Saturday, February 16, 2002
Comments by Al Maxey
on Death and Aionios
TROUBLING PASSAGES AND "FUDGISM"
Thomas referred to my observation that after years of "intense and extensive … research and study" into the
nature of man and the nature of final punishment I still have not arrived at perfection of perception with regard
to this matter. My only defense, I suppose, is that God has chosen to create me finite, and thus I shall likely
always struggle in my attempt to grasp the realities of the Infinite. In the course of these years, and through
this intensive inquiry, I have come to a very firm conviction of what I believe God's Truth to be. Do I still have
questions? Absolutely. Do I at times find myself puzzling over some passage in Scripture or some challenge
posed to me by a fellow disciple? Yes, I do. By engaging in further study, though, I generally come to an
acceptable and rational understanding of those issues, but in a few cases the research and reflection continue.
I don't profess to have "arrived!" Frankly, I would be highly skeptical of anyone who had any other experience
with their quest to perceive the eternal Truths of our God. None of us have yet attained perfect knowledge or
understanding; thus, we all continue to face challenges, from without and within, to our beliefs and practices. I
doubt Thomas is any different.
Thomas has seemingly implied, at least that was my perception of his comments, that years of intense study
should have produced within me an absolute certainty with no further doubts. I do indeed know some people
who feel, and don't hesitate to assert, that they have arrived at perfect perception of virtually every eternal truth. I
do not arrogantly claim such infallible insight, however. I am merely a finite, fallible student of the Word who
often has far more questions than answers. The more I study, the stronger my convictions become. That is true.
However, I shall never attain to that state of absolute perfection of perception that some of my fellow disciples
seem to believe they themselves have already acquired. Thus, I shall continue to admit to Thomas and others
that my inquiries continue, as does my quest for better understanding of some things that occasionally puzzle
me.
Thomas asked, "My brother, you have aroused my curiosity (and, no doubt, the curiosity of many of our readers).
What are these 'few troubling passages'? Please do not keep us in suspense!" My worthy opponent, by his own
admission, has been in numerous debates on a great many different topics and thus is well aware that such a
question is not about to be answered early on in the course of an ongoing debate!! I have to assume, therefore,
that it was asked somewhat "tongue-in-cheek," and I shall approach it on that basis. No debater worth his "salt"
would ever provide his opponent with a list of what that opponent might perceive to be "weak points." That would
be ludicrous. Thus, neither shall I. Are there matters about which I continue to seek clarification as I research
God's Word? Yes. And I shall leave it right there for the moment. In the course of this debate we will have the
opportunity to discuss some of these together. Who knows? --- Thomas may even be able to enlighten me on a
few of them, as I hope to enlighten him on several points of doctrine.
Let me stress this, however ... and I'm sure that Thomas will agree: This discussion between us is not about one
man "winning" and the other "losing." This is about a mutual quest for ultimate Truth in the matter of the nature
of man and the final disposition of the wicked. In the course of this exchange I will readily acknowledge those
areas, as we come to them, where I may still struggle with a lack of perfect comprehension of God's purpose. I
would hope Thomas would do the same (unless he perceives himself to be beyond such personal struggle). We
shall progress from point to point logically, with weaknesses and strengths of both positions becoming evident to
the readers of this debate. Our purpose, I pray, is simply to present both perspectives to the public, as fully and
honestly as we can, and allow them to determine for themselves, in light of the Word, which position, if either,
better conveys ultimate Truth!!
I expect to take a somewhat light-hearted approach at times with my brother, as he has seemingly taken in the
above "don't keep me in suspense" query (if I have perceived it correctly)! We are brethren, after all, and our
common purpose is to glorify our God and more perfectly perceive His will for our lives. Thus, I shall avoid, as
I hope Thomas will, anything that might lead us into a tense, less than civil and Christian exchange with one
another.
It is obvious that Thomas and I differ over the subject matter of our debate. We differ greatly, and we are both
passionate about our convictions. We also are unlikely, realistically, to convert the other to our own point of
view, although both of us are likely hopeful. The reality, therefore, is that in the course of this debate we will
need, at times, to simply acknowledge we are unable to come to agreement on some point and move on to the
next logical point in our exchange. To expect one of us to concede to the other on each point before progressing
to the next is unrealistic and will only succeed in bringing this debate to an untimely demise. Again, we shall
each present our position to the best of our individual abilities, and then we shall need to leave the matter in the
hands of the readers.
Thomas has pointed out that I quoted from Edward Fudge's book on several occasions in my previous posts.
That is true. In the course of this debate I shall quote from a great many sources. Thomas will likely do the
same. This has led my brother to make the following observation: "It is obvious that Al relies heavily on The
Fire That Consumes in the defense of his position."
As this discussion between us progresses it will become
obvious that this is simply not the case. Yes, Edward's book was my first introduction to God's Truth on this
matter, however I do not consider his book to be the "final word" on this subject. Far from it! To be sure, in the
library of materials I have accumulated over the years, his work is a valued addition ... but, it is one of the
LESSER pieces. In these early posts I have indeed quoted from him perhaps more than others. That will
change dramatically as we move along. Thus, I would urge my brother Thomas not to read too much into a
few quotes at this early stage of the debate.
Thomas has also read far too much into my statement about perceiving Fudge's conclusions to be "basically
right." Bro. Thrasher asks, "If Ed's conclusions are 'basically right,' then they are evidently WRONG on some
points. In fairness to the readers of Ed's book, Al should inform us of those wrong conclusions so that we can
avoid being misled or confused by them, especially since Al relies so heavily on The Fire That Consumes."
Again, I do not rely heavily on The Fire That Consumes, as will become increasingly apparent during the course
of this debate. Further, Thomas once again seeks to entice an opponent in a public debate into "revealing his
cards." Sorry, but that just ain't done, as you well know. Thus, again, I choose to take this as somewhat "tongue
in cheek," since I think Thomas knows better than to request such a thing.
But, even more importantly, and more to the point, Thomas has simply misinterpreted my use of a figure of
speech (at least this is how it is employed by ME); one which I frequently employ. Let me explain. I doubt
that I have ever encountered a single person with whom I agreed 100% on everything. Indeed, I'm not sure
such is even possible. Thus, it is rare that I will declare absolute agreement with any particular author or book.
About the best I will do is to declare I "basically agree" with the overall conclusions of a specific work. That
does not necessarily imply that I am aware of specific errors, it's just that I personally do not proclaim unequivocal
or unreserved agreement with anyone ... and that includes brother Fudge. I am not a "Fudgite," nor am I a disciple
of "Fudgism."
Edward and I are in basic agreement on this position (with regard to the major tenets), and I appreciate his
scholarship, but I follow no man. My personal convictions are based on a personal study of God's Word.
The Fire That Consumes challenged me to greater study of this topic, and I thank Edward (he does not like
being called "Ed," by the way) for that incentive to begin my quest, but I do not rely upon it heavily. Indeed,
I haven't read it in many years, and consider some of his arguments on certain passages to be less fully
developed than what I find in other studies and what I have done in my own research. His work was a starting
point --- nothing more. Thus, I would urge my brother Thomas not to read more into my statement than is
warranted. Assumptions can be a dangerous thing!
THE CONCEPT OF "DEATH"
Thomas stated, "When people misunderstand or incorrectly define words, they usually reach false conclusions.
This is a fundamental problem of those who teach error." I agree with this observation. It is even sometimes a
problem among those who teach Truth! The two of us, therefore, need to define "death." Thomas provided us
with his reasoning from several passages of Scripture, and then stated: "My conclusion is that 'death' is a
SEPARATION, not an EXTINCTION." My opponent has admittedly assumed that my own definition of "death" is:
"extinction" or "annihilation" or "cessation of existence."
Actually, I would agree with Thomas' view that "death" is a "separation." What is essential for us to determine
in each context, however, is: (1) What is being separated from what/whom, and (2) what is the ultimate effect of
that separation? The full impact of "death" cannot truly be perceived without this larger perspective. In other
words, merely acknowledging that a "separation" exists does not truly define "death." One must further seek
to determine what happens to that which has experienced this separation. What is the RESULT, or resultant state? Only
then will one truly grasp the biblical concept of "death."
Let me just plainly state the problem at the beginning of this discussion. There is a perception among many
who embrace the so-called "Traditionalist" position that "death" does not truly exist. No person (the actual
"person" himself) ever truly dies, but is just released from one state to live more fully than before in another.
That is one of the major differences between Thomas and me. I believe that when a person is DEAD, then that
person (body and being/soul) has been completely separated/severed from LIFE. Death, therefore, is a
cessation of life for the entire person, not just a part of him (more about this as we examine the nature of man).
The opposing view was dramatically displayed in the December 2001 issue of "The Banner of Truth" (a
publication of some within the churches of Christ) in a lengthy poem entitled "There Is No Death" by J. L.
McCreery. The title really says it all. In this poem the author states (and this is just a small snippet):
And ever near us, though unseen
Throughout the poem the author speaks of these "dead" ones being "transplanted into Paradise," and he
declares, "they still are here and love us yet." Thus, "death" has merely separated these persons from us;
they are not really dead, but actually more alive than ever before. Death is not cessation or extinction of life,
according to this view, but an enhancement of it ... at least for the righteous "dead." For the wicked "dead," it
would be perceived more as a "life of loss" than a "loss of life." I disagree completely with this view.
Yes, the concept of "death" appears many times in Scripture, and it is used several different ways. In each a
separation takes place of one thing from another, and the dramatic effect in each is a loss of life, not an
enhancement of life. The three types of "death" that are of primary concern to humans are often characterized
as: physical, spiritual and eternal. "Theological distinctions are usually made between physical death,
spiritual death, and eternal death and in general these are vital; but ... it appears that death in its totality is the
result of sin. One must remember also that in the Biblical view, man is a psychosomatic unity. The whole man
is the subject of death" (The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Volume 2, p. 70). This latter is an
important distinction. Thomas embraces a dualistic view of the nature of man --- man being made up of distinct
living parts, one of which is subject to death, the other of which is not (and which survives the death of the
other ... indeed is freed to fuller life by the death of the other). We shall examine this doctrine of "immortal
soulism" more as we study the nature of man in subsequent posts.
Let us examine the three biblical concepts of death in greater depth:
Physical death is a LOSS of the breath of life, and the effect is the return of the body to the earth. A separation
takes place. The body is separated from the breath, and a LOSS OF LIFE results. I don't think anyone would
suggest that this separation should be perceived as a physical enhancement of life. When body and breath
are separated, the result is a DEAD body, not a LIVING one! Life is not enriched physically, but rather terminated.
Life for this person is extinguished. This is an appointment each of us must keep (unless privileged to be alive at the
Parousia) --- "It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).
"Although variously interpreted throughout the OT and NT, death is basically understood as the termination of
life on earth. Most frequently it indicates the end of an individual's existence" (International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, Volume 1, p. 898).
Jesus likens Himself to a vine on one occasion, and He declares that we who are IN HIM are all branches.
However, if we should be "separated" from this vine (severed from Christ), the result is "death" -- we wither
and die (John 15:1-6). This is a separation resulting in LOSS OF LIFE. Jesus declares that He is the LIFE
(John 14:6), thus to be separated from HIM is to be separated from the abundant LIFE He came to bring.
Thomas alluded to this "spiritual death" in his reference to 1 Timothy 5:6 --- "But she who gives herself to
wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives." Although physically still a living, breathing body, nevertheless
in relationship to the LIFE GIVER HIMSELF she is separated by her sins. And to be separated from Him, and that
abundant life IN HIM, is truly a loss of life; a "death." Living in sin is not an "enhancement" of that abundant life,
but truly a repudiation and negation of it. The ultimate result of such a willful severing of one's being/soul from
Him in this physical existence will be a judgment one day of unfitness for everlasting existence with Him in the
new heavens and earth. To willfully separate from Him HERE will result in an everlasting separation from Him
HEREAFTER!!
All of us, at some point in our physical lives, are "dead in our sins" and thus "separate" from our God. This is
the concept of "spiritual death," and it is seen often in Scripture. Yes, it IS a "loss of life" in the sense we are
not in a relationship with the life-Giver, and if we hope to put on immortality at the resurrection, then we must
come to Him who is the way, the truth, and the LIFE. "He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have
the Son of God does not have the life" (1 John 5:12). Thus, being separate from HIM is truly a LOSS OF LIFE;
a "spiritual death." We are DEAD in our trespasses and sins, and as such are fit only for ultimate destruction
in the lake of fire, which is the second death.
"All men are by nature spiritually dead, that is, alienated from God the Source of life by sin, insensible to divine
things, unresponsive to His laws" (The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 2, p. 71). "… and
therefore, although they still live in this world, their attitude to sin, the law and the world is to be that of dead
men" (ibid, p. 72). Jesus told the church in Sardis, "You have a name that you are alive, but you are dead"
(Revelation 3:1). They had separated themselves from a relationship with and service to their Lord, and that
is truly a "death" experience, a loss of life. Notice carefully the following passages:
Matthew Henry, in his commentary on this wanton widow, refers to such persons as being "dead in trespasses
and sins; they are in the world to no purpose, buried alive as to the great ends of living." To become separated
from one's purpose in life, and from one's God, is truly to be "dead" even though still physically animated.
Thayer, in his lexicon, describes this "death" as "the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in Him on
earth" (p. 283). It is a LOSS of life's purpose and focus; indeed, it is a LOSS of relationship with the life-Giver
Himself. It is truly a "death," a cessation of union with Him. Such carries only one ultimate prospect: eternal
death.
There is obviously a vital connection between #2 and #3. These meanings "cannot always be clearly
distinguished ... since spiritual death merges into eternal death" (Arndt, Gingrich, Bauer, A Greek-English
Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 351).
It is this "eternal" death, the "second death" to be experienced in the lake of fire, that is the ultimate destiny of
the wicked. It is this death that is, in part, the focus of this debate. What is the nature of this second death? Is
it just a continuation of life? Is it a life of loss as opposed to a loss of life? Is it the cessation of life or the
preservation of life? Is it termination of life or perpetuation of life? This will be examined in some depth in
the course of this debate. However, for the record, I will declare that I believe the biblical view is that the
second death is a termination of life itself. It is not only an everlasting separation from the Giver of life; it is also
an everlasting separation from the gift of life itself. In the lake of fire the raised unredeemed will be ultimately
and completely destroyed, deprived of life, and will cease to be. This will not be a pleasant experience; no
death is. It will be agonizing. But the process of dying will result in a death, and that death (that separation from
life and the life-Giver) will be forever!!
Yes, Thomas, I believe "death" is a SEPARATION. But the result -- the effect -- of such a separation is not an
enhanced life, it is a forfeited life! Whether it is physical, spiritual or eternal, the Bible portrays "death" as a
severing of one from life itself, not a preservation or continuation of life. It is a LOSS of life, and in the final
reckoning it is a forever loss!!
THE GREEK WORD AIONIOS
I appreciate the fact that Thomas has listed each of the occurrences of "aionios" in the New Testament
documents. Not everyone has access to a good Greek concordance, thus this is a valuable resource for our
readers. Yes, most translations do indeed translate this word "eternal." As I pointed out in my last post,
this term has both qualitative and quantitative significance and application, and one must carefully examine
the context, and the object being described, to determine which applies, or if both may apply. It is simply
inaccurate to suggest or assume, as some do, that this term exclusively refers to the notion: "without end." I
am not saying this is what Thomas has done, but merely point this out to the reader so that they will not be
misled by those who DO make such assertions.
It is equally essential, when interpreting passages of Scripture in which "aionios" is employed, to understand
the vital distinction between a process and a result, and to perceive unto which the term is being applied.
For example, in Matthew 25:46 Jesus speaks of some going away into "eternal punishment." It is critical to
determine if He is referring to an everlasting PUNISHING (process) or an everlasting PUNISHMENT (result).
If "eternal" in this passage has a quantitative application (and I believe it does, as well as a qualitative one),
then one must seek to determine what exactly endures "without end." Is it the punishing or the resultant
punishment? At an execution, for example, when a person is placed within the gas chamber, the dying process
will be most unpleasant; it will be torment! This punishing process, however, does bring about the desired
result: death. The punishment prescribed is DEATH, not DYING. The latter is the process that brings about
the result, and although it is truly a factor in the overall punishment, it in no way constitutes the punishment
itself. Thus, when one is sentenced to death, the punishment is death, not dying; it is result, not process.
Our God has declared that the "wages of sin is DEATH" (Romans 6:23). He didn't say DYING, He said DEATH.
Thus, the punishment prescribed by our God is perceived as an achievable RESULT. The wages of sin is not
a never-ending process of torturous dying, but an admittedly fearful execution of justice that RESULTS in a
DEATH. And that death is everlasting. Once the death sentence has been carried out, and the result that was
promised achieved, it is permanent. There is no future reversal, no future resurrection to life from the second
death. It is forever!!
What Thomas has done is essentially to declare the PROCESS to be everlasting, rather than the RESULT.
According to his view it is not DEATH that is eternal, it is DYING! In other words, the result promised by God
is never actually achieved. To make this view more palatable, its proponents have insisted that death is not
truly a loss of life, but rather a life of loss. It is simply a "separation" from God, but immortal life nevertheless.
Thus, the unredeemed also experience an everlasting LIFE, it is just life apart from the Sustainer of life.
This poses an interesting dilemma, however. If one is cut off from the Sustainer of life, then how is one's life
sustained? There are only a couple of possibilities, it seems to me: (1) God Himself preserves the life of the
wicked for the purpose of torturing them endlessly, or (2) man is inherently immortal and thus incapable of
having his life extinguished. Which of these views Thomas embraces is not clear to me, but I suspect the latter.
Thus, we will need to examine the nature of man in the course of this debate.
I believe man is not inherently immortal, thus God can and will destroy both body and being/soul in the lake of
fire (Matthew 10:28). I further believe that it is a RESULT that will ultimately and finally be achieved with regard
to the fate of the wicked, not a ceaseless process leading nowhere. Thus, eternal punishment is a result that
is forever, and that specified result is DEATH. This "death" is not a preservation of life, but an extinction of it.
The result of being cut off/separated from God is death, not life; cessation of existence, not continuation of it.
Let's look at another example: Hebrews 9:12 in which mention is made of an "eternal redemption." Is this a
result or a process? Is the author seeking to convey the idea of a never-ending process of redeeming; one that never
actually results in a final redemption? Of course not! The context makes it very clear that it is the RESULT
(redemption itself) that is both quantitatively and qualitatively "eternal." It would be of no comfort to us
whatsoever if our Lord was continually and forever in the process of seeking to redeem us, but the resultant
redemption was unattainable. It is thus redemption itself, not the redeeming process, that continues without
end.
I point this distinction out now as it will become evident in future posts that this distinction is a vital one.
By not perceiving it, one can and will formulate fallacious doctrines with respect to the final destiny of the
wicked.
I completely agree with Thomas when he declares "the Bible makes very clear the meaning of 'aionios' with
respect to" God, redemption, salvation, inheritance, kingdom, life, fire, punishment, damnation, destruction,
and judgment. I believe the Bible is clear on this, as well. I believe the Bible is also clear on the distinction
between process and result, and which is being characterized as "eternal." It is judgment, not judging. It is
destruction, not destroying. It is death, not dying. It is punishment, not punishing. A failure to distinguish
this vital fact will not serve one well in his quest for Truth with regard to the final disposition of the wicked.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
I would like to conclude this rather lengthy post with a couple of observations about a couple of statements
made by Thomas near the end of his last submission to this debate.
I personally believe such statements are inflammatory and serve no real purpose in the context of our debate.
They are prejudicial, biased and frankly too often designed to cast a shadow on the motivations and character
of one's opponent. Thomas and I both undoubtedly have in our possession, and make reference to on occasion,
the writings of individuals who are not members of our own religious heritage (churches of Christ). It is rather
arrogant, and blatantly false, to characterize any and all outside our heritage as persons "who have scarcely
a notion of the true scheme of redemption or of God's kingdom." To the contrary. Some probably perceive it
better than we do! But that is neither here nor there. Just because a scholar isn't within the "church of Christ"
church does not thereby invalidate anything he may say with respect to the subject matter currently under
consideration. I would hope that we could rise above such casting of aspersions and implied "guilt by
association" in future posts.
I could see this as being perhaps the final statement of Thomas in his closing remarks to this debate. However,
we have just begun this exchange, and Thomas has yet to establish in the minds of our readers his own
perception as constituting TRUTH and my interpretation of the biblical evidence as "a false hope." Therefore,
such a plea seems a bit premature at best, and, again, somewhat prejudicial. After all, at the end of this debate
the reader just may be convicted that Thomas' position is the "false hope," and not mine! Thus, until the
"evidence is in," I would caution against "closing remarks" to the jury!!
May I again take this opportunity to thank my brother-in-Christ for what has thus far been a marvelous journey
toward greater understanding of God's eternal purpose for the unredeemed. I look forward to delving even
deeper into the Word with you, Thomas. May God richly bless you, brother!
And say that they are "dead."
They are not dead! They have but passed
Beyond the mists that blind us here
Into the new and larger life
Of that serener sphere.
The dear, immortal spirits tread --
For all the boundless universe
Is Life -- there are no dead!
Index