Scripture Interprets Scripture: Annihilationism, Non-Penal Substitutionary Atonement and a Multiple Choice Question To Keep You Up Tonight

Scripture interprets Scripture. But too often we Christians choose to interpret the Old Testament (OT) in light of the New Testament (NT), rather than the reverse. Certainly, there is some justification for this practice. Jesus Christ is the criterion by which we interpret the OT. Which OT laws we honor and how we do so is based upon what Jesus did and taught. He is our example for how to practice the OT laws. However, this particular justification aside, there is always the issue of how to interpret the person, teachings and event which Jesus Christ. Thankfully, both Jesus and the Gospel writers who interpret him for us, give us those tools with which to interpret. Particularly with the original audience, the Gospel writers provided clues or devices from a common information pool by which believers can understand Christ. This pool is the OT.

Now, too often, as is the case, where Jesus or the Gospel writers quote a particular OT passage, say the Psalms, the Christian will forever read that Psalm in light of the person and event of Christ. How interesting! We tend to interpret a 3000 year old passage by another passage written a1000 years later! This is odd and wrong because the original audience of the 3000 year old Psalm would have never had interpreted this Psalm in light of Jesus Christ because there is no way they could have. But those of us who live after Christ’s historical events, we can interpret him in light of the Psalms if the Gospels so direct. Really, why is it that so many Christians never interpret the person and events of Jesus and the NT by the meaning and purpose of the older OT passage? Too many truths are avoided and too many errors go uncorrected by avoiding the meanings of these passages.

The Scriptures, including the Gospels, were written to give believers information, meaning and truth about God, Man and Christ. Therefore, if a Gospel passage is giving us a truth about God, Man and Christ and are alluding to a particular OT passage, perhaps this older passage will help us interpret the Gospel passage.

Isn’t this reasonable? Isn’t it at least worth a look?

I think that if more Christians interpreted the NT in light of the OT passages to which they allude, perhaps we would have less Scriptural and theological illiteracy and error.

Allow me to give two examples many will probably hate:

1) Annihilationism

One of the doctrines which I hold and which is deemed by so many in the evangelical wing of the Church as being incorrect is the doctrine of “annihilationism”. This is the doctrine of the Church which teaches that, unlike the teachings of pagan religions, Man is not immortal. Indeed, Man finds his creation not in eternal ideals but only in God who himself only is immortal. Man was created from dust and returns to dust. Man’s future resurrection is only due to the grace of God and only for those who are in Christ. All those who are in Christ will be resurrected because only Christ is resurrected because only Christ has a right to be resurrected. Thus, those who are not in Christ will not be resurrected but will remain dead for all eternity. They will remain in dust from which they were created. They’re punishment for rejecting God in Christ is to be eternally dead. No life will be given to them. Hence, “annihilationism”.

This is the teaching of the entire Bible without exception. The Bible knows of no eternal life for the damned. Indeed, the Bible refutes the idea of man’s immortality often. Yet, too many Christians (particularly the “Bible-believing” variety, continue to interpret Scripture by way of pagan Greek religion and philosophy. They continue to take the straight teachings of Scripture as figurative and symbolic and the apocalyptic and symbolic passages of Scripture as literal!

One proof text given for those who believe damned men will not be annihilated is Jesus’ teaching on Gehenna, such as that in Mark 9:43-48:

“And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

The fire that Jesus is referring to is Gehenna, the garbage dump outside Jerusalem that continued to burn. The Greek word that Jesus is using here is “geenna” and not “hades”. Hell (hades) refers to the grave where the dead reside until the resurrection or hell (geena) which is the place of final punishment for the unredeemed. Gehenna is referred to in the Old Testament as the valley of Hinnom where detestable acts of sin were committed. This is why the Jews eventually turned it into a dump to burn garbage.

2 Chronicles 28:3: “Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.”

2 Chronicles 33:6: “And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.”

No one doubts that this is the case. Even conservative scholars who do not believe in annihilationism believe that Jesus is using Gehenna as a metaphor for hell as “eternal conscious torment.” Annihilationists also see Gehenna as a metaphor, but not as “eternal conscious torment.”

The phrase that non-annihilationists use to prove their view is “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Because this verse describes the fire as not ceasing and the worm as not dieing, it is assumed that the damned individual will not cease being tormented and will not die ... even though he is dead.

This has been the prime interpretation of this verse by so many Christians over the ages who only know of the Greek view of man’s nature and not the Hebrew or Christian. How much error could have been eliminated by simply interpreting Scripture with Scripture!

This phrase, “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched”, is a direct quotation of Isaiah 66:24 which reads: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.”

The very Old Testament verse that Jesus is citing to describe the final state of the wicked is one that states the transgressors are dead carcasses being eaten by worm and being burnt up by fire.

Remember this is a metaphor based on a well-known place in Palestine. The fire burned continually and the worms ate the carcasses of animals like at any town dump. Even those who believe in a non-annihilationist hell do not really believe that it is a place of immortal worms. They see this as a metaphor describing the torment.

But what does a worm do to a dead body? Worms are known for eating a body in the grave. That is why even today we refer to dead bodies as “worm food.”

The imagery of fire does not refer to conscious torment. The main function of fire is not to cause pain but to secure destruction, as in the case of an incinerator. The Bible speaks of a "consuming fire" and of "burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matt. 3:12; cf. Luke 3:17). Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has done its work) which is to completely consume the dead body.

Southwestern’s own E. Earle Ellis holds to annihilationsim or “conditional immortality”. He sees the eternal punishment as having eternal effect. The fire and the worm are eternal because their effects are eternal, i.e., eternal consumption as eternal annihilation. The body of the unredeemed will always be destroyed and always be dust because it will always be burnt up, worm food never to be resurrected again into consciousness again.

Yet, no one wants to admit that they have misread this passage or (more likely) that they were first told what this passage means by someone who had been told what this passage means on-and-on back in Church theological history to the first Christian holding to Greek philosophy about the immortality of Man’s soul (a philosophy that make’s Man’s soul separate from himself and neither creatable nor destructible) read Mark 9:43-48 but read in his own philosophy.


2) Non-Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Another currently unpopular doctrine to which I hold is that of the non-penal substitutionary atoning work of Jesus Christ. By this doctrine it is meant that while Jesus Christ did die for the sake of the sins of Man and to save Man from the punishment of Man’s sin, this death by Jesus was not about him taking the punishment which Man deserves. I cannot stress this enough: JESUS WAS NOT PUNISHED BY GOD FOR THE SINS OF HUMANITY. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is in no way the teaching of the Scriptures. In fact, the Scriptures actually teach against this view. The fact that (admittedly) the overwhelming desire of Christians today hold to a view which the NT completely rebukes is a testimony to how easy and permanently false doctrines enter into the Church. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a relatively recent doctrine of the Church whose earliest formulations stem from Anslem in the 1000s to a further formulation by Aquinas in the 1200s until being ultimately developed by Calvin in the 1500s. But for the 1000 to 1200 years before this, the Christian world was completely ignorant of the idea theory that Jesus was being punished for our sins - and by God of all people! The Father was punishing the Son for ... for ... well, for having on him the sin of Man. Despite the Scriptures’ claims that the Father loves the Son, that the Father is well-pleased with the Son, that the Father and the Son are One, and that God is Just, people hold to the view that the Father turned away from the Son as he was punishing him. Yet, this is what we evangelical inerrantist Christians believe! And they support this odd view by citing Christ’s cry from the cross recorded in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Thus, by this cry from Jesus on the cross, it is assumed that Jesus is proclaiming that God the Father has abandoned Jesus the Son. Why not?

Look at the passage in Matthew.

“And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. ... And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.” (Matt 27:39-43, 46-49)

And Mark’s account says much the same.

Everyone there at the crucifixion believes that God has abandoned Jesus. In fact, Jesus’ death on the cross is evidence that God was never behind Jesus from the first. Everyone believes that what the Pharisees said earlier is correct.

“But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, ‘This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.’” (Matt 12:24)

Evidence of God’s disapproval of Jesus has presented itself in his arrest and crucifixion. Even the Law points to this fact!

“For he that is hanged is accursed of God” (Deut 21:23; cf. Gal 3:13).

The people, the disciples, everyone has abandoned Jesus. And by his admission Jesus is including God the Father among the abandoners, correct?

But let us look at Jesus’ statement: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

This cry is a quote from Psalm 22:1. This is a psalm which depicts the utter anxiety of the psalmist’s situation. He is in a horrible situation which can only mean that God has abandoned him. The psalmist must a worm among men (v. 6) because God never abandoned the father’s of Israel trusted in God and they were delivered from their situation (v. 5). But the psalmist sees his enemies surrounding him and mocking his situation (vv. 12-13, 16-18).

What are the psalmist’s enemies doing to him?

“they pierced my hands and my feet” (v. 16)

“They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture” (v. 18)

So what is the Psalmist to do?

“But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee. Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.” (vv. 19-23)

And why should the psalmist do so?

“For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.” (Psalm 22:24)

Yes, the point of Jesus’ quote is in the Psalm itself. God did not turn away from Jesus. The Father did not abandon the Son. The Father has not despised the Son. The Father has not abhorred the Son. The Father has heard the cry of the Son and will act because God loves the Son.

The mockers are wrong. Everyone who interpreted the crucifixion as meaning that God had abandoned Jesus was wrong. Everyone who interpreted Jesus’ death on the cross as evidence that God was never behind Jesus and his ministry from the first was wrong. All who believe that the Father abandoned and punished the Son are wrong. If you believe that such affliction must have been punishment, then read the book of Job.

Let me ask you: was it wrong for the disciples and others to abandon Jesus at his arrest? If you say “yes”, then you are faced with the problem of why God the Father did the same. If God abandoned Jesus, then the disciples were only behaving with godliness, right?

You see the irony here, do you not? Christians today are making the same error that everyone at the time was making. They saw the crucifixion as punishment from God. In fact, the crucifixion was Man punishing Christ for following God. But because Christ followed the will of God instead of Man, God rewarded Christ with resurrection. All who similarly follow God rather than Man will be similarly rewarded from death. This is why Paul can say that we were crucified with Christ, dead in Christ, and will thus be resurrected with Christ (Gal 2:20; 5:24; 6:14). If God was punishing Christ with the crucifixion, then we were also being punished because we were with Christ at the crucifixion. Yet, if we were also being punished, then why was Christ being punished?

[Those of you new to this blog are probably amazed that an evangelical Christian who believes in the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures could think and write this way. So am I!]

Now let’s consider these two ideas together and come up with a reasonable solution to the following problem:

From a contemporary evangelical point of view, what is the punishment that Man deserves for sin and rebellion against God? The answer is typically “death”. “Death” but specifically, “eternal conscious torment” in hell, correct? Now, if each of us as redeemed believers deserve “eternal unconscious torment” in hell, but such a punishment was actually put upon Jesus Christ, then shouldn’t Jesus be currently experiencing “eternal conscious torment” for each of us? Seems reasonable, doesn’t it.

Now you have the choice of three conclusions to reach:

A) Hell is not “eternal unconscious torment” ...

B) Jesus was not punished for our sins ...

C) None of the above.

Your choice. If you need some help, I suggest reading Scripture.