Equinox

In that thread we established that the “new” testament (how can something 1800 years old be called “new”?) clearly says that unbelievers are damned to eternernal torment in Hell. However, Penguinfan pointed out that none of the sections from Paul mentioned eternal torment or Hell (Paul was mainly used to show that only Christians are saved).

The references to Hell come mostly from Jesus (who talks about the torments of Hell more than everyone else in the whole Bible combined) and from the "John"s, and maybe a few others. However, the point of this thread is to ask if Paul, perhaps, was an annihilationist, like JWs or 7th day ads today, who believe that there is no Hell, and that instead if you aren’t saved you just die and are gone. So, is there any evidence to say that Paul was not an annihilationist? If not, then there is evidence that he was, because he talks about “death” for non-Christians often.

Note that this doesn’t mean that Christians after Paul invented Hell, since Hell derives from Zoroastrian belief that predates Jesus. Regardless of when Hell became a Christian concept, can it be shown that Paul himself (so stick to just the 7 undisputed letters) was an annihilationist?

Equinox

show_no_mercy

I think so. Paul uses the phrase "fallen asleep" multiple times as a euphemism for dead. This is because Paul thought there was going to be a resurrection of all those who were "asleep" in Christ. Those who weren't believers in Jesus were simply dead and not asleep.

Paul didn't think believers went to heaven once they died, they simply waited for Jesus to establish the New Jerusalem when they would be woken up.

Equinox

OK, SNM, but what about those who died unsaved? Hell or annihilation in Paul's view? Any epistilatory evidence either way?

And, wow - No other responses? How about a short statement in agreement or disagreement from the many people here who know the pauline corpus well?

Equinox

renassault

Romans 2:5-8 seems pretty clear. Paul warns about God's wrath in many places, and at the time there doesn't seem to have been a widespread word for hell (hades, gehenna, tartarus, etc.); the universal word was "death" meaning the second death (Revelation). Also, Paul mainly emphasizes repentance's promises as opposed to the consequences of the neglect of the Christian message.

Equinox

OK, let’s look at that passage and your response in detail:

Romans 2:5-8 :
Whoa, two big problems. First, that sounds blatantly works based, like something from the book of James, and appears to contradict all the many times Paul goes on and on about how you can’t be saved by having done good deeds. Because of that, it is hard to fit with the rest of the Pauline thought.

Second, being given to according to what you have done doesn’t imply an infinite Hell, but rather finite punishment (since the sinner hasn't done an infinite number of evil deeds), such as the Jewish belief in God’s punishment in this life for what you do now that we see throughout the old testament. It's no surprise then that these are quotes of OT verses (in Ps and Pv).

Again, this appears to be works based, contradicting Pauline thought. Second, in the context (Paul is explicitly talking about the happenings on the day of judgement), it seems to say that one will get a bad judgement, but doesn’t say eternal punishment in Hell. Even the terms “trouble and distress” sound a lot more like difficult times here on Earth than they sound like eternal torment.

So, looking back at your response:

Ren wrote:

First off, thanks for bringing this passage to light – regardless of whether it clarifies things or muddies the water, it is the closest I’ve seen to Paul suggesting eternal torment, or torment at all. Is this the best we can do?

That nice, but is there a source for this historical information about the status of the language in the first century? If not, how are we to know whether it is true or just made up? Besides, Jesus uses terms like “Gehenna” without hesitation, and if there really wasn’t a term, I’d think Paul would use a phrase to be clear, since as we’ve seen Paul has no hesitation to be quite verbose. If there really wasn’t a term I’d expect Paul to say that, like “eternal suffering and torment in a place like Sheol” or such. It wouldn’t be that hard to write a half dozen words when his whole letter is thousands of words long. Either way, I don’t see how this “no term” approach helps resolve the question. Help me out here, what evidence to we have?

Right, that’s the whole point. Why does Paul fail to mention eternal suffering? Is it because he was an annihilationist, or is there some other reason? If he saw the consequences only as death, then he certainly doesn’t appear to neglect it, since he mentions that often.

Equinox

Solo

Rom 12:19-20 provides one interesting glimpse of Paul's vengeful nature:

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." No, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head."

Paul here splices two incongruous references of the LXX., Lord's vengeance and shaming one's opponent before the Lord.

Rom 12:19 references Deut 32:35: 'Vengeance is mine, and recompense for the the time their foot shall slip; for the day their calamity is at hand'. That this idea gets mixed up with Prov 25:21 in Paul's head is very revealing: 'If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; if he is thirsty give him water to drink for you will heap coals of fire on his head, and the Lord will reward you.'

There are two things: One, in Paul's understanding the Lord will reward you by making your enemy suffer which was not the intent of the proverb. The Lord will reward you for the magnanimity of the spirit you show in the face of an enemy. The reward in the proverb does not bind to your enemy experiencing hot pangs of shame, but to the commendation you will receive for your bearing in the face of adversity. But in Paul's rendering, the mention of reward is suppressed. Logically then, the heaping of burning coals on the enemy's head becomes tied to Lord's vengeance which is false.
Two, one cannot invoke Lord's judgment (eg. Rom 2:5) if one's charity toward the enemy is to be genuine (Rom 12:9) and the blessing for real. In other words, Paul may not dispense blessings to one's adversaries as the lustful assurance of their burning in hell.

Unfortunately, he seems to be doing just that.

Regards,
Jiri

penguinfan

That is certainly an argument for a fiery afterlife. But, do you think the author from Proverbs, in which you say Paul took (part of) this passage from, understood this burning of coals as a form of eternal punishment?

It was my understanding that the Tanakh does not have a concept of a heaven or hell and only briefly mentions the existence of an after life, such as Saul's vision of Samuel.

What do you think?

Solo

I thought I made it clear that in my understanding Rom 12:19-20 was Paul's reading apocalyptic judgment into the two passages. Paul figures God's judgment is a fiery ordeal as described in 1 Cr 3:13-15. (If you are familiar with my ideas, Paul's reference here is his experience of what has been described as "manic fever", during which the patient suffers unquencheable thirst). There are differing views on the saving effect of the purgatory in verse 15. Paul indicates vaguely that those who who destroy the temple that is their body will be destroyed by God.

Jiri