Qualifying Language: Anathema in the Old and New Testaments

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: if anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8-9)

In my last post, I discussed the annihilation of ungodly men and women, Satan, his angels, and ultimately, of Hell itself. I stated that, if everything in Hell is to be annihilated, Hell itself would be annihilated because Hell would serve no purpose. Why would God create a Hell if there would be no one to inhabit it permanently? Consider this along with the fact that Jesus Himself states that Hell was created “for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). Nowhere in the biblical text do we read of the annihilation of the lake of fire and brimstone, nor do we read of the annihilation of Hell. Fudge may claim that annihilationism is “grounded firmly in Scripture” (see “Some Biblical Details That Inspire Change,” from The Fire That Consumes), but where is the annihilation of the ungodly, Satan, demons, false prophet, beast, and Hell itself found in the Scriptures? And if it is not found there, nor is there a biblical inference we can make regarding it, how then can we trade in the traditionalist view regarding Hell? Upon studying this subject matter, I have come to learn that many individuals think that “the grass is green on the other side” of theology until they search out these matters...then, they maintain little desire to look across the green grass over to the other side, ever again.

Today’s post will focus on the word anathema in Galatians 1:8-9 as quoted above. What does the word anathema mean in this context? What does the word anathema mean in John 3:18?

Let’s read the context behind this word:

“The word [anathema] literally means something set up or laid by to be kept, as a votive offering might be hung on a temple wall after being devoted to a god. Because offerings devoted to the true God were commonly burnt in their entirety or otherwise destroyed, the word in biblical usage signifies something ‘accursed’ or doomed to destruction” (Edward William Fudge, “Galatians and Corinthians: Exposition, Galatians 1:8-9,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

The word anathema means “destruction,” a word that Fudge also studies in the biblical text to argue for annihilationism. In context, the word often referred to objects, offerings devoted to God that were burned when offered on an altar. In the context of Galatians 1, however, the word refers to “he,” a person who preaches or teaches a different gospel than what Paul and his companions preached. I will ask this again, as I’ve asked it in earlier posts of this series: can we really say that people are destroyed in the same way that objects are destroyed? For those who have never thought about this question, let me explain something here: the words “anathema” and “destruction” will be interpreted in one of two ways: (1) the words will mean the same for both objects and persons, or (2) the words will mean different things for the two distinct groups of objects and persons. And where one ends up on this question is a matter of the philosophy of language.

Now, does this mean that theology does not play a role? Au contraire, I think it does! As I’ve shown in my post, “Lost in the Fall: The Image of God in the Book of Genesis” (August 2011), the image of God in man is what preserves the sanctity of human life. In fact, it is the image of God in Genesis 9:6 (post-flood) that serves as the reason why humans cannot murder one another. Humans are, however, allowed to kill the animals for food post-flood, but not each other. Why? Because humans bear the image of the divine God. It is this same image that preserves the sanctity of human life that annihilationists will deny still exists within man today.

At this point, Fudge provides an Old Testament background on the word anathema (LXX):

“The Septuagint [LXX] had ordinarily used anathema as the Greek translation of the Hebrew herem, the usual term for something ‘devoted’ to God and therefore, under ordinary circumstances, to be totally destroyed. It is used of the Canaanites whom God tells Israel to ‘totally destroy’ and whom they do ‘completely destroy’ (Num 21:2-3)...the site of this destruction is called Horman (from herem), that the Greek text gives as Anathema...When the Canaanite spoils are ‘set apart for destruction,’ the Septuagint uses anathema (Deut 7:26). The most famous incident involved Achan and Jericho. The city and all its spoils were anathema---‘devoted to destruction’—and so would be any Israelite who took from its spoils for himself (Josh 6:17-18; 7:12)” (“Septuagint/Old Testament Background,” from The Fire That Consumes).

Here we see that the spoils (POW= possessions of war), along with people, could be destroyed. But again, the question I ask is: “Are humans destroyed like objects or things?” Fudge seems to agree with the traditionalist take on the philosophy of man, though he skirts over it immediately and refuses to contemplate the implications of such an agreement:

“Death is lack of relationship with God. In this [death], men and women differ from the animals, who share their earthly origin and gift of life” (“Life In Relation to God: Human Death,” from The Fire That Consumes, brackets mine).

The death of human beings is qualitatively different from the death of animals (see my post titled “Qualitatively Different,” from August 2011). If this is so, how much more so must mankind differ from objects or possessions? This lesser-to-greater argument makes sense when one considers that animals are qualitatively superior to objects. It is this philosophy (provided for us from the opening pages of Genesis) that should complement our theology. If we have an incorrect view of man from the Scriptures, our philosophy of man will stray from the truth.

Annihilationists are the ones who maintain an incorrect philosophy of man (because they deny the image of God in man, a theological concept). This explains the following comment:

“No Israelite doubted that Achan was destroyed because there were physical remains. No one chortled that Achan was not literally annihilated. Nor did they think that ‘destruction’ meant he should be fastened in a cage and tortured endlessly. They knew what it meant to be herem/anathema, and they carried that out” (Fudge, “Septuagint/Old Testament Background,” from The Fire That Consumes).

Fudge exposes the reader to his own view here. “No one chortled that Achan was not literally annihilated” tells us all we need to know. Fudge believes that when the text says, “And all Israel stoned them [Achan and his family] with stones, and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones” (Joshua 7:25b),” the text is in fact confirming the doctrine of annihilationism. But what do we see here? Nothing to do with annihilationism! The text doesn’t even so much as provide a hint that annihilationism is the action here. Rather, what we are told is that Achan and his family are killed by stones and then their bodies are burned. To be brief, Achan and his family are cremated, not annihilated. In regards to the immortality/mortality of the soul, the text remains neutral---and silent. Neither the traditionalist nor the annihilationist can use Joshua 7:25 to make their case.

Last but not least, Fudge ends this section of the word study of anathema with another troubling philosophical claim:

“This is the word’s [anathema] meaning throughout the Scriptures. Because Paul refers to a punishment of the age to come, we need not automatically assign anathema a meaning it has never had before. The method of God’s punishment will surely be different, but the meaning of it will be the same. If even an angel from heaven preaches a different gospel, Paul says he comes under this sentence. He is anathema---herem---devoted to utter destruction” (“Septuagint/Old Testament Background,” from The Fire That Consumes).

But why must the word maintain the same meaning throughout the Scriptures? As I’ve stated in my posts on the philosophy of language this past month, a word can be the same word in two places of Scripture but have two different meanings, depending on context. This is the problem with the annihilationist interpretation: it assumes that the word means the same thing, no matter the context. This is why, for Fudge, anathema means “annihilate,” whether it pertains to possessions of war or to people. This assumes, however, that man is equivalent to the objects of war, the rocks, the rivers, and the trees. But did not Fudge say that man’s death is qualitatively different from that of the animals? If man has a different essence (and different death) than the animals, how can his destruction be of the same nature as that of spoils of war, of things, of possessions, of objects? To conclude that the destruction of man and the destruction of gold and silver are the same is to contradict Fudge’s own statement about the different nature of man’s death from that of the animal kingdom.

I will conclude by saying that Fudge’s own words contradict his earlier words. How can man’s destruction be the equivalent of the annihilation of property when man and object have distinct essences? It is the distinctions of essence that dictate the differences in punishment. Achan and his family, we are told from Joshua 7, were killed with stones and then burned. This is physical death, but the eternal death is of a different nature than the physical one. Noah’s day is compared to the day of the Lord’s return (see Matthew 24:37-41), but the second death will not be drowning by water. Instead, the second death will be of an eternal nature, a death involving the soul, a death that will give way to eternal torment in body and mind. Cooling the tongue will be the least of troubles in the minds of those who enter forever the home of the devil and his angels.

"Away From the Face of the Lord": God's Presence and Final Punishment

“...because Paul speaks of the Lord’s presence as a source of blessing for believers in his previous letter to the same audience (1 Thess 4:17-18), if we view that text as the natural context for understanding 2 Thess 1:8-9, symmetry could call for the interpretation that God’s absence is the source of punishment for unbelievers.

    Gordon D. Fee notes that ‘for Paul the ultimate judgment...is not in this case some expression of “hell,” but rather is ‘total, irreparable exclusion from Christ.’ That language squarely fits conditionalism’s vision, for how can anyone continue to exist forever who is totally cut off from relationship and connection with the only source of life and ground of existence?” (Edward William Fudge, “Separation,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

In my last post, I made the point that annihilationists like to believe their theological position lines up with Scripture; unfortunately, they hold to some philosophical claims that Scripture does not support in any trace or evidence whatsoever. I also pointed out that interpretations of soul destruction in the Old Testament (“destroying souls,” “soul dying,” etc.) are nothing more than either analogies and metaphorical statements or a reference to physical life. None of the references provided by Fudge present soul annihilation to the reader. All of them seem to indicate that man was a unity (as most scholars believe) consisting of at least a body and soul. The soul of the person stood for the entire person, holistic and complete in every part. However, there are no references to either immortality of the soul or annihilationism in the Old Testament. There are traces and glimpses of the resurrection, however, but no evidence for either side in the debate over unconditional/conditional immortality. For annihilationists to appeal to the Old Testament to justify their position (back when such a debate would never have even been present in the minds of the Hebrews) is anachronistic at best and shocking at worst.

In today’s post, I am gonna cover a phrase that is commonly used by annihilationists to point to their view: that is, the phrase “away from the presence of the Lord,” or a phrase very similar to this one. In the quote above, Fudge mentions 1 Thessalonians 4:17-18, where Paul talks about the coming of the Lord. Those who are dead in Christ (the godly dead) will rise from their graves first...then the believers who are alive will be caught up to meet the Lord. Paul’s words “so we shall always be with the Lord” are intended for the believers. That is, those who believe on the name of Christ will forever commune and reign with Christ.

But what about the ungodly, those who do not believe in Christ? Their punishment is to be “away from the presence of the Lord” and to “pay the penalty of eternal destruction” (2 Thess. 1:8, NASB).

Gordon Fee claims that the expression itself does not refer to hell (see the quote by Fudge); but is this true? I think it is. Contra Fee, the context of 2 Thessalonians 1 is discussing eternal punishment. After all, does not Paul mention “eternal destruction” as the penalty of the ungodly in 2 Thess. 1:8? Is not Hell the eternal destination of the ungodly, the place of “outer darkness,” where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (see Matthew 25:30)? In addition to this, the text of 2 Thessalonians also tells us “the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire” (2 Thessalonians 1:7). What more proof do we need to see that hell is under discussion here?

Fudge uses the words of Gordon Fee to support his own view: “That language squarely fits conditionalism’s vision, for how can anyone continue to exist forever who is totally cut off from relationship and connection with the only source of life and ground of existence?”

The question is asked regarding the existence of life apart from God, and Fudge makes it clear that conditional immortalists do not believe the ungodly can survive apart from God’s presence. Since hell is a place of darkness, a place where God cannot be (1 John 1:5-7), then no ungodly person can live eternally separated from God.

Fudge’s view seems to make sense...until one realizes that there are more inhabitants in hell than just human beings:

“And the devil who deceived them [the nations] was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10, NASB).

The devil, the beast, and the false prophet are all cast into the lake of fire and tormented forever (the same length of time that it is said humans will be tormented, see Rev. 14:10-11).

But this brings an interesting question: if ungodly humanity will not suffer in eternal torment but will eventually face annihilation, does this not indicate that the fallen angels (demons) will ultimately face annihilation? If the fallen angels are annihilated, does this not indicate that Satan himself will be annihilated? And if Satan is annihilated, what then, is the purpose of Hell? Was Hell not created for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41)?

If ungodly humanity, the fallen angels, and Satan are annihilated, what happens to Hell? It’s logical to say that Hell too, will be annihilated. In other words, if you take away Satan and the fallen angels (and ungodly humanity), there is no purpose for Hell to exist. Hell then, is annihilated because it serves no purpose. I do not see the annihilation of Hell as a concept in the biblical text...but this is the logical following of annihilationism when taken to its fullest implications. I’m no more wrong in showing where presuppositions lead than the late Francis Schaeffer was in showing individuals how their evolutionist presuppositions led to moral absurdity and the meaninglessness of life (see also William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith, where he talks about this idea in his chapter “The Absurdity of Life Without God”). If everyone in Hell is annihilated, why shouldn’t Hell itself be? This train of thought just seems inevitable to me.

The truth is, according to Matthew 25:41 and Revelation 20:10, Satan, the demons, false prophet, beast, and even ungodly humanity will spend a consciously-tormented eternity in Hell. There will be no annihilation of the ungodly, Satan, or anyone else in the everlasting torment. The question we must ask ourselves is this: “Do the Scriptures show me annihilation? Do the Scriptures present the utter annihilation of the ungodly?” If the Scriptures do present the reader with annihilationist doctrine, why does it seem that the torment of Hell is without end in the biblical text?

There are two roads. Either the traditional view of hell is right (and man will be consciously tormented for all eternity) or the annihilationist view is right (and ungodly humanity will cease to be). May the Lord grant our hearts, minds, and consciences insight into this contemplative issue. God bless.

"As Traditionalists Do": Annihilationists and Their Doctrine

“Dr. Yarbrough [Robert] also claims that my statement that Gehenna ‘does not belong to time but to eternity’ manifests ‘a timeless view of eternity, a Platonic understanding,’ putting me in the same category with traditionalists who adopt a Platonic view of the immortality of the soul. I thank Brother Yarbrough for the reminder that Plato did not view eternity as time extended endlessly, but as timelessness that is qualitatively different from time-bound. However, I do not build a doctrine on Platonism, as traditionalists do, and if Yarbrough will agree to leave off using the phrase ‘immortality of the soul,’ I will stop contrasting time and eternity” (Edward William Fudge, “Interaction of Salted With Fire,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

Before I get started, I desire to say two things. First, let me commend Edward Fudge for producing a massive work on conditional immortality. I usually enjoy studying unique theological positions...and studying this doctrine has been a rather unique experience. I think it is studying unique theological views that makes theology such an exciting field of study. To study God’s Word and see the various interpretations that have been given regarding the Scriptures is a sight to behold.

My respect for Edward Fudge is the same as for all theologians. Edward Fudge has been very cordial to me in his disagreement, and I am honored that we have been able to dialogue. He has shown me what it means to dialogue in humility, yet to do so in a way that humility does not require backing down from one’s theological convictions. His charity here at The Center for Theological Studies is one of many reasons why you should buy his book and allow him to have a voice.

My respect for Edward Fudge, though it is great, does not come without criticism of his theological views. To critically assess the work of theologians is a sign of intense respect. Most theologians I know would not dare assess the work of individuals whom they do not respect. Therefore, it is in the highest respect that I critique Edward Fudge. And I hope that my readership would understand this point. All of the critical assessments here at the center are not done in the spirit of ad hominem attacks, intended cruelty, malevolence, hatred, or any other ill-willed intentions. Rather, the work done here is to be done in the spirit of honest assessment. I desire to give every writer a voice while still providing my own reasons for why I agree or disagree with his or her view. I think that great respect can coincide with strong critique in a way that glorifies God and edifies the saints...and perhaps brings dying men and women to the knowledge of the truth for salvation.

The task for this post is to equip the saints of God to defend their faith. Apologetics, then, aids theology. The two (apologetics and theology) work together.

In the quote above, Fudge accuses traditionalists of holding to Platonic philosophy. This argument is called the genetic argument, where someone attempts to prove that something is wrong because of its origin. Because the traditional view argues the immortality of the soul (Fudge reasons), and traditionalists give the concept a philosophical name (immortality of the soul is a philosophical concept, though a theological one as well), traditionalists must argue from Plato’s views on the subject.

Unfortunately, I do not find this to be the case. While “the soul is immortal” is a philosophical claim, it is not one that is merely assumed. When you read the works of traditionalists on the doctrine of hell, you will often find them quoting Scripture and arguing from Revelation (amongst other texts) that when the text says that the ungodly will be tormented “day and night, forever and ever,” that “they will not rest” in the lake of fire and that “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever” (see Revelation 14), traditionalists believe they are representing the biblical text faithfully to claim that the self will not annihilate but will experience conscious, eternal torment. And let’s face it: if someone were writing an article about the torture innocent people are facing around the world due to dictators, everyone would naturally assume that the innocent people are consciously experiencing such torture. No one would assume that these people were dead before facing the torture. No one assumes that a prisoner is dead before facing lethal injection for his mass murders (if lethal injection is the capital punishment administered). When people think of torture, consciousness is assumed. Never do we think torture is administered where someone is unconscious or already dead.

Why then is it, when it comes to reading the biblical text in everyday language, “their torment is forever and ever” refers to either “no torment at all” or “temporary torment followed by annihilation”? The text is assumed to yield an annihilationist interpretation only if we read annihilationism into the text.

Having said this, let’s place Fudge’s quote into perspective: if Fudge can see the philosophical presupposition (Platonic philosophy) of traditionalists, can he not see his own philosophical presupposition? This is what Fudge has to say about his own system versus the traditionalist view of hell:

“These details, and scores of others from both Testaments, provide a clearer view of the biblical hell than does the majority tradition of unending conscious torment. They represent an understanding of the divine character more fully in accord with the revelation of God revealed in Scripture and in Jesus Christ, including both his goodness and his severity. They furnish a place to stand with confidence, a position grounded firmly in Scripture, an incentive to forego timidity based on uncertainty, a boldness to declare the whole counsel of God on this important subject” (Fudge, “Some Biblical Details That Inspire Change,” from The Fire That Consumes).

It is understandable that Fudge would desire that he be seen as one who is following Scripture on this subject; however, where is the proof of temporary torment? There is no direct proof to make the annihilationist case in Scripture. He even calls annihilationism “a position grounded firmly in Scripture.” But where is the proof that should be firmly grounded in Scripture before we believe it? Should we forego the interpretation of Revelation 14 and 20 in favor of a position that has no trace of Scriptural support for itself? In a post titled “Lost in the Fall: The Image of God in the Book of Genesis” (see this page), I showed that, contra annihilationism, the image of God still exists within man. How do we know? James mentions it some decades after the death and resurrection of Christ! How then could the image have been lost in Genesis? This is an annihilationist presupposition that the Bible itself contradicts.

And what about the annihilationist assertion that the soul dies at death?

“It is deliberately said both that the soul dies (Judg. 16:30; Num. 23:10; et al), that it is destroyed or consumed (Ezek. 22:25, 27), and that it is extinguished (Job 11:20)” (Fudge, “Some Key Biblical Words,” from The Fire That Consumes).

Let’s take Numbers 23:10, for example. Balaam (the false prophet who ends up blessing Israel and not cursing them), says,

“Let my soul die the death of the upright, and let my end be like his!” (NASB)

But the words “my soul” here refer to the self, the person. Balaam was saying, “Let me die the death of the upright.” The soul here refers to the person. This is the same way the soul is used in the New Testament when Jesus says (to use the KJV), “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?”. When the King James translators write “soul” in Luke 9:25, they were not meaning that his soul would be annihilated. Rather, in the context of eternal consequence, Jesus was saying that the one who invests in the world will gain the world but lose his own life (and what can he give in exchange for his own life?). This, however, does not mean that his soul literally dies and is annihilated.

Let’s approach another text, Ezekiel 22:25, 27.

“There is a conspiracy of her prophets in her midst like a roaring lion tearing the prey. They have devoured lives...” (Ezek. 22:25, NASB)

The words the Lord God uses here present a metaphor: the prophets are having their way with the people, manipulating them, similar to the way a lion tears its prey. The people are “prey” for the prophets because the people do whatever the prophets tell them to do. The prophets, then, are manipulating God’s people and using the people for their own selfish gain. But when the Lord says, “They have devoured lives,” He is not talking about the issue of annihilation or of conscious torment. Instead, the Lord is using “devoured lives” in a metaphorical way: the lion eating his prey is an analogy for what the prophets are doing with the people. They are not literally eating the souls (or lives) of the Jews. They are simply scheming, tricking, deceiving, and manipulating them. The analogy of the lion tearing his food is used to poetically demonstrate the immorality over God’s people the prophets are executing.

How about Ezekiel 22:27?

“Her princes within her are like wolves tearing the prey, by shedding blood and destroying lives in order to get dishonest gain.”

Notice that the topic of Ezekiel 22:27 is “dishonest gain.” What the Lord God is talking about here is manipulation, trickery, deception, political corruption, etc. Once again, another analogy is being paired up with the evil work of the prophets in the land---that is, the analogy of wolves tearing their food. “Destroying lives,” in this context, refers to political and spiritual corruption, not annihilation of the soul. How one can find annihilation in these verses is extremely puzzling to me...

Job 11:20 is another text that discusses the wicked:

“But the eyes of the wicked will fail, and there will be no escape for them; and their hope is to breathe their last.”

Here in Job 11, the words “breathe their last” are literally translated as “the expiring of the soul.” In other words, the lives of the wicked come to an end. Does this text refer to annihilation? Once again, there is no proof for such an interpretation. Why can’t Job 11 discuss the annihilation of the soul? It cannot do so because the same chapter discusses “Sheol,” which is not referring to the place called Hell (prepared for Satan and his angels) but the grave. Sheol refers to the grave, the same place that everyone went when they died (whether godly or wicked). If Christ brought immortality to light through the gospel (2 Tim. 1:10), then what is seen in the Old Testament is a great deal of discussion regarding mortality (with a tinge of hopefulness regarding life beyond the grave; see Job 14:14).

The purpose of this post was to look at annihilationism’s philosophical presupposition and prooftexts of support. After our investigation, it should now become clear that annihilationists are guilty of holding to certain philosophical presuppositions as well. While they claim to be more “above water” than traditionalists, they too, employ philosophy regarding the annihilation of the wicked. Annihilation has no support within Scripture, not so much as a hint of an inference to support it. In the end, we are either left to choose the endurance of the immortal soul of both godly and wicked (who were made in the image of God) or the annihilation of the wicked and the immortality of the righteous (who lost the image of God in the fall of Genesis 3). Which view do you think has firmer biblical grounds?

Qualitatively Different: Humans vs. the Plant and Animal Kingdoms

In my last post, I stated that humanity is qualitatively different from plant and animal species. Man has been given not only the image of God, but the God-given right to rule, subdue, have dominion over every creature and creeping thing on the earth. In this, he is greatly distinct from plant and animal life.

I also stated in my last post that Edward Fudge believes that we are made of the same elements as plants and animals. If one places this beside the fact that Fudge argues for the mortality of the soul (that the soul is not immortal, but mortal), one understands that, like plants and animals, man will die and return to the dust---the only exception being those who believe in Jesus (whom God has granted an immortal soul to at the moment of faith). In short, it seems that annihilationism holds to tenets of theistic evolution. I have only come to this conclusion as a result of my reading...but it is something I’d like to dabble into sometime into the near future...

In this post, however, I have a shocking statement to make: Edward Fudge argues here that man is different from the animals. Humans differ from plants and animals in their death:

“Death is lack of relationship with God. In this, men and women differ from the animals, who share their earthly origin and gift of life. Thielicke paints a vivid picture of mankind’s uniqueness among God’s creatures. Only humans are aware of being related to God, are conscious of their sinfulness, can contemplate their own mortality.

‘The flowers and the grass, the whales and the mountains know nothing of being thus related to God. Only man knows this. Only he with his solitary awareness of death protrudes above the creaturely realm and thus has a different form of perishability, as though his were raised to a higher power. He alone must pose the question of the meaning of God’s action that comes to expression in his death...Because he is compelled to pose the question, it becomes evident that man’s returning to dust is qualitatively different from the simple physical returning to dust of a simply physical being...He sees clearly a decision being made against him here with which he must come to terms’” (Helmut Thielicke, quoted by Edward Fudge, “Human Death,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

Thielicke’s quote, a quote that is advocated by Fudge, poses problems for the statements Fudge made some few paragraphs earlier. Just to show the opposition Thielicke’s quote has to Fudge’s, let me reprint Fudge’s quotes here from the last post:

“We are also one with the rest of God’s creation, composed of the same elements found in the rocks and rivers and trees...” (Fudge, “Part of Creation,” from The Fire That Consumes)

“We are not constitutionally superior to these things so that we can look on them with disdain” (Ibid.).

Let’s look at the two phrases I’ve underlined in the above quotes that are contained in the same paragraph in the text. The first quote says that we are made of the “same elements” as the rocks, rivers, and trees. If we are, can we be “qualitatively different” from the rocks, rivers, and trees? If we are made of the same elements as the rocks, rivers, and trees, why would human death be any different from the death of trees and rivers? If humans are like rocks, rivers, and trees, humans will only waste away. Again, I don’t see how we can be any different in death if we are composed of what these natural objects are composed of. We are made with the same stuff they are...we will die the same way they do, or be destroyed as they will be (if annihilationism is true). How can one argue that humans die differently (qualitatively) if humans have are not “constitutionally superior” to these objects?

Fudge quotes Thielicke as an authority; but, if Helmut Thielicke is right, then Fudge has provided a refutation to his own annihilationist view. If humans are not “constitutionally superior” to other natural objects, then humans waste away as do these other natural objects. Last but not least, if humans are not constitutionally superior, then this poses problems for annihilationism...because, if only some are granted immortality (due to faith in the Lord Jesus), then some humans are more human than others because some humans have immortality while others do not. As a result, a new kind of “soul election” is created. The reason why such an approach can seem valid, however, is because Fudge (and the annihilationist camp) will argue that the image of God is lost in the fall. See my post “Lost in the Fall,” published August 2011, for more details.

If something is qualitatively different from something else, then two things differ in their quality or essence. If humans differ qualitatively from rocks, rivers, and trees, then humans differ in their essence from these things. How do humans differ in their essence? Fudge notes a few things:

“Only humans are aware of their being related to God, are conscious of their sinfulness, can contemplate their own mortality” (“Part of Creation,” from The Fire That Consumes).

How are humans different from plants and animals? They are cognizant of their relationship to God, possess consciousness, and can contemplate, think deeply upon, their own mortality and finiteness. Where is the image of God in this? It isn’t there, since it is presupposed in annihilationism that the image of God was lost with the fall. We are different from plants and animals only in that we have consciousness and intellect.

But if this is all we have, then when the human body returns to the dust, will not the consciousness and intellect return to the dust with it? How then, does this make man different from the plants and animals? If man is nothing more than flesh and bone, then his consciousness and intellect (no matter how stellar) are still “mortal” and will waste away back to the elements of the earth. So again, I don’t see how man is qualitatively different in any significant way from plants and animals. It seems that man has a few neat “exterior” features to himself...but he will still return to the dust, the same as every other creation under the sun.

The goal of this post was to show that Fudge makes rather interesting statements about man not being “constitutionally superior” to the other creations yet being “qualitatively different, even in death” from them. If earthly things die, and man dies a natural death (as do the plants and animals), how is he any different from them---unless he has an immortal component to himself, a component of his human existence that cannot die? This is the question I pose to annihilationists. God bless.