Category: Uncategorized

Some recent online discussions have centered around what is meant by the term “conditional immortality” or its synonym “conditionalism.” These are essentially anthropological terms. They describe the nature of humanity as the Bible represents it. They affirm that human beings have the potential to become immortal, but that immortality is not innate: it is not something we are born with.

Conditionalism in Genesis

The early chapters of Genesis prove to be very helpful as a guide to understanding human nature. They show that human beings are creatures, like the animals, but that human beings were intended to be more than that. They were created in God’s image and likeness, which implies a special authority from God and responsibility to him. God tested this responsibility in the Garden of Eden by planting two special trees in Eden: the tree of life (which, if eaten would have granted Adam and Eve immediate immortality), and the tree of knowing good and evil.

Of these two trees, only the latter was prohibited. The first humans were allowed to eat of all the other trees, including the tree of life. If our ancestors had simply made the correct decision, they would have remained alive forever, along with all their descendants.

Instead, they were deceived to believe that it was the other tree that actually held promise. Satan had told them “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). That statement was the truth, but it implied a lie: that the tree offered immunity from death. Instead “being like God” merely meant having experienced both good and evil. God had known both the good of his original creation and the evil of Satan’s rebellion. Taking of the tree of knowing good and evil would cause humans to experience evil personally – thus wreck the purity of Eden, and human intimacy with their creator.

God’s response to that sin led to a further consequence: human mortality. The persons of the Triune One speak among themselves and say …

“Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever-” therefore the LORD God sent him out from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the Garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.” (Genesis 3:22-24)

Before the fall, human beings had the potential to become immortal. They had the potential to become something more than what they were. As a consequence of the rebellion in Eden, this opportunity was taken away.

God wanted human beings to be immortal. He still does. He wants to establish a relationship with us that will bring glory and joy to both parties forever. Yet God cannot endure unrighteousness forever. Until a solution can be found that will undo the Eden rebellion, God cannot grant immortality to human beings. He was thus forced by his own nature to banish us from paradise.

So, although intended for immortality, human beings are now reduced to the same nature as the animals God has placed us over. The ancient scientist Solomon recognized this:

“I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.” (Ecclesiastes 3:18-20).

This is the bad news the Bible gives us, which serves as the backdrop for the good news of eternal life available through Christ.

Conditional Immortality

Conditionalists proclaim Christ, and his second coming as the time when God is going to grant immortality to the saved and undo the Edenic curse. But we have also championed the truth of this bad news: that all humanity is mortal and subject to real death. We feel that it is dishonoring God’s word to say that humans are both mortal and immortal at the same time.[1] We also feel that it is inconsistent evangelism to claim that Jesus offers eternal life and then teach people that they already have eternal life.

So, instead of teaching people that immortality is innate (that is, that all human beings are born with it), we teach that it is conditional. God offers eternal life to those who put their faith in Christ: those are the conditions. One of the first post-apostolic writers to express conditionalism was Theophilus of Antioch:

“God did not create humanity as either mortal or immortal, but, …with the capacity for them both. If humanity inclined towards those things which relate to immortality by keeping the commandments of God, then it would receive immortality as a reward from God… On the other hand, if humanity should incline towards those things which relate to death by disobeying God, then humanity would be the cause of its own death.” [2]

When a certain man came to Jesus once, asking “what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”[3] – Jesus did not challenge his theological inference that eternal life is something that must be obtained. If immortality were innate, then Jesus should have stopped the man and pointed that out. Instead, Jesus agreed with the man that he needed eternal life, and then challenged the man to follow him – that he might get what he was asking for.[4]

The Gospel is all about how God offers us what we do not have on the basis of his grace, through the atoning death of Christ. Christ’s death has met the conditions. Following Christ is the solution to the curse of Eden. A conditionalist is someone who does not trust in her own innate ability to live forever, but trusts in Christ’s completed work on the cross, and looks forward to the day when Christ will make her immortal.

Conferred Immortality

Conditionalists also take death seriously, and that leads to our special appreciation of the gift of immortality. We understand the awful consequences that are the result of sin entering God’s creation, and that makes us appreciate Christ all the more. When we read Romans 6:23, it makes perfect sense as it is: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” But if a person believes that immortality is not conferred as a gift, but is an innate possession, they have to supply some interpretation for Romans 6:23 to fit their view. It then reads “For the wages of sin is death (but only death of the body, because the real person is the soul and it cannot die), but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (except that eternal life is actually a right we have by birth, so Christ does not give it).”

William Newton Clarke complained that conditionalists “argue from the silence of scripture regarding the natural immortality of man, and from the uniform association of ‘eternal life’ with Christ.”[5] He was exactly right – although it is hardly reason for complaint. Scripture is silent on the natural immortality of humans because it rejects the notion. Eternal life is either conferred upon the faithful or it is innate by reason of creation. There is no logic that allows for both, or any scripture that proves both.

Future Immortality

Conditionalists have never argued against the concept of human immortality. We simply insist that that great gift will be given to humans at the appropriate time. It has not been the possession of all humans from birth. Instead, it will be given to some humans at the return of Christ. Speaking of that return, Paul says that it will happen “in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality” (1 Corinthians 15:52-53 NIV).

That glorious day will be the beginning of “the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.”[6] The fact that raising the dead is first on Christ’s list when he returns should be an encouragement to us. It should enable us to face the death of our loved ones (or even our own eventual death) with courage, knowing that although death is real, it is only temporary.

Life Only In Christ

The doctrine of human mortality is Christocentric, not anthropocentric.[7] It reveals Christ as the giver of life, not just the one who can “get you to heaven.” John states the options bluntly: “Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.”[8] The Bible is about Jesus Christ. The Old Testament pointed forward to him, the New Testament points back to him. Human mortality is the need which only Christ could meet. Paul says that God “saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”[9]

Over against this clear teaching from the Bible on human mortality is the persistent mistaken notion that humans are born with immortal souls or spirits that consciously survive the death of their bodies. This view sees the references to death in the scripture as usually referring to this physical death, and therefore irrelevant on the subject of the soul’s survival. The view thus confirms both mortality and immortality at the same time. Any scriptural evidence in favor of human mortality can immediately be dismissed as not pertinent, since it (in the innate immortality view) always refers to the material aspect of human existence, and not the spiritual.

Scriptures that Clash with the Innate Immortality Tradition

The innate immortality tradition reflects Greek dualism. It is a worldview that is read into scripture, rather than being a part of it. It has become embedded in Christianity the way many other non-biblical traditions have. By taking a closer look at doctrines taught in scripture, the clashes between those doctrines and the innate immortality tradition become more evident.

1 Timothy 6:16

In chapter 15 we noted that scripture teaches that God “alone has immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16). The innate immortality view denies this, although its proponents do exercise a great deal of verbal gymnastics to try to affirm it.[10] At issue, then, is not simply the doctrine of human nature, but the doctrine of God’s nature as well. To claim immortality for sinful humanity is to deny it as an exclusive attribute of God. But when the first humans sinned, God said that they “must not be allowed to … live forever.”[11] Their sin had not only affected their relationship with God (resulting in banishment from his presence in Eden), but it changed them. They had been immortable (capable of becoming immortal by eating of the tree of life). Now they were simply mortal.

Some argue that the term “immortality,” when it refers to God, has a different meaning than when it refers to all other beings. They argue that “the meaning of ‘immortality’ in the Bible largely depends on its context.”[12] They see this as adequate justification for ignoring the contradiction found in the traditional doctrine of the immortal soul, and affirming both the exclusive immortality of God and the universal immortality of humanity as dependent upon him. Conditionalists see this as double-speak. While it is true that all words depend on their context for meaning, there is nowhere in the context of 1 Timothy 6:16 that redefines the term or assumes a distinction between how it is used by Paul there, compared to how he or other biblical authors use it elsewhere.

Genesis 2:17

This is precisely what God (with tears in his eyes) warned Adam and Eve would happen if they disobey his Edenic prohibition. He said “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”[13] That phrase “you shall surely die” is a combination of two forms of the same verb. The word mot is the infinitive absolute of the verb “to die” and refers to the state of mortality that was humanity’s fate after the rebellion in Eden. From the moment they ate of the tree, humanity became a dying race. The second word is the imperfect tense of the same verb. The word tamut refers to the eventual and inevitable death that would come to each member of the race as a result of the fall. Together these two forms of a verb reflect a Hebrew idiom that accentuates the certainty of an action. Thus the translations render the phrase “you will surely die.” The innate immortality doctrine turns this into an empty threat since it claims that the real essence of a human person never dies.

Romans 5:12

Paul tells us that “When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.”[14] Sin and death have been a matched set in human experience ever since that initial sin in Eden. It is not merely the body which sins, but the whole person. That is why we need a Savior, not just someone who can raise us from the dead. Christ is both. He can restore our inner beings as well as raise our bodies. Both have been affected by sin; the wages of that sin is death to both, and the gift of God is eternal life for both.[15]

John 3:16

The Bible speaks of a coming day of judgment when all those who are not redeemed by Christ’s blood will totally perish in the fires of Gehenna hell.[16] When the Bible speaks of believers being saved, it usually refers to this event. In other words, to perish is not simply to die. To perish is to utterly die. It refers to the ultimate, permanent death in Gehenna, not to the temporary death at the end of this life. So when Jesus told Nicodemus that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” he was speaking of the two ultimate fates of mankind. To perish is to be ultimately destroyed. To have eternal life is to escape that destruction. Many texts point out the same distinction.[17] The innate immortality doctrine blurs that distinction because it insists that no human being ultimately perishes. Thus all human beings ultimately have eternal life.

The innate immortality view distorts a crucial and essential doctrine of the Christian faith: the purpose of Christ’s death on the cross. According to the Bible, Christ’s death was to protect us from ultimate destruction, not to get our souls to heaven when our bodies die.

1 Corinthians 15:22-23

The Bible is also explicit on the issue of just when believers will gain the gift of immortality. It did not happen at our birth, and it will not happen at our death. Believers will be made alive at the return of Christ. Paul says “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.” Paul compares two events in history. The first event was the fall of humanity in the garden of Eden. As a result of that event, human nature became a fatal condition. The second event is the return of Christ to this earth.

The analogy Paul uses to describe the resurrection is a crop harvest. Each resurrection is a stage in the harvest. Since Christ is the Firstfruits, he was resurrected first. This took place three days after his death. The second stage of the harvest includes “those who belong to Christ” when he comes. This is the believers’ resurrection. Paul does not speak of Christ restoring souls with their risen bodies. Instead he speaks of the whole person being “made alive.” This is when the promise of eternal life will be fulfilled for us.

The doctrine of innate immortality also subverts this plain teaching of scripture. According to that view, no human being ever dies, so none will ever need to be made alive. The concept of the resurrection takes a back seat to the more immediate idea of conscious survival of death. It makes the return of Christ less crucial, and rather anticlimactic.

Summary

The consequences of original sin in the Garden of Eden include the mortality of all human beings, which makes homo sapiens no different from the animals in terms of mortality and eventual death. This dark reality is the backdrop upon which the

brilliant light of eternal life offered by Christ emerges in scripture. In contrast, the tradition of innate immortality dilutes the teachings of scripture. Believing that one is already immortal by nature can make one less appreciative of the nature of God, the influence of sin, the purpose of Christ’s death on the cross, and the reason for his second coming.

Confusion in defining the term

Often in theological discourse, the same terms are used for different concepts, and sadly, this is the case for conditional immortality as well. John Stott, for example, defended the view described above, but did not call it conditional immortality. He defined conditional immortality as the view that “nobody survives death except those to whom God gives life.”[18] While that is technically accurate, it does not represent the teaching of conditionalism. In conditional immortality as described above, everyone will be resurrected and face judgment. No one will survive death apart from that resurrection.

Wayne Grudem asserts that “some versions of conditional immortality deny conscious punishment altogether, even for a brief time.”[19] The doctrine of conditional immortality as described in this article assumes both conscious punishment of the lost, and ultimate destruction of the lost.

The whole question of the final fate of the lost is not subsumed under the term conditionalism. The issue with conditionalism is whether there is anything immortal in human nature to suffer punishment for eternity. Conditionalists answer, no. We teach that death is real. The first death is real in that life ceases until the resurrection. The second death is real in that life ceases, and there is no longer any hope of resurrection.

While the second death will be preceded by a period of torment, it is the death which follows which is permanent. It is not the process of punishing which is perpetual (as if the word aionios was an adverb), but the event of punishment which is permanent (since aionios is an adjective). The Bible describes the fate of the lost as eternal punishment, not perpetual punishing.[20]

Millard Erickson uses the term “conditional immortality” to describe the state of Adam (and Eve) before the fall. Adam “was not inherently able to live forever; but he need not have died.”[21] Thus, he adds another use of the term which does not quite fit our definition. Erickson defines death as “the termination of human existence in the bodily or materialized state.”[22] He is free, then, to speak of Adam’s death as becoming certain at the fall, their “potential mortality” becoming actual.[23] Yet he still keeps the door open to Platonic dualism by drawing a sharp distinction between physical death and spiritual death. The second death is spiritual death made permanent. He does not explain why there must be a physical resurrection for that to happen.

Should we jettison the term?

Seeing that there is confusion on how the term is used, is this a case for jettisoning the term “conditional immortality” for a more precise one? Probably not. In most cases, those who disagree with us at least grant us audience so that we can explain exactly what we mean, in order to lessen any confusion. It is in the act of clarifying terms and defining meaning that we confront the text of Scripture, and that is precisely what theological debate was intended to accomplish. If, in the end, my opponent in religious dialog confronts the texts of scripture and yet still disagrees with my interpretation of them, we can still walk arm in arm as brothers.

If, for the sake of argument, we entertained the idea that the term “conditional immortality” is no longer useful as a theological instrument, what would take its place? Some prefer the term annihilationism. The church tradition that this author comes from has not chosen to adopt that term. Although we feel it accurately describes the fate of the lost, we are not comfortable with its emphasis. Conditional immortality reflects the “good news” side of the Biblical message. It speaks of the gift of eternal life which is available to all who meet the conditions of faith in Christ and repentance from sin.

It also points to the fact that Christ has met the conditions that make eternal life possible for his church. It is “our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light.”[24] Thus, the term is Christocentric. The ultimate question regarding one’s eternal destiny is not whether one has a “soul” but whether one has a Savior. It is not what you have done your eternal spirit but whether you have obeyed the Holy Spirit. As John put it, “Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.”[25] Ultimately, eternal life is not going to depend on having a part of you that survives death. Eternal life is going to depend upon your relationship with God through Jesus Christ, his Son. There are eternal haves, and eternal have-nots. That difference is what conditionalism is all about.

---

[1] William West explores this contradiction in Resurrection And Immortality (Xulon Press, 2006), 77.

[2] Theophilus of Antioch ad Autolycum (shortly after 180 AD) quoted in Alister E. McGrath, ed. The Christian Theology Reader (Malden Mass: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 646.

[3] Matthew 19:16.

[4] Matthew 19:21.

[5] William Newton Clarke, An Outline of Christian Theology (BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009), 452.

[6] Acts 3:21 NKJV.

[7] Viewing mortality as an anthropocentric issue places too much emphasis on humans as created rather than humans as redeemed. Conditionalists argue that viewing mortality as an anthropocentric issue distracts believers from seeing the connection between human need for resurrection life and the solution for that problem offered in the atonement.

[8] 1 John 5:12.

[9] 2 Timothy 1:9-10.

[10] Page 104.

[11] Genesis 3:22 NIV.

[12] Christopher W. Morgan, Robert A. Peterson, Hell Under Fire (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 206. These authors discredit the conditionalist argument for exclusive immortality of God because they are seeking to defend the traditional concept of hell as the perpetual torture of immortal human souls.

[13] Genesis 2:17.

[14] Romans 5:12 NLT.

[15] Romans 6:23.

[16] Malachi 4:1; Matthew 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:33; Mark 9:43,45,47; Luke 12:5.

[17] See also John 4:14; 5:21; 10:28; 17:2.

[18] David L. Edwards with a Response from John Stott, Evangelical Essentials (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1988), 316.

[19] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 1150 (footnote 12).

[20] Matthew 25:46.

[21] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985), 613.

[22] Erickson, 613.

[23] Erickson, 614.

[24] 2 Timothy 1:10 ESV.

[25] 1 John 5:12 ESV.

Foundational to the Christian message is that salvation is not something one earns, but is a free gift. It is based not on what we do for God but on what he has done for us through Jesus Christ. Anyone who has ever tried to get on God’s good side by following some code of conduct knows that all such attempts are doomed to failure. We are a condemned race, destined to disappoint our creator, with only one exception, and it is not me.

Grace in the bible is not a character trait or idea. Grace is a person, who “has appeared, bringing salvation to all people.”[1] By his sinless life and sacrificial death for everyone, Jesus did what every other human being could not do. He tasted death for everyone.[2] Having paid that penalty for sin, he was able to offer us the gift of eternal life which God so wanted to give us – out of his heart of grace.[3]

Christ’s death redeemed us from the penalty of death that we owed, and made us right in God’s sight as well. Because of that redemption, we “are justified by his grace as a gift.”[4] From Christ’s fullness “we have all received, grace upon grace.”[5] We owe everything to him – the fact that we are not what we once were, and the fact that we will be something better still in eternity future.

Rules and regulations can never do what Christ did. They are a poor substitute for grace. Even the law of God in the Old Testament had become just a set of rules to live by for the Israelites in Christ’s day. The Gospels tell us that “the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”[6] The apostle Paul had been a staunch supporter of this law to live by, until he met Christ on the Damascus road. Then things changed. He learned that the law was not God’s plan for the salvation of the world. He found that “if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.”[7]

So his message changed. He taught that salvation “is no longer on the basis of works” (actually it had never been). “Otherwise”, (he reasoned) “grace would no longer be grace.”[8] This message of salvation through the completed work of Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross was called the “gospel of the grace of God”[9] It was also called simply “the word of his grace.”[10]

It was a message of sacrifice – not that God wants us to sacrifice for him, but that he has willingly sacrificed for us. It reminded people of what God had done to freely offer deliverance from sin and death. People were encouraged to think about Christ’s sacrificial life and death. Paul told the Corinthians “you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.”[11]

This word of grace was not for Paul an excuse to sit back and rest. It was motivation for him to work harder than ever. He once proclaimed that he had worked harder than any of his opponents to get the gospel of grace out to the world that needs it. Ironically, he did so because it was the grace of God working with him.[12] For Paul, grace was not in conflict with hard work.

Yet there is a challenge we find in the New Testament that seems to conflict with this message of grace. These same apostles and evangelists that champion Christ as the grace of God revealed, also challenge their readers to live lives of holiness, righteousness and godliness.

Why? If Christ’s death is all the grace we will ever need (and it is) why are we encouraged to live godly lives as well? If our acts of righteousness are insufficient for our salvation – indeed are as filthy rags in God’s sight,[13] why should we waste our time trying live out impossible godly lives?

Yet, we cannot escape these challenges toward godliness for they are just as prevalent in the New Testament as the messages of grace. Paul tells Timothy to train himself for godliness, because “while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.”[14] So, he encourages Timothy to pursue godliness.[15]

Peter encourages every Christian to seek godliness. In light of the evil nature of the last days in which we live, he says “what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God?”[16]

How we live as Christians is intended to reflect upon the holiness and godliness of the one we proclaim. That is why Paul instructed Timothy not to allow widows who were too young to become dependent upon the church for their support. Instead, they should go to live with their children or grandchildren. That would give the children or grandchildren a chance to “make some return to their parents.”[17] This would please God, and also be a good witness to the community that Christianity encourages family responsibility.

Paul also encouraged women in worship services not to dress with inordinate jewelry or immodest dress. Instead they should demonstrate “what is proper for women who profess godliness.”[18] Their husbands are encouraged to pray without anger – not to let their worship times be distracted by personal disputes or envy.[19] The reason is the same: godliness points people to Christ, ungodliness in Christians turns people away from Christ.

It is in this context that we read about what Paul calls “the mystery of godliness.”

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.[20]

At first glace, it seems strange that Paul should use such a title. He is not talking about godliness here, but about what he elsewhere calls grace. He is describing the willing sacrificial life of Christ on our behalf. The mystery of godliness is not about what we can do for God, but about what he has done for us. Godliness is what the incarnation was: truth manifested in the flesh.

This is where the gospel of grace and the apostle’s encouragement toward godliness collide. This is the reason that Christians should live out the righteousness that was bought for us at Calvary, at the price of Jesus’ blood.

There have always been those who say that what one does “in the flesh” does not really matter. Many have fallen for the deception that was prominent in the movement later to become known as Gnosticism. They valued knowledge (Greek gnosis) above action. Indeed, for some, no action was significant at all. All that mattered was what one believed. Eventually, this deception paved the way for all kinds of immorality, because it was believed that the flesh did not matter because it was not eternal. They were taught that the soul was as immortal as God, so it was all that mattered.

Others went in the opposite direction, and warned that too much contamination with the world would defile that all-important immortal part within. These would forbid people to marry, or forbid eating meat, defining godliness as meaning what one does without.[21] Godliness was defined as keeping one’s immortal soul pure, not allowing this world of matter to contaminate it.

If Jesus is God’s definition of godliness, then his life blasted away that Gnostic definition. He did not keep his life separated from the world. He invested his life in the world. He did not come simply to convert people’s souls – he came to redeem and heal and resurrect their bodies. His goal was not eternity in a disembodied state, he took on flesh never to lose it again. For infinity he will be walking around in a glorified human body – without sin or shame.

So, after establishing that Christ – the mystery of godliness – came to manifest God’s truth in the flesh, Paul tells Timothy to do the same. He is to pursue righteousness not in order to be saved, but to point people to the Saviour.

He is to be a good man, not out of fear of judgment, but out of love for those who do not yet know Christ, the living manifestation of godliness. Godliness is truth manifested in the flesh. When Christians live godly lives in the midst of a fallen and reprobate world, it draws people to Christ.

This is where the Christian message of grace and the encouragement toward godliness should also meet. Our message of grace should never give people the mistaken assumption that since we are saved by grace it does not matter how we live “in the flesh.” It mattered how Christ lived in the flesh – it should matter for us. Our lives should manifest such integrity and lack of sin that people should assume that they are backed by supernatural power. Our connection to God should be so real and honest that others seek us out when they want to know him. That is what it means to manifest the truth in the flesh.

There is always a danger that those seeking to live out this definition of godliness might fall back into legalism and bondage. As a believer grows and experiences God’s grace, he might go through stages where he feels more “hands on” in his own sanctification. But there will also be times when the believer is overwhelmed with his own unworthiness and depravity, and must fall back to the “hands off” position. God is at work in the believer’s life no matter what his subjective feeling is about it. The God of grace is also a God who works within us to accomplish his will.[22]

God wants us to live lives that manifest his truth while our tongues continue to proclaim it. Godliness, then, should never take the place of Christ as our primary message. We are called to live godly lives so that people will listen to us when we proclaim freedom in Christ.

The Gnostics got it wrong, because they had adopted a false theology about human nature: that human souls are as immortal as God. People who followed the Gnostic teachings became more and more enslaved. People who followed the gospel message were set free to live lives of godliness. They could manifest the truth in the flesh.

It remains to see what this generation is going to choose. Will they leave Egypt or remain in bondage? Will they follow Christ – the mystery of godliness – or seek a godliness of their own making?

LORD, teach us how to celebrate your grace with our tongues, and manifest your truth with our hands.

---

[1] Titus 2:11.

[2] Hebrews 2:9.

[3] Ephesians 2:8; Titus 3:7.

[4] Romans 3:24.

[5] John 1:16.

[6] John 1:17.

[7] Galatians 2:21.

[8] Romans 11:6.

[9] Acts 20:24.

[10] Acts 14:33; 20:32.

[11] 2 Corinthians 8:9.

[12] 1 Corinthians 15:10.

[13] Isaiah 64:6 KJV.

[14] 1 Timothy 4:8.

[15] 1 Timothy 6:11.

[16] 2 Peter 3:11-12.

[17] 1 Timothy 5:4.

[18] 1 Timothy 2:10.

[19] 1 Timothy 2:8.

[20] 1 Timothy 3:16.

[21] 1 Timothy 4:3.

[22] Philippians 2:13.

 

“Into your Hands I commit my spirit.”

David’s statement of trust in the midst of trial was so spiritually significant that the Lord Jesus himself quoted it on the cross. Later, Stephen quoted the same text at the moment of his own death by martyrdom. What does it mean to commit one’s spirit into God’s hands. Does this affirm the immortality of the soul?

John Calvin thought so. He was convinced that “man consists of a body and a soul; meaning by soul an immortal though created essence, which is the nobler part.”[1] He concluded that “Christ, in commending his spirit to the Father, and Stephen his to Christ, simply mean that when the soul is freed from the prison-house of the body, God becomes its perpetual keeper.”[2]

Calvin did not come to that conclusion by reading Psalm 31. He rightly commented on David’s statement by saying “Whoever commits himself into God’s hand and to his guardianship, not only constitutes him the arbiter of life and death to him, but also calmly depends on him for protection amidst all his dangers.”[3] David was asserting his trust in God to deliver him, not his confidence in possessing an indestructible spirit.

Yet Calvin could not resist taking David’s words out of their context, and teaching that Christ and Stephen asserted something not about theology but about anthropology. His belief in Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul was so strong that it led Calvin to forget his rules of exegesis.

Christ quoted from Psalm 31:5 while dying on the cross. He said “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!”[4] In doing so, he was expressing the exact same sentiment that David had expressed when he had used those words. He was not saying that his body was going to die, but that the real him was going to fly to heaven to be safe in his Father’s hands. He was saying that he trusted his Father to rescue him.

His Father did rescue him. He was raised from the dead three days later. His spirit had not gone to heaven to be with his Father at death. He told Mary “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father.”[5] Christ went to the grave. He had committed his spirit – that is, his life – into the hands of the one person who could redeem it.

Stephen’s quote of Psalm 31:5 was also true to its context. Stephen knew that he was going to die. The prison-house was not his alive body, but death itself. But he also had confidence that his death would not be the end. God would rescue him from the prison-house of death in the same way that he had rescued Jesus – by a resurrection. Luke records, “as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.””[6] I heard a preacher at a funeral of a friend of mine say that Stephen did not sleep in the grave because God received his spirit. The preacher had quoted this verse. Later, I had to remind my students (who also heard this sermon) that the preacher forgot about the next verse! Luke continued “And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.”[7] Stephen’s committing his spirit to Christ was not a rejection of the reality of death. It was an expression of confidence that death would not be permanent.

Calvin’s commentary on Psalm 31 also quoted Paul’s reflection on death. He says “What David here declares concerning his temporal life, Paul transfers to eternal salvation.”[8] He was referring to where Paul says “I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.”[9] What Calvin did not point out is that Paul’s words in 2 Timothy are not words of someone who denies death. Paul’s words imply that his death would come, but he has entrusted himself to God who can rescue him from that death. Paul’s trust was not in his possessing an immortal soul, but in his possessing a resurrecting God.

That is the sentiment expressed in Psalm 31:5 by David, and reflected in the words of Jesus on the cross, and those of Stephen at his death. It is not that God has made a part of our being that will never die. It is that God has promised to restore his own by a complete resurrection. It is not about something inherent within us. It is about the faithfulness of God.

---

[1] John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1. (Forgotten Books), 190.

[2] John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1. (Forgotten Books), 190.

[3] John Calvin, Calvin’s Bible Commentaries: Psalms, Part I. (Forgotten Books), 429.

[4] Luke 23:46 ESV.

[5] John 20:17 ESV (emphasis mine).

[6] Acts 7:59 ESV.

[7] Acts 7:60 ESV (emphasis mine).

[8] John Calvin, Calvin’s Bible Commentaries: Psalms, Part I. (Forgotten Books), 431.

[9] 2 Timothy 1:12 NIV.

 

Perhaps the earliest clear reference to the coming resurrection in the Bible is found in the book of Job. When contemplating the fact that he is mortal, he places all his hope in a coming Redeemer:

“As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth. Even after my skin is destroyed, Yet from my flesh I shall see God.”[1]

The meaning seems obvious, but perhaps I am reading too much Christian teaching into this text. Wharton insists that “the traditional Christian conception of Christ as the ‘Redeemer’ of Job 19:25 simply won’t do.”[2] He feels that assuming Job anticipates Christ’s redemption reads too much later theology into Job’s words. Instead, he argues that Job looks forward to being vindicated.

Yet Job’s words seem to say so much more here. He argues not that he is going to be vindicated in this life, but that he is going to see God in the next life. He expresses a hope not in survival after death, but in a complete restoration to bodily life. In short, he is predicting a resurrection. If that sounds too Christian to be acceptable, perhaps commentators need to come to grips with the fact that the Christian gospel is God’s plan for humanity from the beginning.

P. S. Johnston argues that Job may be referring to “vindication in the non-material world.”[3] But, again, all one has to do is look at the text to see that Job’s hope was in a real resurrection, not some shadowy existence in a bodiless afterlife.

The text of Job 19:25-26 affirms three things:

1. Job knew his redeemer was alive.

The word he used for redeemer was go’el. This word is the same used for a kinsman redeemer. In Ruth, it referred to a person living who had the answer to Ruth’s problem. Boaz was the one who made all the difference for Ruth and Naomi. If it were not for Boaz, Ruth’s story would have ended quite differently. Without rescue, there would have been no David, and no Jesus.

But that does not mean that Job assumed that his redeemer was a human being like him. His trust was in God. His hope was that from his flesh he would see God. The real person who would make a real difference for Job is God himself.

What Job affirms is that his own ability to stay alive is not the critical issue. What matters is that the Redeemer lives. Job had graduated from being like his miserable comforters. They were the “hands on” kind of people. They insisted that if there was a problem, there had to be something they could do about it. Job was learning that sometimes you have to take your hands off the situation and trust God. His confidence was not in his own ability to fix things, but in someone other than himself. He knew that he had a Redeemer, and it was not himself. Lahaye says that “regardless of the fate that would befall Job in the near future, he possessed confidence that God remained alive and well, and in perfect control of all creation.”[4]

2. Job Knew that God would take action in the future.

His confidence that the Redeemer would take his stand on the earth at the last was an eschatological belief. He was able to look beyond his present personal struggles and see that God had a plan. He knew that God was going to personally work out his plan for planet earth by visiting the planet.

The idea that God would take his stand is consistent with the concept of incarnation, but goes beyond it. It suggests not just Christ’s first coming, but also his second. The Psalms often use the term in prayers to God to arise and save his people.[5] The psalmists were not primarily thinking soteriology (salvation from sin) but eschatology (ultimate deliverance from evil. Job’s hope was in a God who delivers both spiritually and ultimately.

3. Job knew that he would be alive to see that ultimate restoration.

Job did not doubt the reality of death, he doubted its permanence. He knew that he was mortal. He knew that should the Redeemer delay his return to earth, it would mean his death. It would mean that his skin and flesh would decompose and return to the dust. He entertained no delusion that death was a gateway to a better life. Death was death – the destruction of the flesh, and total unconsciousness.

Instead of deluding himself with fanciful notions that he could live forever, Job aligned himself with his inevitable demise. But he was able to look beyond that dark time of unconsciousness to a time of new resurrected life. His confidence was that not only is God going to take his stand in the future, but that he (Job) would be standing right there observing it. His confidence was in a resurrection.

Notice how specifically Job describes his hope. He says “from my flesh I shall see God.” He does not say “as a spiritual entity I shall see God”. He anticipates his own, newly resurrected eyes will see God restore his creation. He even goes on to emphasize this hope by saying “whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another.”[6] His confidence is not in life for someone else, but in restored life for himself.

If I had no other text in the Bible to affirm my confidence in the resurrection, Job 19:25 would suffice. In this text, I see the reality that no matter what happens to me today, my Redeemer will be alive. I may not survive the troubles of this day, but my Redeemer will. My hope is in him. My confidence is not in something I can do, but in something he will do. My God is going to arise, and save his people ultimately. And when he does, I will be there witnessing it with my own resurrected eyes. Job and I will be standing there, with our eyes and mouths wide open, in awe of what our God is doing. This is our hope.

---

[1] Romans 19:25-26 NASB.

[2] James A Wharton, Job (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 89.

[3] P.S. Johnston, “Afterlife” in Dictionary of the Old Testament. (Nottingham, England: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 6.

[4] Tim Lahaye, Exploring Bible Prophecy from Genesis to Revelation: Clarifying the Meaning (Eugene Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2011), 101.

[5] Psalm 3:8; 7:7; 9:20; 10:12; 17:3, etc.

[6] Job 19:27 ESV.

1 Timothy 6:16 is one of the foundational verses for conditionalists. In it, we see a theological principle that we are not ready to relinquish in favor of popular teachings. It is the principle that God is the only being in the universe who has immortality. His immortality is exclusive. In that respect, he is different from all other beings.

“The only One who has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light; no one has seen or can see Him, to Him be honor and eternal might. Amen” (HCSB).

The verse is the second part of a doxology: a pause to praise the God of whom the author is writing. In its context, Paul is encouraging Timothy to keep pursuing eternal life to which he was called, but has not yet attained. It is a promise from the only one capable of making that promise: God, who alone possesses that thing that Paul urges Timothy to pursue.

Comparing 1 Timothy 1:17 to 6:15-16 has led some scholars to suggest that Paul did not originate this text. He may have been quoting an already existing liturgy. That would explain how Paul quotes the text as if it is already known by Timothy and his companions at Ephesus. The principles found in those texts would have already been accepted as part of the Christian message.

Paul asserts four things about God here:

1. God’s Power is Eternal.

The phrase kratos aionion (just before the “Amen”) asserts that God’s battery never runs out. He never needs to be recharged. What a contrast this is to what Paul says about himself. He tells Timothy that when he was facing his lion’s den “the Lord stood by me and strengthened me, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it.”[1]

But Paul said that now that his work was done, he was about to die. His battery was running out.

“For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.”[2]

He speaks of an ending of his life, and a new beginning, at the resurrection when Christ appears. These are not the words of someone convinced that he has eternal life already. They are the words of one who realizes that God alone possesses unending power and life.

2. God’s Authority is Eternal.

He is to be honored for eternity. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords (6:15). That suggests, that everyone who has authority now derives that authority from him. It also suggests that the same is true of anyone who will ever be in authority. All honor will go to him. But all honor does not presently go to him. Perhaps that is why the adjective aionios (eternal) does not apply to the noun time’ (honor) in this verse. But someday, God’s chosen king will return. Then the kingdoms of this world will “become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever” (Rev. 11:15). So, from the standpoint of eternity, his authority is the only one that will last forever.

3. God is different from the other “gods.”

The “gods” of the first century Roman empire are idols made of stone or wood or metal. Those idols sometimes represent spirit beings, but have limitations that the God of the Bible does not have. They can be seen. God cannot. They can be approached by anyone with the ability to fashion them, or the means to procure them. The God whom Paul praises in this doxology does not dwell inside an image. His dwelling is in unapproachable light (fos aprositon). God is not a good luck charm to be manipulated by humans for their own desires and prosperity. He is distant.

Paul is not saying that God never approaches us. The gospel tells us that God came near in the person of Jesus Christ, and chose to make his dwelling among us (John 1:14). The Holy Spirit dwells inside believers, who are his temple (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19). The author of Hebrews tells us that by prayer we can “with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16).

So, what Paul affirms in 1 Timothy 6:16 applies to God’s nature. There is a fundamental difference between the Christian God and the pagan Gods. The pagan gods are things to be manipulated. They can be used to bring a person good luck or prevent bad luck. But the God of the Bible will not be put to the test. His power can never be used for anything other than accomplishing his will at his prompting.

4. God’s Life is Immortal.

In the Bible, this word athanasia is never used as an attribute of anyone else but God this side of the resurrection at Christ’s second coming. It is never used to describe a human soul or spirit. Yet it has come to be popular and “orthodox” to make all kinds of concessions to God’s exclusive immortality. Matthew Henry, for example, says that God “only is immortal in himself, and has immortality as he is the fountain of it, for the immortality of angels and spirits derived from him.”[3] So the hypothetical “box” in which we might put all immortal beings is actually not exclusive at all. It contains not only God, but all of those sentient creatures created by him, both human and angelic. Perhaps we should be grateful that cats and dogs did not make the grade.

Lately evangelical scholars see the dilemma in accepting what Paul said about God in 1 Tim. 6:16. Their conclusions, however, are ultimately the same as Matthew Henry’s. Peterson, for example, states the “orthodox” position quite well in his recent debate with Fudge. He said that “Plato held to the soul’s natural or inherent immortality. By contrast, evangelical Christians hold that God alone is inherently immortal (1 Tim. 6:16) and that he confers immortality to all human beings.”[4] But once the “and that he confers” is added to the equation, the dilemma begins. 1 Tim.6:16 says nothing about God conferring his exclusive attribute to all human beings. Either that attribute is exclusive or it is not. Conditionalists see no clear contrast between the view of Plato and that of our brother evangelicals who hold Peterson’s view.

The onus is ours, however, as conditionalists, to back up this bold claim that God’s immortality is exclusive. Ours is the minority position. That is why a study of the terms used in the Bible to imply immortality is helpful. The study shows that the concept of immortality does not apply to angels and human beings by default. This adds justification for our being obstinate enough to hold to the exclusive immortality of God in spite of its being an unpopular doctrine.

The noun athanasia only appears three times in the canonical Bible. It makes no appearance in the entire Old Testament. Besides 1 Tim. 6:16, it only appears in 1 Corinthians 15:53-54.

For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

The ESV translators, normally sticklers to word-for-word accuracy, betray their theological bias here by supplying the word body twice in verse 53, even though there is no Greek equivalent in the original. Paul actually agrees with what he stated in 1 Tim. 6:16. Since God alone is immortal, something will have to change in order for human beings, who are perishable and mortal, to become immortal. That change will take place at the resurrection. There is no indication in the text itself that human mortality pertains only to our bodies. That is a concept that is assumed by the proponents of natural or inherent immortality, and denied by conditionalists, who propose that immortality is only potential. 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Tim. 6:16 both serve as evidence for the potential immortality position. While 1 Cor. 15 shows that immortality (athanasia) is not currently a present possession (even for the saved), 1 Tim. 6:16 identifies the one being who is the exception to that rule, and presently has athanasia.

The Apocrypha provides seven more instances of the term. While we cannot rely on the Apocrypha as a standard for proof of a doctrine, we can consult it in order to establish how certain terms were used, which is a reflection of their understood meaning. Were we, for example, to find numerous references to athanasia as a natural human attribute it might show that intertestamental Jews viewed humans as naturally immortal beings.

4 Maccabees 8-18 contains an account describing the torture of seven young men and their mother by the Tyrant (Antiochus IV). Instances of the term athanasia occur in two places. In 4 Maccabees 14:4-5 the writer says that “none of the seven youths proved coward or shrank from death, but all of them, as though running the course toward immortality, hastened to death by torture” (RSV). From this we can infer that intertestamental Jews did have the concept of immortality, but saw it as something to be earned through diligent faithfulness to God. It was certainly not an attribute taken for granted as the natural possession of all human beings.

The second occurrence of athanasia refers to the mother, who, “as though having a mind like adamant and giving rebirth for immortality to the whole number of her sons, she implored them and urged them on to death for the sake of religion” (4 Maccabees 16:13). The mother is pictured as encouraging her sons to stay true to their faith in God with such zeal that it is like she was giving birth to them all over again, this time for immortality instead of mortality (as it was in the first instance of her giving birth to them). Again, there is no innate, inherent immortality described here. Immortality is something to be gained by a martyr’s death for the seven sons. Their mother, who gave them natural birth, did not in so doing impart to them immortality.

All the other instances of the term athanasia occur in The Wisdom of Solomon. Notice this revealing statement about the destiny of the righteous:

Wisdom 3:1-4 RSV

But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be an affliction, and their going from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace. For though in the sight of men they were punished, their hope is full of immortality.

As in 4 Maccabees, athanasia is seen as potential for humans, because the righteous will be resurrected, but athanasia is not an inherent attribute.

Wisdom 4:1-7 RSV

… in the memory of virtue is immortality, because it is known both by God and by men. When it is present, men imitate it, and they long for it when it has gone; and throughout all time it marches crowned in triumph, victor in the contest for prizes that are undefiled. But the prolific brood of the ungodly will be of no use, and none of their illegitimate seedlings will strike a deep root or take a firm hold. For even if they put forth boughs for a while, standing insecurely they will be shaken by the wind, and by the violence of the winds they will be uprooted. The branches will be broken off before they come to maturity, and their fruit will be useless, not ripe enough to eat, and good for nothing. For children born of unlawful unions are witnesses of evil against their parents when God examines them. But the righteous man, though he die early, will be at rest.

Here is no denial of the reality of death, but a glimpse beyond it, to a resurrected virtuous person, known both by God and by men. The ungodly, though they might produce a prolific brood, will be uprooted. Notice, again, that there is no mention of athanasia as a common trait held by all humans. A resurrection unto immortality is only the hope of the righteous.

Wisdom 8:13-17 RSV

Because of {wisdom} I shall have immortality, and leave an everlasting remembrance to those who come after me. I shall govern peoples, and nations will be subject to me; dread monarchs will be afraid of me when they hear of me; among the people I shall show myself capable, and courageous in war. When I enter my house, I shall find rest with her, for companionship with her has no bitterness, and life with her has no pain, but gladness and joy. When I considered these things inwardly, and thought upon them in my mind, that in kinship with wisdom there is immortality…

Wisdom, as defined by the wisdom literature of the Bible and related works like The Wisdom of Solomon is the ability to make correct moral choices which lead to God’s favour. In the Bible, those correct moral choices usually led to a long healthy life, but by the time The Wisdom of Solomon was written, one’s eternal destiny was also seen as a consequence of living wisely. It is the route to eventual athanasia. It is a narrow path that does not include everyone on the planet. It is not innate, nor is the immortality it produces.

Wisdom 15:1-3 RSV

But thou, our God, art kind and true, patient, and ruling all things in mercy. For even if we sin we are thine, knowing thy power; but we will not sin, because we know that we are accounted thine. For to know thee is complete righteousness, and to know thy power is the root of immortality.

In the New Testament we found that athanasia was an exclusive attribute of God, but a hope for humanity. In this final reference to athanasia in the Apocrypha, we see a relationship with God as the only means of obtaining to that hope.

Athanatos

In the Apocrypha, there are a few instances of the corresponding adjective that we would translate immortal as well. Although this word does not appear in the New Testament, it is helpful to see how it was used.

It is said of Eleazar that “in no way did he turn the rudder of religion until he sailed into the haven of immortal victory” (4 Maccabees 7:3). The most that can be inferred from this metaphorical statement is that Eleazar is counted among those who finished the course of faith, and awaits a resurrection unto immortality. It does not imply that Eleazar was already immortal by nature. It is said of the aforementioned seven young men that “just as the hands and feet are moved in harmony with the guidance of the mind, so those holy youths, as though moved by an immortal spirit of devotion, agreed to go to death for its sake” (4 Maccabees 14:6). All this implies about these youths is that although their devotion was undying, they were not. You cannot prove that people are immortal from a passage that records their deaths.

Later, the author of 4 Maccabees does state that these “sons of Abraham with their victorious mother are gathered together into the chorus of the fathers, and have received pure and immortal souls from God” (4 Maccabees 18:23). There is a hint of some kind of rewarded state here, but perhaps the reward is merely the certainty of a resurrection unto immortality. At any rate, 1 Corinthians 15 states that the resurrection is when the reward will be realized. If some intertestamental Jews imagined a conscious intermediate state, they were mistaken.

One use of athanatos is found which draws a distinction between God’s

righteousness (which is said to be immortal) and secular man’s covenant with death.

Wisdom 1:12-16 (RSV)

Do not invite death by the error of your life, nor bring on destruction by the works of your hands; because God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. For he created all things that they might exist, and the generative forces of the world are wholesome, and there is no destructive poison in them; and the dominion of Hades is not on earth. For righteousness is immortal. But ungodly men by their words and deeds summoned death; considering him a friend, they pined away, and they made a covenant with him, because they are fit to belong to his party.

Here again, there is no mention of a man, or even a part of man, which is immortal by nature. In fact, immortality belongs to the righteous One. Human beings are mortal.

Athanatos is also found in The Wisdom of Sirach:

For we cannot have everything, human beings are not immortal. What is brighter than the sun? And yet it fades. Flesh and blood think of nothing but evil. He surveys the armies of the lofty sky, and all of us are only dust and ashes (Sirach 17:30-32 New Jerusalem Bible).

Here is perhaps the clearest expression of human mortality in the Apocrypha. It says that men do not have the attribute that Paul said only God has. He will always last, but we are “dust and ashes.” The statement is in perfect agreement with the New Testament.

Afthartos

Another adjective – sometimes translated “immortal” in versions of the New Testament – emphasizes the unfailing, imperishable, or incorruptible nature of the noun it modifies. If this adjective were found applied to beings other than God, it would serve as evidence that the NT authors assumed that these beings possessed immortality. In Romans 1:23 Paul explained that idolatrous humanity “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” Notice that only God is placed in the “beings having immortality” box. Man and animals are comfortably placed in the “all others” box.

In 1 Tim. 1:17 Paul ascribes “honour and glory for ever and ever” “unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God.” If the term immortal applies to all other created beings (or at least the higher ones: angels and humans) one wonders why Paul would bother mentioning the attribute. But if the attribute is exclusive to God alone (as Paul later states in chapter 6), his mentioning it here makes perfect sense.

Some might argue that the term “immortal” is appropriate to describe men’s

spirits or souls, but not their bodies. As such it might be appropriate to speak of God being immortal in an absolute sense. He has no body to corrupt or perish. This logic only applies if the principles of Platonic anthropology are true. Plato argued that the soul of man is immortal because it is simple, and cannot be divided into composite parts. The notion of human immortality is the result of combining this principle from pagan philosophy with biblical theology. One question conditionalists ask is “can the Bible be left alone to answer the question of human mortality, or must we borrow from pagan theology to do it?”

All other references to afthartos in the New Testament[5] use the term to describe the hope of believers after the resurrection, or some kind of character trait that is imperishable in the sense that it does not fade away with time. There is not one single use of the term applied to human nature itself, body or soul. If this attribute is such an essential part of human identity, one would expect this adjective to be used repeatedly throughout the New Testament in reference to human nature itself.

God’s Identity

Often when God is identified in the Bible, this exclusive attribute is part of his title, identifying him as different from all other beings. He is the Living God.[6] He is the eternal God.[7] He is the immortal God.[8] He is the everlasting God.[9] His name and attributes endure forever.[10] By contrast, humans are God’s creatures. As such they are dying.[11] They are mortal.[12] They are perishable.[13] They fade away like the color on a leaf.[14] They return to the dust from which they were made.[15]

God is different. He is exclusively immortal. This, as well as his other exclusive attributes – like holiness and omnipotence – make it appropriate for us to worship him exclusively. Conditional immortality is – at the heart of the issue – a doctrine which seeks to preserve what the Bible says about God.

---

[1] 2 Timothy 4:17.

[2] 2 Timothy 4:6-8.

[3] Matthew Henry – The Matthew Henry Commentary on the Bible (1 Tim. 6:16).

[4] Robert A Peterson, in Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 88.

[5] 1 Cor. 9:25; 15:52; 1 Pet. 1:4, 23; 3:4

[6] Deut. 5:26; Josh. 3:10; 1 Sam. 17:26, 36; 2 Kgs 19:4, 16; Psa. 42:2; 84:2; Isa. 37:4, 17; Jer. 10:10; 23:36; Dan. 6:20, 26; Hos. 1:10; Matt. 16:16; 26:63; Acts 14:15; Rom. 9:26; 2 Cor. 3:3; 6:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; 4:10; Heb. 3:12; 9:14;10:31; 12:22; Rev. 7:2.

[7] Deut. 33:27; Rom. 16:26.

[8] Rom. 1:23.

[9] Gen. 21:33; Isa. 40:28.

[10] 1 Chr. 16:34, 41; 2 Chr. 5:13; 7:3, 6; 20:21; Ezra 3:11; Psa. 100:5; 106:1; 107:1; 111:3, 10; 112:3, 9; 117:2;118:1ff, 29; 119:160; 135:13; 136:1ff; 138:8; Eccl. 3:14; Jer. 33:11; 2 Cor. 9:9.

[11] Gen. 35:18; 2 Chr. 16:13; 24:22; Job 24:12; Luke 8:42; John 11:37; Heb. 11:21.

[12] Job 4:17; Rom. 1:23; 6:12; 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:53f; 2 Cor. 4:11; 5:4; Heb. 7:8.

[13] 1 Cor. 15:42, 50, 53f; 1 Pet. 1:23.

[14] Psa. 37:2; Isa. 64:6; Jam. 1:11.

[15] Gen. 3:19; Job 10:9; 34:15; Psa. 90:3; Eccl. 3:20.