I am persuaded that annihilationism is a valid evangelical interpretation of the doctrine of final punishment. I do not think that traditionalists and conditionalists should break fellowship over this issue. We can and should engage in respectful dialogue with those with whom we disagree.1Sadly, this is not always the case. As Edward Fudge notes, traditionalist Robert Morey accuses conditionalists of “holding a weak view of Scripture” while trying to “justify their wicked lives” and “defend their evil ways.” John MacArthur dismisses annihilationists as “so-called scholars who find ways to manipulate the text” and accuses them of “poisoning evangelicalism with unbelief.” It seems particularly the case that traditionalists are untempered in their expressed opinion of annihilationists, though conditionalists can certainly give as good as they get!
Having said that, our understanding of final punishment is hardly unimportant. Our doctrine of final punishment does speak to our view of God. The traditionalist case is sometimes made that “the god of annihilationism” is too soft, and that the position does not magnify the justice and wrath of God as the Bible does. Conditionalists frequently counter that “the traditionalist god” is overly harsh.2Clark Pinnock, for example, suggests that traditionalism portrays God as “a vindictive and sadistic punisher.” He adds that it paints the picture of a deity of “cruelty and vindictiveness” and that “torturing people forever is an action easier to associate with Satan than with God.” See Clark H. Pinnock, Four Views of Hell (first edition) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 137, 140.
I have no desire to add to the mud-slinging. I do not wish to accuse anyone of holding a view of God that they do not hold. My goal is simply to ask the question, does annihilationism take seriously the holy character of God as it is revealed in Scripture?
Revelation Versus Imagination
Traditionalists sometimes allege that eternal, conscious torment is a far severer punishment than annihilationism. Some traditionalists disagree, but they are typically those whose understanding of traditionalism is the kinder variety that is associated with much modern evangelicalism, rather than the tortuous vision of Augustine or Jonathan Edwards. If hell is portrayed as “eternal separation” with little to no physical pain, it might be conceded that death is severer. But those who hold that hell involves the eternal infliction of extreme physical pain tend to insist that traditionalism is a worse penalty than annihilationism.
In one sense, this line of reasoning is understandable. In our experience, we sometimes view death as relief from suffering. In his autobiographical Second World War account, Edgar Harrell tells of his experiences floating at sea after the sinking of the USS Indianapolis. He writes of the immense physical suffering that he and his fellow crewmen experienced in the frigid waters of the Philippine Sea and recalls trained soldiers “thrashing about in mental and physical agony.” Hypothermia and dehydration claimed the lives of hundreds, while sharks regularly picked off stragglers. He writes, “Some of the dead had lost limbs from the torpedo explosion or were disemboweled by the sharks. I’m sure they welcomed death as a merciful reprieve from their excruciating pain.”3Edgar Harrell, with David Harrell, Out of the Depths: An Unforgettable WWII Story of Survival, Courage, and the Sinking of the USS Indianapolis (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2005), Kindle edition (location 853).
If hell is what Edwards imagined it to be, it is understandable that traditionalists would argue as they do. As natural as it is for an unbeliever to fear death (Hebrews 2:15), I imagine that those suffering for eternity in a traditional view of hell would far rather die than continue existence in that kind of torment. However, just because eternal, conscious torment is experientially worse doesn’t mean that it is severer. We should think in theological rather than experiential terms.
To suggest that suffering is severer than death seems to undermine what the Bible teaches about the sanctity of human life. In the Bible, human life is intrinsically valuable, even if it includes suffering, and the loss of life is always considered the ultimate penalty.
However, let us, for the sake of argument, grant the traditionalist that eternal, conscious suffering is a severer form of punishment. That still does not settle the question. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that the just punishment for sin must be the worst punishment imaginable. If we can imagine a punishment severer than what God reveals, God is not bound by the terms of justice to inflict the severer penalty. God will do what is just, not necessarily what is severest.
The question to be asked, then, is not which punishment is worse, but which punishment is revealed in Scripture. If the Bible teaches the final destruction of the wicked, then the severer nature of eternal, conscious torment is irrelevant to the discussion.
The Character of God
Annihilationism takes very seriously the scriptural teaching on the character of God. To suggest that God will destroy rather than eternally torment sinners in no way negates the biblical vision of his holiness. God determined from the creation of humanity that the penalty for sin would be death. In human society, capital punishment is considered the ultimate punishment for crime, even though we might be able to imagine punishment severer than death. In fact, when it comes to particularly heinous crimes, people sometimes suggest that death is “too kind” a punishment for the criminal.
Take, for example, these words from Gary Raymond Hope:
Capital punishment is a subject that divides Americans. Certainly with the advent of DNA testing in the last few years that has proven the innocence of several death row inmates, it makes for an interesting debate. I admit, there are certain crimes so heinous in nature it only seems fair to administer the death sentence to those individuals, or does it?
If I had a friend or family member killed and the killer was tried and found guilty, what would I want? A needle with an injection that knocks him out humanely, then stops his heart? A firing squad that kills him immediately? Electric chair? That may take 5 or 10 seconds and seemingly induce a lot of pain. All these are certainly choices that may seem just and fair; however, not what I would choose.
Gary, do you mean you wouldn’t want to punish a convicted killer? One who may have wantonly killed a friend or relative of yours? No, I didn’t say that. I most certainly do want to punish him (or her, political correctness you know), but I truly want to punish, long and hard. A quick killing is too kind, it’s over and the person probably felt no pain … how just is that? For me, their punishment should last as long as we can make it.
Gary Raymond Hope, Got Truth? (Bloomington: iUniverse, Inc., 2005), 49.
That is exactly the reason that God gave the law of just retaliation. Humans can be harsher than God.
While the Bible clearly reveals that God hates sin and is determined to punish it, it also teaches that “his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor, a lifetime.” (Psalm 30:5). We are told, “He will not always accuse us or be angry forever” (Psalm 103:9). There is no good, biblical reason to assume that God’s anger must be forever actively displayed against sin. His wrath can be satisfied by completely destroying sinners.
Some argue that wrath is a cardinal divine quality, and that if wrath is not actively exercised for all eternity, it somehow removes an aspect of who he has revealed himself to be. One wonders, however, in what way God’s wrath was eternally on display in eternity past, before anything was created. If it was not necessary for his wrath to be actively displayed in eternity past, why should we assume that it must be actively displayed in eternity future?
Annihilationism affirms everything the Bible teaches about God’s majesty, holiness, righteousness and wrath. But annihilationists do not see eternal, conscious torment as the only suitable punishment for sin in the light of these attributes. If God has determined that his wrath can be satisfied by destroying the wicked, who are we to suggest that he must instead consciously torment them for all eternity?
The Sinfulness of Sin
Conditionalism likewise affirms everything the Bible says about the sinfulness of sin. All sin is an offense against God’s holiness. Joseph affirmed this when he said that to sin against Potiphar would be to sin against God (Genesis 39:8–9). Though David sinned against Bathsheba and Uriah, he ultimately recognized that his sin was against God (Psalm 51:1–4).
Sin is ultimately an attack against God. “The mind-set of the flesh is hostile to God because it does not submit to God’s law” (Romans 8:7). God’s “eyes are too pure to look on evil, and [he] cannot tolerate wrongdoing” (Habakkuk 1:13). God’s holiness demands that he must punish sin, but the penalty for sin must be determined by God. The Bible consistently affirms that the just penalty is death, not torment.
The Nature of Punishment
Annihilationism does not deny the nature of biblical punishment. The Bible portrays final judgment as “the wine of God’s wrath, which is poured full strength into the cup of his anger” (Revelation 14:10). The final judgment is God’s retribution against sin. At the final punishment, God will be seen to “take vengeance with flaming fire on those who don’t know God and on those who don’t obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thessalonians 1:8). Hell is not restorative; it is punitive. It is final and irreversible. Those who have sinned against God, and have not embraced forgiveness in Jesus Christ, will be punished by a holy God who hates sin.
None of the above demands eternal, conscious torment.
Recent Comments