A More Merciful God

Solid factual support for the traditional view of eternal suffering in Hell is not found in Scripture. So where does the idea come from, and why then is it taught? It seems to have three lifelines. One is tradition itself. It’s an incredibly strong force, and challenging tradition is difficult, so it often goes undone. The second line of support is created by inappropriate interpretations of approximately 10 verses of Scripture (a few more if you consider repetition of similar themes or duplicate accounts within the gospels). In the case of some of these verses, it’s a stretched meaning that causes the error – reading more into the verse than is really there. With other passages, tradition overrides simple logic, and the traditional interpretation is the exact opposite of what a passage seems to be clearly stating. We’ll carefully examine all of those mainstay verses in Chapter 4, and find biblically coherent meanings of them which have nothing to do with eternal suffering.

This chapter’s focus is the third line of support for the traditional position. It’s the erroneous idea that every soul already has immortality. If this were true, it might be a logical conclusion that every soul must then exist somewhere for all eternity — those who’ve rejected salvation spending it tormented. But this is found nowhere in Scripture, yet it’s the common teaching concerning our soul nature, not only in Christianity, but virtually every faith in the world, which should give Christians pause when considering its validity. Instead, this fact that it’s an accepted doctrine across many religions has often been presented as evidence of its truth. So we Christians reject every other aspect of some other religion’s theology, but their belief that all souls are immortal and eternal is evidence that it’s true?
The desire for eternal life is something that God put within mankind. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us that God set eternity in our hearts (which is different from creating our souls to be immortal). But the feeling that we almost deserve an eternal life, and the idea that eternal existence is simply a given is not from God. We deserve death, and that’s where we’re headed without salvation through Jesus Christ.

Others have done the historical research and shown how this idea of innate immortality came from pagan culture. I don’t completely agree with every conclusion of conditionalist Edward Fudge regarding final judgment, but I’d recommend reading any of his books about this topic. I haven’t read most of his work, but I read Two Views of Hell wherein he debated traditionalist Robert Peterson and I found his section on the history of the doctrine of immortality enlightening and informative. But even if we can nail down which pagan philosophers and Church “fathers” made the idea popular, ultimately it’s satanic at its core – one of the Enemy’s many attempts to create confusion about who God is. Now, in no way am I implying that individuals in the Christian world who teach the traditional view are satanic. Well-meaning people have fallen prey to the doctrine and are only doing what they believe they’re supposed to be doing when they share it — Just wanted to clarify that.

Here’s an example of how the idea of universal immortality is usually presented in the Christian world:

“Precious one, what you and I need to know and understand is that once we are born we are eternal beings. We’re going to live for all eternity in one place or the other. We’re either going to live in the presence of God and enjoy eternal life, or we’re going to live in the presence of the devil and his angels and we’re going to suffer the torment of eternal punishment” -Kay Arthur (italics mine)

This quote is from several years ago when I was in the first year or two of this study. Arthur made this statement during one of her broadcasts of her Precepts for Life program. She went on to claim that if we don’t believe this, it’s because we have not read the Bible, have not read the whole council of God, and have not honored His precepts for life, nor esteemed His Word. I can’t speak for anyone except myself, but I love and highly esteem the Bible, yet completely disagree with her premise that all people are already eternal beings. And the word “torment” is never connected with the idea of an “eternal punishment” anywhere in Scripture.

I listen to or watch Kay Arthur on television from time to time, and for the most part she’s a fine Bible teacher; I’ve learned a lot from her, and I certainly don’t mean to single her out. They all do this. Another of my favorite preachers, Jack Graham, stated more recently: “That’s what Hell is: To live eternally, without God.” (italics for emphasis). David Jeremiah (and I really like him too, by the way) put it this way on one of his Turning Points radio broadcasts: “I got news for ya folks. Everyone is going to live forever. It’s just a matter of location.” Are you noticing a theme? All their statements fall right in line with the common thinking and teaching within Christianity on the matter, and it really is at the core of the problem of teaching the eternal suffering of the lost. Contrary to strong statements in Scripture, our favorite Bible teachers are telling us that everyone is going to live forever. If unbelievers did in fact exist forever as traditionalists claim, then they must be somewhere, and since we know from Scripture a day is coming when they’re cast into the Lake of Fire at final judgment, it would be reasonable to assume this would be their eternal home…IF all souls were already immortal and not destined for destruction. But all who reject salvation are in fact destined for destruction, and we’ll see in this chapter that Scripture never makes the statement that all souls are immortal from conception.

Arthur offered no Scriptural support for her claim of human immortality, as most who teach this won’t — at least not during that particular broadcast, she didn’t. The idea of the innate immortality of all souls is such a foregone conclusion, most teachers feel it’s unnecessary and throw that idea around freely. So it’s stated as fact, but rarely supported. However, a few traditionalists have attempted to give evidence of this, and we’ll analyze their arguments later in the chapter. In the quote above, Arthur mentioned “eternal punishment,” a biblical phrase which in itself has led some to believe in the immortality of the lost. It sort of sounds like a punishment that continues on for all eternity, doesn’t it? The Bible does in fact promise an eternal punishment for the unbeliever. So this phrase could be stretched by the imagination to mean a form of conscious punishment which lasts forever. The Greek word being translated as “eternal” is aionios and often denotes “permanence” when context is considered. If we take the Word of God at face value, the punishment for sin not covered by faith in Christ is death. This is stated throughout. So, the eternal punishment is in fact a permanent eternal death, rather than all the everlasting perpetual conscious torments that our imaginations could conjure up. It is very simply death which the lost are ultimately headed for, and those who rejected God will remain dead for all eternity…an eternal punishment.

Before we get too deep into this subject, since we’ll be discussing the fate of “the soul” throughout this book, we need to know what we mean by that term. It would be easy to get bogged down in all the various definitions. In fact, a few different Hebrew and Greek words are all translated as “soul” in English bibles. But we don’t need a lengthy examination for our purposes in this book. Most Christians agree that the soul is “who” we are. It is the essence of the person. In Genesis 2:7, we see that God breathed into the man and made him a living soul, so we don’t just have a soul. We are the soul. The soul is the life that animates our flesh, and the part of us that can outlive the flesh, and which will inhabit a new glorified body one day, for those who have put their faith in Christ. There are places in Scripture where a word translated as “soul” may carry with it the idea of the whole person, the flesh and also the immaterial part that animates it, but our discussion concerns what happens to that immaterial part after the flesh is in the grave. So, when I refer to the “soul” in this discussion, I’m generally not referring to the whole person but the immaterial person.

So, will all human souls, saved or unsaved, go on existing for all eternity? That’s the question. The first great evidence that the soul is not immortal from its conception, like so many Biblical truths, can be found early in the book of Genesis. Satan’s introduction to mankind was in the Garden of Eden, and while we may have physically misplaced its location on earth, the Garden, doctrinally speaking, is still a stronghold area where the Enemy continues to do his deceptive work. I’ve found so many of our common teachings about what happened there to be completely backwards. I hear the following phrase applied to many topics these days, so I’m hesitant to use it, but I can’t resist: “Almost everything you know about (fill in the blank…in this case, the Garden of Eden) is completely wrong.” I was hesitant to use it because it’s often sort of a sensational way to draw attention to an individual’s “new and better way” to think about or do whatever it is they’re wanting you to think about or do. And I’m sure I’ll be considered “that guy” by some readers. But I’m not being sensational. We seriously teach the garden scene wrong and therefore come to some backward conclusions which are antithetical to the gospel.

Tradition has redefined the concept of eternal death and turned it into eternal life, but separated from God, and traditionalists believe they have evidence for this right from the beginning in the Garden of Eden. The common teaching would go something like this:

God told Adam there was a tree in the midst of the garden which he was not to eat from, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam is told that in the day he eats of it, he would surely die. Eventually he and Eve did both eat from it, but they didn’t drop dead on that day, so death must mean something else. They were expelled from the garden in what appears to be that same day, apparently separating them from God in some sense. So death must not mean death as we commonly understand it: loss of life, existence, and being, but rather separation, leaving God’s presence, so in that way, they “died spiritually.”

That’s probably similar to how you’ve heard it explained before. On the surface, it sounds fairly logical. But when you dig a little deeper, it falls apart.

In the original language of Scripture, the phrase being translated as “You will surely die,” is simply two words, and it’s actually only one word, “death,” repeated twice in two different tenses. Literally, it says, “Dying, Die.” It’s called an “infinitive absolute,” and this Hebrew verbal technique indicates an emphatic statement concerning whatever verb it’s being applied to. So, what we have is an emphatic statement about death being a result of eating from the one forbidden tree. If I can put it this casually…Death wasn’t a thing yet, prior to sin. The warning from God wasn’t that if they sinned, they would drop dead physically, or immediately die in any other form – spiritually, etc. The emphatic warning was that on the day they chose to sin, death itself would change from only a potential, and into reality.

Remember that the original Hebrew only says “dying, die.” It’s not a stretch at all to take what has been interpreted as “you will surely die” and express it more accurately as “death will become sure,” especially since the “you” part of “you will surely die” which appears in English bibles isn’t even in the Hebrew original. On the very day they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, death (their future death) became a sure reality. But wait, they were expelled from the garden, right? So couldn’t that separation still be part of what God meant by death? Absolutely Not. That theory is dead on arrival because God tells us specifically why they were expelled from the garden, and we’ll get there shortly. But let it be noted that God’s presence didn’t stay confined back in the Garden, and God continued to have encounters with mankind, and still does…all outside of Eden.

So with a grammatically equally acceptable, but alternative rendering, we’d have something like, “In the day you eat of it, death will become an absolute certainty for you.” Remember that prior to sin, Adam and Eve still had the theoretical capability of eating of the Tree of Life, which the Bible says will make them go on living forever (Genesis 3:22), i.e. eternal life, eternality, immortality — at least for the soul. And most likely the dusty body would have been transformed at that point as well, thereby even avoiding a death of the physical body. So, while God always knew from eternity past that they would not eat from the Tree of Life before first eating from the forbidden tree, sin had not yet occurred in the course of time, so there was still the potential for death not to take hold of Adam and Eve as long as they had access to the Tree of Life. We don’t need to try to support the idea that their own death in some way occurred on that day they first sinned, even though this idea has a couple of interesting defenses. It’s unnecessary. As God promised, death became a sure reality in the very day they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but no part of them died yet, nor was it typed or figured in their expulsion, nor did any part of them need to die on that very day for God’s warning to come true.

In fact, in the day they ate of it, they brought the reality into effect that they would ultimately, surely, and unavoidably die, and it is the expulsion that made this sure because the Tree of Life was back in the garden. It’s a bit of a fine line, but the expulsion did not represent their death by separation. Their expulsion however would result in death because they lost access to the thing that could make them go on living forever. Scripture confirms this when, after Adam’s sin, God tells him that he is dust, and now because he has sinned, to dust he will return (one day…not that day). He was confirming to them that, just as He had warned, they had now, on that day, brought death into reality.

As noted, the general line of thinking from traditionalists is that Adam and Eve’s banishment from the garden and the Tree of Life figuratively represents eternal conscious separation of the soul from God, or what traditionalists commonly call “spiritual death.” We’ll find multiple flaws in this theory as we work through this topic of mortality and immortality in this chapter and chapter 6 when we return to the Garden. But the answer to the “in the day” question is much simpler. We only need to understand that Adam and Eve were created mortal and could only become immortal by eating of the Tree of Life, a fact for which we will see much evidence, perhaps the most obvious being that otherwise, eating of the Tree of Life would offer them nothing they didn’t already possess — ever think of that?

Please don’t miss it. Countless traditionalist pastors and teachers will tell you that Adam and Eve were perfect and immortal prior to sinning, but not one will be able to give a sensible answer for what value the Tree of Life would have to perfect immortal beings who we’re told were in perfect relationship and harmony with God (another idea we’ll challenge). Why was it even planted there? We’ll see later in this chapter that its presence in the garden helps lay down a fundamental aspect of the gospel, but this seems to have gone completely unnoticed. Getting back to the immortality issue, Genesis 3:22 tells us that eating of the Tree of Life will make one go on living forever. The only logical conclusion is that they didn’t naturally possess the ability to go on living forever. Therefore, they were mortals. Is this a stretch?

Prior to eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they had not yet disobeyed God and were therefore at a crossroads, mortal, having not yet eaten from the Tree of Life, but still with the potential to do so, and therefore having the theoretical potential to avoid death, body and soul. It seems to explain itself sufficiently if we won’t deny the obvious, that Adam and Eve were created mortal, with mortal souls. I’m defining a “mortal soul” as one that can die, and now that sin has occurred, will die, come to an end, and no longer exist, if God does not intervene.
Eat from them all, or freely eat from any?

So, the Tree of Life was in the garden, but it was never eaten from. Remember that God had told them they could eat from every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But here again, the English translations may not be giving the most accurate rendering of the Hebrew when they read something like, “you may freely eat from every other tree…” In the Hebrew, it seems likely that this is more of an emphatic command to make sure to eat from all the other trees except the forbidden one, more than simply an allowance that they could if they so chose — not that there was any time limit imposed in which to do this, but it seems most likely that there was a command to make sure and get this done. We have another infinitive absolute here with the word “eat”: “eating, eat,” creating an emphatic statement about eating from “every” tree, and the common interpretation that there was simply a free allowance to eat from “any” of the trees may likely not fully represent the meaning. Also, the word “command” is used in the same statement in Genesis 2:16-17 which adds some weight to the argument.

Genesis 2:16-17: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die. (italics for emphasis — 1833 Webster Bible)

It doesn’t make sense that a person is “commanded” that they “may” do something. If one is commanded to do something, the assumption is that there is something to do — not that there is a free choice. “I command you to be free and do whatever you so choose…” That doesn’t really work does it? There was a command, and it was to eat from all the other trees except the tree of knowledge. We have the phrase “every tree,” not simply “any tree,” and we have the word “command,” and we have the Hebrew infinitive absolute creating an emphatic statement about eating. In every way, there’s a command to eat from every tree in the garden. Yet, it is commonly only translated as “may freely eat.” This just doesn’t add up. Also, if there were not a command to eat from all the trees, since we don’t see God specifically telling Adam or Eve about the Tree of Life anywhere in the garden account, it could be claimed that the Lord never told them to eat of the Tree of Life – only that they could if they so chose. This seems highly unlikely that the Lord would take such a dispassionate position on whether or not they ate of the Tree of Life and gained immortality. But it does make sense that He would veil the specific command to eat of the tree which would give eternal life inside of the greater command to eat from all of the trees, and we’ll see why in Chapter 6.

As we already noted, the Tree of Life was there for the taking yet remained untouched, and this is highly significant in the discussion of whether souls are created eternal or not. Even more significant is the fact that God drove them out of the garden after they sinned for the sole purpose of making sure they did not reach out their hand and eat of the Tree of Life. Genesis 3:22-24 states,

“And the Lord God said, Now the man has become like one of us, having knowledge of good and evil; and now if he puts out his hand and takes of the fruit of the Tree of Life, he will go on living for ever. So the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to be a worker on the earth from which he was taken. So he sent the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden he put winged ones and a flaming sword turning every way to guard the way to the Tree of Life.”
This seems very clear. Now, due to the banishment, we find there is no way mankind can “go on living forever,” at least not by his own effort, and it just so happens that this matter of whose effort is behind the gaining of or granting of eternal life is at the core of understanding the banishment (and the gospel, for that matter). Genesis 2:7 says that God breathed into man, who we know was only earthly dust, and he became a “living soul.” I don’t think any of us would deny that we are living souls. But our disagreement, if we have one, is over whether or not being a living soul is the same thing as having a soul that will live consciously for all eternity, without God granting it by some condition. It seems very reasonable to assume that in the same way that our flesh is living and dying simultaneously, so the soul without redemption is as well (not that they must die together, but that they are both on a course that leads to death). One is the outward picture of the other.

Not only does it seem that the Lord has provided us this perishing body as an object lesson indicating the fate of our soul without redemption, I’ll ask my question one more time: If Adam had immortality prior to eating from the Tree of Life, what then is the significance of the tree which the Bible says that eating from would make him go on living forever? There was no promise that eating of it would allow Adam to live in God’s garden paradise forever, or would make him wealthy and happy, or any other blessing — only that eating of it would make Him “go on living forever” generally, as the Bible clearly states. There is nothing about “going on living forever” which would bind God into allowing them to stay in the Garden. In fact, God does not say, “Since man has an eternal soul and will go on living forever, we certainly can’t allow him to live here in the garden now that he has sinned.” But unfortunately this is how the banishment is generally taught, but it’s an obvious distortion of Scripture.

Adam was mortal and already prone to death even before he sinned. As I phrased it above, he was at a crossroads, and whether he sinned or not would determine whether he would go on living forever or continue on a path of mortality. Please don’t miss the following. Notice that after Adam sinned, God took no new action against his flesh or soul to make his death certain. He only banned him from the one thing that Scripture says would have made his life continue eternally — another clear indication that he was mortal, even prior to sinning. And it all happened “in the day he ate from the forbidden tree.” As promised, death became a sure reality that day.

Let’s see if following the timeline of actions helps solidify the thesis. God creates man and causes him to become a living soul when he was still outside of the garden. So it stands to reason that this Tree of Life which was inside the garden offers something more than what the man already possessed after God first breathed into him. This is significant. When Adam was created, he had no access to this Tree of Life, even though God had already made him as a “living soul,” until God later put him in the garden. How much later he was put there is irrelevant. It could have been seconds or weeks, or even longer. It doesn’t matter in the discussion of whether or not souls are unconditionally eternal. It’s the order of events that’s critical to recognize and which will create sound doctrine.

Genesis 3:22 plainly tells us that eating of the Tree of Life is what will make them “go on living forever.” And Adam did not have access to that tree when he first became a living soul. So being a living soul, in and of itself, is not the same thing as his having the capability of going on living forever, immortality, if we accept the simplicity of God’s Word. Now, is it possible that this passage has nothing to do with the immaterial soul, and that God only meant that their flesh would somehow go on living forever if they ate from the Tree of Life after sinning, and is it that He simply didn’t want that to happen since they had sinned in their flesh? No, because no human flesh can be animated without the soul (James 2:26). It is nothing more than dust, earthy chemicals, and it never was.

The Genesis warnings of impending death concern the whole man, body and soul. And by the same token, eating of the Tree of Life, were it possible after they sinned, would have given their souls eternal life, and likely would have transformed their mortal bodies as well (this is just my own speculation regarding their bodies). But God, knowing the end from the beginning, knew He wasn’t going to let them gain immortality by their own efforts. This is the same problem we have in the world still – people trying to attain eternal life (or earn their place in Heaven) by their own efforts and works, which was never God’s plan. We have to remember that God is omniscient. He knew they would sin and that Adam and Eve by their own free will were going to find and take the forbidden fruit which held so much “promise” before finding and taking the other fruit that would give eternal life.

The Ancient Gospel

In Genesis 3:24, God drives them from the garden and blocks access to the Tree of Life, specifically, the Bible tells us, so humanity cannot eat of this fruit and live forever. But we can’t assume that eternal life is no longer available for them because of this. They and all of us are created with the potential to live forever (our soul, that is, in a new body that we will receive after this life), and it is God’s will that we all become eternal (2 Peter 3:9). The following is important, and I think it is the most important thing we can take from the garden account: Being driven from the Garden and the Tree of Life only represented that Adam and Eve had no ability on their own to gain immortality, just as we do not.

The banishment in and of itself was not, nor did it represent, their spiritual death. It couldn’t be, and we’ll see the obvious reason why shortly. Banning them from the Tree of Life was nothing more than a clear statement that mankind cannot attain eternal life by his own efforts. Don’t miss the key phrase: The only reason they are banned according to Scripture is “lest they reach out their hand and take also of the Tree of Life and eat, and live forever.” This is simply a clear expression that God alone saves, and that we cannot save ourselves by our own hand. It’s the same principal that we see in Judges 7 when God is whittling down Gideon’s army so that when God delivers them, the Israelites will not think they did it by their own power. In fact, even this idea of it happening by their own “hand” is expressed in Judges chapter 7:

Judges 7:2 “The LORD said to Gideon, ‘The people with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel boast over me, saying, ‘My own hand has saved me.’” (ESV — italics for emphasis)
And this is a common theme throughout the Bible, and it’s what we teach all the time when it comes to salvation: It’s not by our power but by God’s, not by our good works, but by God’s good work. But we fail to see it in the garden, instead taking valuable symbolism, and turning it on its head to teach something entirely unscriptural — that we are immortal beings, which lays the groundwork for the false doctrine of eternal torment.

It’s only by accepting God’s work and sacrifice that we are saved from death — not physical death — God never relented from His statement that we are dust, would return to it, and that death would become a certainty. But the saved are saved from the very destruction of the soul in the Lake of Fire, which is the destiny we were headed toward from birth, as enemies of God (Romans 5:10). It’s the second death which we are saved from, not the first one.
So specifically, how can a person gain immortality? How can we avoid the death of the soul and “go on living forever”? It’s certainly not by merely having been created as Kay Arthur and countless others imply, and then our faith or lack thereof determining our eternal location. No, it requires more than merely coming into existence to become eternal. It required a sacrifice from God Himself. We now know that God’s work and sacrifice was fulfilled in Jesus’s death on the cross, and this is the means to eternal life. The Bible tells us this act atoned for the sinful condition of mankind, for any who will accept it and confess it, and that we are saved from eternal death when we, by faith, accept Christ’ work as necessary and sufficient to right our relationship with God.

But this does not mean that salvation was not available for those who lived prior to Christ. Revelation 13:8 calls Jesus “the lamb slain before the foundation of the world,” meaning that while His sacrifice had not yet occurred in the course of time, it was as sure as God Himself, and no one could ever have been saved at any time, before or after Christ, if this sacrifice was not certain. Jesus said Himself that none could come to the Father but by Him – by the actions He took on our behalf. Shortly before Jesus was to die on the cross, He prayed to the Father that if there was any other way, to let that cup pass from Him (Matthew 26:39). But it didn’t pass. It’s safe to conclude then that there was no other way.

So while no one could be saved at all were it not for what Jesus did on the cross, people have always been saved by faith in the one true God, even prior to specific knowledge of Christ, and their faith was always exhibited by their actions. We’re told that when Abraham put his faith in God, it was counted to him as righteousness, and he exhibited his faith by following God’s instructions to move to a new land, and ultimately by offering his own son Isaac as a sacrifice (which God did not require him to go through with). In the Old Testament story of Rahab, the non-Israelite harlot who hid the Israelite spies, we find that she expressed little knowledge of God, yet she acted on what she knew and she earned a mention in what is commonly called the “Hall of Faith” in chapter 11 of the New Testament book of Hebrews, and I believe we safely assume she is saved eternally.

So how were Adam and Eve saved from the death of their souls, if they were? What action did they exhibit that indicated faith in God’s work and sacrifice? The answer to this is so important because it’s the primary thing that negates the argument that the banishment indicated “eternal separation from God,” or so-called “spiritual death.” After they sinned and became aware of good and evil, they realized they were naked and needed a covering. They tried to provide their own, but apparently God found their attempts to cover themselves to be insufficient. The symbolism is overwhelming. We’re sort of touching on the same theme we saw before – that people innately try to do things for themselves, including covering their own sin and shame in an effort to show they are without need of God’s involvement. But this is not God’s way.

We’re told in the New Testament to “put on Christ.” He is our covering. We have no sufficient covering for our shame except in Christ. It was similar for Adam and Eve. Their own attempts at coverings were not sufficient. And so we’re told that the Lord Himself provided skins for them as coverings, indicating that He apparently slew an animal to do so. Hebrews 9:22 tells us that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins, speaking of Jesus on the cross, and it was no different in their case as God shed the blood of an animal to provide for them. So it is commonly accepted (and I’m in total agreement with the idea) that this covering provided for them was a foreshadowing of Christ’ sacrificial death. And for Adam and Eve, this was, in a primitive form, the very offer of salvation, which they could have rejected, had they been so prideful. But they didn’t, and therefore I believe they were saved and reserved for the inheritance of eternal life.

So how does this fit with the theory that their expulsion from the garden foreshadowed eternal conscious separation from God or “spiritual death”? It doesn’t, nor should it. The Bible plainly indicated why they were expelled and we’ve covered it sufficiently. Following the time line of events will again give us a sound doctrine. Their covering preceded their expulsion, so either the covering did not represent salvation, or the expulsion did not represent eternal separation from God because Adam and Eve’s “salvation” could not precede their “damnation,” as would be indicated if we took the traditional stance on the meaning of the banishment. And isn’t it strange that most of the same people who tell us the banishment is symbolic of eternal separation from God also believe Adam and Eve are saved? Thank the Lord that He gave us an order of events because it really does clear up the matter. Because the symbolism for the covering representing salvation is so strong, and since Genesis 3:22-23 tells us precisely why they were expelled, I’m forced to view these aspects of the garden in a light not commonly expressed in Christian circles.
Now, a traditionalist might challenge what I’ve written and say to me, “If you believe the covering represented their gaining eternal life, then the banishment from the life-giving tree has no meaning. They already had eternal life.” I would have to agree with this if the covering had literally and immediately caused them to become immortal. But it didn’t. That’s why I said the covering “reserved” them for eternal life, just as when we put our faith in Christ today we are reserved for eternal life. We “have” eternal life in the sense that it is a sure guarantee, a promise from God, but we are not literally immortal yet. We, nor any believer while still in their flesh, ever “attained the prize” or “received the inheritance” (as Paul referred to it) prior to physical death. Read Ephesians 1:13-14:

“In Him (Christ) you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” (ESV)

Even those of us who are “saved” have not yet actually eaten of the Tree of Life that causes one to go on living forever, but we will after we have endured to the end. The Tree of Life makes another appearance in Scripture and we’ll come back and examine this toward the end of the chapter.

I need to clarify something in case I’ve been unclear. I’m not claiming there’s no such thing as “spiritual death.” I’m only claiming that the expulsion from the garden did not represent it or cause it, and I’m claiming that an unbelieving soul is temporarily alive, yet spiritually dead in the sense that it is headed for death. Only after they sinned did God come to them and lovingly make a sacrifice for them and begin open 2-way communication; only after sinning did they recognize their weakness and God’s strength; only after they accepted God’s covering and His authority did they become spiritually alive. Before, they were spiritually dead. I know this statement creates some cognitive dissonance because it’s so contrary to what we’re inundated with, but we’ll see more and more evidence as we move forward. And I’m still waiting for anyone to show me in Scripture this awesome relationship Adam and Eve had with God or each other prior to sin. You won’t find it in Scripture, even though we teach it all the time. And again, our bodies, alive yet wasting away, seem the perfect object lesson for what’s happening at the immaterial soul level, and since they had not eaten from the Tree of Life, they were prone to decay as well. They had not obeyed the other command to eat from all the other trees, which would include the Tree of Life, so they were as much on a road to perishing as any of us.

And while there’s now no hope for our flesh, in that there is no avoiding the first death, God has graciously made a way of escape from the second death (Rev 20:6), the one that would take our souls. And Adam and Eve were not the exception. They were the foreshadowing example of the state in which we all come into existence.

John Gill, an influential 18th century theologian, in his extensive, verse-by-verse study notes begins his analysis of this portion of Scripture by claiming that Adam and Eve were at first unwilling to go out of the garden upon orders. I suppose this is possible, but it’s never stated in the Bible, and it’s hard to believe they would be arguing with God much at that point. We know they were ashamed and hiding from God after they sinned, and they had just been inundated with judgments but then graciously covered in skins the Lord Himself made. I just can’t picture them putting up much of a fight as Gill states. He then indicates that Adam and Eve were only forbidden from eating of the Tree of Life because they might flatter themselves by eating it, thinking that they could live forever. Gill goes on to theorize that “very probably” the devil planted that idea in their minds. I only mention all this because it epitomizes how theologians and Bible teachers read so much into the Garden account (and Scripture in general) which isn’t there, and isn’t even implied there.

God says in His Word that eating the fruit from the Tree of Life would give them eternal life, but noted theologian John Gill says that Satan planted the idea in their minds. And the Bible plainly states that eating the fruit of the Tree of Life would cause them to live forever, so rather than say, as Gill does, that eating the fruit could not cause eternal life, it’s far safer to say that they were simply not going to eat of the Tree of Life before eating the forbidden fruit, and God surely knew it, although the potential was certainly there. We can’t get away from God’s omniscience. He knew the plan of Salvation before time began, and knew that we would not resist sin. God also knew that humanity, with a nature which leaves us unable to fully obey, would succumb to what was forbidden before choosing obedience that would lead to eternal life. In their case, obedience would mean avoiding the one forbidden tree, and then obeying the other command to at some point eat from all the other trees in the garden — again, not only “freely eating” from the ones they chose.

Summarizing what we’ve covered so far, many traditionalists claim that verses referring to man as a living soul prove innate immortality. Here in Genesis we have the first clear proof to the contrary. Adam is first created to be a living soul, then later, God gives access to a Tree of Life that according to His own Word, has the potential to cause Adam to become immortal. But Adam never eats of the tree God said would make him live forever, and his access to it is then blocked by an angel with a flaming sword, and we aren’t even left to wonder why this was done. God’s Word tells us that it is so he cannot reach out his hand and take of its fruit and live forever. But prior to this, God took an action that in every way appears to indicate the preservation of Adam’s soul until the Tree of Life is one day available again. The angels weren’t told to cut the tree down after sin occurred – only to block access to it.

The Garden account so plainly teaches that even living souls are mortal and dying without God’s taking further action in salvation, and then us, the living/dying soul, accepting and trusting God’s action. As we’ve noted, God’s action was slaying an innocent animal and covering them with its skin, and this foreshadowed Christ’s then future sacrifice for sin. I was discussing this with a Hebrew scholar who was helping me with some word studies, and he advised that I not make too much of this provision of skins in this book, since it is never confirmed in Scripture that this was a foreshadowing of Christ’ death to cover our sins. But many of the actions and stories in the Bible that we commonly accept as precursors or typing of later events are not necessarily called so within Scripture.

Some might say that this provision of skins was only demonstrating that God cares about the little things too. I can personally testify that God does in fact care about the little things of life, and this is one of the aspects of God that is so amazing. But I hope that anyone who claims this as the meaning of the provision of skins isn’t also in the theological camp that claims the banishment from the garden is representative of eternal separation from God in Hell, because then we essentially would have God saying, “Here’s a nice new outfit for you because I care about the little things…HOPE YOU ENJOY IT ON YOUR WAY TO ETERNAL HELL!!”

Obviously I write that in jest and believe no such thing was intended. We have the hindsight of knowing from Scripture that all of the sacrifices of animals for sin in the Old Testament were a picture of what Christ would later come and do. And we also know from Scripture that it was the Father’s will to show His love for and forgiveness of mankind through the sacrifice of His Son. It falls right in line then to see this action of God providing skins to cover their shame immediately after sin, as a foreshadowing of Christ. The Bible doesn’t need to come right out and say it. It is apparent. It further seems that God could have easily instructed Adam to make his own skins, if there were no significance in God’s doing it for them and if the only reason was to provide a more durable outfit than fig leaves.
It seems that not only was this act evidence that God provides a more sufficient covering of shame and sin than we ever could, but that He does it Himself, and without our even asking (while we were yet sinners, according to Romans 5:8), and it’s up to us only to accept it or not. Adam and Eve accepted the provision, and I believe they are with the Lord and will inherit eternal life, just as all believers will. How appropriate that God gave such a clear and complete picture of the entire gospel story and the two potential fates of the soul, all in the first three chapters of the Bible.

Before we leave the garden topic, let’s look at 1 Corinthians 15:45-54:

“45 So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the one made of dust, such are those who are also made of dust; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 As we have borne the image of those made of dust, let’s also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood can’t inherit God’s Kingdom; neither does the perishable inherit imperishable. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery. We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must become imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable body will have become imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then what is written will happen: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.’” (WEB)

This is very plain. Look at verse 45. It supports the claim I’ve made that being a living soul and having eternal life are not the same thing. It plainly confirms that Adam was in fact a living soul, but that the last Adam, Christ, gives life. Why did Christ need to give life if Adam was already a living soul that would live eternally? Because a living soul without Christ’ salvation is also a dying soul, headed for death, just as our living flesh is headed for death. I once heard one of my favorite pastors claim that the eternal suffering of the soul is the “logical extension” of the picture of death that we have in the body. With all due respect, I could not disagree more. The most logical extension of the finite dying body would most certainly be a finite dying soul. In what way could the death of the body, due to our sin, be the foreshadowing of eternal torment in Hell? It just couldn’t.

Regarding our bodies, dying is temporary, yet death is eternal. Why would we assume anything different for our soul?

Moving on with this passage, in verse 46, that living souls do not yet have eternal life is further supported when we see that the natural came first, and the spiritual later through Christ’ death. And then in verses 53 and 54 we see that immortality is something for the future as we’ve noted, not something we already have, and not for all souls, but for believers only.

We’ve seen that God, early on, wanted people to know that their eternal fate would be death if they didn’t accept His free gift and grace. Why would He veil such a thing as eternal conscious suffering? Would you not tell your children the consequences for their potential actions or inactions? Of course you would. Knowing our potential punishments is the deterrent to sin.

I’ve heard it theorized that the truth of eternal torment in Hell is something that God intentionally built up to gradually, progressively, and that He dispensed a little more information here and there, until now, with the full Word of God in our hands, we can finally understand just how horrible Hell is. Well, if this could even be supported, I guess that would be fine for those of us who have lived since the New Testament was completed, but what about all those before then? Why didn’t God fully warn them? Why don’t we see God warn Adam and Eve about the potential to live in conscious torment for all eternity if they disobeyed or even failed to accept the covering He offered? That would have been a great place to implant that warning into humanity so it would get passed down.

The reason we don’t see that warning is obvious. Eternal conscious torment is not the fate of unbelieving people. God laid out the potentials for the soul over and over: Life or Death. And He started early, back in Genesis. God also shows us clearly in nature, the life and death cycle. It’s simply understood that things die. That’s why immortality is such an amazing gift – It goes against everything we naturally observe. It’s normal to assume that what is living today will someday cease to live. That’s the case with everything we could observe scientifically. It’s the law of Entropy. And it’s the law laid down in Scripture as well, but with one loophole: faith in the one true living God saves us from death, and we who believe will, instead, go on living forever.

Modern Teaching

I said we would address a couple of fellow-Christians who have attempted to defend the idea that all souls, saved or lost, are immortal and eternal and will exist consciously into timeless eternity. I considered trying to do this without naming names. It’s certainly not my intention to potentially damage any well-known Christian’s ministry by causing people to doubt their doctrinal judgment or interpretation skills. But because I needed to quote them, I couldn’t do this without giving their names. I believe both of the people I’m about to challenge are Godly Bible teachers and I’ve learned a lot from them both. None of us are beyond error, and I certainly don’t have everything figured out yet. So I hope my challenging the method of someone’s doctrinal judgment isn’t taken in the wrong spirit by the reader. But the intention of this book is to demonstrate where we’ve erred on this doctrine, and it would be less effective without pointing to some of the specific instances and examples of exactly where we’ve gone wrong. I hope this doesn’t come across as in-fighting or back biting. It’s just part of the process if we’re going to challenge a traditional take on a particular doctrine which appears to be in error.

If a line-by-line analysis of someone’s statements on soul immortality isn’t your cup of tea, I don’t blame you. It was tedious work to do on my end, and it will make for somewhat tedious reading, to some. The following two chapters are where we’ll take a close look at what Scripture actually says about final judgment, and also analyze the top ten most used verses to defend eternal conscious suffering, and I don’t fault anyone who wants to jump forward to that. But if you want to see just how poor the arguments for lost souls being immortal are, I’d recommend pushing on through this chapter. To me it’s enlightening to find that some of the most respected Christian teachers have no better defense for the doctrine than they do.

Several years ago, I was listening to a former president of Moody Bible Institute on the radio and wasn’t surprised to hear that he, like the majority of Christians, holds the view that all souls are eternal, even without salvation. But like everyone else I’ve heard attempt to give some reason for this belief, he failed to make the case. But before we go through what he said, I must say that otherwise I hold him in high regard. His name is Michael Easley. When Joe Stowell stepped down from that position in 2005, I was disappointed. I had enjoyed his radio teaching for years. It was my Sunday morning routine to get up and listen to him on Moody Presents while making breakfast before church. But when Easley began being broadcast in Stowell’s place, I was relieved to hear that he was another down-to-earth Godly man like his predecessor, and I was fed many times through his teaching before he too stepped down a few years later.

The broadcast I want to address was one in a short series on doctrine, and the primary intention was to make believing listeners see the importance of knowing why they believe what they believe. I couldn’t agree more about the importance of that. That’s one of the reasons I’m challenging people in this book to answer some hard questions about why they believe as they do regarding the immortality of souls and the nature and duration of Hell. He and the announcer were conversing about the various areas in which the thinking of the world has crept into the church, and how that has done great damage. Again, I couldn’t agree more. But then Easley made reference to “annihilation” and my ears perked up because I had been on this track and study for a while at that point. He had just given a list of various different lies that are creeping into the Church and then says that there are even some theologians now who are saying there is no Hell, and we’re just annihilated, and go into nothingness.

Let me first confirm with him that there are in fact those who believe that, and that’s not what I’m putting forward. The Bible plainly teaches that the unsaved soul, after physical death, and after suffering consciously, for at least some portion of time in Hell (Sheol in Hebrew/Hades in Greek) while their physical body lies in the grave, will then be resurrected after the 1000-year reign of Christ, judged, and cast into the Lake of Fire, or what Jesus called Gehenna (also translated “Hell” in English in the New Testament). There is a conscious afterlife for unbelievers in Hell (Hades) and at judgment. Although I believe Scripture teaches the ultimate annihilation of the lost soul, in no way do I think those without Christ just disappear without conscious judgment. There’s no argument with Easley’s initial statement that some theologians do not “believe in Hell” and that this is in error. But there needs to be a distinction between those like myself who believe in ultimate annihilation of the unsaved only after suffering, resurrection, and judgment, and those who believe that all souls or at least unsaved souls immediately go out of existence upon physical death.

Let’s move on to Easley’s argument. This is where he begins a line of logic that would work if the second building block in his argument had any Biblical foundation. He reasons that…

“if we are made in the image of God, if we are image bearers, there is what Augustine called a ‘spark of divinity,’ a fair illustration. God is not going to eradicate that part of his divinity. It is therefore eternal. So if all human beings are eternal, the difference is location, with Him or apart from Him.”

That ends his statement about the eternality of souls, but he went on to say that what we believe “better be grounded in the truth.” I’m not sure his reasoning holds up to that standard on this particular issue. He begins with the truth that we are all image bearers of God, but then relies on the uninspired writing of Augustine which claims we all have a spark of divinity in us. It really doesn’t matter if Augustine says we have a spark of divinity in us. I’ve searched for any Biblical reference that would indicate that we, prior to salvation, share or possess divinity in any form or amount, and I can’t find it.

So what does God mean when He says He created us in His image? This statement that we’re created in the image of God is used, it seems, more than any other to defend the idea that we are already immortal beings, so it’s important to look to the Bible, not our imagination, for an answer to this. I won’t pretend to know everything this might mean, but there are a number of ways we are like Him. In the Bible, we’re told that God loves. We love. God gets angry. We get angry. God is jealous for that which is His. We get jealous for what we believe is ours. God is Merciful. We can be merciful. God feels pity. We feel pity. God creates. We create. And, ever since mankind’s first sin, we now know good from evil and are like Him in that respect according to His Word. I could go on and on. As sinful as we are, and far short of divine, we are like God in many ways, in our actions and emotions.

Thankfully, God hasn’t left us to wonder or speculate about what He means by “in God’s image.” He hasn’t required Augustine or anyone else to attempt to define this outside of what the Bible maintains. Perhaps I shouldn’t have even pointed out my own ideas on ways we’re like God. In Genesis 1:26, which is the first verse that says we are made in God’s image, we’re told we are made that way so we can rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, all wild animals on earth, and all reptiles that crawl upon the earth. The Oxford Cambridge New English Bible translates the Hebrew as “Let us make man in our image and likeness to rule the fish in the sea, the birds of…” (italics mine). So “to rule” means “for the purpose of ruling.” According to Genesis Chapter 1, we are in His image in the sense that we have been put in control of the earth and been commanded to rule over it.

That makes sense. God rules over the entire universe and we are in His image, or like Him, on a much smaller scale, in that He gave us the task of ruling over the earth. But there is no call, Biblically, for us to connect anything having to do with immortality of souls with this fact that we are made in God’s likeness and image. In fact, there’s no call for us to attach any meaning with it other than what the Bible plainly gives us. So does this Biblical understanding of the concept make sense with later mentions of us being in His image? I think we could say it does. We find the statement that we are in God’s image again in Genesis 9:4-7. God is blessing Noah and his sons and giving them instructions and warnings.

“4 But flesh with its life, that is, its blood, you shall not eat. 5 I will surely require accounting for your life’s blood. At the hand of every animal I will require it. At the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, I will require the life of man. 6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in his own image. 7 Be fruitful and multiply. Increase abundantly in the earth, and multiply in it.” (WEB)

Here God confirms what He means by “in His image.” Just as there is nothing over God, he makes it clear here that nothing on earth should be over us. No man is permitted to murderously take the life of another man, and if one of the animals, of which we are to rule over, takes a man’s life, then God requires its blood. The point is then driven home again when God says, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood shall be shed by man; for God made man in his own image.” (italics for emphasis) There’s nothing about eternal souls here. The concept is about ruling over the earth and the sanctity of life.

Continuing with Easley’s statements, after concurring with Augustine that being in the image of God equals possessing some of His divinity, he then says, “God is not going to eradicate that part of His divinity.” This statement might be true if we, before salvation, were divine in some way, but this portion of his statement relies on the Biblically unproven assumption that being in his image equals possession of divinity in some measure. Claiming innate divinity might be offensive to a Holy God, Who Isaiah couldn’t even bear to look up at, and Who throughout the entire Bible, repeatedly reminds us just how “not God” we are. There is nothing good in us before salvation. Even our righteousness is filthy rags according to Scripture. And does God really have reservations about eradicating things He creates? He had no problem eradicating almost everything on earth in the flood of Noah’s day. And He tells us that the whole earth, everything in it, and the heavens will be subject to fire one day, even though when He created it, He called it “very good.”

I think God makes it plain in Scripture that He eradicates what offends Him and we, without Christ, the objects of wrath, before acknowledging our need for Him, are on the top of that list — and this includes our souls. We are the soul. Further, it makes no logical sense for someone to claim that God will not eradicate a soul because it has a “spark of divinity” within it, but to then assume He would, however, eternally torment that same soul containing that same “spark of divinity.” He would be tormenting Himself, by Easley’s logic. If one is going to claim that He would not destroy a soul because it has a little piece of Him in it, then how can they any more justify God subjecting those billions of little pieces of Himself to eternal torment? Neither idea really works.

The following is by no means a perfect illustration, but the only one I could come up with that relates to this subject would be a mirror. If I hold a mirror and look into it, it bears my image as long as I hold it up, but if I choose to shatter it and remove my presence from it, it no longer bears my image; yet I have lost none of my own attributes because of destroying it, and likewise I think Easley is wrong in stating that “God is not going to eradicate that part of His Divinity.” It is in fact only an image, not the real thing, not God, and not divine. God loses no part of Himself when He destroys what offends because He was whole and complete before creation. And to take the mirror illustration even further, if I break it, I won’t leave it in my house in a shattered state forever. Soon, I’ll dispose of it, just as God does the souls He would destroy. It seems clear that Jesus used Gehenna, Jerusalem’s burning trash dump, as the illustration for where lost souls would be cast, not because they would be in fires that never end as so many misinterpret it, but because they would in fact be eradicated and consumed just as everything was which was thrown into Gehenna.

Moving on, Easley puts another assertion upon an already faulty one when he says, “It is therefore eternal,” “it” being that Augustinian part of us which is supposedly divine. He then goes on to say, “So if all human beings are eternal, the difference is location, with Him or apart from Him.” There is no proof Biblically that all human beings are eternal, and it was not proved here in this argument either. And the Bible certainly doesn’t come right out and say that we, before salvation, have anything divine in our nature. Why would God not make such a thing obvious? Doesn’t it seem strange that, if it were true, in the entire Bible there is not one clear statement that all souls are immortal or divine in some way. Would it not be stated clearly at least once if that were the truth?

Easley’s conclusion can only be arrived at through the projection of non-Biblical concepts. Easley began building his argument with a truth misused, then used a human, non-Biblical assumption for his next building block, and then everything else on top of that crumbles. Not surprisingly, he ends up at the same wrong conclusion about the immortality of souls and duration of Hell that all Christians do who rely on the early church fathers instead of the plain text of the Bible as it relates to this issue. In fact, our core problem is the very mistake of trusting uninspired man to give us our doctrine of judgment instead of the plain teaching of God’s Word. And maybe that’s why Christianity has been turned over to the captivity of a false doctrine for so long.

What we have here is a faulty line of logic from an otherwise astute Godly man, all in the interest of trying to find some reason to “know why he believes what he believes” about Hell, while being unwilling to accept the fact that orthodox tradition isn’t always the pinnacle of truth. Faulty logic or reliance on extra-Biblical writings and teachings is really the only way one can come to the conclusions which mainstream Christianity has on these matters. But if the question of “Why we believe what we believe” is important, then even more so is the question “Do my reasons for what I believe hold up to Scripture?” If not, then we need to believe something that will. It’s that simple.

I’ve already said it, but I think it bears repeating here. I don’t mean any of this criticism personally. I respect Michael Easley as a sound Christian teacher, generally. I continued listening to his teaching until he left Moody. Both of these faulty doctrines, the “eternal suffering in Hell” doctrine and the inseparable “innate immortality of all souls” doctrine are deeply entrenched in Christianity, and common to most Christians’ beliefs, and I don’t completely fault anyone who hasn’t researched them for following the mainstream. In fact, I respect them for trying to find some way to justify it since it is so vital that we know why we believe what we believe, but we should go to the Bible for our answers and not Augustine or anyone else. The Bible does not tell us that we have some divine piece somewhere in us that keeps us eternal. It says the opposite over and over. It is a false notion that cannot be proved.

Modern-day misinterpretations about our immortality are plentiful, and John MacArthur is another teacher who I’ve learned a lot from, but who also has been very vocal about innate immortality, but with little evidence. As I said of Michael Easley, I have a lot of respect for his teaching and I generally believe his ministry to be of God, although with MacArthur, the subject of immortality isn’t the only strong disagreement I have with him — but that’s a different book. Regarding innate immortality, he too tries in vain to hold on to traditional views that won’t hold up scripturally. During a radio sermon series on the subject of the afterlife several years ago, before getting into the topic of heaven, MacArthur first wanted to establish that all souls are immortal — that essential doctrine for trying to prove eternal suffering in Hell. No less than twelve times in the first ten minutes of the broadcast he stated in one form or another that every soul was eternal. So did he prove it? Let’s first look at what he claimed and then we’ll look at the scriptures and even extra-Biblical sources he used to attempt to support his claims.

After giving a definition of the soul or spirit, similar to what most, I believe, understand the soul to be, he next states that “it is that living spirit that lives forever.” He gives no scripture to support that, and then, like Easley and so many others, says that having or being a living spirit is “part of what it means to be created in the image of God, who is that eternal Spirit.” God is indeed the Eternal Spirit, but I think we’ve covered the “image of God” topic sufficiently already. There’s nothing Biblical to support the assertion that being created in His image means we’re immortal.
Consider this: If being created in His image enabled us to claim the immortality which belongs only to God according to 1 Timothy 6:16, then we could just as well claim any other attribute of God that doesn’t actually belong to us. It would make no less sense logically to claim that all humans, saved or unsaved, are omniscient, and omnipresent, or at least have a “spark” of omniscience or omnipresence. After all, God is omniscient and omnipresent, and we were made in His image according to Scripture, so therefore we must be as well. I hope you see the absurdity of this and therefore the absurdity of claiming divinity or immortality when Scripture does not attribute those to us, and I don’t think divinity is ever attributed to us anyway, even after salvation, only the promise of future immortality, eternal life. We will not become God. And I also hope you see that we could no more be partially omniscient or omnipresent than we could be partially divine. Next MacArthur says, “Every living person is an eternal soul. Every living person is an eternal spirit.” Again, no scripture is given to support these statements. He then says,

“Everyone who has ever lived will always live. No one goes out of existence. Everyone whom God has created is eternal. We are all designed to live forever and will indeed.”

Here again we have the common teaching that we will all, saved or lost, live forever, which completely opposes Scripture. And again, we have more repetition of the traditional view without any solid Biblical basis or defense for his statements. And far from being “designed to live forever,” we’re told in Romans 9:22 that we are vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction. If we trust Scripture and not man, we will find that we, the whole person – body and soul, were “designed” to perish, as all of this initial creation was. This design is why the gift of eternal life is so amazing.
For his first attempt at evidence, MacArthur uses Zechariah 12:1 which says toward the end of the verse that “it is God who forms the spirit of man within him” and then, with no indication to the listening audience that he has stopped quoting scripture, MacArthur continues, “and that spirit of man is an everlasting spirit.” To the radio listener who doesn’t go behind MacArthur and check the Bible, it portrays the Bible as saying that this “spirit of man” is everlasting. But it doesn’t say this in the Bible. He added that statement without informing the listener that he had stopped quoting the Zechariah passage.

MacArthur continues to make claims with no evidence when he says this everlasting spirit of man is “everlastingly self-conscious, everlastingly able to reason and think and feel and understand, everlastingly alive.” Continuing on, MacArthur next quotes Job 32:8: “But there is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” This is repeating what we learned in Genesis. God breathed into man and made him a living spirit or soul. We’ve covered this extensively. It offers no evidence of souls being eternal. And then we see in this same verse, Elihu, Job’s younger friend who is speaking, go on to say that because God did this, we have the ability to understand, not that because of this we will go on living forever. It seems that this latter portion of the verse exhibits the purpose of the former. If the point here in Job were that all souls are immortal, then it seems he would have stated that. The verse is about understanding, not immortality. We should also note that this is Elihu speaking, not God. And God chastises Job and all his friends for their assumptions in the book of Job. This doesn’t mean that nothing they stated was true. Much of it was. But we need to be careful when drawing doctrine from someone God chastises.

John MacArthur goes on to talk about humans having self-consciousness after death. I have no argument there. I too believe that consciousness extends beyond physical death, but not beyond the end of time for those without salvation. MacArthur continues:

“None of us will ever go into an unconscious state. None of us will ever go into some kind of condition of soul sleep in which we feel nothing, think nothing, reason nothing, have no idea what is reality around us.”

I disagree with his overall statement. After a lost human soul is cast into the Lake of Fire, they’re finished, destroyed, and no longer consciously existing. But I partially agree with him here regarding soul sleep. Many Conditionalists who hold a similar view to mine regarding final judgment believe that when we die, whether we’re saved or lost, we enter into a sleep state that we only awake from at resurrection. I’m going to address this more in depth in Chapter 7 where we’ll take a look at the intermediate state between physical death and resurrection, but I’ve personally found biblical evidence for both consciousness and sleep, for the saved and for the lost, during that intermediate state, and what I’ll propose is that perhaps both happen, for varying lengths of time and various reasons. It’s a gray area, and I can’t offer many 100% conclusions but I do disagree with many other Conditionalists, such as those of the Seventh Day Adventists, who believe all souls are in a sleep state for the entire time between physical death and resurrection. I’ve looked into all the verses that cause people to believe this way, and I can see how this mistake can be made, but there are excellent explanations for those verses, and we’ll get into it later in Chapter 7 where we discuss Hades, where souls await judgment.

MacArthur continues, stating that we are souls and that we are self-conscious, both of which are very Biblically verifiable, but again, as he does so often, he concludes with the unbiblical statement that, “We are eternal spirits. Every one of us will live consciously forever.” This would be true if he were referring only to Christians, but clearly he is not. He’s trying, but failing, to establish that all souls are eternal regardless of salvation. Next MacArthur refers to the book of Job where Job asks, “If a man dies, shall he live again?” MacArthur says the answer is a “Resounding Yes.” Again, I agree with him and with the clear teaching in the Bible that all souls will exist consciously after physical death. The Bible is conclusive on this point, but this verse in Job does not confirm anything having to do with eternity for those who do not know God, only that the soul will not immediately go out of existence upon physical death, and certainly Job and other believers will go on living forever. But MacArthur somehow finds support for his theory in this verse from Job, and again states, “Everyone will live forever.”

Next, he references a former president of Yale University who wrote that there had to be an afterlife because there is the “tug of the afterlife in the human spirit.” The president likened it to a blind boy flying a kite who, though he couldn’t see the kite, could feel it pulling. No offense to the Yale president, but we need to believe in the afterlife because God’s Word tells us about it, not because of a feeling that we may or may not feel. Again, I regret being so repetitive, but the reality of an afterlife for the saved and unsaved still does not prove that unsaved souls are not ultimately annihilated as the Bible appears to say they will be.

Next, MacArthur references some of the practices of pagan cultures which reveal they too believe in an afterlife. I don’t really see the relevance there. I’ve studied some of the extra-Biblical interpretations of the afterlife, and I can find nothing that even deserves comment, at least nothing that supports Scripture; however, I do see from these studies where many of our myths about the sufferings in Hell and the immortality of souls derive from, but pagan belief in universal immortality should cause us to question the doctrine, not give us a reason to believe it.

After detouring from Scriptural proof, MacArthur then comes back to the Bible and says that we have “the testimony of the Word of the Living God.” I couldn’t agree more that this is what is needed, but let’s see where he goes with this. He reads from John Chapter 5, verse 28 and part of 29:
“Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming in which all those in the tombs will hear His voice, and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.”

This is the Word of God and there’s no problem with it. Still, there is no mention of eternal existence of the souls of the unsaved, however. The Greek word being translated as “judgment” which is also sometimes translated ‘damnation’ is krisis, and The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (referred to as Strong’s from here on) has among its possible meanings: a tribunal, divine justice, and accusation. I think it’s fair to assume that this judgment referred to is the Day of Judgment, or the actual act of God accusing the unsaved of their sin and failure to receive the only acceptable pardon. The unsaved’s sentence could possibly be implied here, but the accusation is the only thing we can know is indicated here, by definition of the words “damnation” or “judgment.” This is the judgment that precedes being cast into the Lake of Fire, which is the sentence. And even if the ultimate sentence (not only the momentary act of judgment) was implied by the verse, we’re only told that the lost will be resurrected to receive it, not that the Lake of Fire will torment human souls eternally. But MacArthur again concludes from this verse that every soul is eternal, when this is not in the text at all. Only the assumption, first of all, that this verse is telling of the sentence and not only the accusation, and then by the unfounded, preconceived notion that the Lake of Fire does not ultimately destroy lost humans as Jesus said it would, can he come to the conclusion that every soul is eternal. This is a lot of assuming. MacArthur makes reference to the truth that believers will be fitted with a new body to go into eternity, but then he says that the unbeliever will “receive a body fitted for the eternal Lake of Fire, which is the final form of Hell into which they will be cast at that time in the future.” MacArthur again seems to be reading information into a passage when it cannot be supported with other scripture.

Jesus asked, “What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?” The man is the soul according to Genesis Chapter 3, so the answer to Jesus’s question is: It profits him nothing at all, and it can’t. The loss of your soul means that you are no more because you are your soul, and this lines up with concepts established in the Psalms which we’ll look at in Chapter 3 where we’ll see language used for the lost that indicates “non-entity” and “non-existence.” The soul is who you are. One can’t lose it and still exist. The Bible tells us the unsaved are going to be cast into a lake of fire. We have every Biblical reason to believe this fire, figurative or literal (more likely literal), is the end of unrepentant human souls. So it is entirely out of line—and arguing in a circle—for MacArthur to go on from this last quote of his to this conclusion:

“We will live forever. We will all live forever. We will all live forever, consciously, self-consciously, aware of our surroundings and aware of our response to those surroundings. And we will all live forever with a body suited for our surroundings; in the case of those raised to life, there will be a body like the resurrection body of Jesus Christ that can absorb all the glories of eternity, and manifest our eternal spirit through that glorified body, in praise and in service and in communion with God and all the redeemed. For those who are given a body fit for Hell, it will be a body suited to feel the agonies of that eternal judgment.”

I’m in total agreement regarding the saved souls, however, there’s nothing in Scripture that indicates the unsaved will “feel the agonies” for all eternity, nor that the unsaved are given a new body “fit for Hell.” These are assumptions based on faulty doctrine about what follows judgment. There are indications that the unsaved will feel agonies in the intermediate state as they await judgment, for at least some period of time, and there is evidence they will be in agony again on judgment day, but as Scripture will show us more and more as we continue to explore deeper, no human soul will survive the Lake of Fire. None can endure it. As noted, Jesus figuratively used Gehenna, the Valley of Hinnom, Jerusalem’s burning landfill, as the term associated with final judgment, which gets translated to the word “Hell.” If He had wanted to indicate unending and eternal agony, misery, or torment, then He could have figuratively referenced any form of these in a way his audience of the day would understand it. But he chose Gehenna, a burning trash pile, a place they were familiar with, where nothing thrown in continues to exist in any form because it is consumed. And how many times does God tell us He will consume His enemies? Many. It all adds up when we read and trust Scripture. We have no reason to believe that this reference to the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) indicates eternal existence. Just the opposite is true.

There’s a very good reason that even two Godly men like Michael Easley and John MacArthur, both mightily used by the Lord to impact many souls for Christ I’m sure, have no better defense than this for the concept that all souls are eternal. The concept is not Biblical, plain and simple, and they are grasping for something that isn’t there.
To sum up, there is no Biblical connection between being made in His image, and being divine or eternal. The Bible says we are desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), far below God (Isaiah 6:1 and 55:9), spiritually dead (John 11:25, Romans 4:17, Ephesians 2:1), separated from God (Ephesians 2:12 and 4:18), insufficient (2 Corinthians 3:5-6), that He alone has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16), and that eternal life is the gift of God (Romans 6:23) and that even those of us who believe have not yet become immortal(1 Corinthians 15:54). The notion that we are partially divine and therefore wholly eternal without salvation is completely foreign to scripture, but all too common, unfortunately, in Christian teaching.

As just noted, Paul in Romans 9:22 and 23 indicates that God has endured with longsuffering “the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” This Greek word for destruction, apoleia, is strikingly similar to the English word “abolish” which means “abolish, to make no more.” Strong’s has among its definitions waste, destruction, perish, die, ruin, and loss, none of which in any way give even a hint that these “vessels of wrath,” these unsaved souls, will survive in any form after judgment. It also doesn’t say they are given a new body, fitted for continued existence in the Lake of Fire, only that they are “fitted for destruction.” The Bible is clear that souls are innately mortal, not immortal, and therefore are fitted for destruction at the point of their creation. This is not something that happens right before they are cast into the Lake of Fire. Unsaved people have not eaten and will never eat from the Tree of Life that would make them go on living forever, anywhere. In fact, just make a careful reading of Romans 9:22 and I think you’ll see that this “fitted to destruction” was past tense. The 1965 Bible in Basic English translates it this way:
“What if God, desiring to let his wrath and his power be seen, for a long time put up with the vessels of wrath which were ready for destruction” (italics for emphasis)

And the Literal Translation reads:

“But if God, desiring to demonstrate His wrath, and to make His power known, endured in much long-suffering vessels of wrath having been fitted out for destruction,. . .” (italics for emphasis)

It seems clear that whatever it is about the unsaved that makes them fit for destruction was already in place from the point of their creation. So what is it? Is it the “asbestos-like” body that some defenders of the traditional Hell doctrine claim the unsaved souls are fitted with? Not likely. No, it’s the mortal soul that our Merciful God created just that way for the express purpose of being able to rid Himself of human offense, but without there being eternal agony for those souls. “Fitted for destruction” essentially means “created mortal, and headed for a date with destruction by fire.”

Let’s look at another passage of Scripture that tells us all souls are not eternal. In Matthew Chapter 10, Jesus is forewarning his disciples that they are going to be hated for His Name’s sake, and that they will be persecuted. Then He tells them in Matthew 10:28:

“Don’t be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” (WEB)

Here’s another passage of Scripture that is undeniable. Do we really have innate immortality? 1 Timothy 6:15 and 16 say,
“15b…who is the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and eternal power. Amen.” (WEB — italics for emphasis)

This is quite a list of divine attributes that Paul gives us here, and one of them is immortality. And it specifically says that He alone possesses it. That makes sense, since we are not divine, according to Scripture. So how do we get this immortality? The same way it would have happened in the Garden of Eden, were Adam and Eve capable of obedience – eating from the Tree of Life. We’ve come full circle now. Matthew 10:28 concerns persevering through trial to reach the goal, and this chapter of Timothy follows suit. Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 6:11-12,
“But you, man of God, flee these things, and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance, and gentleness. Fight the good fight of faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you confessed the good confession in the sight of many witnesses.” (WEB — italics for emphasis)

So we have Jesus advising them to fear God because He can destroy (apollumi/abolish) the soul, thereby not giving it eternal life, and then Paul tells Timothy (and us) to pursue righteousness so as to “take hold of eternal life.” We began this chapter in the Garden of Eden with the Tree of Life representing the availability of immortality but with Adam and Eve being driven away from it, representing man’s inability to attain it by our own efforts. And now we’ve been promised this eternal life if we endure. So where in Scripture do we see our receiving this eternal life? Appropriately, it’s in the very last book of the Bible, in Chapter 2 of Revelation and then finally in Chapter 22, the very last chapter in the very last book of the Bible. That Tree of Life makes another appearance. God is the first and the last, the beginning and the end and He alone has immortality. It’s more than coincidental and it’s quite significant that this Tree of Life is found in the first and last books of the Bible. We begin with it, the entire Bible is the story of God’s love and how He wants to give eternal life to us, not let us gain it own our own, and then we end with Jesus’s own words, saying in Revelation 2:7:

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the Tree of Life, which is in the Paradise of my God.” (italics for emphasis — WEB)

In Revelation 22:2, we’re told that the Tree of Life is for the healing of the nations. “The nations” means it is offered to those from all people groups of earth who persevered in the faith, and the condition that all nations need to be healed from is our perishing souls.

The only other mentions of the Tree of Life outside of Genesis and Revelation are in Proverbs, most notably 11:30 which says, “The fruit of the righteous is a Tree of Life.” The Hebrew word translated “fruit” is periy and Strong’s defines it as “reward.” And that fits exactly with the other teachings about it. Yes, immortality belongs only to God, and He rewards it to those who overcome. Paul called it a prize. So how do we overcome? Jesus tells us we will have trouble in this world, but to take heart because He has already overcome the world. We only need to put our faith in what He has done, put on Christ, and when our faith is there, He will empower us to overcome, and one day receive eternal life, which we even now have the surety of because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

There’s one more thing that we should not miss about this life-giving tree. Remember that it is eating of its fruit that leads to eternal life. It’s no coincidence that the Lord himself hung on a tree when He gave his life for us, or when in Matthew 2:26 He told us to eat of his body. Not only is He the bread of Life come down from heaven (John 6:35), but He is, and offers, the fruit we must “eat of” to gain immortality.

Let’s look quickly at a few more verses that seem to tell us that all souls are not immortal.

2 Timothy 1:10: “and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (ESV)

According to this verse, Jesus Christ brings about immortality. It is not an innate attribute for humans.

John 6:50-51 “This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (ESV)

This seems very clear. If we accept Christ’ sacrifice, we will not die. If we do not, the implication is that we would die.

James 5:19-20 “My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” (ESV)

Here we have another confirmation that the soul of the sinner is headed for death. He could have easily stated, as so many modern Bible teachers do, that he would save his soul from “an eternity separated from God.” But he didn’t.
Jude 6: “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—” (ESV)

It’s interesting that something was in an “eternal” state until a later date, and even more interesting that the later date is the date of the final judgment. This proves, as so many other verses do, that this word “eternal” is not always referring to timeless eternity.

Psalm 33:18-19 “Behold, the eye of the LORD is on those who fear him, on those who hope in his steadfast love, that he may deliver their soul from death and keep them alive in famine.” (ESV)

An Old Testament reminder of the same thing: Souls are headed toward death if they are not delivered.

John 11:25-26 ” Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” (KJV)

Again the implication here is that if we do not believe this, we will die.

Jude 20-22 “But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.” (ESV — italics for emphasis)

Jude is addressing believers, people who already “have” eternal life we would say, yet he tells them to keep themselves in the love of God, “waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.” Clearly he does not see himself or other believers as technically already literally having eternal life, only the promise of it for those who wait and persevere. This idea of persevering to eternal life is mentioned elsewhere in Scripture such as in Matthew 24:13 where Jesus says, “But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (ESV), in James 1:12 where it says that when one stands “the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him” (ESV), and several other places.

But Jude also advises them to snatch others “out of” the fire. Have they already been cast into the Lake of Fire? Of course not, but they are “in the fire” in the sense that this is their destiny if they do not accept God’s offer of salvation from death. They are mortal and fitted for fiery destruction if their turning in faith toward the God who loves them doesn’t happen.

Romans 8:2 “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (KJV)

Because all men will die physically, and we know that Paul of course did, this law of death that he claims to be free from could only be referring to the death of the soul.

Isaiah 10:16-18 “16 Therefore the Lord GOD of hosts will send wasting sickness among his stout warriors, and under his glory a burning will be kindled, like the burning of fire. 17 The light of Israel will become a fire, and his Holy One a flame, and it will burn and devour his thorns and briers in one day. 18 The glory of his forest and of his fruitful land the LORD will destroy, both soul and body, and it will be as when a sick man wastes away.” (ESV)

Here we see souls and bodies devoured, and in a single day, and them being compared to a man who wastes away. This could be a reference to how God will deal physically with those being punished, and a simultaneous predictor of the day of judgment when they would be cast in the Lake of Fire.

1 Corinthians 15:50: “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (KJV)

This verse really drives home the idea that there is no way the lost can go on existing forever. The Greek word being translated as “incorruption” is aphtharsia, and the Strong’s concordance has as one of its primary meanings “general unending existence.” There is nothing in the word itself that denotes a blessed eternal life, only an existence that has no end, the very thing that traditionalists claim even unbelievers possess. Let’s look at the context of the verse, and first note that Paul is speaking to “brethren.” Then in the very next verse, he tells the brethren that what he is doing is revealing a mystery, the mystery that some would be changed physically at the time of the rapture, and also that those believers who had already died would be raised, but with a body that cannot perish. These are both part of inheriting the general unending existence that Paul spoke of in verse 50, and this is not a promise for the lost, but for the saved. Scripture never anywhere maintains that the lost will go on existing eternally, but clearly maintains that death will be their end.

Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (ESV)
This free gift of eternal life is contrasted with death in this verse, and because we know that all die physically, we can again reasonably assume that it is the death of the soul that’s being referenced. And there’s no warning that eternal existence in conscious torment is the wage of sin. The context of the fates however is that the fate will be permanent – either permanent death or permanent life. We can take this at face value and believe it, or we can continue to redefine death and imagine all sorts of things this could mean. It’s my hope that we will begin to look at the plain language of the Bible and put our trust in it, and it’s also my hope that this chapter has gone a long way toward showing Biblically that there is no reason to believe human souls without God’s salvation will go on existing into eternity in any conscious form. But we certainly haven’t exhausted the evidence.

Copyright © 2018 by Scott McAliley

No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means, without giving credit back to the original source.  If more than 500 words are reproduced, in any format, written permission from Crickets Publishing LLC is required.