What Does The Bible Say About Consuming Wine?

• All Food And Drink Has Been Declared Clean By God:

          -Issues pertaining to food and drink are of tertiary importance according to New Testament teaching (Romans 14:1-14). These were all given to us by God so as to nourish our physical bodies. They are, therefore, to be received with gladness and thanksgiving.
          -If we are going to view professing Christians who dogmatically condemn the consumption of certain meats as being legalistic, then the same must also be true of those who dogmatically oppose the consumption of wine under any circumstances. Anything can be misused and abused.

          -Just as consuming too much of any food is morally wrong, the same is equally true with wine or any other drink. Addictions are sin, which includes alcoholism (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21). Becoming an alcoholic can be fatal and ruins good morals.
          -We should take measures to prevent becoming a stumbling block to fellow brethren in the church (Romans 14:15-21). Moreover, there is nothing wrong with refusing to drink wine for the sake of conscience.

• Should Churches Use Wine Or Grape Juice In Communion?:

          -Either wine or grape juice is acceptable for use in communion, since both are derived from the same source: grapes (Matthew 26:26-29). The Mishna's Seder spoke of the "fruit of the vine" as intoxicating wine.
          -The juice extracted from the grapes is a part of God's creation. So is the fermentation process of that juice. All things created by God are to be received with thanksgiving because they are good (Genesis 1:31; 1 Timothy 4:4).
          -The ultimate question that needs to be answered is not whether the contents of the communion cup are grape juice or wine. Rather, are we as individuals partaking of that cup in a worthy manner (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)?

• Drinking Wine Is Acceptable By Biblical Standards:

          -Jesus Christ Himself turned water into wine during the wedding feast at Cana (John 2). If the act of drinking wine in and of itself is sinful, then Jesus would be sinful just like we are and thus disqualified from redeeming us from sin.

          -The Apostle Paul instructed Timothy to drink some wine to help with his frequent stomach illnesses (1 Timothy 5:23). It served for medicinal purposes. The biblical view of wine is that it has been given to us by God as a gift to enjoy (Psalm 104:14-15; Ecclesiastes 9:7).

          -Wine in biblical times was generally consumed by the wealthier members of society. This accounts for the warnings to kings against being addicted to such beverages in Proverbs.
          -The only group of people whom God forbade (in the Old Testament) from consuming alcoholic wine were those who took the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6:1-21).

• Is The Greek "Oinos" To Be Translated As Wine Or Grape Juice?:

          -It is obvious that this term carries with it connotations of intoxicating drink. This accounts for biblical texts that warn against drunkenness. The Jewish Encyclopedia says the following, "There were different kinds of wine. "Yayin" was the ordinary matured, fermented wine, "tirosh" was a new wine, and "shekar" was an old, powerful wine ("strong drink"). The red wine was the better and stronger (Ps. lxxv. 9 [A. V. 8]; Prov. xxiii. 31). Perhaps the wine of Helbon (Ezek. xxvii. 18) and the wine of Lebanon (Hos. xiv. 7) were white wines. The vines of Hebron were noted for their large clustersof grapes (Num. xiii. 23). Samaria was the center of vineyards (Jer. xxxi. 5; Micah i. 6), and the Ephraimites were heavy wine-drinkers (Isa. xxviii. 1). There were also "yayin ha-reḳaḥ" (spiced wine; Cant. viii. 2), "ashishah" (hardened sirup of grapes), "shemarim (wine-dregs), and "ḥomeẓ yayin" (vinegar). Some wines were mixed with poisonous substances ("yayin tar'elah"; Ps. lx. 5; comp. lxxv.9, "mesek" [mixture]). The "wine of the condemned" ("yen 'anushim") is wine paid as a forfeit (Amos ii. 8), and "wine of violence" (Prov. iv. 17) is wine obtained by illegal means."

Does Ezekiel 37:19 Prophecy The Coming Of The Book Of Mormon?

          "Ezekiel saw in vision [Ezekiel 37:19] the coming together of the stick of Judah, and the stick of Joseph, signifying the Bible and the Book of Mormon...The Nephites were then of the tribes of Joseph, and their record or 'stick' is as truly represented by the Book of Mormon as is the 'stick' of Judah by the Bible." (The Articles Of Faith, p. 276, by Talmage)

          Citing Ezekiel 37:19 is ineffectual to serve the purposes of the Mormons. The passage itself is simply too vague. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses could appeal to this text to make the same argument in favor of the Watchtower Society and its magazine publications. Any group of people could appeal to this passage in the way that Mormons have done to support their claims.

          The only thing that Ezekiel recorded on to the stick was the phrase, "For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and all the house of Israel, his companions." (Ezekiel 37:16) That was all that God had told Ezekiel to write on the stick. Therefore, Mormons are wrong when they assert that the Book of Mormon was what was written on the stick by the prophet.

          In context, the Jewish people asked Ezekiel, ‘Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these?’ (Ezekiel 37:18). The joining of the two sticks represents the divided state of Israel (the northern kingdoms of Israel and the southern kingdoms which constitute the nation of Judah). It is about them being reunited again (Ezekiel 37:21-22). The two sticks do not represent the union of two different books.

When America Saved Europe From Islam

"Thomas Jefferson fought back, and ended Moslem piracy in Europe. It was the first time America saved Europe militarily, and no one seems to remember, least of all the Europeans. Although our people don’t remember, they do speak about it whenever they sing or hear the first words of the Marine Corps Anthem: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country’s battles on the land and on the sea….” Why don’t we teach our children about the wars these words refer to?"

Patrick Michael Murphy, “How the West Was Lost,” p. 203

Do Church Divisions Invalidate Sola Scriptura?

• Defining The Issues:

          -Private interpretation of Scripture is the concept of a person using his reasoning to make a judgment as to the meaning of a passage from the Bible. It is a more individualistic approach to determining what Scripture means. Roman Catholic apologists insist that we absolutely must have their leaders infallibly interpret the Scriptures for us in order to preserve truth in doctrinal matters and thus aid in the prevention of division throughout Christendom.

          -Sola Ecclesia is the Latin term that describes the Roman Catholic belief that the church is the final authority in all religious matters (as opposed to the Protestant position of Sola Scriptura). The Church of Rome touts itself to be the infallible, true church established by Jesus Christ who appointed the Apostle Peter as its first pope. Thus, Rome demands from its members complete and unquestioned submission to its authority.
          -The claim that we need an infallible interpreter of Scripture is essentially the same as saying that the Bible is too difficult for the average person to understand. Both ideas use the same logic in their premises in order to reach the same conclusions. If the basic message of Scripture is clear enough for us to understand, then why would we need an infallible interpreter in the first place? If Christ entrusted the preservation of His teaching to an infallible teaching office, then why do we even have a Bible?
          -Consequently, the Church of Rome claims that Christians who rely on the Bible alone for testing the truthfulness of doctrine rather than the Magisterium will inevitably end up in a state of hopeless confusion. Irreconcilable doctrinal contradictions exist. Thus, truth cannot be known from Scripture itself but must be unpacked by an earthly organization.

          -"...no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,--wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold," (Trent, Session 4, "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books")

          -“...the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” (CCC # 82)

• Biblical Evidence For The Perspicuity Of Scripture:

          -King Josiah came to repentance as a result of the Book of the Law being found in the temple and him reading its words (2 Kings 22:8-13). He did this on his own apart from an infallible interpreter. Psalm 119:97-105 speaks of acquiring more wisdom than even teachers and elders after meditating upon the words of the Law. Paul states that we can understand the revelation of the gospel just by reading his epistle (Ephesians 3:3-5). He also said that the apostles did not write things his audience could not read or understand (2 Corinthians 1:13-14). 

          -With the exception of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, all of the New Testament epistles were written to Christians in general (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Philemon 1:1-2; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; James 1:1-2; Revelation 1:3-4).
          -Calls to read and obey Scripture presuppose that we can understand what it says (Joshua 1:7-8; Acts 17:11; Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; 2 Thessalonians 3:14).
          -The common people understood the teachings of Jesus Christ apart from some infallible interpreter (Matthew 11:25; 13:51; Mark 12:37). There was never such a person sitting next to Him when He was teaching in front of the crowds. He oftentimes attracted the poor and uneducated. The point is that anyone with a humble and prayerful heart can understand what God desires for us, apart from a complex church hierarchy.

• Phillip And The Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:28-38):

          -There are people with authority to teach in the church. In fact, the doctrine of perspicuity does not mean that all portions of Scripture are equally clear or easy to understand. We may very well need things explained to us at times. But this text says nothing about the concept of teaching infallibly or that only an infallible interpretation of Scripture would suffice for the confused Eunuch.
          -The Eunuch was from far away (Ethiopia), and he had apparently not been given a chance to hear about the teachings of the gospel message. Philip, who was at the right place at the right time by the power of the Holy Spirit, was given the opportunity to explain the passage from Isaiah 53. He was confused simply because he did not know who the prophet Isaiah was referring to (v. 34). The gospel was not spread out back in the day, as it is today. That is all this text is about.

• No Prophecy Of Scripture Is Of Any Private Interpretation (2 Peter 1:20)?:

          -How can a person develop a biblical argument against the principle of Sola Scriptura by making a personal interpretation of a verse that allegedly condemns private interpretation of Scripture?
          -How can a person rely on prophecy or compare Scripture to a "light" (v. 19), if they have been forbidden to use it (v. 20)?
          -The context of 2 Peter 1:20-21 is not speaking of one's reading of Scripture, but rather, is about the origin of Scripture. No true prophecy was given to the prophet by his own interpretation. Prophecy originated directly from God. It is not a product of our imaginations.

• People Twisting The Scriptures To Their Own Destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16)?:

          -First of all, this text only states that SOME things in Paul's epistles are hard to understand. It does not even specify which parts those are. This simply means that we need to pray and study Scripture more diligently.

          -This text says that people "twist the Scriptures to THEIR OWN destruction" (v. 16), which indicates that we are responsible for how we handle the Word of God.
          -2 Peter 3:15-16 is only speaking of the unfaithful and the unbelieving; not the humble and prayerful Christian.
          -Although the context of 2 Peter 3 would be a great place to introduce the concept of an infallible interpreter of the Bible, such is not mentioned at all.

• Do We Need Some Special Authority In Order To Make Interpretations Of Scripture?:

          -Interpreting Scripture is not so much a matter of personal authority, but rather something God expects us to do. This does not mean ministers in local congregations have no special authority to teach. It would also not be correct to say that church authority has no limits at all. Scripture is clear enough for readers to obtain truths related to salvation and godliness.

          -God does not require that we understand Him infallibly, since we are but finite creations. We can have sufficient certainty behind the meaning of Scripture. This is not to suggest that we can interpret the Scriptures in any way that we desire. We should examine Scripture in its proper context, use our common sense, consult commentaries, etc.

• Thoughts On Religious Division:

          -Jesus Christ desires unity in the church. His will is that we be one in the Spirit. Christ despises factions amongst His people, since that is an indicator of carnality. Truth is of utmost importance. Therefore, it ought to be sought after at all costs. But we are imperfect beings. Divisions have existed in the church since the time Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians.

          -In a society with millions of people where freedom of speech and freedom of religion exists, there will inevitably be diversity in beliefs. That is simply a logical consequence of being in a free society. In order to obtain the institutionalized unity that Rome requires, there would have to be coercion, threats, and intimidation involved. Otherwise, it is not humanly possible to obtain.

          -There are scenarios in which division is necessary: “For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you” (1 Corinthians 11:19). Unity in and of itself does not guarantee truth or preservation of the gospel.

          -Essential doctrines are clearly and repeatedly defined in Scripture. Doctrines that are of secondary importance (i.e. not issues that we should break fellowship over or refuse to acknowledge another as a brother in Christ) would include women's head coverings, musical instruments in church, eschatology, modes of baptism, etc.

• Is Roman Catholicism A Theologically Divided Body?:

          -While the Church of Rome may appear to be fairly unified because it is organized under the headship of the pope, the unity in which Catholics appeal to is largely imaginary. It is misleading, for there are significant theological differences among the Catholic laity, priests, scholars, theologians, and bishops. There are societies, movements, and orders forming within the chambers of Roman Catholicism. There are liberal and conservative Catholics. Although these divisions are hidden under the Roman Catholic hierarchy, differences still exist and are significant.
          -Many Roman Catholics are unlearned in regards to the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Many flatly contradict many of the official teachings of the Catholic Church on issues such as abortion, artificial birth control, the death penalty, homosexuality, on whether priests should be married, letting females join the priesthood, stem-cell research, and much more. Roman Catholics are in a state of division over additional issues such as creation verses evolution, the material sufficiency of Scripture, charismatic occurrences, whether practicing Jews and Muslims can be saved without conversion, and whether Mary is the co-redemptrix. Catholic theologians are even divided over the interpretation of Vatican II documents.
          -Roman Catholicism is a group that is lead by a single human leader and occupies the same title all throughout its domain ("Roman Catholic"), whereas Protestantism is made up of individual churches with different labels. Protestantism is not an ecclesiastical structure like Rome. So it is misleading to compare the two. The principle of Sola Scriptura was never intended to bring about an institutionalized form of unity. We have a sense of genuine love and fellowship toward each other.

• Refuting The 33,000 Protestant Denominations Myth:

          -Scott Eric Alt, at the National Catholic Register, said in regard to the claim that there are thousands of Protestant denominations: “There are not—repeat with me—there are not 33,000 Protes­tant denom­i­na­tions. There are not any­where close to it. It is a myth that has taken hold by force of rep­e­ti­tion, and it gets cited and recited by reflex; but it is based on a source that, even Catholics will have to con­cede, relies on too loose a def­i­n­i­tion of the word “denom­i­na­tion.”…How­ever strong the temp­ta­tion some may have to char­ac­ter­ize any­thing not Catholic or Ortho­dox as “Protes­tant,” you can’t do that. All that tells Protes­tant apol­o­gists is that you don’t know what Protes­tantism is, or what its dis­tinc­tives are—and they would be right. And why would they take any­thing you say seriously after that? If you don’t know what Protes­tantism is, who are you to be talk­ing about its errors? Not only are Mor­mons, Jehovah’s Wit­nesses, One­ness Pen­te­costals, Uni­tar­i­ans, Pros­per­ity Gospel believ­ers (included among 23,600 Inde­pen­dents and Mar­gin­als) not Protes­tant, they are not even Chris­t­ian; they adhere to a false Chris­tol­ogy. Protes­tants and Catholics are in agree­ment about who Christ is; these other groups have other ideas.”

Refuting The Atheistic "God Of The Gaps" Argument

          Atheists portray belief in the existence of God as merely being an explanation for things that science has of yet not answered. A common objection to theism is that it has been assumed on a priori basis the necessity of God's existence in all matters that science itself has not as of this time been able to account for satisfactorily. On the contrary, intelligent and reasonable religious people are not appealing to God simply to fill in missing or incomplete scientific data.  Arguments for the existence of God are not based on silence or ignorance of facts. They are not made on the basis of a lack of knowledge.

           When arguments for the existence of God are made, we are making inferences from the best observations gathered by science and from principles of elementary logic to substantiate our beliefs. More specifically, all of our collected evidences point to the existence of an external, greater reality. Philosophical proofs for the existence of God point beyond the scope of the natural world. It is not all that exists. If the premises of such arguments are true, then their conclusions automatically follow. It does not matter how people feel or react to the validity of presented deductive arguments.

           The validity of each logical premise in arguments for the existence of God is based on the validity of each scientific or philosophical point used in making them. For instance, the universe does have fine-tuning. The universe has a first cause. Biological structures have a degree of complexity that appears to have been designed. These are scientific facts, which must be dealt with. Theistic arguments do not simply assume the existence of God as a means of providing an explanation, but are logical deductions that are unpacked to get an intended point across.

           

          A true scientist must be open to the possibility of many things, for they dedicate their lives to seeking answers. Scientists are to be focused on truth. Scientists are supposed to be about evidence. Those who reject the existence of God are very biased indeed. Science is about the study of the natural world, not searching for naturalistic explanations with the intent of ruling out the supernatural. The fact that science has discovered answers to a number of complicated questions does not mean that it alone is sufficient to unravel every difficult question of life.

A Biblical Theology Of Marriage And Divorce

        "And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?" (Matthew 19:4-5)

        People committed to matrimony are, in ideal circumstances, to remain united for the remainder of their earthly lives. Exceptions to this rule would include the passing of a spouse (Romans 7:2-3), desertion by an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:14-15), marital unfaithfulness (Matthew 19:9), and spousal abuse. If one of these conditions are met, then one is free to seek after a new spouse. It is within the framework of marriage that a man exercises his conjugal prerogatives (Genesis 1:28). It is within that context man discovers for himself a unique kind of love and companionship (Genesis 2:18). Both partners contribute to the well-being of the family.

        Marriage is supposed to be the life-long dedication to a partner of the opposite sex. Thus, adultery is wrong for obvious reasons: it is lying and unfair. It turns what was intended to be a permanent vow right on its own head. If fornication and adultery are morally permissible, then why even bother with getting married in the first place? The best way to eliminate temptation is to identify with certainty its source and find ways to permanently remove or avoid it. Jesus Christ specifically taught that lusting is equivalent to actually committing adultery and fornication (Matthew 5:28-29). It is a form of idolatry (Colossians 3:5). However, being physically attracted to a member of the opposite sex is not wrong in and of itself. That is actually natural.

        God absolutely despises divorce (Malachi 2:16). He regards it as an act of faithlessness. Divorce was not a part of His original order of things. It was never His intention. God only tolerated the termination of marriages because the hearts of men are hard (Matthew 19:8-9). He knew that our relationships could go sour. Therefore, if it be at all possible, it is best for arguing couples to seek reconciliation. That may entail a degree of compromise in either one or both parties. For instance, wives and children should never be put into a situation that leaves them without a source of income to provide for their basic needs. Every situation is different and must be dealt with accordingly.

        In order for a marriage to be successful, both partners must agree to fulfill the necessary obligations that have been assigned to them by God. There has to be necessary conditions for the husband and wife to abide by, for the household cannot stand in a state of contention. One person cannot realistically be expected to complete a job which requires working with other people. Marriage involves personal accountability. Marriage is based on commitment of the spouses to each other. Its underlying principle is self-sacrifice.

         Wives play a foundational role in the raising of their children (Titus 2:4-5; 1 Timothy 2:15; 5:14). The wife is free to take on other responsibilities, as long as they do not interfere with her assigned duties and distract the husband from fulfilling his responsibilities. The husband is supposed to show loving leadership over his family and provide for it (1 Timothy 5:8; Ephesians 5:25). His position is not one of giving orders, but involves a greater sense of personal responsibility. Marriage is the sharing of a mutual goal; a romantic partnership. It represents the different responsibilities that both leading figures of the family have.

        Marriage was instituted by God, so He has complete authority over it. Divorce could actually be seen as a grace in that it exists when no potential remedies work. This kind of a decision should never be taken lightly and only in sorrow. The best thing to do is marry somebody who shares a similar worldview. Even a person who claims to be a Christian may be a bad candidate for marriage (Matthew 7:21). Some people may have to wait a long time before finally getting married, like Isaac who was forty before he got married (Genesis 25:20). In fact, a person does not have to get married if he does not want to. Even Christ spoke of the celibate (Matthew 19:11-12).

Are All Sins Equal In Severity?

        It is true that all sins are worthy of condemnation because they are a violation of God's Law (Romans 6:23). All of them are unrighteous. Any and all sin is sufficient to stop one from entering the kingdom of God. All sin can be spoken of as mortal before Him. However, any and all sin can be forgiven because of Christ's work on the cross (Romans 5:20).

        God's Law does not exist outside Himself as do human laws to judges. He is the perfect moral standard of righteousness (Genesis 18:25). Sin, therefore, is not merely in opposition to some principle, but to God Himself. It merits eternal separation and death because He is holy and just. Sin is an offense against God on a personal level.

        Some sins are indeed greater in severity than others (John 19:11; 1 John 5:15-17). Ezekiel 8 speaks of certain acts as being more detestable to Him than others. There are different levels of severity in punishment for those in hell (Matthew 23:14; Luke 10:7-12; 12:47-48). God judges those who have greater knowledge of His truth more harshly (Hebrews 10:28-29; James 3:1-2).

        That homosexual behavior, adultery, and bestiality were considered capital crimes in Israel shows God does indeed see some sins as more heinous than others in terms of earthly consequences. Unintentional sins could be atoned for in the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 4). The former types of sin were more grievous to God because they involve full consent in doing them.

         James 2:10-11 does not say that all sins are equal in terms of severity. Theft, for instance, is not said to carry the same weight of guilt and consequences as does murder. In fact, sympathy is extended to those who steal food to feed themselves (Proverbs 6:30). This passage merely says that if one commits sins such as theft and murder, then he has violated God's Law. In other words, there are multiple ways to break the Law of God. This is true even of traffic laws.

Annihilation Refuted

• Introduction:

          -Eternal Condemnation: souls of unbelievers are sentenced to an eternity of misery and humiliation. They are separated from God because He is holy.
          -Annihilationism: lost souls get destroyed or cease to exist after the moment of physical death. Thus, there is no conscious afterlife for these people. Only the righteous will experience immortality.

          -Defenders of the annihilation doctrine would include, but are not limited to, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, and Christadelphians.

• Annihilationism Is A License To Sin:

          -If a person desires to continue acting in a sinful manner and dies in an unrepentant and unbelieving state, then he will have no serious concerns about any sort of future punishments. After all, a non-existent being cannot face judgment for sin by God. So there will ultimately be no punishment for any sins in this theological framework.

• Annihilation Contradicts Biblical Teaching:

          -If annihilation is true, then why not also believe that our comfort and existence in heaven will last only for a short period of time? The word "eternal" is used to describe both "life" and "punishment" in Matthew 25:46, which puts advocates of annihilationism in a pickle. The same comments are applicable to Daniel 12:2.

          -Revelation 14:9-11 and Revelation 20:10 narrate the fate of the wicked as facing the wrath of God without reference to them being annihilated.

          -Jude said that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah suffer "eternal fire" (Jude 7) which lasts "forever" (Jude 13) as an object lesson for the ungodly. That language has very specific implications, which do not sit well with annihilationism. The people of those cities were still suffering divine judgment at the time of this epistle being written.

• The Story Of The Rich Man And Lazarus Serves As Biblical Evidence That Souls Remain Conscious After Physical Death And That Unbelievers Do Not Cease To Exist (Luke 16:19-31):

           -Even if one does not interpret this story to be literal history, plenty of details exist to indicate conscious life after death with the moral lesson that unrighteous people will face judgement by God.

• On The Greek Term Kolasis In Matthew 25:26:

          -"κόλασις kólasis; gen. koláseōs, fem. noun from kolázō (2849), to punish. Punishment (Matt. 25:46), torment (1 John 4:18), distinguished from timōría (5098), punishment, which in Class. Gr. has the predominating thought of the vindictive character of the punishment which satisfies the inflicter’s sense of outraged justice in defending his own honor or that of the violated law. Kólasis, on the other hand, conveys the notion of punishment for the correction and bettering of the offender. It does not always, however, have this strict meaning in the NT. In Matt. 25:46, kólasis aiṓnios (166), eternal, does not refer to temporary corrective punishment and discipline, but has rather the meaning of timōría, punishment because of the violation of the eternal law of God." (Excerpt taken from the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, edited by Spiros Zodhiates)

• On The Greek Term Aionion:

          -Annihilationists correctly point out that the Greek word "aionion," which is translated into English as "eternal," does not always mean eternal. The word generally means an age or period of time. However, the New Testament clearly denotes the Greek term "aionion" to mean an eternal length of time. The term is used to describe the length of God's reign (Revelation 11:15) and our salvation (John 3:16). The concept of a literal, eternal conscious torment in hell is indeed a startling truth. Attempting to deny its existence is foolish to the utmost.