Sean McDowell:

[upbeat music] Hey, friends. Welcome to a special extended conversation on how biblically we should think about hell. The topic of hell has actually been heating up, and yes, that pun was intended. There's been a lot of conversation between the traditional view, what's known as eternal conscious torment or eternal conscious punishment, and what's called annihilationism or conditional immortality that says at some point after the final judgment, death entails non-believers will cease existing and no longer live. I invited into the studio Paul Copan, a philosopher, who takes the traditional view, and Chris Date, who takes what's called annihilationism, and he's a leading proponent of this view, to walk through the six main biblical texts that scholars debate about this. And what's fun is we had an audience at the end. About 20, 30 minutes, we had a dozen of our Biola and Talbot students to ask questions as well. So prepare yourself. This is a deep dive, longer than normal, but this topic warrants it, and I think you're really gonna enjoy the interaction from the students as well. Is hell an eternal conscious state of suffering, or sometime after final judgment does God annihilate unbelievers? Or is there a third option? It's no secret that the debate on hell is heating up. Today we have two leading scholars on the topic of hell who have co-edited a book together, Paul Copan and Chris Date, and the book is titled Concerning Hell. We also have a studio audience of Biola and Talbot, students with us who are eager to ask questions after our conversation. And what we're gonna do uniquely I think is we've got some opening questions for you, but really wanna kinda dial into the biblical passages in some depth, especially since this is Talbot School of Theology and the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. Thanks for both of you for flying in from Washington, all the way from the East Coast and Florida to be here in studio. Appreciate you guys coming.

Paul Copan:

Oh, great to be here. Thank you.

Chris Date:

Thanks for having us.

Sean McDowell:

Yeah, so give me just the quick backstory of why you're interested in this topic. I'll start with you, Paul.

Paul Copan:

Okay. Well, I was invited to a conference called Rethinking Hell, and, this is where, you know, Chris Date comes in. He is spearheading this, ministry and, these conferences that take place every year. And so I was invited to speak back in 2020 in the Seattle area. And so I came to speak on the kind of the traditional position, and, during the panel discussion, we had four people sitting on the, you know, on the panel during, you know, so we were wrapping up. And I was sitting next to Chris, and I leaned over and I said, "Well, maybe we could turn this conversation into a book." And he latched onto it, and it's just taken off from there. I mean, it's been, it's taken a while to get there, from 2020, here it is '26. But we have, I mean, many thanks to Chris, who's really helped to you know, get the people and list the people to write to this-... Write this book. And so it's been an opportunity for me to step into this, topic in greater depth, and so I'm really grateful for this opportunity to to go deeper, and that's what I love about, you know, writing it as, and editing. You learn so much in that whole process, and so I'm really grateful-

Sean McDowell:

You're kind of forced to in some ways

Paul Copan:

... Yeah, exactly. So I'm really grateful to Chris, who's really, you know, done such a masterful job as a co-editor, and so we're looking forward to seeing, where this book goes.

Sean McDowell:

I love it. Chris, tell us your story.

Chris Date:

So I went into public ministry back in 2010 or so, started a blog and then a podcast, and I would have guests on my podcast, many of whom shared my views on certain things, but I would often have people on who held views I didn't hold but that I considered-... Within the pale of orthodoxy. And one of those guests was Edward Fudge, who wrote The Fire That Consumes. And, going into that interview, I had, for the 10 years of my faith that I'd been a Christian up until that point, had no problem with the traditional view. I wasn't kept up at night. I didn't have any moral or philosophical concerns with it or anything. But I found his case incredibly compelling, and his answers to all of the objections that I raised very compelling, and so I found myself on the fence. And in the months that followed, I dove into every sermon I could find, every book, every article, every anything I could find to try and convince me of eternal torment again. To this day I wish I could believe it.

Sean McDowell:

[chuckles]

Chris Date:

... But I just found that with every such source I turned to, I became more and more convinced of, conditional immortality or annihilationism. And so a ministry that had just started up called Rethinking Hell invited me to participate, and the rest has been history. What keeps-- where my interest is, though, isn't the topic primarily. It's more the heat that it causes, the division it tends to cause between Christians. And my hope is that one day the debate between these two views will be no different than the debate between Calvinists and Arminians or, you know-... premillennialists and so forth. And when that, when that happens and we're no longer throwing each other under the bus, I'll probably stop focusing on this issue.

Sean McDowell:

Then you'll be happy. Now, I was wondering when the first pun about hell would come up, and you said the debate is heating up to that effect.

Chris Date:

I didn't even intend that as a pun, but-

Sean McDowell:

You said it.

Chris Date:

Okay.

Sean McDowell:

So it's been settled. The first one was made. But I find it fascinating. We're gonna come back to this. You said you wish you could believe-

Chris Date:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... In eternal torment. We will circle back to that.

Chris Date:

Good.

Sean McDowell:

I find that so fascinating on so many levels. But let's just, I mean, let's dive in in terms of the substance, and let's clarify what the two main positions are that we're debating. Of course, there's other positions we'll just circle back to briefly. But since you hold what's often called the traditional view-

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... Makes sense to start with you. So explain just, not your defense yet-... But what position you hold.

Chris Date:

Yeah.

Paul Copan:

I, call it eternal conscious punishment because I think the word torment, can sound like torture chamber. It can sound as though everything is flattened to the same level of punishment, as though, Satan has the same, level of punishment as, say, the humanitarian atheist who lives down the street. I think there are degrees of punishment. And so, and you see this cashed out in in various ways that there is a conscious awareness, you know, even, you know, glory, honor, and peace to those who, strive for immortality, but distress and trouble, words of consciousness, that are there. And so I'm I as I see this, position, I've kind of more finely tuned it, as I've gone through the literature and have talked to biblical scholars and so forth, that that's pretty much where I, where I land, that there, that God is not gonna judge someone too severely, or too harshly. It is gonna be a just, judgment and so forth, but that there is... And you know, and I want to get into the defense, but that's basically-

Sean McDowell:

Yeah

Paul Copan:

... Where I'm coming from, but we can, you can-... Tease things out with

Sean McDowell:

... Eternal doesn't end conscience.

Paul Copan:

Conscience, yeah

Sean McDowell:

It's experienced by the individual.

Paul Copan:

Right Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

And some say torment typically-

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... But you say it's a kind of punishment-

Paul Copan:

Right. Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... That lasts forever-

Paul Copan:

Right, yeah

Sean McDowell:

... And never ends.

Paul Copan:

Right Yeah, sometimes just-

Sean McDowell:

Okay

Paul Copan:

... Described as restlessness and you know, distress and so forth, yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Awesome. Love it. Explain your position, Chris.

Chris Date:

Yeah, so one thing that Paul didn't mention, and that's totally fine, I'm not criticizing him for it, is that the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment entails resurrected immortality on the part-

Sean McDowell:

Right

Chris Date:

... Of the lost in hell. This goes back all the way to as far back as Athenagoras of Athens and Tatian of Adiabene in the second century, straight up to Wayne Grudem and Robert Peterson in the modern era. The traditional view of hell has maintained that the resurrected lost, physically embodied again, will never physically die. The the historically, believers in this view have comfortably used the words immortal and live forever to describe what happens to these people in hell. And that's important because my view is the denial that the resurrected lost will live forever. Our view is that the punishment meted out in hell is capital punishment. They're literally executed. But in the first death, if the, if death only extends to the body, which is what Jesus seems to indicate in Matthew 10-28, "Don't fear those who can kill the body but not the soul. Rather fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell." If only the body dies in the first death, but the soul continues to exist consciously afterwards, in the second death, body and soul will be slain. And so it's a death of the whole person, including our very, the very consciousness of the lost in hell. So I think the real, the just in a nutshell, the way to think about the two views is that on one view you have something like an eternal quarantine or an eternal prison sentence or something like that, whereas in my view, it's eternal capital punishment, death forever.

Sean McDowell:

So the body and the soul cease to exist-

Chris Date:

Well, cease to live

Sean McDowell:

... Hence the term annihilationism-

Chris Date:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... At some point after the final judgment.

Paul Copan:

Yeah. And to add to what Chris is saying, it is eternal or everlasting in the sense that the consequences endure. It, it's not as, you know, so it's not as though he's denying eternal punishment. It's just that it is a matter of the consequences of, the results of that are ongoing, that there's a cessation, and that person is deprived of any future life.

Chris Date:

Yeah, the way, the way that, Augustine put it in The City of God is that when governments capitally punish people, when they execute people, they don't measure the duration of the punishment in terms of how long it takes to die. If that's how we measured how long capital punishment is, then if somebody, you know, collapsed in the electric chair but then gasped back to life in what scientists call Lazarus syndrome-... The state would have to let them go, right? But nobody thinks that's what the state would do. They would flip the switch again until the person remains dead, and that's because the punishment in the death penalty is not being alive anymore. And if that's the state that somebody's in forever, they're never alive again, that's by definition an everlasting punishment.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, gotcha. And we'll get into some of those-

Chris Date:

Of course, for sure

Sean McDowell:

... Differences, but that's helpful in terms of definitions. Before we jump in, just a handful more questions before we get into the passages where we're gonna spend most of the time. Where do the two of you have common ground, and do you consider this an agree to disagree issue?

Paul Copan:

Yeah. Well, we probably could list a whole bunch of things where we, where we agree. Obviously, the Scriptures are the, are our final authority, and that we are, we are not, you know, the tradition should be measured against, the Scriptures. And I, that's what I appreciate about Chris, is that there is this reexamination of the Scriptures and, you know, going back to the church fathers and so forth too, and seeing if this traditional view holds up under scrutiny, which does a better job of holding up. And so I, you know, Chris and I and the others at the roundtable earlier, we have had that common commitment to, like the Bereans, to search the Scriptures to see,

Sean McDowell:

Yeah

Paul Copan:

... If these things are true. So that's one thing. I mean, we can go back and forth too, but maybe that's, maybe an important starting point in seeing the Scriptures as overriding tradition and that we need to continue to, examine those traditions.

Sean McDowell:

Okay. Did-

Chris Date:

At the same time, I would add that I think we also have a healthy respect for tradition.

Paul Copan:

Exactly.

Chris Date:

There are certainly people on either side of this debate that it's sort of like me and my Bible under a tree, that's all I need. But that's not our view. We think we stand on the shoulders of giants indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who has gifted the church with gifted teachers over the years, and we can't just dismiss them and pretend like we're the first Christians on the scene. But I think really the clearest answer to your question I think would just be we agree on the ecumenical creeds of the first centuries of the church.

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

We agree on all the essentials of the faith. We just disagree as to what the nature of the punishment meted out in hell is.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Yeah.

Paul Copan:

And so there's no question of heresy here.

Chris Date:

Right.

Paul Copan:

It's a matter of, you know, under the umbrella of orthodoxy, and I've mentioned this, that, some of the leading scholars, biblical scholars, theologians I respect, you know, a number of them are conditionalists. Some of them are on the fence. They're agnostic-... About the issue, but I have a high regard. People like John Stott, one of my heroes,

Sean McDowell:

Yeah

Paul Copan:

... You know, a, very, you know, he was a, an annihilationist, but, you know, he was one who really helped shape my early, formation as a Christian.

Sean McDowell:

And for people who don't recognize that name, one of the foremostReally theologians, biblical scholars-

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... For decades.

Paul Copan:

Yeah, he's like the evangelical pope.

Chris Date:

That's what they called him.

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

Yeah, he really was for-

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... For years. Okay, so your book has two positions. There's the conditional immortality, and then there's the traditional view. It doesn't include any version of universalism. Is there a version of universalism that could be within the ecumenical creeds? Is that one out of bounds? Well, you said a minute ago you want people to just kind of debate this issue in-house like we do other ones and consider it a secondary important issue. Why is universalism not in this book, and would you put it in the same category, I'll start with you, that you just put the difference between, say, you know, eternal conscious punishment and annihilationism?

Chris Date:

Well, I think, I think it's better to talk about universalisms. There are different brands of universalism, and some of them are outright heretical.

Sean McDowell:

Okay

Chris Date:

... If you think that everybody goes to heaven no matter what you think or believe, there's no, there is no hell, you know, total inclusivism, I do think that that's heretical. But that's not what you hear from the likes of, say, Robin Parry or Brad Jersak or Erik Reitan. These are all well-known scholars that are universalists. These are, these are people who hold to all the essentials of the faith, and they do believe in hell. They think that the resurrected lost will go to hell, and they will suffer there justly until they repent in saving faith in Christ, at which point they will end up redeemed and spend the rest of eternity in, heaven. So there's really I mean, it's Christ-centered. It, there's no salvation apart from faith in Christ. It's hard to identify any kind of heresy in it. And so I do think that those universalists are within the pale of orthodoxy. Now, why didn't we c-include them in the book? It's just a matter of pragmatics. The the-

Sean McDowell:

And focus and-

Chris Date:

And focus.

Sean McDowell:

Sure. Okay.

Chris Date:

There's

Sean McDowell:

That's fair.

Chris Date:

We, yeah. W-with six disciplines on each side, multiplying that for a third v-view, including responses back and forth, would exponentially increase the size of the book, so we just couldn't do it.

Sean McDowell:

Got it. Maybe that's a follow-up book in due time.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

What's your thoughts on that question?

Paul Copan:

Yeah. I'm leery of it. I mean, I I find it interesting that Robin Parry says that Jesus was not a universalist, but the Apostle Paul was. And I think [laughs] -

Chris Date:

[laughs]

Paul Copan:

... There seems to be a little dissonance here.

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Paul Copan:

Of course, in the Old Testament, there's no, there's no picture of universalism. You do have, you know, Jesus talking about, you know, two gates, two roads, you know, that few are those who find it, and so forth. And, I mean, I could appreciate that there's some language in, about universalism like, you know, all things being reconciled in Christ. But, you know, Colossians 1 goes on to say, "And you have been reconciled if you continue." So there is that conditional dimension [laughs] to it even there. So, or the unpardonable sin will not for-be forgiven in this life or the life to come. And so I see these texts and I say, "Well, it seems that there are two destinies that continue to be articulated," you know, that there are... Yeah, anyway, but, I know that universalists will have responses to it, but I am, I'm a little leery of it.

Sean McDowell:

Fair enough. Okay. Well, let's dive into the Scriptures, and I thought we'd start with the Old Testament. And we could ask kind of in general what do we learn from the Old Testament about hell, but there's kinda two passages that people seem to focus on that come up. So let's take 'em one by one, in the order in which they would appear in the Scripture. So let's start with Isaiah 66-24, and I'll read it for you, for us, and then just kinda get each of your takes on this. So it says, "And they shall go out and look on 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 an abhorrence to all flesh." Clearly, the key words in this are, "The worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched." What's your take on what this passage teaches about the nature of hell and what we can garner at this stage?

Paul Copan:

Yeah. Well, I think I would be in agreement with Chris here that I think the strong emphasis here is on the corruption, the degradation of these dead bodies and so forth. And, I I don't place as much emphasis on this. I think you can draw it out. I think, you know, Jesus emphasizing it, three times in there. You know, New Testament scholars will raise questions about, you know, the fact that, well, why emphasize the worm not dying, the fire not going out, three times? That maybe there's some sort of a connection to, this, th-this ongoing, the ongoing nature of that judgment. But I, but I I'm sympathetic with what Chris is saying on that point as well from the Old Testament, that there may be more that's added in the New Testament, but I think from the Old Testament perspective, I don't, I don't see that that is drawing out some sort of eternal conscious punishment view per se.

Sean McDowell:

Okay. Now, you referenced his point, but we haven't heard your point yet.

Chris Date:

[laughs]

Sean McDowell:

It's in the book. You guys have talked about it elsewhere. Explain what your point is, and then maybe just clarify exactly where-

Paul Copan:

Yeah, and maybe jump in with Daniel 12 with Chris first, and then I'll offer a comment. [laughs]

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Chris Date:

Yeah. Well, so it's, it's exactly as you read it. These are not living immortals in hell. These are dead bodies. The Hebrew 𝔭ē·ʾā·rîm, it means corpses, carcasses.

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

The picture is that God has slain His enemies, and the reason for the emphasis of their worm or the maggot won't die, and the fire will not be quenched, is because in the ancient Israeli mind, the ancient Jewish mind, to have one's dead body exposed to the elements, allowed to rot away or burn away or be eaten up by scavengers, was a great shame.

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

And they fought desperately to prevent their their remains from b-being corrupted in that way. And what God is saying there is that you won't be able to stop the maggots from completely devouring these dead bodies. You won't be able to stop the fire from completely burning them up, so you won't be able to avoid this everlasting contempt, this everlasting shameful memory. So the worm that won't die, the closest parallel we have anywhere in Scripture is in Jeremiah 7, where, God is talking about how one day the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom will no longer be called that, but will be called the Valley of Slaughter, because the dead bodies of God's enemies, will be, unbur- left unburied, and no one will be, no one will be able to frighten away the beasts and birds that feed upon the corpses. And the language of, fire not being quenched is stock Old Testament language in places like Ezekiel 20-47 to 48, where precisely because God's fiery wrath can't be quenched, that doesn't mean die out, it means put out, extinguish. Precisely because you can't extinguish God's wrath, Ezekiel 20 says the the trees and the palaces of Jerusalem will be devoured, burned up. So this language is far from, at least in my

Paul Copan:

... Less humble than it should be opinion [laughs]

Sean McDowell:

[laughs]

Paul Copan:

Far from supporting an eternal conscious punishment view-... It's very consistent with our view. Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Okay. Sounds like you agree at least. Would you agree-... That it's consistent with their view, and that

Paul Copan:

Oh, sure. Sure

Sean McDowell:

... Shouldn't read too much into this?

Paul Copan:

Yeah. Yeah, and in fact, I mean-

Sean McDowell:

Okay

Paul Copan:

... I think a lot of these, you know, and maybe I should've said this earlier when you said, "How do you, what things do you have in common?" well, I think we have in common a, the kind of weight that we assign to certain texts. You know, how do we read apocalyptic texts? How do... Understand the role of consciousness, as well as the language of perishing, destruction, and so forth? What gets the greater emphasis? Should you relent maybe on the consciousness, and in a sense give in to the the language of perishing and and I I guess as I see it, there are areas of consciousness. It seems like that continues to be described as the final state, but I can see where Chris is coming from. So I I know that there are ways in which both could respond, say, "No, we can accommodate that. We can accommodate [chuckles] that," you know, on both sides of the issue.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, so we're gonna need further revelation-

Paul Copan:

[laughs]

Sean McDowell:

... To clarify this one. The other passage that's often referenced is in Daniel 12-2. And to take your advice also to here-

Paul Copan:

There you go

Sean McDowell:

... This time, Paul.

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

Let me read to us. It says, "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall wake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt." The contrast that's often drawn is everlasting life on one side, everlasting contempt on the other. Your take on this passage.

Paul Copan:

Yeah, so here again, it seems to me that this view just straightforwardly teaches my side of the debate. Obviously, that's why we're here. But, and the reason is because the text promises seemingly, at least a surface reading of the text, that only those who rise unto eternal life will for that reason live forever. The traditional view says that so too will the lost. They just, generally think the expression eternal life means something other than physically living forever, and we can discuss that if we come to it. So then what would it mean then if the, those who are raised to shame and everlasting contempt don't also live forever? Well, the word cont- Only the word contempt is described as forever. Shame, plausibly, likely, is the experience of the person who's lost. They feel ashamed for what they've done, but that's not what contempt is. Contempt is actually an emotion experienced by the redeemed, by the righteous. So the only other place that that word is used in the Old Testament is Isaiah 66-24. It's the word translated abhorrence in the, text that you just read. The the corpses of God's enemies are not experiencing abhorrence. They are causing abhorrence on the part of the righteous that are seeing them. So what does some will rise to everlasting life and others to shame and everlasting contempt mean? It means some will rise and live forever. Others will rise, they will feel shame, but they will be remembered forever in contempt by God and by His people.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, so to make sure I understand, everlasting life, would you say it's the same, even though it's not explained here, when Jesus talks about eternal life? Is that's what's on one side of the equation here?

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell:

Is eternal life in that way?

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Okay. On the other side is shame. So contempt is others viewing those who did not follow the Lord. Shame is something they personally experience. So the everlasting life is contrasted with everlasting contempt, but the shame is temporary because they cease to exist. Is that fair?

Paul Copan:

Yeah, I mean, it's... Think about the way that we hold people like Judas Iscariot in contempt today, or Hitler-

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm

Paul Copan:

... Or Pol Pot or whatever, right? It we in the West today often pretend as though we don't really care what people think of us after we're gone, but that really is pretense. All of us imagine what it would be like for our funeral to be unattended, and, like, what, are we just gonna be forgotten, or worse, are people gonna think negatively of us?

Sean McDowell:

Yeah. I agree.

Paul Copan:

So for the, for the authors of Scripture, I think it was very important to them how they would be remembered, what sort of legacy they would leave behind, and to know that you will be forever remembered in abject contempt, I think is a terrible punishment.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, so but my question, though, is what's being contrasted here. It says everlasting life. It says everlasting contempt. It doesn't say everlasting shame. So if it said everlasting shame-

Paul Copan:

That would be more challenging

Sean McDowell:

... Then you would say, "Oh, okay. Fair enough."

Paul Copan:

Right.

Sean McDowell:

'Cause then there's a conscious, ongoing-

Paul Copan:

Yes

Sean McDowell:

... Experience.

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

Got it.

Paul Copan:

Okay.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, that's helpful.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Your thoughts.

Paul Copan:

Yeah. And I would say that in my take on Daniel 12, that you can include those things that, of course, Chris says that that, it's the mere memory and so forth, and I, and I could appreciate that, but I think that there could be a larger picture, and I think Jesus offers His own commentary on Daniel Chapter 12 in Matthew 13, verses 40 to 42, where we see it's the, it's the parable of the tares, the weeds that are growing up with the, with the wheat and are gathered together, you know, are gathered and separated, and then the weeds are burned. And then, and so it says they're thrown into the furnace, so it looks like, oh, end of story. But then it goes on to say, "The place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth," and that is Jesus' standard description of the final state, weeping and gnashing of teeth. And of course, the gnashing of teeth doesn't have to do with, you know, some sort of a physical pain so much as it has to do with hostility... You know, in this case toward God. And just like when Stephen, and you look at the Old Testament, gnashing of teeth is, you know, parallel with vexation and so forth. And when Stephen is about to be stoned, those who are about to stone him are gnashing their teeth at him. So there's that tone of hostility toward God, anger at God, and so forth. And, you know, but so it goes on to say, you know, it says, so, there's the the language of the furnace, destruction. There's weeping and gnashing of teeth, and then it's commenting on Daniel Chapter 12, says that the righteous will shine like the sun. So you've got, you know, on the one hand, you've got the consciousness here-

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm

Paul Copan:

... Of the, of the condemned, and you have the consciousness of the righteous who will shine like the sun. So it seem, you know, and and I pointed this out in previous conversations where Chris and I have talking and talked about it in the book. You know, people like Craig Keener and, David DeSilva, New Testament scholars, you know, well respected, they see that in the Old Testament literature, and we could perhaps go into this, or the Intertestamental literature, you have the dominant or the majority view, which is, I think, very interesting, is largely, torment and then extinctionExcept for the most heinous of sinners. And as De Silva and Keener look at the language, they say, well, Jesus and John the Baptist, for example, are taking the minority view, and applying it to all the condemned, that this is something that is going to be applied to all, you know, the place for, you know, where the, for the devil and his angels. And so this is, you know, so there is that kind of a backdrop to this, and so I just wanted to bring that in because I think that there, that is reflected in what Jesus is saying in Matthew 13.

Sean McDowell:

Now, you did sneak in some New Testament passages. We're getting there, Paul.

Paul Copan:

Yeah Okay.

Sean McDowell:

In fairness-

Paul Copan:

Okay, yeah

Sean McDowell:

... I know you have a response to this.

Paul Copan:

But I'm saying, I'm saying-

Sean McDowell:

But

Paul Copan:

... At at surface level, you know, I could appreciate what Chris, where Chris is coming from, but, you know, again, is that all there is to it, is the question.

Sean McDowell:

Fair enough. So if you're gonna sum up in, like, a tweet what you think the Old Testament contributes to our understanding of hell, what would it be?

Chris Date:

Ask the Old Testament not what it says about hell, but what it says about the end of the wicked. If you ask that question instead-- of looking for hell in the Old Testament, you instead look in the Old Testament for what it says will happen to the lost, it says they'll vanish like a dream. They'll vanish like smoke. They'll waste away like lime melted. They'll disappear. They'll be like a you know, a dream forgotten. Th-they'll, they'll, th-they'll, they'll be punished with, th-th-they'll, they won't enjoy the esteem of people that they, you know, the respect that they had in life and all these kinds of things. So there's a lot it says, it's just it doesn't say much about hell, and that's why it's so often thought to not say much.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, fair enough. Yeah.

Paul Copan:

Yeah, no, I I concur.

Sean McDowell:

You agree? Okay.

Paul Copan:

I mean, even in, you know, in books where traditionalists are commenting on the Old Testament, they're, they said, they admit there's not a whole lot in terms of that, you know, the f-the final state of the wicked, so, in terms of conscious punishment.

Sean McDowell:

Fair enough, which we shouldn't surprise us. How much are we gonna understand about the triune character of God?

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

How much are we gonna understand of salvation by faith?

Paul Copan:

Sure.

Sean McDowell:

There's progressive revelation.

Paul Copan:

Sure.

Sean McDowell:

And so let's move to some of the New Testament passages.

Paul Copan:

Okay.

Sean McDowell:

I think these are arguably the top six. I asked ChatGPT, and that's what ChatGPT said, so I'm going with it. Kidding aside, these are some of the passages you explore here. And what's interesting is the range of verses that talk about this. You have James 3-6, of course. You have Hebrews talking about hell. You got the Gospels. You have Paul. Now, we have to explain what each of those are, but they cross different authors and different genres. But I figured we'd take at least one from each of the three Gospels. So let's go to Mark 9.

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell:

43 through 48, and this'll play back on what we just read from Isaiah. So in this famous passage, Mark 9, I'll read it, says, "And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell," in this case, Gehenna, "to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It's better for you to enter life than with two feet to be thrown into hell. If your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It's better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where 'the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'" Again, the exact same language from Isaiah 66. I'll start with you on this one. What's your take on what we can draw from Mark 9?

Chris Date:

Well, so first of all, the word translated unquenchable, the Greek word asbestos, it doesn't mean never dies out. So for example, in Matthew 3-12, I think it is, John the Baptist says of Jesus that He He will gather the weed into his threshing floor and burn them with unquenchable asbestos fire. But the word translated burn there, katakaio, doesn't mean burn. Kaio means burn, and it it's a generic burning that could go on for a long time or not. Katakaio means reduce to ashes. So when, so apparently, asbestos or unquenchable fire reduces to ashes, and that's what Jesus seems to be saying in Mark 9, 43 to 48, is that you don't want... It'd be rather, you'd rather go to heaven, incomplete, you know, maimed, than go whole into hell, while you'll, where you'll die and be destroyed. The worm that won't die and the fire that not will not be quenched language, we've already talked about from Isaiah 66. And importantly, Jesus doesn't add anything here in the context that would suggest that He's, co-opting the meaning of Isaiah and changing it to mean something else. There's no indication that He's doing that. I actually think the most interesting thing about this passage is the next verse that you didn't read-

Sean McDowell:

Oh

Chris Date:

... Which is that everyone will be salted with fire.

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Chris Date:

Because one of the things that conditionalists like me often observe is that modern traditionalists aren't very traditional. And I don't mean any offense by that. But if you look at the writings of traditionalists historically, they write in extremely gruesome terms about what they anticipate awaiting the lost. I think Minucius Felix in the third or fourth century wrote that the fires of hell literally burn off your flesh while simultaneously regenerating it. You know what I mean? A-and they'll use passages like this salted with fire language to, you know, salt preserves, and that's the point here, some traditionalists have said. W-W.G.T. Shedd, I think, said this as well, that the salt preserves the wicked in hell.Um, but I actually don't think that's what's going on there. I think what is going on there is there was a practice in the Old Testament where when one army would defeat a city and destroy it, they would salt the land to prevent it from growing back-... To prevent it from flourishing. So it's still, even there, I think, a destruction kind of promise. So yeah, I just... I don't think that Mark in fact, Mark 9 and Isaiah 66 were the first texts that got me thinking, "Maybe I'm wrong about this," because-

Sean McDowell:

Oh, that was the start of the journey. Interesting

Chris Date:

... Because of the dead corpses language in Isaiah 66, and what all of this fire not being quenched language means everywhere in Scripture. So.

Sean McDowell:

Okay. Yeah, that's helpful.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Your take on Mark 9.

Paul Copan:

Yeah. And again, and, I know Chris has mentioned this, that, you know, like, when you look at Matthew 25, which we'll get to, you know, how does Jesus speak elsewhere about the final state? So that should inform how we may look, need to look at Matthew 25. And I'd say the same thing with this text, that you've just cited, where you-- know, is Jesus, maybe using this to indicate something more? Well, let's see if other texts, from, say, the Synoptic Gospels will illustrate this. I think they do. But I think given the Old Testament context, you know, unless, you know, and again, the question is Jesus adding more, and fleshing it out? Is he taking that minority view, which I think he is, then I think that that does shed light and does give maybe a new glimmer, you know, just like we do with the Trinity, you know, with, you know, the Spirit hovering over the water, or, you know, or the,"By the word of the Lord, the heavens were made," and so forth. So we see, oh, kind of Trinitarian intimations here. But I, but I'd say that, you know, again, given that Old Testament context and Jesus quoting it, we need a little bit more. And I think we see that illustrated in Matthew 13, where you have that text, of Jesus commenting, as it were, on, Daniel chapter 12, that there is conscious existence for the righteous, but also, so it seems, for the, for the wicked.

Sean McDowell:

So it sounds like both of you agree that when it comes to Mark 9, Jesus is not co-opting or adding a lot more to this language that advances it. We're only gonna make sense of Isaiah, this passage, when we bring in Revelation 14, Matthew 25, and other passages-

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... To really get to clarify our positions.

Chris Date:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Would you agree with that for the most part?

Paul Copan:

Well, yeah, I to some way. I mean, Chris would say no, this is more definitive.[laughs] You know, and I might say, like, even when you get to Matthew 25, you know, the place prepared for the devil and his angels, well, what does that look like? Well, it helps to look at the, you know, at Revelation 14 and 20, that this is the outcome, this is the destiny of the devil and his angels, but also, you know, you know, those who are, going to that place that is prepared for them. You know, we see that kind of illustrated, or commented on in, the Book of Revelation as well. So so I do think there is that, the importance of the analogy of Scripture, where we compare Scripture with Scripture and-

Sean McDowell:

Sure

Paul Copan:

... Weigh those things, and we weigh them differently.

Chris Date:

Well, and I certainly agree. I you know, I've often said that if I found one verse that I could not possibly deny taught eternal conscious punishment, I would interpret everything else through that lens. I just, my conviction, my read of Scripture is that there is no such verse. And... Yes, I agree that if eternal torment is true, you're not gonna find it in Mark 9. But as it turns out, I don't think it is true. I think you're gonna find our view everywhere in Scripture, so. [laughs]

Sean McDowell:

Well, that's where we're gonna get to. But I think, I think we agree that as we get into these additional passages, there's arguably more and more clarity. And what it says in the book from the writers is when you get to Revelation 14 and Revelation 20, these are the most compelling cases. You think it points one way, you think it points another, but we're getting there.

Chris Date:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

So all right, so let's move on a passage that you think is a little bit more clear in this case, Matthew 25-41-46. And I'm gonna read it for us so we've got the context here. In the ESV, it says, "Then He will say to those on the left,'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave Me no food. I was thirsty, you gave Me no drink. I was a stranger, you did not welcome Me. Naked, you did not clothe Me. Sick and in prison, you did not visit Me.' Then they will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick, in prison, and did not minister to You?' Then He will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'" And then here's the kicker. He says, "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Now, you've pointed towards this passage a few times-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... As you think being more clear. Tell us what you draw out of this for your position.

Paul Copan:

Yeah Well, of course, this is in the context, and several times within Matthew 24 and 25, you do have mention of Jesus' standard description of the final state of consciousness. You know, weeping, the place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. And so this text that you're referring to, of course, you know, you have the parallels of, you know, eternal life and eternal punishment. And I would say that when you have them in parallel, I think that does raise interesting points that there is it duration? Is it conscious experience? And we'll weigh tho- Chris and I will weigh those things differently. But, you know, Craig Blomberg, another Craig-

Sean McDowell:

Yeah, that's right

Paul Copan:

... He he comments on this, saying that yes, you can have, mentions of, say, eternal redemption in the, in the Book of Hebrews and so forth, but when you have them in a sense side by side, it seems that you have a point of comparison here, that is, I think, you know, there's much more of a, you know, a deeper connection, and he sees it, and I think there's a point to it, of of ongoing conscious existence. And again, this is informed in other waysby, by other texts from the, from the Gospel. So I see a number of these consciousness, you know, final state texts that do, I think, support this sort of a view. And so I would see that that is what Jesus is talking about. At least a, you know, I think a a reasonable case could be made for it.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, fair enough. So this says, at the first part, it says, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and the angels." The eternal fire, which is hinting towards Revelation 14-20. We'll come back to that.

Paul Copan:

Right.

Sean McDowell:

Your key point now is that there's not, like we talked about Daniel 12-2, the eternal everlasting contempt is those viewing back on them with contempt. But it's not everlasting shame, which would've been a conscience experience of the people who are cast into this eternal destruction. You're saying when we get to Matthew 25, you see eternal life-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... Contrasted with eternal punishment, and the punishment to be eternal seems to imply some kind of ongoing conscious experience. Did I sum that up fair?

Paul Copan:

Yeah Yeah, I would, I would say so, yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, awesome. Your take.

Chris Date:

Well, first of all, just a passing mention, a passing response to the weeping and gnashing language. In the places where Jesus uses that language, it seems in virtually every case that that weeping and gnashing will not in fact go on forever. So for example, you've mentioned Matthew 13. In the parable Jesus is interpreting there, weeds are katakaio, they're burned up in fire, and then Jesus says, "Just as the weeds are burned in fire, so will all causes of lawlessness and als- all lawbreakers be thrown into the fiery furnace," alluding, by the way, to Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace in Daniel, which was so hot that Nebuchadnezzar's soldiers, lacking divine protection, died just getting close to it. But God's protected people inside the fire survived it. Interesting how people who-- Well, anyway, I'm not gonna go there. So now, and I would just encourage people to check out the work of a scholar by the name of Kim Papaioannou. He's got a book that he published with Wipf and Stock, I think, called The Geography of Hell and the Teaching of Jesus. And he makes a really compelling, I think, case that this weeping and gnashing language is in no way a challenge to my view, but I'll encourage people to check that out. Now, as for this passage in particular, eternal fire is an expression that Jesus' own brother Jude uses in Jude chapter 7 to refer to the fire that came down from heaven in Genesis 19 and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude uses it to mean that. It's not fire in which people burn consciously forever. It's the fire of God Himself, which it can't be quenched because it's divine fire. It's it's His wrath, and it can't be extinguished, and so it's gonna completely destroy. Jesus uses the expression eternal fire earlier in Matthew, where He sets it up in parallel to Gehenna, which is this valley of the son of Hinnom language in the Old Testament-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Chris Date:

... Which God promised would be where He would slay His enemies, and the corpses of His enemies would be ingloriously destroyed. So eternal fire doesn't help the traditional view here, I think. As for eternal punishment versus eternal life, this is really important. One of the misconceptions a lot of people have of conditionalism and annihilationism is that we believe in a finite punishment, a temporary punishment, but we don't. We believe it's an everlasting punishment. Where we disagree is what the nature of that punishment is. The traditional view says the nature of that everlasting punishment is everlasting misery of some sort, pain, spiritual separation from God, whatever. We think that punishment is death, not being alive anymore. The Greek word kolasis in the Septuagint often means death penalty. So, it's just a matter-- We all agree that punishment lasts forever. It lasts just as long as a life does. But interesting that only the righteous are the ones that said, are said there to receive eternal life. So somebody like me says, "Why should I think that the unrighteous are gonna live forever if only the righteous rise to eternal life?" The only everlasting punishment that doesn't also include living forever is the everlasting death penalty, and that's the way I take Matthew 25.

Paul Copan:

Yeah, and I would make a distinction, you know, everlasting or, you know, eternal life, I think this is a qualitative existence that also involves, you know, the existence within the new heavens and the new earth, where there is this transformed physicality. So I would you know, and again, Chris will say, "Well, you know, immortality was used in the early church to connote the, that, the state of the wicked." But true immortality is, has to do with resurrection of the body, that is this transformed physicality of the body that Jesus had that is, that is, you know, therefore able to participate in this transformed physicality in the new heavens and the new earth. And so I would say that the the distinction with the raised, unrighteous is that they don't have that qualitative existence. And so that's why I'll say, you know, they have, you know, they'll have, you know, kind of, you know, everla- they'll exist everlastingly, but that's not immortality in the true sense of the word, the biblical sense of the word. And I'd also say too, yes, fire does burn, but you know, you can also have the language of course, when we look at fire and darkness in the, in the Scriptures, if we took them literally, they would cancel each other out. But even in, you know, a text you didn't say we're, you know, we're, we were gonna cover, but I think is relevant here, is in 1 Peter chapter 3, where you have the mention of the flood, where the world is destroyed and, of course it wasn't destroyed-destroyed because it was reinhabited, you know? So it was just-... It was just, you know, just flooded with water, but then reinhabited, so it wasn't obliterated. And then you have in the, in the same way the language of the coming of the new heavens and the new earth, this transformed physicality, and there's the language of burning with intense heat, that the elements, you know, you know, being, you know, being destroyed. But yet-It's, you know, a lot of interpreters, and I think this reflects the Old Testament, that the, like, the wilderness being transformed into this kind of of flowering, trees and so forth, and and verdant meadows and so forth, that language of transformation is seen in, Second Peter chapter 3 where the heat burns away certain things. The the fire burns away the elements and so forth, but, what is remaining is that which is the new heavens and new Earth. So it's not an obliteration of the old heavens and then the new heavens and a new Earth are created ex nihilo. I think that that would be... You know, so I think it just illustrates that just because there's fire doesn't mean that there's obliteration or destruction, even though, you know, Chris

Chris Date:

That much I agree with. Yeah

Paul Copan:

... Chris ma-makes a case-

Chris Date:

Okay

Paul Copan:

... For that in other cases, but I think it, in Second Peter, there's, I think, a very strong case to say,"Well, yeah, it's something might be ruined, something might be destroyed," you know, you know, or, you know, in that, sense, but it hasn't been obliterated. And so I think that's why we kind of have a measure, I have a mea- more measured view of what destruction means. You know, can it mean obliteration or can it mean something like ruin, or or the like? So anyway.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, so we both... I'm gonna come back to you, Chris.

Chris Date:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Both sides believe that unbelievers are destroyed, would use that language, but differ over what that destruction-

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... And destroying-

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... Means.

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell:

So destroying means at some point they are going to cease to exist and have a loss of the eternal life that was promised to believers. Come back and qualify that if you need to. Destroying in this case would mean continue to exist, but destroying either their humanity, their relationship with God, who they were meant to

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm. Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Ongoing like you see in Second Peter.

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Is that fair? Your thoughts.

Chris Date:

Well, first of all, I agree that most traditionalists today, who are not very traditional,

Sean McDowell:

[laughs]

Chris Date:

... Will say the wicked are-

Sean McDowell:

You've said that twice.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

You like pointing that out, don't you? [laughs]

Chris Date:

I I'm a little bit of a... Yeah. But it is interesting. Y-y-you're right that modern traditionalists do say, "Yes, the lost are destroyed." The question is what that means. But it is interesting that if you look historically, traditionalists have unabashedly said the wicked are never destroyed in hell. In our second book, A Consuming Passion, which is a festschrift in honor of Edward Fudge, one of my friends, Ronnie Demler, he catalogs statements from traditionalists throughout church history, and they just unabashedly say, "Yeah, the wicked are never destroyed. The wicked n-are liv- they live forever," et cetera. So I do think that's a little interesting.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, so I... But okay. So fair point, but when they say they're not destroyed, aren't they meaning it in a different sense of like-

Chris Date:

Yes

Sean McDowell:

... They're not ceasing to exist, but they still would agree that they're destroyed in the way that Paul is taking it, right?

Paul Copan:

Ru-ruined.

Chris Date:

Maybe.

Paul Copan:

Ruined. Yeah. Yeah.

Chris Date:

Maybe. I'll leave that up to you to decide.

Paul Copan:

[laughs]

Chris Date:

But I'm just saying how frequently traditionalists have just matter-of-factly contradicted the biblical language with the language they use. Now, they may, they may say, "Well, there are different ways I mean destroy. In one case it might mean one thing, in another case another."

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

But it is interesting how if you just look at quotes from traditionalists throughout history, they just matter-of-factly contradict scripture on numerous occasions.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, so the traditional view, which is held, I think the way it's phrased in the introduction, so presumably both of you would agree with it. In fact, I think I... Let me see if I can pull back here. You said it's an, the conditional immortality view is an extreme minority view, except you would argue at the first few centuries there are some people who hold it differently. But at least since, I don't know, Augustine forward, it's been an extreme minority view. Would you agree with that just in general? I don't wanna put words in your mouth, but-

Chris Date:

W-with one nuance. I actually think that if you look at the Apostolic Fathers up through about the time of Justin Martyr, they were all, they all held my view. It's not until Justin-

Sean McDowell:

Okay

Chris Date:

... Martyr arrives on the scene and then Tatian of Adiabene and Athenagoras that eternal torment arrives on the scene. By the way, at the same time, Universalism appears on the scene in the likes of Clement of Alexandria and Origen of Alexandria. But you're right that at least since the time of Augustine, if not a little bit earlier, my view's been in the extreme minority. But again, modern, the modern traditional view is very unlike what it's been held you know, h-held to consist of historically as well. So there's a sense in which I think we're kinda both on the same page in rejecting a lot of tradition.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Chris Date:

It's just to what extent we're rejecting that tradition-

Paul Copan:

Yeah. Yeah

Chris Date:

... I suppose. One thing I wanna-

Sean McDowell:

Do you agree with that, by the way?

Paul Copan:

Yeah well, I mean, yeah, I agree. And, but I would say in, you know, in Chris' defense, I think a lot of people dismiss annihilationism as though this is totally aberrant and outside the pale of orthodoxy. And I'm, I think that Chris is making a very good point that, you know, look at the, you know, and not n-not just to mention the intertestamental period, and I, I've given my take on that, but you know, you know, early church, you know, fathers are writing in this vein too. So I think to be so quick to dismiss the conditionalist, y-you know, I think fails to consider some of those, you know, the early writings that I think reflect, some, you know, some of that is coming thr- out through the intertestamental, Judaistic period. And so I just, you know, in a sense want to defend Chris-

Sean McDowell:

Fair enough

Paul Copan:

... On that front.

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Paul Copan:

And rather than, you know, I think a lot of, modern people think that this is totally out of line, it's it's an innovation trying to do away with hell, and, that this is a modernistic attempt to tamp down the the nature of hell. And no, I think Chris has antiquity to appeal to here.

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Chris Date:

I appreciate that very much. O-one new, one thing I wanna clarify a little bit is that when I talk about destruction, I'm actually not thinking in terms of ceasing to exist. I'm thinking of ceasing to live. So for example, in Matthew 10-28, where Jesus says, "Fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell," the Greek word apollumi there is translated destroy. But the argument we're making is not that he's saying cause the body and soul to cease to exist. None of us think that God's like Thanos, and he's gonna snap his fingers on the last day, and half the universe is gonna disappear. No, they're gonna be slain. The Greek word apollomi everywhere in the Synoptic Gospels, where it's used in the active voice with a human as its direct object, the way that Jesus uses it in Matthew 10-28, it means slay or kill. So I just wanna, I just wanna clarify that-

Sean McDowell:

Okay

Chris Date:

... The emphasis in our minds is not ceasing to exist. It's not living anymore.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Okay. So you make that point in the book, and I'm failing to understand the significance of it, and maybe this is on me.

Chris Date:

Well, because I don't think Jesus ceased to exist, but I think he bore our punishment in our place.

Sean McDowell:

Okay,

Chris Date:

But he did die

Sean McDowell:

... But-Yeah, there's we're talking about physical death in that case.

Chris Date:

That's right.

Sean McDowell:

Of course, he physically died.

Chris Date:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

But that's not a permanent failing to live.

Chris Date:

Well, he also wasn't tormented forever, either.

Sean McDowell:

And so, agreed.

Chris Date:

[laughs]

Sean McDowell:

But if somebody's not living, are they existing in any sense after they are destroyed in hell? Is there any sense of continued existence where they live in one way but not another?

Chris Date:

I don't think so, but the reason is because death extends not only to the body in the second death, but also to the soul. So,

Sean McDowell:

Okay, so the body and soul cease to exist.

Chris Date:

The body doesn't, at least not initially. I mean, we don't, we don't make any hard and fast claims about how long it takes for the body to be burned up, or even if it will literally bur- be burned up. The picture in Isaiah is of corpses that remain for a while, at least, so that the righteous can look on them and find them abhorrent.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, so for eternity there might be bodies that are strewn out-

Chris Date:

I mean-

Sean McDowell:

... Or you just don't land that one.

Chris Date:

I just don't, I don't-

Sean McDowell:

Okay

Chris Date:

... Think the Bible makes that clear.

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Chris Date:

But the point is I'm not denying that the wicked cease to exist as conscious beings. I'm just trying to emphasize that that's not what we're saying is the emphasis of the destruction language. The reason they cease to exist consciously is because the the mind, which is what the soul is, it dies as well in the second death, whereas only the body dies in the first.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, so let me, let me come back to you, but I just wanna make sure I understand the difference.

Chris Date:

Sure.

Sean McDowell:

Is eternal punishment, Matthew 25, now we're gonna move [laughs] to Luke 16 here in a minute, is eternal punishment, this is a conscious experience in some physical state. Now, we've used the term resurrection to life and death, but you would draw a distinction in 1 Corinthians 15. There's an immortal-

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... Qualitative difference-

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... With those who are saved.

Chris Date:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

But there's some-

Chris Date:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Either conscious or bodily eternal existence. In what I understand is the eternal punishment is the loss of life. That loss continues forever, even though there's not somebody experiencing that loss.

Chris Date:

That's right.

Sean McDowell:

Is that fair?

Chris Date:

Yep.

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Paul Copan:

Yeah Yeah. And I, yeah, I would just add to this that when we talk about, say, you know, body and soul being thrown into hell, I think that that's what happens with the second death, that those who are, you know, who try to exclude themselves from God, you know, are put into that final state, body and soul. And and that that is seen as destruction. I know that, you know, Chris talks about, destruction as being more definitive, but you do have language of, you know, the lost coin or the lost son or the lost sheep, and that language that is used is, you know, kind of the destroyed, coin, the destroyed son, you know, that same-

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm

Paul Copan:

... You know, the same cognate is used. And, so that's what why some scholars like David DeSilva hesitate to say, well, you know, you know, it's part of the same word group, and that this destroyed son has still not been obliterated. But, you know, so they'll say that that's why they hesitate on kind of pulling the, you know, pulling the, pulling the plug on on tradi- the traditional view. And so yeah, I was gonna say a bit more on that, but, I think when we get to Revelation we'll talk a, talk a bit more about that, except to say that when we're dealing with, say, the devil and his angels, keep in mind, I think a lot of times we emphasize the physicality of the final state you know, from the traditional view. But keep in mind that the devil and his angels are spirit beings. They don't have nerve endings or bodies. So the language of of flame affecting them, is really not the issue. It's really related to you know, final judgment, to the finality of the state.

Sean McDowell:

Okay. All right. So we're gonna get to... We're gonna jump here to Luke 16-19-31, in a famous passage, but I wanna remind people watching and listening, we've got some questions coming from students soon. So students, be writing down and thinking of your questions for Chris and/or for Paul. And by the way, I'm gonna go live Tuesday after we post this with one or two Talbot professors to get their take on this conversation, so make sure you join us Tuesday, 4-30 Pacific Standard Time, live. All right, I'm gonna start with you on this one, but this is Luke 16-19-31, and this story is only found in the Gospel of Luke, interestingly enough, and it's about Lazarus. Not the Lazarus Jesus rose from the grave in John chapter 11, but it's either the parable or the story, and there's some debate about that, about "a rich man who was clothed in fine linen, and he feasted sumptuously. At his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores. He desired to be fed. The dogs came and licked his sores." Poor man dies and is carried by angels to what's called Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried in Hades, and it says,"Being in torment, he lifts up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side," and he calls out, "Abraham, have mercy on him," and he says, "Give him water for his tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame." And of course, he reminds him, Abraham reminds him that during,"You had good things during your life and comfort. Now it's the reverse." But one of the lines is it says, he says, "For I have five brothers. Warn them, unless they come into this place of torment." And of course, his point is if they had the prophets, they won't even be convinced if someone's been risen from the dead. Now, you don't spend a lot of time debating this passage in the book, but in the end, in your closing, you kind of bring it back and say-... There's some important points for the conversation-

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... We should draw from this. Let me... I don't even know where I should start. You guys tell me, who should I start with on this one? [laughs]

Paul Copan:

Yeah, I mean, I think, well, maybe I'll just say this. Both Chris and I would agree that this is referring to the intermediate state, that this is not the final state.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, now define that just for-

Paul Copan:

Okay

Sean McDowell:

... People what do you mean by that?

Paul Copan:

The intermediate state, where they, you know, where there is, you know, at death, both the believer and unbeliever are in, you know, either with the Lord, or in this state of, as it were, separation or removal from the blessing of God, and and that they await the final resurrection. So they are in a disembodied, state, in which they're experiencing things. So the rich man does not have a resurrected bod-

Sean McDowell:

Oh

Paul Copan:

... Doesn't have a resurrected body yet.

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Paul Copan:

This is a, as it were, kind of-... Virtual sensation, so to speak. But it's-

Sean McDowell:

Is certainly-

Paul Copan:

... Certainly a state of distress.

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Before you draw your points out of it, so if somebody died right now, they would go to one of these two places until Jesus comes back and millennium final judgment is where really this debate comes in, what will happen after-... The final judgment.

Paul Copan:

Yeah, the final resurrection.

Sean McDowell:

The final resurrection-

Paul Copan:

Yeah, is judgment, yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Is where the debate is about that, not the immediate point of death. You guys talk about that in the introduction.

Paul Copan:

Right. Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

So that's the both of you agree-

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... That this passage in Luke is in the immediate, intermediate state-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... Not the future final judgment.

Paul Copan:

Right. Right. Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Paul Copan:

Yeah, so it's an a picture of, you know, of distress. You know, the same language is used of you know, Jesus' parents when they're looking for him, they're distressed. Or the-... Ephesians, they're distressed when Paul, they're not gonna see Paul in Acts chapter 20, they're not gonna see him, anymore, you know, alive on the Earth. And so I and I talk about this too. One of the, one of the points that I'm making is that there's a kind of tenderness with which Abraham is addressing-... This man. He calls him child, you know, my child, a child, teknon. And he is, you know, I think that there is something about preserving someone in life, in conscious life, rather than obliterating that person, giving that person his way, you know, stay- keep trying to keep God at a distance, not wanting to commun- have communion with God. But there is this act of love, as it were, to allow a person to continue in existence rather than obliterating him. As, you know, Ryan Mullins is actually here on campus. He says if God destroys you, that it just goes to show you that He's not really all that into you. [laughs] And,

Sean McDowell:

Okay [laughs]

Paul Copan:

... And so, you know, but I think that that ongoing existence could actually be an expression of love. After all, God is not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance and so forth, and that He simply allows people to stay on in that existence. And, perhaps, you know, and Chris, we've talked about this before, that in the ancient world there was, you know, kind of the most horrendous thing that could ever happen, was that you would lose your own exi- you know, you would, you would cease to exist. Your personal identity would be obliterated. You would no longer be. And and, you know, God does not take that step. And so we disagree on that. But I think that we could, you know, from my angle, that it would be an expression of love to... You know, and being, you know, there's something about being that is good, that God gives being to all, and that is a good thing, although that being can be corrupted. But you know, so there is a certain goodness to continuing to exist.

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Paul Copan:

Yes.

Sean McDowell:

So we're gonna come back to whether hell, as you understand it, is loving or just after we work through the passages. But in this passage, you're saying someone can coexist with flames, whether they're real or judgment. And there's something-

Paul Copan:

Metaphorical, yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Metaphorical. And God continuing somebody alive is an act of love even amidst this judgment. Those are a couple of the key things you draw from this passage. Your take, or did you wanna add? Is that fair?

Paul Copan:

No, I would draw from that passage, but I'd just say it it's a, may suggest something beyond, the intermediate-

Sean McDowell:

Okay

Paul Copan:

... State to the final state.

Sean McDowell:

Got it. Good qualification. Go.

Chris Date:

Yeah, so I think Paul's right that the fact that, torment is ongoing in flame in this scene does mean that we can't just apply as a blanket, you know, application of fire, that anywhere fire appears, it's got to burn people up. So I appreciate that that you're drawing from the text. I don't have much to add, as, in terms of this con-

Sean McDowell:

Okay

Chris Date:

... Of this text. What I do wanna say, though, is this highlights one of the common misconceptions about conditionalism or about annihilationism. So many people I've heard from have said, "Oh, I thought that annihilationists believe that when you die, you cease to exist and it's all over." Well, no. Outside of the Seventh-day Adventists and the Advent Christians, which are denominationally affirming both annihilationism as well as an unconscious intermediate state, outside of those denominations, evangelicals who, hold to annihilationism are very diverse in how they understand the intermediate state. Many of them believe in a conscious intermediate state in which the righteous are in the presence of God, and the lost are suffering in Hades. One of the biggest, the King James Version is great. It it's got a lasting legacy that will serve us forever. But one of the big mistakes that the translators of the King James Version made was that they translated both Hades and Gehenna as hell.

Paul Copan:

As hell. Yep. Yeah.

Chris Date:

And and that's a big mistake. So even Irenaeus of Lyon in the, second century writing against heresies is affirming a conscious intermediate state while at the same time affirming final annihilation in hell. So I just want people to understand that, annihilationism, the debate about hell has almost nothing to do with the nature of the intermediate state. People can hold to any view of the intermediate state and any view of hell. They're gonna have to, you know, cash those things out independently.

Paul Copan:

And if I could just quickly add to that, you know, we see that Jesus goes into the realm of Hades, you know, and and, you know, that there's

Chris Date:

Well, that depends on how you understand that[laughs]

Sean McDowell:

[laughs]

Paul Copan:

Well no, He goes to the realm of the dead.

Chris Date:

Peter.

Paul Copan:

You know, that this is the-

Sean McDowell:

Okay

Paul Copan:

... You know, you know, kind of the Sheol, the realm of the dead-

Sean McDowell:

Yeah

Paul Copan:

... The grave, and that, and that He didn't see corruption in that state. And so you do have that kind of a language of, you know, both the redeemed and the unredeemed being in that state. Of course, you know, and I think that's why the Apostles' Creed refers to, you know, that, you know, He descended into hell. I don't think that's the realm of the departed lost-

Sean McDowell:

Yeah

Paul Copan:

... But rather it's the realm of the dead, and sometimes translated, you know, He departed to the dead. And, but of course, He says to the criminal on the cross, "Today you will be with me in paradise." So the, there is that, you know, that thing perhaps that needs to be added as well.

Sean McDowell:

So it's worth pointing out, and this is a really important point you made about the King James Version, it's not the only one that does this, that there's different words like Sheol-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... The realm of the dead.

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell:

Like Hades, which is the intermediate state at least being referred to here. Gehenna, which seems to be referring to the lake of fire.

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell:

And those have very different points.

Paul Copan:

Right.

Sean McDowell:

And so this passage, you're saying one of the key confusions is we assume that conditionalists believe that the moment you die, there's a ceasing to exist, and you're saying no, there is an extended intermediate state where there could be varying degrees of punishment, but eventually people will cease to live. That's what you mean by hell.

Chris Date:

Or the way that Revelation puts it, Hades will it'll be emptied. The dead will come out-

Paul Copan:

Yeah. Yeah

Chris Date:

... Of Hades in resurrection.

Paul Copan:

Yeah. Yeah.

Chris Date:

And then Hades itself, along with death, will be thrown into the lake of fire-

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Chris Date:

... Along with the resurrected lost.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, because there, the you know, the, so you've got, because you've got the two resurrections, so there's no, there's no realm of the you know, the, you know, that intermediate state of the, you know, Hades any longer. And so it's in a sense done away with, yeah.Okay, love it. All right, we're making some serious progress, at least in my mind.

Paul Copan:

Good.

Sean McDowell:

I'm enjoying this. This is helpful. Okay, so we've looked at three of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Let's get at least one passage in there of Paul and see how this fits into the case, and this is one that's often cited to understand the nature of hell-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... And that it's eternal.

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell:

And you also cite it in the end in your conclusion. So I will start with you on this one-

Paul Copan:

Okay

Sean McDowell:

... 'cause you think there are some significant things we can draw from it.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Let me read verses-- This is 2 Thessalonians 1-5-9. Says, "This is the evidence of the righteous judgment of God that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering- since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to those who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels" These last two verses is where it gets precise. "In flaming fire inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." Verse nine, "They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His might." How do you understand this passage-... And how do you think it advances or at least clarifies your position?

Paul Copan:

Yeah. One of the things, you know, through this project, and I really, you know, you know, it's been great to work on this book together with Chris because, you know, I, as I've looked at this text in 2 Thessalonians 1, you know, it's often translated away from the presence. And of course, I think that's what is in a sense the leading indicator, that hell is separation from God, that he, you know, people are cordoned off.

Sean McDowell:

Like physical separation from God.

Paul Copan:

Yeah. Or or, you know, there's another realm, as it were, from, you know, that, you know, and humans are excluded, you know, the condemned are excluded from, you know, say, the presence of God in a, in a meaningful way of blessing and joy and so forth, that they're removed from the blessing of God and so forth. But here, what seems to be, i-that this is taking place, you know, that away from is actually not how it should be understood. It's actually, it's you know, b-before the face of God, that it's in the pre... As it were, in the presence of God, that this is the, that... You know, and it, this is echoed, I think, in another, from another angle in Revelation 14, where those who are, you know, restless, those who are being judged, who have worshiped the beast and his image and so forth, that they, you know, you know, that they have no rest, and this is actually taking place before the throne of God. So rather than being removed from the presence of God, it's actually the reaction of the wicked in the presence of God. And Dallas Willard talks about how... He talks about the flames of heaven, as it were, you know, the new heavens and the new Earth, but the flames of heaven burn har- hotter than the flames of hell because people who are in, you know, who are in the presence of God find this distressing. They find it, you know, d-discomforting, that this is something deeply problematic. So they're actually before God, but the, but the, but whereas the believer reacts to the presence of God in a, in a loving, joyful way, it is a point of distress and discomfort for the unbeliever to be facing this. So rather than seeing it as a cordoning off, which is sometimes how, 2 Thessalonians 1 and is understood, I think this presence model is a, is a better way of looking at it. It's before the presence of God, and this is reinforced in, from another angle in in Revelation 14.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, we'll get to Revelation 14. Maybe you heard this as well. I think maybe you said the flames burn higher in heaven than

Paul Copan:

Hotter, yeah. Hotter, yeah.

Sean McDowell:

In heaven than in hell?

Paul Copan:

Yeah. That

Sean McDowell:

Did you mean they burn hotter in hell than in heaven?

Paul Copan:

No. No heaven than hell.

Sean McDowell:

Okay,

Paul Copan:

That's Dallas Willard said, in other words, this, you know, you know, that there is, the presence of God is so distressing for the believer. It's wonder- For the unbeliever. It's wonderful for the believer, and so that in a sense, it's kind of like the sun that can warm, you can get a suntan.

Sean McDowell:

Sure [laughs]

Paul Copan:

Very comforting. It's, you know, you know, a lot of people just love to be warm. They find it so comforting. And, but heat can also scorch. It can create drought and so forth. So the presence of God brings out different reactions in people, brings out, e-elicits different responses. And that's in a sense a provocative way that Dallas Willard is using that language to say, you know, you know, "Oh, everyone will want to be in heaven," you know, the Universalist. You know,"Everyone will want to be in the presence of God." Well, you know, I think kind of echoing Paradise Lost, you know, Satan, who says, you know, "Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven."

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm.

Paul Copan:

I think that that's, really what's going on here. But anyway, that's-

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Paul Copan:

It's a, it's a very stock Eastern Orthodox view-

Sean McDowell:

Yeah, it is

Paul Copan:

... That that heaven and hell are both the presence of God in all-... Of His unmitigated glory-

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm

Paul Copan:

... His unmitigated love. But, you know, i-imagine-

Sean McDowell:

Yeah

Paul Copan:

... Imagine a father-... You know, trying to lovingly embrace his two sons, and one of them loves his father, and the other hates him. That loving embrace-... Is gonna be experienced as love-... By the son who loves his father, but it's gonna be tormenting-... For the son who hates his father.

Sean McDowell:

Yeah.

Paul Copan:

That's kind of a analogy for what he's talking about.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, so God, this would solve the issue of God's omnipresence-

Paul Copan:

Right

Sean McDowell:

... And what it means to be away from the Lord.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

But believers and unbelievers are separated, but both experience-

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... The presence of the Lord in a very different fashion.

Paul Copan:

Yeah. Yeah

Sean McDowell:

And that's the argument.

Paul Copan:

Yeah, exactly.

Sean McDowell:

Do you think... Go ahead.

Paul Copan:

And I wouldn't say, and I know that there is the language of, say, you know,"Depart from me," and so forth. There is that separation language, but I think when you look at these texts more closely, I, you know, I think you can, you know, I simply, you know, we're talking about, people receive joy through communion with God, but those who refuse communion with God, it is distressing. It is troubling. It creates a sense of restlessness, and, a-and that's just the fallout from keeping God at a distance. So in some ways, you can perhaps cast it as separation or self-separation, as it were. But but, you know, there's also the language of, "Depart from me," and so forth. So I think we can reconcile those, but perhaps this is not the place to do that.

Sean McDowell:

Fair enough. So I'm gonna have to think about this more, 'cause the typical understanding-... Is it's banished away from the Lord-

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... And it'll be explained, if not physically-

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Relationally. You're saying, no, God is present, but they're-

Paul Copan:

Exactly.

Sean McDowell:

So it's not like in hell you're present with Satan. In hell, you're present with God, but experiencing the full weight of His wrath, so to speak-

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... And your rejection of Him.Okay. All right. Just clarifying those positions, we could circle back to that. In your mind, before we get to Revelation, when it talks about inflicting vengeance-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... Does that language of like it feels like it's ongoing, inflicting something, they will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, does that add to your case, you think? And then I wanna know why you obviously think it doesn't.

Paul Copan:

Yeah. I think in some ways this is more of a neutral text because it's-

Sean McDowell:

Oh, okay

Paul Copan:

... Typically been taken

Sean McDowell:

Okay

Paul Copan:

... Removal from the presence of God, that that's the essence of hell, and that's, you know, the the view that I've taken. But, you know, actually reading a traditionalist, Charles Quarles, on, you know, commenting on 2 Thessalonians 1-9, I thought, "Oh, he's making... You know, he's making... He's saying it's not a separation language. It's kind of a causal language, that the presence of God causes joy for the believer, but it causes distress for the unbeliever," and that's how he's, how he's casting it.

Sean McDowell:

But even though it says, "Suffer the punishment of eternal destruction."

Paul Copan:

Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I Again, we could take our cues from, Matthew 25, where you have them parallel-

Sean McDowell:

Yeah, okay

Paul Copan:

... And so forth and see it in other ways. I would say, yes, it could speak into that language. I don't necessarily see that as, you know, as decisive.

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Paul Copan:

But anyway.

Sean McDowell:

Fair enough. Prasum, you agree with that, or what would you add to that?

Chris Date:

I mean, I agree with some of the things, that Paul said.

Sean McDowell:

Okay. [laughs]

Chris Date:

So I'll just make three quick points. Number one, and Paul, you I'm so glad that you, see this and acknowledge it. The Greek preposition apó does not mean away from. It just means from. And the passage most scholars think that he's sort of drawing upon is in, is Isaiah chapter 2, where the, where the wicked, they they are fleeing in terror from... Or sorry, they're fleeing from-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Chris Date:

... Terror of the Lord, the terror of the Lord.

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

Now, notice from there doesn't mean they're trying to hide away from-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Chris Date:

... God's own fear. No.

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

They're hiding because

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Chris Date:

... Fear of the Lord.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Chris Date:

So this language of apó, of from, means cause. So, they are-

Paul Copan:

So the mistranslation therefore would be appalling, The presence.

Chris Date:

Yeah. [laughs]

Paul Copan:

So anyway.

Chris Date:

Well, it's-

Paul Copan:

Just throwing that in there

Chris Date:

... Away from is fairly mild. Then you get the NIV was shut out from.

Paul Copan:

Oh, yeah, exactly. Right right. Totally.

Chris Date:

And then you get some that are even worse than that.

Paul Copan:

Yeah Read a lot in.

Chris Date:

Really abused.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Chris Date:

Read a lot in.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Chris Date:

So that's number one.

Sean McDowell:

Gabe, before you go to two and three, let me just make sure people understand this. It says, "They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction away from or shut out from the presence of the Lord," you're saying creates this idea that-

Chris Date:

Yes

Sean McDowell:

... Hell is apart, separated.

Chris Date:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

And if we just say, "Suffer the punishment of eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord"-

Paul Copan:

Yeah Exactly

Sean McDowell:

... That literally changes everything.

Paul Copan:

Totally. Totally.

Sean McDowell:

And you both agree on that.

Chris Date:

Yep.

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Chris Date:

Yep.

Sean McDowell:

All right.

Chris Date:

So the second point is you quoted the inflaming fire and inflicting vengeance language, which I think is important because that combination of terms appears together in only one other place in all of Scripture, and that's Isaiah 66,... Where it's, where it's talking about God's angels coming to slay God's enemies, and we've already talked about how that scene ends with God's enemies having been reduced to corpses being eaten by maggots and burned up by fire. So I think that that's what Paul is alluding to there, which sounds like he's teaching my view. The the third and final thing I wanna talk about is just this language of eternal destruction. Some people who object to annihilationism, they will say, "Well, why would he call it eternal destruction? If destruction is annihilation, that's by definition eternal, so to call it eternal would be redundant." But again, this just trades on misconceptions of what we think. By destruction, we mean death, and the whole point or one of the obvious implications of the doctrine of resurrection, the general resurrection, I mean-

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Chris Date:

... Is that death isn't forever in the first death. It's not everlasting destruction. But when the resurrected lost are destroyed a second time and never live again, that is everlasting destruction, and I think that that's the point that Paul is trying to make.

Paul Copan:

Yeah, and I would also add you know, just a little, nuance. Not add maybe. Just just say something here about the, you know, the word olethros, you know, ruination. You know, and it could be, you know, you know... That same word is used, of, you know, in say, 1 Timothy chapter 6, where the love of money, has led to the ruination of persons, so not their obliteration-... But their ruination. And so, you know, again, kind of I think I can... I see that, and I say, "Okay, well, seems like it's not obl- you know, obliteration or annihilation here," but, So anyway, I just would want to add that.

Chris Date:

Well, and one thing I think it's really, what I love about what you just said, it highlights the importance of recognizing that this debate doesn't come down to just an individual word here or there.

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm. Right, exactly.

Chris Date:

The we have to look at context. We have to look... Intertextuality. We have to look at historical context, those kinds of things.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Chris Date:

And that's what we're trying to

Paul Copan:

Yeah Absolutely

Chris Date:

... All through our book.

Sean McDowell:

We're doing biblical exegesis for the most part here, but you also have chapters on systematic theology, pulling in doctrines of God.

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm. Sure. Sure.

Sean McDowell:

That's another lens to look at this-

Chris Date:

Yep. Sure. Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Which we're not really exploring. And some of this debate, you're right, you point back towards Isaiah 66-15, and we see it in that language, but it raises the question, we cannot probably go down this rabbit trail right now, is how the New Testament authors cite the Old Testament-

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... And their freedom to add meaning and interpret and-

Chris Date:

That's right. Mm-hmm. Sure

Sean McDowell:

... That adds a layer of complexity to this. But let's move to the passages that pretty much everybody agrees, and you spent some time in the conversation with Kurt Cameron going into this one. So, let me read. We'll start with Revelation 14-9 through 11, and I'll read it for us, and we'll get our take. It says,"And another angel, a third, followed them saying with a loud voice, 'If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he will also drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. They have no rest day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.'" So this is talking about anyone who worships the beast receives a mark, and we don't have to go into any detail what that means or how to identify that. Another conversation.Will get God's wrath, it says twice, tormented with fire and sulfur. The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest. Now, we could go to Revelation 20, but you've been pointing towards Revelation a handful of times as you think this brings some clarity.

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell:

And then I'll come to you 'cause I know you see this very differently as well. But how do you think this makes-

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Clarifies your understanding?

Paul Copan:

Yeah. Yeah. Well, here, you know, the torment, as it were, is seen as, you know, having no rest, which, you know, for the, for those who worshiped the beast. But, you know, the-- in contrast, verse 13 of Revelation 14 talks about those who are, you know, the saints who have, died in the Lord, and they cease from their labors. That they're they have rest from their labors, that there is this kind of relief, as it were, that, they, have, you know, they have, accomplished, what they have faithfully lived out on Earth, and now, they have their reward. So you have this contrast between the restlessness of the beast worshipers, and you have the rest of the believers. And, you know, and a number of commentators see this as kind of a a seemingly plain parallel of the final state. And again, obviously, we're talking about consciousness here, conscious awareness. And, so again, I know we'll talk about other things like apocalyptic literature, et cetera. You know, the smoke rising, I think that's kind of a secondary sort of a thing. I think what is at issue is, you know, that they have no rest day or night, and that seems to parallel the kind of language that is used of, in Revelation 20 of of the devil, a personal being. And you know, he has, you know, again, he, you know, he's, he'll be tormented day and night, forever and ever. And then, you know, and, you know, in the lake of fire, the final state. And then it goes on in verse 15 to talk about those who, you know, whose names are not written in the Book of Life. You know, they are in that same, you know, state of condemnation.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, so unmistakably here, presumably, we're talking about the lake of fire and the final judgment. Would the two of you agree on that, or would you not agree with that?

Chris Date:

Well, to be honest, I lean toward thinking Revelation 14 isn't about hell, but I don't, I don't-

Sean McDowell:

Oh, okay

Chris Date:

... I don't make a big deal out of that because

Sean McDowell:

Okay

Chris Date:

... I think even if it is about hell, it still clearly teaches my view, but we'll [laughs] we'll get there.[laughs]

Sean McDowell:

Okay Fair enough. Then can I [laughs] let me come back to that. I love it. So you believe this is the lake of fire it's referring

Chris Date:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Same as in Revelation 20.

Chris Date:

Yeah. Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Chris Date:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

And the key is not so much the smoke going up forever and ever, but there's this contrast like we saw in Matthew

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm. Right

Sean McDowell:

... Eternal life-

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... Eternal punishment-

Chris Date:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Between they have no rest in this passage-

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm. Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Which feels ongoing [laughs] and-

Chris Date:

Yeah. Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Like you can't sleep at night-

Chris Date:

Right

Sean McDowell:

... Contrasts with those in heaven, the new heavens and the new Earth-

Chris Date:

Right

Sean McDowell:

... Who have rest.

Paul Copan:

Yeah kind of illustrating what Romans chapter 2 is talking about of, you know, of glory, honor, immortality, honor, the the reward, the rest that the believer has, as opposed to the, you know, the, you know, you know, the distress and trouble that, the unbeliever has in this state of having no, you know, you know, having no rest day or night. So that's the, you know, so I would, I would see that as, you know, again, ongoing conscious existence.

Sean McDowell:

Okay. That, that's the key, where really a lot of this debate comes, is there ongoing conscious torment in existence-

Paul Copan:

Or punishment, yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Having no rest in your mind advances that case.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Your thoughts?

Chris Date:

Yeah, so the, you're gonna have to give me a little bit of time. I'm gonna try to be as brief as I can, but it's really important because, we at Rethinking Hell and many conditionalists, we just admit that in the vision that John is being shown-

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm

Chris Date:

... The lost are tormented forever and ever. I'm not denying that. We at Rethinking Hell don't deny that.

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

But the question is, what is the nature of this kind of vision? And that's where I need to spend just a moment, to help clear things up. Because I think a lot of modern Westerners, we come to this vision in Revelation, and we think that John is literally seeing the future, almost as if the future had been recorded on camera and the recording sent on a flash drive back in time to Paul, who plugged it in, you know, whatever. But that's, sorry, John. But that's not the way that visions of the future work in Scripture. So you go all the way back to Joseph's visions of the future, and then, and then Pharaoh's, and Pharaoh's, workers, and then Daniel's visions of the future, Nebuchadnezzar's visions of the future.

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

Without exception, these are all visions in which the future is foretold or revealed to the seer, but by means of symbols. There is no vision of the future in Scripture I've been able to find in which the future is literally depicted. So for example, Pharaoh, in his vision of the future, he sees seven healthy cows come up out of the Nile, and then seven sick, gaunt cows come up out of the Nile and eat the first seven. But you know what he's told when Joseph interprets Pharaoh's dream is that that has nothing to do with cows, right? Or the Nile. It, it's about there being seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine. So the cows symbolize years. The fatness of the first seven symbolize abundance in the first seven years, and the gauntness of the seven cows after them symbolize seven years of famine, right? So the the stage I'm trying to set here is just that the question we need to ask ourselves when we come to the Book of Revelation isn't primarily what is depicted in the imagery. The primary question should be, what does that depiction symbolize in reality? So then the question becomes, well, how would we arbitrate that? How would we answer that question? I think the one of the best ways to do that is to look and see if the same symbols converge elsewhere in the same vision.And as it turns out, they do. So in Revelation 14-9-11, the wicked are made the beast worshipers are made to drink of God's wrath as if from a cup. They're tormented in fire and sulfur, and then smoke rises them, from them forever and ever. And then you've got the restlessness thing as well, although there's a translation there thing that we could discuss if we, if we have time. But those three symbols appear again just a few chapters later in Revelation 18 and 19, where Mystery Babylon, this blood-drunk vampiric prostitute riding on the back of the seven-headed, ten-horned beast, she is made to drink God's wrath. She is tormented in fire. And at the beginning of chapter 19, a halleloia, a hallelujah chorus cries out, "The smoke from her rises forever and ever," just like we read in Revelation 14. But at the end of Revelation chapter 18, an angel tells John what the fate is of the city that this woman represents. He throws a rock into the sea, and he says, "So will the great Babylon-- or so so will the great city be found no more. She'll be thrown down with violence and be found no more. The people who inhabited her will be found no more." So the picture, these symbols converge in the very same vision to communicate the destruction of a city and the deaths of many of her inhabitants. And so that makes me think, why in the world would I think those symbols converge to mean something utterly different just a few chapters later in the very same vision? That strains credulity in my thinking.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, fair enough. So you're pointing more towards the genre of apocalyptic language, how these words appear elsewhere, and don't disagree that the words as we look at it in maybe a literalistic fashion would communicate ongoing lack of rest day and night-

Chris Date:

Well, it's literally what John is seeing in his vision.

Sean McDowell:

Yeah.

Chris Date:

He's literally seeing everlasting-

Sean McDowell:

And he's describing that

Chris Date:

... Ongoing torment. Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

But the way we understand the Book of Revelation would lean us differently.

Chris Date:

I think so.

Sean McDowell:

Okay. All right. Fair enough. Before we come to Revelation 20, thoughts on this one. This--

Chris Date:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Talk about opening a can of worms[laughing] with Revelation, but-

Paul Copan:

Yeah And, I've used this analogy where, you know, you have, of course, in chapter 14, you have everyone who worships the beast drinking from this cup of wrath. You have then, chapter 16, you have, you know, Babylon, you know, the, this, city in rebellion against God drinking from that, cup of wrath. But you know, I I think of, say, an analogy of Nazism, where you have Nazism, the system that has been set up against God that's, you know, inspired by, demonic forces and, you know, the devil himself. But, you know, you know, in Nazi Germany, once you have the trial, trials of those who led, the Nazi, you know, movement, those who, you know, brought about the Second World War, those who, you know, you know, then destroying the symbols and the, and the flags and so forth and basically removing any hint of Nazism, you still have intact the German nation, at least those who haven't been killed in the war. You, know, my mom, my mom survived the bombing of Berlin,[chuckles] , and, she came from Latvia. But, you know, and so yeah, Germany was still, largely intact, but yet without the, this demonic Nazi, system that, you know, any longer in operation. And I think that there's something like that that is going on here. But again, it's a matter of weighing things. And of course, you you have apocalyptic literature. You'll have people on Chris's side who will say, "No, this is how we interpret it." people, you know, like G.K. Beale and David DeSilva, who are-- You know, they know their apocalyptic stuff, too.

Chris Date:

That's true.

Paul Copan:

And they, a-and they will say, "No, I think this is how it ought to be interpreted." So again, it's-- You know, it there are, you can understand why people might be agnostic on some of these things.

Chris Date:

Well, and I, and I will just say, as much as I think these passages in Revelation teach my view pretty clearly, it does seem to me as though it's probably a little unwise to rest the case for a particular theological doctrine on the most enigmatic, most difficult book to interpret faithfully in all of Scripture, which I think is what some tradition-- Not all, but some traditionalists have done, is they've said, "Look, if you want the clearest picture of hell, if you want-- It was all unclear until we got to the most unclear book of Scripture, [laughing] and then all of a sudden hell was made clear." I think that's a little-- So I'd What I would like to see is for the case for eternal torment to be based more on texts that are less unclear than Revelation.

Sean McDowell:

Okay. And Revelation

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... You can see if this adds anything to it, 10 through 15."The devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and forever."

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell:

Describes some other things as he gets to the bottom, verse 13, "And the sea gave up the dead who were in it. Death and Hades gave up the dead, who were thrown into it. They were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done." Verse 14, "Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire." And then verse 15, the one that's been quoted as much or any verse from Revelation, "And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell:

How do you think this adds to or clarifies your position?

Paul Copan:

Yeah. Well, you know, you have, of course, the lake of fire, and you have, you know, the devil, a personal being you know, again, and his demonic hosts, you know, the, you know, the devil and his angels, Matthew 25, you know, the, you know, being tormented, day and night forever. And I think that in this setting, if the lake of fire means, you know, utter, you know, you know, obliteration of a, of a person, annihilation of a, of a personal being like Satan, his being tormented day and night forever and ever, doesn't sound like that. So you have that kind of a juxtaposition. And so I would, I would say And not to mention that in Revelation 22-15, you have mention of those who are outside the city. It seems like there's this ongoing existence of them. They're mentioned twice in Revelation 21, and then, you know, the, you know, the dogs, the immoral, and so forth, you know, the cowards, that these are outside the city, of the redeemed. And so it seems like there is this ongoing existence that they also experience, you know, again, removed from the blessing of God, and, you know, but God's not snuffing them out, of existence. So again, like we said, these could be enigmatic passages, and, Revelation is, you know, is a challenge to any interpreter. But again, I see those things like, okay, well, it seems like there is something else going on here besides mere destruction. Maybe we need to understand that language of destruction, perishing, and so forth in ways that are more like ruination rather than obliteration.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, so we have the devilWe've got the beast. They're tormented day and night forever and forever. Death and Hades thrown in the lake of fire. Your point 22-15 I wanna read. It says, "Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell:

This seems to be a reference to outside the kingdom of God-... Ongoing existence-... That matches Revelation 14 and... This kind of ongoing-

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Torment.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

And so you're pulling from other passages to say-... We see a theme here-

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Of conscious punishment that continues.

Paul Copan:

Right. Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Is that fair?

Paul Copan:

Yeah, and I guess the city would be kind of tantamount to or kind of the virtual equivalent of the new heavens and the new earth, you know, th-that all the things that have been restored and good. And, of course, the city I think is r-high, strongly emphasizing the people of God, the redeemed people of God, in you know, the language of jewels and so forth. But yeah, that's how I would, I would take it.

Sean McDowell:

Okay. Got it. That's helpful. Chris.

Chris Date:

Well, so first of all, I I'm gonna try to be as brief as I can. Number one, I don't think that, Paul, you're understanding the end of Revelation properly at the end of chapter 22. What we're, what we're dealing with-

Paul Copan:

I'm basing this on G.K. Beale, by the way. [laughs]

Chris Date:

Well, fair enough.

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Chris Date:

Fair enough. And I have the utmost of respect for G.K. Beale.

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Chris Date:

I He, he's a hero of mine. I just think he doesn't follow his own great scholarship to the, to the extent that he should. But anyway, so for example, at the end of Revelation 22, chapter 22, we're no longer in the vision. This is a common misconception. The vision ended halfway through chapter 22, where John then says, "These are the things that I saw, blah blah." And now we're in what's, what we might call the epilogue of John's epistle-... That we, that we call Revelation. So I don't... I think it's a mistake to think that what John is saying is the wicked are still there outside the city. I mean, the author of Hebrews writes about us as having come to the heavenly city now, in the here and now. So I think this is language of, whether we are in Christ or not in Christ right now. I don't think it's about the vision. But again, I've already acknowledged that the vision depicts or portrays everlasting conscious torment on the part of the wicked, so it wouldn't surprise me if they're still being depicted outside of the gates, and that's fine. The second point I wanna make is I acknowledge that it is strange, it seems awkward that that one might use a symbol of everlasting conscious torment as a symbol for death. That does seem strange. But we've already talked about the, pictures of death allegedly being used as symbols for eternal torment. Why is, why is it only one direction that we can go, right? So the picture of corpses in Isaiah 66, why can that be a symbol for everlasting torment if everlasting torment can't be a symbol for annihilation? This just doesn't make much sense to me. But those are, those are minor points. Here are the main points I wanna make. Number one, everything thrown in that lake of fire is a conscious entity in John's vision, the devil, the beast, the false prophet, resurrected humankind, and death and Hades. So death and Hades aren't abstractions in John's vision. They're the, they're the fourth horseman of the apocalypse in Revelation chapter 6. Death is riding the pale white horse, and Hades is following him kind of like a squire. So these are conscious beings in the imagery thrown into the lake of fire in, I think, Revelation 20-13 and 14, but what does their fate in that fire symbolize in reality? Well, just a few verses later, God says from the throne, I think it's Revelation 21-4,"Thanatos ouk esti eti." Death shall be no more. And this is drawing upon Isaiah 25, where Yahweh promises to swallow up death forever. 1 Corinthians 15, death is the last enemy to be destroyed. So the picture of these conscious horsemen being thrown into the lake of fire seems to symbolize the annihilation of death itself. Once all of God's enemies have been destroyed, and His redeemed people are immortal and live forever, the existential threat of death is gone. We'll nobody will ever have to fear death again. It will have been annihilated. So that's one reason why I think this symbolism symbolizes my view. But the one other thing that's really important is that when John and God Himself say that the lake of fire is the second death, they're not labeling the lake of fire. They're not saying, you know, there's a sense in which the lake of fire is death. They're doing what all throughout Scripture is known as interpretation. When Pharaoh sees those vision, the vision of the seven cows, Joseph says, "The seven cows are seven years. The seven cows are seven years." When Daniel interprets the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, he says, "The tree is you," or the head of gold is you." So when John and God say the lake of fire is the second death, they are telling you the lake of fire symbolizes the second death. Well, so then what does second death mean? Well, the only place in intertestamental Jewish literature that we find the expression second death is in what's known as the Targums, the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Old Testament that were compiled after Jesus but have oral tradition stretching back into the time before Jesus. And everywhere in that, in that tradition that the phrase second death appears, and sometimes, by the way, it appears next to the word Gehenna, everywhere it appears in the Aramaic Targums, it means literally dying a second time. So when John interprets the lake of fire as symbolizing the second death for people, he's saying, he's teaching my view just matter-of-factly. This scene I've just described for you that God showed me while I'm in exile on the island of Patmos, this scene symbolizes this cosmic event all of you already expect to happen, where the resurrected lost are gonna die a second time, never to participate in the life to come.

Sean McDowell:

Did you do that in one breath? [laughs]

Chris Date:

No, I took, I took two or three.

Paul Copan:

[laughs]

Sean McDowell:

I was like, "I'm not sure he breathed in that."[laughs]

Chris Date:

I have these arguments a lot-

Sean McDowell:

Okay

Chris Date:

... So it just comes-

Sean McDowell:

Okay. All right

Chris Date:

... Naturally.

Sean McDowell:

Now, there was, like, five or six points-

Chris Date:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Which are a part of your case, which is fair. You walk through it in the book.

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell:

There's no way we're gonna be able

Chris Date:

I know. I know

Sean McDowell:

... Dissect each one of those points. Anything-- I'll give you one comeback on this one before we keep going, unless you're like-

Paul Copan:

Yeah No no

Sean McDowell:

... "We've covered it, and go."

Paul Copan:

Well, no, I mean, I'll just, I'll just offer a you know, a few point-- Well, no, I'll just keep pointing.

Sean McDowell:

[laughs]

Paul Copan:

I would say even you know, initially I had removed from consideration Revelation 22-15, the, those outside the city, but, G.K. Beale himself in his shorter commentary actually brings us back to the same list that is mentioned within the apocalyptic language of Revelation 21, so not not outside the vision any longer in 22-15. But still, you know, you have those vice lists mentioned twice in Revelation 21. So it seems that there is carryover. It's not just a matter of, what is going on, in terms of, you know, some

Chris Date:

... As it were, confused vision. I think there's a kind of continuity that this is something that is, a permanent fixture, that this is something that is ongoing. And it is connected to G.K. Beale in that commentary. The shorter commentary does say, no, this does connect. It's, you know, that there is this seeming ongoing conscious existence of those who are outside the city. But I'll have to leave it at that.

Sean McDowell:

All right, fair enough. I've got a ton more questions, but I think what might be most interesting is if we go to some of the students. Again, we have some undergrad students from a class I teach, Gospel, Kingdom, Culture. We have some theology students, philosophy students, a science and religion student, which is awesome. So you can ask your question, and then I want... You can ask it directed to somebody if you want to, have you respond, and then the other person, whoever is not directed to, give your two cents on it, and then I'll bring us back and ask a few questions as well. So do we have the mic ready to rock and roll for the students? Who'd like to be first? Go ahead, please.

Student 1:

Hi, I'm Eunice. Thank you so much for, the conversation. It was really intriguing. I have a question for Chris. I think I heard you say that, there is somewhere in the Bible that it says that God gives the believers eternal life, non-believers not that. And I know that everlasting life and eternal life are also different. Would you think about the interpretation of eternal life as God Himself instead of my life being eternal or everlasting?

Chris Date:

Yeah. So, I'm open to that possibility, but it seems to me that the adjective aionios really does have a temporal, sense to it. It derives from, it's a cognate of the noun ion, which is where we get the English word eon from. The adjective aionios really does seem to mean something like in perpetuity, everlasting, or at the very least indefinitely long. So, I just have not yet been persuaded that that adjective means something more like of divine quality or something like that, which is what it sounds like you're proposing.

Student 1:

Have you seen that word in the New or Old Testament used in a divine way more, though?

Chris Date:

No, I haven't, and that's part of the reason why I remain... So, for example, the closest I think we come to are places where it clearly doesn't mean everlasting. I think there's places where, like, ancient mountains are called everlasting, which of course they're not everlasting.

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

They, they're finite in duration. But we use the language of forever that way even nowadays, right? "Ugh, that took me forever." We don't mean literally forever. We just mean it took me an awful long time, and I think that that's how sometimes the word is used. But I don't see it used anywhere, where it, where it doesn't seem to have this sense of protracted time.

Student 1:

Gotcha.

Chris Date:

But again, I'm open to being persuaded.

Sean McDowell:

One more follow-up, and then I wanna give someone else a chance. Or do

Student 1:

Yeah, I just wanted to say, so you don't, you don't see the difference between eternal life and everlasting life in the Greek or Hebrew too much?

Chris Date:

I'm aware of no distinction between those two expressions. Th-there is no... A-anywhere where you see the translation everlasting life in, i-if it's Greek, if it's the New Testament or the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, it's gonna be aionios, zoe or something like that. And by the way, zoe, life, doesn't mean some special quality of life. When we talked about Luke 16, the rich man is told, "In your zoe, in your life-""... You experienced good things," but this was a terrible, wicked man, right? So it just means life, and everlasting life just means enduring, unending life, as far as I can tell.

Student 1:

Thank you.

Chris Date:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Good stuff. Paul, you need to weigh in here, or you're good?

Chris Date:

No, you're probably doing it.

Sean McDowell:

All right. Let's go to the next question, please. Thank you for that one, Eunice.

Student 2:

Hello, Chris.

Chris Date:

Hi.

Student 2:

I'm Ruel. I just had a question, maybe a clarification. I'm kind of confused on your position when you mentioned about, like whether the, like the wicked will cease to exist or cease to live. Like, can you elaborate more on that?

Chris Date:

Yeah. There's at least two ways to be dead, okay? One way to be dead is your body's dead, but your soul continues to exist, and that's what most Christians have believed is the case with the first death and the intermediate state. Another way to be dead is to be dead in body and in soul, because your soul has been killed as well. Now, what is the soul in sort of, in classical Christian anthropological dualism? It's the mind, right? It's pure consciousness. So now think about what is characteristic of a dead body. It's inert. It's inanimate. It's lifeless. It's motionless. It's inactive, right? If all of those things are true of our consciousness itself, then there is no consciousness anymore. And so when death extends not only from the body, but also to the soul, the person ceases to exist, but not in some metaphysical sense like the Thanos example I gave of snapping his finger. Th-they cease to exist as conscious beings. They're dead and unconscious forever, never to live or experience in anything ever again. So I don't mind saying that, yes, we believe the lost eventually cease to exist in hell, but that's not our emphasis. Our emphasis is they cease to live, the death extends to their souls as well, and as a consequence of that, they no longer exist.

Student 2:

So you just said that you don't emphasis, emphasize on them ceasing to exist, but then I don't see how ceasing to live... Like, it feels like ceasing to live entails ceasing to... Like, ceasing to be conscious seems to be ceasing to exist.

Sean McDowell:

Okay, let me ask for clarification. You're not saying they're opposites, it's one or the other. Is it more a matter of emphasis in your position?

Chris Date:

It's a matter of emphasis. It's a matter of what we mean by the, what we think the biblical authors mean by their language, and we think what they mean by the language of destruction is the death, the execution of the lost. And Jesus was executed, but He didn't cease to exist. If you know, a, an anthropological dualist Christian annihilationist still thinks that Jesus' soul con-continued to exist between His death and resurrection. So death can occur without ceasing to exist.But it can also occur with ceasing to exist. And the reason that we think that the second death entails a cessation of existence as well is, number one, because Jesus says death will extend not only to the body, but also to the soul in the second death. And number two, philosophers, you'll know this, but philosophers have long argued that the only way that resurrection is even possible is if a soul continues to exist between death and resurrection. So the reason Jesus' soul continues to exist between death and resurrection, and the reason ours do, is because we're going to be resurrected. But when the wicked are slain in hell, that's for their second death, and they'll never be resurrected again, there's no purpose f-for God to keep their souls in some kind of half-human, half-existence, which is what an intermediate state is. Does that help at all?

Student 2:

Yes.

Chris Date:

Okay.

Student 2:

Yeah. Thank you.

Chris Date:

Yeah.

Student 2:

So you say Jesus ceased to exist, you just-

Chris Date:

I don't say that.

Student 2:

Okay. I was just cla-clarifying.

Sean McDowell:

That'd be serious heresy.

Chris Date:

[laughs]

Student 2:

[laughs]

Sean McDowell:

Just we can all agree on that one.

Student 2:

That's all I was trying to clarify.

Chris Date:

Right.

Sean McDowell:

All right, hold the mic right up there like ice cream. Just don't lick it. But that was a wonderful-

Chris Date:

[laughs]

Sean McDowell:

... Question and a follow-up. Thank you. Just to make sure we pick it up. But other questions. Way to go, students so far. I got plenty to ask, but I wanna give you as much opportunities as you have for Chris or for Paul.

Student 3:

Hello, I'm Rocco. I have a question for Chris.

Chris Date:

I don't mind. I love it.

Sean McDowell:

Feel free.

Student 3:

Yeah. [laughs] Why do you think, Revelation fourteen does not teach about hell? Because-

Chris Date:

Oh

Student 3:

... You said something about that.

Chris Date:

So I I wanna be careful. Again, plenty of conditionalists, plenty of annihilationists do think that has to do with hell, so I'm not-- I don't wanna make a big deal out of this. But I'm what's known as, unfortunately, is known as a partial preterist. I think that most of the Book of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century-

Student 3:

Mm-hmm

Chris Date:

... Surrounding the events of seventy AD when Rome sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. And I think that that series, that s-sequence of events, surrounding seventy AD is what that passage is talking about. That's why I don't think it's about hell. But I understand that, partial preterism is a minority view amongst the different competing eschatological views, and so I just don't make a big deal out of it. A-a-and again, even if it is about hell, for the reasons that I gave, I think it still teaches my view.

Student 3:

Thank you.

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell:

Yeah, good clarification. Yeah, Sarah.

Student 4:

I have a question for both of you guys, I guess. This might be a question more about the language, but is it possible that by eternal contempt, the passage means that those in hell hold God in eternal contempt?

Sean McDowell:

Do you mean in Daniel 12-2, where it says shame and then eternal contempt?

Student 4:

Yes.

Sean McDowell:

So this is not other people holding them in contempt, but they're continuing to be conscious and holding God in everlasting-

Student 4:

Yes

Sean McDowell:

... Contempt. Is that what your question is?

Student 4:

Correct.

Sean McDowell:

All right. Since you've been asked 37 questions so far-

Chris Date:

[laughs]

Sean McDowell:

Kidding aside, your thoughts.

Paul Copan:

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I don't have an axe to grind on this. You know, I do think that it can apply. But I see Chris's point. I do think it is interesting that Jesus does, you know, in, I think, most, you know, well illustrated in Matthew 13, where there is the furnace, then there is mention of the weeping and gnashing of teeth, where there is that contempt toward God. And then there is the mention of the righteous shining like the sun. So I think that Jesus is bringing those two things together, and that, the conscious existence could also be incorporated in there, but, may not initially be the, you know, in in Daniel 12, what is... I could see how Chris, arrives at his position, but I think it could, you know, I think Jesus, may, y-you know, is seeing it as applying to both.

Sean McDowell:

Okay. Do you wanna weigh in on that one, or are you-

Chris Date:

I'm, I, that's plausible on the surface. I think, a couple of reasons incline me against that reading. One is that I'm aware of no biblical scholar ever who's made that claim, which doesn't prove anything, but it is interesting. I I'm a big believer in the idea that if it's new, it probably isn't true, and if it's true, it probably isn't new. And so I'm reluctant to, embrace something that nobody in church history has ever embraced before. But the other reason is there seems to be a relationship between shame and contempt there. And the natural relationship between shame and contempt is there's the experience of the one who is experiencing shame, and then there's the shame in which they are perceived or remembered by everyone else, and that's their contempt. And that seems supported by the fact that the only other place in the Old Testament where that word is used is in Isaiah 66, where the ones, where these dead bodies are abhorrent to others.

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

So I I think the weight of the evidence inclines toward contempt being what God and his people are experiencing, not what the wicked are.

Sean McDowell:

I have a quick question for you.

Chris Date:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

You said if something's new, it's probably not true. Agree. And you make the case that early, some of the first Apostle Fathers held your view. Are there any other issues that you hold that the vast majority of Christian thinkers don't hold that are in the extreme minority? And if you say yes, it doesn't mean you're wrong about hell, but I'm just curious, is this unique, or are you the kind of thinker that you have a lot of things you push back on?

Chris Date:

I'm, I I wish you hadn't asked, because I don't wanna out myself. But there is one thing that I hold that is an extreme minority, and that is I'm known as a non-reductive physicalist. So I don't, I don't, I'm not an anthropological dualist. I don't think we have souls or spirits.

Sean McDowell:

Wow.

Chris Date:

I've been speaking as though we do because most Christians, including most annihilationists, do hold that view. And so I'm perfectly fine representing that view, but that's not my conviction. I'm I'm more in line with people like Joel Green at Fuller-

Sean McDowell:

Uh-huh

Chris Date:

... And others who think that we are purely physical creatures who aren't conscious while dead. And I'll admit, I'm aware of no Christians in church history who hold that, and so I'm willing to admit this is a place where I'm violating my own, my own axiom a bit.

Sean McDowell:

That-- I have so many questions about that.

Paul Copan:

[laughs]

Chris Date:

[laughs]

Sean McDowell:

That'll be

Chris Date:

That's all right

Sean McDowell:

... Follow-up conversation.

Chris Date:

For sure.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Maybe we'll

Chris Date:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Fly you down and have J.P. Moreland on this side or something and-

Chris Date:

That'd be awesome. I'd love to talk with Moreland, yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Man, that would be fascinating. I do have one question for you.

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell:

This came up a lot in the conversation that Kirk Cameron hosted-

Chris Date:

Right

Sean McDowell:

... And was one of the things that Dan just talked about as really being, a concern for him, and he's someone who also embraced-

Chris Date:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... Conditional immortality.How God can be sovereign over all peop- how God can be sovereign over all

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... If people keep sinning in hell and rejecting Him. And even D.A. Carson talked about-

Paul Copan:

Right

Sean McDowell:

... How failing to love God, which is seemingly-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... Happening in hell-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... Would be an ongoing-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... Sin. And this-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... Is what some Universalists point to, which is a separate conversation.

Paul Copan:

Sure Yeah

Sean McDowell:

But how would that square with your position?

Paul Copan:

Yeah. Well, I mean, I I do maintain that there is, again, if we take that language of conscious awareness, that there is gnashing of teeth, hostility toward God, then yes, sin would be continuing in this final state. And, so it's a matter of, well, okay, it seems that there is this ongoing conscious awareness, that God is allowing people to have their way. He's, you know, you know, showing love to them and not obliterating them, and, that this is a, you know, you know, some people say, "Well, that's not very tidy, is it?" Well, I think probably Universalism would be the most tidy position of all, in some ways, that it's all gonna be wrapped up. Everything's gonna be reconciled. But it, but it does seem to be the case that if, yeah, if you do have people who resist God, that, you know, that outside the city are people who are, opposed to the rule of God, opposed to loving God, then, yeah, that it would, that it would continue. It's just kind of an inference drawn from, you know, kinda making the sense of these texts. But you know, I mean, the, as I said, even in Revelation 20, the, there does seem to be something odd about Satan being tormented day and night forever, and that being in a sense, part of the, part of the vision, that this seems to be ongoing. And... So anyway, that, those are just some things that I would say-

Sean McDowell:

Okay

Paul Copan:

... In response. But- Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Totally fair. Good stuff. Let's go back to the students.

Chris Date:

Well, wait. Can I say one real fast thing?

Sean McDowell:

If it's fast.

Chris Date:

It's fast. All I wanna say here is I do find it interesting that often we Annihilationists are the ones who are said to be downplaying the holiness of God or something like that. But it is, we're the ones who think that God hates sin so much He will finally obliterate it, whereas the traditional view says God hates sin enough to punish it forever, but He's not gonna get rid of it. It's something to at least consider.

Sean McDowell:

Okay. Fair enough.

Chris Date:

Yeah.

Student 5:

Hi. Okay. Thanks so much for being here.

Sean McDowell:

Yeah.

Student 5:

Again, this has been so interesting. I definitely feel like I'm in a little bit over my head.

Chris Date:

We all are to some extent. [laughs]

Sean McDowell:

That's right.

Student 5:

And not a specific question on anything you have said, but just I wanna hear from both of you, as you've spent a huge part of your ministry settering, studying the doctrine of hell, why is it important for a believer to have a right theology of hell?

Sean McDowell:

Good question. Yeah. Go ahead, Chris.

Chris Date:

[sighs] I mean, if I'm being honest, I'm not convinced it is all that critical. I don't think this is a dividing line. What I do think is critical is that where we disagree, we disagree well.

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

And that's something that I think on this topic Christians have not done a great job on.

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

And that's what I think, one of the things I think Paul and I are trying to remedy. What I will say, though, is there are many Christians for whom this issue is very important. I can't count the number of people I've heard from who've said, "I was, on the way out of the faith because of the doctrine of eternal torment, and when I discovered that there's another biblically faithful view that I can hold, it's re-energized my faith." It I can't count the number of people I've heard from who've said,"I'm able to connect with my Creator in a far more intimate and deep way because I no longer have this tension between a loving God as depicted in Scripture who will supernaturally immortalize the lost so that they can suffer miserably forever." there are Christians, I'm not one of them, I'm just kind of like a robot, but there are a lot of Christians who are very emotionally affected by what they think about hell, and,

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Chris Date:

... And for them, this is a big issue. And I think that my view brings those Christians, a lot of comfort and a lot of closeness with God that they've never experienced before. On the other hand, there are people who when they find out that most-- If they become persuaded that most of church history has gotten this issue wrong, that's gonna really challenge their faith, and they're gonna be, "Well, what other things should... Abandon?" And so this is a tough question.

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

And I would just encourage people to take it slowly and carefully-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Chris Date:

... And and in community, and let the, let the evidence lead them where they, where it leads them-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm. Yeah

Chris Date:

... Wherever that may be.

Paul Copan:

Yeah. And just to add, just to add to that, I think, what you're, you know... Some people say, "Oh, that's gonna diminish people's concern about evangelism." But two leading-

Chris Date:

[laughs]

Paul Copan:

... Lights in evangelism have been John Stott and Michael Green, from England, and both very much committed to evangelism. And I think that, if you understand the, say, the obliteration of the self as something horrific and terrifying, well, you can see, you know, that the Lord, that the gospel message is to remind people you don't have to, you don't have to go that direction. You don't, you don't have to lose your personal existence. So as, you can, you can find relationship with God, union with God, and continued existence. So I think that the message of the Annihilationist in terms of the gospel, you know, there's something to be, there's something to be said there, too. So I don't think that, you know, it diminishes one's zeal for evangelism. You know, and anyway, I, We should probably go to other questions, but I just wanted

Sean McDowell:

Okay

Paul Copan:

... Wanted to add that as well. But I think it just should obviously be a place of pastoral concern, that is, whatever the final state is, you know, we want people to share in the joys of union with God rather than being, again, removed from, experiencing that.

Sean McDowell:

And you have a final section in the book where you talk about this-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... Which I think is a helpful way to wrap it up.

Paul Copan:

Yeah. Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

That's in there as well. Let's go to students.

Student 6:

My name is Jeremy, and this is a question for Paul. And thank you for being here.

Paul Copan:

Thank you.

Student 6:

But I wanted to ask on a qualitative level, do you believe the level of punishment within Annihilationism is an eclipse of God's wrath? 'Cause I think hell is a very touchy topic to think about and to talk to others, and I've, I have the conviction of not-

Sean McDowell:

Wanting to water down, the level of God's wrath. So in other words, would you agree that, even though annihilationism is, not where you hold, is it, would you agree that it's could be a full biblical view, full biblical view of, his wrath being displayed?

Paul Copan:

Yeah, I mean, I mean, I I do think that there is a connection that could be, made there, and there are, you know, again, you could go into a very lengthy conversation here about, you know, the, you know, the, you know, the Son of God, suffering. You know, what does the God forsakenness of the Son mean? I don't think there's a rift in the Trinity at all. I think it's just simply, Jesus being, blocked from having that kind of a, you know, joyful intimacy with His Father, the experience that is, that has been, that has been blunted now in this, in this condition. Some, you know, and some will argue that this is tantamount to, or is the equivalent of, you know, even though it's finite and not eternal, but it is, you know, we're talking about the the Son of God who's experiencing this. So from that angle, you'd say, yes, it is, there is a you know, you know, maybe a diminishing of that. But on the other hand, I mean, I see Chris's point, and he is certainly not one who is diminishing the holiness of God, in his view. He's simply trying, and I think both of us are trying to do this, trying to take the text seriously and say,"What does the text say, and what does this tell us about the holiness of God?" Rather than saying, "This is what I think the holiness of God is, and therefore, or what the wrath of God ought to entail, and therefore, I'm going to try to find a way of bringing this to the scripture." So I think that it's just a, kind of a fair question. How do we interpret the text, and then how do we therefore, in light of that, see, and understand the nature of God as He's revealed Himself, His holiness, His love, His wrath, and so forth?

Chris Date:

Just two fast points in following up. Number one, I think if the best place to look for the best, most full-throated, example of God pouring out His wrath would be Him pouring out His wrath on His Son in our place. And what happened to His Son on the cross? He didn't live forever in torment. He died. And so I can't possibly, I cannot relate to anyone who would say, "Well, if the wicked are just killed, that's somehow downplaying God's wrath," when the whole point, the whole, the, central focus of the biblical message is God's pouring out His wrath on sin on the, on Jesus on the cross. So that's number one. And number two, again, I think I also don't wanna downplay God's wrath, but in the utmost of respect, I don't think it's annihilationists nowadays who are doing that. I think it's tends to be people on the eternal torment side who are air-conditioning hell. Again, when you, when you got people the likes of Minutius Felix and Jonathan Edwards and others saying that the flames of hell are literal, they literally burn off the flesh of the wicked and simultaneously regenerate it for all eternity. And nowadays, you have people saying, "Well, it's like being stuck in a bar where there's only warm, flat beer forever." that's what J the guy who runs Tectonics Ministry has said. Or people-

Paul Copan:

J.P. Holding.

Chris Date:

J.P. Holding, right. Or or they'll say, "Oh, it's just sort of like an everlasting prison sentence. It's like being banished, exiled forever." Well, you know, that's kinda bad, but it doesn't sound as bad as having flames burn off your flesh and regenerate them forever.

Paul Copan:

But then there's the question, though, of, you know, how do you interpret those images?

Chris Date:

Agreed.

Paul Copan:

And they were reading them very literalistically, and I'm saying, "No, these are metaphorical." So let-- yeah, I would wanna clarify that too.

Chris Date:

Well, I agree, and my point is just that let's dispense of this fear of who's watering down hell, and let's just deal with the biblical data, you know.

Paul Copan:

Yeah We both agree on that.

Chris Date:

That's where I stand.

Sean McDowell:

Let me ask you this. One of, one of the most fascinating parts of this book to me is a response that you had that has had me thinking, and I wanna set it up in the sense that I've had multiple atheists in conversation with me say,"Why would I fear death?""I didn't exist before, and I won't exist afterwards, so there's no reason to fear death." Scriptures talk about punishment that is worse than death. Talk about your take on that in light of the comment you made at the beginning. If I heard you correctly, you said you wished you could believe in eternal conscious torment. Why would you wish that? Help

Chris Date:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... Understand and respond to that.

Chris Date:

So it's certainly the case that there is a large number of people through human history who share some variation of the sentiment that you just described. But the reality is I think most philosophers will tell you that the Epicurean endeavor was pretty much a failure. The Epicureans were trying to talk people out of their fear of death by arguing,"Hey, there's nothing to fear because after you die, you won't be here just like you weren't here before you were born." But they didn't make many converts.

Sean McDowell:

[laughs]

Chris Date:

And if you look through history, you find a maybe a minority, but a strong minority of humans who fear annihilation even more than they fear everlasting life and torment. The first-century Greek historian Plutarch said that if you were to, offer his fellow Greek countrymen the choice between eternal torment and annihilation, they would joyfully choose eternal torment. Augustine himself, in The City of God, said that if you were to offer the impenitent sinner the choice between eternal torment or being annihilated, they would, they would joyfully choose to be eternally tormented. These are, these are sentiments that I admit a lot of people can't relate to, but it's nevertheless there. Read the, read the poem "Aubade" by the 20th-century agnostic poet Philip Larkin, who goes-- he talks about his fear of death, and then he talks about people who said, "Hey, don't fear death. You just won't be around after you die." And he responds with, "You don't understand. That's precisely what I fear, no longer being, no longer experiencing, no longer loving, no longer feeling." So this is a very strong undercurrent, a current through human history, and I think what it highlights is that at the very bestThe, the the question of which is worse, which is more terrifying, is a very subjective thing. And for me, I fear annihilation more than I do eternal torment, and I would rather my lost loved ones get to live forever, albeit in some kind of misery, than be obliterated and never experience any- ever, anything ever again. And so for those reasons, and because it would make me fit better with my conservative, reformed, you know, brothers, for those reasons I could believe in eternal torment, but I had to subject my, I had to bend my knee to Scripture. I was sort of dragged by my commitment to Scripture, kicking and screaming into embracing this view.

Sean McDowell:

Why, that's so, that's so interesting. I have a million things to say about that. Any thoughts on that, Paul, how you see it? Because is it just a matter of subjective kinda takes and give and takes, or do you think there's something more to fearing eternal conscious punishment-

Chris Date:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

... When we understand... Biblically as you... That we would wanna do everything to get out of that? Yeah.

Paul Copan:

Well, it's interesting. I think, you know, of course our intuitions need to be subjected to the Scriptures, and John-... Stott is very clear on that, even though he takes the conditionalist perspective. But, you know, in our own modern world, we think of the you know, life in prison as being more compassionate than, say, capital punishment. You know, that that is, you know, you know, and some people of, you know, some people will say, "Well, you know, you know, isn't what you're saying about, say, conditionalism, you're you're saying that this is, you know, you know, that you know, taking someone's life, is actually just gonna be... Well, one, it's gonna be, you know, very severe." But I, but I think that we have in this, in our modern understanding, I'll just, maybe just go back to that, where we think that allowing people to live their days out in prison is the more compassionate way. And, yeah, I think, I just go back to the, so we could have these competing intuitions, but again, I just wanna bring us back to Scripture, that we subject those to what the Scriptures are actually saying. And so if the Scriptures are saying, you know, obliteration of one's, you know, personal identity, consciousness, and so forth, or, you know, eternal conscious punishment, well, that is, you know, well, that's just what the Scriptures say-

Sean McDowell:

Then that's worse than death

Paul Copan:

... And we need to figure

Sean McDowell:

[laughs]

Paul Copan:

And we, that we need to figure things out from there.

Sean McDowell:

Okay. Fair enough. I think you both agree on that. Let's go to one more student question.

Student 7:

Hi. Thank you guys for both being here, and all of your insights are just so interesting and I think so important for, people to hear.

Chris Date:

Thank you.

Student 7:

I do have a question about, like, how keeping the conscious mind alive is an act of love from God. I'm just, like, wrestling to grasp what that actually means. And how is, like... 'Cause in my experience from people that I've talked to about, like, where they will go after they die, they're like, "Well, I don't know what's gonna come after this, but I kind of hope that I just disappear." but if, like, how... I don't know. I just feel like people wouldn't prefer to be living in a forever torment, you know, after they die.

Sean McDowell:

I love this. Let me jump in here. So let's hold off what people would prefer, and I'm gonna have you both address it. There's a line in the book, and I'm glad you brought this up 'cause I wanted to ask this. It says, "For some, it paints God as a moral monster." And you've written the book, Is God a Moral Monster?

Paul Copan:

Indeed.

Sean McDowell:

"Who has unnecessarily created the ultimate Holocaust." So how is keeping people alive an act of God's love if love is being committed to somebody's good? And then I'm gonna ask you how it's loving to snuff somebody out at some point.

Paul Copan:

Yeah

Sean McDowell:

Yeah.

Paul Copan:

Well, I mean, I, again, I I, we have touched on this a bit, but, if God, you know, we talked about being. To have existence is a good thing. And even if it's a corrupted existence, there's still something good about having, being, having existence. And and so I would say that, you know, the, again, competing intuitions here, and subject them to Scripture.

Sean McDowell:

[laughs] Fair.

Paul Copan:

But to obliterate someone is, you know, in a very, I think, significant way, an an assault on them you know, that to to keep them alive is more an act of love. So you have to choose between the two, and there may be some conditions, where a per- you know, where, you know, so in extremis, and I know Chris is gonna, talk, bring about a science fiction, scene here. But I do think that there is

Sean McDowell:

[laughs]

Paul Copan:

... That there is a a fundamental affirmation of a person's being, of a person's, of not snuffing that person out and wishing, you know, desiring that they had been, things had been different. But, and it's sort of like the prodigal son, where you have the prodigal son who's come back home, the the destroyed son, the lost son, who comes home, and the brother is outside and doesn't wanna come in to celebrate. And, you know, again, God's not gonna hold up the party, the celebration, just because his older son is sitting out. And and so I think that there's a kind of a picture here of, yes, the Lord will let, allow us to have our own way. He will, he will allow us to have the choice that we have made to refuse communion with Him, to find happiness our way. And so there, I think that that is really what is going on here in this, in this scenario. So God doesn't snuff out.

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Paul Copan:

There is an act of, there is love that is exhibited here. God doesn't desire for any to perish, and so forth. But, anyway, and so I'll give it to you.

Sean McDowell:

So by keeping, God has made us beings with choice. By honoring that choice to reject God-

Paul Copan:

Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell:

... He loves us by keeping us alive in that rejection of Him, because that's the kind of beings we are that make choices.

Paul Copan:

Yeah.

Sean McDowell:

Okay?So let's flip that, though. How is it loving for God to do the opposite?

Chris Date:

Yeah. So Paul mentioned that I he expected me to turn to science fiction because I I love movies, I watch a lot of movies, and I point out, and TV shows, and I, and I see myriad examples in movies and in, TV where people kill people as an act of love for those people. And the example I gave, I think, last time-

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm

Chris Date:

... We talked about this was when at the end of X-Men 3, I think it... Wolverine kills Jean Grey precisely because he loves her and he wants to prevent her, or she wants to be prevented from being taken over by the Dark Phoenix that's taking her over. But that's actually not the route I'm gonna go this time. I wanna do something a little more Socratic. The guy that is believed to have executed, assassinated Charlie Kirk, who turned him in? Do you know?

Sean McDowell:

His dad, right?

Chris Date:

And what do you think they expected is likely to happen to their son if he's found guilty for assassinating Charlie?

Sean McDowell:

Yeah, death penalty, right?

Chris Date:

Do you think that they, do you think that there was a, that it was unloving of them to turn their son in to, face justice, knowing that he'd probably be killed?

Sean McDowell:

That's a great question.

Chris Date:

I think it is a good question. Now, here's the reason I bring this. J.P. Moreland, whom you mentioned earlier-

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm

Chris Date:

... He's defended the death penalty precisely on the grounds that there, that there's almost no greater dignity you could show a person than by allowing them to face the consequences for their actions, the just penalty for their actions. And if an action, if a crime, if sin merits death, then giving the death penalty to people to, who choose to do it is an act of upholding their dignity, showing them the dignity, the value that they have as free agents.

Sean McDowell:

Okay.

Chris Date:

So I just, agree with J.P. Moreland that the death penalty-

Sean McDowell:

That's interesting, yeah

Chris Date:

... Isn't necessarily an act of, you know, a failure to uphold dignity or to show love.

Sean McDowell:

Yeah I suppose the comeback would be, you know, it's not the the obliteration of their existence either

Chris Date:

That's fair

Sean McDowell:

... So there are these other it, neu- nuances and levels that we could go into and such.

Chris Date:

That's for sure.

Sean McDowell:

But yeah. Those are both great questions, but I do have to say this is the first show I've done where one of my guests has quoted superheroes more than I did.

Chris Date:

[laughs]

Sean McDowell:

So big time kudos on that.

Chris Date:

Thanks.

Sean McDowell:

You brought Thanos into this. You brought X-Men 3 into this.

Chris Date:

You started with-

Sean McDowell:

Man

Chris Date:

... Pirates of the Caribbean, though, and I've been dying-

Sean McDowell:

Which is not a superhero movie.

Chris Date:

Well, that's fair.

Sean McDowell:

But maybe we could... Oh, I thought you were just gonna debate for the sake of fun. All right, good.

Chris Date:

[laughs]

Sean McDowell:

We have common ground on that one.

Paul Copan:

[laughs]

Sean McDowell:

I expected that one to come. All right. There is a ton more that we could, we could say here. Let me, let me, let me end with this question. I want both of you to weigh in here. One of the things that I feared about this conversation, having this conversation, and one of the students earlier echoed this, is that people would walk away and say, "I'm more confused than when I started," and actually less clarity on what view they should have. So what encouragement would you give to people watching this saying, "I just spent two hours here trying to land this plane. Now I've got more questions. What's next?" Why don't you give your thoughts, Chris, and then Paul, wrap us up.

Chris Date:

I think we as Christians need to be more comfortable with not having all the answers right away.

Sean McDowell:

Amen.

Chris Date:

I the whole all of church history is a record of Christians trying to work together, digging into God's Word, listening to the Holy Spirit, and trying to come to the truth together on a whole host of issues.

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

And yeah, I agree that if you've been raised to believe that the only view of hell is this eternal conscious torment view, and all of a sudden somebody like me comes around and says what at least on the surface sound like they're pretty compelling, it's gonna leave people confused. But part of that's just because they've only been exposed to one strain of thought on this topic.

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

If they were to hear a conversation between, say, a Calvinist and an Arminian, and they're already familiar with that debate, that's not gonna leave them, you know, scared and confused. They're gonna be like,"Oh, this here, this is an interesting conversation. I wanna be a part of this." And that's what I want, is I want to encourage people to say, "I don't have to land immediately on an answer to this question. I can take my time. I can, talk to other believers, and we can wrestle together and sharpen each other's iron." I think that's beautiful. I think it's beautiful when God's people disagree in a way that honors their Lord-

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm

Chris Date:

... Which is exactly what we're doing here.

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm mm-hmm.

Chris Date:

And I think, I think if people can see the beauty in that-

Sean McDowell:

Mm-hmm

Chris Date:

... And find comfort in being able to not have hard and fast answers right away for some time, I think it'll resolve that concern.

Sean McDowell:

Yeah

Paul Copan:

And I certainly would echo that, call for all of us to engage in a kind of theological hospitality-

Chris Date:

Amen

Paul Copan:

... Where we welcome that kind of conversation. We want to have iron sharpening iron. And I think what this is illustrating is that, Chris has ably defended his view, and, you know, whatever the people think of mine.

Chris Date:

[laughs]

Paul Copan:

But but I think that it illustrates that we're not dealing with heresies. We're dealing with people who are committed to the Scriptures, really searching the Scriptures, people who, like Chris, had thought differently, but his mind was changed by examining the Scriptures. And this is really the spirit of the Bereans, of searching the Scriptures daily to see what Paul was saying was so, and we all ought to cultivate that same sort of a spirit. So rather than having that knee-jerk reaction, that kind of a, negativity, which again has come through, you know, in the conversation with Kurt Cameron, a lot of people just, vilifying him and vilifying, you know, Gavin Ortlund and me for being part of that conversation.

Sean McDowell:

Really?

Paul Copan:

Yeah, just, some kind of like-

Sean McDowell:

Oh, my goodness. Are you serious?

Paul Copan:

... Like we're compromising, that we're-

Sean McDowell:

I'm glad I passed, then. [laughs]

Chris Date:

[laughs]

Paul Copan:

That, you know, that we're kind of, you know, that we're, engaging with heretics and and treating them on an level playing field. And I think this sort of a conversation illustrates that we are, about looking at the Scriptures and seeing what fits best with what God, how God has revealed Himself in those Scriptures, and that we need to understand that, you know, you know, tradition, as helpful as that is, as how much it shapes us and so forth, we always ought to be, revisiting the Scriptures and saying, "Is this, you know, I've been holding this. Is that actually, true?" And so I think this conversation hopefully illustrates the importance of going back, not being, having those knee-jerk reactions, but but engaging in theological hospitality, in searching the Scriptures together.

Sean McDowell:

Love it. This has been, eye-opening. Flew by to me. It went by fast.

Chris Date:

Oh, yeah.

Paul Copan:

Fast, yeah.

Sean McDowell:

I thoroughly enjoyed this. You guys have made your case, and you said at the beginning, you're like, you know, "Gauge the conversation with Kurt Cameron. Was it done in a respectful fashion? I wouldn't have brought the two of you here if I didn't think we'd have the same kind of conversation." You both modeled that well. By the way, for people listening and watching, I'm gonna go live Tuesday with at least one or two Talbot professors to get their reaction. And as you can tell from the questions in the audience, Talbot professors will hold the traditional-

Chris Date:

[laughs]

Sean McDowell:

... View. Most of our students do, although there might be more variety than I'm aware of. I have no idea, actually, what our students hold on this one, interestingly enough. So we'll come back. We'll give everyone... Wait, make sure you join us. It'll be Tuesday at 4-30 Pacific Standard Time for about an hour. We'll get some theology professors on here to give their two cents. You can also email questions in to questions@seanmcdowell.org and just put revelation or something or put one of these passages or hell, and we'll do our best to get to some of those. If you're watching or listening, make sure you hit subscribe, and please let us know. This is a much longer conversation than we've often had on this channel. There's probably a little bit more depth, nuancing a lot of things than we typically do. Let me know if this is helpful and if you want more conversations like this in person and what topics you would want us to discuss. Thanks for listening and tuning in, and thanks to our students for joining us. We'll see you Tuesday. [outro music]