No End to the Bloodshed: Annihilationism Refuted?

Hiram Diaz, with whom I debated the nature of eternal punishment back in December, recently posted a question on his Facebook page. He later indicated in the comments thread that his question leads to a refutation of annihilationism, based on the insufficiency of repeated Levitical sacrifices to satisfy the punitive demands of the Law, as described in Hebrews 7. Once it is formulated clearly in the form of a syllogism, however, the insufficiency of his argument to challenge annihilationism becomes clear.

Here is the question Hiram originally asked:

Question: How many sacrificial lambs would be required by the Levitical law in order to make atonement for our sins, and why?

After others commented back and forth, Hiram posted this comment:

I was primarily referring to Hebrews 7:27. There would be no end to the death and bloodshed. No shed blood save that of the Lord Jesus Christ could end the death and bloodshed due to sinners. Therefore, it is impossible for any other death to fully a satisfy the punitive demands of the law. Yet apart from the sacrifice of Christ, there is NO sacrifice that remains for sins. Therefore, those who reject the Gospel will be ther recipients of God’s judgment, and cannot ever cease to exist, for it is only the blood of Christ that brings an end to the unending bloodshed and death due to all sinners. Therefore, annihilationism is false.

Personally, I think tenuous extrapolations from texts which don’t say anything about what awaits the unsaved should be interpreted through the lens of texts which do say something about what awaits the unsaved, which is my biggest problem with universalism. Since the passages which do say what awaits the unsaved say they will be reduced to lifeless remains forever, we already know Hiram’s argument fails. What’s more, the answer to Hiram’s argument is quite simple: Christ’s sacrifice was not merely about satisfying the punitive demands of the Law; it was about turning away God’s wrath, and since the unsaved will be reduced to lifeless remains forever, God’s wrath is not turned away from them, and their death does not accomplish that which Christ’s does.

But since I happen to know that Hiram appreciates logical syllogisms, and because I still hope to be able to reason with him on this topic, let’s examine his argument in the form of the syllogism to which I think it reduces (I’ll attempt to, anyway; I’m not an expert in formal logic):

  • P1: The punitive value of the death of an animal in a Levitical sacrifice is equal to the punitive value of the death of a human being.
  • P2: The death of an animal in a Levitical sacrifice does not satisfy the punitive demands of the Law for sins committed prior to the sacrifice being made.
  • P3: The punitive value of a human being’s first death is equal to the punitive value of the second death of annihilation.
  • C: The second death of an annihilated sinner does not satisfy the punitive demands of the Law for sins committed prior to being annihilated.

Consider what it means if the first premise is not true. Well then no matter how insufficient a long series of repeated Levitical animal sacrifices, the death of a human being might, in fact, be capable of satisfying the punitive demands of the Law when an animal’s death could not.

Consider, also, what it means if the first premise is true, but the second is not. Well then it may have been necessary to repeat Levitical animal sacrifices ad infinitum because any given sacrifice satisfied the punitive demands of past sins but not future sins, in which case the death of a human being, rendering him incapable of future sins, might be capable of satisfying the punitive demands of the Law.

Consider, still, what it means if the first and second premises are true, but the third is not. Well then whatever equality in punitive value there may be between an animal’s death and a human’s first death, and even if such a death cannot satisfy the punitive demands of the Law for even past sins, perhaps a human’s second death could.

Thus, if any of these three premises is not true, then Hiram’s conclusion is unjustified, and the repeated Levitical sacrifices serve as no challenge to annihilationism.

I’m doubtful that the truth of the second premise can be demonstrated, but that’s not the one I’d challenge most strongly. I would argue that the Bible says only man was created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-27) and was given dominion over animals (Gen. 1:28), and whereas God called His creation “good” prior to the creation of man (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25), after creating man and giving him rule over the rest of creation He called it “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Thus the first premise seems obviously false. And since the second death is both one from which the annihilated sinner will never rise (unlike the first), and is one of both body and soul according to Matthew 10:28 (unlike the first), the second premise seems obviously false as well.

Hiram, it seems to me, thus has quite a challenge before him if he wants to maintain his argument against annihilationism from the repeated Levitical sacrifices, which only Christ was able to bring to an end. Even if it is fairly easy to demonstrate that those sacrifices did not sufficiently satisfy the punitive demands of the Law for sins committed prior to the sacrifice being made, Hiram must scale the seemingly unscalable mountain of demonstrating that the punitive value of an animal’s death is equal to the punitive value of a human’s death, and that the punitive value of a human’s first death is equal to the punitive value of a human’s second death. In the meantime, his argument fails to challenge annihilationism.

16 thoughts on “No End to the Bloodshed: Annihilationism Refuted?

  1. Sounds good, Hiram. I’m sure it will be more substantive than,

    Just a brief response, Chris. I don’t believe that the death of a sacrificial animal is equivalent in value to the death of a human being. The point of Hebrews, and my point as well, is that there is no payment for sins that is sufficient apart from the work of Christ. The death of the sacrificial animals shows us what is necessary in order for our sins to be forgiven: An infinity of deaths or a death of infinite value that pays the debt in full.

    After all, the point of Hebrews is not that there is no payment for sins that is sufficient apart from the work of Christ; it’s that there is no sacrifice that can propitiate God’s wrath apart from the work of Christ, and since what annihilationists allege awaits the unsaved is not a sacrifice that propitiates God’s wrath, Hebrews does not challenge it.

  2. In fact, you said it well: “what is necessary in order for our sins to be forgiven…[is] a death of infinite value.” Annihilation is not a sacrifice that propitiates, does not result in forgiveness of sins, does not turn God’s wrath away; annihilationism is the result of God’s wrath not being turned away. Thus, whatever sufficiency Hebrews attributes to Christ’s sacrifice alone, it in no way challenges annihilationism.

  3. “After all, the point of Hebrews is not that there is no payment for sins that is sufficient apart from the work of Christ; it’s that there is no sacrifice that can propitiate God’s wrath apart from the work of Christ, and since what annihilationists allege awaits the unsaved is not a sacrifice that propitiates God’s wrath, Hebrews does not challenge it.”

    Chris, the sacrifice is the payment for the sins committed

  4. accidentally entered that prematurely. lol

    I’ll just put it this way, I don’t understand how your objection makes any difference in what I’m arguing. You are making a logical distiniction that is there, and one with which I agree; however, the fact still stands: The animal typologically stood in the place of the sinner, bearing God’s wrath in his place. God’s wrath is turned away from believers because of the fact that Christ has borne it in their place.

    Annihilationism is not a sacrifice that propitiates God’s wrath. That’s my whole point 😉 The sacrifice that propitiates God’s wrath is a Substitutionary Sacrifice that bears God’s wrath in the sinner’s place. God’s wrath has been poured out upon His Son. I will be more precise about these distinctions, however, when I write out my argument in fuller form.

  5. But Hebrews is not merely about satisfaction of punitive demands; it is about the the satisfaction of punitive demands of the Law by the sacrifice of another, diverting God’s wrath from the one who deserves it. Hebrews indicates that no sacrificial death apart from Christ can divert God’s wrath from the sinner, but it doesn’t follow that therefore a sinner’s annihilation cannot satisfy the punitive demands of the Law, for a sinner’s annihilation is not sacrifical and does not divert God’s wrath; it IS God’s wrath.

    Besides, we’ve already established that your argument from the insufficiency of repeated Levitical animal sacrifices fails, since at least two of its three premises are indefensible.

  6. The animal typologically stood in the place of the sinner, bearing God’s wrath in his place. God’s wrath is turned away from believers because of the fact that Christ has borne it in their place.

    Exactly! But the annihilation of sinners would not turn God’s wrath away from them; by definition it is God’s wrath.

    Annihilationism is not a sacrifice that propitiates God’s wrath. That’s my whole point. The sacrifice that propitiates God’s wrath is a Substitutionary Sacrifice that bears God’s wrath in the sinner’s place. God’s wrath has been poured out upon His Son.

    That’s NOT your whole point, for propitiation is more than satisfaction of punitive demands; it results in reconciliation, which the sinner’s annihilation would not do. Therefore, I agree that annihilation is not a sacrifice that propitiates God’s wrath, but it doesn’t follow that it does not satisfy the punitive demands of the Law.

  7. This article, for example, explains that propitiation is more than mere satisfaction of punitive demands:

    Propitiation means the turning away of wrath by an offering. In relation to soteriology, propitiation means placating or satisfying the wrath of God by the atoning sacrifice of Christ…The word propitiation carries the basic idea of appeasement, or satisfaction, specifically towards God. Propitiation is a two-part act that involves appeasing the wrath of an offended person and being reconciled to them…Propitiation is that “by which it becomes consistent with his character and government to pardon and bless the sinner. The propitiation does not procure his love or make him loving; it only renders it consistent for him to exercise his love towards sinners.

    Hebrews definitely says only Christ’s sacrifice propitiates, but it doesn’t follow that only Christ’s death satifies the punitive demands of the Law. The punitive demands of the Law may require the death of the sinner, a death from which he or she will never rise, but that doesn’t make it propitiatory, whereas Hebrews indicates that only Christ’s death is fully propitiatory.

  8. So, it seems to me, what you have to be able to demonstrate is twofold: (a) that a sinner’s bearing one’s own punishment is propitiatory, and (b) that were a sinner’s annihilation capable of satisfying the punitive demands of the Law, it would therefore propitiate. I submit that neither is demonstrable, for in (a) God’s wrath is not turned away, and in (b) the annihilated sinner is not reconciled to God.

  9. I don’t have to demonstrate that the sinner’s death is propitiatory, Chris. If the substitutionary sacrifice undergoes what is due to the sinner, then it follows that the sinner without a sacrifice undergoes what is due to him.

    But we see from Scripture that what is due to him is not the death of one substitute, but the death of an infinite number of substitutes. Christ alone satisfies the wrath of God. Therefore, the reprobate are left to undergo what is due to them: An endless amount of deaths (so to speak).

    The constant shedding of blood only stops in Christ. It His blood that causes the infinite shedding of blood (for even one sinner) to cease. But if the shedding of the animals blood is substitutionary, then it follows that there is no end to the shedding of the blood of the wicked who have no sacrifice to bring an end to the wrath of God which is the infinite shedding of blood (so to speak).

    Yes, the sacrifices were offered in order to propitiate the wrath of God, which we see exemplified in the unending shedding of blood for even one sinner. And It is not the substitutionary sacrifice of one animal that serves to signify the wrath of God but the endless procession of substitutionary sacrifices.

    Your point only makes sense if the sacrifice is not a substitionary sacrifice.

  10. I don’t have to demonstrate that the sinner’s death is propitiatory, Chris.

    Yes, you do. As I explained, in a propitiation, God’s wrath is turned away and man is reconciled by means of an offering. The fact that Christ’s sacrifice is substitutionary makes a sinner’s annihilation, for which there is no substitute, not propitiatory.

    If the substitutionary sacrifice undergoes what is due to the sinner, then it follows that the sinner without a sacrifice undergoes what is due to him.

    That’s right: the sinner without a sacrifice undergoes what is due to him. But that’s not where we disagree.

    But we see from Scripture that what is due to him is not the death of one substitute, but the death of an infinite number of substitutes. Christ alone satisfies the wrath of God. Therefore, the reprobate are left to undergo what is due to them: An endless amount of deaths (so to speak).

    This isn’t logical, because as I demonstrated in the OP, its premises are false, not the least of which is that the punitive value of the death of an animal in a Levitical sacrifice is equal to the punitive value of the death of a sinner. If that’s false, then the perpetuity of the Levitical sacrifices may have been due to the insufficiency of the punitive value of the death of one animal, which would say nothing about how many substitutes are needed. Not to mention the other two premises, at least one of which is false.

    The constant shedding of blood only stops in Christ. It His blood that causes the infinite shedding of blood (for even one sinner) to cease. But if the shedding of the animals blood is substitutionary, then it follows that there is no end to the shedding of the blood of the wicked who have no sacrifice to bring an end to the wrath of God which is the infinite shedding of blood (so to speak).

    No, that does not follow, unless you can demonstrate the truthfulness of those three premises, at least one of which you’ve already disavowed. An animal could serve as a man’s substitute incompletely and imperfectly due to the difference in punitive value between an animal’s death and a human’s death, or due to the difference in punitive value between a human’s first death and his second, or because immediately following one of those sacrifices there would be additional sins requiring punishment. Thus the perpetuity of animal sacrifices does not demonstrate that there can be no end to a sinner’s bloodshed.

    Yes, the sacrifices were offered in order to propitiate the wrath of God, which we see exemplified in the unending shedding of blood for even one sinner. And It is not the substitutionary sacrifice of one animal that serves to signify the wrath of God but the endless procession of substitutionary sacrifices.

    Even if this were true, that it was the unending procession of animal sacrifices, not any given individual sacrifice, which was the propitiatory substitute for a man, it would not challenge annihilationism, because of the three premises I’ve already identified in your argument, at least two of which are false. A neverending procession of animal deaths, of lesser punitive value than a human’s first death, would not equal the punitive value of a human’s second death.

    Your point only makes sense if the sacrifice is not a substitionary sacrifice.

    Incorrect. By definition, a substitutionary sacrifice is propitiatory, whereas the experience of the one who has no substitute is not propitiatory. And a sacrifice’s inability to fully propitiate does not make it not substitutionary, it just makes it imperfectly so.

  11. if death is the payment of the breaking of the law, and those in hell are “alive” to feel “eternal conscious suffering” than how is the demand of the law which is death, fully satisfied, since they are not dead, after all, dead people fell no pain. Which goes to how is the second death understood. As I understand it, it must mean the death of spirit and body to fully satisfy the law. Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, if not than how is the law of God fully satisfied? and where does it say in God’s laws, “the wages of sin is “eternal conscious suffering” of where in OT sacrifices is it shown that animal needs to suffer “conscious suffering” instead of the shedding the animals blood which cause its death?

  12. Pingback: Propitiation and Final Punishment | Theopologetics

  13. I think there is something to be said also about the fact that the old covenant sacrifices never did satisfy God’s just wrath against sin. As stated in Romans 3:25, “God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.” His wrath was neither turned away nor satisfied by those sacrifices, but rather by that of Christ; God’s wrath was held over, as it were, with a view toward Calvary and the real sacrifice to which the old covenant system had always typologically pointed: “Why then was the law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the descendant to whom the promise had been made,” that is, Christ (Gal. 3:19; cf. v. 16). “So if perfection had in fact been possible through the Levitical priesthood—for on that basis the people received the law—what further need would there have been for another priest to arise, said to be in the order of Melchizedek and not in Aaron’s order? […] On the one hand a former command is set aside because it is weak and useless, for the law made nothing perfect. On the other hand a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. […] For the law possesses a shadow of the good things to come but not the reality itself, and is therefore completely unable, by the same sacrifices offered continually, year after year, to perfect those who come to worship. […] For the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins. So when he came into the world, he said, Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me” (Heb 7:11, 18-19; 10:1, 4-5).

  14. I think that’s a fair point, David. The question, however, is why didn’t Levitical sacrifices satisfy God’s wrath against sin? It sounds like what you’re saying is that that was never their purpose; in other words, they didn’t satisfy any measure of the punitive demands of the Law, and for some other reason delayed God’s wrath. I think that’s possible, in which case their repetion ad infinitum says nothing about the sufficiency (or lack thereof) of a sinner’s own second death to satisfy the punitive demands of the Law. On the other hand, is it not possible that the reason they didn’t fully satisfy God’s wrath against sin is because they only satisfied some small measure thereof, staying God’s hand, so to speak, until Christ’s sacrificed satisfied it in full measure? If that is the case, it still wouldn’t prove that a sinner’s own second death is insufficient to satisfy the punitive demands of the Law, for the reasons I gave in the OP.

    But I ask the question in sincerity.

  15. And I think that you, Chris, had made a fair (and biblical) point, that “no sacrificial death apart from Christ”—including those of the old covenant system—”can divert God’s wrath from the sinner.” As such, we are both arguing the same thing. Again, “The blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4); but they were never intended to, I submit, for they were always and only pointing typologically to the one perfect Lamb of God. From the very beginning it was always Christ and him alone that took away sins, turning God’s wrath away from us and onto himself, absorbing the the full weight of it in his body on behalf of those for whom he died, fully and perfectly satisfying the justice of God. As you so well said, the utter destruction of the reprobate “does not divert God’s wrath; it IS God’s wrath.” Precisely, for the wrath of God is a consuming fire that utterly and forever destroys his enemies (as we see throughout the scriptures). If the wages of sin is death, then the everlasting death of the wicked (Rev. 20:14) satisfies the justice of God.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *