Buy me a coffeeBuy me a coffee

Support via Patreon | Subscribe


Header Image: The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by John Martin (1852)

I know this is quite a divisive topic, and one you may have come across before (sometimes referred to as “Annihilationism”); and have been told outright that it’s “heresy” or false, or that it’s an emotional argument people want to believe because it ‘sounds nicer’ than the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT). Or maybe you’ve never even heard of this before and you didn’t realise there were alternative interpretations and views on hell.

Any discussion on “hell” is going to cover a lot of ground, and refer to many, many places throughout Scripture; so with that said, this will be a long one, so get comfy! I will do this in two parts as it will become too lengthy for one blog post.

This article will just focus on the Scriptural basis for the position of Annihilationism, as opposed to ECT, but to begin with I’ll define some terms as words like “hell” have become quite loaded with extra and unbiblical meaning over the centuries.

What is hell, anyway?


If you read through the Old and New Testament in older translations like the KJV, you’ll see the word “hell” a lot more often than in more recent Bible translations, which will most likely transliterate the Greek words instead. Not all the words get this treatment, and some still get presented as the word hell in English, for example, the NIV and NRSV will convert the word Gehenna into “hell”, but keep the Greek word Hades as-is (see: Matt. 5:22; 11:23).

The etymology of “hell” and its origins and how it became the word we know today in English, would take more time than I have space for here, but in short, there are three main Greek words which often get translated as the word “hell”, even though they are each different words with different underlying meanings:

  • Gehenna
    Literally means “valley of Hinnom”, which is a place near Jerusalem where children were once sacrificed to Baal (see Jer. 19:5–6). Due to its history, it took on a more eschatological/spiritual meaning as a place of judgement and destruction.
  • Hades (Sheol)
    This is the Greek form of the Hebrew Sheol found in the Old Testament, usually (and properly) translated as “grave”, or meaning the general place of the dead (similar to the place of the same name in Greek mythology).
  • Tartarus
    This only appears once in the New Testament in 2 Peter 2:4 and is used in relation to the angels who sinned and were put in chains. Interestingly, it’s another word borrowed from Greek mythology, for the prison where the Titans were sent as punishment.

If you are interested in how we got the word “hell” in our English language, and more importantly, into our Bibles, I highly recommend that you read this study: The Real Hell.

A Case for Conditional Immortality (aka Annihilationism)

We are often taught that our souls, human souls, are inherently immortal. But where does this idea come from, because it’s never actually stated in Scripture that this is so. This is an Hellenistic philosophical assumption brought into the text (mainly from Plato’s influence) which can taint our interpretations. If we look at 1 Timothy 6:16 we can see that it is God alone who is immortal:

It is he [God] alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see; to him be honour and eternal dominion. Amen.

Any other mention of immortality or eternal life is only ever spoken of as a gift given to us by Jesus, and is often contrasted with the alternative: death, perishing and/or destruction.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
2 Timothy 1:10
…but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
John 10:28; 17:2
I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. […] since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
1 John 5:12
Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

See also the many other times the New Testament authors speak of this as a gift: John 3:16,36; Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:42–43; 50, 54; Gal. 6:8. We also see from Hebrews 1:3 that Christ “sustains all things by his powerful word”, so even if the soul survives death, it would only be because God willed it to be so for his purpose of judgement. There’s nothing to suggest immortality (or even life in general) is inherent in anyone other than God unless it is given or sustained by him.

Destruction and Annihilation

This then leads us to the other side of the coin — death and destruction of the wicked. Throughout the Bible the way of salvation and following God is always presented as a choice between life and death; eternal life with God, or destruction and perishing. Both of these consequences for our choices are eternal as well, but it’s the how of it which is the key factor here.

In the first verse below which renders the Greek as “hell”, I’ll put in brackets the underlying word for clarity, which you can contrast with the previous section where I discussed these words. This Matthew passage is especially important in this discussion as it is where Jesus makes a strong point that what humans can do to one another (ie. kill the physical part), God can do to the spiritual part. A similar message is taught by James in his epistle (Jam. 4:12).

Matthew 10:28
Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna).

It’s also interesting to note that in this next Galatians verse, the word rendered “corruption” in the NRSV, is translated as “destruction” in the NIV and others. Looking at the Greek word φθορά (phthora) it can mean ‘destruction, corruption, perish’, all of which still speak to the finality of the fate of the wicked.

Galatians 6:8
If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit.

The following verses use the word “destruction”, which is an accurate rendering and a different word from the Galatians verse, all of which come from same Greek word ἀπώλεια (apóleia) that can be defined as: destroying, utter destruction, a perishing, ruin, destruction.

Romans 9:22
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction…
Philippians 3:18–19
For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears. Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things.
1 Thessalonians 5:3
When they say, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape!
2 Peter 3:7
But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of the godless.

As you can see from these few examples, there is a pretty uniform semantic range here, which in any other context would mean what it says without any implication of ‘unending pain and torment’ which is often read into the text; and shows that the fate of the wicked is consistent in the New Testament as it is in the Old. See Psalm 92:7 for one (of many) examples which speaks of evil people being condemned to “destruction forever”, rather than them in a constant state of being destroyed continuously forever, as the ECT doctrine would suggest.

It’s also interesting to note that the contemporary usage of this particular Greek word in various non-Biblical texts uses it in the same face-value meaning of the word (i.e. being completely destroyed), and some translations even rendering the word in English as “annihilation”, as in the quote below:

Elsewhere in Greece, as people learned the seriousness of the danger hanging over the Thebans, they were distressed at their expected disaster but had no heart to help them, feeling that the city by precipitate and ill-considered action had consigned itself to evident annihilation (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 17.10.1 — emphasis mine)

See the other examples of the word usage in: Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 14.28.2; Galen, De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis, 7.4.17; Philo of Alexandria, Legatio ad Gaium, 233; Josephus, Bellum Judaicum, 5.559–560; and 1 Maccabees 3:42. This in itself should display the normal usage and understanding of this word around and during the first century. If something is destroyed, it’s gone.

The Eternal and Unquenchable Fire

Other than destruction, Scripture has references to an “unquenchable fire” and “undying worm” throughout the Old Testament as well. If looked at in context, this becomes clear that it is speaking about the finality of judgement, and not its duration; see: Isa. 66:24; 2 Kings 22:17; 1:31; 51:8; Jer. 4:4; 7:20; 21:12; Ezek. 20:47–48. Looking closely at these passages, we can see that the fire is “unquenchable” and the worm “undying” in the sense that nothing and nobody can stop the process before it’s achieved its purpose of destruction and consuming — but the object in the fire doesn’t last forever, only until it is destroyed or dead.

The idea of an eternal fire doesn’t originate with Jesus, as we see from the verses above, so clearly the imagery is being drawn from the Old Testament and its usage in those texts, and is then applied in the new covenant Kingdom context (eg: “It is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into the eternal fire.” Matt 18:8).

This phrase is not only restricted to the Gospels, though; Jude and Peter shed light on the meaning of the eternal fire and the punishment of the ungodly:

Jude 1:7
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
2 Peter 2:6
…and if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example of what is coming to the ungodly

Here we can employ the principle of letting Scripture interpret Scripture. Jude says that Sodom and Gomorrah underwent the punishment of “eternal fire” in their destruction, and yet, that fire isn’t burning anymore. Likewise, Peter says that the reduction of Sodom and Gomorrah to “ashes”, and condemnation “to extinction”, is an example of what is coming to the ungodly in the final judgement. These two passages alone give a pretty clear demonstration that eternal fire and complete extinction go hand-in-hand within the judgement of God.

Just when this concept was beginning to become a little clearer, Isaiah throws another spanner in the works when he speaks of the “devouring fire” and “everlasting flames” and those who are to be burned in the fire;

Isaiah 33:12, 14–15
And the peoples will be as if burned to lime,
 like thorns cut down, that are burned in the fire.
The sinners in Zion are afraid;
 trembling has seized the godless:
“Who among us can live with the devouring fire?
 Who among us can live with everlasting flames?”
Those who walk righteously and speak uprightly,
 who despise the gain of oppression,
who wave away a bribe instead of accepting it,
 who stop their ears from hearing of bloodshed
and shut their eyes from looking on evil…

The phrase translated “everlasting flames” in the Septuagint (LXX) is very similar to the phrase “eternal fire” in the New Testament. But here we see that it is God himself who is the fire, and the righteous are able to dwell within the eternal fire, whereas the wicked are burned up like discarded thorns and chaff.

Wheat, Chaff and Gnashing Teeth

This leads us nicely to the final point I want to make in this post. There’s still much more that can be covered, but I will leave that for a second part as this is already getting pretty long and heavy!


Jesus also uses images like chaff in a furnace or the destruction of body and soul. His parable in Matthew 13 foretells a day when the wicked will be cast into a fiery furnace like chaff (which has echoes of that Isaiah passage above), where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth”.

It is often assumed that weeping and gnashing of teeth refers to pain and torment, which seems logical and understandable, but that’s not how either of those figures of speech are used in the Old Testament. Instead, they are phrases speaking of mourning and anger:

Job 16:9
He has torn me in his wrath, and hated me;
he has gnashed his teeth at me;
my adversary sharpens his eyes against me.
Psalm 35:16
…they impiously mocked more and more, gnashing at me with their teeth.
Psalm 112:10
The wicked see it and are angry; they gnash their teeth and melt away; the desire of the wicked comes to nothing.
Lamentations 2:16
All your enemies open their mouths against you; they hiss, they gnash their teeth, they cry: “We have devoured her! Ah, this is the day we longed for; at last we have seen it!”

Notice how gnashing, anger and despair are linked together throughout these verses. Contrast this with how Jesus uses the phrase in his parables and teaching on those who will be locked or thrown outside of the Kingdom, and it becomes clearer that this is a figure of speech displaying the anger of those people who aren’t allowed in, rather than any physical torment or fire put on them;

Luke 13:28
There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrown out.

After analysing these texts, phrases and the underlying Greek words, I find it just threads everything together and keeps the whole of Scripture consistent in the message of the Gospel: turn to God and have life, else go your own way in sin and end up with its wages: death. All of the times where Scripture speaks of the end result for the ungodly and wicked, their end is destruction, fire and ashes, not a continual life of torment forever. These ideas must be read into the text if we aren’t going to take what it says at face-value (or the “plain meaning”).

The Early Church


If we can accept that this view of Scripture is accurate, and that the Bible doesn’t say that humans are inherently immortal, then logically it should follow that the earliest teachers of Scripture, after the Apostles, should have said the same, or similar, following their forebears.

Clement of Rome, one of the earliest Church Fathers writing somewhere between AD 30–100, wrote about the punishment of God on the unrighteous in terms of death and perishing; he even uses a phrase similar to a Pauline term found in 2 Thess. 2:8 (“The Lord Jesus will destroy him with the breath of His mouth”):

Because they could furnish no assistance to themselves, they perished. He breathed upon them, and they died, because they had no wisdom. […] for wrath destroys the foolish man, and envy killeth him that is in error.
— Clement of Rome, 1 Clement, chap. 39

Ignatius of Antioch, another early bishop, writing around AD 107, sent a letter to the Ephesian church to teach against heresy. He used similar language found in the Biblical texts of “everlasting fire”, but also speaks in such a way that suggests the wicked will “perish” if they haven’t received the immortality which Christ breathed into his Church:

[False teachers] shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him. […] For this end did the Lord suffer the ointment to be poured upon His head, that He might breathe immortality into His Church. […] Why do we foolishly perish, not recognising the gift which the Lord has of a truth sent to us?
— Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Ephesians, chaps. 16–17

Similarly, in his epistle to the Magnesian church, Ignatius makes the claim that if Jesus were to “reward us according to our works, we should cease to be”! Though he doesn’t elaborate on this point, it squares with the New Testament message that the “wages of sin is death”.


Written around the same time as Ignatius, was the Epistle of Barnabas, who, in his conclusion, states that: “For the day is at hand on which all things shall perish with the evil [one].”. This would even imply that the devil will eventually perish as well, along with everything that doesn’t belong to the Lord.

A little later on from these text around AD 130, the anonymous Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus gives a similar interpretation that “death” truly means death and that the fire consumes those in it “even to the end”, implying the condemned survive long enough to be punished, but will eventually be consumed by the fire:

…when thou shalt despise that which is here esteemed to be death, when thou shalt fear what is truly death, which is reserved for those who shall be condemned to the eternal fire, which shall afflict those even to the end that are committed to it.
— Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chap. 10

So we see that even the earliest writers seemed to keep within the biblical tradition of speaking about death and perishing as being the final end to those who turn from God or do evil. It’s later on, towards the end of the second century that we really begin to see a shift in interpretation of the fire being more of an eternal torture chamber rather than a furnace.

To Be Continued…

I will continue with this exposition on the fate of the wicked in a second part soon, where I’ll examine more of the Old Testament usage of “unquenchable fire” and also the references we find in the book of Revelation.


I hope that you have found this study edifying, useful and eye-opening; or maybe it’s given you more questions than answers! Whichever the case, please leave a comment below and let me know your thoughts.

Further Reading/Sources

Contribute on Patreon

Enjoying this? Consider contributing regular gifts for this content on Patreon.
* Patreon is a way to join your favorite creator's community and pay them for making the stuff you love. You can simply pay a few pounds per month or per post that a creator makes, and in return receive some perks!

Subscribe to Updates
Order my new book today from Amazon or

Subscribe to:

Have something to say? Leave a comment below.

Leave a comment   Like   Back to Top   Seen 800 times   Liked 2 times

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates and join over 163 subscribers today!

Order my new book today from Amazon or

Subscribe to Blog updates

Enter your email address to be notified of new posts:

Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS RSS

‹ Return to Blog

All email subscriptions must be confirmed to comply with GDPR.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

Does Easter Have Pagan Origins?

| 22nd March 2021 | Easter

Does Easter Have Pagan Origins?

Much like any major Christian holiday, there are the usual arguments and accusations about how it’s all just pagan festivities with a “Christian mask”. Easter is no different, and usually gets hit the hardest over its so-called “pagan roots”, or in the month or so preceding it, Lent being some “invention of the Catholic Church”. Table of Contents The Lenten Fast The Easter controversy and why we celebrate it when we do Is the Name “Easter” really the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre? Chocolate eggs and bunnies? Concluding Thoughts Further Reading and Sources I like to try and observe Lent, as it is one of the most ancient customs in the Church, which led me to researching its origins, along with the Easter celebration, to see where they have their basis. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that much of the accusations against Easter and Lent as “pagan” are either fabricated or is just misinformation. So let’s examine the different aspects of Easter to see how we got from Passover to resurrection, to little bunnies and chocolate eggs! The Lenten Fast A forty day fast prior to Easter has been a long established practice within the Church dating back to possibly within the first century. This is well established from ancient letters we still have available, such as from Irenaeus in the second century: For some consider themselves bound to fast one day, others two days, others still more. In fact, others fast forty days … And this variety among observers [of the fasts] did not have its origin in our time, but long before in that of our predecessors.–Irenaeus (c.180) Notice here that Irenaeus mentions that this was a practice passed onto them by their “predecessors”, a term often used in conjunction with the Apostles themselves, or those who immediately came after them, putting the origins of this Lenten fast much earlier than when Irenaeus wrote in 180, and also possibly having Apostolic origin. The Easter controversy and why we celebrate it when we do Back in the days of the early church, there arose a controversy around the celebration of Easter (or “pascha” as it was known then). But no, before your imagination runs wild, it wasn’t quite as exciting as it sounds and still had nothing to do with “paganism”. The dispute was over which day to hold the festival! Yep, the controversy really is as mundane as that. In fact, it was one of the issues raised at the council of Nicea to be discussed and hopefully settled, and is officially known as the Quartodeciman (lit. Fourteenth) controversy/dispute. It’s called this due to the issue being over whether the Easter celebration should follow the Jewish pattern of Passover on the 14 Nisan or not and simply follow the days of the week (Friday and Sunday). It became a bigger issue when the not only the Jewish community of believers wanted to follow this method, but when the Gentile Asian communities also claimed that their Quartodeciman practice was of Apostolic origin! It was a disciple of John the Apostle, and bishop of Smyrna, called Polycarp (c.69–c.155) who followed this practice in one of the seven churches of Asia as well as Melito, bishop of Sardis (died c.180). Irenaeus tells us that, in his old age, Polycarp visited the bishop of Rome to discuss this matter with him as the Roman church had diverged from the Quartodeciman custom and celebrated the resurrection according to the day Jesus rose instead: Sunday (the first day of the week). We gain an important glimpse about this whole dispute from Irenaeus though, when he tells us of the meeting between Polycarp and Anicetus: Neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him. … And they parted from each...

BOOK REVIEW: Four Views on Hell 2nd edition

| 17th March 2021 | Book Review

BOOK REVIEW: Four Views on Hell 2nd edition

This is a guest post by David Jakubovic. The views are that of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of That Ancient Faith. A 20 year update of the 1996 book by the same name, this slim volume (211 pages) is a helpful cross-section of current evangelical thought on Final Punishment, sampling Denny Burk on Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT hereafter), John Stackhouse Jr on Conditional immortality (CI hereafter), Robin Parry on Christian Universalism (CU hereafter) and Jerry Walls on (a Protestant) Purgatory. Preston Sprinkle pens both Introduction and Conclusion, plus there are Scripture, Author and Subject indices. The Introduction sets the scene, listing the 3 historically available views along with speculation about post-mortem purgatorial sanctification, before clarifying that it is not the existence of hell that is here in doubt: “They agree that hell exists, but they differ on what this hell is like.” (11) Sprinkle lists verses used by all 4 views, then introduces the academic background of the 4 essayists. He finally issues a substantial challenge to the reader: “You, of course, will probably agree with only one of the following essays and disagree with the other three. But keep in mind: disagreement is not refutation. We must be able to refute the evidence of the views that we disagree with and then provide more compelling biblical evidence for the view that we uphold.” (15) Burk kicks off Chapter One (‘Eternal Conscious Torment’) with a startling parable. He visualizes a man torturing creatures in increasing order of complexity and dignity: first torturing a grasshopper, a frog, a bird, a puppy and finally a human baby. Burk states: “In each of the scenarios above, the ‘sin’ is the same – pulling the legs off. The only difference in each of these scenarios is the one sinned against…The seriousness of the sin is not measured merely by the sin itself (pulling off the legs) but by the value and the worth of the one being sinned against.” (19, italics his) This macabre thought-experiment is of course a gruesome version of Anselm’s ‘Status Principle’, namely that to sin against an infinitely good God merits infinite or eternal punishment. But fellow pro-ECT essayist Walls squashes this analogy: “There is profound disanalogy in the parable that undermines the central point he wants to establish. This resides in the fact that we do not have the power to do anything to God that is remotely analogous to the harm the character in the parable inflicts on helpless creatures ranging from grasshoppers to human infants. Indeed, God is so far above us in power, glory, and moral perfection that we are utterly incapable of harming him.”1 Burk even ventures that ECT “will ultimately become a source of joy and praise for the saints as they witness the infinite goodness and justice of God.” (20) Yet it is grossly incongruous to place ECT side by side with notions of ‘joy’, ‘goodness’ or ‘justice’ as these are universally understood. The very philosophical logic behind the ‘Status Principle’ is itself highly suspect, as Kronen points out when dismantling the ‘Classical Doctrine of Hell’ (CDH): “It is by no means obvious that an offense against an infinite being must be punished by the sorts of torments envisioned by CDH. One might sin more or less gravely against such a being, and in that case it does not seem that just any sin against an infinite being would merit eternal, continuous, and excruciating pain.”2 Spiegel adds that “human guilt is at most maximally great, not infinitely great”3, meaning that human guilt is still finite: “Finite guilt, however great, presumably does not warrant endless punishment in the form of ECT.” (Spiegel, op. cit. 41) He adds that, under the ‘Status Principle’, even the first sin you commit as a child is enough to incur ‘infinite guilt’, but this does not allow for the vast spectrum of p...

What does the word "Catholic" mean?

| 08th March 2021 | Etymology

What does the word "Catholic" mean?

For many people today, non-Christians and (low church) Christians alike, when they hear the word “Catholic”, certain images spring to mind: the Pope, the rosery, Catholic school, big old churches buildings, choirboys, maybe monks or statues of Mary even; and sadly more recently, sex abuse scandals. But generally speaking, all of these are actually aspects of Roman Catholicism — a particular branch of Christianity, and not what the word “catholic” truly means as we’ll see when examining how the early church used the word and what the original Greek word means. καθολικός (katholikos) The Greek word where we get the English word “catholic” from is καθολικός (katholikos) meaning “universal”, which comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning “on the whole”, “according to the whole” or “in general” (catholicus in Latin). In non-ecclesiastical use, it still retained its root meaning in English in some literature from the 1800s, though that usage has fallen out of common use in modern times. The first reference to this word can be found in Acts 9:31 when speaking about “the church throughout [all] Judea, Galilee, and Samaria...”. The words “throughout” and “all” are καθ (κατά) and ὅλης (ὅλος) respectively in Greek, which together come to form the word καθολικός. The earliest historical use of the word in the context of the Church can be found in one of the letters of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written around AD 107, where he writes: Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. From here on we begin to see that the word catholic was used in reference to mean “orthodoxy” (the word “orthodox” means “right belief”) as opposed to the non-orthodox heretics who were then by definition not catholic as they were not ‘according to the whole’ which was, as Jude wrote, “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). The Catholic Church, in its original and Apostolic sense, would have meant the entirety of the Body of Christ across the world; i.e. all of the believers wherever they may be, rather than it being “universal” in the physical sense that the institution of “church” should be all encompassing (like as an official, global institution that all must attend). The difference may be subtle, but it’s an important one. Historical Use of the Term As we saw above, Ignatius was the earliest Christian writer we have who applied the word katholikos to the Church. Some people object to using Ignatius as evidence of this, as some of the letters attributed to him are considered spurious (not authentic), though scholarly opinion on this is pretty universal in which are genuine letters as neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes any reference to the eight spurious epistles. Justo L. Gonzalez explains in his book, The Story of Christianity: Volume 1: The Early Church to the Reformation, Volume One: The original meaning of Catholic church referred to this episcopal collegiality, as well as with the multiform witness to the gospel in several canonical gospels. … It was the church “according to the whole,” that is, according to the total witness of all the apostles and all the evangelists. The various Gnostic groups were not “Catholic” because they could not claim this broad foundation. … Only the Church Catholic, the church “according to the whole,” could lay claim to the entire apostolic witness. (pp.81,82). The other early uses that appear after Ignatius are in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (around AD 150), “…and to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place…”, and then also in the earliest New Testament list from around AD 177, the Muratorian fragment the phrase is found three times: “…in the esteem of the Church catholic …...

Is The Rapture Biblical?

| 21st September 2020 | Eschatology

Is The Rapture Biblical?

Most people have some idea about what the rapture is – or do they? Generally there is an idea or concept of a form of escapism from the world when Jesus returns, which happens pre, mid or post tribulation and in some connection to the millenium. Now, if you understood any of those terms, you are most likely on, or aware of, the Dispensationalism side of things. There’s a lot of doctrine all bundled together in “end times” beliefs, and a fair bit of speculation around “the rapture” with its timing and logistics etc. which makes the whole thing a but murky, but nonetheless, it’s pretty much taken for granted as a staple belief within the Evangelical world. But has this always been so, and does it have any biblical basis? In short: sort of. What is The Rapture? This is the primary verse where the doctrine finds its footing: …then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. — 1 Thessalonians 4:17 On the face of it, that is a pretty obscure (and short) text, yet so much has been written on and speculated about around this event.  I’m not going to cover every aspect of rapture doctrine here, but rather want to just highlight the context of this verse and its parallels in Paul’s other letters, as this seems to get lost under centuries of doctrinal baggage, which, incidentally, also the leads to the next point to look at: is the rapture biblical? The origin of The Rapture The word “rapture” itself comes from the Latin word rapere, which means: “to seize” or “to abduct”. It is a translation from the Greek word that is rendered as “caught up” (ἁρπάζω / harpázō) in our English Bibles today. For many, asking if this belief is biblical is a non-starter because it is assumed so based on 1 Thess. 4 so obviously it is. But this is a presupposition, reading the modern ideas of what “the rapture” means into the text. The modern idea being that Jesus comes back briefly (and maybe secretly), whooses all the Christians into the sky and takes them to heaven, away from all the troubles on the earth, before coming back later to do a proper “second coming”. John Nelson Darby, a 19th-century theologian, is often credited with creating this premillennial rapture doctrine, followed closely by C.I. Scofield who wrote a best-selling annotated Bible which promoted Darby’s rapture views in its footnote commentary. This particular Bible became wildly popular across America in the early 1900s and ended up solidifying the futurist dispensational viewpoint for generations to come within Evangelicalism. Despite the popularity of Scofield’s Bible, what it (and Darby) taught was a novel idea which had not been seen nor heard of before in the previous 1800 years of Church History, yet many Christians accepted it without hesitation, likely due to it being part of the exposition alongside the Scripture they were reading, and therefore a seeming authority. I realise there is somewhat of an irony here in that I’m acting similarly like an authority telling you that this belief is wrong whereas Scofield was writing as though it were accurate, but in an even more ironic twist, just a handful of verses later, the same letter to the Thessalonians says to “test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). This is what I would invite you to do: don’t just take my word for it, test everything and see if what I say is accurate. The context of The Rapture So what is the context of these verses, if not about being whisked away into the sky with Jesus? A couple of things, but one slightly more obvious than the other, though still overlooked by people, I’ve noticed; the other requires knowing some more about the ancient Greco-Roman culture of the time. Firstly, we only need go back a few verses to see what Paul is writing about here: he begins the passage in verse 13 by say...