Introduction
For years, the doctrine of eternal conscious torment—often framed as “everlasting hellfire”—has troubled me more deeply than I initially cared to admit. It is not merely an abstract theological puzzle but a lived and persistent burden. If I do not believe in the traditional view of an eternally burning hell, why does the topic continue to weigh so heavily on me? Why write about it at all? Even those close to me, including my wife, have worried that such sustained focus on death, judgment, and the afterlife might indicate some hidden melancholy. Yet the more I reflect, the more I recognize that this inquiry is not born of despair but of a sincere desire to understand God more faithfully and to represent Him truthfully in what I believe and teach.
To address the questions that troubled me, I found it necessary to step back and place my life—and my faith—in a fuller context. Over the years, I have critically re-examined many doctrines from my Christian upbringing. Some beliefs I have affirmed; others I have revised or relinquished. Among the most difficult doctrines to reconsider has been that of final punishment. At stake are not only theological consistency and biblical fidelity but also pastoral concerns, existential questions, and the very character of God.
As I have aged, the cumulative losses of loved ones—parents, in-laws, my first wife, friends, classmates—have pressed on me with growing emotional weight. Like many others, I have wondered: Where are they now… or, are they anywhere at all? I have heard people, even those with very little religious conviction, express the hope that their loved ones “are looking down” on them. These hopes reflect something deeply human: the intuition that life is fragile, that death is not trivial, and that what comes next matters profoundly.
My study of Scripture and Christian history has not yielded a single, coherent, universally accepted narrative about what happens after death—nor should one expect such unanimity. Yet I have become convinced that the view I was raised with—that the soul is not inherently immortal, and that immortality is a gift from God given only to the redeemed—remains biblically sound and theologically compelling. In this chapter, I explore why I believe the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment (ECT) developed, why I reject it, and why conditional immortality (also called annihilationism) offers a more faithful reading of Scripture and a more coherent portrayal of divine justice.
The Weight of the Question: Personal and Theological Motivations
My concern about the doctrine of hell is not academic detachment; it is a pastoral and existential struggle. The doctrine touches every aspect of life: grief, hope, justice, and the character of God. Scholars note that eschatology often becomes personal precisely because the questions it raises—death, justice, suffering—are themselves personal.(1) When I ask what happens when the “final buzzer sounds,” I am not merely theorizing; I am grappling with realities that shape how I understand God’s goodness.
The doctrine of eternal torment poses three profound challenges:
The moral challenge: How can endless conscious suffering be morally proportional?
The biblical challenge: Does Scripture actually teach the soul’s inherent immortality or endless torment?
The historical challenge: How did the early Church come to adopt a view so deeply shaped by Greek philosophical assumptions?
These questions compel deeper study not out of doubt but out of devotion—to God’s Word and God’s character.
The Biblical Case for Conditional Immortality
The conviction that humans are inherently immortal is not derived from Hebrew Scripture. Instead, immortality is consistently presented as God’s attribute alone (“who alone has immortality,” 1 Tim. 6:16). Human immortality is conditional, bestowed through access to the tree of life (Gen. 3:22). After the fall, humanity’s exclusion from the tree signifies the loss of immortality; death becomes inevitable, not merely physical but existential.
Conditionalists argue that the Bible presents two and only two destinies:
Life (eternal), granted as a gift through Christ.
Death (final), the cessation of life for those who reject God.
The vocabulary of destruction—apollymi (“to destroy, to perish”), thanatos (death), olethros (“ruin, destruction”), phthora (“corruption”)—dominates biblical descriptions of final judgment.(2) Conditional immortality fits naturally into this linguistic pattern: the wicked perish; they do not live forever in torment.
Two passages commonly marshalled in favor of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) are Matthew 25:46 (“eternal punishment”) and Revelation 14:11 / 20:10 (imagery of torment “forever”). Conditionalists respond on several fronts: (a) the weight of biblical language for “destruction” and “perish” argues for final cessation as a possible reading; (b) apocalyptic and poetic texts (especially Revelation and prophetic Old Testament imagery) use vivid, symbolic language that must be interpreted in light of genre and the broader canon; and (c) the New Testament repeatedly links the wages of sin to death and contrasts destruction with the gift of eternal life (e.g., Rom. 6:23; John 3:16). Edward Fudge’s comprehensive study is the contemporary exemplar of this approach: he argues that when the full biblical vocabulary and ancient contexts are considered, the case for annihilation as the final penalty is both plausible and coherent.(2)
Objections and replies
Objection A — Revelation and “forever” language: Critics point to Revelation’s “forever and ever” language and the picture of the undying worm. Reply: Revelation is highly symbolic; the grammar and rhetorical function of aiōnios in some contexts may denote the permanence of the result rather than temporal duration of pain. This is a contested exegetical move, but one that respected scholars on both sides of the debate (and in particular Fudge’s careful lexical and contextual work) take seriously.(3)
Objection B — Jesus’ use of Gehenna and “undying worm”: Reply: Jesus uses hyperbolic, symbolic imagery (Gehenna, worm, unquenchable fire) to warn of irrevocable judgment. The force of those images need not be reduced; conditionalists insist they carry great warning power while still allowing that the final effect of divine judgment is decisive destruction. Responding to this objection requires sustained exegesis of each text rather than dismissal.(4)
Objection C — pastoral fear and urgency: Some critics say conditionalism undercuts evangelistic urgency by softening hell. Reply: conditionalists strongly affirm the reality and terror of final judgment; destruction is not necessarily less severe—indeed, annihilation as a final condemnation is sobering. Many conditionalists (including evangelical teachers) see the view as heightening, not diminishing, the need for repentance.(5)
Indeed, for balanced, dialogical treatments of ECT and Conditionalism see Two Views of Hell (Fudge and Robert Peterson), which stages the core exegetical arguments for both sides.(6)
Hebrew Anthropology and the Nature of the Soul
A growing body of scholarship agrees that ancient Israel did not conceive of humans as inherently immortal souls temporarily housed in physical bodies.(7) The Hebrew nephesh refers to a living, embodied being—not a detachable, death-proof soul. Death in the Hebrew Bible is the loss of life, not the relocation of the soul to a different realm.
The notion of an innately immortal soul is not found in early Judaism. Instead, it emerges predominantly through the influence of Greek thought, especially Platonic dualism.
Intertestamental Developments and the Influence of Greek Thought
Between the Testaments, exposure to Hellenistic culture introduced new ideas about the soul’s immortality. Scholars such as N. T. Wright and Alan Segal have shown that Jewish views diversified during this period, with some groups adopting Greek-influenced concepts of the afterlife.(8) Still, even then, eternal torment was not the dominant Jewish view; annihilation or post-mortem purification were more common.
Thus, by the time of the New Testament, Jewish eschatology was a complex mixture—but the immortality of the soul remained foreign to the Hebrew worldview from which Jesus and the earliest Christians emerged.
The New Testament Witness: Life vs. Destruction
Jesus’ language consistently contrasts life with destruction (Matt. 7:13–14). Paul teaches that the wages of sin is death, not everlasting torment (Rom. 6:23). John’s Gospel proclaims that believers “shall not perish (apolētai) but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Peter speaks of the wicked being “like animals,” destined to “perish” (2 Pet. 2:12).
If the wicked were destined for endless life in torment, the promise of eternal life would be redundant: everyone would live forever, just in different conditions. Conditionalism offers a number of theological advantages that make it worth taking seriously:
Proportionality and divine justice. If human life is finite, then an infinite punishment for finite sin invites questions about proportionality and justice. Conditionalism preserves divine holiness and the seriousness of sin while avoiding the moral paradox that infinite conscious punishment would present for many readers. (This is one reason John Wenham and others have found the view compelling.)(9)
Christ’s victory and “It is finished.” What I find extremely objectionable about the hell doctrine (as taught by many within the Christian church) is how it conflicts with and seems to contradict so much of scripture. It fails to portray God as our Loving Father; instead it all but brands God in an extremely distorted and hateful manner no matter what kind of language is used to try to mitigate the impact. To believe the hell story, one would have to accept that the elimination of sin (through death) is not enough. Further, ECT diminishes the sacrifice of Christ by suggesting when Jesus proclaimed, “It is finished!”…it really wasn’t. Such a hell means that the problem of sin remains for all time and thus the need for unbelieving sinners to be eternally punished by a god who also continues to sustain them so the torment can continue.
Jesus did not, “sort of” defeat sin, either he defeated sin for all time or he did not. When he said, “It is finished” it was indeed finished. When he took on the punishment for sin in order to restore all creation, he did just that. He took on the death that he had warned Adam about, so long ago, and he defeated it. Christ did not come to somehow mitigate the effects of sin for a small percentage of humanity – he did not come to mitigate sin but to defeat it. And He did.
If Christ’s atoning work decisively defeats death and secures eternal life for believers, conditionalists argue that it is more coherent to read “final” judgment language as destruction of evil’s power and, where appropriate, of the evildoer’s existence, rather than an everlasting perpetuation of the problem Christ resolved (cf. Rom. 6:9–10; John 3:16). Fudge and other conditionalists emphasize that “eternal punishment” can reasonably be understood as an eternal effect (permanent destruction), not necessarily endless process.(10)
3. Scriptural economy. A careful, lexically sensitive reading shows many more NT occurrences of words like “perish,” “destroy,” and “death” than unambiguous instances of “eternal conscious torment.” Conditionalists argue that the natural reading of the biblical testimony, taken as a whole, points toward death/destruction as the final outcome for the lost.(11)
Historical Development: How Eternal Torment Became Dominant
6.1 Plato and the Immortal Soul
Plato argued for the soul’s inherent immortality in the Phaedo, a concept entirely foreign to Hebrew anthropology.(12) Early Christian thinkers educated in Greek philosophy—particularly in Alexandria—found these ideas compelling and integrated them with Christian doctrine.
6.2 Tertullian and Augustine
Tertullian was perhaps the earliest explicit advocate of eternal conscious torment among major theologians, grounding the doctrine not in Scripture but in the philosophical axiom that the soul cannot be destroyed.(13) Augustine, influenced by Neoplatonism, developed this further, arguing that because the soul is immortal, the wicked must live forever in punishment.(14) Augustine’s immense influence cemented ECT as the dominant view in Western Christianity.
Scripture Through Latin Eyes: The Vulgate and Western Trajectory
Jerome’s Vulgate translation of key terms—especially aionion (eternal) and gehenna—reinforced Augustine’s interpretations. Over time, theological tradition overshadowed biblical language. As Edward Fudge has documented, many assumptions about hell became embedded through centuries of unexamined repetition rather than careful exegesis.(15)
Reconsidering “Eternal Punishment”
Conditionalists do not deny “eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46). But they argue that the punishment is irreversible destruction—not ongoing consciousness. The adjective aionios (“eternal”) describes the permanence of the punishment’s effect, not the duration of the process. The same principle applies to “eternal judgment” or “eternal redemption”—neither is a process that continues forever, but each has everlasting consequences.
Thus, “eternal punishment” naturally refers to a punishment whose result is eternal: death.
Pastoral and Ethical Implications
My rejection of eternal torment is not motivated by sentimentality. Rather, I find conditional immortality to be:
more biblically coherent,
more historically grounded in earliest Christian belief,
more philosophically consistent with justice, and
more theologically reflective of a God whose character is righteous, merciful, and faithful.
To teach that God sustains the eternal life of the wicked solely for torment misrepresents His heart and distorts His justice. To teach that He allows the wicked to perish honors both His holiness and His mercy.
Conclusion and an invitation to disciplined study
Conditional immortality is a serious, biblically argued, historically informed alternative to Eternal Conscious Torment. The case is cumulative: it depends on lexical practice in the Old and New Testaments, canonical theological themes (death as the consequence of sin; immortality as God’s gift), careful genre-sensitive readings of apocalyptic and prophetic texts, and a historically aware account of how Hellenistic philosophical categories interacted with Jewish and Christian theology.
Major contemporary resources to consult include Edward Fudge’s The Fire That Consumes (revised editions) for a thorough case; John Wenham’s writings as an influential evangelical voice; and balanced dialogues such as Two Views of Hell (Fudge and Peterson) and critical responses collected in Hell Under Fire (Morgan & Peterson) for the counterarguments. Reading these helps transform the conversation from emotive polemic into sober theological debate.
My conviction in conditional immortality springs from years of study, reflection, and prayer. It is rooted in Scripture, informed by scholarship, and shaped by personal encounters with death and loss. I present this view not to provoke but to bear witness to what I believe is a more faithful and coherent understanding of God’s revealed character. Ultimately, annihilationism is scripturally sound and upholds both the holiness and goodness of God: the wicked truly die, and the redeemed truly live.
______________________
Endnotes
Richard Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 3–12.
Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011), 38–65.
Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 3rd edition
Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes
Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes
Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue, ivpress.com
John W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism–Dualism Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 24–59.
Alan F. Segal, Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 131–204; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).
John William Wenham, “The Goodness of God.”
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Goodness_of_God.html?id=qMUqAQAAMAAJ&utm_source=chatgpt.com
Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: The Biblical Case for Conditional Immortality. https://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Fire_That_Consumes.html?id=TggfAAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
Wikipedia, “Annihilationism,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Plato, Phaedo, in Plato: Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997).
Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1885).
Augustine, The City of God, trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin, 2003), esp. Book XXI.
Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 163–215.
______________________
Bibliography
Augustine. The City of God. Translated by Henry Bettenson. London: Penguin, 2003.
Bauckham, Richard. The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Cooper, John W. Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism–Dualism Debate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Fudge, Edward W. The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment. 3rd ed. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011.
Plato. Phaedo. In Plato: Complete Works, edited by John M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
Segal, Alan F. Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion. New York: Doubleday, 2004.
Tertullian. A Treatise on the Soul. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1885.
Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
No comments:
Post a Comment