Two Views Current within Evangelicalism
At the present time, two primary views regarding the nature of the punishment of hell are being
advanced within Evangelicalism, that is, among those who have a very high regard for scripture
and the necessity of personal faith and the new birth. The first view is called “conditional
immortality” or “annihilationism,” though strictly speaking, the two are not precisely the same
(as we outline below). The second view is often referred to as the “traditional” view.
Several things are important to note in this discussion. First, this is not, as some have erroneously
argued, a debate directly related to inerrancy.91 The best evangelical theologians on both sides of
this issue are committed to the Bible as God’s inspired and trustworthy Word. It is rather a
question about the best exegesis of that Word and the resultant theology. Second, this debate is
not about whether the wicked will be judged or not. Both sides agree that this will be the case.
The debate is about the nature of that judgment. Conditionalists argue that the conscious
suffering component is temporary and that God’s judgment will ultimately result in the non-
being of the wicked. Traditionalists argue that conscious suffering component of God’s judgment
is never-ending and at no point will the wicked cease to exist.92 Third, inflammatory rhetoric has
no place in this debate, nor in any debate for that matter, for it only serves to alienate and to
distort and retard understanding of others’ views. This does not mean, however, that a person
cannot roundly criticize another’s views, but this should be done with Christian civility and with
the goal of furthering all God’s people in the truth on this or any issue. Fourth, let us take to
heart that this is a discussion about hell and the awful judgment to come upon those apart from
Christ, i.e., upon many whom we know and love. As Stott has reminded us, let us mourn with
Jeremiah and weep with Paul over the ultimate destiny of those who refuse to know and love
Christ.93 This is a very sobering doctrine, no matter what side of the issue one comes down on.
Before we discuss the relative merits of conditional immortality and the traditional view, let’s
take a minute to clearly distinguish conditional immortality from other annihilationist
perspectives.
B. B. Warfield has outlined annihilationism in three major groups: (1) pure mortality; (2)
conditional immortality; and (3) annihilationism proper.94 Pure mortality, based as it often is on a
rather strict materialism, sees no hope for the person beyond death. In other words, the life of the
person is impossible without the body since the life-principle is inextricably connected to the
physical organism. At death all people simply pass out of existence. Conditional mortality,
generally speaking, argues that people do not naturally possess immortality, but must receive it
from God. God, for his part, gives it only to those who are “in Christ” and eternally connected to
the savior and his resurrection by faith. All other people, i.e., unbelievers, simply pass out of
existence, either at death and/or after a general resurrection, or after a general resurrection and a
period of suffering. Annihilationism proper, in contrast to conditional immortality, builds on the
idea of the person as naturally immortal. Thus at some point—whether immediately at death, the
judgment after a general resurrection, or after some determined period of suffering—those apart
from Christ, will be annihilated; God himself will bring their very existence to an end.
Arguments for Conditional Immortality
We are now ready to discuss arguments for and against conditional immortality (hereafter, CI)
and traditionalism. CI has received increasing support among certain evangelicals in recent
years, including: Edward William Fudge,95 John W. Wenham,96 Stephen H. Travis,97 Philip
Edgecumbe Hughes,98 Clark Pinnock,99 and Michael Green.100 One notable evangelical who
tentatively holds the position is John Stott.101 The question before us is this: Is CI able to stand on
exegetical and theological grounds superior to the traditional view and is it thus to be preferred?
The following is an interaction with some of the most popular and strongest arguments in favor
of CI.
The Meaning of “Destruction” Language
Proponents of CI argue that the Greek verb ajpovllumi, apollumi,102 means “to kill” in the active
voice and “to perish” or “be destroyed” when in the middle voice and intransitive.103 For
example, when Herod sought Jesus, he did so “in order to kill him” (Matt 2:13). Also, Jesus told
people to be afraid of the one who could destroy, that is, “kill both body and soul in hell” (Matt
10:28). From such evidence Stott concludes that “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, an extinction of
being.”104 Further, in the middle voice, and while intransitive, the verb means “to perish” as in
the case of unbelievers who are said “to be perishing” (1 Cor 1:18; cf. also 2 Cor 2:15; 4:3).
Stott also argues that the nouns apwleiva, apoleia (e.g., Phil 1:28; 3:19; Heb 10:39), and ojleqro",
olethros (e.g., 1 Thess 5:3; 2 Thess 1:9), also mean “destruction,” or “ruin,” as defined by an
“extinction of being.” He concludes that “it would seem strange, therefore, if people who are said
to suffer destruction are in fact not destroyed.”105
Response
First, it is true that the verb apollumi can mean “to kill,” or “put to death.” But it is a non-
sequitur to suggest that “killing” necessarily entails “extinction of being,” even if the killing is
done in hell. This is true for at least three reasons: (1) the language of “killing” is
phenomenological and is not, therefore, necessarily making any metaphysical claims about being
or non-being; (2) to regard physical “killing” as “extinction of being” implies a certain
underlying view of man which has been subtly imported into the definition , but which has not
been established. I refer to a monistic view of man or certain Christian versions wherein life
cannot exist apart from embodiment; (3) apollumi carries many other meanings other than “to
kill.” It can mean: “to be lost” spiritually (Matt 10:6; 15:24); “to lose a reward” (Matt 10:42); “to
lose one’s life” (Matt 16:25); “to destroy demons” (Mark 1:24); “to ruin a wineskin” (Mark
2:22); “to drown” (Mark 4:38); “to deprive someone of needed healing” (Luke 6:9); “to lack a
relationship with God” (Luke 9:24); as a reference to “lost sheep,” (Luke 15:4-5); “a lost coin”
(Luke 15:8); “a lost son” (Luke 15:24, 32); “lost people” (Luke 19:10—i.e., apart from Jesus and
salvation); “to perish” as opposed to receiving eternal life (John 3:16); “to destroy your brother
for the sake of food (Rom 14:15); “to destroy a weak person by knowledge” (1 Cor 8:11).
Several of these instances are important and require brief comment. First, if Jesus is going “to
destroy” demons (Mark 1:24) and their ultimate fate is the lake of fire, then on the analogia
fidei/scripturae apollumi here probably does not mean “extinction of being,” since these demons
(including the Devil) are “tormented day and night forever and ever” (cf. Rev 20:10). Second,
“to ruin” a wineskin certainly does not mean that it ceases to exist, but only that for all practical
purposes it ceases to exist with respect to the purpose for which it was made, i.e., it is no longer
any good for holding wine. Third, apollumi can mean “to lack a relationship with God” (Luke
9:24) and in this sense the person is ruined or destroyed, that is, they are no good for the purpose
for which they were created. This is evident in the lost (apollumi) son of Luke 15:24, 32. The son
was destroyed or ruined, if you will, in that he was no longer in right relationship with his father,
as evidenced by his lifestyle. However, he certainly did not pass out of existence, as his return to
the father clearly indicates. Fourth, a Christian can be said to have been destroyed and yet be in
perfect physical health and still have a relationship with God! This is true in both Romans 14:15
and 1 Corinthians 8:11. In both cases people are said to have been destroyed (apollumi) by
another’s freedom and knowledge. Those offended certainly did not cease to exist, but were
rather harmed in their relationship with God which develops according to one’s faith and
commitment to holiness.
So we see that the term most often means to ruin something/someone by damaging it/them to the
point where it/they can no longer function according to its/their design.106 The term by itself says
nothing about the non-existence of a thing or person. This is probably the point behind Matthew
10:28 as well. In this text Jesus is not making a comment about existence vs. non-existence, but
about different kinds of existence, either with God or apart from God, the latter of the two being
described as “ruin” or “destruction” in Hell.107 Man can never personally and actively glorify
God in Hell. We also see that in some cases, like Romans 14:15 and 1 Corinthians 8:11, the ruin
is reversible. So also in the case of the “ruin” of the prodigal son. A return to God begins the
process of undoing the destruction that was incurred. This opportunity to begin the process of
“reversing ruin” or “undoing destruction,” however, is never said to extend past this life.
The Greek term olethros (“destruction”) occurs in 1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:3; 2
Thessalonians 2:9, and 1 Timothy 6:9. Each of these cases is religiously colored and refers either
to the destruction of the flesh (1 Cor 5:5; which cannot be completed in this life) and to the result
of God’s punishment of those who are unprepared for his coming (1 Thess 5:3), disobey his
gospel (2 Thess 2:9), and/or pursue riches as an end in themselves (1 Tim 6:9). In none of these
examples does olethros necessarily mean “extinction of being.”
In the end, even if a person does not agree with everything we’ve said here, he/she needs to
recognize that it is quite clear that apollumi does not necessarily mean or even entail the
“cessation of being.” The same can be said for the 18 occurrences of apoleia108 and the 4
occurrences of olethros. The term kolasis occurs in Matthew 25:46 and 1 John 4:18. By itself, it
refers to severe punishment without any necessary implication as to the length of time and
certainly has no inherent connections to the idea of “extinction.” We will discuss Matthew 25:46
below.
Thus in terms of the available linguistic evidence it is disconcerting to see Clark Pinnock simply
list the verses in which the Greek term appears and then conclude from the English translation
that “destruction” means “annihilation.” All the passages he cites require interpretation and—in
light of our word study of the relevant terms—a defense of the view he only claims. For
example, in reference to Matthew 10:28 he simply asserts, “our Lord spoke plainly of God’s
judgment as the annihilation of the wicked when he warned about God’s ability to destroy body
and soul in hell.”109 As to the rest of the passages he cites, virtually all evangelicals agree that the
impenitent wicked will be destroyed by the wrath of God. The question that needs to be
answered by further investigation is, “What does “destroyed” mean?
The Meaning of the Imagery of “Fire”
The Bible speaks of “the fire” (Matt 3:10; 7:19; 13:50), “fire of hell” (5:22; 18:9), “eternal fire”
(18:8; 25:41), and the “lake of fire” (Rev 20:14-15). But how are we to understand this
metaphorical language involving fire? Some begin by claiming that “fire” is not a metaphor at
all, but rather a literal description of hell.110 But how can hell be described as literal “fire” (Matt
25:41; Jude 7) and at the same time “blackest darkness” (Matt 8:12; Jude 13)? Either hell
changes over time from one to the other or there are parts of hell that have fire and parts that are
pure darkness. Despite the fact that such interpretations seem ridiculous, they: (1) are not
necessitated by the texts themselves; (2) represent a failure to recognize the
apocalyptic/metaphorical nature of the descriptions, and (3) are therefore the most strained,
synthetic readings of the passages. The simplest and best explanation is to see the language as
metaphorical, pointing to horrible realities, much of which probably lies beyond comprehension.
But what is fire a symbol of? What does it represent? Stott says that
the main function of fire is not to cause pain, but to secure destruction, as all the world’s
incinerators bear witness…The fire itself is termed ‘eternal’ and ‘unquenchable’, but it would be
very odd if what is thrown into it proves indestructible. Our expectation would be the opposite: it
would be consumed for ever, not tormented for ever. Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire
has done its work) which ‘rises for ever and ever’ (Revelation 14:11; cf. 19:3).111
Again, quite apart from the problematic analogy with garbage (which is not thrown into
incinerators on account of guilt for sin), there are at least four major problems with Stott’s
reading of Revelation 14:11. First, it suppresses contrary evidence; it is not warranted by the
immediate context. The rest of Revelation 14:11 needs to be cited: “There is no rest day or night
for those who worship the beast and his image….” Surely the most exegetically sensitive way in
which to read “there is no rest day or night” is as “never-ending rest” for those who worship the
beast. If that is true, then eternal, conscious suffering and not “non-being” is the point of the
punishment and the passage. Thus, the imagery of fire suggests agony and torment, not
extinction of being as Stott argues. This coheres well with Jesus’ own warnings of the fire being
“unquenchable,” “eternal,” and hell being a place where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth”
(Matt 8:12; 24:51; 25:30). Second, it agrees, not just formally, but materially with Revelation
20:10 (and 19:3) where John says again that the torment will be “day and night forever and
ever.” Third, if the fire does consume completely, one wonders how the smoke can rise eternally
if there is nothing left to burn? Or, if “their worm” does not die, how is this possible if what they
eat has been completely devoured? These seem like silly questions, but perhaps warranted by
Stott’s handling of the passage.112 Fourth, in Mark 9:48 the idea of “unquenchable fire” is placed
in parallel with “their worm does not die.” If “their worm does not die,”113 then why does the
“unquenchable” fire all of a sudden become “quenchable”? Mark 9:48 seems to suggest prima
facie that “unquenchable” means eternal in quality (i.e., it characterizes the age to come for the
wicked) and duration (that age is never-ending); there is a “never-ending-ness” to God’s
punishment of the wicked.114
