“For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze,” says the LORD of hosts, “so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.” 2 “But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. 3“You will tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,” says the LORD of hosts,” (Malachi 4:1-3).
Conditionalist appeal to Malachi 4:1-3 to support their teaching that God will annihilate the wicked on the Day of Judgment. The imagery of chaff that is set ablaze is their justification since, they say, the chaff is burned up and ceases to exist. Likewise, the people will also be burned up and not exist anymore. But, as is frequently the case with conditionalists, they confuse the use of something in the imagery to represent the whole of the imagery. This is called the fallacy of composition. In this error of thinking, what is said of the part is claimed to be true of the whole. For example, the engine is blue; therefore, the car is blue. Likewise, in the imagery where the chaff is burned up and doesn’t exist, the conditionalists then say that this part of the imagery represents the whole concept, which means that people will cease to exist.
Now, back to the issue of imagery. The problem is that imagery is open to interpretation depending on your assumptions. The Old Testament is full descriptions of burning chaff, furnace, fire, the worm that does not die, etc. So, we have to be careful when approaching the texts exegetically, especially when attempting to use them to support an idea. For example, I could point out that the word “burning” in the phrase “burning like a furnace,” is a participle that conveys continuous action. Therefore I could argue that the burning is continual; therefore, the judgment of God upon the wicked will be continual burning, not nonexistence. Do you see the problem? We can find things in the text, or phrases, or imagery that suits our assumptions and then argues from that perspective to get the text to say what we want. This is why we must be careful.
Nevertheless, conditionalists and traditionalists alike will agree that God is communicating through these Old Testament images a dire warning about the future judgment to come. But the conditionalists say that this judgment of God is nonexistence. The traditionalists will see it as a dire warning about continued, conscious judgment.
With that in mind, which is a greater threat to a person – nonexistence or eternal conscious torment? Which of the images used in the Bible about continual burning, the worm that does not die, being thrown into the furnace, burning like chaff, etc. best fits either category? Is such imagery more descriptive of the threat of nonexistence or the agony of the torment of continued existence? The conditionalists would have us believe that when the Bible talks about burning chaff, unquenchable fire, the worm that does not die, etc. that is really referring to extinction, to nothingness. But, that doesn’t fit the terrifying imagery proposed in Scripture in light of which the wicked should be terrified.
Conclusion
Does Malachi 4:1-3 and its use of imagery best describe future annihilation or future conscious torment? The conditionalists would say that is chaff is burned up and does not exist anymore, so too the wicked will be burned up and not exist. But in this, they err by taking something in the imagery to represent the whole of the imagery and commit the logical fallacy of composition. They miss the point that the imagery is intended to convey a horrible future judgment, which should invoke a fearful dread among the wicked. As with the rest of the images used in the Old Testament in this context, it seems more logical to say that burning chaff, unquenchable fire, the worm that does not die, would bring greater fear upon the wicked than merely the idea of nonexistence.
