Refuting an Annihilationist's Bible-Twisting Blog - A Reply to David "Scott" Bishop (Ohio)
- Trinity Gospel Church
- Apr 14
- 40 min read
Updated: May 30
For a Biblical defense of Hell, see, Annihilationism Debunked
Introduction
Many annihilationist bloggers love attention and opportunities to spread their cultish doctrines. Case in point: David "Scott" Bishop (Ohio), an internet nomad, loves his annihilationist doctrine so much that he has begged me to respond to his brief blog posts from 2019 to the present because he knows I adamantly abhor and denounce his cherished ideology.
Usually, I dislike responding to heretical articles from many years ago because people do change their views, and God does save His own away from godless doctrines. However, in a relatively recent blog, dated January 13, 2025, Bishop childishly implied that I am somehow unable to respond to any of his brief internet articles:
Why not choose someone far more representative of the common view like myself, for instance, someone who has not less than twelve articles up on this very website each dealing with subject from a solid Scriptural viewpoint? Sonny has never addressed anything I have ever written on the subject. It would appear he has no answe [sic] for anything I have written on the subject.
After reading this excerpt, it's unclear whether Bishop is delusional to think he is somehow a "far more representative" of the annihilationist view or a stand-up comic who desperately tries hard to make people laugh hysterically. Bishop is not good at either, but he is good at begging for attention (and money). While it's clear I live in Bishop's head rent-free, I hope this Scriptural defense of eternal conscious torment (ECT) will instead live in his head rent-free, Lord willing.
At first, I had no intention of responding to Bishop's articles. However, several friends have encouraged me to refute his Bible-twisting blog. They hope the public sees how grossly deranged the annihilationist perspective is regarding anthropology, Christology, and the afterlife.
Before responding to Bishop's brief thirteen articles, it's important to note a few points. Bishop does not like the label 'annihilationist,' but if the shoe fits, what can one do? He does not believe the goats will suffer ECT in the afterlife. Therefore, Bishop is an annihilationist, admittedly or not. Also, Bishop will say he does not reject Hell, but his definition of Hell derives from blaspheming cultists, not the Christian Bible. So, Bishop does, in fact, deny the biblical doctrine of Hell [ECT].
Most notably, Bishop claims he does not make his view of Hell (annihilationism) a gospel issue. Yet, his love of annihilationism has patently exposed his hatred of the true gospel. On the one hand, Bishop has led many to think he stands firm against all forms of Arminianism and believes it is heresy. On the other hand, Bishop had no issues praising an article by a rank Arminian and annihilationist blogger from England who wrote a lengthy reply to my book and promoted a mutable god (subject to change), the doctrine of universal atonement, the well-meant offer heresy (examine my refutation of this doctrine), conditional salvation, Molinism, and an Arminian take on Romans 9. In the comments section of this blog, Bishop appeared to kiss up to this Arminian blogger and praised his work without any disclaimer on what he opposed. Please don't take my word for it; see the proof yourself.
This article will provide cogent responses to all of Bishop's vacuous articles against the biblical doctrine of Hell (ECT), which he pejoratively labeled as "Sunday School," "What our parents taught us," and "Roman Catholicism."
As one can see, Bishop poses the articles with the recurring title: “Eternity in Hell or Forever Dead.” He has subtitles for each section. Here is the first: “Is Everyone Immortal?”
This is the longest of his pieces. Here, he sets the tone for his approach. He starts by defining his view. Admittedly, a minority position, Bishop says, “…immortality among man is not a given, but is rather instead conditioned upon the righteousness of Christ imputed” and “the non-elect will undergo the punishment of death without end” and names it conditional immortality. However, as seen in his later explanation (article 4), the death that the wicked will undergo as punishment will be surprisingly interrupted. So much for “death with no end!”
To counter the traditional widespread position on Hell, Bishop accuses the adherents of ECT of “making assumptions.” This ploy cuts both ways. One can turn the tables on Bishop throughout his pieces that do just that. And in the long run, it is clear which position is playing fast and loose with the Sacred Writings and imposing strictures upon them.
Similarly, Bishop also claims throughout his articles that the ECT view “eisegetes passages.” This is a technical term, which means reading into the Scriptures what one wishes the text to teach. One may question Bishop on this type of eisegesis when he deals with many passages, especially his handling of Revelation 14 and 20 and the lake of fire as the second death. Bishop claims that the second death is not the second death in addition to the first, but is a continuation of the first. Why this death in the lake of fire, is called ‘the second death,’ seems to escape him. I will return to this.
Assumptions
Bishop assumes that mankind does not have an eternal component of a soul or spirit. In this regard, he is a monist or physicalist. This itself is an assumption of the Enlightenment age and beyond. Decrying the Biblical teaching that Adam was made in the image of God, and that this entails a dualist composition of body and soul [matter and spirit], the Enlightenment thinkers saw man much as an animal: A monadic animal of a body that has instincts and drives, but no spiritual component that contributes substantially to the notion of person. This becomes clear throughout his work, especially where he suggests that the best translation of the Greek word psyche is “body.” This is utterly unbelievable. No doubt, the Hebrew and Greek words for “soul” can, sometimes, mean life (depending on context). No one disputes this. But Bishop assumes this to be the only meaning and therefore, ignores the passages, or misunderstands them when they mention the dyadic nature of humans. Jesus Himself shows in Matthew 10:28 that man has a body and a soul.
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10:28).
In the Greek it reads,
καὶ μὴ φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεννόντων τὸ σῶμα, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν μὴ δυναμένων ἀποκτεῖναι· φοβήθητε δὲ μᾶλλον τὸν δυνάμενον καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα ἀπολέσαι ἐν γεέννῃ (Matthew 10:28, emphasis added).
This passage makes clear that Jesus distinguishes between the body and the soul. On Bishop’s view, Jesus would be saying in effect, “Fear not them which kill the body but which cannot kill the body, rather fear him that destroy both body and body in hell.” This is pure nonsense. The body is one thing, the soul is another entirely. Killing the body is something other humans can do to a man. However, God alone may kill both the body and the soul. Without this distinction, Jesus’s statement would mean absolutely nothing intelligible. Furthermore, look at this passage concerning our Lord’s own experience:
36 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. 37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. 38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. 39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. 40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? 41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak (Matthew 26:36-41, emphasis added).
Jesus describes the inner turmoil experienced in His genuine humanity that is made of body and soul. He says, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful . . .” It is the inner man that experiences this distress.
Anthropology and Christology
Perhaps the most damning aspect of Bishop’s view is what his anthropology assumes and therefore inextricably leads to a suspect Christology. Denying that Jesus assured the thief on the cross that he would accompany Christ in paradise that very day, Bishop overturns this well-understood promise by utilizing arguments put forth by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Bishop along with the aforementioned Russellites (JWs) that think what Christ said was, “I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise [in the eschaton].” This is an assumed thesis driving one’s interpretation, and as such, betrays Bishop’s presuppositions and assumptions that he brings to the Bible. Not only does Bishop paint Jesus in an entirely different hue that does little to resemble the confident conqueror of death at the cross, but also casts aside the victory till the eschaton and thereby leaves it unannounced that death is defeated.
The way that Bishop envisions the incarnation, has one wondering whether he is Nestorian (a view that breaks up the One Christ into two persons), Apollinarian, (a view where the Logos takes place of the human psyche or soul of Christ, and thus He is not fully and truly human), or semi-Arian (the Arian view denied the eternal deity of Christ and saw Him in some sense as a creature. So, a semi-Arian has doubts about the eternal divine nature of the person of Christ). In Bishop’s proposal, there is no emphasis on the eternal nature and value of the person of God the Son in rendering a punishment of eternal value to enable everlasting life for His people. When Jesus died, Bishop asserts that it is not necessary that he remain dead or even undergo annihilation, as the temporary death suffices for payment for His people. But if the wrath that Christ absorbs in His person is not spiritually equivalent to eternal separation from God, then how is it clear that the saints get eternal life? Bishop is in a pickle again. He wants a temporary punishment to gain an eternal reward. This is something he accuses the ECT camp of doing. But Bishop misunderstands the constitution of Christ as one person in two natures. It is the person of Christ who died. It is the value of Christ’s person that determines the outcome.
In Bishop’s scheme, Christ dies a mere physical death, but only for three days. There is no indication that He is victorious. There is no explanation on why this suffices to eliminate eternal judgment. But the Bible teaches that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of His elect. Propitiation has to do with the satisfying of God’s wrath. God is eternal, and the eternal punishment that sinful men owe is satisfied by the eternal person of Jesus. He has absorbed the wrath of an eternal God as an eternal person, both human and divine. So the reprobate will suffer for their sins in an endless conscious torment, as Christ atoned and propitiated for His sheep alone. The goats will undergo, in an ECT, the second death in an everlasting Hell.
The reason that Christ’s death suffices is tied to the reason why an eternal punishment is required in the first place. Because the One sinned against is an eternal God, the just punishment for sin against this God demands an eternal reckoning. So, as Christ, the eternal person, God the Son incarnate, suffered the wrath of God on behalf of His people, the elect, the value of His atoning and propitiating sacrifice is eternal. Bishop does not understand that the non-elect will not merely resort to “dust,” whatever he thinks this will be, with no prospect of resurrection again in the judgement, but will undergo an eternal conscious punishment of torment, even as God is an eternal conscious being. The nature of the One sinned against determines the nature of the punishment for the sinner. Eternal life and eternal death are clearly about everlastingness. In addition, they are also about a quality attached to the words “life” and “death.” Eternal existence in Heaven or eternal existence in misery is the everlasting consequence of salvation or damnation.
Immortality
Bishop uses a text from 1 Timothy 6:13-16 to suggest that if men have immortal souls then the passage of 1 Timothy 6 is rendered untrue. This is a clever ploy often used by heretics. Of course, God alone has immortality. Who would dispute that? The issue is that Bishop thinks that if humans have derived immortality, then that means that God is rivaled or that men have God’s attributes, and for Bishop, this is unthinkable. No doubt, men do not have immortality as an “attribute of deity” that renders them as God’s rivals in a pantheon of gods. But God has a mind, and a life, and a plan. He thinks, whilst He lives, and executes His decree. Is man a rival to God because he also lives, thinks, and acts? These are all derivative and given to man.
Bishop and his co-horts are vigorous in affirming that mankind is not inherently eternal, or has an immortal soul. The verse they appeal to says that the gospel brings to light eternal life and immortality in 2 Timothy 1:8-11. The section they point to says, “But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” Yet the text is pressed into service it cannot render. It is one thing to bring something to light, it is quite another to bring it about. The immediate problem is that the Greek term is ἀφθαρσίαν. The passage reads:
[8] μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν μηδὲ ἐμὲ τὸν δέσμιον αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ συγκακοπάθησον τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ κατὰ δύναμιν Θεοῦ, [9] τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς καὶ καλέσαντος κλήσει ἁγίᾳ, οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν καὶ χάριν, τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, [10] φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καταργήσαντος μὲν τὸν θάνατον, φωτίσαντος δὲ ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, [11] εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κήρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολoς καὶ διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν (2 Timothy 1:8-11, emphasis added).
8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; 9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: 11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles (2 Timothy 1:8-11, emphasis added).
The passage is about the doctrine of incorruptibility. The eternal life of the redeemed in eternity will never undergo corruption. This is particularly true of the resurrection body, which will be like Christ’s resurrected body. This hope is what the Lord has revealed to His saints through the gospel.
Imputed Righteousness
The doctrine of justification is an essential truth of salvation to the elect. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is essential as a component of their relationship to God. However, Bishop links immortality to imputed righteousness. This is a mix-up of categories. Justification is a declaration from or by God. It does not cause a subjective change in the elect. After being declared righteous by faith, the saints are not changed physiologically, [that is, in our bodily existence] or psychosomatically, [that is, our human constitution as material and immaterial, body and soul]. Justification brings about a change in our spiritual standing.
Thus, being declared righteous is not, as Bishop assumes, the mechanism by which the elect receive immortality. Being declared justified or righteous affects our [the elect] standing in God’s sight. Of course, the elect become heirs to eternal life because of Christ alone, but unredeemed and unjustified sinners are heirs to everlasting death. The correlation is based on God’s decree, as Matthew 25:46 indicates: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal” (Matthew 25:46). Here the saints can easily see the symmetry in the ultimate destiny for the elect and the reprobate. Christ speaks clearly on this matter.
It is false to link immortality to imputed righteousness. This betrays a misunderstanding of the legal and forensic truth of justification by faith alone. Other realities occur for the repentant sinner. The saints are adopted. This is a familial change in the relationship as God becomes Father. God's people are set apart [positionally sanctified]. This is a positional truth [co-ordinate with Justification]. The sheep are regenerated. This is where the saints receive a new heart and are made alive spiritually. The sheep are spiritually indwelt by the Triune God. This is the permanent spiritual indwelling [or God taking up residence within the heart of believers]. God's particular people are spiritually baptized. This is their placement into the Body of Christ, the invisible church. They are filled with the Spirit. This is a repeatable experience wherein they are equipped to live for Christ’s kingdom and glory [Being filled with the Spirit is in the imperative mood in Ephesians 5:18 and thus shows it as an ongoing need]. But having been declared righteous or justified by faith alone has nothing to do with attaining immortality.
Definition of Death
One of the mantras of the annihilationists or conditional immortality advocates is the belief that death is the wages of sin. Yet, there is a marked confusion in the way they present death. The Bible discusses death in four diverse ways, or even more precisely, discusses four distinct types of death. These can be listed: 1) physical death; 2) spiritual death; 3) second or eternal death; 4) legal death, which itself has two components: a) death to sin, b) death to the law.
The last one is a metaphorical use, but it maintains the sense or meaning of death as separation. Death to the law is a separation from its binding covenantal arrangement and separation from its condemning power. Death to sin is also separation from sin’s dominance and rule in a believer’s life. Being dead to sin, the sheep live unto God. These notions entail death to righteousness in the pre-saved state (Romans 6:20). The meaning is, again, separation from righteous living.
The first through third uses are more apt to be understood concerning our bodily existence. As dualist humans constituted by psychosomatic unity, physical death is the separation of the body and soul. This need not be seen as a preference to resurrection as it is only temporary and, indeed, less than ideal. However, it is an intermediate state, where the person survives the death separation, and is in direct fellowship with God. In this scenario, the body sleeps, and the spirit or soul returns to God if one is a believer. For a nonbeliever, death is also a separation of the soul and body, where the body sleeps in physical death and the conscious soul is held in the grave or Hades until the resurrection.
Spiritual death was the immediate consequence of Adam and Eve’s commitment of sin. The death that God threatened them with resulted in their expulsion from the garden and thus from God’s presence. Again, the meaning is separation. And, in due time, the inevitable physical death came to all mankind as all sinned in Adam. Thus, due to guilt and corruption, all are conceived and subsequently born sinners into this world, and only the true gospel saves.
The second death in the lake of fire is the eternal separation of the unbeliever after they have been resurrected from the dead. Bishop’s comical conception is that though the wages of sin is death, somehow God interrupts the punishment by resurrecting the non-elect into their mortal bodies and then sending them to the same death again.
Bishop’s proposal fails to account for Revelation 20:6. It reads:
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years (Revelation 20:6, emphasis added).
This verse says that those who experience the first resurrection, the second death has no power over them. If the second death is only a continuation of the first death, then the saints ought not have died physically in the first place [in the first death]. Bishop cannot deal with this according to his scheme.
But Bishop says the second death is the first death. This is utterly baffling. It seems strange that once the inevitable wage of sin is earned and thus experienced by the unredeemed sinner in Bishop’s supposed scenario, God would interrupt, break, or stop the punishment at all (see article 4). The only sensible way to make sense of the resurrection of the human race is that the body is reunited with the soul, and as such, will continually exist in either eternal life or eternal death. The second death is really, second! It is a subsequent reality differing from the first or physical death. It is described as a place called the lake of fire in Revelation 20:10, 14-15. This teaching, both here and in Revelation 14, is an example of the Bible on ECT and cannot be plainer.
For now, let's look at Bishop’s subsequent pieces.
The second essay may be found here:
Much of this piece is about making the case for conditionalism. He uses a passage that he insists traditionalist use and smuggle in a notion of everlasting punishment. Matthew 18:28-35 is about the servant who is forgiven and then does not forgive a fellow servant. The traditionalist case need not appeal to this passage. So, the entirety of Bishop’s outrage is completely misdirected. Moreover, it is Bishop that utilizes the passage suggesting that the servant in question will ultimately pay for his debt. He quotes Origen as an authority here. This is a farfetched conclusion. The judge or benefactor says put him in jail till he repays all his debts, does not mean that the debt will be settled. He cannot even earn while he is in custody. Not even in ten lifetimes could he manage to pay off the original debt. The point is that he will be held indefinitely.
More problematic is his approach to Jesus’s death. Bishop misses crucial gospel truth as he plays a game about suffering and salvation. He thinks that he has challenged the traditionalist position because he thinks that the traditionalist view means that eternal suffering is the means of salvation in this position and that therefore Jesus must have suffered eternally to bring about such a deliverance. Whereas his conditionalist view only requires that Jesus die. This is so confusing that it will be difficult to untangle. I will revisit this later on. For now, take note of the following points.
First, because the wrath of God is absorbed by Jesus truly in His death on the cross, salvation is accomplished for God’s elect. The matter is not about the “amount” of suffering, but the reality of Jesus being a vicarious object of God’s wrath. His death was tantamount to what the elect would suffer if they had to face their punishment in their persons: an experience of ECT, just as the non-elect will ultimately face. Christ is the propitiation because He satisfies the wrath of God on behalf of His people. This is subsequently revealed in His rising from the dead.
Second, Bishop says that Christ had merely to die. He claims that though He was raised it does not invalidate the penalty in his scheme. So, why would his death invalidate the true traditionalist position? It is only because Bishop is mixing up notions. He imposes upon the traditionalist view a supposed misstep. He claims that the traditionalist view requires that Jesus had to undergo eternal suffering to save us from eternal suffering. In his essay, Bishop says,
“Consider, for example, that if Christ had to also endure torture in addition to death in order to satisfy His people’s debt, then why was His torture not permanent? I mean, after all, according to traditionalists, isn’t this the debt man owes to God, an eternity of torment in hell for his sins? Would this not mean then that Christ really did not sacrifice for the full punishment for all His people’s sins, after all? Did He only suffer a small portion of that punishment instead? If permanent torture is the punishment for man’s sins, then how could mere physical death followed by a very brief time of torture have fully satisfied God’s wrath?”
This is a mistake. Bishop fails to understand the nature of Christ’s death. Additionally, he misunderstands how Christ’s death, in absorbing the wrath due to His elect, is accounted by God. But he is grasping at straws when he exonerates his own clumsy conditionalism by saying, punishment requires death, not “permanent death.” Here are his words:
“But wait, Dave, just hold on there. Let’s suppose for a moment you’re right. Let us say that permanent death rather than permanent torture is indeed the punishment for sins. If this be the case, then why didn’t Christ suffer permanent death? I mean, He did resurrect, after all. He is not still dead. Would this not then mean that He did not fully satisfy God’s wrath?”
“No, it doesn’t. Because I never said, nor do the Scriptures say, permanent death is the punishment for sin. Rather, I said, along with Scripture, that death is the punishment for sin. Death. Nothing about permanent death, but rather death. However, because the non-elect do not have anyone who has atoned for their sins, they will die and then remain dead. There will be no resurrection for them” (emphasis added).
This becomes almost comical and utterly baffling when he argues: “...because the non-elect have no-one to die for their sins they will die and remain dead. There will be no resurrection for them.” Yet later (article 4), he must cede the idea that even the wicked will be raised from the dead. This entire piece is a laughable charade.
His third piece:
His disavowal of the plain reading of Luke 16:19-31, however, is truly telling. One notices that Bishop is desperate here. He says that the passage is merely a parable. In this, he attempts to divest the passage from its plain sense. It appears as a straightforward narrative. That the passage is a parable is in no way certain, despite Bishop’s assertions. Then he says that Christ has “gone mad” if He is speaking about future realities “literally.” Bishop strains the gnat to restrict this lesson about the dreaded punishment awaiting man after death to mean something about self-righteousness, akin to the Pharisees. It is not beyond question that the passage is historical, and thereby is designed or intended to teach literal truth. It is utterly unbelievable how Bishop dismisses this Lukan text so easily, consigning it to a parable, as if everything in it can be cast aside. It is a straightforward account of real people, even well-known people. Bishop’s handling, again, reveals the lengths these annihilationists will go to avoid the clear teaching of the passage. There is an immediate after-death experience of conscious torment, there is a great gulf fixed, the position of the rich man is hopeless, and fire is the mechanism of this reality of punishment. The five brothers are real, as is Moses, and the Scriptures alluded to in this passage. The attention to detail is, no doubt, designed to underscore the realness of the suffering in hadēs (Luke 16:23). Jesus could not have been any clearer. No, Bishop. It is not Jesus who is mad. It appears you must look squarely in a mirror to reveal that person.
In his next installment:
This is the fourth article, and it treats the matter of Christ’s death. Bishop says that Christ did not undergo extinction as that was not necessary. Death sufficed as a way of satisfying God’s wrath. And in this way, those who advocate suffering eternally as the way the non-elect will face judgment in the hereafter cannot explain why Jesus did not suffer eternally. In instances such as this, Bishop wants his cake and to eat it as well. He says death is like natural daily sleeping and that what we conclude about sleep does not entail non-existence. So, he avers annihilation is not warranted as a description of Bishop’s view. This is play-acting at its best. Of course, in his scheme, death, which is finally irreversible, as he maintains, is the ultimate judgment. But the first time the wicked die, this is not permanent. Then the second death is everlasting, not in the sense depicted in Revelation 20 as ECT, but as a permanent result. What happens to the body in such a scenario? Bishop and others have affirmed that the fire consumes and that nothing remains. Hell, or the second death, thus becomes the mechanism of extinction or annihilation: ‘the fire that consumes.’ To deny this is to betray the tenets that this conditional approach warrants.
Here, Bishop accuses his detractors of misunderstanding his position. Bishop says that sleep as a picture of death is what happens to the person upon death. As Bishop is a physicalist, there is nothing left over from the body. So, Bishop maintains death is death. There is no second death as that second death is merely the continuation of the first death. I have already explained the true biblical meaning of death as separation. There is confusion in Bishop as he wants to say death is the wages of sin, and at death the sentence begins, and yet, there is an ”interruption” (see article 4) of this punishment with the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of all humanity. Now, the dead can be consigned to the same death as before. Again, these fanciful interpretive gymnastics show that all advocates in this camp of annihilationism will go to such strange explanations to deny the plain, obvious, and simple teaching of the Bible on Hell [as ECT].
In the fifth entry:
Bishop tries desperately to avoid the Pauline expression “to die is gain” means to be absent from the body and to be with Christ. In a clever retort, Bishop says, “the text doesn’t say ‘for me to die is heaven.’” This is a ploy used by heretics when they want to dismiss something obvious in Scripture. When those that deny the deity of Christ say, “where does Jesus ever say, ‘I am God?’” The specific wording is supposedly needed to establish the deity of Christ. But the Scripture is clear that Christ is God: John 1:1-3, Titus 2:13, 1 John 5:20, Romans 9:5, John 8:58, etc., even if the words “I am God,” are lacking from Jesus’s lips. He stated that “Before Abraham was, I am.” This is as straightforward as can be, short of saying, “I am God.” His full deity and genuine humanity are presented in Scripture. He who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit is saying.
So too, this ploy of Bishop’s is so wrong-headed. He claims that Paul never said, “to die is heaven.” Thus, Bishop stretches the idea of gain as mere deliverance from the hardships of life. Hardly gain if I merely end up underground, unconscious. So, going into the ground to sleep is Bishop’s explanation of the gain of death. Also, Bishop rests on the notion that “depart” is a bad translation of Paul’s expectation. Paul’s terms are clear:
21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. 23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: 24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. 25 And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith (Philippians 1:21-25, emphasis added).
The specific verse in the original reads:
[21] Εμοὶ γὰρ τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος. [22]εἰ δὲ τὸ ζῆν ἐν σαρκί, τοῦτό μοι καρπὸς ἔργου, καὶ τί αἱρήσομαι οὐ γνωρίζω. [23]συνέχομαι δὲ ἐκ τῶν δύο, τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦσαι καὶ σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι (Philippians 1:21-23, emphasis added).
From a standard Koine Greek dictionary, we read:
“. . . analuso, from ana, back again or denoting separation. and luo, to loose. In the NT, to return (Luke 12:36); to depart by loosing anchor, as it were, and setting sail to a better and more blessed world, to die (Phil. 1:23).” (Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study New Testament, p. 154, emphasis added).
And from other reference works, the comments on the specific word include:
“aor. 1, infin. act. . . . to loose, dissolve ; intrans. to loose in order to departure; to depart, Lu. 12.36; to depart from life. Phi. i. 23.” (Bagster’s, Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 24, emphasis added).
ἀναλύω ⟦analúō⟧ 1 aor. ἀνέλυσα, pf. ptc. ἀναλελυκώς 2 Macc 9:1; aor. pass.
ἀνελύθην LXX, Tat. 12, 4 (Hom.+) 1 trans. loose, untie (Callim., Del. 237
ζώνην; IAndrosIsis 144f δεσμῶν ἀνάγκαν) pass. τὰ δεσμὰ ἀνελύθη Ac 16:26 v.l.
(Just., A I, 20, 2 acc. to the Stoicsθεὸν εἰς πῦρ ἀναλύεσθαι=God turns into
fire). 2 intr. depart, return (Polyb.; pap in APF 1, 1901, p. 59 ln. 10; Tob 2:9; 2
Macc 8:25; 12:7; Jos., Ant. 6, 52; 11, 34 [after a dinner]) ἔκ τινος from something
(Aelian, VH 4, 23 v.l. ἐκ συμποσίου; Wsd 2:1; 2 Macc 9:1) ἐκ τῶν γάμων Lk
12:36.—Fig., depart (sc. ἐκ τοῦ ζῆν) euphemistic for die (Lucian, Philops. 14
ὀκτωκαιδεκαέτης ὢν ἀνέλυεν; Socrat., Ep. 27, 5; IG XIV, 1794, 2; Diog. Oen. 58 I,
11 [BCH 21, 1897, 401]=Fgm. 2 II, 11 Ch. ἀ. [ἐκ τ]οῦ ζῆν) ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων εἰς τὸ
ἀναλῦσαι Phil 1:23 (GOsnes, TTK 11, ’40, 148–59).—M-M. TW (BDAG, 4th Ed., p. 59, emphasis added).
Using a text from Luke 12:36, Bishop says the word should be “return,” and not, “depart.” Of course, words need to be defined, but context is king. The idea of Paul’s use in Philippians 1:23 as “depart” in the sense of return to God that gave his spirit soul (cf. Ecclesiastes 12:7) is perfectly fine. The authoritative resources quoted above show this to be the case. Again, Bishop’s “scholarship” is sloppy, to say the least.
That death and burial with no consciousness is the “gain” that Paul expected is purely and simply ridiculous. The notion here in Philippians 1 and the example of the thief on the cross prove beyond doubt that the human person survives his death in the sense that the material and immaterial separate, and what Christ said to the thief and what Paul meant in dying as gain, is fellowship with Christ in a blissful state “awaiting the final resurrection.” At the resurrection, the material and immaterial will be rejoined to express humanity’s subsequent everlasting reality in either eternal life or eternal death. In the meantime, Christians welcomed dying and spoke of the body as sleeping in physical death, but at the same time knew beyond question that physical death would lead them into the immediate presence of Jesus. Bishop has robbed Christians of this bold attitude of facing death square on as Hebrews suggests, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Hebrews 2:14-15).
In the sixth article:
Bishop here speaks about “where do the righteous go when they die?” The name-calling is replete: Gnosticism, Romanism, Dichotomism, Sunday School Naiveté. Yet, Bishop tells people that he does not make it a gospel issue if one affirms ECT. So, per Bishop, one can hold to Gnostic or Roman Catholic beliefs, and that's not a gospel issue.
Again, Bishop’s refrain emerges: Psyche means life. Our traditions, according to Bishop, have colored the way people see the Biblical terms, nephesh and psyche, and read into them this supposed Platonic understanding. It does not occur to Bishop that, on occasion, as Christ Himself declared, the body and soul can be distinguished and that both can be sent to Hell. I have shown this already. The immaterial soul or spirit, given at creation, is an everlasting entity, as many Scriptures suggest, therefore, God's people have a firm basis for understanding the Bible on its own terms. For example, the Word of God can save your souls (James 1:21), he that does not watch his tongue deceives his own heart [the inner man] resulting in vain religion (James 1:26). The spirit that dwells within us lusts to envy (James 4:5). And finally, one that helps a wayward sinner, saves a soul (James 5:20).
And, therefore, the reunited soul/spirit with the body at the resurrection will result not in an extinction of, or annihilation, or temporary consumption that results in nothingness, but an eternal death in the Lake of fire, the second death, where the ECT components will be experienced personally and perpetually. But Bishop despises the Biblical construal of everlasting existence, on the one hand, eternal life, and on the other hand, its counterpart, eternal death. Of course, the righteous, redeemed, in death while absent from the body, go to be with the Lord. Even those dead shall not be found last but will precede the living at Christ’s return, as they will accompany him. Bishop’s faulty anthropology is discussed in his next installment.
Here the magnificent and majestic scholar, David Bishop announces to the masses his scholarly credentials by opening up Strong’s concordance, no less. With reference to the brief dictionary attached to this English Concordance, Bishop avers that spirit and soul are closely related. But they mostly refer to life in the here and now. Psyche is life, pneuma, the Greek term, and ruach, the Hebrew are mostly offered as wind. Bishop argues that men are just like animals as both have the same wind or spirit (Ecclesiastes 3:19). So, Bishop insists, “Man has no preeminence above beasts. Why? Because they both have one ruwach.” Here, Bishop shifts focus to supply his rationale for why life continues. It is only as the wind of God or “the Spirit of God sustains life and breath of every living thing.” Of course, no one doubts that God upholds the entire created order. That is not in dispute. But Bishop means that there is no inherent life principle that will survive death. He envisions that man just dies and ceases from any real activity just like a dog or lion that dies. In emphasizing the physicalism of humanity’s make-up, Bishop claims that “God’s people are a material substance, whose conscience is sustained by God. We are not mind-body-soul, rather we are bodies of dust (souls) that live and breath [sic] only for as long as the Holy Spirit keeps our brain cells firing and our lungs breathing.” By challenging this reductionist picture that emerges with Bishop’s criminally clever construal, the Bible believing Christian can take comfort that he is not a piece of meat merely sustained by a power outside of his living being. When God created man, the net effect was a living being, not a physical entity energized from without. Again, Bishop is truly ready to dispense with so much Christian truth for the sake of his pipe-dream that Hell is not so frightening a prospect. Per Bishop, as man is no more than his body, the judgment is a temporal fire that will consume man till he is no more.
In the eighth piece, Bishop deals with a potential hiccup. What happened to Enoch?
Here, Bishop, in his witty remark asks, “Enoch was not, or was he?” It has escaped Bishop that his direct denial is a challenge to the clear declaration that indeed, he was not!
Bishop says that traditionalists hold to Enoch, mentioned in Genesis 5:24 and Hebrews 11:5, as an example of souls ascending to heaven immediately upon death. Bishop keeps returning to Jesus’s statement in John 3:13, that “no one has ascended into heaven.” So, Bishop suggests that Enoch was taken away by God and placed somewhere else on the earth. He insists that only “the conditionalist’s interpretation” shows consistency. But is it not a straightforward denial of what Moses affirmed, that God took him and that he was not? So, in Bishop’s thinking, it was not that “Enoch was not,” but that he was “somewhere else.” This is a challenging a long-held understanding of the narrative as Moses gave it in Genesis. In Hebrews we read: “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God” (Hebrews 11:5). That he did not see death, does not equate that God merely placed him somewhere other than where he was when God took him. The whole emphasis is that Enoch pleased God and so was translated/transferred to immediate fellowship with God in heaven. He was spared the experience of physical death. This hope is also seen in the New Testament (NT) as Paul indicates that at Christ’s return, those in Christ will not prevent [precede] the living (1 Thessalonians 4:13ff). In another epistle, Paul says that this mortal must put on immortality, about the bodies of those living at the return of Christ. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed (1 Corinthians 15:51-57).
The ninth section is about a witch.
The narrative about King Saul courting the witch of Endor is a challenging text for any interpreter. However, Bishop’s handling of this passage is reprehensible. Bishop imports a fiction into what this passage presents by insinuating that what is plainly declared is not so. This is another example of a convoluted mess in attempting to get a message that is compatible with his own heretical notions. Surprisingly, Bishop resorts to exegetical chicanery to exposit this text by suggesting that the witch did not have a genuine ability to connect or converse with the dead. He puts it thus, “the witch acts as an agency between the living and the dead.” He denies that she could accomplish this. Furthermore, when Saul is revealed to her, he insists that the witch bring up Samuel, Bishop claims, it was not Samuel but a demon. However, the text plainly states, “And when the woman saw Samuel . . .” (1 Samuel 28:12) and in addition once described by the woman, “Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself. And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?” (1 Samuel 28:14b-15). The fiction about this being a demon is nowhere evident in the passage.
Samuel reasserts to Saul exactly as he spoke to him before, indicating that God is doing precisely what was said earlier. “And the LORD hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the LORD hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David: Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the LORD, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the LORD done this thing unto thee this day” (1 Samuel 28:17-18, emphasis added). Clearly, this is no demon. Bishop cannot conceive of the spirit of Samuel being “brought up” as he does not think we have a spirit. Jesus settles the matter on a plain explanation of Himself after He had risen from the dead. In Luke, we read, “Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet” (Luke 24:36-40, emphasis added).
The 10th piece is a guest editorial by Tony Gray.
Tony Gray rehashes some of the same silly notions to give credence to Bishop’s speculations. In dealing with Elijah, Moses, and Enoch [again], Gray asks, “where did he go?” Similarly to Bishop, Gray assumes that Enoch is still alive in the exact same manner after being taken up by God.
He affirms the following:
““By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him:” Does the phrase that says Enoch “should not see death” mean Enoch never died? Hebrews 11:13, “These all died [including Enoch] in faith.” But not only that, verse 13 goes on to say that they did not receive the promises. One of the promises was a heavenly country (verse 16). If Enoch were in heaven, wouldn’t he have received that promise?”
This is simply reductionistic and not convincing at all. First, “translated” does not mean, “make immortal,” by any stretch of the imagination. Second, the term that the author of the letter to the Hebrews uses in speaking of Enoch’s translation is clear from the entire statement: “Πίστει ᾿Ενὼχ μετετέθη τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον, καὶ οὐχ εὑρίσκετο, διότι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ Θεός;” “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him” (Hebrews 11:5, emphasis added). Enoch was transported, moved, or translated by God so he would not see death. Yet, Gray says that Enoch died, and quotes a text that speaks of the entire group of people having died. He must include Enoch as one of the dead, else his view is shown to be mere speculation, indeed, silly speculation at that. In this false inference, God has failed in keeping Enoch from death! Moreover, the heavenly country, which Gray says would have been a promise received and fulfilled had Enoch gone to be with the Lord, is faulty logic. The writer categorically states that those who died did not receive the promises. The text indicates in its broader contours that the Old Testament (OT) saints would be incomplete without the NT saints (Hebrews 11:39-40). Also, the heavenly City that God will bring about is an eschatological reality, thus unfulfilled for all departed saints, Enoch included.
An example is brought in to bolster the suggestion. Philip in the NT was hauled away by the Spirit in Acts. We read, “And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more” (Acts 8:39). Yet, unlike the Enoch narrative where God takes him, here, “. . . Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea” (Acts 8:40). There is no doubt as to what transpired with Philip. That it was certainly unlike Enoch’s experience is clear, as the Genesis text tells us plainly, that “he was not!” This could not be said of Philip. This analysis and comparison do not help Bishop and Gray’s case one iota.
Bishop’s friend, Gray perhaps, has one of the silliest arguments ever heard in trying to establish why Enoch could not have gone to heaven. He says that Enoch “was a man that was not yet cleansed of sin by the blood of Jesus could not enter heaven and dwell in God’s presence.” Now, we have abandoned the faulty anthropology to embrace a misunderstanding of the nature of Christ’s saving work. And to cap it all off, he asserts that “No where in Scripture does ‘translate’ [Hebrews 11:5] mean ‘make immortal.’” This interpretation is not necessitated by the traditional understanding of Enoch’s departure and transfer to heaven. Enoch has an immortal soul. The claim has already been made. Once again, John 3:13 is quoted to suggest that Enoch could not have gone to heaven. Of course, the meaning of Jesus’s words affirms that no one has gone up, or ascended, to heaven in a resurrected body. Even Paul, who was called to the third heaven, is not an exception, as he was not resurrected. Misusing scripture is the hallmark of heretics and cultists alike.
The eleventh section follows:
This section might have been titled, “Misunderstanding the Intermediate State.”
Here, we encounter various assumptions that are imposed on the Bible. Bishop says, “I want to know what the Scriptures say.” What a commendable attitude this is, if only it were real. Indeed, if Bishop listened closely to Paul’s carefully arranged argument, it would straighten out much that is crooked with conditional immortality. Bishop claims that traditionalists cannot affirm a hope in resurrection but must base their hope in death. This is to misconstrue the position once more and to miss the clues in the text as to what Paul is truly saying. The passage reads,
1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: 3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. 5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. 6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:1-8).
Paul speaks initially of a this-worldly house. He speaks figuratively about our present bodies that are still subject to decay. Additionally, Paul reminds us that this corruptible body will be replaced by an eternal building of God, namely the resurrection body that we shall get in the eschaton. In the meantime, while still here on earth, there is a sense in which we groan seeking to be clothed with this eternal, incorruptible body. This hope is continuous with his first letter in chapter fifteen. However, as Paul looks forward to the eschaton, he also glances upward in the present realizing that even death would be welcome as it would render him present with Christ similarly to Philippians 1:23. So the overall expectation is future oriented awaiting the resurrection, Paul hints at an immediate expectation in the face of imminent death, and he could do so only as the soul’s surviving of death is not contradictory to an expected ultimate resurrection of the body. Careful analysis of the text reveals both.
Merely asserting that if man has a derived everlastingness, it is tantamount to saying that other attributes are not shared, so everlastingness thereby is excluded, is to confuse incommunicable with communicable attributes. No one has life in himself, save God alone. However, no one should deny the truth that God grants life to His creatures. Knowledge, power, and reason are all derived from God. Having a particular attribute does not make one an alternate or rival [g]od. Yet, the question of eternity, or more precisely, everlastingness, is inherent in what God has made both angels and humans to be. They do not possess inherent life or immortality, as if they existed from eternity as god-like, but this life is derived and given by God Himself. It is everlasting life. Or, aevi-eternal: Brought to existence (created) with inherent immortality from God, enduring world without end.
In the twelfth installment:
Article 12 - https://cornbreadandbourbon.wordpress.com/2022/10/12/eternity-in-hell-or-forever-dead-part-12-gnashing-teeth/
Bishop attempts to empty the well-known phraseology about gnashing teeth of its eternal implications. He equates gnashing of teeth with permanent death, which, in his scenario, would result in extinction. Rather than deal with the issue in context, Bishop sidesteps Matthew’s use and focuses on Luke. With his characteristic butchering of the Lord’s teaching, Bishop dismisses the notion of pain that ordinarily accompanies the expression “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12). Also this statement occurs in Matthew 13:42, 50, and 22:13, 24:51, and 25:30. In context, one sees that Jesus contrasted this painful everlasting experience with the eternal felicities of the blessed elect. Hence, the passages that mention the weeping and gnashing of teeth are positive experiences or actual happenings. Indeed, they are of an unending and perpetual nature. There is no other way but to treat our Lord’s words as a genuine experience awaiting the impenitent in painful, unending physical and spiritual, unabated misery (even in Luke’s use of the language). Weeping and gnashing of teeth is no brief matter on the path to extinction. Bishop tries to eliminate this biblical testimony by suggesting that Luke deals more thoroughly with the passage he cites. In his view, the depictions are of non-happenings at worst, or brief happenings at best, which is ludicrous. The coextensive nature of the weeping in the outer darkness is tantamount to the wide-road destruction of eternal doom. Bishop’s misdirection of an illusionist is a blatant disregard for statements from Christ that utterly refute Bishop’s views.
Finally, we reach Bishop’s last entry in this series.
Here the matter of souls of the beheaded are dealt with. We recall Bishop’s juvenile hermeneutic that in the Apocalypse everything must be either literal or figurative. Remember also that he claimed if one were to see some things figuratively and some things literally then that would render one as stupid. Name-calling aside, Bishop is surely grasping at straws to avoid the clear depiction of bodiless beings in the intermediate state. Bishop has no room for such as his anthropology is utterly this worldly. He is a physicalist, meaning he thinks that man is a mere physical being, and he is a monist, again, affirming that man’s constitution is singularly of matter alone. Because of this stance, Bishop therefore denies the existence of the martyrs in Revelation as souls awaiting vengeance. The text reads:
And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled (Revelation 6:9-11, bold emphasis added).
Bishop is dealing with the passage from Revelation 20:4-10. It reads:
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. 7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever (Revelation 20:4-10, emphasis added).
Both these texts deal with the reality of persons after the physical death experienced on account of the testimony of Jesus. This means that souls survive the dissolution of body and soul, and while the body dies and goes to sleep in the ground, the soul survives and is apparent and distinguishable in the intermediate state. No doubt, Revelation is a challenging book with its evident apocalyptic sections and its pervasive imagery, but to suggest that what is straightforwardly announced as the souls of the dead living and interacting with others after death and before the resurrection is utterly unacceptable.
Bishop’s solution is based on his axiomatic principles:
“Either ALL of the book’s imagery is metaphorical or NONE of it is, take your pick. The one thing you cannot argue though, at least not without sounding stupid, is that some of its imagery is metaphorical while other parts of its imagery is literal. If some of the book’s imagery is metaphorical and other parts of its imagery is literal, then each of us gets to choose which is which at a whim, and our interpretation is left to the mood of the day.”
Again, we note Bishop’s failure to grasp the interpretive strategies needed for rightly dividing the word of truth. Rather than seek out good, solid references for help, there are several good commentaries on Revelation by competent Greek scholars, Bishop prefers to make up an exegetical practice by inventing his own made-to-measure hermeneutic. He has decided how he wants to interpret the passages in this book, then lays out the steps or methodology in reaching his assumed goals. This is perhaps the shoddiest of all his attempts at interpreting biblical passages.
Not one serious scholar will resort to seeing the martyrs in Revelation 6 and 20 as anything other than surviving souls after physical death. The plain reading of these passages is well established. We need not resort to the practice of illegitimate sensibility transfer as Bishop does, imposing a fixed meaning for “soul” from an alien context and thus disallowing a variant meaning in this instant, as is done elsewhere, such as Matthew 10, where Jesus speaks of both body and soul as quite distinct. I have shown this already. Context and use of terms are necessary for good exposition, so one does not fall into subjective fancies and fallacious interpretations. Bishop has reached both of these ends with his invented method.
That the Revelation of Jesus Christ is a difficult book to interpret, none would dare to question. The apocalyptic like language of the genre takes it very name from the title of this book. Its figurative notions are evident on page after page. However, the truth is that some aspects of the prophecy, as John describes the book, have literal meaning. Indeed, in some places the literal and the figurative are intertwined.
Bishop’s faulty and man-made hermeneutic that advocates an ‘either or’ approach is a false dichotomy. He says that if one takes something literally, then everything has to be so, or if one takes one thing figuratively, then everything needs to conform to a figurative interpretation. This is clearly refuted by examining one important chapter in the book.
In Chapter 12, we see there is a great wonder in heaven. A woman is clothed with the sun, and the moon, under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. She is further described as being with child and travailing in birth and pained to be delivered.
This passage has both figurative and literal truths in its depictions, as we see another wonder in heaven. This time, a great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns with seven crowns upon its heads enters the fray. His tail drew a third part of the stars of heaven [possibly Angels] and did cast them to the earth [the literal abode of mankind]; and the dragon stood before the woman, which was ready to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man-child, who was to rule the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up unto heaven unto God and his throne. The figurative woman gives birth to a literal child.
In a literal heaven, we see a figurative woman. The Greek and Eastern Orthodox rush to see Mary in this passage. However, the true identity of the woman is that she is Israel. There is metaphoric language depicting the décor surrounding her. The sun, moon, and stars are not literal but figurative. Her bringing forth a child, however, is both figurative and literal. Israel is depicted as the birth place to the Messiah, the One destined to rule. He is a figurehead, no doubt. Yet, He is truly a literal, living person who emerges in the fullness of genuine time.
The Great Red Dragon is a figurative depiction of the devil or Satan (12:9). Yet, as an angelic entity, the devil is a literal being. He wanted to devour the man-child. This is figurative language depicting events one may see in the gospel narratives. For example, Herod the Great sought to kill the infant Jesus after He was physically born as a baby. Thus, the figurative and the literal are not absolutely exclusive. The child is said to have been caught up to God and to the throne. No figure is needed here. The ascension of Christ was something witnessed and historical. It may, however, be a reference to the temporary post-death, but ante-resurrection reality of Holy Sunday. Nonetheless, it is a literal truth. The thief was to accompany Jesus on Friday evening after they died. This may be Christ’s ascension. Either way, one can see that the interpretive method calls for finesse and care. There is an art to exegesis, as well as mastering exegetical practices, something Bishop knows nothing about.
This small section of the chapter shows that Bishop’s interpretive strategy would wreak havoc with this text. To insist on either literal or figurative interpretation exclusively would render this chapter, and indeed, the whole book, unintelligible. Bishop is not to be trusted with this or any other passage of the Bible.
In closing, once more, Bishop has a ready, settled theology driving his egregious exposition at every turn. He is dead set against the plain reading that Hell awaits the non-repentant and that this is none other than ECT. No! Bishop, God's people will not acquiesce to your worldly wisecracks and speculations. The true saints are not fooled by your pseudo-scholarship or by your far-fetched fallacies. The elect will humbly bow to the revelation of God’s Holy Word, and whether we like or dislike its teachings is strictly irrelevant. The Lord GOD hath spoken, who can but prophesy? (Amos 3:8b). The conscious tortures of Hell will continue unabated, world without end, regardless if you like it or not, Mr. Bishop. Checkmate!
Comments