The Case for Annihilationism

Far be it for me to criticise, let alone impose my (fallible) beliefs on others. I only seek the truth, and pray that I would do so in love.

"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." - 1 Corinthians 13:12-13 (NIV)

*****

Annihilationism is the view that whoever and whatever cannot be redeemed by God is ultimately put out of existence. Sentient beings do not suffer eternally, as the traditional view of hell teaches...

The most difficult passages for annihilationists to explain are Revelation 14:10-11 and 20:10. These passages speak of the wicked being tormented "day and night forever and ever". However, these passages are not as decisive against the annihilationist's view as they might initially seem. The phrase "forever and ever" can be translated "for ages upon ages" which implies an indefinite, but not necessarily unending, period of time. Even more fundamentally, it's important to keep in mind that Revelation is a highly symbolic book. Its apocalyptic images shouldn't be interpreted literally. This is particularly true of the phrase "forever and ever" since similar phrases are used elsewhere in Scripture in contexts where they clearly cannot literally mean "unending" (eg. Genesis 49:26; Exodus 40:15; Numbers 25:13; Psalm 24:7).

Perhaps the most significant example of this for our purposes is Isaiah 34:9-10, for it closely parallels the two passages in Revelation. In this passage Isaiah says that the fire that shall consume Edom shall burn "night and day" and "shall not be quenched". Its smoke "shall go up forever" and no one shall pass through this land again "forever and ever". Obviously, this is symbolic, for the fire and smoke of Edom's judgment isn't still ascending today. If this is true of Isaiah, we should be less inclined to interpret similar expressions in the book of Revelation literally.

- Greg Boyd, The Case for Annihilationism

The issue hinges on two problems - theological and exegetical - one of which affects the other. The first is that of the immortality of the human soul. Put broadly, the traditional view holds that the soul is by its very nature immortal, being created in the image of God, and is therefore incapable of 'ultimate' death. Conditionalists argue that this view is more Greek than biblical, and hold that immortality is a blessing bestowed on the redeemed as a result of the work of Christ. The view taken on this question, therefore, acts as a control belief for the second problem, that of the exegesis of the various texts concerned with the ultimate fate of the wicked.

If it is held that the soul is innately immortal, clearly these texts must be interpreted in a way which reflects this, and 'eternal punishment' has to be understood as 'unending punishment'. If, on the other hand, immortality is made conditional on the acceptance of God's forgiveness, it begs the question as to how the biblical imagery of 'destruction', 'burning', 'the second death' etc. should be interpreted. Conditionalists argue that the plain meaning of all such texts is that God's judgment on the impenitent results in their final extinction or annihilation. 'Eternal punishment' in this context is held to imply 'of everlasting effect' rather than 'everlastingly in progress'. These two issues, then, lie at the heart of the current debate.

- Alan M. Linfield, Sheep and Goats: Current Evangelical Thought on the Nature of Hell and the Scope of Salvation

Incidentally, Rikk Watts, who spoke at The Living Word 2010, holds to annihilationism. John Stott is also open to it, while N. T. Wright posits a third way between annihilationism (ie. eternal death) and eternal torment - eternal dehumanisation.

A Tentative Position

I [Stott] am hesitant to have written these things [about annihilationism], partly because I have a great respect for longstanding tradition which claims to be a true interpretation of Scripture, and do not lightly set it aside, and partly because the unity of the worldwide evangelical constituency has always meant much to me. But the issue is too important to suppress, and I am grateful to you [Edwards] for challenging me to declare my present mind.

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

- David L. Edwards and John Stott, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue

What is more consistent with God's justice and mercy - eternal capital punishment or indefinite life imprisonment?

What are the wages of sin - death or eternal torment? (Eternal torment is eternal life, albeit in torment.)

What is the gift of God - eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (as opposed to death) or heaven (as opposed to hell)?

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 6:23 (NIV)

Links: The Philosophy and Theology of Eternal Punishment (12 Mar 10), Tetelestai (10 Sep 10), Life, Death and Destiny (22 Jan 11)