Eternal Torment or Annihilation?

The doctrine of anihilationism (sometimes called conditionalism or conditional immortality) holds that the wicked will ultimately be consumed by the fire of hell and go out of existence altogether. The primary evangelical voice arguing in favor of this view has been Robert Fudge.

Fudge does have some strong arguments. For example, in Mt.18:8, where Jesus says, It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire, Fudge argues that it means not “eternal fire” but rather “eschatological fire” or “fire belonging to the age to come.” I concede those would be possible ways to translate the word. 

Fudge does believe that the wicked will receive eternal punishment, but argues that “eternal punishment” can refer to the ongoing results of the punishment rather than ongoing punishment (like eternal redemption – we are not being purchased forever, but we do enjoy the results of having been purchased forever). 

I concede these as a possible interpretations if we look only at those passages. However, the traditional interpretation (ongoing torment) is also quite possible. Therefore we must look to the rest of Scripture to see if the idea of annihilation is possible. I believe it is not because of the following six points.

I. REVELATION 14 - Everlasting torment

Revelation 14:9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10 he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.” 

The anihilation view says they will be temporarily tormented with fire, then go out of existence (symbolized by the smoke). The eternal nature of the smoke signifies only that they will never come back into existence. But it is not the smoke of their annihilation, but rather the smoke of their torment. And that torment is defined as non-rest.

I assume The anihilation view would say that the “no rest” jumps back to prior to their annihilation. That is, they didn't get rest during the time they were being tormented. I believe that's an unnatural jump to assume. It seems much more likely that the non-rest is a description of the torment. And that would fit the contrast with v.13, where the saints do have rest from their suffering (meaning their suffering comes to an end).

Revelation 14:13 Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them.”

Going out of existence would be a form of relief (in fact, that's the whole appeal of this doctrine - no relief seems too harsh). In Rev.9 people suffering God’s wrath will long for death, but it will elude them. Dying, then, is a form of mercy. 

Revelation 9:6 During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

Hell is worse than just dying.

Mark 9:42 And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.

II. REVELATION 20 - Lake of Fire

Revelation 20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The anihilation view argues one of two ways on this text. Fudge suggests that "tormented day and night forever" in the lake of fire means "irreversible extinction," so that even the devil is annihilated. 

Others argue that the devil is tormented forever but not humans. But the primary basis for the whole view of annihilation seems to be that eternal torment would be contrary to the nature of God. If it is contrary to the nature of God to torment a human forever, why is it consistent with the nature of God to torment another created being forever?

Secondly, this passage describes what “lake of fire” means. It is symbolic language, and John explains here what this particular symbol (lake of fire) means. So later when humans are thrown there, there is no exegetical reason to assume a different meaning for the symbol. If he already defined it as a symbol that represents never-ending conscious torment, why would assume a different meaning to the symbol (consuming fire) five verses later? The implication is that those who are thrown into that lake share the same fate that was just described. 

And the idea that unbelievers share the same fate as the devil is confirmed by Mt.25:41.

Matthew 25:41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

III.  2 THESSALONIANS 1 - Everlasting destruction

2 Thessalonians 1:9 says that unbelievers will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power. Destruction is what happens to the beast in Rev.17:8, and we know that the beast suffers torment day and night forever in the lake of fire. 

Also, being shut out of something is meaningless if the person doesn’t even exist. 

IV.  REVELATION 22 - The dogs

Revelation 22:14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

This describes the eternal state and the wicked still exist outside the city. And they not only continue to exist, but they continue to sin, generating more guilt and deserving more punishment (Rev.22:11).

V.  MARK 9 - Worm doesn't die

Mark 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. … 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’

The anihilation view argues that the unending fire means it is unending during the time it is consuming the victim, after which time it does end. So a better translation would be "irresistible" - the person cannot put the fire out or resist its effects. I can see that as a possible meaning of "unquenchable." A firefighter might say, “The fire was too big – we couldn’t put it out and the house was lost.” The meaning of that would be that the fire was unquenchable while it burned so that nothing could be saved from total annihilation. The purpose of such a figure would be to say that when God brings His fire of judgment, there will be no hope of the fire being extinguished in mid-judgment so that the sinner might survive.

The problem with that view is it fails to explain the worm not dying. The ongoing life of the worm means he always has a meal. Edward Fudge argues that the undying worm is the same as the unquenchable fire (in other words, the worm doesn’t die while it is consuming the corpse, after which time it does indeed die). I find this untenable. That interpretation could make sense with the fire, but not with the worm. If the fire is extinguished in mid-judgment, the person could potentially survive. I could see someone saying, "My hope is that the fire will go out in mid-judgment so I can survive." But no one would say, “My hope is that the worms that consume my corpse will die in mid-judgment.” If the worm died half way through eating the corpse, the corpse would still be as dead as ever. I think it is extremely unlikely that the original readers would have taken this phrase to mean, “Oh no – there is no chance that the worms will consume only half of my corpse.”

VI.  Daniel 12 – Raised to everlasting contempt

Daniel 12:2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

If everlasting shame means they go out of existence, what would be the point of “awaking” them to that? Why not just leave them dead? On what basis should we assume that the original readers of Daniel would have seen that and taken it to mean God would awaken the wicked to annihilation? 

Response to Edward Fudge

Some other arguments Fudge brings up are 1) immortality belongs only to God and the people of God, not everyone, and 2) in the Old Testament the final end of the wicked is always death.

Regarding immortality, I don't think of eternal torment in hell as immortality. The biblical term means "incorruptible" and points to more than just duration. The Greek philosophers may have defined that word as mere never-ending existence, but I think the biblical concept goes way beyond that. The biblical concept is never ending life. And life is far more than mere existence (the souls of unbelievers are dead, and yet they exist). The condition of being tormented in hell is not a state of life or incorruptability. Rather, it is a state of death and ongoing corruptability. 

And the problem I have with his Old Testament argument is that there are so many times in the Old Testament where the end of the wicked is spoken of as already having happened once the wicked die physically. If the end that is in view were annihilation, then it would have been incorrect to speak of it as having already happened when they died because the souls of the wicked, according to Fudge, are not yet annihilated.