's fellowship and praised Him for His goodness (Isa. 38:11, 18, 19). Yet Sheol is not beyond God's sight or reach or power (Job 26:6; Amos 9:2). Righteous men and women repeatedly express confidence that God will restore them from Sheol to enjoy life in his fellowship once more (1 Sam. 2:6 Ps. 16:9-11; 68:20). They have experienced God's joy and faithfulness already on the earth. The joy they have tasted makes them want to live with him forever; the faithfulness they have seen gives them confidence that they will. The patriarchs died in hope, according to Hebrews 11, but their hope was in the power and love of God, not in a philosophical dogma or any death-proof part of man. p. 84. The Old Testament's concept of Sheol belongs to its
larger view of man before God. This perspective, framed in light of the
creation, determines the Hebrew's attitude toward both life and death-and
hope beyond that. Sheol is the common fate of all mortals. It is not a
place of punishment. So far as the destiny of the wicked is concerned, Sheol is not a final word. The Old Testament does say much about the end of the wicked, however. p. 85 |
Langenscheidt's Hebrew-English Dictionary to the
Old Testament (p. 324) defines rephaim as referring to the
"departed spirits, shades." Brown, Driver and Briggs (p. 952)
define rephaim as "shades, ghosts....name of dead in Sheol."
Keil and Delitzsch define rephaim as referring to "those who
are bodiless in the state after death." |
|
Sheol and the Grave |
13 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
|
Sixth, while bodies are unconscious in the grave,
those in Sheol are viewed as being conscious (Isa 14:4-7; 44:23; Ezek.
31:16; 32:21). |
|
|
Sheol and the Grave |
13b |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
|
They trace the origin of Sheol to either sha-al,
which means the spirit world to which mediums directed their questions to
the departed, or Sha-al, which refers to the hollow place in the
earth where the souls of men went at death. Langenscheidt's Hebrew/English
Dictionarv to the Old Testament (p.337) defines Sheol as:
"netherworld, realm of the dead, Hades." The International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia in volume IV, p.2761, defines Sheol as:
"the unseen world, the state or abode of the dead, and is the
equivalent of the Greek: Hades." Keil and Delitzsch state that "Sheol
denotes the place where departed souls are gathered after death; it is an
infinitive form from sha-al, to demand, the demanding, applied to
the place where inexorably summons all men into its shade." + + Commentaries On the Old Testament, Vol.l, p. 338 + + Selected Shorter Writings of Beniamin B. Warfield, pp. 339,345 P.72,73 AN INTERESTING CONSIDERATION: What is important about comparitive studies is that
they place biblical words in their historical context. The word Sheol
should thus be understood in terms of what it meant in the Hebrew language
and by its parallel in the other languages of that time. Why? |
|
|
Sheol and the Dead |
14 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
|
It is universally recognized by modern Talmudic
scholars that Sheol never meant the grave or unconsciousness in
rabbinic literature. Ginzburg states that in rabbinic writings one finds a
consistent conviction that "there exists after this world a condition
of happiness or unhappiness for an individual." Guttman adds,
"The Talmud, like the Apocryphal literature, knows of a kind of
intermediate state of the soul between death and resurrection; true
retribution will be dispensed only after the resurrection of the body. But
along with this, we also find the fate in a retribution coming immediately
after death and in a life of blessedness for the soul in the beyond." Not once is Hades the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word for grave (kever). Not once does it mean nonexistence or unconsciousness. The times it is used for words other than Sheol, it clearly means the world of spirits. There is, therefore, no way to escape the conclusion that the translators of the Septuagint clearly understood that Hades referred to the realm of disembodied souls or spirits; and, we must also emphasize, that the translators of the Septuagint did not obtain this concept from Platonic Greek thought but from the Hebrew concept of Sheol itself. p. 82 KEY POINTS: First, we must once again emphasize the importance of the principle of progressive revelation. While Hades was consistently used in the Greek version of the Old Testament as the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word Sheol, this does not mean that Hades should be limited to the Old Testament meaning of Sheol. The New Testament picks up where the Old Testament left off by progressively developing the concept of what happens to the soul of man after death. We should expect that the fuller revelation of Christ and the apostles will clarify what was vague in the Old Testament (Heb. 1:13). p. 83 That the Epistles would further develop what happens
to the soul after death and go beyond the gospel material is also
expected. The apostles were conscious of the fact that their understanding
was clouded during their sojourn with Christ (John 12:16). It was only
after Pentecost and the final revelations given to the apostles that they
could, at least, speak of death and the afterlife with clarity. It was
only after the last pieces of the cosmic puzzle of revelation were given
that they could see the whole picture. |
|
|
Sheol and the Grave |
15 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
|
In the New Testament, there is, therefore, a
development of understanding which took place after Christ's resurrection.
Before Jesus was raised from the dead, the apostles assumed that everyone
went to Sheol or Hades. This Hades had two sections, one for the righteous
and one for the wicked. But Christ's resurrection changed this picture.
Thus Paul uses the language of transition when he speaks of Christ taking
the righteous out of Hades and bringing them into heaven (Eph. 4:8,9). |
|
|
Sheol and the Grave |
16 |
|
CONDITIONALIST VIEW |
TRADITIONALIST VIEW |
Intertestamental and Pre-Nicene Literature |
|