This material is also available in podcast form.
Do you know what you believe about hell? Why do you believe what you believe? Could you defend your belief?
If you’re like most of us, you’ve been taught that we all will live eternally in one of two places. There are two choices we can make, and two destinies available to us: Eternity with God in heaven, or eternity in hell under God’s judgment. Those who believe in Christ will experience the blessings of heaven. Those who live in rebellion against God will suffer God’s judgment in hell. Hell, we are told, is the place of eternal, conscious torment where sinners experience just punishment for their sins.
But what if we’re wrong?
Recent scholarship has resurfaced an alternate view of hell, one historically known as “Annihilationism.” In this view, the damned are not subject to eternal suffering, but rather experience an eternal death—that is, they cease to exist for all eternity. Eternal damnation in hell is not unending conscious torment (as the traditional view holds). Rather, the fires of hell consume the sinner, and he is annihilated.
This is also called “Conditional Immortality.” God grants immortality (eternal life) upon a condition—faith. Those who believe live forever in God’s presence; those who rebel die in hell. Hell is the place where they are “annihilated,” eternally ceasing to exist. This view is gaining a significant amount of traction in parts of our Anabaptist movement. It’s not going away without a fight, and we need to know how to think about it.
Hell is not as common in our conversation as it was 500 years ago, 300 years ago, or even 60 years ago. Because we don’t talk about it, many of us don’t understand it as we should. When we hear new ideas about hell, we tend to ignore them (not knowing what to say) or give a knee-jerk response that reveals our ignorance more than it does any biblical grounding. We haven’t been as faithful as we ought to have been guarding the theological door, and it’s starting to show.
As I said, “Conditional Immortality” is gaining traction with our people. The first question I have is, “Why?” Why is our movement, which purports to be built upon Scripture, so confounded by the claims of Conditional Immortality? We’re found with our proverbial pants on the floor, unprepared for this resurgence and uncertain how to respond.
A main cause, in my opinion, is that we’ve neglected Scripture to favor tradition. Rather than searching Scripture ourselves to discover the truth, we’re content to hide within the body of faith and practice established by those before us. We have adopted the faith of past generations but have not busied ourselves to understand the biblical truths that undergird that faith. We have an exoskeleton, but that without a living organism inside. Please understand that I do believe the exoskeleton of Anabaptism to be valuable, in many ways biblical, and worth preserving. Yet it does nothing for us if we do not ourselves understand why we do what we do and why we believe what we believe. Hell is just one of the issues where we have been compromised by our lack of biblical understanding. We can only recover the truth by studying God’s word. Things that slide into the periphery are brought back to their proper center through Scripture.
In this essay I will attempt to deal with Conditional Immortality somewhat comprehensively. There will always more to say than can be said, but I will emphasize the main points, including: What is hell? What is Conditional Immortality? What are the biblical arguments for and against it? How should we respond to it as Bible-conscious believers? What are the consequences of believing Conditional Immortality?
But first, some more words on our approach. First, when analyzing some new idea, we need to make sure our response is based on Scripture. To be sure, most ideas that are new are not true. Yet we shouldn’t just reject an idea because it’s novel to us. Rather, we need to examine Scripture to see what God says about it. When a new idea surfaces (or an old one resurfaces), we do not need to be afraid of it. The truth can defend itself. Do we trust that the Bible can bear the weight of these assaults? We need not fear the truth. Let us judge these claims in the light of Scripture. It is sufficient to lead us to the truth; it is sufficient to defend the truth.
We also should acknowledge that part of the reason we don’t talk about hell is that it is a difficult belief. Hell as Scripture depicts it is horrible. It is a place of pain, anguish, suffering, separated from God’s blessings. It should grip our souls that sinners will suffer there. Yet we shouldn’t turn in anger at God for executing such judgment. Rather, we grieve the choices of the sinner that earn him God’s judgment. What Jesus said about His executioners is many times true of the sinner: “They do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).[1] We should not rejoice in the reality of hell. It is a sober reality, difficult to accept if we truly understand it.
In fact, if you find hell easy to believe you may not truly understand it. Recognizing the severity of hell both leads us to be grateful to God for His mercy and to yearn all the more for the salvation of lost sinners. Hell is what we all deserve. We all would experience hell if God gave us justice. God in His grace offers us salvation through Christ, rescuing us from hell’s fiery judgment.
We must also recognize that hell is not a rod we use to beat up unbelievers (or each other). We don’t mock those who are heaping up destruction for themselves. We must certainly avoid all self-righteousness. If we think that we have escaped hell by our own merits, our wise choices, our superior obedience, or anything else that includes “me” or “I,” we are gravely mistaken. Recognizing the grim reality of hell leads us to humble worship and sacrificial love.
Three Historical Views
There are three prevailing views of hell that have been held by the church historically. The traditional view (held by most of the western church) is that sinners will suffer eternally and consciously in hell. The annihilationist view (which includes Conditional Immortality) is that sinners are consumed in hell and cease to exist. The third view is universalism, which holds that all men will eventually be reconciled to God (e.g. Rob Bell, “Love Wins”). This third view has been roundly rejected by all orthodox believers. The annihilationist view has been held by notable figures in church history, as well as a number of quasi-orthodox scholars of the 20th and 21st centuries (N.T. Wright being a foremost example). The traditional view is the most common, so prevalent among evangelicals (including Anabaptists) that most people are only vaguely aware that other views of hell even exist.
What is Hell?
Before we explore the claims of Conditional Immortality, we should get a grasp of the biblical descriptions of what hell is. The what of hell is distinct from the eternality of hell (which we will get to later). To get our minds headed in that direction, it will be helpful to consider what the Bible teaches about hell itself. The New Testament primarily uses two words to describe the place where the wicked suffer: hades and geenna (Gehenna). Hades refers to the temporary dwelling of the dead, where their souls go to await judgment. Its use is often connected with concepts of death and judgment. Since the New Testament usage at times describes this as a place of torment, it seems that it is inhabited by only the unrighteous. Hades is temporary and will ultimately be destroyed in the lake of fire after the final judgment (cf. Revelation 20:14).
Geenna (more popularly, Gehenna) is a transliteration of the Hebrew Ge-Hinnom, that is, the valley of Hinnom. This valley was located southwest of the old city of Jerusalem. Tophet in the valley of Hinnom was at one point a place of child sacrifice to Molech (cf. Jeremiah 7:31, 32:35). It was desecrated when idolatry was stamped out during Intertestamental Judaism. It became a place of refuse where waste, dead animals, and unburied criminals were thrown. By the time of Christ it had become synonymous with the place where the wicked would be judged. Eleven of the twelve uses of geenna in the New Testament are from the lips of Jesus.
Revelation also speaks of the “lake of fire” and the “lake of fire and brimstone.” This seems to be one and the same as Geenna. Death and Hades (sometimes mistranslated “hell”) are thrown into the lake of fire, signifying death and the grave being eternally conquered. But we do not read of Geenna being thrown in. Thus it seems that Geenna is one and the same as the lake of fire spoken of in Revelation.
What about the sufferings of hell? The Bible speaks variously about this. The sufferings are described as: punishment, judgment, death, destruction, and fire. It is a place where the worm (maggot) is, a place of darkness, where sinners experience indignation, wrath, tribulation, and anguish, and where they live in agony, weeping and gnashing their teeth. It is outside the presence of Christ (“depart from me, you cursed” – Matt. 25:41). It is perhaps less important to describe the full detail of hell than it is to recognize that hell is a place of excruciating agony. The various sufferings described in Scripture communicate the awful reality of hell.
Hell is spoken of as a judgment (Gk. krisis) and a punishment (Gk. kolasis). It is the place where sinners experience the just consequences for their sin. It is thus the deserved consequence for rebellion against God. None will suffer in hell beyond what they have “heaped up” for themselves during their time on earth. God’s justice is perfect, and He will judge according to what is fair, just, and good. Yet it is important for us to understand that sins against an infinite God, the thrice-holy One, are liable to infinite punishment. It is not our place to decide what justice is. Rather, we seek to understand from God’s word what justice is. Hell is the just judgment God executes on sinners as a consequence for their sins.
Conditional Immortality
Conditional Immortality agrees with the majority of what I’ve laid out so far. Those who hold to conditional immortality maintain that all these things are true: hell is real, it is the destiny of sinners, and it is terrible. The point of departure is not the reality of hell. Rather, it is the eternality of hell, or more specifically, the eternality of the human soul. Let’s break that down.
Perhaps the first essential piece of the Conditional Immortality framework is that they do not believe that man is immortal by nature. Edward Fudge, a leader in the Conditional Immortality movement, says, “The Bible portrays the human creature as wholly mortal.”[2] Humans are not created with an immortal soul. Rather, they are given immortality upon the condition of believing. Those who do not believe, simply cease to exist. This solves the riddle of God terminating a soul, putting the weight toward God granting eternal life to an otherwise mortal person.[3]
This shapes the offer of the gospel. Since we are not immortal by nature, rather than the gospel being a choice between everlasting life in heaven and everlasting judgment in hell, the gospel is simply an offer of eternal life. John 3:16 is used as a prime proof text. In it, Jesus says that those who believe will not “perish,” but will be given “everlasting life.” “Perishing” is understood as ceasing to exist; “everlasting life” is the gift of eternal life, life beyond natural mortality. Yes, those who perish may suffer punishment for a time, but they will ultimately “be no more.”
Second in the Conditional Immortality framework is a separation between the eternality of hell and the eternality of the human soul. One of the strongest arguments for hell as eternal conscious torment is the numerous instances where the Bible uses language such as “everlasting fire,” “everlasting destruction,” and “eternal condemnation.” These are traditionally understood to point to eternal suffering. But those who believe in Conditional Immortality interpret these as meaning that hell itself is eternal, but the sinner who is thrown into hell is not. Since “everlasting” and “eternal” are used with “fire” and “destruction,” and not used of the sinner himself, these phrases are understood to teach only that hell itself is eternal. The sinner is not.
Third (and related), they interpret the verses that speak more pointedly of the judgment of the sinner himself as meaning that “eternal” means that the judgment is irreversible. Against the traditional view, which says that the judgment itself is experienced eternally, Conditional Immortality says that this “everlasting punishment”[4] is the punishment of ceasing to exist for all eternity. That is, the judgment is “eternal” in the sense that it cannot and will not be undone. The damned forevermore cease to exist. “Eternal condemnation,” in Conditional Immortality, does not mean endless condemnation, but merely the permanent condemnation of annihilation. The soul who is sent to hell is consumed, eternally ceasing to exist.
Conditional Immortality does allow that sinners may suffer for a time in hell. Sinners in hell (such as is depicted in the story of the rich man and Lazarus) may suffer for a time for their sins. But once their sin is appeased, they are annihilated. This accounts for the various descriptions of the sufferings of hell, even allowing for a more traditional understanding of conscious torment, but without the eternal dynamic. Once a sinner has suffered sufficiently, he is blotted out.
Arguments for Conditional Immortality often rely heavily on the Old Testament language relative to the judgment of the wicked. Passages like Psalm 37:10 (“Yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more; Indeed, you will look carefully for his place, but it shall be no more.”) are used to justify the idea that sinners will ultimately cease to exist. After all, they shall “be no more.” Isaiah uses similar language (1:27-31 – “…those who forsake the LORD shall be consumed.”). These are used to argue that God’s judgment of the wicked is a total destruction, an annihilation of their existence. It is common for those who hold to Conditional Immortality[5] to use the Old Testament over and against the New Testament to nullify the clearer meaning of the latter.
Are we to best understand these and other related texts as teaching that the wicked and sinful will be annihilated in the judgment? It’s important for us to remember that the Old Testament was given to the physical nation of Israel. It deals primarily with physical tangible things. Thus we need to be careful how much we let those descriptions dictate our interpretations of clear New Testament passages. Yes, there are spiritual dynamics, yes, it is for our instruction, yes, we ought to learn from it. But the focus is still primarily on God’s work in the physical realm. God’s promised land was physical (Canaan); God’s blessings were physical (milk, honey, prosperity and riches, etc.); God’s judgments, too, were physical (conquered by enemies, exiled into a foreign land). This shapes our interpretation of these Old Testament passages about God’s judgment of the wicked. These are focused on God’s judgment of the wicked and of Israel’s enemies by removing them from their place on the earth. To use these to describe the eternal destination of the wicked is an abuse of Scripture.
Is Conditional Immortality Biblical?
I think we can admit that there’s a certain appeal to the Conditional Immortality understanding of hell. Hell is uncomfortable to talk about and horrifying to think about. Conditional Immortality creatively weaves Scriptures together to soften the severity of hell without erasing it entirely. There’s a good deal of emotional appeal to the idea that God will eventually release sinners from suffering. It portrays a kinder God and eases the terrors of hell.
But is it what the Bible teaches?
By this I do not mean “Is it compatible with Scripture?” but rather “Is it what Scripture asserts?” Many things can be fit into Scripture that do not arise from it. Truly biblical Christianity is not built upon that which is compatible with Scripture, but instead on that which Scripture asserts—that which is most plainly taught within the pages of Scripture itself. The first fundamental flaw of Conditional Immortality is that it injects its doctrine into Scripture rather than deducing it from Scripture. Yes, many passages are cited, but not in context, and not in a way that harmonizes the whole of Scripture.
We’ll get into the Scriptures and the language more here in a bit. First, I want to deal with some of the arguments straight on. The first aspect of Conditional Immortality that we discussed is their belief that humans are not immortal by nature. This is based somewhat on 1 Timothy 6:16: “God…alone has immortality.” It is said that God alone exists eternally; all humans are mortal. But interpreting it this way is problematic, largely because it precludes everyone from having eternal life. If 1 Timothy 6 indicates that God alone is eternal, then no believer can expect eternal life for himself. That is certainly not biblical. If then this passage doesn’t exclude eternal life for the believer, it must not be used to say that the unbeliever will not exist eternally. Nothing in this text leads us to think that the believer will experience eternal life while the unbeliever will cease to exist.
It is more likely that 1 Timothy 6 refers to God’s existence from eternity past. God is immortal in the sense that there was never a time that He didn’t exist. If so, this is not focused on God’s eternal future existence, but His pre-existence, by which it is proper to say that He alone is immortal. Taken this way, we conclude that this is not speaking of eternal judgment or eternal life, and thus does nothing to inform our understanding of human immortality. In short, 1 Timothy 6 does not indicate that we are “wholly mortal.” Rather, when Genesis speaks of us being made “in God’s image” and becoming “living beings,” it has in view that we are each given a soul that will never perish. God created us with eternal souls.
This is further reinforced by John 5:28-29: “The hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” This speaks of a future resurrection of all mankind, whether good or evil, righteous or wicked. All men will be resurrected and face the judgment. All will “hear His voice and come forth,” some to the blessings of heaven, some to the torments of hell. If it is true, as Conditional Immortality advocates purport, that the human soul is “wholly mortal,” how do we explain this resurrection? Resurrection of the righteous makes sense, but what about the resurrection of the wicked? They are resurrected to a judgment, a judgment in which they are annihilated. This in contrast to the righteous, who are resurrected to eternal life. The asymmetry in the Conditional Immortality interpretation is awkward at best.
Similar to this, Acts 24:15 speaks of the “resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.” I suppose we could interpret this (and John) as speaking of a temporary resurrection wherein the wicked are judged and again sentenced to death. But again, this is a strange interpretation, forcing the text into a view of hell that is novel to the Scriptures.
What about the separation between the eternality of hell and the eternal suffering of the human soul? Should we understand “everlasting fire” to indicate that only the fire itself is eternal, or does that also imply that those thrown into it will endure it for eternity? The latter understanding follows the simpler reading of the text and is the clear implication.
That hell itself is eternal is undisputed. The gospel of Matthew speaks of “everlasting fire” (18:8-9, 25:41) and “everlasting punishment” (25:46). Mark speaks of “eternal condemnation” (3:29), “the fire that shall never be quenched” (9:43, 45), and the place where the “worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (9:48). Paul talks of “everlasting destruction” in 2 Thessalonians 1:9. Hebrews says those who abandon the gospel will experience “eternal judgment,” and Jude talks about “eternal fire” and “blackness of darkness forever.” Revelation says that the torment of the lake of fire will continue “forever and ever” (14:11, 20:10). Conditional Immortality doesn’t deny that hell is eternal; they simply deny that anyone will be in it eternally.
Those who believe Conditional Immortality point out that all these texts describe the place as eternal, but don’t necessarily state that the persons in hell are eternal. Does the Bible permit this understanding? If we isolate these texts, perhaps. It is an unnatural understanding, however, to think that these passages, which are intended to warn the sinner of the consequences of his sin, are speaking of an eternal fire that the sinner will never endure. Eternal fire is not necessary if the judgment is not also eternal. Yes, you can squeeze the aforementioned verses into the annihilationism mold, but it’s a forced and uncomfortable fit.
Beyond that, other Scriptures teach that sinners will inhabit hell eternally.[6] Four passages in Matthew say that hell is a place of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (8:12, 13:49-50, 22:13, 25:30). These describe two responses to the judgment that’s being endured: sorrow and anger. These are described as continual, ongoing actions by those who are inhabiting hell. These are not momentary actions, but are perpetual as those who are in hell mourn the consequences of their sins.
Another potent text is Revelation 14:9-11. “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 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.” The phrases I’ve underlined here are significant for our discussion. First, the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever. Forever and ever is indisputable. This is definitely speaking of eternity future.
But what does “the smoke of their torment” mean? Annihilationists say that smoke ascending doesn’t necessarily mean anyone is actually suffering in hell, much like the smoke rose from Sodom even after it and all those in it are destroyed. But the language in this case is not “smoke of their destruction” but “smoke of their torment.” This is not the residual smoke of a past judgment, but is the ongoing smoke of their ongoing suffering. Add to this that the smoke will eventually go out if there is nothing to burn. The ongoing smoke points to unending judgment. Also notice that it says, “they have no rest day or night.” Annihilationist ideas run right contrary to this text. Those in hell have no rest day and night, forever and ever. The sufferings of hell are inescapable and eternal.
Similar language is found in Revelation 20:10, speaking of the judgment of the devil, the beast, and the false prophet. They will be “tormented day and night forever and ever.” The judgment of the devil and his minions is certainly an eternal judgment. Will mankind experience the same judgment? Jesus, in the very familiar parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, speaks of the final judgment wherein He will divide between the righteous and the sinner. The righteous will inherit the kingdom, but the sinner is cast “into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” The everlasting fire endured by the sinner is the same as the fire endured by the devil and his angels. So it seems that Revelation 20:10 describes what will be experienced by Satan and by all who follow him—torment day and night forever and ever.
When Scripture speaks of “everlasting judgment” or “eternal fire” suffered by the sinner, the natural understanding is that the judgment/fire will be experienced eternally. We contort the text to make it say, “everlasting judgment, which is eternally ceasing to exist” or “everlasting fire experienced by no-one.” The natural sense of Scripture is that the eternal fire will be suffered eternally by sinners, sinners in a resurrected body who consciously experience the judgment consequent for their own sin.
Psalm 37
I’d like to revisit Psalm 37 for a bit. Edward Fudge uses this verse as the starting point for his presentation on Annihilationism.[7] Verse 10 reads, “Yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more; Indeed, you will look carefully for his place, but it shall be no more.” Fudge interprets this as conclusively teaching that the wicked will be annihilated in the judgment. But is that what this means?
The three rules of biblical interpretation are “Context,” “Context,” and “Context.” In one sense that’s a way of emphasizing the importance of context in proper interpretation, but it also serves as a framework for proper exegesis. There are three layers of context that should inform our interpretation of any verse. First, we need to look at the immediate context: that of the verse itself and the verses immediately surrounding it. Second, we need to look at the context of the book. In this case, the entire Psalm serves as the broader context. What’s the main theme of the psalm? How are the ideas in this verse talked about throughout the Psalm? And third, we need to look at the biblical context. How does this verse fit together with the rest of Scripture?
The immediate context in this case is v9-11. These are grouped together in the NKJV translation, which indicates they are one unit of thought. They read:
For evildoers shall be cut off;
But those who wait on the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more;
Indeed, you will look carefully for his place, but it shall be no more.
But the meek shall inherit the earth
And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
Notice that the psalmist is talking here about inheriting the earth. He is addressing God’s chosen people Israel, reminding them that God’s blessings will only be experienced by the faithful. Those who trust in God are those who will enjoy the promised land. Verse 9 says, “Those who wait on the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.” And again in verse 11, “The meek shall inherit the earth.” Those who are faithful will continue to experience God’s blessing in the promised land. But the wicked have no such hope. God will establish the faithful in the land, but the wicked will be cut off. Verse 10 (coveted by Annihilationists) is sandwiched between two verses that speak, not of eternal destinies, but of the immediate consequences of rebellion against God. The wicked will have no inheritance in God’s promised land. “His place” will be no more.
The second level of context is the entirety of Psalm 37.[8] From the beginning David contrasts the futility of wickedness with the blessings of obedience. And he does so with physical blessings in view, specifically God’s promise to His people to establish them in the promised land if they remain faithful to Him. “Do not fret because of evildoers…For they shall soon be cut down like the grass…Trust in the LORD, and do good; dwell in the land, and feed on His faithfulness.” The reward for faithfulness is security in the promised land; the judgment on wickedness is being removed from the land.
That the promised land is the central theme is apparent as we continue through the Psalm, as in verse 22, “Those blessed by Him shall inherit the earth, but those cursed by Him shall be cut off.” Also verse 28: “The descendants of the wicked shall be cut off. The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell in it forever.” And verse 34: “He shall exalt you to inherit the land; when the wicked are cut off, you shall see it.” All three of these contrast inheriting the land (Canaan, the promised land) with being “cut off.” The wicked will not dwell long in God’s promised land; they will be cut off. The judgment on the wicked is not annihilation in an eternal sense. Rather, it is that God will remove them from the land of Israel.
David’s theme of the blessedness of righteousness and the futility of wickedness is in many ways a reiteration of Deuteronomy 28. In Moses’ final address to the children of Israel, he declares both God’s promises to them if they are faithful and His judgment if they are unfaithful. Both of these, in keeping with Psalm 37 (and with all of God’s dealings with Israel) emphasize physical blessings. Notice Deuteronomy 28:1: “Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the LORD your God will set you high above all nations of the earth.” After several verses promising various physical blessings, we find this in verse 9: “The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, just as He has sworn to you. The LORD will grant you plenty of goods, in the fruit of your body, in the increase of your livestock, and in the produce of your ground in the land of which the LORD swore to your fathers to give you.” If they are faithful to God, God will establish them in His land. They will prosper.
But alongside these promises for the faithful are curses for the wicked. Verse 15 says, “But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you.” What are these curses? “The LORD will send on you cursing, confusion, and rebuke in all that you set your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly…The LORD will make the plaque cling to you until He has consumed you from the land which you are going to possess.” Notice the similar language to Psalm 37. What are the consequences if Israel chooses wickedness? Destruction from God’s promised land. The wicked will not enjoy God’s blessings. But central both in Deuteronomy 28 and in Psalm 37 is not eternal annihilation, but annihilation from God’s land. And contrasted with this destruction in both passages is God’s promise to establish them in the land.
This entire scheme is more closely connected to God’s promise to Abraham to give him the land of Canaan “as an everlasting possession” (Gen. 17:8). Which of his descendants will inherit the land? The faithful. The rebellious and wicked are cut off, having no part in God’s promise to Abraham. And we find this to be true throughout Israel’s history. When they are faithful to God, He blesses them and preserves them in the land. Israel was never more blessed then when they were faithful to God. And when they abandoned Him, they suffered every curse God promised they would.
Does Psalm 37, then, teach the “annihilation” of the wicked? Yes, in the sense that the wicked were annihilated from the land of Israel. But not in any eternal sense, other than foreshadowing the greater spiritual condemnation that will come on the wicked. Using this passage to prop up Conditional Immortality is improper exegesis. Even the text itself resists that interpretation.
Getting Greek
Next, we need to deal with some of the key words used in Scripture to describe hell. This will get a bit more technical, but I encourage you to stick it out. If we believe that God inspired the very words of Scripture, we must be concerned with the specific meanings of those words. Much of the Conditional Immortality framework depends on subtle redefinitions of language.
There are three Greek words that most stubbornly resist Conditional Immortality, and thus must be redefined by Conditional Immortality proponents to make room for their alternate viewpoint. These are: apollymi, asbestos, and aionios. Apollymi is usually translated “destruction.” Asbestos means “unquenchable.” Aionios is the most significant of the three. It is the word translated “eternal” and “everlasting.” It is the standard word for eternity throughout the New Testament. Given that we are talking about the eternality of hell, our understanding of this word is crucial.
But each in its order. Let’s look first at apollymi. This is the word translated “destroy” in Matthew 10:28: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” This is perhaps the central text of the annihilationist framework. If apollymi always meant “cease to exist,” this text would be nearly irrefutable. But the word, as most Greek words, has several nuances of meaning. It can also mean “ruin” or “render useless.”[9] Walter Bauer’s lexicon says of this verse, “While ‘destroy’ is sometimes taken to mean annihilation, it does not necessarily have to imply that here.”[10] Thayer’s lexicon says that in this context, apollymi means “to devote or give over to eternal misery.”[11] Since interpretations other than “destruction” are acceptable, and are in keeping with the aforementioned Scriptures that indicate eternal conscious torment in hell, it seems better to take this in light of the other texts and not the other way around. The destruction spoken of here is a commitment to absolute ruin—eternal misery in hell.
Second, asbestos. Yes, this is the word used to name that familiar substance that was used extensively in building materials in the 20th century. The substance gained the name asbestos in the 1600s when it was used to make “incombustible” fabric – fabric that couldn’t be burned.[12] That’s a bit of a misnomer, though, since the first century meaning of the Greek word was “inextinguishable” (unable to be put out) instead of “incombustible” (unable to be burned). Asbestos is formed from “a-” (not) and “sbestos” (verbal adjective from sbennynai “to quench”).[13] Thus it means “not quenchable.”
Asbestos is used four times in the gospels, all four in reference to hell. Matthew 3:12 and Luke 3:17 both record Jesus using asbestos pyr (unquenchable fire) to describe the judgment of the wicked. Mark 9 uses the phrase twice, both times saying that hell (geenna) is a “fire that shall never be quenched” (pyr ho asbestos). If this means that the fires of hell will never go out, it definitely means hell itself is eternal, and indicates that the sufferings of hell are likely eternal as well.
But Fudge disagrees. He defines asbestos, not as eternally unquenchable, but rather as irresistible. He says the fires of hell “cannot be put out or resisted.”[14] In this sense, he believes the judgment of hell is inescapable for the wicked, not that the fire will continue eternally. But is that what this means?
It is incorrect to define asbestos as “irresistible” rather than “unquenchable.” The sense given in Mark 9:43-45 is the correct understanding: “The fire that shall never be quenched.” “Never be quenched” indicates an eternally enduring flame, not an unstoppable flame. This understanding is further enforced when we notice the companion phrase in Mark 9: “Their worm does not die.” If the worm does not die, then it follows that the fire spoken of will burn eternally. Asbestos is best understood as unending fire, not irresistible fire.
Aionios, as I said, is the most significant of the three words. It occurs 71 times in the New Testament and is usually translated “eternal” and “everlasting” (67 of 71 times).[15] In its most essential definition, it means “time out of mind” or “beyond the boundaries of time.” It is used three ways: of time without end, of time without beginning, or of time without beginning or end. Romans 16:26 describes God as “the everlasting God” (aionios theos). He is the one who always was and always will be. From eternity past He has existed; He will exist until eternity future. Aionios is used with the second meaning in 2 Timothy 1:9 when the Apostle Paul speaks of the “grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus from before time began.” God fixed His salvation plan before He framed the worlds. But aionios is used most frequently with the first meaning (time without end).
It is most often used of “eternal life” and “everlasting life.” It also used of “everlasting judgment,” “everlasting destruction,” “eternal fire,” and “eternal condemnation.” The word is used interchangeably throughout the synoptic gospels. Just the fact that the same word is used to describe the duration of both heaven and hell should lead us to conclude that they are parallel in extent. This is especially apparent in Matthew 25:46. “[The unrighteous] will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Here everlasting punishment (kolasis aionios) is contrasted with eternal life (zoe aionios). Why should we understand the judgment to eventually end while believing that life will continue for all eternity? There’s no good reason to understand them differently, unless we are determined to fit them into an annihilationist framework.
Fudge attempts to skirt the issue by shifting the definition of aionios. Rather than meaning “time out of mind,” he defines it as meaning “that which pertains to the age to come”[16] By defining it this way, he removes any connotation of time-measurement, using the term in a generic “next-life” sense. By this definition, aionios describes the things of the next age (like “heavenly”) rather than describing the duration of those things. He uses it as a characteristic rather than a time-bound measurement. But this does not fit with aionios, since it is a unit, not just a characteristic. Aionios, when used of heaven and hell, means that which continues unendingly. It does not simply mean “future things” but means “eternal, unending, everlasting things.”
He defines aionios also as “that which has unending results.” By this definition phrases like “everlasting destruction” are interpreted as total destruction or destruction from which there is no recovery. The effects of that destruction continue eternally.
But can the language bear that treatment? No. Aionios speaks of that which continues unendingly. “Everlasting destruction” should not be understood as irreversible destruction but rather as ongoing, unending destruction. It does not mean just that the effects are unending but that the punishment itself is meted unendingly.
Conditional Immortality is made plausible by some light-footed redefinitions of key Greek words, but those redefinitions only make sense if we are already committed to an that framework. But even if we take the above re-definitions proposed by Fudge, we run into interpretive issues throughout Scripture, as I’ve already attempted to show.
But I also see a bigger problem with Annihilationism. That is that no Scripture asserts that man ceases to exist in the judgment. No text of Scripture distinguishes for us between the eternal fires of hell and the eternal experience of the sinner. Yes, we can argue on the basis of what “destroy” or “death” mean, but we still don’t have a single text that tells us, “Sinners will be thrown into the eternal fires of hell, wherein their souls will cease to exist.” Hell is a significant idea in Scripture, so it seems that God would be careful to spell out for us exactly what we need to know. I believe He has. What is not spelled out is the central claim of Annihilationism: that sinners are eternally destroyed—annihilated—in hell.
Annihilationism injects ideas into Scripture rather than deducing them from Scripture. The question becomes, “Can I fit this into Scripture?” rather than “What is most clear in Scripture?” If we claim to be biblical Christians, our pursuit of the truth must be defined by the latter question, not the former. We must not fit Scripture into our claims; we submit all of our ideas to the truth of the word of God. Our obligation as believers is not to define the truth. God defines it; we submit to it. Yes, we should engage in developing systems of truth, in defining biblical truth. But ultimately, the Bible determines what is and is not true. In interpreting Scripture, our first obligation is to believe what is clearly taught. Subservient to this is our fitting those truths into a reasonable framework. We accept it before we seek to understand it. When we reject the truth until we understand it, we elevate human reason over the clear teaching of God’s word.
What Did the Anabaptists Believe about Hell?
Edward Fudge, in the video presentation I’ve already referenced, says that Annihilationism was held by some of the early Anabaptists. Being a Mennonite, I’m a bit sensitive to how we’re presented. So I did some quick digging. The Dordrecht Confession and Menno Simons both make their view quite plain; neither represent Annihilationism. Here is an excerpt from Dordrecht.
Concerning the resurrection of the dead, we confess with the mouth, and believe with the heart, according to Scripture, that in the last day all men who shall have died, and fallen asleep, shall be awaked and quickened, and shall rise again…and shall be placed before the judgment seat of Christ, and the good be separated from the wicked; that then everyone shall receive in his own body according to that he hath done, whether it be good or evil.
The wicked or impious, as accursed, shall be cast into outer darkness, yea, into the everlasting pains of hell, where their worm shall not die, nor their fire be quenched, and where they, according to holy Scripture, can nevermore expect any hope, comfort, or redemption.
(The Dordrecht Confession, Article 18)
Menno Simons speaks of hell multiple times. He says that apostates, if they do not repent, will be “damned in hell for unto eternity.”[17] Here are two more quotes from his writings.
The whole Scriptures testify that they (persecutors) shall forever bear the intolerable curse and malediction of the righteous judgment of God, and the devouring flames of hell…Their lot shall be like that of the angel of the bottomless pit—with the unbearable wrath of God, death, and hell, which shall last forever.[18]
One would be unmerciful to offer his precious soul (the soul of an impenitent man)…to the devil of hell, under the unbearable judgment, punishment, and wrath of God, so that he would forever have to suffer and bear the tortures of the unquenchable burning, the consuming fire, eternal pain, woe, and death.[19]
I’m sure it is correct that some of the early Anabaptists taught Annihilationism, but I do not think it was ever the prevailing view. In any case, it didn’t last long.
The more recent Mennonite theologian, J.C. Wenger, wrote this of hell. His position should be our own.
It is sometimes objected that it is unthinkable that a God of love should consign sinners to a place of torment forever and ever, where there is no longer any opportunity to repent, and where the punishment is obviously not redemptive. It should be observed that the doctrine of eternal punishment is not arrived at through philosophy, or through a vindictive spirit on the part of theologians. This doctrine is taught simply because it is the clear representation of the New Testament.[20]
Truth has Consequences
So what? What difference does it make if we accept Conditional Immortality? I want to look at this in three categories: orthodoxy, hamartiology, and theology.
First, orthodoxy. As I’ve alluded to, Conditional Immortality is at odds with the majority belief of Christians throughout the last two millennia. Yes, there have been Christians who have believed Annihilationism or Conditional Immortality, but it was never accepted as an orthodox view. The question we need to ask ourselves is, “Am I willing to identify with the historical Christian faith?” We Anabaptists are used to being unique, used to standing out in a crowd. I think that also makes us gravitate toward novel ideas, preferring something unconventional and a bit unique rather than the same old traditional belief. This penchant for uniqueness at times leads us off the narrow path of biblical faith.
Second, hamartiology.[21] What we believe about hell reveals a lot of what we think about sin. Hell shows us just how severe our rebellion against God truly is. He made us, gives us everything, and provides even for our salvation through Christ’s atoning blood. How severe it is, then, when we use what God has given us to rebel against Him! Every good thing comes from God (cf. James 1). How dreadful it is when we prostitute ourselves with His gifts while mocking the Giver! Eternity in hell is certainly the just consequence for willful rebellion against God. Yes, it does strike our souls to think of the eternal sufferings of the sinner. But how much greater should be our jealousy for God’s glory. None will suffer beyond what they deserve. Soberingly, sin against God earns eternal judgment.
Third, theology. What we believe about hell reveals our attitude toward God. God is the Creator of all, the Sustainer of all, and will be the Judge of all. It is God’s divine prerogative to judge as He sees fit. We can be grateful that God is Himself just, else the judgment may be beyond what we actually deserve. He has absolute authority to judge as He wills. Some say that means He doesn’t need to execute justice if He wills to save. In a sense that’s true, but it’s also true that God will never will anything that is incompatible with His character. For this reason salvation requires that God be “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:26). His perfect righteousness is met by His abundant mercy in the cross. He saves, not by compromising His justice, but by meeting the requirements of His own justice. Christ died as a propitiation that we might be saved, not by the deeds of the law, but by faith, receiving what He offers.
This also means that those who reject the gospel will suffer the just consequence for their rebellion. God will not compromise His justice. Those in Christ are redeemed by Christ’s intervening death; those outside of Christ bear the wrath themselves. We must beware of the idolatry that says, “My God would never…” Is it up to you to determine what God is allowed to do? Don’t be so arrogant. God does what He chooses. Yes, He loves. Yes, He desires to save. So much so that He did everything necessary for us to be saved. We need only receive the gospel in faith. God’s love is experienced within the gospel. Those who reject that gospel have denied God’s love and will experience only His justice.
Is This a Salvation Issue?
Is this a dividing line between true faith and false? Should we consider apostate those who believe conditional immortality? It depends. The answer either is “no” or “yes,” depending on some related factors. Do we need to have a perfect theology to be saved? No, we don’t. We are saved by faith, not by theology. Getting the truth right does not save us; getting it wrong doesn’t necessarily exclude us from salvation. I say that for two reasons. (1) The Bible only gives one condition for salvation: faith. If we believe in the heart and confess with the mouth, we will be saved (cf. Romans 10). That requires some basic theology (recognition of personal sin, surrendering to Christ, receiving redemption in His blood), but not much beyond that. (2) None of us ever gets our theology entirely correct. We all have blind spots, chinks, unknown (or known) errors in our belief system that need to be conformed to Scripture. And infant Christians are susceptible to being led astray. We are to “uphold the weak.” Or, as Jude says, “On some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.” A person can be misled or deceived and still be considered a true believer.
But the answer is sometimes “yes.” I believe Conditional Immortality departs from Scripture, not only because it mishandles Scripture but also because it does damage to other important doctrines. The theology of Conditional Immortality is incompatible with the gospel of Scripture. Since saving faith includes a surrender to God (which is demonstrated in surrender to His written word), those who resist Scripture are found to be resisting God Himself. Salvation through the gospel requires death to self that we may live to God. If we are fighting the word of God, what does that say about our posture toward God? We have no right to claim true faith while resisting the clear teachings of Scripture. If a move toward Conditional Immortality is a move away from God’s word, it is a move that resists God Himself. In this sense, this is a salvation issue. Those who accept Conditional Immortality in rebellion against the Spirit’s conviction and against the authority of Scripture may take no comfort in the gospel.
For this reason we must be stalwart in our defense of the biblical view of hell—eternal, conscious torment. Not because we like it, not because it is the most attractive, but simply because it’s what God has said in His word. If Conditional Immortality is contrary to Scripture (or incompatible with it), it is a heresy indeed. If it is a heresy, it has no place in Christ’s church. If you are a church leader, you have a responsibility to protect your flock. That means drawing a line, standing for truth, and bearing the consequences. Those who defend or promote Conditional Immortality are outside the biblical bounds. Allowing their ongoing influence can only be a detriment to the church. If a person has bound himself to a false doctrine—this one or any other—we must not hesitate to cleanse the church of their influence. We do not invite heretics to leave, we command them to. No faithful shepherd allows a wolf to mingle with the sheep.
We must be stalwart to protect ourselves and our flocks. We must also stand for the truth for the sake of purity. “A little leaven leavens the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9). If we want the pure gospel—and thus the true gospel, the only one that saves—we need to purge that which pollutes it. We Anabaptists often divide over less significant issues but fail to stand for the central claims of Scripture. We excommunicate over style of clothing or facial hair, but not over issues of truth. When is the last time you heard of a person being excommunicated for heresy? More often, false ideas are tolerated, as long as the person looks the part. But is that what God is really concerned about? Man looks on the outside; the Lord looks on the heart.
Third, we need to defend the truth for the sake of unity. Yes, I do mean we should divide for unity’s sake. True unity is not the absence of conflict; unity is agreement on the truth. Biblical unity is experienced in a common understanding of “the faith.” Our tendency is to choose between unity and the truth. Either I can stand for the truth and experience conflict, or I relax the truth and experience peace. But is that true peace? In my experience, the greatest unity is found when I and others agree on the truth. True Christian fellowship is birthed from a common faith, a common doctrine, a common love. The depth of unity experienced when we agree on the truth far surpasses the fragile unity experienced when the truth is compromised because we all just want to get along. Let us strive for the “unity of the gospel”—that is, unity in the gospel, not unity that sacrifices it.
[1] All Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version.
[2] “Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes 09/24/2011.” YouTube. Accessed December 31, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAm5ji95bBM.
[3] This is precisely why moderns prefer “Conditional Immortality” over “Annihilationism.” The latter indicates the annihilation of an otherwise eternal soul. The former indicates that a soul is only immortal if granted that life by God.
[4] Matthew 15:46
[5] As typified in “Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes” and “The Annihilation View of Hell” by Preston Sprinkle (YouTube, Accessed December 31, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nemKBJoCoKI)
[6] All of these are dealt with in Conditional Immortality arguments, but I don’t find their explanations compelling.
[7] “Edward Fudge, The Fire that Consumes”
[8] I am abridging a number of these quotes for conciseness and clarity. I encourage you to read the entire Psalm to get the full picture.
[9] Thayer, Joseph Henry. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2019. 64.
[10] Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Revised and edited by F/W Daker. Translated by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Danker. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2000. As quoted in the NET Bible, Full Notes Edition. Biblical Studies Press, 2019,
[11] Thayer, 64.
[12] “Asbestos”. Etymonline.com. Accessed January 3, 2023. https://www.etymonline.com/word/asbestos.
[13] Ibid.
[14] “Edward Fudge, The Fire that Consumes”
[15] “Aionios”. Blue Letter Bible. Accessed January 3, 2023. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g166.
[16] “Edward Fudge, The Fire that Consumes”
[17] The Complete Writings of Menno Simons (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1984), 414.
[18] Ibid., 585.
[19] Ibid., 921.
[20] John C. Wenger, Introduction to Theology (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1954), 334.
[21] “Hamartiology” is based on the Greek hamartia, meaning “to miss the mark” or more familiarly, “sin.”