Conditionalism | Old Testament | Gospels and Acts | Epistles | Revelation | Responses | Miscellaneous
Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013). In response to the chapter called "Eternal Punishment of Unbelievers (Hell)," pgs. 1081-1083:
Though Frame admits that he is reluctant to write about the topic of hell, unpleasant as it is, he states, "I must teach only what the Bible teaches." This is certainly to be commended; however, the question still remains, what does the Bible teach about hell?
I certainly agree with Frame that all sinners are under the just condemnation of a holy God and in need of a savior. We are saved by faith in the Son of God who died on the cross for us. His death provides atonement for our sins, but the wrath of God remains on those who don't believe in the Son. Frame cites Exodus 15:6-7 to explain the wrath of God, but it also provides important background information about the consuming fire of God:
"Your right hand, Yahweh, is glorious in power. Your right hand, Yahweh, dashes the enemy in pieces. In the greatness of your excellency, you overthrow those who rise up against you. You send out your wrath. It consumes them as stubble."
Frame states that the "OT descriptions of God's wrath mainly concern what happens in this life." The Old Testament speaks of God's enemies being slain, consumed by fire, and put to an end. He is beginning to try to create a contrast between Old and New Testament language of destruction because he believes that the New Testament teaches eternal conscious torment. However, the New Testament uses Old Testament language to describe eschatological judgment. If the Old Testament descriptions are of annihilation, it provides strong support for conditionalism.
He then makes the argument that punishment in this life could never satisfy God's law and cites Hebrews 10:26-27:
"For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which will devour the adversaries."
This sounds awfully familiar to the outcome of God's enemies in the Old Testament. The traditional view does not teach that God's enemies will be consumed and devoured. Instead, it teaches that they will continue burning alive forever. Thus far, no support for the traditional view can be found while much of the language cited provides support for conditionalism.
Conditionalists agree with Frame that the final "punishment is everlasting," but Romans 6:23 explains what the punishment for sin is: "the wages of sin is death." Frame cites Matthew 25:46 to support the eternal aspect of the final judgment:
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Notice that Jesus contrasts eternal punishment with eternal life. The final punishment doesn't include eternal life. Traditionalists argue that the wicked will be made immortal and granted eternal life to suffer in hell forever. Conditionalists, on the other hand, argue that the wicked will not receive eternal life but perish eternally.
Finally, Frame reveals the real impetus behind his belief in eternal conscious torment: Revelation 14:11. And like most traditionalist treatments on hell, there is no consideration given to the context, genre, or background of the verse. It's just cited as if it came out of a textbook, rather than an apocalyptic book full of Old Testament allusions and symbols.
Frame's only response to annihilationism is that "Scripture suggests the opposite, that not only does the fire continue forever, but the torment of the wicked continues forever as well (Rev. 14:11; 20:10)." This is not a substantial explanation. If we remember that John's vision is of a representation of the final judgment (it's symbolic), then we see that Frame hasn't even started to give a biblical argument for eternal conscious torment because he hasn't tried to interpret any of the symbols. Both passages are describing the final judgment. John interprets the lake of fire in Revelation 20:10 in clear language two times. The lake of fire is the second death (Rev 20:14; 21:8). It means dying a second time, both body and soul (Mat 10:28).
He provides several references in parentheses for support which, when understood in context, provide vivid pictures of annihilation. Mark 9:43 and 48 contain a quote to Isaiah 66:24, a passage indicating that the fires will be inextinguishable, thus burning up the dead bodies completely. Luke 16:22-24 and 28 are not even about hell, but about Hades, the intermediate state, demonstrating the sloppiness of exegesis needed to provide support for the traditional view. Revelation 14:11 and 19:3 both indicate that smoke rises forever. Likewise, the smoke rises forever from Edom which was destroyed by unquenchable fire (Isa 34:8-10). The everlasting smoke symbolizes the remembrance of a judgment which results in complete destruction.
Other verses in Scripture are very clear on this issue too. Paul teaches that sin leads to death and destruction. The language of eschatological perishing and dying is used all over the New Testament. The Old Testament is very clear about the fate of the wicked too. All of that clear teaching can't be reinterpreted based upon the non-exegesis of Revelation. Unfortunately, that's what most defenses of the traditional view amount to.
A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith: 2nd Edition, 2020. In response to the chapter called "Eternal Punishment Construed as Annihilation," pgs. 1068-1081:
Reymond says in the beginning of this section that John gives us a "graphic representation of hell," but just after that, he quotes Revelation 14:9-11 and states that "eternal conscious torment is [here] said to be the punishment of those who have the mark of the beast." These two statements contradict. John is not giving straightforward, didactic teaching about hell. He's recording a pictorial representation of the final judgment that he sees in a vision, not a vision of hell itself. The Old Testament background, parallel judgment passages, and John's own interpretation of the symbols are keys to understanding what that imagery represents. Reymond completely disregards the context and takes his own interpretation for granted.
Even if we take the passage at face value without interpreting what each symbol represents, Reymond's interpretation of eternal conscious torment still does not follow. John only states that these people will be tormented in fire, won't have any rest for a time, and that the smoke rising from this judgment will last forever. Traditionalist scholar G. K. Beale agrees that an annihilationist reading is possible because "Rev 14:10-11 could indicate a great judgment that will be remembered forever, not one that leads to eternal suffering" (The Book of Revelation, 762). Furthermore, there are conditionalists that do believe that eternal conscious torment is being depicted here that symbolizes annihilation. Either way, Reymond has decided that eternal conscious torment is the correct view ahead of time and skips the necessary exegesis.
This demonstrates a common interpretive problem when it comes to this issue. Revelation may be the hardest book to interpret in the New Testament. It is full of symbolism and Old Testament allusions which are not readily understood by people in a context removed from the original audience. Thus, taking a surface level reading of Revelation 14:9-11 or 20:10, concluding that it teaches eternal conscious torment, and then reading that view back into every other passage about hell is completely backwards and irresponsible hermeneutically.
After that short argument from Revelation, Reymond finishes his very first paragraph by concluding that "it is clear that the divine judgment awaiting evil-doers is certain, just, and eternal." Every conditionalist would agree wholeheartedly with this conclusion, except that Reymond clearly means eternal torment is certain. Not only is this misrepresenting conditionalism as if it denies eternal punishment before he has even explained the position, but it's also presenting that poor exegesis of Revelation as if it's decisive. Reymond has already precluded the possibility of conditionalism with absolutely no biblical support offered. The eisegesis that follows was inevitable from his starting position.
Reymond addresses very few Old Testament passages because of his presupposition of eternal conscious torment. The Old Testament has much to say about the final death and destruction of the wicked, and God putting a final end to evil. However, the few texts cited still provide a vivid picture of annihilation: the fiery destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the destruction of Sihon killing every man, woman, and child, the principle of herem ("devotion") to the Lord for complete destruction, the fact that every evil deed will be judged, and the prophecy that the redeemed will go out in the new heavens and new earth to look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against God which are being eaten by worms and burned up.
That last image comes from Isaiah 66:22-24. The only comment on this passage is a quote from a commentary. It affirms that this passage is indeed about the final state but explains away the obvious conditionalist implications by calling it a "monstrous and inconceivable" picture. Actually, it's very clear. The picture is of dead bodies that were slain, burned up, consumed, and looked on with contempt. It then cites Mark 9:48 as support that this is a picture of eternal torment, but that argument is completely circular. Jesus quotes from this passage in Mark 9:48, not to reinterpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it means in context, but because this passage is an accurate description of Gehenna.
The New Testament section is hurt by the bad exegesis of the Old Testament. Jesus uses the phrase "unquenchable fire" because the fire can't be put out so that it completely consumes. Reymond acknowledges that the garbage dump theory of Gehenna comes "from late Jewish tradition (David Qimchi, c. A.D. 1200)" and has no support, but he nevertheless wrongly treats that as the primary background over and against the Old Testament. Even if we accepted the garbage dump theory, the garbage would be burned up anyway. It doesn't actually help his case.
Weeping primarily indicates sadness. Gnashing teeth primarily indicates anger. Weeping and gnashing are not said to last eternally and are accurate descriptions of people on death row or being burned alive. He says that a "more bearable" (Mat 10:15) judgment day on an annihilationist view is difficult to comprehend because everyone ends up dead. Being instantly incinerated versus being burned alive for hours clearly represent two different degrees of capital punishment. On the contrary, it is extremely hard to comprehend how the traditional view accounts for different degrees of punishment when one sin merits the same punishment as a billion sins, eternal suffering.
Even if the intermediate state consists of torment, it does not follow that the eternal state consists of eternal torment. Just because the demons expect torment in the future (Mat 8:29), doesn't mean that they expect eternal torment (and so what if they did?). Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4 does not refer to hell. It is the holding place for angels until the judgment. That is just another factual error from Reymond.
And for some reason, even though Reymond and Vos think the language of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is of annihilation, Vos thinks "that 'annihilation' is an extremely abstract idea, too philosophical, in fact." It's not that complicated. It just means their final death. He also argues that Paul couldn't have been thinking of annihilation because Jesus taught eternal torment in the gospels. This shows the potential danger of arguing based on the analogy of scripture when you fail to interpret other passages properly. It's better to carefully exegete the text before attempting to apply systematic theology to it.
This entire chapter illustrates how a bad starting point, misinterpreting a passage in Revelation, led to systematic misinterpretation of other passages about the final fate of the wicked. It also illustrates that we can't be dogmatic about tradition. We must test all things by the Word of God. Reymond concludes the New Testament section without an in depth treatment of Revelation, but he assures us of his interpretation about the fires of Revelation by stating that "we should understand the realities these biblical passages seek to represent to be more—not less—horrible than their word depictions." However, having a more intolerable, dreadful, and harsh view of hell does not make it correct or more convincing.
Death and the Afterlife (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1984). In response to Chapter 8: Annihilationism, pgs. 199-220:
Morey's arguments are much better suited to argue against Froom and Seventh-Day Adventists. Unfortunately, he doesn't address the kind of exegetical and theological points evangelical conditionalists use to support conditional immortality.
A Brief History
Morey begins by attempting to give a brief history of conditional immortality. He claims that annihilationism "was first advanced by Arnobius" in the fourth century whom he calls a "Christian" in quotes. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
"Arnobius is more earnest in his defense of Christianity than correct in his tenets," but "Arnobius is a vigorous apologist for the Christian Faith, defends and expounds its noble monotheism (deus princeps, deus summus), the Divinity of Christ and of the Christian religion, proved by its rapid diffusion, its incredible influence over uncivilized peoples, and its agreement with the views of the best philosophers."
It would be convenient for Morey if Arnobius really were the first proponent of conditionalism several hundred years after the New Testament but that simply isn't true. Arnobius was following a tradition of conditionalists. It appears that all of the Apostolic Fathers and many early Christians were conditionalists, but one example suffices to refute the claim that Arnobius is the first. That Irenaeus (c. A.D. 120-200) is a conditionalist is very clear in multiple places and is widely recognized by traditionalist scholars. Irenaeus in Against Heresies (2.34.3) writes:
"He asked life of You, and You gave him length of days for ever and ever; indicating that it is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved... If you have not been faithful in that which is little, who will give you that which is great? indicating that those who, in this brief temporal life, have shown themselves ungrateful to Him who bestowed it, shall justly not receive from Him length of days for ever and ever."
Morey's historical argument thus falls flat. It was not a later, biblically illiterate Christian who first taught conditionalism as Morey portrays it, but a stream of Christians from the earliest times after the New Testament.
Morey repeats the often made claim that the Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553) condemned conditionalism as heresy. He provides no quote but is most likely referring to anathematism IX which says, "If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema." However, this is a condemnation against Origen's universalism, and says nothing contrary to conditionalism. On the annihilation view, the punishment is eternal and no restoration will ever take place.
I agree with Morey that the traditional view of hell is widespread after Augustine, but as traditionalist scholar Graham Keith notes, "a century or so after Constantine [the 5th century] we have a surprising amount of evidence indicating widespread denial of eternal [conscious] punishment within the church" (Patristic Views on Hell―Part 1). Even at so late a date, ECT was still widely denied in the church.
I also agree with Morey that a theologian believing in soul sleep does not imply that they believe in annihilationism. He claims that many annihilationists argue that soul sleep implies annihilationism citing Froom as an example, but I've never heard that claim before. Annihilationism is about the final state and doesn't commit one to soul sleep which is about the intermediate state.
Although conditionalism is held by several cult groups today, Seventh-Day Adventists are an example of a Christian denomination that holds to conditionalism. Morey claims that the publishing of The Fire That Consumes by Edward Fudge was done with the hope to "introduce Adventist theology into evangelical circles" almost conspiratorially. But the question of conditional immortality is quite apart from other Seventh-Day Adventist doctrines. Even if that was the intention, conditionalism is held by many evangelicals across different denominations.
He ends the first section by claiming that annihilationism is on the rise because of liberalism and "is regrettably the result of a weak view of Scripture which has been developing in certain evangelical circles over the last 25 years." But that is incredibly uncharitable to those who are committed to biblical inerrancy and believe the Bible teaches conditional immortality. It also poisons the well by painting conditionalism as the liberal view before addressing even a single biblical text. A doctrine being taught widely in the church makes it traditional, not biblical! It has to come from the Bible to properly be described as biblical.
A Theological Analysis
For some strange reason, Morey equates conditional immortality with materialism. He claims that "both deny that man has an immaterial soul and that man’s soul or spirit survives the death of the body," but this is certainly false. As far as the first claim, some conditionalists are anthropological physicalists while others are dualists. Christian physicalism is not materialism because it affirms the existence of God and other spiritual realities. It just denies that man's soul is an immaterial substance. For the second claim, while evangelical conditionalism teaches that God will "destroy both soul and body in Gehenna" (Mat 10:28), it affirms that everyone's soul survives death until the general resurrection and final judgment.
Morey continues to present annihilationism as a cultic view stating that "we must point out that it is generally in connection with cultic or neo-cultic organizations that this belief is found." If conditionalism is such a plainly unbiblical belief, we wouldn't need all the inaccurate historical and theological priming against it.
Contra Froom's introduction, conditionalism is attested early, is not a form of materialism, was not condemed as heretical by the Second Council of Constantinople, is not an inherently cultic or liberal belief, has no inherent connection to other Seventh-Day Adventist beliefs, and has strong biblical arguments for it that need to be addressed.
Morey raises and responds to twelve conditionalist arguments in the next section which primarily come from Froom's The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers (1965). I have not read that work, but I am not impressed by it based on Morey's relaying. Edward Fudge's The Fire that Consumes (1982) is barely addressed, but I think it is a much stronger presentation of conditionalism.
Argument 1
Morey responds to the claim that conditionalist arguments have been ignored and adds the gripe that the label "traditionalism" implies that ECT is only held because of tradition and not the Bible. While not an argument for conditionalism, I definitely agree that conditionalist arguments have not been given substantial responses and that the traditional view is predominantly held because of tradition. Morey mentions "Bartlett, Boettner, Grant, A. Hodge, Hovey, Landis, Stuart, Martin, etc." as writers who have responded to conditionalism. I have not read all of them, but older writers such as Herman Bavinck are primarily responding to liberal and emotional arguments. Many modern traditionalists such as Morey or Robert L. Reymond continue to argue against many of the same bad arguments instead of addressing robust evangelical proponents of conditionalism such as Edward Fudge. Mischaracterizations and sloppiness abound in traditionalist works.
So, while responses do exist, there are few serious responses. There are even prominent traditionalists who agree with that assessment. James White for example agrees that most proponents of ECT are following it because of tradition and not because of any firm biblical understanding, though he does believe the Bible teaches it (Is the Punishment of Hell Temporary or Eternal?).
Arguments 2, 3, and 12
These are against soul sleep. I don't believe in soul sleep, so I agree with Morey here, but it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. Morey does have a common modern misunderstanding about the final state though. Unbelievers do not go straight to hell when they die. They go to hades (the grave). This is known as the intermediate state. It is only after the general resurrection of all that they face the final judgment and are sent to Gehenna. This again has support from traditionalists. James White says, "It seems rather obvious to me that hell is the final state. You go to Hades, and then death and Hades are cast into the Lake of Fire, the Book of Revelation, at the end" (Francis' Empty Hell, Brandan's Empty Bible, 6:48).
Morey assumes (as does Froom it seems) that the intermediate state must be exactly like the eternal state, but that is a faulty assumption. The intermediate state is like a holding cell until the resurrection, judgment, and final damnation to Gehenna. There is no reason to conflate the two when the Bible does not. The intermediate state could consist of the worst torment imaginable, but that would not change the fact that the wicked will face the second death on judgment day.
Argument 4
The conditionalist argument given is that Sheol and Hades both mean grave, so there is no intermediate state but instead immediate death. This is a really bad argument. Morey rightly rejects it, but for the wrong reason. Hades really is the grave contrary to what Morey says, but at the end of the age, Hades will give up the dead so that they can be judged: "Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works" (Rev 20:13).
Argument 5
The most common terms for the fate of the wicked are "destroyed," "consumed", "perish," etc., which must "mean that they pass into nonexistence." Annihilation does not mean nonexistent, but killed, destroyed, unalived. The given answer to this argument is that apollumi doesn't actually mean destroyed, but "ruin, loss... of well-being." There is a good reason Bible translations don't translate it that way. When people are "apollumi-ed," they are killed, destroyed, and lose their life. When objects are "apollumi-ed," they are ruined or lost. Check out Mark Corbett's video Apollumi: The Word that Tells Us What Happens to People in Hell (Annihilation or Eternal Torment?) to see every use of the word apollumi in the New Testament and uses outside the New Testament.
Argument 6
Eternal life means living forever. Only the righteous get eternal life. Therefore, only the righteous will live forever. This is a super simple and effective argument. His response is that eternal life actually means "a quality of divine life." It's obvious that he isn't taking the language in a natural way. Of course, eternal life has a positive quality or connotation to it, but the phrase eternal life does mean living forever. Just as the Israelites looked to the raised serpent to save their lives temporarily (Jn 3:14-15), we look to Jesus to save our lives eternally (Jn 3:16). This isn't complicated or cryptic language.
Argument 7
1 Timothy 6:16 says that only God has immortality, so man is not immortal. I agree with Morey's response that this means that only God has absolute immortality. However, I disagree that the unrighteous will be granted immortality. Post-fall humans are mortal, and eternal life and immortality are a gift for the righteous at the resurrection (1 Cor 15). The burden of proof is on Morey to show that the unrighteous will be granted eternal life and immortality too.
Argument 8
He presents the argument that Gehenna is a garbage dump whose fire and worms will go out after the trash is consumed. However, the first claim that Gehenna was a garbage dump comes from Rabbi David Kimhi around A.D. 1200. This mistake doesn't help his case though. The context for Gehenna in Jeremiah 7 indicates that the fire and worms will burn up and consume dead bodies. Gehenna is prophesied to be called the Valley of Slaughter because God is going to slay His enemies there. But even if a dump were the background, of course the garbage would be burned up and the garbage would still represent corpses which couldn't feel torment regardless.
Argument 9
I don't argue that olam, aion, and aionios mean something other than eternal, but eternal undeniably can refer to something either eternal in process or eternal in result when referring to certain nouns. Examples: Eternal salvation means something is eternally saved. If something is eternally saved, it is either being saved forever or is forever saved. Eternal destruction means something is eternally destroyed. If something is eternally destroyed, it is either being destroyed forever or is forever destroyed. Eternal judgment means something is eternally judged. If something is eternally judged, it is either being judged forever or forever judged. If something is eternally punished, it is either being punished forever or forever punished. This is not controversial and can be found in standard Greek lexicons and confirmed by linguistics.
Argument 10
It is very obvious from the biblical account that the soul is not preexistent. It is clear but less obvious that the soul is not necessarily immortal. The reason it is valid to claim that the traditional view is influenced by Plato's philosophy is that the very first proponents of ECT, Tertullian and Athenagoras of Athens, both cite Plato extensively in the context of their belief in the intrinsic immortality of the soul, an idea central to Plato's philosophy and absent from the Bible.
Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul: "[Socrates], in the face of death itself, asserts the immortality of the soul by a strong assumption" (1), an account which comes from Plato. Side note, "the operation of death is plain and obvious: it is the separation of body and soul" (51). Many conditionalists agree with this statement; however, there is a difference between the operation or technical details of death, separation of body and soul, and the definition of death, the loss of bodily life, which is often missed by modern traditionalists.
Athenagoras of Athens, A Plea for the Christians: He expounds much on the philosophers including "Plato and Aristotle — not that I am about to go through all that the philosophers have said about God..." (6). He holds that "God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere by-work, and that we should perish [apollumi] and be annihilated [aphanizo]" (31), explicitly contradicting John 3:16, Acts 13:40-41, 2 Peter 2:12-13 and many other texts. About the resurrection he writes, "for nothing hinders, according to Pythagoras and Plato, that when the dissolution of bodies takes place, they should, from the very same elements of which they were constructed at first, be constructed again" (36). Influence from Plato is very clear.
Morey admits that "the orthodox have always viewed life in this world or in the next as a gift of God," which logically entails that the traditional view holds that God grants the gift of immortality to sinners at the final judgment. A radical claim that is not supported in this section.
Argument 11
The conditionalist argument given is that all Jewish and early patristic writings support conditionalism. I agree that this claim is overstated. While the vast majority of early Jewish writings support conditionalism, ECT is occasionally found in some later Jewish writings. And while all the Apostolic Fathers appear to support conditionalism, ECT would enter the church a little over a century later from theologians in the late second century like Athenagoras of Athens (A.D. 133-190) and Tertullian (A.D. 160-240).
Conclusion
He believes to "have covered all the arguments for conditionalism and annihilationism... to be found in the literature on this subject." One of the most obvious arguments is that Christ died for sins. He was our substitute on the cross bearing the punishment we deserve. The punishment Christ suffered was a brutal, painful death. Therefore, the punishment for those not saved by Christ is a brutal, painful death: "For the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). It is clear from this simple argument that Morey has not comprehensively responded to conditionalist arguments.
Though there were problems with Morey's responses, a big issue was that the arguments for conditionalism were just bad. They barely addressed Scripture at all. Responding to Edward Fudge would have been much more fruitful and exegetically focused. Also understanding that annihilationism is only about the final fate of the wicked would help further the discussion. Conditionalists hold different views on the anthropology of man, the intermediate state and other issues, but these are distinct from the doctrine of hell.
D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2011). In response to Chapter 13: On Banishing the Lake of Fire, pgs. 515-536:
Carson focuses on conservative annihilationists, which I appreciate. However, he still spends a lot of space addressing philosophical and emotional arguments rather than exegetical ones which is unfortunate. I won't be addressing those in depth. The biblical case is decisive and authoritative in a way that philosophy, history and emotion are not.
Carson provides three reasons for why he is addressing annihilationism. The first is that evangelicalism is expanding to allow conditionalism to be seen as a valid viewpoint as the number of its evangelical adherents is rapidly increasing. This could be seen as proof that liberalism is on the rise, but it could also indicate that there's a strong biblical case that hasn't been sufficiently answered. The second is the fact that some conditionalists really are theological liberals who primarily appeal to emotion and God's love instead of addressing the Bible. I strongly reject that along with Carson. The third is that there is a movement of conservatives for whom this issue is entirely hermeneutical, but who "are proving unwilling to be corrected by more careful exegesis." We will evaluate that claim in the following analysis.
Carson does a good job of summarizing the conditionalist position. He notes that there are different views of anthropology, the intermediate state, and other doctrines among conditionalists, but the common beliefs that "the punishment is unending," the wicked "are finally destroyed," and the rejection of the traditional view of eternal conscious torment (ECT). He distinguishes between conditional immortality and annihilationism stating that their anthropology is different; however, most people use these terms interchangeably. Conditional immortality states that there is a condition that's required for eternal life, faith in Christ, while annihilationism describes the fate of those who don't meet that condition, death. It's a difference in emphasis rather than being two separate positions.
He writes that annihilationists "hold that there is finally a cessation of existence," but existence is not the right category. The term annihilation is meant to indicate death, destruction of soul and body, and the loss of life. This is an important and common misconception which will be addressed later.
Carson gives a bibliography for treatments on hell, both historical and modern. He doesn't discuss them here, though he fears "these are largely unread by those who espouse annihilationism." However, I’ve read a lot of materials from traditionalists at this point and grew up only knowing about the traditional view of hell. It is much more often the case that traditionalists don’t understand conditional immortality and have studied the doctrine of hell very little.
Carson states that in this chapter he’s avoiding "idiosyncratic interpretations" in his treatment of conditionalism, not addressing the fate of people who don't hear the gospel, and not discussing side questions that may arise. While Carson doesn’t provide idiosyncratic interpretations, he does use idiosyncratic methods to come to those interpretations. In the following analysis, I seek to demonstrate that conditional immortality is simply the result of consistent hermeneutical principles applied to scriptural passages about the final fate of the wicked.
He briefly lays out seven arguments used to defend conditional immortality in this section:
1. Passages that say the wicked will be destroyed "suggests total destruction, i.e., cessation of existence." Again, many traditionalists insist on characterizing annihilationists as saying that the wicked will "cease to exist," but this is simply not accurate. When a person dies, their body does not cease to exist. It's just dead. Likewise, the soul of a person may still exist after it is destroyed. The point is that the body and soul of the wicked will be killed and destroyed, i.e., their life will be totally ended. Mark Corbett's video Apollumi: The Word that Tells Us What Happens to People in Hell (Annihilation or Eternal Torment?) thoroughly demonstrates that apollumi, the Greek word translated destruction, does indeed mean killing or slaying when referring to the fate of the unrighteous.
2. An unquenchable fire destroys that which it burns. Unquenchable means inextinguishable, which emphasizes the certainty of its devouring and consuming (see Mat 3:12 // Isa 66:24). The reason it destroys is precisely because it will not be put out or stopped. All of the metaphors and direct language that explain the unquenchable fire such as chaff, trees, thorns, thistles, destruction, burn up, and consume demonstrate that Jesus is talking about a consuming fire rather than torment. Carson does a good explaining this argument.
3. I agree with Carson that the words translated eternal and forever in Matthew 25:46 and Revelation 14:11 refer to an endless amount of time, so this point stands. Most conditionalists would agree with this as well. It is typically universalists that argue against that.
4. In Matthew 25:46, eternal is used to describe life and punishment. This is referring to the everlasting life believers, and the final, everlasting death of the wicked. Everlasting death is properly called an eternal punishment. There is no justification for saying eternal punishment must refer to perpetually inflicted torment. I agree with the way he stated this argument, and it's solid. The argument still must be made that death is the punishment for sin, but everything checks out grammatically and logically with calling everlasting death an eternal punishment.
5. This argument is based on the love of God. I'm not going to focus on this one. I'm just going to stick to the ones that focus on exegesis.
6. This argument is about the fairness of hell. The argument that ECT is unfair can be made from the Bible. If a country has a law that says murders will face capital punishment but instead locks them up in a dungeon for torture, everyone would say that was unjust. Likewise, if God said that "the wages of sin is death" but instead keeps sinners alive to eternally torment them, that would be unjust. Of course, that argument assumes "death" really means death as in the Old Testament sacrificial system which Jesus fulfilled in dying on the cross, which brings us back to asking, what did God declare the just punishment of sin to be and how are we to understand that? However, he doesn't state this as a biblical argument but as an emotional one, so I won't focus on it.
7. The last argument is that ECT would mar the new heavens and new earth. This argument can be bolstered. It is actually impossible for traditional hell to exist in the new heavens and new earth (Rev 21:4). Traditionalist scholar G. K. Beale writes that "the reality underlying the figurative lake of the second death must exist somewhere else, perhaps in a different dimension from that of the new creation" (The Book of Revelation, 1061), but the Bible doesn’t say that. It specifically says they will be resurrected on this earth to face judgmentand cast into a valley outside of Jerusalem to be destroyed soul and body. Moreover, God has "no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (Eze 33:11). If death means ECT, then God would eternally be sustaining something that brings Him no pleasure. We will be made like God, so we will take no pleasure in the ECT of the wicked either. Again though, Carson only raises this as a philosophical argument.
Carson begins his response by addressing the terms Sheol and Hades. He is right that they "have roughly the same semantic range and overtones." Both refer to "the abode of the dead." He is also correct that there is a mention of torment in Hades (Lk 16:23), although many believe this is an example story much like the story of the good Samaritan (10:25:37), the rich fool (12:13-21), or the Pharisee and the tax collector (18:9-14). If that’s the case, then this story is a graphic portrayal of the dichotomy between the fate of the righteous and the damned after death, but the details are not necessarily intended to be actual descriptions of Hades.
However, Carson goes off course when he tries to conflate Hades with Gehenna (the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1035 makes this same error). Hades is the abode of the dead before they are raised and cast into Gehenna. It is not the final state. The reason he gives for this is that Revelation 20:10, 14 link Hades with the lake of fire. So now Carson conflates Gehenna, the lake of fire, and Hades. Gehenna is a real valley outside of Jerusalem, also known as the Valley of Slaughter, which depicts the destruction of soul and body. The lake of fire is a symbolic picture in John's vision which corresponds to the second death (Rev 20:15; 21:8). Even the verses Carson cites maintain a clear distinction between Hades and the lake of fire. Hades releases its dead, so that they can be judged and thrown into the lake of fire. Subsequently, Hades itself is thrown into the lake of fire, demonstrating that they are two different places:
"Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works. Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev 20:13-14).
Carson moves on to define Gehenna, the name of the place that actually refers to the final fate of the wicked. Carson repeats the myth that Gehenna was "the burning dump outside of Jerusalem." Traditionalist scholar Robert Reymond at least informs the reader that the garbage dump theory first comes "from late Jewish tradition (David Qimchi, c. A.D. 1200)" in his treatment, but Carson doesn't do that. He also doesn't inform the reader of Jeremiah 7 or 19 which prophesy about future eschatological judgment of Gehenna (that might be important context!):
"'Therefore behold, the days come', says Yahweh, 'that it will no more be called ‘Topheth’ or ‘The valley of the son of Hinnom’, but ‘The valley of Slaughter’; for they will bury in Topheth until there is no place to bury. The dead bodies of this people will be food for the birds of the sky, and for the animals of the earth. No one will frighten them away'" (Jer 7:32-33).
This is a large part of the background for Jesus' teaching about Gehenna (Gehenna is derived from the Hebrew Ge Hinnom meaning “Valley of Hinnom”). Gehenna will be called "The Valley of Slaughter." God will slay His enemies there. The worms, birds, and other scavengers will devour the dead bodies cast there, and the fire will burn up and consume them. Gehenna is a vivid picture of death, destruction, and annihilation, not eternal torment. This refutes Carson's claim that Gehenna conveys "notions of suffering" by which he means torment without death. Gehenna is about the wicked undergoing the punishment for sin, death (Rom 6:23), death forever (Jn 11:26), perishing (Jn 3:16).
He then cites parallel passages in which Jesus warns of the destruction of body and soul which will take place in Gehenna. How can we expect anyone to live in Gehenna forever? Surely God casting his enemies into Gehenna, destroying them soul and body, and burning up their dead bodies which are consumed by scavengers does not permit an eternal torment reading:
"Don’t be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." "But I will warn you whom you should fear. Fear him who after he has killed, has power to cast into Gehenna." (Mat 10:28 // Lk 12:5).
Carson proceeds to cite Romans 2:5-9, 11, 16 in favor of ECT, but no support can be found there. Rather than an eternity of wrath, Paul speaks of a "day of wrath" (2:5) when God "will pay back to everyone according to their works" (2:6). Paul writes that "now, being made free from sin" we have "the result of eternal life" (6:22), but "the wages of sin is death" (6:23). God is the "potter,” and we are "clay" (9:21). The wicked are clay "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (9:23). While Paul doesn't mention Gehenna by name, he certainly doesn't shy away from addressing the final fate which awaits unbelievers in Gehenna—death and destruction.
Carson cites another passage from Paul, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, but he cites the NIV which renders the verse very inaccurately. The NIV: "everlasting destruction and shut out from." The ESV: "eternal destruction, away from." The NLT: "eternal destruction, forever separated from." However, the Greek literally reads, "eternal destruction from [apo] the presence of the Lord." The phrases "and shut out," "away," and "forever separated" are not in the Greek but are interpretive and misleading. Going with the alternative rendering in the footnote of the ESV, the verse reads:
"They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction that comes from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might."
They will be destroyed forever from an encounter with God's presence. No ECT here. Moreover, verses 7-8 provide important context because they reference Isaiah 66:15: "For, behold, Yahweh will come with fire, and his chariots will be like the whirlwind; to render his anger with fierceness, and his rebuke with flames of fire." It goes on to say, "For Yahweh will execute judgment by fire and by his sword on all flesh; and those slain by Yahweh will be many" (Isa 66:16). And in the next chapter, Paul says that "the Lord will kill [the lawless one] with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the manifestation of his coming" (2 Thes 2:8) reinforcing that the destruction comes from the presence of the Lord.
The very next verse that Carson cites is another reference to Isaiah 66. Jesus connects Gehenna and Isaiah 66 with a direct quote, describing it as the place "where their worm doesn’t die, and the fire is not quenched" (Mk 9:48 // Isa 66:24). We just saw a few verses earlier in Isaiah that God's enemies were slain. In the part Jesus quotes from, it describes "the new heavens and the new earth" where believers "will go out, and look at the dead bodies of the men who have transgressed against me; for their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind" (Isa 66:22-24). In the final judgment, unbelievers will be slain and burned up by God. Believers will walk out and see their corpses. Isaiah says that explicitly, and both Jesus and Paul attest to that reality.
He points out that the judgment is characterized by "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Mat 8:12), but the crying and anger is never said to last eternally. Of course that is the reaction of people facing the judgment of God, but it is no support for ECT. That phrase is even used in conjunction with people perishing: "The wicked will see it, and be grieved. He shall gnash with his teeth, and melt away" (Ps 112:10).
Carson says that there "is no escape from hell: there is a great fixed chasm (Luke 16:26)." Again, he is conflating Hades (which is the actual word used in this verse) with Gehenna. This verse is irrelevant to the final judgment. There is a time when everyone will be brought out of Hades, "the abode of the dead" (his own definition). Then the wicked will face judgment and be cast into Gehenna from which there is no return.
If we check the verses Carson cites about the "'everlasting chains' (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6)," we read that angels (not humans) are "kept in everlasting bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day" and that God "committed them to pits of darkness to be reserved for judgment." The chains hold angels for the judgment of the great day. It does not say that angels will have chains eternally, it is not about the final judgment and it isn't even about humans.
If we check the verse that Carson cites to support the claim that the "lost 'suffer the punishment of eternal fire' (Jude 7)," we read that Sodom and Gomorrah "are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" (NASB). The historical example of the complete destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire functions typologically to show what will happen to the wicked on judgment day. The eternal fire inflicted complete destruction:
"Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky. He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew on the ground. But Lot’s wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. Abraham went up early in the morning to the place where he had stood before Yahweh. He looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and saw that the smoke of the land went up as the smoke of a furnace." (Gen 19:24-28).
Carson writes that they "suffer 'everlasting contempt' (Dan. 12:2)," but Daniel denies that they will live forever. Daniel 12:2 is connected to Isaiah 66:24 by the words "contempt" and "loathsome" which are the only occurrences of the Hebrew word deraon. Isaiah writes that the “dead bodies” of the wicked "will be loathsome to all mankind." Just as contempt for Nero outlives his life, Daniel is saying that contempt for unbelievers will last forever, and he contrasts that fate with "everlasting life." The two are mutually exclusive.
I understand that Carson has limited space and cannot explain every point in this section, but the rapid-fire proof texting used in this section does not reflect the "more careful exegesis" that supposedly supports the traditionalist view. It was more of the same basic mistakes that characterize many traditionalist writings like mixing up Hades with Gehenna, getting the background for Gehenna wrong, using verses that are clearly translated inaccurately, citing passages about the intermediate state as if they were about Gehenna, and not addressing the passages that the NT authors keep quoting from like Isaiah 66 to understand the context. It is always better to explain a few passages carefully than many passages in this way.
1. He begins by addressing apollumi. I already cited an in-depth word study of apollumi in the first argument. A quote from Edward White's Life in Christ makes the point forcefully: "My mind fails to conceive a grosser misinterpretation of language than when the five or six strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying ‘destroy,’ or ‘destruction,’ are explained to mean maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence. To translate black as white is nothing to this" (365). Carson writes, "of course those who suffer destruction are destroyed. But it does not follow that those who suffer eternal destruction cease to exist." Torment is not destruction and arguing that they don't "cease to exist" is not addressing the argument. They are as "natural animals to be taken and destroyed... [and] will in their destroying surely be destroyed" (2 Pet 2:12). They will be reduced to ashes (2 Pet 2:6; cf. Mal 4:1-3; Isa 66:24). They "won’t see life" (Jn 3:36).
Carson fails to engage meaningfully with Stott on this point. He writes, "Stott, for instance, argues that [the words for destroy]... [best] refer to cessation of existence" and their use "suggests cessation of existence." He then counters that the word group for destroy can refer to something lost or ruined: "in neither case is cessation of existence in view" and that it would only be plausible "if 'life' means no more than mere existence." He concludes, "Stott has assumed his definition of 'destruction'" as cessation of existence, and "the issue must itself be decided on other grounds."
However, Stott does not assume his view, Carson just ignores his arguments, and Stott's view isn't that destruction means "cease to exist." In context, Stott writes, "When the verb [apollymi] is active and transitive, 'destroy' means 'kill,' as when Herod wanted to murder the baby Jesus and the Jewish leaders later plotted to have him executed (Matt 2:13; 12:14; 27:4)... (Matt 10:28; cf. Jas 4:12)" (Edwards and Stott, Essentials, 314-16). In other words, destruction is about killing, the taking of life, not the cessation of existence. The traditional view denies that God will finally kill the wicked and holds that they will live forever in torment.
Stott goes on to write, "If to kill is to deprive the body of life, hell would seem to be the deprivation of both physical and spiritual life, that is, extinction of being" (by which he means the total loss of life), and the Sermon on the Mount contrasts the "'road that leads to life' with the 'broad... road that leads to destruction' (Matt 7:13...)." It should be very clear now that saying death doesn't mean non-existence is a complete non-answer. The argument needs to be made that destruction doesn't refer to the ending of life or else it is only attacking a straw man.
Moreover, in the passage Carson uses to argue that life means "more than mere existence," John 3:16, he agrees with the conditionalist framing that "'life' and 'destruction' are contrasted." The category John is using is life. Given the contrast with life, destruction (apollymi) indicates death. This is supported by the immediate context in John 3:14-15 where Jesus compares Himself to the bronze serpant which the Israelites could look at to save their literal, physical lives (Num 21:9). Carson quotes Timothy Philips in "Hell: A Christological Reflection" that "Christ is contrasting two qualitatively different types of existence," but there are absolutely no reasons given for why we should accept this. It also demonstrates that traditionalists are the ones using the category of existence instead of life and forcing that lens on the Bible and on conditionalists.
So, while traditionalists repeat many times the objection that death does not mean non-existence, I hope it is clear now that existence isn't the right category. Death is about life and death. The second death is about being killed and dying, the destruction of body and soul, the loss of bodily and spiritual life.
Next, Carson argues that eternal punishment cannot refer to the result of the punishment being eternal in Matthew 25:46 but must refer to an ongoing process of punishing. He cites several scholars that agree with him, but this is obviously wrong. In English and Greek, punishment is a generic word that can refer to various kinds of punishments, and eternal can refer to either an everlasting state or process. Simply put, the punishment for sin is death, the death is eternal, so the punishment is eternal, everlasting, never-ending death. I'll quote a few articles that explain it well and provide more depth:
Chris Date writes that "Punishment, whether in English or in Greek, is polysemous. And it is context and the nature of the punishment that determine whether it carries a process or result reading. The modifier 'eternal' does not give it a process reading, anymore than it does 'salvation' and 'redemption' in the epistle to the Hebrews" (No Retreat on Nouns of Action: TurretinFan's Premature Celebration, 2013).
In another article, Christ Date notes that "many deverbal nouns are polysemous, ambiguous between a process or result meaning. For example, the phrase, 'The translation of the book took ten years,' means that the process of translating lasted ten years. The phrase, 'The translation has been published recently,' on the other hand, means that the translation that resulted from, or was the outcome of, the translating process was recently published" ("Punishment" and the Polysemy of Deverbal Nouns, 2012).
And building off the previous example, Joseph Dear summarizes, "The question is, what meaning of 'punishment' was intended? Was Jesus referring to the act of punishing (like 'the translation of the book took ten years'), or was he referring to the result of the act of punishing (like 'the translation has been published recently')? Either one would be 'punishment'" (Matthew 25:46 Does Not Prove Eternal Torment – Part 1, 2014).
2. Carson moves on to arguments about the descriptions of hell. The first one he addresses is that the fire is a consuming fire. Fire describes destruction, not torment:
Carson's initial response to this argument is that most "interpreters recognize that there is a substantial metaphorical element in the Bible's descriptions of hell." He tries to show that the Bible uses contradictory language to describe hell to substantiate this claim. However, he does this by mixing up symbolic depictions of the final judgment in Revelation, descriptions of Hades (the intermediate state), and scenes from parables with actual descriptions of Gehenna, and he interprets the actual descriptions of Gehenna in a wooden and silly way.
This attitude that the biblical language about hell is obviously metaphorical will not do. I do not accept that. A little work in the Old Testament background and context of these passages reveals a consistent, noncontradictory teaching that the wicked will finally perish in Gehenna. Only conditionalism can take the biblical descriptions of hell and the language of life, death, perishing, destruction, slaying, burning up, Gehenna, etc. in their natural sense.
The traditional view relies fundamentally on the metaphorical interpretation of passages about the final fate of the wicked with an improper literal interpretation of Revelation, while the conditionalist view relies fundamentally on a literal, straightforward interpretation of passages about the final fate of the wicked with a proper symbolic interpretation of Revelation. Refuting the over-allegorizing tendencies of the traditional view destroys a core pillar undergirding it.
Carson uses three examples to support the allegorizing of Gehenna and its descriptions, which I will state and then challenge:
(1) We don't normally "think of unquenchable fire and worms coexisting." We might not normally think of that, but there is nothing contradictory about Gehenna consisting of fire and maggots. Those are specific descriptions of the dead bodies being destroyed. The fire can't be put out and the worms can't be killed, so that they will carry out the destruction of the dead bodies of the wicked.
(2) "It is hard to imagine how a lake of fire coexists with utter darkness." The lake of fire is a symbolic picture in Revelation which is interpreted as the second death, literally dying a second time in the age to come (Rev 21:8). Outer darkness is a parabolic way of describing refusal to the Kingdom of God such as when the servant is tied hand and foot and thrown out of the wedding feast into outer darkness by the King (Mat 22:1-14). It is also obvious that the servant, being bound hand and foot and thrown into the Judean wilderness, will surely die, not merely experience torment in the parable. Angels are also described as being held "under darkness" (Jude 6 // 2 Pet 2:4), but this is referring to the intermediate state before the final judgment. Conditionalists affirm that the wicked will be refused entrance to the Kingdom of God, will face the second death, and that the angels are held under darkness for the judgment in the intermediate state. None of those suggest that we need to allegorize Gehenna.
(3) If "one is cast into a lake of fire, what need of chains?" Again, the lake of fire is a graphic portrayal of the death of the wicked in John's vision. And as previously mentioned, the chains hold angels for judgment day (Jude 6 // 2 Pet 2:4). The chains are not about Gehenna. These are still not good reasons to metaphorically interpret passages about Gehenna.
Carson continues by asking, what sustains the worms (because they are said to not die) if they have already consumed the people? But nowhere are the worms said to be eternal worms. It doesn't say they will never die ever. That's like arguing that the statement, "Bob won't get off the video game" means that, "Bob won't get off the video game ever." Obviously, there is a context in both situations: Bob won't get off the video game until he finishes his match, and the worms won't die until they finish consuming their meal.
Even if the language is interpreted woodenly to mean that the worms will never die ever, this would only mean that there are worms which will live forever. This can't be used as support that the wicked will live forever because they are already dead forever at this point. Carson says that his question was "ugly and silly, precisely because it is demanding a concrete and this-worldly answer to the use of language describing the realities of punishment in a future world still largely inconceivable." Instead, it appears that his question was "ugly and silly" because it relies on understanding the phrase "their worm does not die" out of context.
Carson points to several more reasons he believes the annihilationist reading is wrong:
(1) It is called "their worm" rather than "the worm" which "suggests that it is perpetually bound up with those who are suffering." This is a strange argument. It was not written "the worm" because it isn't a specific worm that won't die, nor worms in general that won't die. It's "their worm" because it's referring to the worms consuming their bodies. And as a reminder, the context is not about worms eating "those who are suffering," but is about the "dead bodies of the men who have transgressed against me; for their worm will not die…" (Isa 66:24 // Mk 9:48).
(2) The logic of this argument is that the "unquenchable fire" is a fire that cannot be extinguished so that it either burns up but does not last forever or burns forever but does not burn up. He claims that the former interpretation has difficulties because "unquenchable fire" is paralleled with "eternal fire" (Mat 18:8). Carson's initial framing of this argument is a false dilemma. The fire could last forever but still burn up. Earlier in Matthew, it is explicitly stated that they "will burn up [katakaió] with unquenchable fire" like chaff (Mat 3:12). Katakaió means to burn down utterly, incinerate, or consume wholly.
That still leaves the question of what eternal fire means in Matthew 18:8 and 25:41. Before these verses, Matthew indicates that the hellfire will burn up (3:12; 7:19; 13:40, 42, 50), the wicked will be destroyed (7:13-14; 10:28), and they will perish in Gehenna (5:22; 5:29; 10:28). The word aiōnios means eternal. The eternal fire/punishment refers to that ultimate punishment of the age to come which is the everlasting destruction of soul and body by fire from Yahweh resulting in the final and total loss of life, the never-ending death, of the wicked forever.
This is confirmed by Jude's use of the phrase “eternal fire.” Jude 7 tells us that the final punishment of "eternal fire" looks like the historical destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. 2 Peter 2:6, the parallel passage, says, "and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, having made them an example to those who would live in an ungodly way." Because the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah underwent "the punishment of eternal fire" and those cities are not still burning, I believe the source of the fire, Yahweh, is being described as an eternal fire, "for our God is a consuming fire" (Heb 12:29). However, even if this is undestood in a different way, it is clear that this eternal fire utterly consumes the wicked.
The final objection Carson raises is that this view would deny degrees of punishment. He says, "must we not also infer that fire consumes everyone at more or less the same rate"? No, of course not. That inference is not from the text and is clearly wrong. There are different degrees of fire, which consume people at different rates. It is conceivable that some could be instantly incinerated while others are slowly burned to death, so this objection fails.
After finishing that more in-depth section, Carson writes that the conditionalist interpretation appears to go astray "because illegitimate and arbitrary inferences are being drawn from the language, against the more natural readings, in order to support a theory that is being imposed on the text." However, this seems to reveals an error of mistaking what feels like for modern readers are "more natural readings" with what the text actually means.
For modern readers (myself included), the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" sounds like eternal torment. I grew up thinking that's what that meant; however, that anger and sadness is never said to last forever. An "unquenchable fire" sounds like a fire that is burning people perpetually, but "unquenchable" means "inextinguishable." If your house caught on fire with an unquenchable fire, it would burn down completely because firefighters couldn't put it out. The word hell itself has the definition of a place of eternal torment in most people’s minds, but it is a place name in the Greek, Gehenna, a valley outside of Jerusalem with an Old Testament background. Jude 7 describes the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by "sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky" (Gen 19:24) as "the punishment of eternal fire." Understanding that the eternal fire consumes and destroys God's enemies may not be a “natural reading” for people in a different context, but the Bible clearly defines it that way.
I could multiply examples, but the point is that the idea of hell as a place of eternal torment is thoroughly ingrained in our culture and traditions. However, when we examine the Old Testament backgrounds, perform careful word studies, and are willing to conform our beliefs to the Word of God, all the evidence seems to point squarely towards annihilationism.
Next, Carson moves on to address the big three traditionalist proof texts. I call them the big three because they are the most commonly cited proof texts for ECT. They are typically not analyzed in detail and are assumed to unequivocally teach ECT. Without these three verses, ECT could never get off the ground, but with them, the entire Bible is reinterpreted to line up with ECT. These texts are Revelation 14:10-11, Revelation 20:10-15 and Matthew 25:46. Upon closer inspection, they are actually strong proofs for conditional immortality.
Revelation 14:9-11:
"Another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a great voice, 'If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is prepared unmixed in the cup of his anger. He will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. They have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.'"
The language of fire and sulfur is found in references to Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:24; Deut 29:23; Job 18:15-17; Isa 30:27-33; 34:9-11; Ezek 38:22). It paints a picture of decisive annihilation and complete destruction, leaving nothing but ashes and rising smoke in its wake. Notice that the smoke from the torment is said to last forever, not the torment itself. The image of rising smoke also comes from the account of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:28) and symbolizes the permanent destruction of the wicked. This is the same fate of Edom in Isaiah 34:8-10:
"For Yahweh has a day of vengeance, a year of recompense for the cause of Zion. Its streams will be turned into pitch, its dust into sulfur, and its land will become burning pitch. It won’t be quenched night or day. Its smoke will go up forever. From generation to generation, it will lie waste. No one will pass through it forever and ever."
Carson recognizes these allusions but says he suspects that there must have been some amount of torment in Sodom, Gomorrah, and Edom, so surely the suffering part was typological of the final judgment. However, the "sufferings of Edom in Isaiah 34" were unto everlasting destruction. The account of Sodom and Gomorrah is also unequivocally about death and destruction. He cites Jude 7 and arbitrarily says that the "suffering" is typological of the judgment despite the parallel passage explicitly stating that the destruction and reduction to ashes is: "and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, having made them an example to those who would live in an ungodly way" (2 Pet 2:6).
Isaiah says that Edom’s fire "won’t be quenched night or day." Like Isaiah, John is saying that the fire burns continuously without ceasing "day or night" during the period of torment. It is a ceaseless activity, and a restless time. Carson objects to this interpretation of "night and day" calling it "special pleading" because the order in Revelation is torment, fire, smoke, and then no rest, while in Isaiah the order is fire, no rest, and then smoke. But all of these are just descriptions of different aspects of the judgment with recognizable OT allusions. Carson says that "writers like Fudge constantly resort to serialization of these elements," but that is exactly what he is doing here.
Traditionalist scholar G. K. Beale agrees that this passage is not decisive for ECT: "In particular, 'day and night' (ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός) in 14:11 can be taken as a qualitative genitive construction indicating not duration of time (like the accusative construction of the same phrase) but kind of time, that is, time of ceaseless activity... The lack of rest will continue uninterrupted as long as the period of suffering lasts, though there will be an end to the period. Therefore, the imagery of Rev 14:10-11 could indicate a great judgment that will be remembered forever, not one that leads to eternal suffering" (The Book of Revelation, 762).
Lack of rest for the unrighteous could also just be contrasting the rest which the righteous experience. Verse 13 says that the blessed receive "rest from their labors." In Matthew 11:28, Jesus says, "I will give you rest." The unrighteous will never get to experience the blessed rest which the righteous will enjoy forever in the new heavens and new earth. Their souls will never find rest, not because they are tormented forever, but because they will be destroyed.
Moreover, if we consider that John describes the destruction of Babylon in Revelation 17-19 with the same language of torment, fire, and smoke from the burning ascending forever, we have ample reason to believe that John intends the same meaning here:
"Return to her just as she returned, and repay her double as she did, and according to her works. In the cup which she mixed, mix to her double... Therefore in one day her plagues will come: death, mourning, and famine; and she will be utterly burned with fire, for the Lord God who has judged her is strong… The kings of the earth who committed sexual immorality and lived wantonly with her will weep and wail over her, when they look at the smoke of her burning, standing far away for the fear of her torment, saying, ‘Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For your judgment has come in one hour’... and [they] cried out as they looked at the smoke of her burning, saying, ‘What is like the great city?’..."
"After these things I heard something like a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, 'Hallelujah! Salvation, power, and glory belong to our God; for his judgments are true and righteous. For he has judged the great prostitute who corrupted the earth with her sexual immorality, and he has avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.' A second said, 'Hallelujah! Her smoke goes up forever and ever.'" (Rev 18:6, 8-10, 18; 19:1-3).
Beale also agrees that the rising smoke in these passages refer to a permanent memorial of judgment: "what is precisely underscored is the finality of Babylon’s judgment: ‘her smoke ascends forever.’ The wording comes from Isa. 34:9-10, where the portrayal of smoke continually ascending serves as a permanent memorial to God’s punishment of Edom for its sin. Rev. 14:11 also alludes to Isa. 34:9-10 to describe the never-ending effect of God’s judgment of the beast’s followers. Here Edom’s fall is taken as an anticipatory typological pattern for the fall of the world system, which will never rise again after God’s judgment" (The Book of Revelation, 929).
It should also be taken into account that the very next picture of judgment immediately following these verses mentions the “wine of the wrath of God” again and is clearly about death: “The angel thrust his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vintage of the earth and threw it into the great wine press of the wrath of God. The wine press was trodden outside of the city, and blood came out of the wine press, up to the bridles of the horses, as far as one thousand six hundred stadia” (Rev 14:19-20).
Carson provides a quote from Harmon's The Case Against Conditionalism which objects to conditionalism because "destruction dominates while punishment and exclusion fall into the background. Indeed, the latter image is hardly discussed." Conditionalists believe the punishment is death and destruction, so that part of the objection doesn't work. It is true that unbelievers will be excluded from the Kingdom of God, eternal life and a part in the age to come, but that is precisely because they will perish, suffer destruction, and die a second death. Exclusion and separation from God are almost exclusively how traditionalists describe hell, but that is not how the Bible predominantly describes it. This very passage contradicts that. The judgment will take place "in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb."
Revelation 20:10-15:
"The devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet are also. They will be tormented day and night forever and ever... The sea gave up the dead who were in it. Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works. Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire."
G. K. Beale has helpful commentary on this passage as well: "Strictly speaking, even the expression 'they will be tormented forever and ever' is figurative... at the least, the phrase figuratively connotes a very long time. The context here and in the whole Apocalypse must determine whether this is a limited time or an unending period... All unbelievers suffering the first death are held in the sphere of 'death and Hades,' which is a temporary, preconsummate holding tank to be finally replaced by the permanent, consummate 'lake of fire,' which is 'the second death' (see on 20:14)" (The Book of Revelation, 1030).
Assuming that Carson is correct about the three figures in 20:10 rather than John Stott, John sees a vision in which the three figures, the devil, the beast and the false prophet, are tormented for an extraordinarily long period of time. Carson interprets these figures for us: the devil, depicted as a dragon and a serpent, is Satan, and the beast and false prophet "are best thought of as recurring individuals, culminating in supreme manifestations of their type." Those whose names are not written in the book of life are the enemies of Christ. Death and Hades are personified individuals in Revelation. Hades and Death give up the dead who were in them, meaning everyone is resurrected, and those who are not saved are judged and cast into the lake of fire. Afterwards, Death and Hades are also thrown in. John and God Himself interpret the vision of the "lake of fire" for us: it is the "second death" (Rev 20:14; 21:8). The vision he sees represents the execution, the killing, the death and final judgment of the wicked in the age to come.
Carson says that Satan "constitutes at least one sentient being who is clearly pictured as suffering conscious torment forever." Even if the language demanded that the picture is of Satan suffering ECT, the authoritative interpretation given twice is that this is a picture of death. However, the language doesn't demand that we understand it in a strickly literal way. John is recording a vision. He couldn't see an eternal process in a vision; however, he could clearly tell they were suffering for a very long time, and the language he uses reflects that reality.
The last argument for this text that Carson gives is that it is reasonable to assume that if Satan is going to suffer ECT in the lake of fire, the unrighteous will too. Again, it is not necessary to understand the vision of the lake of fire as ECT, and the interpretation of the vision is still death which Carson does not address. But more fundementally, it is improper to derive doctrine from unclear inferences, or from a vision without the interpretation of the vision, or from less clear passages. We have plently of clear didactic passages which tell us that the final fate of the wicked is death.
Matthew 25:46:
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
If the fire leads to destruction, the "eternal" aspect is in the everlasting nature of the destruction, not in a continuous experience of punishment. This verse specifically sets up a contrast between the eternal punishment of the unrighteous and the eternal life of the righteous. This precludes the possibility of the unrighteous experiencing eternal life. While the righteous experience life that is eternal in duration (unending and ongoing life), the unrighteous face death that is eternal in duration (unending and ongoing death).
Carson responds that "annihilationists again introduce temporal serialization: first the fire that annihilates, then the eternal punishment which in fact constitutes the nonreversing of the annihilation." However, that misunderstands the argument. We also say that Jesus bore the punishment for our sins by His death, but we aren’t denying that Christ’s sufferings on the cross were part of that punishment. Likewise, we say that death is the punishment for sins, but we aren’t denying that suffering will be part of that death. The destruction by fire is the punishment in the same way that the cross was the punishment for Jesus, both of which were carried out in time.
As far as the duration of the punishment goes, the length of the death of the wicked is eternal in the same way that Jesus' death lasted three days. Just as chopping off a criminal’s finger for stealing is completed quickly but constitutes a lifelong punishment, the destruction by fire is carried out in a finite amount of time but constitutes an eternal punishment. The nature of the punishment is privation which means that the length of the effect of the punishment, the duration of the privation, is the proper characterization of the duration of the punishment.
Paul explicitly states that the punishment is "eternal destruction" (2 Thes 1:9). The eternal punishment is eternal destruction which is eternal death, to "die forever" (Jn 11:26 LEB). This is not new or controversial language. It flows straight from biblical language about sin and judgment. The phrase "eternal death" has been used for centuries to describe the eternal punishment (e.g. by John Calvin, Francis Turretin, and Douglas Moo; see Miscellaneous for more examples). It is even used in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) which is still held to by millions of evangelicals today: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death" (3.3).
Carson appeals to the lake of fire in Revelation 20 for support that the torment is eternal; however, as noted above, the language in Revelation need only refer to a long period of torment, which makes sense in context because the lake of fire is the second death. Carson says the "word 'punishment' is graphic, and at least suggests suffering." The word punishment (κόλασιν) can refer to all kinds of different punishments including capital punishment. And just because conditionalists believe that the final punishment is capital punishment (execution), does not mean that torment will not be involved. Burning at the stake, crucifixion, and the electric chair are all forms of capital punishment with varying degrees of torment.
The next argument has been a driving assumption for the continued belief in ECT. Carson writes that "Jesus could not have used such words as these without being understood to be in line with Pharisaic beliefs on the matter." The assumption for a long time was that ECT became the majority view during the intertestamental period. This meant that we should read the NT with the assumption of ECT. However, we now know that conditionalism was by far the majority view during the intertestamental period in keeping with the Old Testament.
The Pharisaic/rabbinic schools believed there would be three final destinies of people: heaven, an in-between group that might go to hell temporarily, or hell. Jesus very clearly rejects this teaching of the Pharisees. He taught that there are only two fates, heaven and hell, that hell’s punishment is eternal, and that even Jews could go to hell if they didn't repent and believe. David Instone-Brewer, Baptist Minister and Senior Research Fellow in Rabbinics at Cambridge, reviewing the primary literature in Eternal Punishment in First-Century Jewish Thought concludes, “This means the verse stating that ‘punishment’ is eternal should be understood to mean that torment plus destruction is eternal—without any means of escape—because this is what his contemporaries meant when they used the same language” (A Consuming Passion, Eugene: Pickwick, 2015). The literature from the Apostolic Fathers reflects the same understanding. It would not be until the middle and latter half of the second century that the doctrine of ECT developed in the church, and the language of eternal punishment became increasingly misunderstood after that.
3. Carson argues that annihilation cannot account for the "eternal sin" (Mk 3:29) which "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Mat 12:32), but this is another objection that doesn't stick. If sinners had their sins forgiven, they would be able to enter life. But since people who commit this sin will not be forgiven, they will face the punishment of eternal destruction. God doesn't forgive them, but instead counts their sin against them.
Although the claim is made many times, annihilationism is not a softening of hell. ECT is just a softening of the value of life. Even if the final death of unbelievers is more emotionally tolerable to some people, it is simply an attempt to understand the Bible more accurately. However, I would strongly argue that annihilationism is a harsher view of hell. Only one view teaches that God will finally rid the cosmos of sin forever, accomplish justice once and for all rather than having an eternally unfinished punishment, and will take every good thing away from sinners including their very lives.
On the contrary, much of traditionalism is guilty of softening the language about hell without biblical warrent. Hell has been almost completely psychologized by traditionalists. He says he is "reluctant to say that none of this suffering is physical in some sense," but he takes a very metaphorical view of hell. This is quite different than the Bible’s very physical descriptions of punishment. The unjust are raised physically to receive their punishment (Jn 5:28-29) which consists of torment and fire. There is also a recent view among traditionalists that the wicked will eventually have some kind of sub-human existence while suffering ECT, but this is based on philosophical speculation. If those who believe that alter their view slightly, they can affirm with the Bible that the wicked will indeed be turned into ashes and perish.
4. Carson makes the argument that "judges made their decisions while keeping in mind the social status of the person being judged" to justify the severity of eternal torment. This is still true to an extent today. You will be in much greater trouble if you punch the president than if you punch a random man. However, it is also true in reverse. A child will be punished less severely for punching the president than an adult would. I don't think this philosophical argument gets us anywhere.
He says, "What is hard to prove, but seems to me probable, is that one reason why the conscious punishment of hell is ongoing is because sin is ongoing." This flies in the face of many passages which talk about the defeat of sin and death and the cosmic reconciliation of all things to God. Also, we don't have passages that say God continues judging for all eternity or that God is judging sins committed after this life. We're just told that there is a "day of judgment" in which justice will be accomplished. If sin and the need for ongoing punishment continues forever, justice is never accomplished. He tries to use Revelation 22:10-11 to support the idea of ongoing sin after judgment day, but he anticipates my rebuttal and agrees that this was written about the "time from 'now' until judgment" which counters his own point.
In footnote 52, Carson writes that "many annihilationists" conclude "that punishment must be finite because we are finite and our actions are finite." However, annihilationists believe in a punishment that is just as eternal as traditionalists do. The punishment of death is eternal. In the very beginning of the article, Carson acknowledges that conditionalists believe in "everlasting punishment," so it is important not to forget that and caricature the position.
5. Carson wonders why the just and the unjust are raised from a conditionalist perspective. They are raised for justice to be carried out. For the unjust to stand in court before a holy Judge, who will vindicate the righteous and punish the wicked. The dead are awaiting trial in Hades until then. Many unrighteous people have died in luxury with a good name. They will suffer a shameful, painful death on judgment day and be remembered with contempt by the righteous.
He says there is "much to commend the idea" of universal human immortality, but he provides no verses to examine. Indeed, there are none which state that the unrighteous are immortal. Instead, immortality (which is the same thing as eternal life) is a gift exclusively reserved for those in Christ (1 Cor 15). The unrighteous will not receive eternal life but perish (Jn 3:16).
6. The final vision of the cosmos for conditionalists is one where God has destroyed all of His enemies. Death was the final enemy to be annihilated. The old things have passed away, and all things are made new. Christ will reconcile all things to himself, and everything will be subjected to the Father so that God may be all in all. From the traditional view, Carson says, "hell's inmates are full of sin." Wickedness is rampant in hell for all eternity. God will never finally stamp out evil but will instead grant the impenitent everlasting life. Justice will never be accomplished because the wicked will never receive all the punishment they deserve. C. S. Lewis, to the same effect, said, "I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end" (The Problem of Pain, 538). In this view, it is hard to see how God has truly triumphed over evil when the rebels continue in their rebellion for all eternity. This view appears more like an eternal dualism between good and evil than the Bible's description of God's final, decisive victory over sin, death, and evil.
Carson writes that it "is getting harder and harder to be faithful to the 'hard' lines of Scripture." Like many other traditionalists, Carson feels like he is fighting against liberals and compromisers in this debate over hell. I understand that feeling because ECT is a hard view emotionally for people, is in many protestant confessions, has been the traditional view for a long time, and is often attacked by liberals and cults. Notwithstanding all of those positive indicators, ECT simply does not stand up to biblical scrutiny. It misses the clear teaching that the gospel is a life and death matter, eternal life is only granted to believers, and unbelievers will finally perish in hell: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only born Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life" (Jn 3:16).