Theology in the Raw - 637: Theological Diversity in Church Leadership, Child Baptism, and Revisiting Annihilationism

Episode Date: March 5, 2018

Should church leadership be theologically diverse? Would you baptize the children of a gay couple? And, why did Jesus seem to talk about eternal conscious torment if annihilation is correct? Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Connect with Preston Follow him on Twitter @PrestonSprinkle Check out his website prestonsprinkle.com If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

Should church leadership be theologically diverse? Would you baptize the children of a gay couple? And why did Jesus seem to talk about eternal conscious torment if annihilation is correct? I'm Preston Sprinkler and episode of Theology in the Raw. I'm glad you joined me. I've got a bunch of questions in front of me. These are the questions that my Patreon supporters have voted on. So thank you so much, Patreon supporters, for telling me which questions that I need to answer. And these are all really good questions.

And this is what's happening. Whenever I give out the questions to my Patreon supporters, there's a couple of them where I'm like, ooh, man, I'm not sure I want them to pick that one. It's a really tough one, but you picked it. And so answer, I shall. So thank you so much for your support. If you do want to support this show via Patreon and also have access to helping to choose and vote on the questions you want me to answer, you can go to patreon.com forward slash

theology in the raw. Okay, let's jump into our first question, how to address same-sex couples who would like their children to be baptized. This is from an elder at a church. I'm just going to say in Iowa because this person didn't give me liberty to specify which church they were at. But he says, over the last few years, we've been working through our church's response to people struggling with same-sex attraction. He says that our Grace Truth material that's put out by the Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender has been really helpful. So I appreciate that positive feedback. I'm glad it's been helpful for you and your church. You say, the issue we currently face is how to address same-sex couples who would like their children baptized.

face is how to address same-sex couples who would like their children baptized. Our view is that infant baptism is not a salvation issue, but a commitment by the parents to raise their children in the ways of the Lord. Have you studied these issues? So, this is a tough one for various reasons. One, because there's different views of what baptism is, obviously denominational differences. There's different understandings of what infant baptism is, and there's different just church policy on who can be baptized and requirements for baptism. And so, I'm answering a question generally here without, you know, I would almost need to sit down with each specific church and kind of work through, okay, what's your view of baptism? How does this fit in with membership and obedience? What kind of requirements would you place on somebody who desires to get baptized?

What kind of pre-knowledge or pre-commitment to the Christian faith do they need to have? You know, knowledge or pre-commitment to the Christian faith do they need to have? You know, like one friend of mine is at a church where it's kind of baptism on contact, you know, like if you make a confession during Sunday, you know, you can get baptized right there. But even he says, you know, that this can get you into trouble sometimes because, you know, one guy came forward and says, man, I'm giving my life to Christ. I'm all in. I want to be baptized. And my friend was like, all right, we're going to baptize you. Just have a couple of questions. You understand who Jesus is? Oh, yeah, yeah. And I'm not really sure about this whole resurrection thing. The whole zombie Jesus kind of freaks me out, but I totally believe in Jesus and his death. And the pastor

said, well, unfortunately, if you don't believe in the resurrection, I could put you down into the water, but I can't bring you up because that's kind of what resurrection means. And so we're living in a day and age where people don't really have a basic understanding of what baptism is, whereas in the first century, there was a much greater understanding. But not to get too sidetracked here. So all that to say, there's a lot of other questions that we would need to answer before we address this specific one. Let me just, first of all, say, I mean, this is not a black and white question. I mean, it's a really tough issue and I think that there's no clear right or wrong answer with this. Again, there's lots of questions about membership, church policy and so on if you want to

go online to centerforfaith.com under resources we do have a paper on membership service leadership and baptism for lgbt plus people so you can read that it doesn't specifically address infant baptism for a same-sex couple, but I think it would give you a framework to work around and would help you to ask the right questions. I mean, as far as I understand it, I'm more of a creedal or adult baptism person. I can appreciate infant baptism and I can see where they get it from scripture, but I think I would still lean towards adult baptism and not baptizing infants. But as far as I understand it, infant baptism is more of a, you know, it's more about the faith commitment of the parents than the child. And I don't see it so much conveying some sort of blessing on the child.

Like you're not doing, this isn't for the child per se, but more for the adults, I guess. I guess, yeah. Again, it goes back to your opinions on what is going on in the act of baptism. Are you bestowing grace on the actual child being baptized, or is it more of a commitment of the parents, or is it both and? I don't know. These are questions you have to answer. If it is a same-sex couple and they're living in, I'm going to assume here, a sexual relationship, that's going to create some problems, I think, for the church, depending on your view of same-sex sexual relationships. I guess I would parallel it to, and there's no perfect parallel, but what if a boyfriend and girlfriend who were living together and had a child and they came to you and says, hey, we're living together.

We have no interest in not living together, but we want you to baptize our child. Would you baptize that child? Again, it's sort of acknowledging the faith commitment of the parents or the couple. That might be kind of tough. That'd be tough for me because I'm like, well, yeah, let's absolutely, I want the child to grow up in a faithful home, but let's talk about this, you know, living arrangement you have going on here. I mean, this kind of seems to go against what the scriptures teach about, you know, what it means to live faithfully. So, because I do believe, I mean, by definition, I joined the, you know, what it means to live faithfully. So because I do, because I do believe by, I mean, by definition, I joined the, you know, billion other Christians

in the world who would say that regardless of commitment, if two people of the same sex are in a sexual relationship, regardless of whether the state says they're married or not, that that is, and they're living in ongoing sexual immorality, just like a boyfriend and girlfriend would be living in ongoing sexual immorality if they were living together. So me personally, I would say no. I would say no. Again, I would still have to raise questions about, am I at a church whose leadership maybe would disagree with me and maybe I should submit to my church's leadership on that? Or what's the church's or denominational policy? And so there's still other questions that go in, but just me as just a raw individual, I would say no, but that no would probably come with a very

long and in-depth conversation and hopefully in a context of a relationship with the couple where they would understand where I'm coming from. So it's not just the email and say, hey, can you baptize our kid? And you say, no. I'm giving you the kind of punchline of a much greater, more complex, hopefully, relationship that I have with this couple. So hope that helps. Again, going back to my very first point, this is a black and white issue where I think you're either in sin or not in sin. You know, if you baptize or don't baptize a child, I think you have to work through some of these questions between you and your leadership. Number two, this is a really tough one. And this is one I'm like, Oh, why'd you guys vote on this one? Now I

have to answer it because it's, it's a really tough one and not just a tough one, but I'm not sure I'm the perfect person to answer this. But anyway, the question is what do healthy male friendships look like for someone who is attracted to the same sex? So the questioner says lately, I've been comparing, uh, my with same-sex attraction to a pendulum. I alter between two extremes, the throes of pornography or falling in love with a friend. Oh, sorry, the throes of pornography or falling in love with a friend. So those are two ends of the pendulum swing here. Both produce a lot of guilt and shame and isolation, but the latter sucks more for a few reasons.

This sin struggle has perverted healthy male friendships. I have very few because I'm overly aware of someone finding out that I'm attracted to guys. So this suggests that you're not out to your friends. So I think that, to me, that would be a big deal there. I think the first step in cultivating healthy male friendships, not even though, but while you're same-sex attracted, I think the number one step would be being honest with or open with your attraction as or before you enter into a friendship with somebody. attraction as or before you enter into a friendship with somebody. It doesn't mean you need to wear some placard around your neck saying, I'm same-sex attracted, want to be my friend. But I mean, this is, if you're going to open up in a friendship, open up a friendship with somebody, I mean, this is a huge part of your life. And I think that it'd be hard to build trust or depth

with that person if they didn't know this about you. Now, let me major caveat here. I am not saying that you should come out before you're ready. Again, not at all. But I think the first step towards a healthy relationship with another male friend would be, is this, are you male? I'm assuming you're male here. I thought you said something, uh, that would tip that off. I'm just going to assume you are here. Um, I'm looking at your question to see if there's any maleness scattered throughout. So that would, that would

be a big one. Um, I mean, I, I, um, not only, you know, my gay friends, not only are they honest with me with obviously the fact that there's a or same-sex attracted, but I think they're also very honest with if they're really struggling with being even attracted to me. And I've had a couple people say they've had to put boundaries in their own life to make sure that our friendship doesn't become something maybe different. Not that it turned into that cause I'm straight, but I mean, it wouldn't be an emotional strain on the relationship because, uh, for the other person, it's, it's more than, um, just a friendship or there's a long in there that isn't healthy. So, um, you say that's where I'm at now. I have feelings for a friend that I know he doesn't share. And even if he did, it wouldn't matter because we're both Christians. It's unfair to him. It's unfair to the relationship. This guy is a really good person and I enjoy spending time with him. I want to continue to be a good friend for him. How do I avoid letting my struggle ruin what would otherwise be a healthy male friendship?

What do healthy male friendships look like for someone who is attracted to the same sex? So again, I'm speaking from a distance here. I can speak generally about healthy male friendships look like for someone who is attracted to the same sex? So again, I'm speaking from a distance here. I can speak generally about healthy male friendships, but I can't enter into your situation and really, I can't speak firsthand. So my first advice would be try to seek the same advice and questions from somebody who is attracted to the same sex. I guess I can only parallel it to me having healthy friendships with other women. Maybe say women that would be attractive or that I could, you know, be attracted to. I mean, there'd be some women, I guess it wouldn't be a struggle for me, just like there'd be vice versa women who could be friends with me and there'd be no

struggle there. Um, but for me, I, you know, I, let me just speak directly to my, how I, um, have friendships, friendships with women without letting it go somewhere else. And being, I don't know, for me, at least being married, it, that is, that is, um, super important. Like I'm just not going to go hang out with a woman by herself over lunch or coffee or go on a date or something. I mean, that just doesn't, that's not, ain't going to happen. But even when I was single, you know, even there, like I didn't succeed at this all the time. But I mean, my goal would be to kind of avoid, yeah, one-on-one situations with girls that weren't in like a public place or something, you know. in like a public place or something, you know, like I would avoid being in situations where it could easily turn into something more physical or romantic. And especially for me, at least, you know, I've heard just way too many stories of, you know, youth pastors having relationships with

their, you know, people in their youth group or, or things happening when guards are not up. And so I, despite how I know politically incorrect it is today, and I know the, the, the, the sort of problems of the purity movement and all that, but I still do, uh, adhere pretty strongly to like the Billy Graham rule. Like you just don't, not going to be alone with, uh, another woman, another woman where, you know, something could turn into something that's unhealthy or even rumors could spread. Now, by the nature of what I do, I mean, yeah, there are times when I am with another woman through counseling or through business or whatever. I mean, it's kind of inevitable, but it's typically in a very public place. It's not, you know, the privacy of my room or whatever. I mean, it's, it's, it's kind of inevitable, but it's typically in a very public place or something, you know, the privacy of my room or something. So I don't know. I really, again, I want to come back and say, please seek advice from somebody who is attracted to the same

sex, who has had the same struggle and can give you maybe some specific tips to, um, make sure that these relationships stay healthy and don't turn into something else. I would say though that it's imperative that you do have relationships with other guys. I think same-sex attracted Christians can be in no man's land because where they're told, well, you can't be alone with a girl because of what that could, you know, what people could, you know, say about that. And, oh gosh, well, you're gay. Well, you can't be alone with another guy because, you know, that's just going to turn into something sexual. Well, who the heck am I supposed to be alone with then? Like, am I just like, I just can't have any sort of like intimate

friendships. Like, am I excluded from that? So I absolutely don't want any sort of intimate friendships. Am I excluded from that? So I absolutely don't want to put you in that situation and don't think that's healthy at all. So last thing I'm going to say is, you know what? Any relationship, there is going to be a risk. Any friendship, there is going to be a risk. Any friendship I have with a girl, whether it's public or not or whatever, in a setting with lots of people or in a setting with nobody else, like, yeah, there's going to be that risk, but all relationships are going to have that risk. And so it's definitely don't just shut the door and say, okay, well, I'm just not going to talk to guys ever again. I don't think that would be healthy at all.

Next question. A gay couple comes to your church gathering. With regard to our neighborhood church experiment, the person says, our first gathering was a success and everyone was asking to do it again. So initially the plan is to meet monthly with gradual increase in gatherings as we go. Keep in mind, this is a neighborhood. So we see and spend time with each other most days as it is. Now, recently a gay couple moved in close by. They love to throw parties and get together. And I'm curious how you would recommend handling it if they were interested in coming to the gathering. My thoughts would be to welcome them with open arms, teach Jesus, make sure they know they're loved where it gets

complicated as if and when they start asking questions about what we stand for, what the Bible teaches on homosexuality, et cetera. My fear is that they and other neighbors in a post-Christian environment would label us as narrow-minded and bigots, and more importantly, cause people not to want to be a part of our gatherings and therefore mishearing the teachings of Jesus altogether. And you go on and talk about some other things and mention that this is really a hypothetical right now because this person is not, you know, this couple is not coming to the gatherings. But there's a good chance it will happen because you have this, your gatherings are neighborhood based. Let me give you a few general points. Number one, avoid the bait and switch. And you, you mentioned this below here that, uh, it would not be good for you to kind of go out of your way to not talk about it, not address it, not bring up where your church stands on or where

you stand on marriage and same-sex relationships. You don't want them to be hanging out, partying with you for like, you know, several months or even a year and then find out your views on this, that that could feel very deceitful. And I know several LGBT people who keep raising this point that churches, by almost hiding their view and wanting people to come in and get to know the church and everything, and then they get buried deep into relationships in the church only to find out later what the church believes about marriage and same-sex relationships. And it does seem very deceitful and dishonest. So avoid the bait and switch. However, I don't think the very first conversation you need to have, or second, or even

third, or whatever, is, hi, I'm Bob. Your name's not Bob, but I'm going to call you Bob. Hi, I'm Bob. I don't believe marriage is between two people of the same sex, but hey, what's your name? You don't need to front load it like that either. I think, um, somewhere in between. I mean, I think that, uh, um, I wouldn't, I wouldn't, uh, interject it into a conversation unnaturally. Um, at the same time, if it doesn't come up for several encounters, um, you know, you, you may want to have that kind of awkward conversation just for honesty's sake. Now, my second point is going to kind of correlate with my first point. My second point is Jesus first, sexuality later, meaning make sure that in your conversations, in your posture, in your teaching, that Jesus is prioritized, that the gospel is made known, that, you know, if and when sexuality

comes up, that it is part of the biblical story. It is part of the gospel narrative. It is not the centerpiece, nor is it the first part. I think nobody can really understand what Christianity really believes about sexuality until it understands what Christianity believes, what Christianity is, understands the good news of God's grace for all people. So, avoid the bait and switch, not talking about it at all. Also, avoid just front-loading it to where people identify this church as, oh, this church is about not being gay or not embracing same-sex relations. That should not be the main thing the church is known for. Number three, embody God's kindness.

It's the kindness of God that leads to repentance, Romans 2, 4. So when, if, and when you have that conversation about marriage and sexuality, that it is, that the person hearing it also knows that you on a relational level and your church embodies God's kindness so that they could not logically conclude, oh, so you don't really like gay people or, oh, you're not really kind to me. Like you would want, if it would be like a really big deal for them that you don't believe in same sex marriage, if that'd be really confusing and maybe hard for them, you almost want them to be like kind of confused by the, in the sense that, wait a minute, I always heard that like, if you don't support same sex marriage, you must hate gay people. Well, these people clearly don't hate gay people. They love me and they can still keep loving me

and want us to party with them and want us to hang out in the neighborhood and want us in their gathering, even though this is where they stand. So they probably couldn't perform my wedding or whatever, but gosh, they clearly are not bigots. They clearly aren't dehumanizing me. They clearly are not bigots. They clearly aren't dehumanizing me. They clearly want me here. Like you would want that relationship to be made known prior to, or in the midst of talking about marriage and sexuality. And lastly, number four, trust the power of the gospel. Here's what we don't want to fall into. Thinking that, and I guess this is my reformed leanings coming out. I mean, we just, I just, on so many levels, I don't think that we need to try to like shoehorn people in the kingdom through, you know, not talking about certain hard to talk about things. Like,

trust the power of the gospel. If they are going to be a member of Christ's kingdom, it will be because they will have a clear understanding of who Jesus is and they will have an eager desire to submit to his lordship in all things. So if you do mention the truth and talk about the truth about marriage and sexuality, like that's not going to, that's not going to repel a genuine seeker who's being drawn by God from the kingdom. So trust the power of the gospel. Look, I keep, okay. So you know, the stories about, you know, everybody in the Middle East getting saved through visions and stuff like, like people in Muslim countries are having visions without a missionary, without a track, without a Bible. They're just being, they're just these unilateral encounters with God and they're getting saved. You guys, I mean, this is kind of pretty well-known stuff.

Well, I feel like there's something similar happening among gay couples. I just keep hearing these stories. I just heard one two days ago, talking to a woman who was in a committed lesbian relationship for a number of years. And she says, my partner was a wonderful person. We have a great relationship, uh, pretty much no church or Christian background. I mean, just hardly in just, just the, you know, no, no, no, like, you know, knowledge of Christianity and a kid, you know, one day her partner or no, no, no. She woke up and just kind of said to her partner and just like blurted out, like, do you think what we're doing is wrong? And right when she said it, she felt sick to her stomach. Like, oh my gosh, I'm so sorry. Like I, cause I have a great relationship and she felt so bad. Like, why did I even say that? Like it could hurt her feelings

or cause her to be confused about what's going on. And her partner said, I was thinking the exact same thing like today. They ended up like, hey, well, okay, well, I think we should like, I guess pray and then stop sleeping together. They still slept in the same bed, but didn't have a sexual relationship. And a few weeks later, like they're on an airplane and somebody, oh no, no, they, I kid you not. Or she, you know, she, she kids you not. She was, they found a Bible. Somehow they did have a Bible in the house and they, they open it and guess where it fell to? It fell to Leviticus 18, 22, where it says, a man shall not lie with a man as he does with a woman.

And they said, oh, okay. So I guess, yeah, it's true. We shouldn't be sleeping together. But then later on, on an airplane, they're talking to, she was, her partner was talking to somebody and their partner asked the person like, do you know anything about, does the Bible say anything about like female same-sex relationships? Because Leviticus 18.22 is about male sexual relationships. And they said, oh yeah, it's in Romans 1. So they went and read Romans 1 and they're like, okay, so I guess we can't, I guess we really shouldn't be sleeping together. And now to this day, they're both walking with the Lord, they're friends. One's a missionary, one's a, one's a, actually a speaker, shares her testimony all over the place.

And all that happened, I mean, against the grain of the way it's supposed to happen. Like you're never supposed to look at, you know, Leviticus or Romans, you know, and, and goodness, you need to be kind of like wooed into the kingdom through excessive kindness. And, and all that is typically usually generally true. But sometimes God just breaks in and says, you're mine and you're going to be a member of my kingdom. And I'm going to unilaterally break into your life and conquer your heart with my love. And so trust the power of the gospel. Embody God's kindness. That is your job. But sometimes you can embody God's kindness and you will still get the Heisman and be accused of being a bigot. And that's just going to be true. That's going to happen. It's going to happen.

We don't embody God's kindness because it has 100% success rate at getting people saved. We embody God's kindness because it's how we got saved. It's what we are called to do, even if it doesn't always quote unquote work. That's not the point of embodying God's kindness. Fourth, should church leadership be theologically diverse? And this has to do with some of my talk about theological diversity, how theological diversity is healthy in a church. And I thought this question was going to come up. So, this person said, okay, well, do you believe in a place for robust theological diversity in the church among leadership? I guess I would say on some things for sure, yes. Probably, I mean, not probably, I would say the leadership needs to

be more in line on certain key values than, say, the rest of the church needs to be on everything. So, I would say, yeah, I think there could be a lot of theological diversity in a congregation and it could still be a very healthy congregation in some ways, healthy because there is diversity. With leadership, I still want to maintain the fact that theological diversity is healthy. I wouldn't want a bunch of just yes men or people or an echo chamber on the leadership team. I don't think that's healthy. But I also don't think just kind of like no holds barred, no boundaries, just diversity on all kinds of important things. No, I don't think a leadership should do that. Practically, I think that wouldn't be healthy for the church, especially in terms of beliefs or doctrines

or theological commitments that are directly related to practice, practices or values of the church. For instance, like, you know, different views on the end times, yes. I can have all kinds of different views on the end times on a leadership level. I can have different views on, for instance, the age of the earth on a leadership level. I can have different views on the nature of hell on a leadership level. I can have different views on, for instance, the age of the earth on a leadership level. I can have different views on the nature of hell on a leadership level. And some of these could be important doctrines, but there's no direct impact on practice. And I know you can make a case for it. People who believe in a rapture are better evangelists,

come on. I don't buy that. I know arguments can be made on that. Or even like, well, if you believe in annihilation, you're not going to be as motivated to do missions. I'm like, I just, I don't, I think those arguments are bunk. So, but there are certain, so if you had different views on say sexuality and marriage, that's going to have direct practical ramifications. I mean, if most of your leadership believes in male-female marriages and a couple believe in same-sex marriages,

that's going to be really, I think it's going to be really tough unless the minority opinion is willing to just totally submit their beliefs to the majority and not really make it a big deal. But these are things that have, these are beliefs that have practical, deep, profound, you know, practical ramifications, or even something like women in leadership. If I was, well, if I was on a leadership team where there was diverse opinion, and I've been on leadership teams where there's diverse opinions on this, and it's, it's, it only works if people again, are willing to submit to the view of the church because something like this, it's kind of like, either you believe it or you don't, either you practice it or you don't. And there might be some,

I guess, middle ground a little bit, but if you don't believe women can serve on leadership and you have women serving on leadership, like that would be, that might be a tough spot for you. But I'm not willing to rule that one out. I've been on teaching teams or leadership teams where there is diversity on the question. And it's actually been okay. And it's sparked some really good conversations. So I'll say, yes, more unity among leaders than in the congregation as a whole. But I still want

to maintain, um, some theological diversity. I wouldn't want just an echo chamber of everybody on the same page of everything. Um, at the end of the day, it really does largely depend on the heart too. Like not just what you believe, but how you believe it. You know, um, if you're willing to dialogue, if you're willing to, to engage, if you're willing to be challenged in your beliefs, and that'd be great. But if you're not, if you're stubborn and dialogue, if you're willing to engage, if you're willing to be challenged in your beliefs and that'd be great. But if you're not, if you're stubborn and don't like people to tell you where you're wrong, or if you can't, you know, always have to have your own way or can't get along with people that disagree, then, then that would be, I think that'd be an unhealthy situation, but it has to do more with the heart than the actual beliefs.

Last question. If Jesus believed in annihilation, why did he use the language of eternal conscious torment? This is a great question. If Jesus was warning people of annihilation, wouldn't he have used language that did not potentially affirm eternal conscious torment? In Erasing Hell, Ewan Chan wrote, on several occasions, and this is quoting Erasing Hell, page 81. On several occasions, Jesus said things that may suggest a never-ending punishment, though these passages in themselves are inconclusive. You go on to say, because ECT was a belief, was a belief in the time of Jesus,

and when Revelation was written, don't the words of Jesus in the book of Revelation affirm those beliefs? If belief in ECT did not exist at the time, then I think the case could be made that the Bible is affirming annihilation since its references to never-ending punishment would seem obscure. But because belief in ECT was around, don't the words of Jesus and the book of Revelation affirm it? No, they don't for various reasons. Don't, uh, for, for various reasons. Um, first of all, um, and I, I even said this in Erasing Hell and I, I believe it all the more, uh, all the more today that, you know, you have diversity in first century Judaism and intertestamental Judaism, Judaism. You do have, uh, I would say the majority opinion in Judaism during or prior to the time of Jesus was annihilation.

Was annihilation. You do have certain apocalyptic texts like 1 Enoch or some statements in 4 Ezra, which was written at the end of the first century. And some statements in 4 Ezra, which was written at the end of the first century, and some statements, I believe, in 2 Baruch, and really some later Jewish texts in 2nd, 1st, or later 1st, or late, or sorry, early 2nd or early 3rd century AD. Some texts written 100 years after the New Testament. They tend to be much more apocalyptic and talk about eternal conscious torment in more explicit ways. But I would say the majority opinion, if you just kind of look at all the different books, would be annihilation, especially in books and parts of Judaism that parallel the New Testament more. For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls are known for having a lot of similarities with New Testament thought, similar theological framework, a lot of phrases that are used throughout the scrolls that are used in the New Testament.

And the Dead Sea Scrolls are very clearly annihilationist. I was just reading through the scrolls last few days, actually, doing my daily reading in the scrolls. Not really, I haven't cracked open my scrolls in several months, if not a couple of years, but I've been back in it with this very question in mind. It's like, oh my gosh, they are clearly annihilationists and using very similar phrases as the New Testament does on the nature of hell and many other books. I won't bore you with all the names of different Jewish books, but a lot of diversity. So, the question is the background of the New Testament allows for both. Both views were in the air. And so,

the question is, which view is Jesus and the New Testament? which Jewish view is it embracing and, say, echoing? What are the phrases it's using? Is it using phrases that were typical in branches of Judaism that believed in annihilation? Or is it using phrases and words and imagery that's typical of branches of Judaism that believed in eternal conscious torment? Well, let me give you some, and I actually went and did quite a bit of research on this, so I can be really specific. Here's what I'm going to do. I want to look at three phrases, three phrases in Jesus's teaching that is often taken to refer to eternal conscious torment, but I'm going to show you that it absolutely does not. Okay. And so hopefully this will answer your

question about, you know, because you kind of assume that since Jesus uses language of eternal conscious torment, so I'm going to challenge that assumption and say, I actually don't think he did. I think Jesus actually used language that was typical of annihilation. First of all, weeping and gnashing of teeth in Matthew 8, 12, I believe it is, and several other parallel passages. Some people say, well, okay, see, weeping and is, and several other parallel passages. Some people say, well, okay, see, weeping and gnashing of teeth. So that's obviously talking about eternal conscious torment, but it's actually not. There's nothing in the phrase or the word weeping nor in the imagery of gnashing of teeth that means they were gnashing their teeth forever

and ever and ever in a never-ending act of punishing, you know, being punished. Weeping doesn't convey that. Gnashing of teeth doesn't convey that. In fact, in Acts 7.54, it says that the people, the Jewish council, were furious at Stephen and gnashed their teeth at him. That's just a standard phrase that means like anger or being, you know, furious at somebody. Psalm 37.12 says that the wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them. They are angry at the righteous people. You can also look up Psalm 35.16, Psalm 112.10, and Lamentations 2.16 for other references to gnashing their teeth. There is nothing in the imagery, biblically speaking, of gnashing your teeth that would imply eternal conscious torment. It doesn't also mean annihilation.

It doesn't mean anything. It just means that when they are, you know, in Matthew 8, 12, cast out of the kingdom or thrown into hell, that they are holding on to their anger when they do so. They're not repenting, would be kind of the idea that Jesus is trying to get across. In Mark 9, 48, this is another phrase that is often taken to refer to eternal conscious torment, but it actually does not. Where Jesus says, where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. The worm does not die. Got everlasting worms here. And the fire is unquenchable unquenchable fire and some people say see these phrases are clearly referring to eternal conscious torment but they actually are not in fact both phrases come straight from is 66, 24, where it says, and they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of

the men, the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be in abhorrence to all flesh. So here we're, I mean, I can't get any clearer than this. It's talking about dead people, dead bodies, not living people who have worms crawling all through them or whatever. And the, you know, a fire that is, is torturing them. No, it's dead bodies. In fact, if you go back earlier to verses 15 and 16, it says for the Lord, or for, for behold, the Lord will come in fire and his chariots like the whirlwind to render his

anger and fury and his rebuke with flames of fire for by fire, This is just a few verses before the reference to the dead bodies. So, whatever the imagery of worm and fire here is referencing in the context of Isaiah 66, which Jesus is clearly quoting, it's talking about people who have died, who have been slain, who have been killed, not people who are living in some ongoing existence where they're being tortured by worms and fire. The fire, The phrase fire is not quenched or unquenchable fire. This is just a standard biblical phrase used to describe the strength of the fire, not its never ending existence. We see this all throughout the Old Testament. In 2 Kings 22, 17, my wrath will be kindled against this place and it will not be quenched. Isaiah 34, 10, night and day, it shall not be quenched.

Its smoke shall go up forever and ever from generation to generation. It shall lie waste. Lie waste means it's kaput, bada bing, bada boom, destroyed. None shall pass through it forever and ever. So it's talking about a complete destruction here in the city of Edom, and it references fire that will not be quenched, an unquenchable fire. So again, unquenchable does not mean it's not the same as a never-ending burning fire. It just means it's such an incredibly powerful fire that you can spray it, but you can't put it out.

It doesn't mean it will never burn out. It just means you can't, somebody else can't come and put it out. It's just a standard biblical phrase. It just means it's an incredibly strong fire that's going to comprehensively annihilate or consume whatever is in its path. So their worm should not die. Their fire is not quenched. There's nothing, if you take the Bible seriously, if you take the biblical origin of these phrases seriously, it doesn't mean ongoing, never-ending torment. The last phrase that I want to look at is one that often comes up and people just read it. And I can see why they would read it in terms of eternal conscious torment, but there's nothing in the actual phrase that demands that. And it's the phrase eternal fire or everlasting fire. We see it in Matthew 8, 18 and Matthew 25, 41 in the parable of the sheep and the goat. It's a really important

passage too there, by the way. Eternal fire. And I've had a lot of people just say, look, don't you believe in an eternal fire? And I said, well, the Bible says eternal fire, so I have to believe in it if I'm going to be a biblical Christian. So yeah, believe in an eternal fire, just like you believe in an eternal fire? And I said, well, the Bible says eternal fire, so I have to believe in it if I'm going to be a biblical Christian. So yeah, I believe in an eternal fire, just like I believe in an eternal punishment. I just don't believe in an eternal act of punishing. And I don't believe that the fire is eternal in the sense that it will continue to burn and torture people forever and ever and ever, and where their lives will never be sort of ended. And you say, well, how do you get that?

Well, the only other time that I'm aware of that the phrase eternal fire occurs in the New Testament is Jude 7. Jude 7, which says, Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which would likewise indulge in sexual immorality and pursuit unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. And then he goes on to, it's just kind of like a long run on sentence. But the key phrase here is that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by what Jude says is an eternal fire. Well, Sodom and Gomorrah were leveled to the ground by fire and brimstone. Yes. They were not tortured forever by that fire. I've been there. You can go there. You can go there today to the general deserted region of Sodom and Gomorrah, and they're not

still burning there. They were annihilated. They were destroyed. Their lives were crushed, ended by this massive fire that destroyed the city. So, eternal friar is just a, you know, and the phrase eternal, it could mean never-ending time. It could mean quality. And I think here, based on the context, based on the natural just meaning of this, knowing that Sodom and Gomorrah aren't burning forever and ever and ever, the eternal fire probably refers to something like the fire of the age or a fire with a very different quality because it was rained down from heaven. It doesn't have to mean a fire that literally is burning for, you know, ongoing

forever. You know, that doesn't, again, you can go there. You can cross-check this by visiting Israel and seeing if the fire is still burning. It's not. Save you a plane ticket. And we know this because we see other references to this phrase in Jewish literature. For instance, a book called the Testament of Zebulun says, this is a Jewish book right around the first century. It says, but upon the ungodly shall the Lord bring eternal fire and destroy them throughout all generations. So here clearly eternal fire is referred to as being a fire that destroys them, is referred to as being a fire that destroys them, doesn't burn them forever and ever and ever. In a Qumran document, a Dead Sea Scroll document called 1QS, or the Community Rule,

Column 2, Line 8, or 2.8, also uses the phrase eternal fire. And if you look at the context, not only of this document, but just of this specific scroll, but of the Dead Sea Scrolls as a whole, it clearly speaks of annihilation, but it uses the phrase eternal fire. There is one time that I found when eternal fire is used in Jewish literature and actually refers to eternal conscious torment. That's in 4 Maccabees 12.12.

But there, the phrase eternal fire, it seems to be referring to eternal conscious torment, not because of the phrase eternal fire, but because of the surrounding context talks about ongoing torment and never ending. And it gives, it sort of, we know from the context that it's being used in the sense of eternal conscious torment. But the phrase itself, eternal fire, doesn't mean eternal conscious torment unless there's something in the surrounding context that demands it. Again, we see several times in the phrases used elsewhere where it doesn't mean never ending punishment.

So, all that to say, I very cordially and respectfully disagree with your premise that, you know, Jesus used language of eternal conscious torment. I think Jesus used standard Jewish phrases to refer to final judgment and whether or not he's referring to never-ending torment or some sort of annihilation or destruction. I think we need to study out those phrases on their own, both in the Old Testament and Jewish context. And when we do, I think there's overwhelming evidence that the phrases don't just not have to mean eternal conscious torment, but they actually positively refer to the annihilation of the wicked. If you want to hear more, join me at the Rethink in Hell conference on March 9th and 10th in Dallas, Texas. Go to RethinkinHellConference.com. Very cheap conference. You're not going to want to miss it.

So I hope to see you there. Until then, thanks for listening to Theology in the Raw. Join me next time with a new set of questions. Thank you. © transcript Emily Beynon