Chapter 30: Annihilation

Probably the most controversial theological position I hold to has to do with the doctrine of hell. Though I’ve never been dogmatic about my view, suggesting that everyone should believe as I do, I’ve had people leave the churches I’ve pastored and I’ve been accused of being a heretic and a false teacher, all for what I believe on this topic. I find it sad that some evangelicals are so rigid in their beliefs that they refuse to let others think about biblical doctrines unless they come to the same interpretations. It is no wonder many home Bible studies result in a boring parroting of clichés. Everyone is too scared to question or say anything “wrong”, even though a lot of unthoughtful folk theology is freely thrown around.

What I find even more frustrating than being called a heretic is people who seem unable to listen and accuse me of believing in things I don’t believe. Because of my position, I’ve had individuals say that I don’t believe in hell, but I do. I’ve had others say that I am a Universalist, but I’m not. So, for clarity, here is what I have come to believe about hell. You don’t have to agree with me, but at least properly understand it.  

Great book: The annihilation/conditional position is defended by John Stackhouse Jr.

The question for me is not about whether there is a hell, or whether the lost will be judged and face damnation, but about the nature and duration of hell. Is it “eternal conscious torment” (which I believe has biblical support), or annihilation (which I believe has better biblical support)?

At the beginning of time God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” lest they die. Throughout the Old Testament God continued to give his people the choice between life and death, urging them to choose life. (Deut. 30:15-20). We see this same contrast in the New Testament where Jesus says that eternal life is a gift from God and that rejecting him results in death. Even John 3:16 makes this point by saying that “those who believe will not perish, but receive eternal life.” Jesus warned about the one who could destroy both body and soul in hell. (Matt. 10:28). Jesus said that the wicked would be burned up just like weeds thrown into the fire. (Matt. 13:30, 42, 49-50).

Paul also makes the contrast between life and death by saying that the wages of sin is death and the gift of God is eternal life. (Rom. 6:23). Paul said that everlasting destruction would come upon unrepentant sinners (2 Thess. 1:9) and that God would destroy the wicked. (1 Cor. 3:17; Phil. 1:28). Paul spoke of their fate as death and said that they deserved to die (Rom. 1:32) with their destiny being destruction. (Phil. 3:19). Paul rejoiced that in Christ we are saved from certain death. (2 Tim. 4:17).

Peter too, talks about the destruction of the ungodly (2 Peter 3:7) and says that false teachers will face a swift destruction (2:1-3), being like Sodom and Gomorrah that were burned to ashes. (2:6). He says that they would perish like the ancient world in the great flood. (3:6-7).

In the book of Hebrews we read about the wicked being destroyed (10:39), and in the book of Revelation the “Lake of Fire” is described as the second death. (20:14-15).

1 Timothy 6:16 also teaches us that “only God can never die” therefore, life is a gift that comes from him (we are not immortal) and separation from the life-giver (God) would naturally result in death.

There are numerous passages I could continue to point out. Therefore, I have come to a position of annihilation not out of sentimental or wishful thinking (as some have accused me), but based on scripture’s overarching themes of life and death. I affirm a final judgment, a hell (and even that there may be a time of conscious torment), but that, eventually, the final state of the unbeliever will be death.

I feel, to reinterpret the plain meaning of all the scripture I have pointed out to try and literally interpret a few apocalyptic and parabolic passages about “eternal fire” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth” a weak argument for eternal conscience torment. The debate is not about taking the Bible literally, for all those who take “everlasting torment” literally have to spiritualize all the passages about death. I think it makes more sense to do it the other way around. Take death as meaning literal death and eternal life as meaning literal eternal life. We know that apocalyptic literature is filled with figurative language, so it would make sense that it be so for hell (and heaven) as well. We know that Jesus (and the Old Testament prophets) often used exaggerated language to make a point, like when Jesus told people to cut off their hand if it was causing them to sin. (Matt. 5:30). When Jesus spoke of the fires of hell not going out he pointed people to Gehenna as his illustration. Gehenna was a place of ruins outside of Jerusalem that was possibly used as a garbage dump. Why would Jesus say these fires “never went out” when we all know that they did? In the same way, when God spoke through the prophet Isaiah, about the judgement of Edom he said, “The judgement on Edom will never end; the smoke of its burning will rise forever.” (Isaiah 34:10). Again, it is obvious that Edom is not still burning and smoking today. This is simply how biblical language is used in these contexts. It is not meant to be taken literally. It is hyperbole. It is the exaggerated language that prophets and preachers used to make a point.

Therefore, when you see the context in which descriptions of hell (and heaven) are used in the Bible, I think it is fairly safe to understand them as pictures, not as describing a literal reality. Yet, from the opening pages of Genesis to the closing pages of Revelation, the whole message of the Bible is about choosing life (that is only found in God) or death (that happens when you are cut off from God). Eternal life really is a gift from God. Not everyone will live eternally, but only those who are connected to the source of life (the Immortal One) through Jesus Christ.

 I’ve heard other people make the silly argument that my position on hell minimizes the need for evangelism, as if the whole motive for coming to Christ is to “get out of hell.” One Christian even said to me, “If annihilation is true then why bother being a Christian?” That person has a pretty sad understanding of the gospel. I’d follow Jesus even if following Jesus meant annihilation. I’m a Christian because I love Jesus! Besides, my position isn’t based on a pragmatic evangelistic methodology, but on what I believe the Bible teaches.

In my preaching and teaching I warn people about hell and, without hesitation, will describe it with the Biblical language of eternal separation from God, eternal death, damnation and “eternal punishment” (as it is described in the Statement of Faith from the denomination I serve in). What I reject is “eternal conscious torment”. Saying this, I respect my brothers and sister in Christ who cannot see my arguments in scripture and choose to stick with the more traditional doctrine of hell. I can only hope that they give me the same respect for my position.

I conclude with the words of the late John Stott; an evangelical scholar, pastor, evangelist and annihilationist: 

               I do not dogmatise about the position to which I have come. I hold it tentatively. But I do plead for frank dialogue among Evangelicals on the basis of Scripture. I also believe that the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to eternal conscious torment. 

Question: Watch these two clips by New Testament scholar NT Wright (each about 3 minutes in length):

• https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2013/11/12/n-t-wright-on-hell/
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGd0ry6bipo

What is your reaction to what you have just listened to?