Defense of Annihilation
I intend to present a Biblical defense of Annihilationism. I don’t think that the doctrine of Annihilation is the product of the “philosophy shop”. In fact, I think the Classic view of unending conscious torment is partly the result of the influence of Hellenistic philosophy which posits the immortality of the soul. Annihilationists take seriously that we are not immortal and that there was a time in the past when we did not exist and that it is certainly feasible that there will be a time when the unsaved will cease to exist.
The torments of an unending conscious state are suppose to inspire fear, but it is my opinion that the Classic view actually has the opposite effect. The Classic view goes so against the common sense of justice that it is dismissed out of court. Also, people actually take comfort in eternal life even if it is in (their version of) “Hell”. I have heard more the one person say something to the effect that they would rather be in Hell with the sinners than in Heaven with the “church goers”. Besides, the argument that unending conscious torment is needed to inspire fear makes God a justifier of means by the ends. God has to set up an inherently unjust situation (persons experiencing unending torment) to justify the ends of scaring people to follow the way.
If the Classic view is not Biblical and true, then I do think it is a big deal to misrepresent the nature and character of God. This misrepresentation can have disastrous effects. Of course, truth is not necessarily dependent upon consequences and if Hell is unending conscious torment then it is so even if that doctrine leads more people there! This is why Annihilation ought to be based on the Bible and not our sense of justice for we could be deceived.
(1) When discussing eternal destiny, Scripture often contrasts “eternal life” or life with some other destiny:
(a) Matthew 25:26 eternal punishment (does not equal “eternally punishing”)
(b) John 3:16 perish
(c) John 3:36 will not see life; wrath of God remains on him
(d) 2 Corinthians 2:15-16 of death unto death
(e) Romans 6:23 death
(f) Psalm 69:28 blotted out of the book of the living
(g) Revelation 3:5 blot your name out of the book of life
(h) Revelation 20:15 not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire
These contrasts would simply not make sense if what is contrasted with eternal life or life is itself eternal life, albeit one spent in torment.
(2) Other Scriptural metaphors and descriptions make better sense when viewed as Annihilation:
(a) Second death, Revelation 20:6, 14; 21:8
(b) Reduce to ashes, 2 Peter 2:6
(c) Blot out their names from under heaven, Deuteronomy 29:20
(d) Destroyed, consumed, Isaiah 1:28
(e) Like chaff, Psalm 1:5
(f) Perish, Psalm 1:6
(g) Fade, wither, Psalm 37:2
(h) Vanish away, Psalm 37:20
(i) Altogether destroyed, Psalm 37:38
(j) Not a trace to be found, Daniel 2:35
(k) Consumed like dry straw, Nahum 1:10
(l) Are no more, Proverbs 10:25
(m) Consumed by fire, Matthew 13:40
(n) Destroy both body and soul in hell, Matthew 10:28
(o) Outer darkness, Matthew 22:13 (this would be a good figurative description of annihilation)
(p) Be as though they have never been, Obadiah 16
It is hard to explain these away according to the Classic scheme. When something is thrown into fire, the consequence is “consumption”, a reduction to ashes, and it is this effect that is the key to the metaphor and this is true even if the fire is to be taken quite literally; but note the metaphor of “outer darkness” which seems to preclude fire which gives off light. Jesus and the Biblical writers are free to use figurative language if they want. After all, the Classic view has to claim that the “second death” in Revelation is merely figurative because in reality, according to their scheme, a person lives forever in unending torment.
(3) Verses used by the Classic view:
(a) Revelation 14:11: “the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever”; Revelation 20:10: they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” First, the phrase “forever and ever” can be translated as “for ages of ages” which does not necessarily mean unending. Second, similarities between these verses and Isaiah 34:9-10 are remarkable and this is important because the language in Isaiah cannot be interpreted literally as unending.
(b) Luke 16:19-31: First, it is not clear that this is not a parable; Jesus told many parables and a parable can be a parable without the preamble “now Jesus told them a parable”; a parable can be a parable even if persons in them are named, especially if the name itself is significant—Jesus may have deliberately picked the name Lazarus because the parable ends with a comment about someone rising from the dead to warn (the main point of the parable) and it was Lazarus who was raised from the dead in John. That this passage is a parable is shown by the detail that people can communicate between hell and the other side. There is no reason to believe that the final state of the saved would concern themselves with those suffering in unending torment (for one thing, it goes against the injunction to love enemies). The main point of the passage is not to teach about the afterlife and so the supporting details are just props (compare the parable of the dishonest manager in the same chapter in Luke, where the supporting details are definitely props). Second, even if the passage is about Jesus’ real views of the afterlife, there is a strand of belief at this time that there was an abode of the dead prior to the resurrection and final destiny. The idea of “paradise” in Luke 23:43 is similar.
(c) Matthew 13:42; 22:13: weeping and gnashing teeth do not necessarily imply unending torment. One can weep and gnash teeth immediately before being annihilated. This brings up the important point that Annihilationists are not committed to the position that the wicked are not punished after death; it is the unending part of the equation that is rejected. Punishment is everlasting in effect not in duration.
(d) Mark 9:48: the figurative language here is only meant to show that Hell is everlasting in effect and not in duration. It is interesting to point out that this language is also in Isaiah 66:24 and there the referent is to a corpse and not a conscious person undergoing unending torment.
(4) The Classic view is inconsistent with the teaching in Scripture that the anger of God last for a moment but his mercy lasts forever (Psalm 30:5; 103:8-14). The Classic view turns this on its head.
(5) One of the words for hell in Scripture is Gehenna, which comes from the Hebrew Hinnom which refers to the Hinnom valley which may have been associated with fire for various reasons. Again, the idea of hell in this case most likely refers to being consumed in fire as garbage is consumed in a dump or as things are consumed in sacrifice.
(6) The Classic view is inconsistent with God’s love. Even if it is claimed that sinners are responsible for their hellish state, it is allowed and the whole hell-business would have to be “sustained” (see Hebrews 1:3).
(7) The Classic view is inconsistent with God’s ultimate victory. It would be odd to say that God is all in all or that Jesus is over all if there continues to exist a part of the universe where beings are tormented forever.