The
case for Annihilationism is founded on several conceptual grounds the foremost
among them is an appeal to human sensibilities.
This includes a great appeal to the supposed pastoral appeal such a
theory reportedly has and evangelistic strength it supposedly possesses. One
missionary to India reported success with the local populace due to annihilationism. He reported “they themselves admit it would
be the first thing they’d think reading the words” in addition to them finding
it soothing and appealing.
The thought of their ancestors who never heard
the Gospel suffering eternally was unsettling.
Furthermore the missionary claims this strengthens the biblical
assertion that Jesus is the only source of communion and eternal life. This supposedly also makes clearer the danger
and leads to more evangelism. He appeals
then, to personal appeal and supposed results as testifying to the truth of
this doctrine.
The most ardent and notable contemporary advocate is Edward
fudge who typifies the resurgent ideology. He is joined with Clark Pinnock who
argues along the same lines. The resurgence
originated with John Stott who stunned the evangelical world when he affirmed annihilationism
in the book A Liberal-Evangelical
Dialogue. This movement has gained attention and
stirred much debate although it remains the minority view.
The
case for annihilationism is fairly uniform and rests on arguments concerning
supposed affinity for scriptural inerrancy advocates claim to share with the
traditionalists. A reading of the Greek and questions of implication for God’s
character is frequently cited as grounds by both those in favor and those
against Annihilationism
Another strong point of contention rests in the concept of
God’s love and Justice. Annihilationists
Question the purpose of an eternal torment or its real value. Advocates posit that any punishment must be
commensurate with the evil done. An eternal punishment for fudge and Pinnock
would be serious overkill.
This
is because mankind is a temporal creature, not eternal beings. Therefore for the annihilationist such a
punishment cannot possibly be meted out by the God of the bible. God would, in the words of Pinnock be “A
sadist”. The argument is as temporal beings; our
punishment would be limited like our nature and could never be eternal. The case of Adam’s sin serves as a damaging
counter to the concept of a personal and limited suffering.
Traditionalists
counter with the example that all of Adam’s posterity was cursed for his sin. The annihilationist would have a hard time
accepting this as a fitting punishment if he were being consistent. Adam’s sin was prideful disobedience, trying
to be just like his maker. All mankind
inherited the sin and the punishment having been in Adam (Genesis 3:1-6, 2:17,
Rom: 1:18, 32; 2:5, 12; 3:10-12, 23 5:16). Traditionalists affirm God cannot be
charged with injustice for this biblically and the Annihilationists position would
not be able to sustain such a belief either.
Annihilationists argue God’s love as shown in scripture
could never allow for such a fate. Mercy
is secondarily appealed to. God’s love
and Mercy it is asserted, could never desire much less perpetrate such a
horrible fate on anybody. God’s love and
mercy for annihilationists are to some degree connected in the treatment of the
damned, so that God who is love would have to have the mercy to destroy the
souls of the damned rather than subject them to endless torment
Pinnock’s argument falls largely under the category of
moral implication for a concept like eternal punishment. Pinnock posits the
notion that such a God is “a bloodthirsty monster ever running Auschwitz. Pinnock argues that God’s love of the whole
world would preclude him being capable of such savagery. For Pinnock God’s boundless mercy and love
for the universe shows in his character in Matthew 8:11 where Jesus speaks of
men coming from east and west to join in the meal of Abraham. He credits this to God inviting sinners to a
feast representing salvation. The following
verse describes hell as a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth. Pinnock would argue that does not mean
eternal, but that Jesus’ focus is on the loving free offer of God.
Pinnock
further takes issue with the apparent "rejoicing at the fate of the damned
and the notion that God could be so glorified. He even likens it to the frying of a live cat
in microwave. This is also a distortion
of the traditional viewpoint. Augustine
did state that the believers would marvel and be satisfied in God’s justice
upon the unbelieving. Augustine did
state it served to show “more openly they see that those evils are punished
unto eternity which they have overcome by his help.” Augustine states that in some way that the
existence of such a torment magnifies the value and reality of the salvation
which cannot exist without wrath.
While
Augustine is one example of the traditional views apparent delight in the fate
of the wicked, it is not in their suffering so much as it is in God’s justice
and deliverance of the elect. Those
favoring the traditional eternal view do not see an apparent contradiction in
the delight of the saints and the peril of the damned. Pinnock points to the oddity of there being a
party upstairs with God while in the basement people burn eternally. Traditionalists would say the delight is not
in the suffering. In God’s presence God
could ameliorate any such discomfort and remains justified in his exacting his
wrath eternally.
Traditionalists
would argue that the life of all, believing and unbelieving honors and
glorifies God. Whether the fate is
heaven or hell both in their own ways demonstrate God’s glory. The believing are spared God’s punishment and
experience redemption. These demonstrate
God’s love and mercy. Those damned to
eternity demonstrate God’s justice and wrath.
While the believing gets to enjoy God’s presence as his love, those in
hell experience God’s presence in the form of his wrath.
Most
telling is his singular objection that he “finds it hard to believe anything
could warrant eternal torment”. With this point Pinnock cites Exodus 24’s
injunction on the limit of justice to “an eye for an eye. This injunction underlies much of his
complaint that the punishment of sin being eternal is far too strong a penalty.
He and Fudge would concur that the punishment would be temporal in duration due
to the temporal nature of the sinner.
The
offended party is God, and he and his justice are eternal. Sin has an infinite
evil to it due to the nature of the offended party, God. Further context would show ignores
significant biblical precedents of which there is no shortage. For so called small sins, man has been
outright killed by God. Ananias and Sephira
were struck dead for “lying to God rather than man”. Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron were struck dead
for a faulty worship service. Lot’s wife merely looked back on Sodom and
Gomorrah, Uzzah steadied the ark and was accused of irreverence.
Indeed
our sin is commensurate with the evil done as an Annihiliationst would say;
this is why the torment is and must be eternal. Essentially, those taking the position of annihilationism
doesn’t do sin justice. God’s justice
and wrath demand the full eternity of the punishment of sin. Sin demands an unending punishment, for sin
is of such offence that upon us the penalty could never be paid or God’s wrath satisfied. If justice between God and
man were still an eye for an eye, a traditionalist could honestly say it has to
be eternal.
Advocates
for Annihilationism also appeal to the argument for God’s triumph. It is argued that the elimination of sin and
suffering and death are part of God’s redemptive plan for creation. The
argument is that such a victory can't happen with hell (Eph 1:23, 1 Cor 15:28). Sinners with their sin would still
exist. For there to be no more weeping
or crying or mourning and pain hell itself must not be perpetual. The case is argued from revelation 21:1-5 where
God wipes away every tear. If the
rebellion were to continue in hell it is argued that God would not triumph in
all of creation. Pinnock also makes the
accusation that Satan then is still given his ability to reign in hell if
sinners aren’t annihilated leaving part of creation unredeemed.
Revelation
21:6-10 which follows details the fate of the wicked as being eternal. Therefore the argument for God’s triumph does
not exclude the triumph of the wicked. Rather
it includes the eternal torment of the wicked. Traditionalists within orthodoxy
therefore have no problem with the suffering of the wicked on those grounds
since it is also a different example of God’s victories and a display of his
wrath and justice.
Directly
connected to this is the
understanding of God’s omnipresence. God
is described as “all in all” and he is the sustainer of creation. 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 is often argued from,
where it describes the evil being shut out from the lord’s presence. Again, everlasting “destruction” is what the
annihilationist will cling to. Claiming the term everlasting would mean only its
permanence seems odd, as it would be a redundant expression and in light of
other scripture makes little sense. Galatians 1:23 uses the same word, very
differently referring to
Annihilationists
would go elsewhere as well to support their notion of apolumi always meaning
destruction. They will cite the broad gate to destruction (matt 7:13). Paul’s writing in Phil 3:19 enemies suffer
destruction. 2 peter 2:1 also
speaks of false teachers and describes them as suffering eternal
destruction. Revelation 17:8, 11
proclaims the final fate of the beast (a typically metaphorical enemy), as
being led to its destruction.
Traditionalists again point to a broader
context of scripture and the Greek. The
above proof texts are said to work only in isolation. Matthew 25:41, 46; Mark 9:42-48;
Revelation 14:9-10; 20:10, 14-15 in context disprove annihilation as using bad
proofs. Revelation 17:8, 11 concerning
the devil and his destruction makes the case against nonexistence. Paul uses the term himself in Galatians 1:23
of himself in his persecution of the faith, which he did not cause to stop
existing. Traditionalists hold that the term apolumi
does not mean a cessation of existence but can mean an eternal torment. Apolumi
can mean “to cut off” as well as destroy so the broader context and consistency
of scripture determines meaning.
Free
will makes an entrance into the discussion.
Annihilation is better in Pinnock’s eyes because God allows the sinner
to choose his fate more freely. This emphasis on free- will makes a
surprising yet necessary appearance. Fairness appears much the issue on this
point for annihilationists. It is a
theme also greatly repeated today in evangelical circles where annihilationism
seems resurgent.
Appeals to the passages in context are made by those of all
positions. The Annihilationist will
claim to read the New Testament in light of the Old. Destruction language in the Old Testament is
read” literally” and brought into the new. The accompanying argument is
typically an appeal to Old Testament passages describing God’s judgment.
The image of the worm that will not die is an
example of the differences in hermeneutics.
Isaiah 66:24 for example speaks of a worm that will not die
prophetically. The annihilationist takes
their Old Testament approach first and applies this to Mark 9:42-48. Those in disagreement with the
annihilationist will point out this speaks in temporal terms, and Mark 9:42-48
has the same wording speaking of an eternal fate not stated simply a prophecy
against physical enemies. The state of
the worm not dying would raise serious questions for the annihilationist as the
worm whose purpose is torment would possess an immortality that would be an odd
discrepancy.
Advocates
will often admit that indeed these are speaking temporally. The difference lay in in the underlying
hermeneutical difference that explains the differing conclusions among
supporters and detractors. There is truth in that observation. The Old Testament texts themselves by both
are checked with the New Testament passages, but the hermeneutical
understanding of the traditionalists allows for more contextual metaphorical
use, the annihilationist favors a so called “literalism”. For Fudges application of the Old Testament
to be adequate, they would have to prove eternal fate. If his usage of
the language were correct, it would prove too much as the destruction he reads
from the text would preclude any life after death.
Fudge uses the flood language in Genesis 6:5,
17, 7:21 which speaks of the world in terms of “perish, destroy or die”. This he claims is the fate shared with the
soul of the unbeliever. Sodom and
Gomorrah’s destruction is described in scripture in terms similar. Burning Sulphur is used to describe Sodom and
Gomorrah, and also to the fate of the wicked in their eternal fate. These
however are descriptive of earthly temporal judgments by and large and ones
that did not cause these to stop existing.
The
image of the valley of Gehenna is a repeating source of apocalyptic
imagery. Originally owned by Hinnom then
his sons, it became Tophet (a place of burning). Child
sacrifices were made to Moloch there (1 Chron 28:3, 33:6) Josiah the reformer
king ended the practices and turned it into a heap of rubbish. Generally this is why hell is referred to as
Gehenna, ostensibly for the body and soul after judgment.
The
parable of the rich man and Lazarus serves as a good introduction to the
biblical discussion of the image of fire and torment. Annihilationist and traditionalists agree on
the element of pain. An annihilationist
typically would claim that it is the intermediate state or in any case not
eternal. While this may be the
intermediate state, the traditionalist would see no reason to say the torment
is not eternal.
Jesus’
parable of the weeds serves as another proof text point of contention. The parable of the weeds in Matthew 13:40-42
depicts the fate of the weeds sown among the grain. They will be thrown into the furnace, with weeping
and gnashing of teeth. Pain is here clearly signified. The Annihiliationist would cite John 15:6 and
question the eternality. A traditionalist would contextualize the passage with
Matthew 25:41, where the devil and his angels suffer in the fire prepared for
eternity. The
claim then is that the burning can continue for eternity allowing for the
presence of metaphor. Hell is also
described as a place of darkness, though fire is present.
Jesus words argue strongly for the traditionalist view. In his parable of the sheep and the goats in
Matthew 25, the sheep are described as being eternally blessed. The fate of the goats is directly seen as a
contrast. The same word for eternal is
used to describe both the fates of the sheep and the goats. Annihilationists claim that only the
destruction, not the suffering is eternal. This would give two different meanings in
essence, and fails to appreciate the parallel. The stronger point and parallel
remains the traditional view of eternal suffering for the wicked and eternal
blessing for the righteous.
It is important to address the occurrences of
hell’s description as a lake of fire/sulfur.
Hell is described as a place of unquenchable fire prepared for the devil
and his angels. Jesus warns of this eternal fire in Matthew 18:8-9, and calls
it “unquenched (Mark 9:44-48). Traditionalists
would call this an argument for eternal suffering that the fire burns forever.
The souls in rebellion are placed in scripture in the same
eternal fate. Revelation 20 places the
souls of those who worship the beast in the lake of fire. This same lake is where the devil and his
angels are tormented forever and ever. Destruction
is ascribed earlier in revelation 17:8, 11as the fate of those destined for
hell. The counter argument from
traditionalists calls this usage out of its proper context. 17:8, 11 are tied to the devil and his
destruction. Revelation 19:20, 20:7, and
chapter 10 all describe the devil’s punishment as being eternal.
The History of the Church argues strongly against annihilationism. Annihilationism is largely the minority view
in all of Church history. Two early
Church fathers did have somewhat undeveloped annihilationist views, Justin
Martyr and Irenaeus. The church
throughout the ages has sided with those discerning eternal torment.
Supporters of annihilationism often contend that the Early
Church’s theology was co-opted by platonic philosophy. One Author even went so far as to accuse
Augustine of a sort of “Gnostic dualism”. This objection is one relating to the place
of philosophy in Christian theology. This
historical revisionism does little to disprove the actual theology of the
traditionalists.
The
accusation ties directly to their objection to the immortality of the
soul. The accusation of this Platonic
influence rests greatly on the assumption that the traditionalist argues for
the immortality of the soul in one odd and fallacious definition. The annihilationist rightly begins affirming
that only God himself is truly immortal.
This is in the sense of his being the only necessary being not
contingent on anything. However it straw
man’s the traditionalist argument. Pinnock himself admits God could sustain the
souls of sinners eternally. Tellingly Pinnock
dismisses this possibility, as he could see no reason for God too sustain a
soul for eternal torment.
The
traditional and orthodox view affirms that the soul is ever dependent on God’s
sustaining power. Only God is strictly
immortal as both sides would affirm citing 1 Tim 6:16, acts 17:28. However this does not preclude God’s
sustaining of the soul of either a righteous or unrighteous soul. The argument
for the immortality of the soul is not the primary assertion made by those
supporting the traditional view.
Further a central issue is the defining of
separation from God. The term separation is argued by traditionalists as
needing the connotation of some form of existence. This immortality could be seen in Jesus’
words in Matthew 7:23 where Christ proclaims “depart from me”. In Matthew 22:13 Jesus again speaks in this
way in his parable where the ruler declares “cast him into outer darkness.
Annihiliationists cite John 15:6 the image of
burning up and destruction are tied to one who explicitly has rejected Christ
displaying some materialistic leaning. This objection reflects the opposite of
their accusation to the traditionalist. Whereas the Gnostic emphasizes
spiritual aspects, the annihilationist appears to think more materially of the
soul elevating finitude. This certainly
downplays the spiritual.
It
is additionally claimed that the traditionalist view further finds its origin
in an intertestamental development. Proponents proclaim that a literal reading of
the Old Testament cannot produce either eternal torment or eternality of the
soul. It is disregarded as a new
development brought about by bad theology and platonic influence. The assertion is that traditionalists are
approaching the text with the a priori assumption they inherited from culture. This
assertion however bears little resemblance to reality.
It is most certainly true that God is so unique; however
God sustains all souls for eternity.
This is clear in the passage in Matthew 25:46 where Christ refers to the
sheep and the goats. The same word for
eternal is used for describing both those who are saved and those bound for
destruction. The advocate for
annihilationism attempts to eke out of this issue by affirming the destruction
itself is described as forever in a sense of permanence. The suffering then supposedly is not eternal. The parallelism is clearly to show equal
correlation, the Greek is frequently translated as punishment due to one of the
separate definitions of the Greek word. Matthew 25:41 speaks of the same fate including
the devil and his angels whose torment is described as eternal.
John 15:6 is sometimes used by the
annihilationist. Here the image of
burning up and destruction are tied to one who explicitly has rejected
Christ. Traditionalists do counter Matthew
25:41, 46, 2 Thessalonians 21:9. Here
the goats are assigned to hell. Hell is
the “eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. While the annihilationist would say the
temporal image is clear, the traditionalist would argue the broader context and
common fate.
This unquenchable fire for the devil and his angels
is described as having “bonds that are everlasting”. The image for a traditionalist is God burning
the wicked with the unquenchable, and for the devil and his minions eternal. No
contention as to the Devil and his angels suffering eternally has been widely
mentioned though it may exist among some Annihilationists.
The
affect annihilationism has on a systematic theology bears serious
attention. While most Evangelicals
would claim Jesus drank the cup of God’s wrath, there exists a variance in
definition between those for and against annihilationism. For the annihilationist Jesus drank the cup
of God’s wrath and was himself annihilated. Albeit neither in his divinity nor as a
person, Fudge and others teach that Jesus’ humanity was obliterated when he
passed into Sheol. This makes his
resurrection not a resurrection at all but a reincarnation.
Consequently,
this teaching would undo Chalcedon. This
oddly sounds a bit reminiscent of word of faith (such as Joyce Meyers) teaching
of Jesus “dying in hell” and being the first born again. As it does with any theological belief, annihilationism
has ramifications that affect other areas of theology. Annihilationism in its rejection of orthodox
eschatology threatens Christology
and the seriousness of this cannot be overlooked.
The
earlier claim to appeal in evangelism rests on a supposed success due to an
ease with which it may be swallowed. Therapeutic, practicality, nor ease
however are not equal to right and truth. Similar is said to the claim that it
fits God’s love and mercy. Neither is
founded on biblical principle, and in fact both have appeal due to their
correlation to human subjective emotion.
It
is in fact very hard for moderns to believe in a hell at all. It therefore can be understood how annihilationism
would arise. The annihilation of the
concept of hell is untenable biblically, so to maintain some semblance of God’s
eschatological justice it must be retained.
However, to be palatable to modern sensibilities it must be blunted.
Justice
is Pinnock’s issue, and indeed the morality of hell must pass the moral test,
but the moral test of whom? He makes the
unsubstantiated claim that such would be a God acting unjustly. This fails to take into account what justice
truly looks like. God is glorified in every person’s fate. Saved or unsaved, even the meting out of
God’s just wrath is glorifying to him.
Annihilationism’s
supposed literalism is in fact very pick and choose. Fudge cites Revelation 14:10 in connection
with the language of Sodom and Gomorrah.
He ignores Romans 14:11 which describes the smoke as rising forever
requiring its purpose (torment of the wicked) has no end. Further their torment is day and night which
can further strengthen the unceasing nature of the torment. This could be claimed as describing only the
smoke, but such would be intentionally reading in an a-priori assumption.
While
I believe the deviation from orthodoxy on this issue may rest more in the
existing lens than intentional distortion by some, the influence of contemporary
culture is evident. Our culture is a
very feeling and individualistic culture.
It sounds more appealing at least for a God of love and mercy to not
enact some eternal torment. The
frequency of Pinnock’s appeals to emotion, ad hominem and straw man fallacies
attest to this at least in his case.
The debate largely is drawn to the lord’s
loving presence and an absence (wrath) in his return. God’s presence fills all
creation so naturally an objector would need to assert annihilation. The traditionalist position is that the
absence of the lost sinner is not an escape from God. Rather it is the absence of his loving
presence which the saved will enjoy.
Any
annihiliationist objection could just as easily lead to universalism since both
have the same assumption as their starting point (namely, a loving God would
never….). It stands as an equally
pleasing appeal to the definition of a “loving and merciful” to the alternative
of God eternally tormenting sinners.
This also has seen revival in contemporary culture no doubt for similar
reasons. The two then are the same
objection drawn to different conclusions.
It appears annihilationism is only a somewhat
less liberal deviation seeking to maintain some of God’s wrath and
justice. This does grant the rebellious
sinner what he wants. The rebel suffers
in hell in the presence of God and his wrath, making his denial and flight from
God impossible. It would be God granting the sinner what he wants, as exit from
existence (annihilation) which is the only escape from God who fills the cosmos.
Rather than bowing the knee, condemned souls in eternity would rather escape
through destruction.
Furthermore,
the lack of understanding for the cultural and literal norms of the historical
context hinders any clear understanding.
What could be called a dispensational hermeneutic exists for much the
reason dispensational hermeneutic originated.
Contemporary Western “literalism” is assumed and brought to the
text. Instead of reading like the
original audience, the text is read as if it was written after the
enlightenment for a contemporary mind.
Annihilationism
ultimately comes up both weak in its case theologically and a revealing of the
sad state of those who believe it.
History is ignored, texts stretched, opposing viewpoints distorted and
emotive reasoning frequently cited.
Annihilationism does not reveal the truth of God from scripture. Quite
pathetically, it is but a soothing lie and Annihilationism reveals the hearts
of man and what want to bring to scripture.
Bibliography
Litton,
E.A Introduction to Dogmatic Theology.
Houston, 2000, Classical Anglican Press
Hendriksen,
William. The bible on the life Hereafter. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book
House. 1959
Freer,
Frederick Ash, trans. The Problem of Immortality, London,
Elliot Stock and Paternoster Row, E.C. 1892
Watts,
Isaac. The World to Come, Chicago, Moody Press. 1954
Gundry,
Stanley N. ed, and Crockett, William ed.
Four Views on Hell, Grand
Rapids Michigan, Zondervan. 1996
Schwarz,
Hans. Beyond the Gates of Death. Minneapolis,
Augsburg Publishing house. 1981
Plumptre,
E.H. The Spirits in Prison and other
studies on the life after Death. New York, Thomas Whitaker Bible House.
1885
Peterson,
Robert A. “Does the bible teach Annihilationism?” Biblioteca Sacra 156 (January-March 1999): 13-27
Peterson,
Robert A. “The Hermeneutics of Annihilationism: The Theological Method of
Edward Fudge” Presbyterion 21,
(1995): 13-28
Peterson, Robert A.
“Undying Worm Unquenchable fire”: Christianity
Today” (October 23, 2009
