Something a little different today since I didn’t preach yesterday morning (our choir presented their excellent Christmas cantata instead). I recently heard about a small kerfuffle happening in the world of evangelical culture and theology. I was first alerted to it by a Facebook post from a church member. I don’t often pay very much attention to news stories I hear about on Facebook, though, so at first, I didn’t pay it any attention. But then, listening to a couple of different news podcasts from Christian sources I trust, I heard about it again and in more detail. Apparently, in a recent podcast episode with his son, Kirk Cameron espoused a heterodox theological view that has a fairly long historical pedigree called annihilationism. The basic thrust of the position is that one day God will annihilate—that is, blink out of existence—all of those who are in Hell. This view is framed as a better picture of the justice and mercy of God. Rather than making people suffer in Hell for eternity, God will mercifully end their suffering one day. They will simply cease to exist. When a seminary professor or anonymous pastor spouts off something like that, the world mostly ignores it. When a leading figure in the world of evangelical culture espouses it on a popular podcast, a great many more people pay attention. I don’t normally respond to things like this, but I actually wrote a paper on the subject explaining the whole debate as well as defending the historically orthodox position. This doesn’t have very much to do with the Advent season except that this is the fate Jesus came to save us from, but because the debate is hot, I thought I’d chip in my two cents. The paper is almost 20 years old, but my position hasn’t changed any in that time. This may not be for everybody, but some may find it either helpful or interesting or both. Because it is longer than usual, I’ve gone the extra mile and recorded the audio, so you can just listen to the paper if you would prefer. In any event, here you go, complete with a bibliography in case you really want to track down any of my sources.

Introduction

There are a number of hot-button issues in evangelical debates today.  One such issue which is becoming increasingly controversial as it attracts more and more adherents is the idea that annihilationism is a biblical doctrine.[1]  Annihilationism is the teaching that unbelievers who resist God to the very end will not be punished forever.  Instead, at some point in the future, once they have received the just punishment for their sins, they will be annihilated by God.  With the continuing rise of postmodern culture in which judgment is a very negative thing and loving relationships are seen as the ultimate good (not that any good is truly ultimate in postmodern thought), the idea of a loving God sending people to eternal torment in hell is genuinely offensive to many unbelievers and some believers alike.  The growing reality is that as evangelicals, even if we cannot accept this doctrine as biblical (my own arguments for this position will be advanced more fully later), we still must understand this position so that we can explain why a loving God and an eternally tormenting hell are not mutually exclusive realities.  Evangelicals must realize that this is a pastorally significant issue.[2]  It is not our place to judge others as if we were God and so we must discuss the fact that those who oppose God will suffer eternally in hell very sensitively.  We must take seriously the arguments of the annihilationists because many people are listening to them and coming to similar conclusions on their own.  This is the goal of this paper.  We will begin by outlining the basic argument of the annihilationists.  After this, we will examine a few of the most relevant biblical texts on the matter and from this discussion we will outline the basic argument of the traditionalist position.  We will conclude with a brief reflection on the pastoral significance of this issue and some applications to pastoral ministry.  Ultimately we will demonstrate that a loving God and an eternal hell must be held together if we are to take seriously what the Bible teaches. 

The Annihilationist Argument

 This section will break down into three sub-units: the basic argument of annihilationists, biblical support for their position, and the theological support.  There are two aspects of this debate on which supporters of annihilationism must hang the bulk of their arguments: the first is the idea that humans only have conditional immortality,[3] the second is that the language of the destruction of the wicked in the Bible refers to their ultimate physical destruction (i.e. annihilation).[4] Another approach is to take the position of Clark Pinnock who argues, rather uncharitably, for the annihilationist position based almost solely on philosophical grounds.[5] A final basic approach is from the lens of missionary work.  Working along primarily the same philosophical lines as Pinnock, but in an overall context of missions issues, Green asks: “What sort of God would He be who could rejoice eternally in heaven with the saved while downstairs the cries of the lost make an agonizing cacophony?”[6] But, such approaches are alone not enough to begin justifying this position.  Let us examine some of the Scriptural support cited for the annihilationist position.[7]

As we have already mentioned, there are two approaches to constructing a biblical justification for annihilationism.  The first is from the position of conditionalism, which advocates conditional immortality and sees itself as a bit nicer of a position than annihilationism.  The purpose of this position is to argue that humans were not created inherently immortal and thus the immortal life granted to believers is a gift simply not given to unbelievers.  Adherents to this position will cite Rom 2:7, 1 Cor 15:51-55, 1 Tim 6:16, and 2 Tim 1:10 which seem to indicate that immortality is not something inherent in humans.[8] In spite of other problems with his analysis, Pinnock is accurate in describing this position as necessary for annihilationism, but not sufficient.[9] Indeed, given the resurrection scene in Revelation 20:12-15, why would God resurrect the unrighteous dead in order to destroy them again?  Given this lack, annihilationists must argue the biblical material more fully.  Unfortunately, there is not any single passage offering particularly strong evidence for the annihilationist position.  Instead, supporters use the argument that when it speaks of the fate of those opposed to God, the Bible consistently uses language of fire and destruction which implies just that: destruction or annihilation.[10] Peterson offers a nice summation and response to these basic Scriptural arguments for annihilationism.[11] From all our study, these are the basic Scriptural arguments in favor of this position. 

Let us now move onto the theological and philosophical support for annihilationism.  This support basically boils itself down into one simple question: How can a loving God send people to hell for eternity?  The thought is that the idea of an eternal hell squares neither with God’s love nor God’s justice.  Opponents of the traditionalist position cite the works and words of Augustine and Edwards and Spurgeon and discuss how these have done much harm to the image of the church in the modern world.[12] Pinnock asks: “What purpose of God would be served by the unending torture of the wicked except sheer vengeance and vindictiveness?”[13] Even Stott admits his fear that an eternal hell would be “a serious disproportion between sins consciously committed in time and torment consciously experienced throughout eternity.”[14] What this basically boils down to is an argument that eternal punishment does not cohere with our understanding of God’s justice.  Indeed, from our finite perspective it is difficult to reconcile a sin committed in a moment with an eternity of punishment.  We will address this more fully below.  Furthermore, annihilationists allege that eternal punishment contradicts God’s love.  If God is characterized by love and mercy, then we would expect Him to ultimately show mercy to those who have rebelled against Him.[15] We are called to love even our enemies so should God not lead the way in this incredible ethic?  A third approach is for critics to point out the universalist passages in the Bible and argue that since God desires for all to be saved, He could not eternally punish any.[16]  A final theological argument against eternal punishment is that it tarnishes God’s victory.  How can God be described as ultimately victorious when those who have rebelled against Him are still in existence?  In presenting the case for annihilationism, Boyd and Eddy point out that if the wicked are eternally existent, “instead of a glorious universal kingdom unblemished by stain, an ugly dualism will reign throughout eternity.”[17]

These are indeed great biblical and theological challenges to the traditional doctrine of the eternal punishment of the wicked and must be taken seriously.  In what follows we will analyze several of the more important passages of Scripture for the traditionalist position. 

Analysis of Relevant Biblical Texts

While there are a number of texts throughout the Bible which seem to indicate the eternality of hell for those who finally oppose God, here we will focus on those which are particularly important, namely Matt 25:31-46; the Gehenna passages in general; 2 Thess 1:5-10; Rev 14:9-12, and 20:10-15.

Matthew 25:31-46 This is the famous sheep and goats passage where Christ invites those who did “unto the least of these” to enjoy eternal life, but sends those who did not do so to eternal punishment (v. 46).  Because of their actions towards Him (ultimately), the so-called goats, are relegated to the place which was originally prepared for the devil and his angels (v. 41) which seems to indicate that this was not a place originally intended for humans.[18]  But, because of their choices, humans who reject Christ will indeed spend eternity here.  Blomberg aptly points out the parallel in v. 46 between eternal life for the righteous and eternal punishment for the unrighteous.[19] Arguing on behalf of the annihilationists and conditionalists, France avers that Matthew’s focus is not on the eternal punishment of the unrighteous, but rather the eternal consequences of their punishment: the loss of eternal life.[20] This argument is based on the language of destruction in v. 41 and simply does not do justice to what the text is saying.  The parallel being drawn is contrasting eternal life and eternal punishment.  The consequences are not life versus annihilation, but reward versus punishment.  So, in this passage, we see a picture of eternal punishment instead of annihilation. 

The Gehenna passages In Matt 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 25:41; Mark 9:43-47; Luke 12:5, and etc., Gehenna is envisioned as the final destination for the unrighteous.  The idea of Gehenna is not from classical Greek, but rather is a transliteration of the Hebrew “Valley of Hinnom.”[21]  This was a valley outside of Jerusalem which was used for dumping and burning trash and at various times for child sacrifice.  The odor from the valley was said to be horrendous and the fires never truly burned out.  Jesus’ use of this word to describe the fate of the unrighteous would have created a mental picture of a place of great torment where the fires burned incessantly but where the contents were never completely consumed.[22] In the minds of the first-century readers, this would have created an image of eternal torment, not of a finite punishment

2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 After praising the Thessalonians for their exemplary perseverance, Paul proclaims that such an example of faith “is a clear evidence of God’s righteous judgment that you will be counted worthy of God’s kingdom, for which you also are suffering, since it is righteous for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you…”[23] Paul goes on to describe this affliction from God as a penalty of everlasting destruction which is separation from the Lord (v. 9).[24]  Holmes points out that the two phrases in apposition here suggest that Paul is describing the everlasting destruction as separation from the Lord.[25] Even if this is the case, there is no concept here of an end of existence.[26]  Furthermore, Morris points out that the word translated “punishment” comes from the same root as “righteous” and “vengeance” which seems to indicate that this punishment is indeed just.[27] Finally, Peterson argues that the very fact of their separation rules out unbelievers’ annihilation because it presupposes existence.[28]

Revelation 14:9-12 In this passage, John describes the fate of all those who take the mark of the beast.  He says that they will be tormented with fire and sulfur and that “the smoke of their torment will go up forever and ever.  There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or anyone who receives the mark of his name.”[29] Pinnock acknowledges that this is the most promising text for the traditionalist position, but argues that it is the smoke that lasts forever, not their punishment.[30] This explanation, however, plays too much into modern sensibilities rather than taking seriously what is being said here.[31] Also, similar to the last passage, the damned could not suffer from no rest if they did not exist.[32]

Revelation 20:10-15 Here, just before John’s description of the new heaven and earth, he describes his vision of the final judgment and defeat of all of God’s enemies in the lake of fire.  While annihilationists want to argue that the language of destruction in this passage is unmistakable, Beasley-Murray argues that v. 10 is the strongest evidence that the lake of fire cannot indicate annihilation.[33] The reason for this is that the beast and the false prophet—thrown into the lake of fire in 19:20, before the millennium—are still in the lake of fire.  Osborne points out that the very fact of the rebellion after the millennium suggests that no amount of time will lead to self-motivated repentance.  Because sin is eternal, only eternal punishment will suffice.[34] No distinction exists between the eternal fate of the devil and his entourage and the unrighteous.  

The Traditionalist Argument

In this penultimate section we will present the argument for the traditional view of eternal punishment for the unrepentant enemies of God.  This will proceed in three sections: a brief description of the basic approach, a summary of the biblical data just surveyed, and a discussion of the theological/philosophical reasons for taking this view.  The basic approach to the traditionalist position is that the Bible clearly teaches the eternal punishment of the unrighteous.  We freely acknowledge that people have had trouble with this doctrine for centuries[35] and indeed we should—it should pain us to think of any of our friends and family as experiencing such punishment for eternity.  This view, however, best upholds the biblical evidence as well as the love and justice and righteousness of the eternal God.  If God is to be truly loving, then He must allow our choices to have real consequences.  What we must develop is a sound yet sensitive pastoral theology of the eternality of punishment for the impenitent wicked that will stand firm on the fact that our choices have eternal consequences and similarly call unbelievers to repentance here and now.  But we are digressing to later topics; let us survey the results of our biblical study above. 

As a summary of the passages examined above, it is clear that the New Testament teaches eternal punishment for the unrepentant wicked.  Before discussing further the implications of our Scriptural studies, let us briefly examine two relevant passages from the Hebrew Bible as so to not build a doctrine on a single testament.  Proponents of traditionalism often cite Isa 66:22-24 and Dan 12:1-2 in support of eternal punishment.[36] The image in Isaiah is of undying worms (which feast on the dead) and fire which will not be quenched.  Annihilationists will again point out the language of destruction here.  If the worms will not die and the fire will not be quenched, then eventually they will completely consume their subjects (i.e. annihilate them).  While we cannot build an entire eschatological system around it[37], the passage in Daniel speaks of the eternal contempt of the wicked as opposed to the eternal life of the righteous.[38]  Admittedly, this passage more clearly teaches eternal punishment than does the Isaiah passage.  There is a clear parallel here between these verses and the passage in Matt 25.  The parallel lies in the contrast between the eternal life given to the righteous and the eternal contempt (in Dan) and punishment (in Matt) given to the unrighteous.  Opponents of traditionalism will counter that Dan 12:2 only speaks of the eternal contempt of the unrighteous, not their punishment, but this is blind literalism that does not fully consider the literary comparison the author is making.  Why would the author compare eternal life with merely the memory of the annihilated unrighteous?  Would not such a memory be a stain on the joy of heaven?  Furthermore, why would God resurrect unbelievers only to annihilate them?[39] No, Daniel, in the same way as Matthew, creates a parallel between the eternal life and punishment of the righteous and unrighteous.  The image of Gehenna throughout the Gospels is of unending torment by virtue of the picture of the Valley of Hinnom in the minds of the first-century readers.  In the image of smoke going up for eternity in Rev 14, Pinnock’s argument that it is merely the smoke[40] is not convincing.  Fire needs fuel and the very fact of smoke mandates something being burned.  Smoke cannot go up eternally unless there is an eternal source of fuel—the unrighteous who have been given eternal (albeit not glorified) bodies.  Finally, the language in Rev 20 has no idea of a distinct difference in fate (eternal punishment vs. annihilation) between the devil and his minions and the unbelievers.  Thus the biblical record supports the doctrine of eternal punishment. 

Finally, let us examine the annihilationist argument that eternal punishment is contrary to the justice of God.   As already expressed, the basic argument here is that eternal punishment does not square with God’s justice.  How could God punish eternally offenses which were merely temporal?  Traditionalists have offered numerous responses to this objection.  Buis points out that “if God’s goodness demands that no one suffer for eternity, then that same goodness demands that he do something to prevent all suffering here and now.”[41] Questions of the goodness of God in the future translate into questions of God’s goodness in the present.  This can easily result in a fundamental misunderstanding of the character of God.  From another angle, Shedd points out that “those who deny the position that sin is an infinite evil forget that the principle upon which it rests is one of the commonplaces of jurisprudence: the principle, namely, that crime depends upon the object against whom it is committed as well as upon the subject who commits it.”[42] Because we were made to be eternal (a finite eternality in the sense of it having a beginning, but eternal from the point of our creation) and God is eternal, all sins are eternal rather than temporal.  Finally, as Woodier argues that if the penalty sin requires will ultimately be paid in full (the basic premise behind annihilationism[43]), would it not be much more just of God to invite these former sinners into heaven rather than annihilating them?[44] So, even though proponents of annihilationism like Stott (however tentatively he takes this position) would argue against universalism, in order to render their appeal to God’s justice logically sound, universalism is the only conclusion.  Thus we are faced with two options if God’s justice is to be understood as the annihilationists would have it: 1) universalism must be true; or 2) God must not truly be just.  Neither of these options, however, is biblically sound, and annihilationism cannot be correct.  The God we serve is just and because of His justice, sins which are eternal will receive their just punishment.  To speak briefly to Rev 20 once more, this is one purpose of the millennial kingdom of Christ.  God demonstrates that even with 1000 years of the direct reign of Christ and Satan bound, given the opportunity, people will still choose their sin over righteousness.  Because of His great love and justice, God allows people to choose to rebel against Him and persist in this choice with all of its consequences.  To do less (i.e. finally take away their choice by annihilation) would be neither loving nor just. 

Pastoral Significance and Conclusions

The doctrine of hell is surely an emotional one.  In fact, in his article, Pinnock avers:

Let me say at the outset that I consider the concept of hell as endless torment in a body and mind an outrageous doctrine, a theological and moral enormity, a bad doctrine of the tradition which needs to be changed.  How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness whose ways include inflicting everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been?  Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards, and by the gospel itself.[45]

And this is only the emotional reaction of an avowed evangelical to this doctrine!  Imagine what unbelievers must think.  While eloquent defenses of hell and the doctrine of eternal punishment have their place, such a place is not at the forefront of the proclamation of the Gospel.  Instead believers would do well to formulize a sensitive yet accurate portrayal of the consequences of persistent unbelief.  We should be very clear about the glories of the life God calls all people to live and equally clear that the results of rejecting Him will be eternal death.  Packer notes well that we must not dwell on grotesque pictures of hell.  “The horrific imaginings of the past were hardly helpful, and often in fact proved a stumbling-block, as people equated the reality of hell with the lurid word-pictures drawn by Dante, or Edwards, or C. H. Spurgeon.”[46] That being said, we must neither shy away from the doctrine for Jesus certainly did not.  Certainly the doctrine of eternal punishment is a horrendous one to consider.  Because we have the compassion of God as part of the imago Dei it is a good and right thing that we wish for none to experience such a fate.  We will not try and argue for a literal interpretation of burning fire for eternity as the most accurate picture of hell because frankly, whenever the Scriptures speak of hell they do so with metaphorical imagery.  The reality is simply that hell will be worse than anything we could possibly imagine in the same way that heaven will be far greater than anything our finite minds can comprehend—and make no mistake, both will last for eternity.  While defenses of this incredible doctrine (and we use that word in both its positive and negative senses) are necessary—especially in a postmodern world of tolerance where it is becoming more and more fashionable to not want to hold anyone accountable for anything—the real fruit of a solid, biblical understanding of the doctrine of eternal punishment should be a motivation to evangelism.  We rightfully do not want anyone subject to such a fate thus we should do everything within our power to keep them from it.  We must proclaim the full Gospel with boldness that only the Spirit can empower.  We must make our witness sure and strong because there is a telos to history and one day all people will have to stand before the great white throne and face up to all they have done.  It is only by faith that those whose names are written in the book of life will be saved.  With the Spirit’s power, let us make sure that there are as many names written there as we can. 

Selected Bibliography

Beasley-Murray, G. R. The Book of Revelation. London: Oliphants, 1974.

Blomberg, Craig A. Matthew. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Boyd, Gregory A. and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.

Brown, Colin, ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.

Buis, Harry. The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957.

Collins, John J. Daniel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Crockett, William V., ed. Four Views on Hell. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Edwards, David L. and John R. W. Stott, eds. Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue. Downers Grove: IVP, 1989.

Erickson, Millard. The Evangelical Mind and Heart. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

France, R. T. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

Fudge, Edward William and Robert A. Peterson. Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue. Downers Grove: IVP, 2000.

Goldingay, John. Daniel. Dallas: Word, 1989.

Grant, Frederick W. Facts and Theories as to a Future State. New York: Publication Office, 1889.

Green, Michael. Evangelism Through the Local Church. Nashville: Nelson, 1992.

Grounds, Vernon C. “The Final State of the Wicked.” JETS 24 (1981): 211-20.

Holmes, Michael W. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Keener, Craig. S. Matthew. Downers Grove: IVP, 1997.

________. Revelation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Kittel, Gerhard, Gerhard Friedrich, and G. W. Bromiley, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1944.

Longman III, Tremper. Daniel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

M. de S. Cameron, Nigel, ed. Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.

Moore, David George. The Battle for Hell. Lanham: UPA, 1995.

Morris, Leon. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

Osborne, Grant. Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.

Packer, J. I. “The Problem of Eternal Punishment.” Crux 26 (1990): 18-25.

Peterson, Robert A. “Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?” BSac 156 (1999): 13-27.

________. Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment. Phillipsburg, N. J.: P & R Publishing, 1995.

________. “A Traditionalist Response to John Stott’s Arguments for Annihilationism.” JETS 37 (1994): 553-68.

Pinnock, Clark. “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent.” CTR 4 (1990): 243-59.

Quarles, Charles. “The =APO of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and the Nature of Eternal Punishment.” WTJ 59 (1997): 201-11.

Rowell, Geoffrey. Hell and the Victorians: A Study of Nineteenth-Century Theological Controversies Concerning Eternal Punishment and the Future Life. Oxford: Clarendon, 1974.

Sedgwick, Colin. “Confessions of a Would-Be Annihilationist.” Evangel 21 (2003): 11-21.

Shedd, W. G. T. Dogmatic Theology. New York: Charles Scribner’s Son, 1888.

Stott, John R. W. “A Response to Professor Robert L. Reymond.” Presby 16 (1990): 127-28.

Walker, D. P. The Decline of Hell: Seventeenth-Century Discussion of Eternal Torment. Chicago: UCP, 1964.

Woodier, Martin. “Eternal Punishment?” Evangel 21 (2003): 2-11.

---

[1]Colin Sedgwick (“Confessions of a Would-Be Annihilationist,” Evangel 21 [2003]: 12-13) offers five reasons for the increasing popularity of this position among modern evangelicals.

[2]Cf. Vernon C. Grounds, “The Final State of the Wicked,” JETS 24 (1981): 220.

[3]Cf. John W. Wenham, “The Case for Conditional Immortality,” in Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, Nigel M. de S. Cameron, ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 161-91.  Cf. also Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 398-407.  Martin Woodier (“Eternal Punishment?” Evangel 21 [2003]: 3-6) offers a nice refutation of conditional immortality.

[4]This is the basic position outlined by John Stott (“John Stott’s Response to Chapter 6,” in Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue, David L. Edwards and John R. W. Stott, eds. [Downers Grove: IVP, 1989], 312-20).  Somewhat in his defense, however, Stott acknowledges that his position is tentative (cf. p. 320) rather than dogmatic and urges evangelicals to allow some flexibility on this issue, cf. Stott, “A Response to Professor Robert L. Reymond,” Presby 16 (1990): 127-28; and David George Moore, The Battle for Hell (Lanham: UPA, 1995), 4 and 12.

[5]Clark Pinnock, “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent,” CTR 4 (1990): 243-59.

[6]Michael Green, Evangelism Through the Local Church (Nashville: Nelson, 1992), 72.

[7]For a basic outline of the Scriptural support often used to justify annihilationism see Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 259-63.

[8]Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), 23; Wenham, “Conditional Immortality,” 175; and Pinnock, “Destruction,” 252-53.

[9]Pinnock, “Destruction,” 252-53.

[10]Cf. Wenham, “Conditional Immortality,” 169-74; Fudge and Peterson, Two Views, 24-79; Stott, “Response,” 312-20; and Peterson’s counterarguments in Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (Phillipsburg, N. J.: P & R Publishing, 1995), 162-70.

[11]Robert A. Peterson, “A Traditionalist Response to John Stott’s Arguments for Annihilationism,” JETS 37 (1994): 554-61.  Cf. also Robert A. Peterson, “Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?” BSac 156 (1999): 14-19.

[12]Cf. Fudge and Peterson, Two Views, 19-21; and Pinnock, “Destruction,” 244-45. 

[13]Pinnock, “Destruction,” 254. 

[14]Stott, “Response,” 318.

[15]Boyd and Eddy, Across the Spectrum, 263.  

[16]Stott, “Response,” 319.

[17]Boyd and Eddy, Across the Spectrum, 263.  While we will not have time to go fully into countering this argument, one response is that those opposed to God will be eternally and completely separated from the source of all being; thus, they will not have a true existence.

[18]Craig. S. Keener, Matthew (Downers Grove: IVP, 1997), 362.

[19]Craig A. Blomberg, Matthew (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 379.

[20]R. T. France, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 967.

[21]Cf. articles for gevena in both NIDNTT (2:208-9) and TDNT (1:657-58) by H. Bientenhard and Joachim Jeremias, respectively for fuller discussions of the background of this word. 

[22]Cf. Blomberg’s explanation in Matthew, 107.

[23]2 Thess 1:5-6 (HCSB).

[24]Charles Quarles (“The =APO of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and the Nature of Eternal Punishment,” WTJ 59 [1997]: 201-11) offers a helpful exegetical study of v. 9.

[25]Michael W. Holmes, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 213-14. 

[26]Cf. Leon Morris, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 204-5.

[27]Morris, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 204.

[28]Peterson, Hell on Trial, 81.

[29]Rev 14:11 (HCSB). 

[30]William V. Crockett, ed. Four Views on Hell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 157.  Contra Pinnock, cf. Grant Osborne’s explanation of the smoke and its OT background (Revelation [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002], 542.

[31]Cf. Robert H. Mounce’s argument that “what the angel has proclaimed so vividly must not be undermined by euphemistic redefinition,” (The Book of Revelation [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 277).

[32]Craig S. Keener, Revelation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 375.

[33]G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (London: Oliphants, 1974), 304.

[34]Osborne, Revelation, 717.

[35]Cf. Frederick W. Grant, Facts and Theories as to a Future State (New York: Publication Office, 1889); Geoffrey Rowell, Hell and the Victorians: A Study of Nineteenth-Century Theological Controversies Concerning Eternal Punishment and the Future Life (Oxford: Clarendon, 1974); and D. P. Walker, The Decline of Hell: Seventeenth-Century Discussion of Eternal Torment (Chicago: UCP, 1964).  Cf. also C. S. Lewis (The Problem of Pain [New York: The Macmillan Co., 1944], 106) who, although confessing his desire to remove the doctrine of hell, nevertheless concedes that is it entirely biblical.  Pinnock (“Destruction,” 247) argues that this very fact should point us to annihilationism as the truth, but this only confirms that humans share the compassion of God, even if it is distorted by the Fall.

[36]Cf. Peterson, Hell on Trial, 29-36.

[37]John Goldingay, Daniel (Dallas: Word, 1989), 308.

[38]Cf. arguments by John J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 393; Tremper Longman III, Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 284; and esp. Goldingay, Daniel, 319 who although arguing against eternal pain, nonetheless argues for eternal shame.

[39]Cf. Collins, Daniel, 391-93.  

[40]Crockett, Four Views, 157.

[41]Harry Buis, The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957), 120-21. 

[42]W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Son, 1888), 740.

[43]And if this is not the basic premise then God is not just, for justice mandates proper consequences for transgressions.  

[44]Woodier, “Eternal Punishment?” 8-9. 

[45]Pinnock, “Destruction,” 246-47.  Millard Erickson (The Evangelical Mind and Heart [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993], 152) sagely observes that while Pinnock is certainly entitled to this opinion, he had better be certain that he is correct because otherwise this statement is grossly blasphemous. 

[46]J. I. Packer, “The Problem of Eternal Punishment,” Crux 26 (1990): 25.