Before I was engulfed in the first semester of my ThM, I was asked what I thought about the doctrine of Hell and the concept of annihilationism. It was even suggested that I write a blog about it, but alas, life sometimes gets in the way! Now that things have settled down somewhat, and following on the heels of extensive preparation for my ordination exam—which took place last Friday—I have decided to take this up while it’s fresh on my mind.

On the question of Hell as eternal conscious torment of sinners who reject Christ vs. annihilation, there is an interesting debate between Al Mohler, who represents the “traditional” view and Chris Date, who argues for annihilation. This debate can be found here. The arguments from both sides include various intricacies. However, the basic question is whether the Bible teaches about Hell as a place where sinners who reject Christ go on forever into eternity facing torment as punishment for their sins.

Some annihilationists would admit that the bible teaches unbelievers have a future after the grave. This would include the intermediate state, which occurs prior to the Great White Throne Judgment, found in Revelation 20:1-10. However, as Chris Date articulated in this debate, one annihilationist position is that unbelievers are not granted immortality, and to “live” in Hell for eternity is technically immortality, though in a dreadful condition.

They would further argue, as Date begins to do in this debate, that the Bible’s references to the “destruction” of the wicked in the both the OT and the NT connote a final end for them (cf. 1 Thess. 1:9). However, it is not quite that simple. The terms used to describe the end of the wicked such as “perishing” and “cutting off” have a range of meanings that cannot be confined to utter destruction and incineration. A good lexical analysis of the Greek and Hebrew words and references in this regard can be found here.

Jesus’ Warning About Hell

For me, one of the most convincing reasons for holding to an eternal conscious torment (ECT) view of Hell is the teachings of Jesus. He makes some of the most pointed warnings about the “eternal fire” (Matt. 18:8) where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 13:42).    

One of the key texts for understanding Jesus’ teaching on Hell is Matthew 25:46. This is also one of the main Scripture passages that was evaluated in the debate between Mohler and Date. While talking about the judgment of the sheep and goats Jesus distinguishes between their ultimate consequence,

“then they [the wicked] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matt. 25:41)

The “eternal punishment” in this verse is thought to refer to Hell, which is an everlasting place of torment, while “eternal life” is the reward of heaven for those who are in Christ.

Some have criticized Mohler’s performance in the debate for repeatedly saying that ECT has traditionally been the church’s view. This may indeed point to one of the weaknesses in Mohler’s performance, from my perspective, which is that he did not refer to many other passages in the Bible that would support his position. But instead he dug into this passage and just said that it has always been the church’s view.

However, it is not wrong to bring light to the fact that the majority of Christians throughout church history have interpreted this verse similarly. The annihilationist should be ready to give some very solid evidence for departing from a commonly held Scriptural interpretation. It’s not that the church’s tradition is infallible by any means. But it is also not wrong to appeal to the interpretation of many very good scholars and theologians throughout church history who have come away with the same reading of this verse.

An annihilationist response would be to say (as Chris Date does) that Christians have frequently misinterpreted this verse because they are erroneously looking at it from a perspective that assumes the underlying reasons for eternal conscious torment. This is a claim that might be true, but it also requires solid evidence to be convincing. It may also be that the eternal conscious torment view is just a more natural reading of this verse, regardless of presuppositions.

Overall, I think the weak point of Chris Date’s performance was dealing with the parallelism in this passage. At one point the moderator asked him to explain how the same word “eternal” (αιωνιον) could refer to everlasting life on the one hand but then to something that does not last for eternity in the same verse.

Date’s response was to say that he does not challenge the meaning or sense of the word “eternal” in this case, but that the “punishment” is actually just death. Once you die, you are forgotten, and that has eternal implications. Several factors would make this a difficult reading that seems unlikely.

1. Jesus does not speak of everlasting “death” per se, but of “everlasting punishment” (κολασιν αιωνιον). This point was alluded to by Mohler, but was not dealt with very much in this debate.
2. The same word “eternal” used to describe everlasting life and everlasting punishment in this verse is also used by Jesus in the same context four verses earlier (Matt. 25:41) to speak of the wicked going “into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and His angels.”
3. The annihilationist would tend to view “fire” as a symbol for destruction, which in their view is final in the temporal sense. However, this would run against the grain of the parallel picture that Jesus paints throughout this passage. The righteous inherit eternal life which is equated with a kingdom that lasts forever (Matt. 25:34, 46) and the wicked will go to eternal doom (Matt. 25:41, 46).
   
   Though it is true that fire can sometimes refer to a destructive force that consumes completely in a final sense (Amos 1:7), this does not mean that it always symbolizes utter destruction. The Rich Man in Luke 16 says he is “in agony in this fire” (vs. 24). Even if this story refers to the intermediate state and not to Hell, it nonetheless attests to a fire that continually afflicts the wicked in judgment.
4. The parallelism in Matthew 25:41-46 would be forced and unnecessary if the wicked are simply consumed and then have no continued existence for eternity.

Though Matthew 25 was the primary focus of the debate between Al Mohler and Chris Date, there are many other passages that could be alluded to in the defense of eternal conscious torment (Matt. 10:28, Matt. 18:8, Heb 6:2, and Rev. 14:11 are a few). I do think that the preponderance of biblical evidence and especially of Jesus’ warnings clearly affirms that Hell is a place of suffering that goes on forever into eternity.

But let’s just say for the sake of argument that unbelievers are finally cut off at some point, maybe after the Great Judgment (Rev. 20:1-10). It seems illogical that the unredeemed dead would be resurrected to the judgment only to be rewarded with an outcome that is better than their previous state—I am supposing that ceasing to exist would be better than existing in perpetual agony in the intermediate state.

Jesus and Temptations to Sin

Jesus’ words in Luke 17:1–2 have constantly been on my mind while evaluating this discussion:

“And he said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! 2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.”

If the wicked do in fact face a final outcome of ceasing to exist, why would it be better to face physical death than to cause someone to be tempted? If every unbeliever has the same eventual destiny of ceasing to exist, then this would seem to soften the warnings of Jesus about what comes after people die.

There are definitely some good strong thinkers on both sides of this debate, and I would not want to disparage anyone for just trying to make sense and let Scripture inform their position. But I find the biblical evidence for Hell as a place of torment that last forever to be overwhelming.