An interaction with Dr. David Falk

David Falk is a very clever man who knows a lot about the bible - specifically Egypt in the bible. His recent video on Hell and my interaction in the comments with him is worth recording here.

Falk’s video:

The conversation starts where I respond to a comment asking for clarification about David’s claim that conditionalists depend on a minor definition of ‘forever’, a key argument to class Annihilation with “6 stinky socks”, a humorous rating system that places Annihilation as very low down the pecking order of views of hell. He is of course entitled to his opinion but there were several points that I think are of interest which I’ll highlight in my conclusion at the end.

Me:

Weirdly I don't memorise every part of the book but that doesn't stand out as a key part of his exegesis of Revelation neither can I find it in TFTC. He does discuss "forever" around the use of aionios in TFTC, is that what you're referring to? Again he doesn't limit his argument to a lexicon but to the usage in context in multiple passages of the bible so I'm interested in why you've chosen to limit your critique to such a focused word that isn't what we conditionalists, including Fudge, base our view on.

Falk:

> weirdly I don't memorise every part of the book but that doesn't stand out as a key part of his exegesis of Revelation neither can I find it in TFTC. He does discuss "forever" around the use of aionios in TFTC, is that what you're referring to?

He discussed it prominently in the 2nd edition of TFTC. But he might have played this down in the 3rd edition. However, the meaning of "forever" plays a critical role in how we exegete these passages. So, it would serve us well not o blow those off.

> Again he doesn't limit his argument to a lexicon but to the usage in context in multiple passages of the bible so I'm interested in why you've chosen to limit your critique to such a focused word that isn't what we conditionalists, including Fudge, base our view on.

But that is bad exegesis. Because you can't just skip through the Bible looking for the usage you want. You have to use the nearest possible context to derive your usage--this is something even Heiser would concur with. This is called contextual propinquity, and is a common (and uncontested) guiding principle of Biblical exegesis. If a passage really close to the contested passage uses words one way, then it is likely that the contested passage is using the words in the exact same way. And for passages like Rev 20:10 that is none other than Rev 22:5 and Rev 15:7. To do otherwise results in an equivocation fallacy, and that's bad exegetical method by any stretch of the imagination. Fudge's exegesis flies in the face of the context of the book itself.

Me:

That is a misrepresentation of what Fudge does and what I stated. Surveying the use of a word in scripture to show it's range of usage is one part of an argument. Exegesis in terms of context is a different argument. Neither ignore the use of forever. We're unlikely to resolve this in a comment thread but it seems to me like you've chosen a weak argument and presented it like its the conditionalist's achilles heel.

Falk:

> That is a misrepresentation of what Fudge does and what I stated.

How so? Fudge defined aiwnas/aiwnwn as a "very long time." But is this not an inappropriate usage of that definition for passages like Rev 20:10? Wouldn't its propinquity to other nearby passages oppose that view?

> Surveying the use of a word in scripture to show it's range of usage is one part of an argument. Exegesis in terms of context is a different argument. Neither ignore the use of forever.

You can't just take the entire NT and cherry-pick a specific definition that contradicts a specific usage within Revelation. That's the fallacy of composition and horrifyingly bad hermeneutics.

> We're unlikely to resolve this in a comment thread but it seems to me like you've chosen a weak argument and presented it like its the conditionalist's achilles heel.

This is perhaps why those who have done their full 3 years of Greek with exegesis don't buy these arguments. We've see this kind of crappy exegesis before and just find it laughable. But conditionalists generally don't have that training, so they don't understand that they don't know what they don't know. It's like playing pigeon chess.

Me:

"Both the life and the punishment pertain to the age to come, and are therefore “eternal” in the qualitative sense. This book attempts to show that both the life and the punishment are also unending, and are therefore “eternal” in the quantitative sense. This “punishment” can encompass a broad spectrum of degrees of conscious suffering based on varying degrees of guilt, but the essence of this “punishment” is the total and everlasting dissolution and extinction of the person punished (Matt 10:28; 2 Thess 1:9)." TFTC 3rd edition.

Where did I say just pick a meaning? The phrase cherry pick is misleading. Surely in your years of study you've done word studies? And as I've already said we don't ignore "forever" in Revelation, we simply understand in the context that it is a vision and the vision is explained as "the second death".

Your final comment shows a level of derision that is unwarranted and possibly ignorant of the scholars who are conditionalists based on exegesis. Unless, that is, you think Richard Bauckham, RT France, John Stott, Chris Date, John Stackhouse, Preston Sprinkle, Glenn Peoples, and many other proponents of the views aren't qualified exegetes?

Falk:

> "Both the life and the punishment pertain to the age to come, and are therefore “eternal” in the qualitative sense. This book attempts to show that both the life and the punishment are also unending, and are therefore “eternal” in the quantitative sense. This “punishment” can encompass a broad spectrum of degrees of conscious suffering based on varying degrees of guilt, but the essence of this “punishment” is the total and everlasting dissolution and extinction of the person punished (Matt 10:28; 2 Thess 1:9)." TFTC 3rd edition.

This is a redefinition of "qualitative" to voiding its meaning. Qualitative meanings happen throughout the NT. For example, John 1:1 "the Word was God." "God" hear is in the qualitative. It's not "a god" or "the god" but "God," that is, Christ has the quality of being God. However, in the case of the qualitative, such qualities always lack the definite article. In the case of Rev 20:10, the word aiwnas is used with the definite article so it cannot be in the qualitative. Furthermore, even if it were in the qualitative, the attribute would apply to its antecedent, which means that "they will be tormented" (the antecedent) is modified by the prepositional phrase "for the eternities of the eternities." This means that the quality of that torment is it eternality not its finality. Moreover, if the Greek writers really wanted to express the extinction of the person, they certainly had the lexical range to do this in unambiguous terms.

> Where did I say just pick a meaning? The phrase cherry pick is misleading. Surely in your years of study you've done word studies? And as I've already said we don't ignore "forever" in Revelation, we simply understand in the context that it is a vision and the vision is explained as "the second death".

Unfortunately, that is doubling down on a one-meaning fallacy of the "second death," which is an exegetical fallacy. The problem is that you equivocate your meaning of forever, using it one way for eternal life and another way for eternal punishment, where there is contextual propinquity. That is almost always indicates an error in one's exegesis. And because you are suggesting the term is being used multiple ways in the same context, I remained unconvinced. However, one does have to be cautious of word studies. Even Michael Heiser has stated that word studies are okay, but they are really Biblical study for amateurs. There's a lot more that goes into Bible interpretation that words studies. And word studies can be misleading as well since they can be used to ride roughshod over the immediate context of the passage.

> Your final comment shows a level of derision that is unwarranted and possibly ignorant of the scholars who are conditionalists based on exegesis.

I don't doubt that some scholars are annihiliationists, but that remains the minority view. And I think there are good reasons for that.

> Unless, that is, you think Richard Bauckham,

I pray for Bauckham. I had strongly considered becoming one of his PhD students, but he had to take an extended hiatus because of mental health concerns.

> RT France, John Stott... John Stackhouse, Preston Sprinkle,

I respect them as scholars but wouldn't agree with everything they say. Just because they are scholars doesn't mean we should accept what they say automatically. I have encountered some "scholars" that were close to incompetent in their respective fields. Titus Kennedy pops to mind.

> Glenn Peoples, and many other proponents of the views aren't qualified exegetes?

I would not consider Glenn Peoples a qualifies exegete. He did his PhD in Philosophy not a field of Biblically-related studies. However, more concerning is his ThM from University of Otago, which is a one year program. In all likelihood, he could not have done the three years of Greek and exegesis needed to handle exegetical matters with the proper competence.

> Chris Date

Date has no terminal degree. I remain to be impressed by his level of scholarship. He is not what pops to my mind when I think of a "qualified exegete." His only graduate degree is a MA in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary. An MA is a 2-year academic degree. That again is not sufficient be a considered to be a competent exegete. But he is quite an accomplished bloviator.

Me:

Claiming an exegetical fallacy doesn't make it so. Your focus on the word "forever" is dodging the fact that it's a vision, that it's explained as the second death (Rev 20:14), and that death will be no more (Rev 21:4 - let alone that the wages of sin is death and every image given in OT and NT bar two verses on Revelation is death not torment). If death is no more then the lake of fire cannot be a continuous 'death' aka eternal life but just a bad one.

To help you with the overly wooden reading of forever, see also Rev 19:3 where smoke goes up forever regarding babylon's destruction, is that a literal forever? Or check what it alludes to, Isaiah 34 and the destruction of edom, is Edom still smoking - I mean it says forever right?

We don't argue against the meaning of aionios - that seemed to me to be Fudge's point in the quote. We recognise that a vision is explained and idioms like Rev 19:3 don't translate literally.

Like most traditionalists you're claiming exegetical high ground while missing the context of the entire book, the verses around the word, and the allusions to the OT.

Admittedly, Rev 20:10 is the most challenging passage for a conditionalist, but only if one ignores every other word the bible's authors use for the end of the wicked.

Simply because one doesn't have a formal qualification in this day and age doesn't necessarily make one unqualified. That said, I don't care how qualified you are, if you start a video with "Jesus talked more about hell than heaven" (something an "amateur" with a word study could figure out as false) I can't take your arguments as much more than regurgitation of the main view rather than critical engagement.

Falk:

> Claiming an exegetical fallacy doesn't make it so. Your focus on the word "forever" is dodging the fact that it's a vision, that it's explained as the second death (Rev 20:14), and that death will be no more (Rev 21:4 - let alone that the wages of sin is death and every image given in OT and NT bar two verses on Revelation is death not torment).

And yet, the one-meaning fallacy stands. No language operates that way, and it is now incumbent upon you to show why "death" must mean "physical death" in every case. Good luck with that.

> If death is no more then the lake of fire cannot be a continuous 'death' aka eternal life but just a bad one. To help you with the overly wooden reading of forever, see also Rev 19:3 where smoke goes up forever regarding babylon's destruction, is that a literal forever? Since Babylon's destruction is analogical, why could it not be a literal forever? You have not explained why that cannot be so.

> Or check what it alludes to, Isaiah 34 and the destruction of edom, is Edom still smoking - I mean it says forever right?

I think you misunderstand the use of poetics in the prophetic genre of Isaiah 34. Now, that could serve as a counter-argument against the poetics of Revelation, except that Revelation does also provide constrastive phrasing that prevents it from being viewed as strictly the compressed language of poetic phrasing. This emphasizes that taking one passage (Isa 34) out of its context does not provide justification for reinterpreting a passages in a different context (Rev 20ff).

> We don't argue against the meaning of aionios - that seemed to me to be Fudge's point in the quote. We recognise that a vision is explained and idioms like Rev 19:3 don't translate literally.

Poppycock! It's not an idiom, but a reduplication for emphasis. Fudge was a complete exegetical ignoramus, who didn't understand anything about the implications of his exegesis, and had an ideological axe to grind. To say it is an idiom is say the same meaning applies to saved as well as the reprobate passages. It is an exegetical inconsistency that crumbles under its own weight.

> Like most traditionalists you're claiming exegetical high ground while missing the context of the entire book, the verses around the word, and the allusions to the OT.

Calling me a traditionalist is laughable. I've been an advocate of interpreting Revelation through the OT. And I am in no way a traditionalist. If anything I'm an iconoclast. But you are just plain wrong here, and it is because you do not understand proper exegetical methods. And even though I'm not beholden to tradition in any way, I must still follow the text as it is best understood in its original context. That is why I must reject annihiliationalism.

> Admittedly, Rev 20:10 is the most challenging passage for a conditionalist, but only if one ignores every other word the bible's authors use for the end of the wicked.

And it is challenging for a conditionalist, but only if they ignore the same phrasiology applied by the author for the telos of the blessed (Rev 22:5). The problem is the conditionalist is forced to use two different meanings for the words of Rev 22:5 and Rev 20:10 to derive their interpretation--and that is a serious problem.

> Simply because one doesn't have a formal qualification in this day and age doesn't necessarily make one unqualified.

No, but Greek exegesis does require a certain level of education to achieve competence, in the same way that a medical doctor requires a certain number of years of study and practice to be qualified in his field. You may believe in your heroes, but that doesn't make them qualified. But hey, if you want a medical doctor cutting you up that has not gone through the years of training to make him competent, that's your funeral.

> That said, I don't care how qualified you are, if you start a video with "Jesus talked more about hell than heaven" (something an "amateur" with a word study could figure out as false) I can't take your arguments as much more than regurgitation of the main view rather than critical engagement.

Again another problem with word studies is that they count the number of times a word appears and is satisfied with that. That's letting a search engine do your thinking for you instead of really engaging what the scriptures say. Have you ever read the NT in an honest-to-God paper book? The proper way to count this is not by doing a simplistic word search, but by tabulating what has been meaningfully said for heaven and hell per se. Furthermore, any fool can do a search of "heaven" verses "hell" and count the results, but hell is also referred to be "judgment", "hades", "tartarus", "fire", "wrath", and other terms. So it is not so simple as a rudimentary word search. This is why exegetes for a 100 years have claimed that Christ talked more about hell than heaven, because they weren't so stupid as to conduct simplistic word searches.

Me:

This is turning into a bit of an essay but here goes...

You made the claim "Jesus talked more about hell than about heaven" and instead of recognising that it is on you to prove your claim, you double down. You also double down by referring to 'tartarus' - this was used once by Peter and not by Jesus. You also refer to hades, fire and wrath as though they all link to Hell as in the final judgement. You are right, it isn't about a rudimentary word search and once you go beyond said word search you'll find that you and the 100 years of exegetes who have made this claim are objectively wrong.

Exegesis can be learned without qualification - I've been fortunate enough to have good teachers (most of my life they've been traditionalists in the sense of defending hell) and it is their training in exegesis that has brought me to the conditionalist view. Training as a medical doctor is not a good comparison.

"And it [Rev 20:10] is challenging for a conditionalist, but only if they ignore the same phrasiology applied by the author for the telos of the blessed (Rev 22:5). The problem is the conditionalist is forced to use two different meanings for the words of Rev 22:5 and Rev 20:10 to derive their interpretation--and that is a serious problem."

You seem to have missed the point where I said we don't argue regarding the use of forever. It is the context that explains what is forever and John explains the torment forever being symbolic of a forever death (more on this below) and the reigning forever as part of a forever life.

"Fudge was a complete exegetical ignoramus, who didn't understand anything about the implications of his exegesis, and had an ideological axe to grind."

I didn't know Fudge, I know a few who did, your testimony doesn't match up with what I know of Fudge's journey to defend conditional immortality nor does it match up with my reading of his exegetical arguments. As far as I can tell in his story there isn't an ideology but a desire to be scriptural. Seems to me you have an axe to grind against him but I'll leave that with you. Whatever the case, Fudge isn't the sole defender of conditionalism.

"I think you misunderstand the use of poetics in the prophetic genre of Isaiah 34. Now, that could serve as a counter-argument against the poetics of Revelation, except that Revelation does also provide constrastive phrasing that prevents it from being viewed as strictly the compressed language of poetic phrasing. This emphasizes that taking one passage (Isa 34) out of its context does not provide justification for reinterpreting a passages in a different context (Rev 20ff)."

So in the above you wave away the explanation of Rev 20 being an allusion to Isaiah 34 saying I'm taking it out of context and reinterpreting Revelation with it. Further on in your comment you say you've argued that Revelation needs to be interpreted by the OT. So which is it? Isaiah 34 is clearly, in the entirety of its context, alluded to by John. From the use of sulfur to the language of 'day and night' and use of 'smoke going up forever' (Rev 14:11). When passages are alluded to we should consider the entirety of said context, as we do that we see that Isaiah in chapter 33 asks the question, "Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?” The answer is only the righteous - the images of the wicked are total destruction. This then must inform our interpretation of Revelation - we need not 'reinterpret' because both Isaiah and John help us with their explanations to interpret accurately.

In whatever way John saw smoke going up forever and ever in a dream/vision (can you see eternity in a dream?) he explains it as a finality - the second death (20:14). Which leads to the final point...

"And yet, the one-meaning fallacy stands. No language operates that way, and it is now incumbent upon you to show why "death" must mean "physical death" in every case. Good luck with that."

I've shown in my previous comment and in the one above that John clarifies his vision as calling it a second death and that in Revelation 21:4 we see 'death is no more'. This is also an allusion to Isaiah 25 where death is no more. So if the second death ACTUALLY means eternal existence in a bad place, then the 'death' of 'second death' actually means something different from the 'death' of 21:4. It also means that sin and evil is actually in existence in the new creation (Rev 14:11 is in the presence of the lamb, something conveniently overlooked by many who propose continual separation as a view of Hell) which is no victory at all.

On top of this, the lake of fire destroys the place of death. I'm assuming that despite Hades and Death being personified in Revelation you don't conclude that they are being tormented forever. As the place (Hades) that is supposed to have held the souls of the dead is gone, what left is there for the second death to be anything but the destruction of body and soul. So Revelation itself implies second death is an end rather than a continual life in torment.

On top of that, 2 Peter and Jude point to the OT as examples of what will happen to the ungodly. What do they point to? Examples of cities and people being destroyed (made extinct as Peter says) and rendered ash. This aligns with Jesus' comment in Matthew 10:28 that soul and body is destroyed in Gehenna. The idea that the final death needs to be distinguished as 'physical death' implies there is a spiritual death - I think this comes from a poor understanding of what Paul meant in Ephesians 2 and a few other verses and is simply a framework to prop up eternal torment rather than good exegesis. A short summary of why here:

In conclusion on the second death being a finality rather than a continual existence - this aligns far better with the whole of the bible where there is not one verse outside of revelation (without massaging the meanings of ash, burned up, consumed, dead, corpse, destroyed, perished, 'be no more' etc.) that defends the idea that the wicked will be kept around forever.

Falk:

> Claiming an exegetical fallacy doesn't make it so.

I would suggest reading D. A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies" and Grant Osborne's "Hermaneutical Spiral" for more information on exegetical fallacies, since you seem to need a primer.

> Your focus on the word "forever" is dodging the fact that it's a vision, that it's explained as the second death (Rev 20:14), and that death will be no more (Rev 21:4 - let alone that the wages of sin is death and every image given in OT and NT bar two verses on Revelation is death not torment). If death is no more then the lake of fire cannot be a continuous 'death' aka eternal life but just a bad one.

Death in the progressive sense would be no more. Death was proflagrate, and it too had to cease with the victory of Christ. That did not prevent some from choosing death. However, many passages (not just Revelation) talk about the eternal punishment of the reprobate (Dan 12:2; Eccl 12:5; Matt 18:8, 25:41, 25:46; 2 Thes 1:9; Heb 6:2; Jude 1:7). It's one thing to take some of these passages as poetic, but to do so in all these cases stretches credulity.

> To help you with the overly wooden reading of forever, see also Rev 19:3 where smoke goes up forever regarding babylon's destruction, is that a literal forever?

It depends entire upon the meaning of Babylon's destruction. What is precisely the judgment spoken of in Rev 19:2? The text does not specify that, and because the text does not specify that we cannot say that the her judgment is not "forever and ever."

> Or check what it alludes to, Isaiah 34 and the destruction of edom, is Edom still smoking - I mean it says forever right? We don't argue against the meaning of aionios - that seemed to me to be Fudge's point in the quote. We recognise that a vision is explained and idioms like Rev 19:3 don't translate literally.

Isaiah was written in Hebrew, not Greek, so the meaning of aionas cannot be argued from Isa 34:10. Nevertheless, Isa 34:10 is written in poetic language. It's rivers are not being turned into literal pitch (v. 9). However, you are failing to understand that poetic language is compressed language designed to convey greater reality. While no one would say that the physical Edom would be still smouldering, the poetics (if they were to make any sense at all) implies that the people of Edom are still experiencing the judgment that they were consigned to. After all, is a judgment placed upon a physical place or the people who inhabited that place? Think hard about that. Nevertheless, when you evacuate the meaning of aionos in Rev 19:3, you also void other contextually similar passages of their literality, e.g., Exod 15:18; Ps 10:16, 45:6, 52:8, 111:8, 145:21, 148:6; Isa 34:10; Dan 2:20, 12:3; Mic 4:5; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20; 1 Tim 1:17; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 1:8, 13:21; 1 Pet 4:11, 5:11; Rev 1:6, 4:9-10, 5:13, 7:12, 10:6, 11:15, 14:11, 15:7, 20:10, 22:5.

Your misapplication of idiom here has serious exegetical consequences because of the propinquity of context. So I hope to God you are wrong. Because if you are right, then the eternal nature of everlasting life cannot be taken literally, and our assurance of everlasting life is nothing but a pipe dream.

> Like most traditionalists you're claiming exegetical high ground while missing the context of the entire book, the verses around the word, and the allusions to the OT.

Nonsense. I'm hardly a traditionalist, and I certainly do not miss allusion to the OT since I am an OT scholar. Moreover, if anything I'm an iconoclast. And I am a fervent adherent of reading the Bible contextually. Nevertheless, I am also rigid in regards to sound exegetical method. And even though I can accept annihiliationism as a bona fide Christian position in the same way I find Calvinism and Arminianism bona fide, I find the exegetical methods of annihilationists to be repugnant.

> Admittedly, Rev 20:10 is the most challenging passage for a conditionalist, but only if one ignores every other word the bible's authors use for the end of the wicked.

If you think that is the more challenging passage, then you are not considering the implications of your exegesis. And if you think that the only show stopper is the "bible's authors use for the end of the wicked", you might want to consider that you have loaded that reading with a lot of Western context that might not be original to the author's intent.

> Simply because one doesn't have a formal qualification in this day and age doesn't necessarily make one unqualified.

Ignorance also doesn't make one qualified.

> That said, I don't care how qualified you are, if you start a video with "Jesus talked more about hell than heaven" (something an "amateur" with a word study could figure out as false) I can't take your arguments as much more than regurgitation of the main view rather than critical engagement.

This is also why simple word searches are for amateurs because they are methodologically limited to word searches in search engines--in other words, lazy thinking. The fact is that discourse over hell has a larger ranges of references and euphemisms than heaven (as no one needs to demur from talking about heaven), i.e., hell is referred to as "hades", "tartarus", "judgment", "fire", "condemnation". So one cannot limit your discussion to simply the search term "hell." The exegetes of the pre-computer age knew this because they read the paper copies of the NT and had to tabulate these things by hand using their critical discretion and judgment. And now some ** with a search prompt declares "a word study could figure out as false" as if they have done some real scholarly work.

Look, I have nothing against you, but you don't know what you are doing. So it is difficult to critically engage someone who is forceful of his position but lacks the tools to seriously engage this topic in a meaningful way.

Me:

You've repeated yourself in several places - possibly responding to the wrong comment?

• Jesus didn't speak more about hell than heaven. If he did, prove it. On the repeated reads of the gospels you are way off. Your stating that Tartarus is relevant highlights just how little work you are doing here. Tartarus is used once in the bible by Peter, not Jesus, and is most likely connected to Hades, the intermediate state, not final judgement, but I'm sure you know that. Doubling down on your claim and patronising me doesn't help strengthen your argument.

• You say, "However, many passages (not just Revelation) talk about the eternal punishment of the reprobate (Dan 12:2; Eccl 12:5; Matt 18:8, 25:41, 25:46; 2 Thes 1:9; Heb 6:2; Jude 1:7)." I agree. The disagreement is on the question, "what is the punishment". None of those verses speak of eternal torment and all of them bar Matt 25:46 are about death in the sense of not living/experiencing torment. Matt 25:46 is in the context of eternal fire, and eternal fire in every usage destroys what is in it actually is even more unlikely to mean eternal torment so while 'eternal punishment' is neutral, the context moves it to defending the conditionalist perspective.

• You say "it depends entire upon the meaning of Babylon's destruction. What is precisely the judgment spoken of in Rev 19:2?"

  Read chapter 18. As I've said - its pretty clear (NET version below):

  • vs. 8 "and she will be burned down with fire, because the Lord God who judges her is powerful!”

  • vs 9b-10: "when they see the smoke from the fire that burns her up. They will stand a long way off because they are afraid of her torment, and will say, “Woe, woe, O great city, Babylon the powerful city! For in a single hour your doom has come!”

  • vs. 15b-17: " because they are afraid of her torment. They will weep and mourn, saying, “Woe, woe, O great city— dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet clothing, and adorned with gold, precious stones, and pearls— because in a single hour such great wealth has been destroyed!”

  • vs 18: "and began to shout when they saw *the smoke from the fire that burned her up*"

  • vs 21: "Babylon the great city will be thrown down and it will never be found again!"

    "Never be found again" is repeated a few times for emphasis. So then we get to 19:3 - the angels celebrate the destruction by saying the smoke will rise forever and ever... well that would mean it could be found right? So which do we take literally?

    I'm inclined to say that the emphasis of chapter 18 is total destruction of Babylon is what is in view, not its eternal torment - and note, how is Babylon, a city, tormented? Think about that as you read Rev 20:10.

• "It's rivers are not being turned into literal pitch (v. 9). However, you are failing to understand that poetic language is compressed language designed to convey greater reality."

  Really? This is your response? Not taking the rivers of pitch literally is my point!

• "While no one would say that the physical Edom would be still smouldering, the poetics (if they were to make any sense at all) implies that the people of Edom are still experiencing the judgment that they were consigned to."

  Exactly! They remain under the judgement which was death. That need not imply 'experience' though it may until resurrection but both Peter and Jude show us how to make us of the examples of the OT judgement as what will happen post-judgement. None of the OT judgements give any foundation for eternal torment, and none of the NT writers use them to do so. To suggest they do is eisegesis no matter how much you wave qualifications around.

• “Nevertheless, when you evacuate the meaning of aionos in Rev 19:3"

  I'll repeat, I haven't removed any meaning from aionios. This is simply your projection of an argument I'm not making. I'll repeat context makes clear what is forever and ever. Claiming I'm undermining eternal life and God reigning forever is not only missing my point but also failing in imagination. Each context gives us clarity on what is forever and ever and in the vision of 20:10 John calls it the second death.

  An example: God will destroy evil forever and ever (meaning an end) because God will be all in all and will reign forever and ever (meaning ongoing life) - see how I haven't undermined the meaning of forever and ever? Sin will be extinguished, the wicked will be no more. Hallelujah.

• "And if you think that the only show stopper is the "bible's authors use for the end of the wicked", you might want to consider that you have loaded that reading with a lot of Western context that might not be original to the author's intent."

  Read Psalm 37 and 73 as two examples and note "end of the wicked" isn't my original words nor my importing western thought into the context. I don't think the Psalmist could be any more clear what he means will happen to the wicked.

• "it is difficult to critically engage someone who is forceful of his position but lacks the tools to seriously engage this topic in a meaningful way."

  It isn't a surprise you're finding it difficult when you keep ignoring what I actually say and project arguments that I don't make, all while claiming to have exegesis on your side.

  Thanks for the book recommendations, they're on the reading list. However, it isn't me making the exegetical errors here nor reading assumptions into texts.

Conclusion:

I’m not sure about how my tone comes across in this, there are a few places where I try not to match Falk’s polemic, especially against those who don’t seem to match his view of what makes one qualified. I’m not quite sure I pass my own test of cordial robust rebuttal but its something to continue working on.

I find his arguments lacking given his claim to qualifications but I guess in his mind I’m unqualified to make such conclusions. He seems to rely on polemic and assertion in many places, especially when arguing against a simplistic idea of word studies (yes whole bible word studies have significant limitations, however navigating how a word is used in a single book is useful) and doubling down on Jesus talking about hell more than heaven.

The issue with his main argument is that he is fixated on the word ‘forever’ (aionios) and minimises that even Fudge is arguing for both definitions of the word INCLUDING the one Falk thinks is the correct definition. Fudge is arguing for a ‘both and’ view of aionios, Falk is arguing for a ‘only’ view of aionios. I think Fudge’s nuance is more helpful given the limitations of translation and the way aionios is used throughout scripture. Falk then asserts I’m flattening the meaning of death while implying a framework of distinguishing physical and spiritual death which is based on highly questionable exegesis. See my video in my response above for why.

My main takeaway from this is to not discount those who disagree who do not have qualifications, and even if I do ever get to study in future not to put too much faith in my own qualifications. Falk is a very clever man with a lot of study but much of his attack against conditionalism and claim that a “passive conscious torment” or separational view of hell (“like being thrown in a stinky rubbish dump where your neighbours really suck” - Falk at 4:45min in the video above) is better exegetically highlights this isn’t an area of expertise.

If Falk responds to me, I’ll put his response above and leave it at that but for now I’ll leave it to Chris Date to give his rebuttal here when it goes live: