Death ≠ Life: A Biblically based exploration of annihilationism

Brought up as an evangelical Christian I learned the prevailing doctrine of Hell as eternal, conscious punishment.  Due to my human limitations, and my love of unsaved family members, this was never an idea of justice I understood nor did it seem in keeping with the teachings regarding God’s character, but I accepted it on faith fully understanding, then and now, that God is not limited by human values.  Years later came across the doctrine of annihilationism.   This holds that after death is judgment and those who have not accepted Jesus as their Savior, during their human lifetime, will be thrown into the lake of fire and annihilated.  This seemed much more in line with a perfectly just and loving God.  That said, human emotion aside, if it’s not found in Scripture it’s not true, period.  And so began my study of the Biblical basis for both doctrines.  Good news: the Biblical support for annihilationism is extensive. 

Let’s begin at the beginning, with God’s promised consequences for man’s first sin.  God tells Adam that as a result of his sin his life will be difficult and in the end he will return to the ground from which he was taken (Gen. 3:19).  Nowhere does God tell Adam he will be suffering for all eternity as a result of his sin.  Furthermore, God then casts Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden specifically so they will be unable to eat of the tree of life and live forever in their new sinful state (Gen. 3:22-24).  All that is written here indicates that the God given penalty for sin is death. 

Fast forward to the New Testament.  Here we learn the Good News: God provided Jesus, His perfect Son, as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.  Those who accept Him are forgiven, redeemed and no longer required to pay the permanent penalty for their sins.  That is indeed wonderful news, but has the coming of Jesus somehow also altered the original death penalty for sin?  There is very little evidence to this effect and abundant evidence to the contrary. 

Here we begin with Jesus’ own words in the quintessential Gospel verse John 3:16: “For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”  Jesus does not offer two alternate locations for everlasting life, Heaven or hell, rather the choices He promises are “everlasting life” or “perishing.”  Based on Jesus own words, the penalty for sin has not changed.  The apostle Paul further confirms this by stating “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”  (Rom. 6:23).  Again, eternal life is promised for the forgiven, death for those remaining in sin.

So how does this actually play out in the end?  For that we take a look at the book of Revelation.  Here we see the judgment of all who have died.  Each person’s destination is indicated by whether or not their name is found written in the “Book of Life”.  Those not found are cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15).  Again, we see an indication of life vs. fire.  To further clarify, John refers to those having “their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone” as “the second death.”  Nowhere are people described as living in this lake of fire.  Jesus Himself refers to hell as a place where both body and soul are destroyed (Matt. 10:28).  Again, there is no indication in these verses that any trace of man survives in hell, on the contrary man is specifically described as perishing, being destroyed and experiencing the second death.

Does hell provide eternal, conscious punishment for any being?  Yes, the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev. 20:10).  This fits the original purpose of hell which Jesus Himself described as “the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41) (as an interesting side note, although God promises death to Adam, death is not included in His stated penalty to the serpent (Gen. 3:14-15)).

Based on these verses hell is:

1.   An everlasting fire

2.   Prepared for the devil and his angels at least three of whom will be tormented in it for all time

3.   The second death for unsaved humans who have earned death as the penalty for sin

So where did the notion of eternal conscious punishment for unsaved people come from?  From both human sentiment as well as scripture interpretation, although this paper will address only the latter (for more detail on the former, please see my blog entry: God Doesn’t Need a PR Firm…Just the Truth).  To that end let’s turn to the actual statement of faith and associated Bible references of the Evangelical Free Church. 

The EFCA’s statement #10 states:

Response and Eternal Destiny

10. We believe that God commands everyone everywhere to believe the gospel by turning to Him in repentance and receiving the Lord Jesus Christ. We believe that God will raise the dead bodily and judge the world, assigning the unbeliever to condemnation and eternal conscious punishment and the believer to eternal blessedness and joy with the Lord in the new heaven and the new earth, to the praise of His glorious grace.

The Scripture references the EFCA cites as support for the phrase “assigning the unbeliever to condemnation and eternal conscious punishment” are: Matt. 25:46; Lk. 16:26; 2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 14:11; 21:6, 8; 22:14, 15 an examination of each follows.

Matt. 25:46: “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”  This is a quote from Jesus who contrasts “eternal life” with “everlasting punishment.”  The punishment is indeed described as “everlasting” but is not referred to as “life” it is in fact, contrasted with life.  Death, with no possibility of resurrection is indeed “everlasting.” 

Luke 16:26: “And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.”  This is from the story of the rich man and Lazarus which is the only passage that, in my view, offers any challenge to annihilationism.  This refers to two men in a conscious state after death, one of which is suffering and the other in comfort.  Jesus refers to the place as “Hades” (v. 23) which, as Revelation shows, is an actual place.  There are however alternate explanations for this passage.  The first is that it’s strictly a parable illustrating the ultimate lesson, stated in verse 31, that certain people will not repent despite overwhelming evidence that Jesus can save them.  The second is that Hades is an intermediate destination.  Hades is actually referred to in Rev. 20:13-14 as delivering up it’s dead for judgment and then being cast into the lake of fire, the second death, itself.  We of course cannot know for sure but in light of the preponderance of Biblical evidence for annihilationism cited elsewhere I find either of these explanations more plausible than interpreting this passage as proof of eternal conscious punishment.

2 Thess. 1:9:  These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.     Here we again see the term “everlasting” but it’s used to describe “destruction”.  Destruction is not survival and it is not conscious.  Again, this describes a permanent ending with no chance of reversal.

Rev. 14:11:  “And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark in his name.” 
 

These verses cannot be referring to eternal conscious punishment for one simple reason: the preceding verse (v.10) tells us the group referenced is to be tormented in the presence of the Lamb. Scripture tells us clearly that the unsaved will be separated from Jesus. Jesus Himself commands the unsaved to “depart from Me…” (Matt 7:23) and Paul writes “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord…” (2 Thes. 1:9)

  Secondarily, the adjectives “forever and ever” here specifically refer to the ascension of smoke.  Additionally, the torment is experienced by those “who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark in his name” – this appears to refer to a specific group described in Rev. 13, not all unsaved people.  Although these people are described as having no rest, this state is not specifically described as lasting forever.   

Rev. 21:6, 8: And He said to me, “It is done!  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.  I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts…But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”  This is actually a strong verse in support of annihilationism, specifically referring to the lake of fire as “the second death.” 

Rev. 22:14, 15:  “Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.  But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.  Here God welcomes His redeemed into His city to again “have the right to the tree of life”, which was denied Adam after his sin.  Life is the given to the redeemed, the unsaved are outside the gates without access to the tree of life.  Although it specifies the sinners, and that they are excluded from the city, nowhere does it state they are alive. 

Based on the above, in my view the Bible strongly supports annihilation.  Happily, this view is also in keeping with a perfect, merciful, loving and just God who:

1. Provides a clear and singular path to eternal life through acceptance of His perfect Son Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
2. Extends forgiveness and salvation to all who truly repent in this life, regardless of their previous sins.
3. Gives us the free will to choose death over life along with the inevitable and just consequence of doing so.

As always, welcome your thoughts and comments.

Thanks for reading.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  John 3:16

God Doesn’t Need a PR Firm…Just the Truth

A reflection on Dr. Albert Mohler’s defense of eternal conscious punishment

OK, let’s put a face on it.  Picture someone you know and genuinely love - an appealing, compassionate person of good character (admittedly by human standards) but one who does not believe in Jesus.  For me this would be my funny, honest and thoughtful brother.  Now picture this person’s face as they experience maximum agony for trillions and trillions of years and beyond – for all time.  Now picture yourself, during this same period, at a banquet table in Heaven with other Christians and Jesus Himself, feasting and having a wonderful time, Jesus, of course, is fully aware of your beloved brother’s everlasting torment. The same Jesus who clearly demonstrated boundless love, compassion, grace, and yes, righteousness, during His human ministry on earth and told us “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.”  John 14:9

When considering the above, even the most ardent supporter of the doctrine of hell as eternal conscious punishment would have to admit their own lack of human understanding of this as justice.  A perfectly legitimate and credible position for supporters of this doctrine would be to refer to Isaiah 55:8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts neither are your ways My ways, says the Lord” and conclude that their limited human perspective prevents them from understanding how this equates to fair justice but, as they believe Scripture supports this doctrine, they accept it on faith.  Perfectly legitimate.

Unfortunately this is all too often not what we communicate, either to fellow Christians or non-believers.  Instead we attempt to explain the unexplainable.  Dr. Albert Mohler is currently at the forefront of this effort.  He has written extensively in defense of this doctrine and quotes theologian Geerhardus Vos who “warned against abstracting the love of God from His other attributes, noting that while God’s love is revealed to be His fundamental attribute, it is defined by His other attributes, as well. It is quite possible to “overemphasize this one side of truth as to bring into neglect other exceedingly important principles and demands of Christianity,” he stressed. This would lead to a loss of theological ‘equilibrium’ and balance….”.1    Humanly speaking, Vos’s words are unconvincing in that everlasting torment for temporal sins is beyond any human capacity to conceive of as “equilibrium” or “balance” - mathematically speaking, it is not equal.  Dr. Mohler however purports that the challenge associated with accepting this doctrine is not our limited human understanding but rather the mindset and values of certain people.  He says, “…modern persons demand that God must be a humanitarian, and He is held to human standards of righteousness and love…”.2 True enough, but the standards to which he refers are by no means arbitrary, rather they arise from our capacity for reason and logic.    Implying that only “modern persons” have this limitation is incorrect. 

Dr. Mohler does attempt to address the apparent lack of balance by stating, "The traditional doctrine of hell argues that an infinite penalty is just punishment for sin against the infinite holiness of God."³  But what does this mean exactly?  Agree with the contrast between our sinfulness and God's perfect holiness but how does this translate into damages?  Has sin during one's human lifetime somehow harmed God for all eternity?  Rather than explaining the doctrine, Dr. Mohler's comparison seems more effective in suppressing any sincere questions, even from Christians who, while correctly believing that they, and all people, are undeserving of Heaven (Rom. 3:23), are made to feel that any notion they have that their unsaved loved ones may not deserve eternal torment is a sign of arrogance and unrepentance.  This doesn't welcome legitimate concerns - it silences them.

Another point made by Dr. Mohler is that the “modern denial of hell” is a rejection of retributive justice.⁴ Not always true.  Here he is grouping two very different alternate doctrines, Universalism and Annihilationism and addressing them as one.  His premise fits the former well - if all ultimately end up in Heaven, whether redeemed by Jesus in this life or not, then there is no permanent penalty for sin – and no reason for the cross.  However, Annihilationism presents a very different story.  This doctrine holds that those who don’t accept Jesus as their Savior - in this life - are annihilated in the lake of fire, in keeping with the Biblical teaching that “the wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23).  How is the death penalty not retributive?  Clearly it is.

Although Dr. Mohler represents only one side of this issue as influenced by human sentiment, in actuality this applies to both sides.  Ironically, viewing hell as eternal conscious punishment may itself be an attempt to hold God to human standards of justice.  When considering murderers, rapists and pedophiles, who among us doesn’t feel that annihilation is too good for them?  Is our sense of human justice satisfied if Hitler is ultimately allowed to merely die?  Perhaps our outrage over easy treatment for this heinous group is overshadowing our compassion for the much larger group of better behaved unsaved people. As we debate our lack of understanding of God’s wrath are we in actuality just ill equipped to understand His divine mercy?  Worth considering.

As Dr. Mohler says: "We must never believe that we can do a public relations job on the Gospel or on the character of God."⁵ Both sides must stop spinning the truth.  Effective evangelism and fair debate demand an honest, clear assessment of our own position as well as that of opposing views.  By communicating an understanding of a concept of punishment, the severity of which is far beyond our human comprehension, we at best damage our own credibility and at worst come off as anything but loving.  Either way we put God, and other Christians, in an unappealing light.

Footnotes:

1, 2:  Doing Away with Hell? Part One

3, 4:  Doing Away with Hell? Part Two
5:  We Have Seen All This Before:  Rob Bell and the (Re)Emergence of Liberal Theology