Undying Worm, Unquenchable Fire

What is hell-eternal torment or annihilation? A look

at the Evangelical Alliance’s The Nature of Hell.

 

By Robert A. Peterson | posted 10/13/00

It was six pages near the end of the book that

exploded like a bombshell within evangelicalism. The

book was Evangelical Essentials (InterVarsity) and the

year was 1988. As the book’s subtitle announced, it

was A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue between liberal

Anglican David L. Edwards and evangelical Anglican

John Stott. For 338 pages, Edwards and Stott ranged

over many issues, including the gospel, biblical

authority, miracles, ethics, and missions. But near

the end, in those six pages, Stott tentatively

defended annihilationism-the view that unbelievers are

finally annihilated and thus do not experience torment

that is eternal in duration (as traditionalists

believe).

 

Traditionalists, who make up most of evangelicalism,

were shocked. Some, like John H. Gerstner, went so far

as to question Stott’s salvation. Evangelicals have

been debating the subject ever since, both sides

producing books and articles defending their views and

contesting the opposition.

 

Out of England came another book this past April, but

of a different order: The Nature of Hell: A Report by

the Evangelical Alliance Commission of Unity and Truth

Among Evangelicals. It is an evenhanded introduction

to the historical, biblical, and theological issues

that pertain to the evangelical debate over the nature

and duration of hell. I have been studying these

matters for seven years, have written two books on

hell, and I regard this work as an outstanding

resource for quickly accessing the issues. It is also

a model of how evangelicals can agree to disagree.

 

The hell debate

With the publication of Stott’s views, evangelicals

were spurred to study the issue more deeply and to

respond. Perhaps emboldened by Stott’s example, others

followed and declared their commitment to

annihilationism: Philip E. Hughes resigned from

Westminster Seminary and wrote The True Image: The

Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Eerdmans, 1989),

toward the end of which he took an annihilationist

stance. A 1992 Baker collection of essays,

Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, included a

piece by John W. Wenham, “The Case for Conditional

Immortality.” Conditional immortality, or

conditionalism for short, is the view that human

beings are not naturally immortal. God, who alone is

inherently immortal, grants the gift of immortality

only to believers. Unbelievers, because they lack this

gift, do not live forever. Although technically not

identical with annihilationism, conditionalism has

come to be used as a synonym for it.

 

Through Wenham’s influence, a previous book by Edward

Fudge was revised and issued in 1994 by Paternoster

Press as The Fire That Consumes: The Biblical Case for

Conditional Immortality.

 

Plainly, the annihilationist side had taken up the

debate, challenging the traditional view.

 

Proponents of the traditional view of hell did not

take this lying down. Some came with pistols flaring,

such as Gerstner’s Repent or Perish (Soli Deo Gloria,

1990). Others were more reserved but no less opposed

to annihilationism: Larry Dixon, The Other Side of the

Good News: Confronting the Contemporary Challenges to

Jesus’ Teaching on Hell (Victor, 1992) and my own Hell

on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment

(Presbyterian & Reformed, 1995). And in Universalism

and the Doctrine of Hell (the same book in which

Wenham attacked traditionalism), Kendall Harmon

defended the traditional view in “The Case Against

Conditionalism: A Response to Edward William Fudge.”

 

Heavyweight traditionalists did not stay out of the

fray. D. A. Carson devoted 22 pages of The Gagging of

God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Zondervan,

1996) to an exegetical defense of the traditional

view. J. I. Packer, a figure as revered by

evangelicals as Stott, expressed his displeasure in

Evangelical Affirmations (Academie, 1990) that Stott

had advocated annihilationism.

 

Plainly evangelical Anglicans were lining up on

opposite sides of this issue: Stott, Hughes, Wenham

and Michael Green on the side of conditionalism;

Packer, Harmon, Gerald Bray, and Alec Motyer on the

side of traditionalism.

 

Into the fray stepped the Evangelical Alliance (EA).

Also called World’s Evangelical Alliance, founded in

1846, EA is a Britain-based association of evangelical

churches, parachurch organizations, and individuals.

It is the umbrella organization for evangelicals in

the United Kingdom. Seeing the controversy on hell and

other issues dividing evangelicals, EA established the

Alliance Commission of Unity and Truth Among

Evangelicals (ACUTE) in 1995 “to work for consensus on

theological issues that test evangelical unity, and to

provide, on behalf of evangelicals, a coordinated

theological response to matters of wider public

debate.” ACUTE comprises three evangelical bodies: the

Evangelical Alliance, the British Evangelical Council,

and the Evangelical Movement of Wales.

 

One project of ACUTE is The Nature of Hell. It was

written that evangelicals might stand united against

universalism while disagreeing among themselves

concerning the nature of hell.

 

The study group, consisting of traditionalists and

conditionalists, had the task of writing a report that

would promote understanding and tolerance among member

believers.

 

Building a foundation

After describing points of agreement among

evangelicals, the report gives background regarding

universalism (the idea that ultimately all will be

saved), a recurring issue in English church history.

 

The report concludes that universalism is not an

option for evangelicals because it lacks biblical

warrant. Nevertheless, the report adds, “In an

increasingly multicultural, pluralist society, the

universalism which now underlies most forms of liberal

Christianity is likely to present an ever-greater

challenge for evangelicals.”

 

The report then identifies the key biblical texts in

the debate on the nature of hell. In the Old

Testament, the focus is on the present life, not on

life after death. Sheol is a dark, dreary, silent

underworld of half-existence. Only two Old Testament

texts, Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2, refer to

resurrection. The report then comments on the New

Testament pictures of the afterlife, including Gehenna

and Hades.

 

Two conclusions stand out. First, the report notes

that the synoptic Gospels, Jude, and Revelation speak

of “Gehenna,” “Hades,” and “fire.” John, Paul, and the

other epistles speak chiefly of “perishing,”

“destruction,” and “death.”

 

Second, the report recognizes that “this variation in

biblical imagery stands behind much of the debate

between traditionalists and conditionalists.”

 

The Nature of Hell next traces the history of each

point of view. Traditionalism sports an impressive

pedigree: Tertullian, Lactantius, Basil of Caesarea,

Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Augustine,

Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Whitefield, and

Wesley all endorsed eternal punishment.

 

Embryonic forms of conditionalism are found in Justin

Martyr and Theophilus of Antioch. Arnobius (died c.

330) was the first to defend annihilationism

explicitly. The Second Council of Constantinople (553)

and later the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17), though,

condemned annihilationism.

 

The meaning of burning sulfur

After outlining key definitions (see “Coming to Terms:

Five key phrases in the hell debate,” p. 34), the

report examines five critical exegetical issues that

each side debates.

 

1. Destruction and perishing. Conditionalists argue

that biblical language about the lost perishing (e.g.,

John 3:16) or being destroyed (e.g., Matt. 10:28)

ought to be taken at face value to indicate extinction

of being. Although the report almost always sets out

the best arguments for both conditionalist and

traditionalist sides of an issue, here it includes

only a weak traditionalist response. A stronger one

involves the “destruction” of the beast, foretold in

Revelation 17:8, 11; he is later cast into the fiery

lake of burning sulfur (19:10) and is “tormented day

and night for ever and ever” (20:10).

 

2. The fire and the worm. Conditionalists maintain

that the biblical imagery of hellfire indicates

consumption and not the infliction of pain.

Traditionalists respond that the fire and worm in Mark

9:48, a key text, are “undying” and “unquenchable,”

respectively. Conditionalists counter by insisting,

“Although both the worm and the fire themselves appear

to be everlasting, the effect they have on any

individual sinner may yet be terminal.”

 

3. Eternal punishment and “the age to come.”

Traditionalists historically have pointed to Jesus’

parallel between the two destinies in Matthew 25:46:

eternal punishment and eternal life (italics mine).

Conditionalists respond by saying the text does not

define eternal, and it could be rendered qualitatively

rather than quantitatively; hence “the punishment of

the age to come” and “the life of the age to come.”

Even if “eternal” punishment is the correct rendering,

it could point to the everlasting effects of the

punishment (conceived as destruction) rather than to

everlasting suffering of the punishment.

 

Traditionalists raise their eyebrows when

conditionalists insist on a different meaning for the

word eternal when it is used in two parallel phrases

in the same sentence to describe the two destinies.

 

4. Jesus’ account of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke

16:19-31. Fire imagery here plainly speaks of pain and

not consumption (vv. 23, 24, 25, 28). Some

traditionalists say this account teaches that the lost

will endure eternal torment. But conditionalists

correctly point out that Jesus’ parable pertains to

the intermediate rather than the final state.

 

5. Sulfur, smoke, and the “second death.” The meaning

of Revelation 14:10-11 is contested: the wicked will

be “tormented with burning sulfur” and “the smoke of

their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no

rest day or night” for them. Traditionalists assert

that this text unambiguously teaches their view.

 

Conditionalists appeal to Old Testament texts that

describe God’s destruction of cities, “all of which

are reduced to wastes of burning sulfur, but which

themselves cease to exist as cities once they have

been razed to the ground.” The rising smoke in

Revelation 14:10 is a trace of the destruction wrought

by the consuming fire. And the torment relates to the

moment of their destruction rather than eternal

suffering.

 

But, traditionalists protest, the text speaks of “the

smoke of their torment” going up “for ever and ever”

and thereby connects the suffering of persons with

eternal duration. Traditionalists also point to the

sentence that follows-“There is no rest day or night”

for the wicked-as evidence of eternal punishment.

Conditionalists counter that this does not prove

endless suffering but only suffering that lasts as

long as the sufferers do.

 

Traditionalists point to Revelation 20:10 as

unequivocally teaching eternal punishment. After the

devil is cast into the lake of fire, John reports that

the devil, beast, and false prophet “will be tormented

day and night for ever and ever.” Because “day and

night” is further modified by “for ever and ever,”

surely here the conditionalists must cry, “Uncle!”

 

They refuse, however, and instead argue that this text

says nothing about human beings suffering eternal

torment. Indeed, the devil, beast, and false prophet

function symbolically here to denote opposition to

God. In fact, the meaning of the imagery of Revelation

20:10 considered in its totality, they argue, is

annihilation. This is confirmed, conditionalists

claim, by the fact that a few verses later the lake of

fire is defined as “the second death,” a clear

reference to cessation of being.

 

Traditionalists remain unconvinced. The devil, at

least, and probably his henchmen, are personal beings.

Furthermore, Jesus in Matthew 25:41 assigns the

“goats” to “the eternal fire prepared for the devil

and his angels.” Traditionalists also reject

conditionalists’ equating the lake of fire with

annihilation, arguing instead that death signifies not

extermination but separation. The second death,

therefore, stands for eternal separation from God.

Moreover, the lake of fire signifies eternal torment

in Revelation 20:10; if conditionalists’

interpretation were correct, shouldn’t John have

indicated a change in its meaning five verses later

when he speaks of humans being thrown into it?

 

Two theological issues round out this discussion. The

view that at least some of the unsaved receive a

chance after death to believe in Christ is rejected by

traditionalists and most conditionalists for the good

reasons that “it is seriously lacking in exegetical

foundation” and that it contradicts the solid biblical

principle that “death represents a decisive and final

step to final judgment.” The Nature of Hell affirms a

wider hope for persons dying in infancy and for the

mentally disabled, and acknowledges a case can be made

that some who have never heard the gospel may be saved

by implicit faith.

 

From philosophy to blessedness

The report notes that four main theological issues

also figure in the debate.

 

1. The place of philosophy. Annihilationists claim

that the church Fathers imbibed uncritically the Greek

notion of the immortal soul and consequently were

misled into the traditional doctrine of hell. If all

human beings live forever, the argument runs, they

must forever inhabit either heaven or hell.

Traditionalists point out that, aside from the debated

question of Platonic influence on the Fathers, the

important thing is whether the Bible teaches

immortality. Traditionalists take different paths

here, some claiming Scripture affirms immortality,

others saying Scripture implies it. Matthew 10:28

(“Rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both

soul and body in hell”) is hotly contested:

conditionalists insist on the plain sense;

traditionalists say destruction is a metaphor for

terrible loss.

 

2. God’s love and justice. How could God’s love and

justice possibly be made known in the everlasting

conscious torment of human beings? Indeed, the report

notes, “This question is regularly cited by

conditionalists as a starting point for their

abandonment of the traditional position.” How is it

just for God to punish for eternity sins committed in

a finite lifetime? Some traditionalists have followed

Aquinas in insisting that sins against an infinite God

deserve infinite recompense. They have maintained that

only a holy and just God (not sinful human beings) is

qualified to determine the consequences of sin. They

suspect that conditionalists “are succumbing to

contemporary cultural representations of pain as the

ultimate evil to be avoided, when sin against God is

in fact a more heinous thing.” And traditionalists

have affirmed that eternal conscious punishment will

bring glory to God, the righteous Judge.

 

3. God’s triumph. According to conditionalists, the

traditionalist picture of the end mars the biblical

hope of God’s ultimate victory, for traditionalism

pictures an eternal eschatological dualism between

good and evil. Traditionalists reply that Revelation

21 and 22 paint a picture that includes the lake of

fire as well as the new heavens and new earth. They

insist that God will reign over heaven and hell and be

glorified in both places.

 

4. The blessedness of the redeemed. Conditionalists

argue that the joys of the saved in heaven would be

diminished by their knowledge of the never-ending

suffering of the lost in hell. The standard

traditionalist response is that God will remove any

pain that those in heaven might otherwise experience.

 

The need for sensitive reflection

The report next seeks to remedy the fact that

evangelicals on both sides of the debate have produced

little in the way of pastoral reflection. It calls all

to hold solemn and sensitive attitudes toward hell.

Evangelicals historically have understood hell as a

spur to evangelism. Recently, however, some have

debated how prominent a place hell should have in

Christian witness.

 

Traditionalists accuse conditionalists of

underestimating the fate of the lost, and

conditionalists criticize traditionalists for

unnecessarily adding to the scandal of the gospel. The

report calls for a truce and urges Christians to

combine words of God’s justice and love when

presenting the gospel.

 

For example, on the issue of what believers are to say

to terminally ill patients who do not know Christ:

While demonstrating God’s love in their actions and

avoiding exploitation, Christians are to speak of

God’s judgment as background for sharing the good news

of Christ. Concerning pastoral care of the bereaved,

pastors should rejoice at the home-going of a

believer, but it is inadvisable to pronounce that a

specific person is in hell. Instead, pastors should

preach the gospel to the living.

 

Room at the evangelical table

Though the report acknowledges that traditionalism is

the majority view among evangelicals, it strives to

maintain fellowship with conditionalists. Although a

few traditionalists have questioned the right of

conditionalists to be called evangelical Christians,

the working group that drafted The Nature of Hell

affirms that right.

 

In terms of doctrine, the study confirmed that the

main conditionalists show a high regard for the

authority of Scripture and attempt to base their case

chiefly on biblical exegesis. Historically speaking,

though, conditionalism fares far worse than

traditionalism.

 

Although evangelicals are wary of appeals to tradition

as compared to Scripture, the testimony of history, in

which few major theologians have wavered from

traditionalism, places a considerable burden of proof

on conditionalists.

 

Yet conditionalism seems to share an evangelical

worldview or ethos with traditionalism. Furthermore,

conditionalists bear a “family resemblance”; they are

part of the same relational network. Indeed, “when it

comes to those who have moved from traditionalism

towards conditionalism, the familial ties remain

strong,” the report notes.

 

Conclusions and recommendations

The Nature of Hell ends with 11 conclusions (each

accompanied by biblical proofs) and 11

recommendations. First, a summary of the conclusions:

 

All human beings will die and will be resurrected to

face God’s judgment, issuing either in eternal glory

or condemnation to hell. Furthermore, “God has

revealed no other way to salvation and eternal life

apart from through Jesus Christ.” While rejecting

universalism and postmortem repentance, the report

affirms, “In his sovereignty, God might save some who

have not explicitly professed faith in Jesus Christ,”

although we are not to assume this in any specific

case. Christians should therefore evangelize, assuming

that it is through proclamation of the gospel that God

saves people.

 

The gospel is chiefly good news but also includes the

message of hell: “Hell is more than mere annihilation

at the point of death. Rather death will lead on to

resurrection and final judgment to either heaven or

hell.” Hell involves separation from God, severe

punishment, and is “a conscious experience of

rejection and torment.”

 

Furthermore, “There are degrees of punishment and

suffering in hell.” Scripture describes hell as a

realm of destruction, although evangelicals differ on

whether this speaks of “the actual existence of

individual sinners (eventual annihilation) or to the

quality of their relationship with God (eternal

conscious punishment).”

 

“Evangelicals diverge on whether hell is eternal in

duration or effect,” that is, on whether it consists

of ceaseless conscious experience or irreversible

annihilation. “God’s purpose extends beyond judgment

to the redemption of the cosmos. Evangelicals diverge

on whether a place is preserved for hell in this new

order of things.”

 

Then come the recommendations:

 

Church leaders should not neglect teaching on hell but

should teach it with “sensitivity and discernment.” At

funerals it is proper to declare the heavenly

inheritance of Christians but not the condemnation of

those whose relationship to God is unclear.

Theological colleges should give attention to hell in

preparing church leaders for ministries, and Christian

educators should not neglect final destinies in their

teaching. Hell understood as eternal conscious

punishment is the historic view of the church and is

the mainstream evangelical position.

 

Still, “Conditional immortality is a significant

minority evangelical view. Furthermore, we believe

that the traditionalist-conditionalist debate on hell

should be regarded as a secondary rather than a

primary issue for evangelical theology.”

 

Furthermore, “We understand the current Evangelical

Alliance Basis of Faith to allow both traditionalist

and conditionalist interpretations of hell”;

nonetheless it would be helpful to add a clause on

eschatology that includes conditionalism. The

evangelical traditionalist-conditionalist debate

should continue with the parties maintaining

“constructive dialogue and respectful relationships.”

 

An American assessment

The report is a model of how evangelicals can study

together constructively, even when they must agree to

disagree. The working group did its homework well, as

the extensive bibliography and footnotes attest. A

spirit of Christian fairness pervades the report.

Traditionalist and conditionalist views are given on

every debated point.

 

Surely we can appreciate the way our brothers and

sisters have gone about their business. Too often

evangelicals have ended up with black eyes before the

world by conducting their debates with acrimony and

rancor.

 

From the perspective of evangelical Anglicanism, the

report must be deemed a success. It has a clear

purpose: not to allow the

traditionalist-conditionalist debate to further divide

evangelicals in the United Kingdom. This is evident in

the candor with which it describes the history of the

debate, in the makeup of the working group (including

scholars on both sides), in its design (the first and

last two chapters form a literary inclusion that calls

for theological inclusion), and in its conclusions and

recommendations.

 

Readers should not miss the point: the book is not a

debate between traditionalists and conditionalists

concerning the nature of hell. Instead, it is a

summary of that debate written to bring

traditionalists and conditionalists together. It is an

attempt at damage control.

 

As an American evangelical and a Reformed theologian,

I have learned from The Nature of Hell. I have added

to my bibliography, learned new ways conditionalists

handle exegetical and theological problems, been

brought up short a few times (the report cites my Hell

on Trial frequently, usually favorably, but twice

offers criticism), and appreciated the pastoral

applications. I agree that the

traditionalist-conditionalist debate does not extend

to matters of salvation.

 

Yet I do not agree that the

traditionalist-conditionalist debate should be

regarded as “secondary,” if that means a debatable

matter as church government and eschatology are

debatable. In my view conditionalism is a more serious

error for three reasons.

 

First, despite good intentions, the conditionalist

exegesis of the key texts falls short. After studying

the report’s presentation of the key exegetical

debates, my conviction that traditionalism is the

teaching of Scripture has been strengthened.

Consequently, although I plan to assign the report as

required seminary reading, I fear that it might

confuse those who have not been trained to evaluate

exegetical arguments. The report’s approach to debated

texts is this: traditionalists say this but

conditionalists say this; to which traditionalists

respond thus, to which conditionalists respond thus;

and so on. This works well in the classroom, but it

could easily give lay readers the impression that the

arguments must come to a standoff. That simply is not

the case.

 

Second, conditionalism frequently leads to systemic

error, adversely affecting other doctrines. So it is

in the case of Edward Fudge, perhaps the

conditionalist most cited in The Nature of Hell.

 

Fudge and I recently coauthored Two Views of Hell: A

Biblical and Theological Debate (InterVarsity, 2000).

Fudge argues that Jesus was “destroyed” when he died

on the cross. I inquire whether he means that Jesus’

whole person was destroyed or just his human nature.

Either answer has disastrous implications for

Christology: either God is “destroyed” or Jesus’ two

natures are separable in a way that Chalcedon would

have condemned. Edward becomes agitated in response,

signaling, I think, that he recognizes the theological

problem.

 

Third, I fear that conditionalism might have a

negative effect on evangelism and missions. If

traditionalism is correct, then conditionalism

seriously underestimates the pains of hell.

 

Indeed, the lost would rather be annihilated because

their suffering would be over.

 

1. A. Carson speaks a hard but necessary truth:

 

Despite the sincerity of their motives, one wonders

more than a little to what extent the growing

popularity of various forms of annihilationism and

conditional immortality are a reflection of this age

of pluralism. It is getting harder and harder to be

faithful to the “hard lines” of Scripture. And in this

way, evangelicalism itself may contribute to the

gagging of God by silencing the severity of his

warnings and by minimizing the awfulness of the

punishment that justly awaits those untouched by his

redeeming grace.

 

Robert A. Peterson is professor of systematic theology

at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. He is

the author of Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal

Punishment (P&R) and, with Edward Fudge, Two Views of

Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue (IVP).

Related Elsewhere

 

Be sure to read the related stories to this article,

“Rightly Dividing the Hell Debate | Key Advocates and

Writings” and “Coming to Terms | Key Phrases in the

Hell Debate.”

 

The Evangelical Alliance’s press release about its

report is available on the organization’s Web site.

 

Media coverage of The Nature of Hell includes:

 

Is there a Hell? Yes, experts say, and it’s awful-The

Age (Apr. 3, 2000)

 

So Hell is a real place after all. Thank heavens for

that.-The Independent (Apr. 3, 2000)

 

Children ‘should be told of hell’ | Liberals twitch as

evangelicals turn to fire and brimstone-The Guardian

(Apr. 15, 2000)

 

Unless Jesus Says Otherwise, Hell Exists, Asserts

Evangelical Report | British group acknowledges

differences on annihilationism, but says doctrine of

hell must be preached again.-Christianity Today (Apr.

18, 2000)

 

Hell Is There and “Occupied” | The UK’s Evangelical

Alliance reaffirms the reality of hell in a report to

be published next week.-Religion News

Service/Beliefnet

 

British evangelicals emphasize Hell-Evangelical

Press/B.C. Christian News (May 2000)

 

Hell is back in business | Trends come and go, so

don’t be surprised when you hear the latest: Hades is

hot, angels are not.-Salon.com (June 12, 2000

 

Read Robert A. Peterson’s meditation on “Christ Our

Kinsman-Redeemer.”

 

Previous Christianity Today articles on hell include:

 

‘Hell Took a Body, and Discovered God’ | One of the

oldest and best Easter sermons, now 1,600 years old,

is still preached today. (April 24, 2000)

 

Unless Jesus Says Otherwise, Hell Exists, Asserts

Evangelical Report | British group acknowledges

differences on Annihilationism, but says doctrine of

hell must be preached again. (April 18, 2000)

 

Is Hell Forever? | Annihilationists anticipate one

ultimate destiny for the wicked, an undifferentiated

nonexistence. (Oct. 5, 1998)

 

Can We Be Good Without Hell? | (June 16, 1997)

 

October 23, 2000, Vol. 44, No. 12, Page 30