The Egregious Error of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT)
Motivated by Love
Hi. This essay asserts that the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) can be supported only by making an egregious error in interpreting scripture.
Before I go any further, I'll say that this essay is written out of love. At least I hope it is. Jeremiah says the heart is more deceitful than anything else. So, I could be wrong. Maybe I'm just fooling myself and have some other devious motivation for writing this essay. But, realizing that my heart might be deceiving me, I hope you will at least consider the possibility that I want to love you and I want to be obedient to Jesus Christ. I try hard to submit to the authority of scripture and live my life in such as way as to gather treasures in heaven. Jesus told us we should try to lay up treasures in heaven, and this article is part of my attempt to do so.
The doctrine of ECT is one that has long plagued the church. The church drifted away from biblical teaching and clung to an error.
Does that assertion surprise you? Well, please consider this account in the book of Galatians, where Paul describes an encounter with Peter (Cephas):
Do you see? This event happened just a few short years after Christ had risen. In just a few short years, the church had already begun to go astray. It was led by Peter (the rock) and multiple men followed his lead. Included among those who were improperly influenced was Barnabas, a giant of the Christian faith. It is so easy for this to happen. If it happened to Peter and Barnabas, would it be so surprising if it happened again in later years?
A similar thing did happened about 400 years later . It involved multiple men once again, and was led in large part by a great man named Augustine. Augustine was influenced by the teaching of Plato and believed that the human soul was intrinsically immortal - he believed the soul could never be destroyed. While holding onto that belief, he read in the Bible that souls will be thrown into a lake of fire. Now, what happens to an indestructible soul that gets thrown into a lake of fire? It burns forever.
But the human soul is not immortal - not according to the Bible. God chased man out of the garden of Eden and said that man must not be allowed to eat of the tree of life and live forever. The last thing God wanted was for sinful man to live forever. Please don't let that element of the Eden story escape you. After sin had entered into humans, God took very deliberate action to make sure those sinful beings would not live forever. He banished them from the garden and even posted a cherubim and a flaming sword to make sure they would not live forever while in a state of sin.
Paul says to Timothy that only God is immortal, "He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality..."
The basis of Augustine's understanding of the human soul was wrong, and he went astray. And others followed him, just as others followed Peter in Antioch. If you want to read more about this, you can view a video on the front page of this site or read an essay here at this link.
Given this history, I hope you will at least consider the possibility that the church has strayed from the biblical teaching in this matter. I understand that this is weighty possibility. But I do come in love and in an attempt to obey Christ my Lord.
I ask you to consider what I say, because I believe the doctrine of ECT has had a terrible impact on the church. For one, it chases people away from faith in Christ who might otherwise accept the gospel message. We tell them that God loves them deeply and sent his son to die on the cross for them. God is love. But also, by the way, if you don't accept our message he will torment you for all of eternity in the fiery pit of hell. That is what a loving God does.
To them, that sounds more like Greek mythology than the truth of the universe. How could a God whose very essence is love decide to torment somebody for all of eternity? Is that really what the God of love does? I can understand if that appears to be a contradiction to them.
I think this doctrine of ECT has also deterred Christians from seeking out God. A God that torments for all eternity does not seem to be very nice, to put it bluntly. Sure, he sent his son to save us, but apparently he is willing to take action that we would call infinitely sadistic if anybody else did it. I could understand if some resisted drawing close to a God like that.
Many of these Christians have been told that the Bible teaches the doctrine of eternal torment. They accept that truth out of submission to the authority of scripture, and they feel compelled to teach that truth to others. If you believe in Eternal Conscious Torment, I am asking you to say a short prayer and read this essay with a heart and mind that are open to hearing my perspective on what the Bible teaches.
In addition, I believe that many preachers are embarrassed to teach this doctrine. They have misgivings about the notion of a loving God tormenting people for all of eternity. Because of this, many refrain from clearly teaching about the fate of unbelievers. But those warnings must be given. Christ warns clearly and frequently about the dire consequences of rejecting his grace. Christ says that there will be 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' by those who reject him. This is serious stuff, with eternal consequences. We must clearly teach what we believe will happen at the judgment day. If the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment hinders us from doing that, then it is causing serious damage.
For those reasons, it is important that we investigate what the Bible actually teaches in regards to the fate of unbelievers.
Diving Into the Bible
What I believe is this:
This doctrine is called Conditional Immortality (CI) or Annihilationism. An overwhelming abundance of scriptural evidence exists that unbelievers will ultimately be destroyed at the final judgment. Essentially no evidence exists to support the notion that unbelievers will suffer eternal conscious torment. This essay will show how I came to arrive at that conclusion.
For the first 20 years of my life, I believed that those who reject the grace of Christ will be tormented for all of eternity. At approximately age 20, however, I begun to study this topic in more detail.
I earnestly wanted to know the truth, and so read what others had written on the topic. In doing so, it was hard to get a 'big picture' of what the Bible actually taught. When reading an argument presented by one side or the other, it was sometimes hard to know whether the argument was valid. Were verses being pulled out of context, or perhaps used over and over again?
I did want to know about the individual verses, but I also wanted some framework I could use to organize those verses. I wanted to know if there was an underlying message, or a consistent theme, that was depicted by the various verses on the topic.
To that end I decided concentrate less on the various arguments and go back directly to the Bible itself. My approach was to first identify every verse in all of the scriptures that appeared to address the fate of unbelievers. Then, I sorted those verses into categories, depending upon what position it supported. But putting verses in categories was not enough. Regardless of what is being asserted, it is a fact of language that some assertions are more clear than others. Some statements make clear assertions, but others only imply a certain position. So, in addition to sorting the verses into the appropriate category, I wanted to try to represent for myself how strongly each verse supported their respective positions.
In my mind, I envisioned something like a target. Verses that strongly support the position could be envisioned as being close to the center, the bull's eye. Other verses might also support the position, but not as strongly. Those verses could be place further away from the center. In the end, I would hope to see a big picture summary of how the Bible supports each side of this issue. Imagine we observed a target at an archery range, and saw a set of arrows all clustering around a bull's eye. That would indicate that someone was trying to hit the center, and did so with accuracy. In the same way, a set of verses that all cluster around a central truth would indicate that the biblical authors were all aiming to express a similar truth.
So, I first looked for explicit statements regarding the fate of unbelievers. If God wanted us to know the truth about this matter, I would expect Him to state it clearly. And that is just what we see.
Six Explicit Verses
To begin with, please consider these six passages:
These passages explicitly and clearly state that unbelievers will be totally destroyed at the final judgment.
In Matthew 10:28, Jesus clearly says that both soul and body will be destroyed in hell. Since he mentions both the body and the soul, let's consider the body for a moment. What happens to a body that is killed? The person that once inhabited that body is no longer there. When you go to a funeral, is there any blood pumping through the body in the casket? If you were to prick the finger of that body, would any nerves fire? Is there any brain activity still going on? No to all of these. Neither consciousness nor feelings are currently being experienced by that body.
Jesus says that what happens to the body at physical death is the same thing that will happen to the soul in the lake of fire. What is the soul? That is a perplexing question and I won't attempt to answer here, other than to quote Jesus again:
Whatever it is that is worth the whole world, whatever it is that might possibly continue on into eternity, that is what will be destroyed in the lake of fire. The soul, after being thrown into the lake of fire, will be in the same state as the corpse at a funeral. Jesus was clear about that. The soul will be destroyed and will no longer think thoughts nor feel sensations.
In Matthew 13:30, Jesus says that unbelievers will be like weeds (tares) in a fire. They will be totally burned up. And the verb here is very explicit. There are two different words in Greek that mean to burn. One is less severe and might be used to say, "I burned my finger." My finger still exists, but it did get burned. A second verb clearly indicates to burn up completely. We would use this to say, "The document was burned up in the fire." In this case, the document no longer exists. Jesus says is that the weeds will be burned up completely. Just a few verses later, Jesus makes it clear when He interprets the weeds as being the unbelievers on the day of judgment. They will be burned up completely.
Luke 3:17 is a statement by John the baptist. The imagery is very similar to that of burning weeds, except it is chaff that is being burned up instead of weeds. For those who don't know, wheat chaff is light and airy, almost like tissue paper. It would immediately disintegrate in a fire. And just to be clear, John used the same verb as Jesus, saying that the chaff would be "burned up".
And then we have John 15:6. Undoubtedly, Jesus was using an illustration that was familiar to these people. In the process of raising grapes, branches would be unfruitful and/or would break of from the main vine. The grape farmers had no need of these branches and so would need to dispose of them. Jesus specifically says that these branches are "dried up". And we all know what happens to dried branches that are thrown into a fire - they are totally consumed.
Of all the verses in the Bible, Peter's statement in Acts 3:23 might be the most explicit statement of exactly what happens to unbelievers. It is explicit for multiple reasons. For one, he specifically uses the word 'soul'. Just above, I quoted from Jesus where he tells us the value of a man's soul. Peter here tells us what will happen to those souls which reject Jesus - they will be utterly destroyed. The meaning of this verb is clear in its definition. It is correctly translated as 'utterly destroyed'. But we have even more evidence to understand what Peter intended.
When the Israelites were directed to invade Canaan, the promised land, they were often directed by God to 'utterly destroy' the cultures that existed there. Those items that were 'devoted to destruction' - items other than things like silver and gold - were to be 'utterly destroyed'. This is illustrated most clearly in the account of Joshua and the city of Jericho. Here is what they did to the city of Jericho:
(I am aware of the disturbing elements of this story. How could God command the murder of women and children in this way? Those are valid questions to ask. Very briefly, I would say this: I believe each of those individuals stood before God, and were treated fairly in that encounter. Also, these were savage cultures that included practices such as live child sacrifice over burning flames. The practices of the cultures need to be totally removed from the land. This topic deserves discussion, but is not one that can be fully treated here.)
When God says something should be 'utterly destroyed', he means there should be absolutely nothing left of those items. This is the background behind the word Peter used to describe what would happen to those souls who reject Jesus. It is hard for me to imagine a way to say it more clearly. And remember, prior to his departure, Jesus told his disciples not to worry about what they would say when called upon to speak in public. Jesus said that the Spirit would give them words. So, we must believe that Peter said exactly what the Spirit told him to say. The Spirit wanted the people on that day to know that those who reject Jesus will be utterly destroyed. And I think the Spirit wants you to know the same thing today.
The last passage in the list is Hebrews 10:26-27. The context makes it clear that this warning applies to those who reject the grace of Christ. And here we have a different word to indicate the destruction of the enemies. The enemies of God will be consumed. Later in Hebrews, the author tells us that God is a 'consuming fire'. The enemies will not be consumed by being devoured, but consumed by the fire of God's presence. What happens to things that are consumed by fire? They cease to exist, right? Of course. No other answer is possible. Again, is it possible to say it more clearly than to say that enemies of God will be consumed by fire? I don't think so.
I took these six verse and inserted them into the center of a target. The diagram below is intended to illustrate a target that represents the destruction of unbelievers. The six verses I listed above inhabit the bull's eye - they explicitly express the notion that unbelievers will be destroyed at the final judgment.
Hi. This essay asserts that the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) can be supported only by making an egregious error in interpreting scripture.
Before I go any further, I'll say that this essay is written out of love. At least I hope it is. Jeremiah says the heart is more deceitful than anything else. So, I could be wrong. Maybe I'm just fooling myself and have some other devious motivation for writing this essay. But, realizing that my heart might be deceiving me, I hope you will at least consider the possibility that I want to love you and I want to be obedient to Jesus Christ. I try hard to submit to the authority of scripture and live my life in such as way as to gather treasures in heaven. Jesus told us we should try to lay up treasures in heaven, and this article is part of my attempt to do so.
The doctrine of ECT is one that has long plagued the church. The church drifted away from biblical teaching and clung to an error.
Does that assertion surprise you? Well, please consider this account in the book of Galatians, where Paul describes an encounter with Peter (Cephas):
- But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned. For he regularly ate with the Gentiles before certain men came from James. However, when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, because he feared those from the circumcision party. Then the rest of the Jews joined his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Do you see? This event happened just a few short years after Christ had risen. In just a few short years, the church had already begun to go astray. It was led by Peter (the rock) and multiple men followed his lead. Included among those who were improperly influenced was Barnabas, a giant of the Christian faith. It is so easy for this to happen. If it happened to Peter and Barnabas, would it be so surprising if it happened again in later years?
A similar thing did happened about 400 years later . It involved multiple men once again, and was led in large part by a great man named Augustine. Augustine was influenced by the teaching of Plato and believed that the human soul was intrinsically immortal - he believed the soul could never be destroyed. While holding onto that belief, he read in the Bible that souls will be thrown into a lake of fire. Now, what happens to an indestructible soul that gets thrown into a lake of fire? It burns forever.
But the human soul is not immortal - not according to the Bible. God chased man out of the garden of Eden and said that man must not be allowed to eat of the tree of life and live forever. The last thing God wanted was for sinful man to live forever. Please don't let that element of the Eden story escape you. After sin had entered into humans, God took very deliberate action to make sure those sinful beings would not live forever. He banished them from the garden and even posted a cherubim and a flaming sword to make sure they would not live forever while in a state of sin.
Paul says to Timothy that only God is immortal, "He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality..."
The basis of Augustine's understanding of the human soul was wrong, and he went astray. And others followed him, just as others followed Peter in Antioch. If you want to read more about this, you can view a video on the front page of this site or read an essay here at this link.
Given this history, I hope you will at least consider the possibility that the church has strayed from the biblical teaching in this matter. I understand that this is weighty possibility. But I do come in love and in an attempt to obey Christ my Lord.
I ask you to consider what I say, because I believe the doctrine of ECT has had a terrible impact on the church. For one, it chases people away from faith in Christ who might otherwise accept the gospel message. We tell them that God loves them deeply and sent his son to die on the cross for them. God is love. But also, by the way, if you don't accept our message he will torment you for all of eternity in the fiery pit of hell. That is what a loving God does.
To them, that sounds more like Greek mythology than the truth of the universe. How could a God whose very essence is love decide to torment somebody for all of eternity? Is that really what the God of love does? I can understand if that appears to be a contradiction to them.
I think this doctrine of ECT has also deterred Christians from seeking out God. A God that torments for all eternity does not seem to be very nice, to put it bluntly. Sure, he sent his son to save us, but apparently he is willing to take action that we would call infinitely sadistic if anybody else did it. I could understand if some resisted drawing close to a God like that.
Many of these Christians have been told that the Bible teaches the doctrine of eternal torment. They accept that truth out of submission to the authority of scripture, and they feel compelled to teach that truth to others. If you believe in Eternal Conscious Torment, I am asking you to say a short prayer and read this essay with a heart and mind that are open to hearing my perspective on what the Bible teaches.
In addition, I believe that many preachers are embarrassed to teach this doctrine. They have misgivings about the notion of a loving God tormenting people for all of eternity. Because of this, many refrain from clearly teaching about the fate of unbelievers. But those warnings must be given. Christ warns clearly and frequently about the dire consequences of rejecting his grace. Christ says that there will be 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' by those who reject him. This is serious stuff, with eternal consequences. We must clearly teach what we believe will happen at the judgment day. If the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment hinders us from doing that, then it is causing serious damage.
For those reasons, it is important that we investigate what the Bible actually teaches in regards to the fate of unbelievers.
Diving Into the Bible
What I believe is this:
- The Bible teaches that the immortality of people is conditional - only those who accept the grace of Christ will live forever. Christ will grant immortality to his saints and unbelievers will be destroyed in the lake of fire.
This doctrine is called Conditional Immortality (CI) or Annihilationism. An overwhelming abundance of scriptural evidence exists that unbelievers will ultimately be destroyed at the final judgment. Essentially no evidence exists to support the notion that unbelievers will suffer eternal conscious torment. This essay will show how I came to arrive at that conclusion.
For the first 20 years of my life, I believed that those who reject the grace of Christ will be tormented for all of eternity. At approximately age 20, however, I begun to study this topic in more detail.
I earnestly wanted to know the truth, and so read what others had written on the topic. In doing so, it was hard to get a 'big picture' of what the Bible actually taught. When reading an argument presented by one side or the other, it was sometimes hard to know whether the argument was valid. Were verses being pulled out of context, or perhaps used over and over again?
I did want to know about the individual verses, but I also wanted some framework I could use to organize those verses. I wanted to know if there was an underlying message, or a consistent theme, that was depicted by the various verses on the topic.
To that end I decided concentrate less on the various arguments and go back directly to the Bible itself. My approach was to first identify every verse in all of the scriptures that appeared to address the fate of unbelievers. Then, I sorted those verses into categories, depending upon what position it supported. But putting verses in categories was not enough. Regardless of what is being asserted, it is a fact of language that some assertions are more clear than others. Some statements make clear assertions, but others only imply a certain position. So, in addition to sorting the verses into the appropriate category, I wanted to try to represent for myself how strongly each verse supported their respective positions.
In my mind, I envisioned something like a target. Verses that strongly support the position could be envisioned as being close to the center, the bull's eye. Other verses might also support the position, but not as strongly. Those verses could be place further away from the center. In the end, I would hope to see a big picture summary of how the Bible supports each side of this issue. Imagine we observed a target at an archery range, and saw a set of arrows all clustering around a bull's eye. That would indicate that someone was trying to hit the center, and did so with accuracy. In the same way, a set of verses that all cluster around a central truth would indicate that the biblical authors were all aiming to express a similar truth.
So, I first looked for explicit statements regarding the fate of unbelievers. If God wanted us to know the truth about this matter, I would expect Him to state it clearly. And that is just what we see.
Six Explicit Verses
To begin with, please consider these six passages:
- Mat 10:28 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
- Mat 13:30 Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."
- Luk 3:17 His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
- Joh 15:6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
- Act 3:23 And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people
- Heb 10:26-27 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
These passages explicitly and clearly state that unbelievers will be totally destroyed at the final judgment.
In Matthew 10:28, Jesus clearly says that both soul and body will be destroyed in hell. Since he mentions both the body and the soul, let's consider the body for a moment. What happens to a body that is killed? The person that once inhabited that body is no longer there. When you go to a funeral, is there any blood pumping through the body in the casket? If you were to prick the finger of that body, would any nerves fire? Is there any brain activity still going on? No to all of these. Neither consciousness nor feelings are currently being experienced by that body.
Jesus says that what happens to the body at physical death is the same thing that will happen to the soul in the lake of fire. What is the soul? That is a perplexing question and I won't attempt to answer here, other than to quote Jesus again:
- For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? For what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
Whatever it is that is worth the whole world, whatever it is that might possibly continue on into eternity, that is what will be destroyed in the lake of fire. The soul, after being thrown into the lake of fire, will be in the same state as the corpse at a funeral. Jesus was clear about that. The soul will be destroyed and will no longer think thoughts nor feel sensations.
In Matthew 13:30, Jesus says that unbelievers will be like weeds (tares) in a fire. They will be totally burned up. And the verb here is very explicit. There are two different words in Greek that mean to burn. One is less severe and might be used to say, "I burned my finger." My finger still exists, but it did get burned. A second verb clearly indicates to burn up completely. We would use this to say, "The document was burned up in the fire." In this case, the document no longer exists. Jesus says is that the weeds will be burned up completely. Just a few verses later, Jesus makes it clear when He interprets the weeds as being the unbelievers on the day of judgment. They will be burned up completely.
Luke 3:17 is a statement by John the baptist. The imagery is very similar to that of burning weeds, except it is chaff that is being burned up instead of weeds. For those who don't know, wheat chaff is light and airy, almost like tissue paper. It would immediately disintegrate in a fire. And just to be clear, John used the same verb as Jesus, saying that the chaff would be "burned up".
And then we have John 15:6. Undoubtedly, Jesus was using an illustration that was familiar to these people. In the process of raising grapes, branches would be unfruitful and/or would break of from the main vine. The grape farmers had no need of these branches and so would need to dispose of them. Jesus specifically says that these branches are "dried up". And we all know what happens to dried branches that are thrown into a fire - they are totally consumed.
Of all the verses in the Bible, Peter's statement in Acts 3:23 might be the most explicit statement of exactly what happens to unbelievers. It is explicit for multiple reasons. For one, he specifically uses the word 'soul'. Just above, I quoted from Jesus where he tells us the value of a man's soul. Peter here tells us what will happen to those souls which reject Jesus - they will be utterly destroyed. The meaning of this verb is clear in its definition. It is correctly translated as 'utterly destroyed'. But we have even more evidence to understand what Peter intended.
When the Israelites were directed to invade Canaan, the promised land, they were often directed by God to 'utterly destroy' the cultures that existed there. Those items that were 'devoted to destruction' - items other than things like silver and gold - were to be 'utterly destroyed'. This is illustrated most clearly in the account of Joshua and the city of Jericho. Here is what they did to the city of Jericho:
- Jos 6:21 They utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.
- Jos 6:24 They burned the city with fire, and all that was in it. Only the silver and gold, and articles of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.
(I am aware of the disturbing elements of this story. How could God command the murder of women and children in this way? Those are valid questions to ask. Very briefly, I would say this: I believe each of those individuals stood before God, and were treated fairly in that encounter. Also, these were savage cultures that included practices such as live child sacrifice over burning flames. The practices of the cultures need to be totally removed from the land. This topic deserves discussion, but is not one that can be fully treated here.)
When God says something should be 'utterly destroyed', he means there should be absolutely nothing left of those items. This is the background behind the word Peter used to describe what would happen to those souls who reject Jesus. It is hard for me to imagine a way to say it more clearly. And remember, prior to his departure, Jesus told his disciples not to worry about what they would say when called upon to speak in public. Jesus said that the Spirit would give them words. So, we must believe that Peter said exactly what the Spirit told him to say. The Spirit wanted the people on that day to know that those who reject Jesus will be utterly destroyed. And I think the Spirit wants you to know the same thing today.
The last passage in the list is Hebrews 10:26-27. The context makes it clear that this warning applies to those who reject the grace of Christ. And here we have a different word to indicate the destruction of the enemies. The enemies of God will be consumed. Later in Hebrews, the author tells us that God is a 'consuming fire'. The enemies will not be consumed by being devoured, but consumed by the fire of God's presence. What happens to things that are consumed by fire? They cease to exist, right? Of course. No other answer is possible. Again, is it possible to say it more clearly than to say that enemies of God will be consumed by fire? I don't think so.
I took these six verse and inserted them into the center of a target. The diagram below is intended to illustrate a target that represents the destruction of unbelievers. The six verses I listed above inhabit the bull's eye - they explicitly express the notion that unbelievers will be destroyed at the final judgment.
Verses Outside the Center
Now, let's move on to other verses. Are there other verses, in addition to those above, that describe the destruction of unbelievers? Absolutely yes. Many of these verses are almost as clear as the ones above. Other verses might be less clear because the author has a primary point other than the fate of unbelievers. As you read them, ask yourself what the author must have been thinking when he wrote it. What is being explicitly stated, or what is implied, in these statements regarding the fate of unbelievers?
I add these to the diagram I previously started. I don't put them in the dead center, but surround those explicit verses which other verses which reinforce the same message:
Now, let's move on to other verses. Are there other verses, in addition to those above, that describe the destruction of unbelievers? Absolutely yes. Many of these verses are almost as clear as the ones above. Other verses might be less clear because the author has a primary point other than the fate of unbelievers. As you read them, ask yourself what the author must have been thinking when he wrote it. What is being explicitly stated, or what is implied, in these statements regarding the fate of unbelievers?
- Heb 10:38-39 BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM. But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.
- 2Th 1:9 They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the Lord’s presence and from his glorious strength (CSB)
- 2Th 2:8 and then the lawless one will be revealed. The Lord Jesus will destroy him with the breath of his mouth and will bring him to nothing at the appearance of his coming.
- 2Pe 2:3 They will exploit you in their greed with made-up stories. Their condemnation, pronounced long ago, is not idle, and their destruction does not sleep.
- Luk 13:3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as well.
- Rev 14:10 he will also drink the wine of God’s wrath, which is poured full strength into the cup of his anger. He will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the sight of the holy angels and in the sight of the Lamb,
- Mat 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go through it.
- 2Pe 2:12 But these people, like irrational animals—creatures of instinct born to be caught and destroyed—slander what they do not understand, and in their destruction they too will be destroyed.
- Act 8:20 But Peter told him, “May your silver be destroyed with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!
- Luk 6:49 But the one who hears and does not act is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The river crashed against it, and immediately it collapsed. And the destruction of that house was great.”
- Mat 3:10 The ax is already at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
- Luk 9:25 For what does it benefit someone if he gains the whole world, and yet loses or forfeits himself?
- Php 3:19 Their end is destruction; their god is their stomach; their glory is in their shame. They are focused on earthly things,
- Luk 3:9 The ax is already at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
- Jud 1:7 Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns committed sexual immorality and perversions, and serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
- Rom 9:22 And what if God, wanting to display his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction?
- Mat 13:47-48 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a large net thrown into the sea. It collected every kind of fish, and when it was full, they dragged it ashore, sat down, and gathered the good fish into containers, but threw out the worthless ones.
- 2Pe 2:1 There were indeed false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves.
- Jud 1:10 But these people blaspheme anything they do not understand. And what they do understand by instinct—like irrational animals—by these things they are destroyed.
- Joh 17:12 While I was with them, I was protecting them by your name that you have given me. I guarded them and not one of them is lost, except the son of destruction, so that the Scripture may be fulfilled.
- Jas 4:12 There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
- 2Pe 3:7 By the same word, the present heavens and earth are stored up for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
- Rev 11:18 The nations were angry, but your wrath has come. The time has come for the dead to be judged and to give the reward to your servants the prophets, to the saints, and to those who fear your name, both small and great, and the time has come to destroy those who destroy the earth.
- Joh 3:16 For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
- Php 1:28 not being frightened in any way by your opponents. This is a sign of destruction for them, but of your salvation—and this is from God.
- 2Th 2:3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way. For that day will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
- Gal 6:8 because the one who sows to his flesh will reap destruction from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit.
- 2Pe 3:16 He speaks about these things in all his letters. There are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable will twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.
- 1Ti 6:9 But those who want to be rich fall into temptation, a trap, and many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge people into ruin and destruction.
- Mat 7:19 Every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
- Mar 8:36 For what does it benefit someone to gain the whole world and yet lose his life?
- Luk 14:34-35 “Now, salt is good, but if salt should lose its taste, how will it be made salty? It isn’t fit for the soil or for the manure pile; they throw it out. Let anyone who has ears to hear listen.”
- Heb 12:29 for our God is a consuming fire.
- Joh 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand.
- 2Pe 2:6 and if he reduced the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes and condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is coming to the ungodly;
I add these to the diagram I previously started. I don't put them in the dead center, but surround those explicit verses which other verses which reinforce the same message:
Do you see the thick cluster of verses all surrounding the notion that unbelievers will be destroyed?
(Note: In addition to those verses listed above, I also added a note about Old Testament verses. If I were to include passages in the Old Testament that speak about the destruction of the ungodly, then the number of verses would more than double. I decided to concentrate on New Testament passages because those come after the revelation we received from Jesus.)
What if Conditional Immortality Were True?
Up to this point, I've taken a certain strategy. It is an appropriate strategy and probably the best starting point. I’ve tried to gather and examine what the Bible says on this topic and organize it in some way. That is, I’ve started with the Bible and proceeded to a concept. Now, I'm going employ a different strategy and move a different direction. I’m going to start with a concept and then proceed to the Bible. I’m going to consider this concept that unbelievers be annihilated, and then ask myself what we might see in the Bible if that concept were true. In other words, I could say it this way:
- If God wanted to express the notion that unbelievers will be totally destroyed, and he needed to express that notion through the writing of Greek language at the time of Jesus, what would we expect that to look like?
The answer is exactly what is depicted in the diagram above. I hope you can grasp what I'm saying here. Essentially, there would have been no other way to express the doctrine of Conditional Immortality better than what we see above.
The New Testament was written in Greek, so let's consider those Greek words that are translated as 'destruction' or 'destroy'. The two most common are these:
APOLEIA
OLETHRON
APOLEIA is used more often, along with the verb form APOLLUMI. So if you read the word 'destruction', it is probably a translation of the noun APOLEIA. If you read that something was destroyed or perished, it is probably a translation of the verb APOLLUMI.
OLETHRON is used only four times in the New Testament and is generally translated as 'destruction'. The most significant of those verses is in 2 Thessalonians 1:9:
- 2Th 1:9 They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction (OLETHRON) from the Lord’s presence and from his glorious strength (CSB)
I have written an entire essay on just this one verse. You can view it here.
For the most part, both of these Greek words are most appropriately translated with the English word 'destruction'. They share a similar semantic range. That is, in addition to expressing the cessation of existence, they might be used in situations where the intended meaning is 'ruin', instead of the cessation of existence. For that reason, there is debate about the most appropriate translation.
However, it is also important to note that there were no words in Greek that more clearly expressed the cessation of existence more strongly than these. In English, we have words like 'annihilation', 'extinction' and 'obliteration'. Those words came into existence after the time that the New Testament was written, and were not available to the those writers. If a New Testament writer wanted to express a severe action that ended the existence of an object, then the two words above were the right ones to use.
And in addition to using these words translated as 'destruction', the authors of the Bible used words like 'consume' (by fire) and 'utterly destroy'. Also, both Peter and Jude say that what happened to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah serves as an illustration of what will happen to unbelievers at the final judgment. Does the Old Testament depict the people of Sodom and Gomorrah suffering torment? No. Go back and read it again - absolutely no mention of what they felt as the fire was raining down on them. The point of that story is that they were totally destroyed. And that story is what serves as an example of the final judgment.
Over and over again, Paul says that unbelievers will go to destruction. In 2 Thessalonians, he says that it will be an eternal destruction that flows from the very presence of God. And John clearly says in Revelation that this final judgment will happen in the very presence of the Lamb.
As I mentioned earlier, the people of that time didn't have laser blasters or atomic bombs. In their experience, fire was the agent that most clearly illustrated cessation of existence. For them, could anything illustrate that concept better than chaff in a fire, or weeds in a fire, or dried branches in a fire? What else could God have his authors say, or what other images could they come up with to more clearly illustrate this notion? I don't know.
In addition to those words for and images of destruction, consider also those verses that depict that a person will be forfeited, or discarded. Illustrations are especially valuable because they don't depend upon the definition of word. We know that when salt is thrown out, or when bad fish are discarded, there is no intent to punish that which is discarded. In addition to words and illustrations that unbelievers will be destroyed, we also have clear teaching that unbelievers will be discarded, like bad fish or unsalty salt. Those images do not depict items that will continue to exist forever as punishment for their failures.
If we were to step back and ask what we should expect to see in scripture if Conditional Immortality is true, what we actually do see in scripture is what we should expect. All of these passages above tend to say the same thing. Together, they form a powerful and robust presentation of what will happen to unbelievers at the final judgment day.
The Meaning of Destruction
At this point, we have a multitude of verses that describe the destruction of unbelievers. Sometimes, this notion of destruction is communicated with words that are defined to mean 'destruction' and sometimes this notion is communicated using images that depict destruction, like burning weeds.
Supporters of ECT recognize these verses expressing the notion of destruction, and yet they continue to claim that unbelievers will exist forever. Clearly, they must reject the notion that this 'destruction' will end the existence of unbelievers. Let's examine in more detail this notion of destruction. The verses above express clearly express that unbelievers will be destroyed, but what does that mean?
At this point, let’s take a big step back here. What is it that we are looking for as we press forward? In this essay, we are hoping to learn what will be the eternal state of those who reject Christ. (And please remember that Christ and the apostles taught frequently on this topic, so it is important for us to understand it.)
The two competing theories I am considering can be labeled in different ways, but the one I am opposing is called Eternal Conscious Torment. The very name of this theory asserts that human beings will be both conscious and in torment. Some might say those two words are redundant, but let’s ignore that for now. I want to make the point that eternal conscious torment requires that a person has both thoughts and feelings. A human being that is suffering torment feels the torment and has thoughts regarding that torment. A human being that had neither thoughts nor feelings would be incapable of experiencing torment.
Therefore, the crucial question to ask is whether the final judgment will result in human beings that have thoughts and feelings. Or, to say it another way, and to bring it back to our current discussion, will the ‘destruction’ that is described in the Bible eliminate the thoughts and feelings of unbelievers, or will those thoughts and feelings continue after the destruction of the final judgment?
This question can be difficult because we normally don’t consider thoughts and feelings in questions of destruction during our everyday conversations. Let me use an example as an illustration.
Consider a cell phone. Unfortunately, many of us have experienced the unfortunate episode of dropping our cell phone into water. (Although many cell phones are now impervious to water, imagine an earlier model that was not.) When we drop our cell phone into water, it ceases to function. It doesn’t work. We can’t even turn it on and we can’t make phone calls or take pictures. It has ceased to function.
But does it still have thoughts and feelings?
“What?” you might ask. “What a stupid question! The phone never had thoughts and feelings to begin with.”
And you would be right. And that is what makes it tricky. How do we apply these words like ‘destruction’ and ‘ruin’ to human beings, that have thoughts and feelings?
It’s gets fuzzy when you try to think about it. The essential function of a phone is to make phone calls, but what is the essential function of man? Why was man created? The Westminster Catechism says this:
- Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
If a partially functioning human being were possible, then how would we describe that? What words would we use? If somebody were to say that this person had been ‘destroyed’, it would be difficult to disagree with that assertion. He has lost his primary function, he has been ruined. And this meaning, this loss of function, is within the range of meaning expressed by those Greek words in the Bible that are translated as ‘destruction’.
Where does that leave us? Given the semantic range of the words involved, are we unable to reach a clear conclusion what the Biblical authors intended? Are we stuck here in an argument that can’t be resolved?
No, we are not stuck. In spite of the semantic range of the words involved, we can reach a confident conclusion about exactly what was intended by the Biblical authors.
We can reach a confident conclusion by doing two things:
1) Consider the notion of existence.
2) Examine how we all intuitively understand the language of damage and destruction.
(One note here about my use of words. I'm using the word 'damage' here to represent all forms of harm that you might do to an object, up to and including its total destruction. One might argue that the word 'damage' is not severe enough to describe total destruction. That may be so, but I do want a more general word than destruction, and I've decided to use 'damage' as that word. Please understand that I would consider total destruction to be the most severe form of damage.)
In our earlier example of a phone that was dropped into water, we agreed that it no longer functions, but let me now ask a different question. Does the phone still exist?
I think we would say, ‘Yes, the phone still exists.” A phone is a physical object with a certain look to it. We can hold it in our hands and turn it around. If we can hold an object in our hands, it is pretty easy for us to say that it exists, and we can distinguish that concept of existence from the concept of function.
But what if the nature of the damage were different than dropping it into the water? What if, instead of dropping it into water, we used a mortar and pestle to grind into powder. And then we took that powder, place it into a cartridge, and shot it into the sun? After that, would the phone still exist? No, of course not. Perhaps the electrons and protons that once made up that phone still exist in the universe, but nobody in their right mind would say that the phone continued to exist.
With this in mind, when we talk about human beings, perhaps we can also go beyond the confusing question of function and instead talk about existence. If we talk about existence, the concepts are clarified. A human being that no longer exists would no longer have thoughts and feelings. So, if we can establish that cessation of existence is intended by Biblical authors, we can totally set aside all of those confusing issues of function as applied to human beings. Questions about the functions of a human being will become moot points if we knew that the person ceased to exist.
We have already said that the Greek words used in the Bible can be used in situations where the total cessation of existence is being expressed. But were the Biblical authors intending to use the words in that way?
How can we know?
We can know. We can know it by closely examining the language of damage.
We often converse with others about damage to things. There can be a wide range of results from damage. The thing that is damaged might be scratched, or dented, or seriously harmed, or ruined or totally annihilated.
In most of these conversations, we have a pretty clear understanding of what the other person intended. We human beings have learned through time to apply certain rules to the language of others so that we can best understand what they are trying to convey. I will look at a few examples shortly to clarify what I mean, but let share my conclusions first:
In our daily lives, we intuitively understand conversations regarding damage by considering two things:
- What is the composition of the thing being damaged?
- What is the nature of the damaging force?
I’ll explain using an illustration of a wooden chair.
Assume I had a wooden chair in front of me. This chair 'exists'. Now, assume that I pounded on the chair with a sledge hammer, breaking it into pieces. Does the chair continue to ‘exist’? It’s a tough question.
Can you still sit on it? No, not if it’s broken into pieces. Certainly, it no longer functions as a chair.
But you could imagine that it might be repaired. Right? If it were repaired, is it the same chair as before? I think we would say, “Yes, it is the same chair as before. It has been repaired.” If its the same chair, then it must have continued to exist. Is that right, or not?
Let’s go back to the rules I identified above. In this case, the thing we’re discussing is a chair composed of wood and the damaging force is a sledge hammer. Does a sledge hammer end the existence of the wooden chair? In my mind, I would have to say, “Not necessarily.” I'm not sure if this chair ceased to exist or not.
In this case, the thing damaged is a wooden chair, and the damaging force is a sledge hammer. If we read the statement 'He destroyed the chair by hitting it with a sledge hammer', we would have a fairly clear idea of what was intended. We would suspect that the chair now lay in several pieces on the floor. Even if we struggled on how best to describe it (Does it exist or not?), we would still know the essential state of the chair.
My point is this. In spite of the fact that words of destruction can have a range of meaning, we normally can gain a clear understanding of the current state based upon the composition of the damaged item and the nature of the damaging force.
To understand this better, let’s consider this same chair with a different damaging force. What if we threw this wooden chair into fiery furnace and burned it up? Would it then cease to exist? Yes, it would cease to exist. It no longer functions and it could never be repaired. There is no question that it has ceased to exist and no question about the current state of the chair.
With those thoughts in mind, consider these sentences:
- I destroyed the chair with a sledge hammer.
- I ruined the chair with a sledge hammer.
- I annihilated the chair with a sledge hammer.
The specific verb tells us that the chair is being damaged, but the verb is not of primary significant in conveying the concept. In our attempts to understand the meaning, we would probably say that the first two sentences were literal and the third was a metaphor or an exaggeration, because the chair wasn’t technically annihilated. But all of those discussions would be academic and would not change what was being communicated. We understand what was being communicated because understand 1) the composition of a chair and 2) the nature of what a sledge hammer does.
Now, consider these three sentences:
- I destroyed the chair by throwing it into the fiery furnace.
- I ruined the chair by throwing it into the fiery furnace.
- I annihilated the chair by throwing it into the fiery furnace.
Probably the first thing that stands out to me is that sentence number (2) is nonsensical. I can’t imagine anybody saying that I ruined a chair by throwing it into the fiery furnace. The only way that would make sense if I quenched the fire before its damage was completed, or maybe if I retrieved the chair out of the fire before the damage was completed. But nobody would ever say that I ruined a chair by throwing it into a fiery furnace and leaving it there. Something that ceases to exist is not ruined.
Another observation is this. Most would probably say that sentences (1) and (3) were literal. The chair was truly destroyed and the chair was truly annihilated, with no hint of exaggeration or metaphor.
So, you see once again that the verbs of damage are not what clearly conveys the primary meaning. We understand what is being communicated because we understand 1) the composition of a chair and 2) the nature of burning fire.
I hope you grasp the importance of this. I’ve been discussing this topic for years, but I never really enunciated this truth clearly until now. I spent many years trying to plumb the depths of the definition of the words being used in discussions of destruction. In hindsight, it is obvious that the definitions of the words are not sufficient to express what is being communicated. In discussions of damage to things, the primary components which convey the meaning of the language are (1) the composition of thing damaged and (2) the nature of the damaging force.
Let’s briefly consider another thing that suffers damage. Consider a marriage. A marriage is not a physical thing, and yet it certainly exists. What if one partner had an affair? Most would agree that an affair causes damage to a marriage. With that in mind, consider this sentence:
- The marriage was destroyed by the affair
What does that mean? Does the marriage still exist? I can’t sure.
If a divorce ensued, then the marriage no longer exists. Divorce ends the existence of the marriage. But I think we can imagine other possible meanings for the sentence above.
We can imagine a husband and wife, both filled with bitterness and strife, who continue to live in the same house following an affair. The legal entity we call a ‘marriage’ might still be intact, and yet all the intimacy and comfort that should normally exist in a marriage might be gone. In that case, we might say that the marriage had been destroyed.
Let's apply the rules to this example. (1) What is the composition of a marriage? It is a complex question. Is it just a legal entity, or is it a relationship? (2) What is the nature of the damaging force? The affair. OK. Does an affair end the existence of a marriage? Again, it's a complex question. An affair doesn’t always bring about divorce, and does not always end the relationship. So, we can't reach a definite conclusion.
Do you see? Our original language was that “the marriage was destroyed by the affair”. In this case, the language is ambiguous. No clear meaning can be understood from the single sentence we considered, because marriage is a complex entity, and an affair does not always bring the cessation of existence.
One more quick illustration. What if a friend said this to me:
- The Cardinals annihilated the Cubs last night
Let’s apply our rules. (1) What is the composition of the ‘Cubs’? A baseball team. (2) What is the agent of damage? A baseball game. Clearly, the baseball team called the Cubs continues to exist after this game. If this were said to me, I would understand immediately what was being communicated. Even though this very severe word ‘annihilation’ was used, I would never suppose for a minute that some loss of life or property occurred. It was simply a case of hyperbole, of exaggeration.
My goal is to highlight what we currently do. I am not proposing a set of rules that should be used. Instead, I am making the claim that these are rules we always intuitively use whenever we hear language of damage. Whether we are talking about phones or chairs or marriages or baseball teams, the same set of rules apply. The composition of the thing involved and the nature of the damaging force determines the meanings of the language. Sometimes, the meaning is clear. Sometimes, the meaning is ambiguous.
With that in mind, let’s get back to the Biblical discussion of the destruction of unbelievers. Can we extract a clear understanding of what was intended by the Biblical authors? The thing being damaged is man, and the damaging force is the final judgment of God. What is the composition of man, and what is the nature of the damaging force? Overwhelming, we see this:
- That which is damaged (man) is repeatedly compared to things that are unequivocally flammable.
- The damaging force (God’s judgment) is repeatedly compared to a fire.
For those who know the scripture, those two sentences above should trigger the recall of many verses.
Do you remember all of those Old Testament images which compare man to stubble and chaff? Do you recall all of those mentions of God as a fire, and as consuming fire? Consider the illustrations in the New Testament in regard to the judgment. Men are compared to chaff and to weeds and to dried branches. God is referred to as a consuming fire and the final judgment as a lake of fire.
By comparing the composition of man to things like stubble and chaff and the nature of the final judgment to fire, the authors were be explicitly clear about what they were communicating.
Quibbles over definitions should become largely irrelevant. Don’t you see? Definitions are not the primary tool we use to determine the meaning of destruction language. The primary thing that matters is the composition of the thing being destroyed and the nature of the destroying agent. The Bible declares, over and over again, that man is flammable and God is a consuming fire. The verses are too many to list here, but you could find themselves if you wish. In regards to the composition of man, all you need to do is search your Bible for words like chaff, stubble and weeds. In regards to the destructive nature of God, look up words like fire, flaming and consuming. Here are just a few examples:
- Isa_5:24 Therefore, as a tongue of fire consumes stubble And dry grass collapses into the flame, So their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away as dust; For they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts And despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
- Isa_33:11 "You have conceived chaff, you will give birth to stubble; My breath will consume you like a fire.
- Mal_4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze," says the LORD of hosts, "so that it will leave them neither root nor branch."
- Oba_1:18 "Then the house of Jacob will be a fire And the house of Joseph a flame; But the house of Esau will be as stubble. And they will set them on fire and consume them, So that there will be no survivor of the house of Esau," For the LORD has spoken.
- Mat_13:30 'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"
- Mat_13:38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
- Luk_3:17 "His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
- Joh 15:6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
- Heb 10:26-27 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
- Heb 12:29 for our God is a consuming fire.
- 2Pe 3:7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
- 2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass
- Rev 14:10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
With those verses as part of the broader context of Biblical expression, we can have a very clear idea of what was intended when authors use the word 'destruction' to express the final judgment by God upon man.
The evidence is clear and beyond dispute. When the Bible discusses the final destruction of man, the ultimate result of that destruction is clear. Man can be consumed, and the final judgment is a consuming fire that will do just that.
Eternal Existence of Unbelievers
Having examined those verses that express that unbelievers will be destroyed, let us now examine those verses that express the notion that unbelievers will exist forever in torment.
I did find one verse in the book of Revelation:
Is that a clear teaching that unbelievers will be tormented forever and ever? No. It implies it, but it is nowhere near a clear teaching. I say that for these several reasons.
This verse is not applied to unbelievers in general, but only to three specific entities. This verse couldn't be considered a clear teaching on the fate of 'all unbelievers' if 'all unbelievers' are not even mentioned.
Second, this verse occurs in the midst of a very symbolic verse. This lake of fire seems a bit inconsistent. I say that because verse 14 of this same chapter says that Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. How can that be? Can Death and Hades be tormented forever also? I don't think so. We are told elsewhere that death will be abolished and that Christ will have total victory over Death. So, verse 14 seems to depict a symbolic representation of that Death and Hades will be destroyed. Apparently, the lake of fire is an agent of destruction.
Also, many times Scripture uses hyperbole to express severe statements. Here is one example:
This is in the midst of a passage where Isaiah prophesies the destruction of Edom. Notice that he says that the smoke will go up forever. But then he says various animals will dwell there. How could that be possible if it were still smoking? Clearly, he must be using hyperbole just to make the claim that the fire will burn for a very long time.
He also says that no one will pass through it forever and ever. Is that literally true? I'm not sure exactly the current location of that place that used to be Edom. But given the 3000 years or so that have passed since this passage was written, it seems likely that somebody has passed through Edom since that time. Again, authors often use hyperbole to make a strong point, and I suspect that is what Isaiah was doing.
So, for those reasons, I will resist any efforts that say this passage is an clear and explicit statement that teaches the eternal torment of unbelievers. It implies eternal torment, but could not be considered clear teaching.
Now, here's the part that may be shocking to many of you. That verse is essentially all there is in the Bible that seems to imply the eternal torment of anything. If I were to create a diagram for the eternal existence of unbelievers, it would look like this:
Having examined those verses that express that unbelievers will be destroyed, let us now examine those verses that express the notion that unbelievers will exist forever in torment.
I did find one verse in the book of Revelation:
- Rev 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Is that a clear teaching that unbelievers will be tormented forever and ever? No. It implies it, but it is nowhere near a clear teaching. I say that for these several reasons.
This verse is not applied to unbelievers in general, but only to three specific entities. This verse couldn't be considered a clear teaching on the fate of 'all unbelievers' if 'all unbelievers' are not even mentioned.
Second, this verse occurs in the midst of a very symbolic verse. This lake of fire seems a bit inconsistent. I say that because verse 14 of this same chapter says that Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. How can that be? Can Death and Hades be tormented forever also? I don't think so. We are told elsewhere that death will be abolished and that Christ will have total victory over Death. So, verse 14 seems to depict a symbolic representation of that Death and Hades will be destroyed. Apparently, the lake of fire is an agent of destruction.
Also, many times Scripture uses hyperbole to express severe statements. Here is one example:
- Isa 34:10-11 It will never go out—day or night. Its smoke will go up forever. It will be desolate, from generation to generation; no one will pass through it forever and ever. Eagle owls and herons will possess it, and long-eared owls and ravens will dwell there. The LORD will stretch out a measuring line and a plumb line over her for her destruction and chaos.
This is in the midst of a passage where Isaiah prophesies the destruction of Edom. Notice that he says that the smoke will go up forever. But then he says various animals will dwell there. How could that be possible if it were still smoking? Clearly, he must be using hyperbole just to make the claim that the fire will burn for a very long time.
He also says that no one will pass through it forever and ever. Is that literally true? I'm not sure exactly the current location of that place that used to be Edom. But given the 3000 years or so that have passed since this passage was written, it seems likely that somebody has passed through Edom since that time. Again, authors often use hyperbole to make a strong point, and I suspect that is what Isaiah was doing.
So, for those reasons, I will resist any efforts that say this passage is an clear and explicit statement that teaches the eternal torment of unbelievers. It implies eternal torment, but could not be considered clear teaching.
Now, here's the part that may be shocking to many of you. That verse is essentially all there is in the Bible that seems to imply the eternal torment of anything. If I were to create a diagram for the eternal existence of unbelievers, it would look like this:
I included the verse from Revelation 20:10, but did not put it in the middle because it is not a clear teaching.
And that's about it. Revelation 20:10 is essentially the only verse in the Bible that seems to teach the eternal torment of unbelievers.
Five Other Verses
"Wait!, " you say, "That's not right! There are more verses than that! What about the rich man and Lazarus? "
In fact, I do recognize that several verses have traditionally been used to support the doctrine of ECT. However, those verses do not actually support the doctrine. I will examine these five verses now:
Daniel 12:2
In Daniel 12:2, we are told that some will suffer eternal contempt. The key thing to recognize here is that contempt is a thing that is felt towards another person. That other person need not exist in order for the first person to feel contempt. Here's an example. Do most people feel contempt for Hitler? I would say yes. But how can that be, since Hitler is dead. Well, Hitler does not need to remain alive in order for our contempt to remain.
So, Daniel 12:2 aligns very well with what we are taught in the New Testament. All people will be raised for judgment. Those who rejected Jesus, like the goats in the parable, will feel shame at that point. They will be destroyed in the lake of fire, and those saints that are saved will hold contempt for them forever, because they refused the grace that was offered by Christ. There is nothing in Daniel 12:2 that forces us to believe in the eternal existence of unbelievers.
Matthew 25:46
In Matthew, Jesus says that being thrown into the eternal fire is an eternal punishment. The first thing to take note of here is that the lake of fire is the fire of God's own presence. We see this evidence in multiple places:
Our God is a consuming fire. Daniel tells us that the beast will be thrown into the fire of God's presence. Paul tells us that unbelievers will suffer an irreversible destruction that flows from the presence of God. And Revelation tells us that those who worship the beast will be tormented in the presence of the Lamb. With those as a background, I think we can be safe in assuming that Jesus is referring to the fire of God's own presence.
What happens to those that are thrown into the fire of God's presence? They are consumed. Scripture is clear.
"But, " you say, "Jesus says that it is an 'eternal punishment." And I, of course, agree with Jesus. A loss of life that extends throughout eternity is indeed an eternal punishment.
Let me elaborate on this thought. In our American justice system, we have multiple types of punishment. For those that are most severe, we sometimes sentence a criminal to what we call 'capital punishment'. This punishment lasts only a few moments, but it's impact is permanent, as far as this life is concerned. Those punished by capital punishment lose their lives. Nobody argues about that.
Now, is earthly capital punishment an eternal punishment? We would all say no. A person sentenced to capital punishment might repent before his death, and therefore enter into bliss with Christ. So, it is not an eternal punishment.
But what if there were such a thing as 'eternal capital punishment'? What would we call a punishment that ended the eternal life of a person, with no hope of resurrection? If the punishment ended his life, and that punishment would never, ever be reversed, wouldn't that rightly be described as an 'eternal punishment'. Surely it would be. And we can be more sure of that because Jesus contrasted that punishment with 'eternal life'. What is the opposite of life? Death. What is the opposite of existence? Non-existence. So, it is most natural to understand the opposite of eternal life to be eternal death, or eternal non-existence. That is an eternal punishment. Therefore, Matthew 25:46 offers no support for the doctrine of eternal existence of unbelievers.
Luke 13:28
The next verse is Luke 13:28, which describes the weeping and gnashing of teeth by those who reject Christ at the final judgment. I believe there are seven passages in scripture where the phrase 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' appears in the gospels. In not one of those places is that activity described as continuing forever. However, in one instance, we are given more details about what it means. In Luke 13:28, Jesus says they will weep and gnash their teeth, "when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out". This is not weeping and gnashing of teeth due to torment, it is an act of rage and defiance and jealousy and perhaps regret. This verse tells us that unbelievers will get a glimpse of the righteous taking their place in the kingdom of God, but they themselves will be excluded. Again, nothing in this verse supports the notion of eternal conscious torment.
Luke 16
Finally, let's consider the parable of the rich man and Lazarus chapter 16. The final verse in this section says this:
And that is the main point of this parable. Jesus is predicting his own resurrection, and I also suspect he must know at this point that he will also raise Lazarus from the dead, since he uses the name Lazarus as the name of the guy who might rise from the dead. Lazarus will rise from the dead, and so will Jesus, but the leaders of Israel still won't believe, even then. That is the point of this parable. It is not intended to teach about the final judgment of unbelievers.
This is made clear by the fact that the rich man was in Hades. Hades is the Greek word for the abode of the dead. Hades is not the lake of fire and it is not the final judgment. At best, this parable might give us some insight into the intermediate state between death and the judgment day. But I doubt that Jesus even intended to do that. What I do know is that Hades will be thrown in the lake of fire, as we observed earlier. Revelation tells us that Hades will be emptied of all inhabitants and then thrown into the lake of fire. It is the lake of fire that determines the final fate of unbelievers, not Hades. Therefore, this verse also tells us nothing about the final state of unbelievers, and so offers no support for the doctrine of ECT.
Revelation 14:10-11 - Smoke Rising
One more passage I want to address is this one:
For a long time, I considered this passage to offer strong support for the doctrine of ECT. I no longer believe that. Instead, I now believe it offers strong support that unbelievers will be destroyed in the lake of fire. The key reason is because of the phrase 'smoke rises forever'. This concept of smoke rising occurs in three other places in scripture. Smoke rose after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, it was prophesied to rise after the destruction of Edom in Isaiah, and it rises after the destruction of Babylon in Revelation 18. In each case, rising smoke indicates total destruction has been completed. I have dealt with this passage in great detail in this essay.
You may not have noticed, but I actually included this verse in among those verses that teach the destruction of unbelievers. The evidence is difficult to deny. When we see the Bible mention smoke rising, especially when that smoke is depicted as 'rising forever', it indicates that a total destruction has been accomplished. There is no reason to interpret Revelation 14:11 in a way that departs from the other verses where this imagery is used. The most consistent understanding of Revelation 14:11 is that those worship the beast will be totally destroyed by the full strength of God's wrath, and their smoke will rise forever as testimony of that destruction.
The Comparison
At this point, I have given my reasoning behind creating the diagrams in the way that I did. Below is an illustration which shows the diagrams placed sided by side. I've also include four of the verses I dealt with above in the middle of the diagram. They are in the middle because the support neither side of the argument.
And that's about it. Revelation 20:10 is essentially the only verse in the Bible that seems to teach the eternal torment of unbelievers.
Five Other Verses
"Wait!, " you say, "That's not right! There are more verses than that! What about the rich man and Lazarus? "
In fact, I do recognize that several verses have traditionally been used to support the doctrine of ECT. However, those verses do not actually support the doctrine. I will examine these five verses now:
- Dan 12:2 Many who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, and some to disgrace and eternal contempt.
- Mat 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
- Luke 13:28 "In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out.
- Luk 16:19ff “There was a rich man who would dress in purple and fine linen, feasting lavishly every day...
- Rev 14:10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
Daniel 12:2
In Daniel 12:2, we are told that some will suffer eternal contempt. The key thing to recognize here is that contempt is a thing that is felt towards another person. That other person need not exist in order for the first person to feel contempt. Here's an example. Do most people feel contempt for Hitler? I would say yes. But how can that be, since Hitler is dead. Well, Hitler does not need to remain alive in order for our contempt to remain.
So, Daniel 12:2 aligns very well with what we are taught in the New Testament. All people will be raised for judgment. Those who rejected Jesus, like the goats in the parable, will feel shame at that point. They will be destroyed in the lake of fire, and those saints that are saved will hold contempt for them forever, because they refused the grace that was offered by Christ. There is nothing in Daniel 12:2 that forces us to believe in the eternal existence of unbelievers.
Matthew 25:46
In Matthew, Jesus says that being thrown into the eternal fire is an eternal punishment. The first thing to take note of here is that the lake of fire is the fire of God's own presence. We see this evidence in multiple places:
- Deu 4:24 "For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God
- Dan 7:9-10-11 "I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His vesture was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire. A river of fire was flowing And coming out from before Him;... the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire.
- 2Th 1:9 They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the Lord’s presence and from his glorious strength (CSB)
- Rev 14:10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
Our God is a consuming fire. Daniel tells us that the beast will be thrown into the fire of God's presence. Paul tells us that unbelievers will suffer an irreversible destruction that flows from the presence of God. And Revelation tells us that those who worship the beast will be tormented in the presence of the Lamb. With those as a background, I think we can be safe in assuming that Jesus is referring to the fire of God's own presence.
What happens to those that are thrown into the fire of God's presence? They are consumed. Scripture is clear.
"But, " you say, "Jesus says that it is an 'eternal punishment." And I, of course, agree with Jesus. A loss of life that extends throughout eternity is indeed an eternal punishment.
Let me elaborate on this thought. In our American justice system, we have multiple types of punishment. For those that are most severe, we sometimes sentence a criminal to what we call 'capital punishment'. This punishment lasts only a few moments, but it's impact is permanent, as far as this life is concerned. Those punished by capital punishment lose their lives. Nobody argues about that.
Now, is earthly capital punishment an eternal punishment? We would all say no. A person sentenced to capital punishment might repent before his death, and therefore enter into bliss with Christ. So, it is not an eternal punishment.
But what if there were such a thing as 'eternal capital punishment'? What would we call a punishment that ended the eternal life of a person, with no hope of resurrection? If the punishment ended his life, and that punishment would never, ever be reversed, wouldn't that rightly be described as an 'eternal punishment'. Surely it would be. And we can be more sure of that because Jesus contrasted that punishment with 'eternal life'. What is the opposite of life? Death. What is the opposite of existence? Non-existence. So, it is most natural to understand the opposite of eternal life to be eternal death, or eternal non-existence. That is an eternal punishment. Therefore, Matthew 25:46 offers no support for the doctrine of eternal existence of unbelievers.
Luke 13:28
The next verse is Luke 13:28, which describes the weeping and gnashing of teeth by those who reject Christ at the final judgment. I believe there are seven passages in scripture where the phrase 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' appears in the gospels. In not one of those places is that activity described as continuing forever. However, in one instance, we are given more details about what it means. In Luke 13:28, Jesus says they will weep and gnash their teeth, "when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out". This is not weeping and gnashing of teeth due to torment, it is an act of rage and defiance and jealousy and perhaps regret. This verse tells us that unbelievers will get a glimpse of the righteous taking their place in the kingdom of God, but they themselves will be excluded. Again, nothing in this verse supports the notion of eternal conscious torment.
Luke 16
Finally, let's consider the parable of the rich man and Lazarus chapter 16. The final verse in this section says this:
- Luk 16:31 "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"
And that is the main point of this parable. Jesus is predicting his own resurrection, and I also suspect he must know at this point that he will also raise Lazarus from the dead, since he uses the name Lazarus as the name of the guy who might rise from the dead. Lazarus will rise from the dead, and so will Jesus, but the leaders of Israel still won't believe, even then. That is the point of this parable. It is not intended to teach about the final judgment of unbelievers.
This is made clear by the fact that the rich man was in Hades. Hades is the Greek word for the abode of the dead. Hades is not the lake of fire and it is not the final judgment. At best, this parable might give us some insight into the intermediate state between death and the judgment day. But I doubt that Jesus even intended to do that. What I do know is that Hades will be thrown in the lake of fire, as we observed earlier. Revelation tells us that Hades will be emptied of all inhabitants and then thrown into the lake of fire. It is the lake of fire that determines the final fate of unbelievers, not Hades. Therefore, this verse also tells us nothing about the final state of unbelievers, and so offers no support for the doctrine of ECT.
Revelation 14:10-11 - Smoke Rising
One more passage I want to address is this one:
- Rev 14:10-11 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
For a long time, I considered this passage to offer strong support for the doctrine of ECT. I no longer believe that. Instead, I now believe it offers strong support that unbelievers will be destroyed in the lake of fire. The key reason is because of the phrase 'smoke rises forever'. This concept of smoke rising occurs in three other places in scripture. Smoke rose after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, it was prophesied to rise after the destruction of Edom in Isaiah, and it rises after the destruction of Babylon in Revelation 18. In each case, rising smoke indicates total destruction has been completed. I have dealt with this passage in great detail in this essay.
You may not have noticed, but I actually included this verse in among those verses that teach the destruction of unbelievers. The evidence is difficult to deny. When we see the Bible mention smoke rising, especially when that smoke is depicted as 'rising forever', it indicates that a total destruction has been accomplished. There is no reason to interpret Revelation 14:11 in a way that departs from the other verses where this imagery is used. The most consistent understanding of Revelation 14:11 is that those worship the beast will be totally destroyed by the full strength of God's wrath, and their smoke will rise forever as testimony of that destruction.
The Comparison
At this point, I have given my reasoning behind creating the diagrams in the way that I did. Below is an illustration which shows the diagrams placed sided by side. I've also include four of the verses I dealt with above in the middle of the diagram. They are in the middle because the support neither side of the argument.
In my mind, the conclusion is beyond escaping. The biblical evidence overwhelmingly favors the argument that unbelievers will be destroyed, with essentially zero evidence supporting the notions that unbelievers will exist forever.
But I'm not done. There is more to consider here.
What If ECT Were True
Now, let me ask the same question of ECT that I asked of Conditional Immortality.
We should expect to see a cluster of meaning around the concept that those who reject Christ will continue to exist forever in a state of torment. What might that cluster of verses look like? Well, there were many words in the Greek language that could express that notion. We should read that 'sinners will be tormented forever', or 'unbelievers will be eternally separated from God', or 'they will face infinite agony'. The table below shows a list of English words that might be used to express this concept of eternal conscious torment. In the table, I've listed English words, along with the Greek words that mean the same thing, and passages in scripture where those Greek words are used. In creating this table, I hope to illustrate for you what Greek words were available to the biblical authors that could easily have been utilized to express the notion of eternal conscious torment.
But I'm not done. There is more to consider here.
What If ECT Were True
Now, let me ask the same question of ECT that I asked of Conditional Immortality.
- If ECT were true, what we expect to see?
We should expect to see a cluster of meaning around the concept that those who reject Christ will continue to exist forever in a state of torment. What might that cluster of verses look like? Well, there were many words in the Greek language that could express that notion. We should read that 'sinners will be tormented forever', or 'unbelievers will be eternally separated from God', or 'they will face infinite agony'. The table below shows a list of English words that might be used to express this concept of eternal conscious torment. In the table, I've listed English words, along with the Greek words that mean the same thing, and passages in scripture where those Greek words are used. In creating this table, I hope to illustrate for you what Greek words were available to the biblical authors that could easily have been utilized to express the notion of eternal conscious torment.
By looking at the table above, we can imagine a wide variety of ways that biblical authors could have expressed the notion of eternal conscious torment. Multiple words existed to express pain, and also to express separation and related ideas. Also, multiple ways could have been used to express the notion of eternal or unending.
Does that make sense? If ECT were true, I would expect John 3:16 to say something like this:
And similar verses should exist throughout scripture.
In addition to those ideas expressed in words, the concept of eternal torment could have also been expressed in images. For example, imagine if Jesus had given a parable about a rock that was thrown in a fire, but continued to exist forever. Or maybe we might have a story about a man thrown into prison, and then the key was taken to the middle of the ocean and discarded. Any number of images could have been used to illustrate eternal conscious torment. Chaff and weeds in a fire do a poor job of that.
In the end, if eternal conscious torment were truly expressed in scripture, we should see an entire set of verses focused around that concept. The illustration below gives you an idea of what we should expect. I took words and images that I have just discussed and placed them into the diagram that I had created for the destruction of unbelievers. For the Bible verses, I replaced the chapter and verse numbers from my earlier diagram with x's. I was forced to do this because these verses don't actually exist. I hope you understand.
Does that make sense? If ECT were true, I would expect John 3:16 to say something like this:
- For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not suffer without end, but will instead live forever in bliss
And similar verses should exist throughout scripture.
In addition to those ideas expressed in words, the concept of eternal torment could have also been expressed in images. For example, imagine if Jesus had given a parable about a rock that was thrown in a fire, but continued to exist forever. Or maybe we might have a story about a man thrown into prison, and then the key was taken to the middle of the ocean and discarded. Any number of images could have been used to illustrate eternal conscious torment. Chaff and weeds in a fire do a poor job of that.
In the end, if eternal conscious torment were truly expressed in scripture, we should see an entire set of verses focused around that concept. The illustration below gives you an idea of what we should expect. I took words and images that I have just discussed and placed them into the diagram that I had created for the destruction of unbelievers. For the Bible verses, I replaced the chapter and verse numbers from my earlier diagram with x's. I was forced to do this because these verses don't actually exist. I hope you understand.
If the verses above actually existed in the Bible, we would truly have a clear teaching on eternal conscious torment, and only the very stubborn would try to deny it. In that case, some might try to redefine those words above and claim that they actually mean 'destroy', but surely nobody would believe them if they did.
Also, I left in the note about Old Testament verses. If eternal torment were the actual penalty for sin, you would think God would have made that clear in the Old Testament. There is no mention in any of the law about an eternal penalty. Is that fair? Would God really torment an individual for all eternity without any warning whatsoever? That sounds more like a corrupt judge than a loving God of justice.
As I said earlier, I believed in eternal conscious torment until about 20 years of age. I remember what it was like to be in that position. I believed that words like 'perish' were actually euphemisms for eternal torment. For example, instead of saying that two people had sex, we might say that they 'made love'. 'Made love' is a euphemism for 'having sex'. So, I thought, it was the same for biblical authors. Instead of saying 'torment forever in hell', they just said that those people will 'perish'.
Is that what you believe? If so, I would like to dunk your head in some cold water. Or maybe slap you. Or some language equivalent to that. I want to wake you up and open your eyes. I understand what you are seeing, because I was once there myself. But there is no reason to think that the authors intended all of these descriptions of destruction to be euphemisms for anything. We should read these words as meaning exactly what they say.
Let's look again at John 3:16. Jesus says that those who believe in him will not 'perish' (from the Greek work APOLEIA). Now, we all know what perish means. But before I really studied the scripture on this topic, the lifelong teaching that I had received instructed me to substitute the meaning of 'eternal torment' for the word 'perish'. Even though John wrote 'they shall not perish', what I read was 'they shall not suffer eternal torment'. It was as if 'perish' was a code word, or euphemism, for eternal torment.
But I was not consistent. If I read the word 'perish' elsewhere, I gave it the correct meaning. For example, Paul wrote this in I Corinthians:
And it is just as clear in John 3:16 and other passages. The authors said what they meant. There is no reason to believe otherwise.
The ECT Solution
With so many passages in scripture clearly teaching the destruction of unbelievers, how then do the supporters of ECT defend their doctrine? In my experience, they commit an egregious act of Bible interpretation - they redefine words. They claim that when the word 'destruction' is used by Biblical authors, those authors are trying to tell us that those people destroyed will exist forever. Destruction, then, really means 'exist forever'.
And according to this tactic of redefining words, God 'destroying' somebody really means he will 'sustain them forever'. Allow me to elaborate on this just a bit. Some understand that the human soul is immortal. However, clear biblical evidence exists that humans are not, in fact, immortal. Here are just three passages that attest to that:
In Genesis, God expelled Adam from the garden to ensure that he wouldn't eat from the tree of life and live forever. Without the tree of life, man is mortal. Paul clearly says in Acts that it is only in Him that we exist. And Paul explicitly says to Timothy that only God possesses immortality.
Therefore, we know that the only way a human being can live forever is if God sustains him forever. If God wants to torment unbelievers for all of eternity, then he must sustain them forever so that he can continue to inflict the torment and suffering upon them. There is no other way. The only way to make eternal torment coincide with those verses saying God will destroy the unbelievers is to interpret 'destroy' in those verses to mean 'sustain forever'.
If, then, they redefine 'destruction' to mean 'exist forever' and 'destroy' to mean 'sustain forever', then they can do this:
Also, I left in the note about Old Testament verses. If eternal torment were the actual penalty for sin, you would think God would have made that clear in the Old Testament. There is no mention in any of the law about an eternal penalty. Is that fair? Would God really torment an individual for all eternity without any warning whatsoever? That sounds more like a corrupt judge than a loving God of justice.
As I said earlier, I believed in eternal conscious torment until about 20 years of age. I remember what it was like to be in that position. I believed that words like 'perish' were actually euphemisms for eternal torment. For example, instead of saying that two people had sex, we might say that they 'made love'. 'Made love' is a euphemism for 'having sex'. So, I thought, it was the same for biblical authors. Instead of saying 'torment forever in hell', they just said that those people will 'perish'.
Is that what you believe? If so, I would like to dunk your head in some cold water. Or maybe slap you. Or some language equivalent to that. I want to wake you up and open your eyes. I understand what you are seeing, because I was once there myself. But there is no reason to think that the authors intended all of these descriptions of destruction to be euphemisms for anything. We should read these words as meaning exactly what they say.
Let's look again at John 3:16. Jesus says that those who believe in him will not 'perish' (from the Greek work APOLEIA). Now, we all know what perish means. But before I really studied the scripture on this topic, the lifelong teaching that I had received instructed me to substitute the meaning of 'eternal torment' for the word 'perish'. Even though John wrote 'they shall not perish', what I read was 'they shall not suffer eternal torment'. It was as if 'perish' was a code word, or euphemism, for eternal torment.
But I was not consistent. If I read the word 'perish' elsewhere, I gave it the correct meaning. For example, Paul wrote this in I Corinthians:
- 1Co 15:16-18 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
And it is just as clear in John 3:16 and other passages. The authors said what they meant. There is no reason to believe otherwise.
The ECT Solution
With so many passages in scripture clearly teaching the destruction of unbelievers, how then do the supporters of ECT defend their doctrine? In my experience, they commit an egregious act of Bible interpretation - they redefine words. They claim that when the word 'destruction' is used by Biblical authors, those authors are trying to tell us that those people destroyed will exist forever. Destruction, then, really means 'exist forever'.
And according to this tactic of redefining words, God 'destroying' somebody really means he will 'sustain them forever'. Allow me to elaborate on this just a bit. Some understand that the human soul is immortal. However, clear biblical evidence exists that humans are not, in fact, immortal. Here are just three passages that attest to that:
- Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"—
- Act_17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'
- 1Ti 6:16 (God) who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.
In Genesis, God expelled Adam from the garden to ensure that he wouldn't eat from the tree of life and live forever. Without the tree of life, man is mortal. Paul clearly says in Acts that it is only in Him that we exist. And Paul explicitly says to Timothy that only God possesses immortality.
Therefore, we know that the only way a human being can live forever is if God sustains him forever. If God wants to torment unbelievers for all of eternity, then he must sustain them forever so that he can continue to inflict the torment and suffering upon them. There is no other way. The only way to make eternal torment coincide with those verses saying God will destroy the unbelievers is to interpret 'destroy' in those verses to mean 'sustain forever'.
If, then, they redefine 'destruction' to mean 'exist forever' and 'destroy' to mean 'sustain forever', then they can do this:
Do you see? They can take all of the verses that depict the destruction of unbeliever and claim them as their own.
BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT!
Or perhaps I should say, "Please don't do that!" Please don't take an entire teaching of scripture, expressed over and over again by multiple authors, and then try to convert the whole teaching en masse to a position that more closely corresponds to your own. With one snap of their fingers, supporters of ECT undermine an entire cluster of meaning that was expressed clearly by Jesus and his apostles.
'Egregious' means 'outstandingly bad, shocking'. I use the word egregious intentionally. Again, please understand that I am trying hard to be obedient to Christ and to act out of love. If you believe in ECT, I'm not trying to offend you or chase you away, but I am trying to get your attention. I want to be clear about just how bad this problem is, and just how far from scripture the doctrine of ECT truly is.
Image a basketball game played between the World Champion Golden State Warriors and a typical high school team. This game would be a rout. The Warriors would probably score 5 to 10 times as much as the high school team. And then, after it was over, imagine that the coach of the high school team says, "What we'll do now is assume that every point scored by the Warriors is actually our point. That means we win! Yay! We beat the world champions!"
Of course that is silly. You just can't do that. And it's equally silly for supporters of ECT to assume they can just wave their hands and suddenly all those verses clearly describing the destruction of unbelievers will now support their position.
Not only do they claim destruction verses as supporting their position, they then double-down on their position. They claim that they have an abundant set of verses that all teach what they want to say. If one responds to them on a specific verse by saying, "But that word means destruction", they'll point to the collection of all the other verses. "Sure, " they'll say, " this one instance might be translated as destruction in isolation, but you have to read this one verse in light of all the other verses that also teach eternal torment." The only problem is that all of those other verses don't exist. Take away all of the verses in the Bible that teach the destruction of unbelievers and then try to argue for eternal conscious torment. What do you have left? Essentially nothing.
You may think I'm exaggerating, but I have first-hand evidence of this. I was eating lunch with a friend who believed in ECT. I was in the process of going through all of the verses that clearly express the destruction of unbelievers, and he said, "OK, so I see those verses, but I could list 10 or more verses that clearly depict eternal torment."
I said, "OK. Name all the verses you know with clear language of eternal torment or eternal separation."
He said, "Revelation 20:10"
I said, "OK, there's one." And I held up one finger.
"And then there's 2 Thessalonians 1:9", he said next.
I couldn't believe that he actually chose 2 Thessalonians 1:9. As a reminder, here it is:
That's all he came up with - a verse that clearly describes the destruction of unbelievers. Again, let that sink in. I asked him to list verses whose language clearly expresses eternal torment or eternal separation, and after just one verse he had to resort to a verse the clearly expressed destruction. My diagram about the egregious errors of supporters of ECT is not made up. Totally subverting the meaning of some 40 separate verses is what must be done in order to support the notion of eternal conscious torment.
Scriptural interpretation requires that we don't read our own ideas into passages. There's a word for that, and it's 'eisegesis'. It's the opposite of 'exegesis'. Exegesis is the proper technique for interpreting scripture. We should extract from the text what the author put in. It's almost as if supporters of ECT have a syringe full of the ECT doctrine, and they go to all of these passages where the authors clearly expressed the notion of destruction and they inject their own meaning of eternal conscious torment. Then they step back and say, "See. These verses support ECT."
BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT!
Or perhaps I should say, "Please don't do that!" Please don't take an entire teaching of scripture, expressed over and over again by multiple authors, and then try to convert the whole teaching en masse to a position that more closely corresponds to your own. With one snap of their fingers, supporters of ECT undermine an entire cluster of meaning that was expressed clearly by Jesus and his apostles.
'Egregious' means 'outstandingly bad, shocking'. I use the word egregious intentionally. Again, please understand that I am trying hard to be obedient to Christ and to act out of love. If you believe in ECT, I'm not trying to offend you or chase you away, but I am trying to get your attention. I want to be clear about just how bad this problem is, and just how far from scripture the doctrine of ECT truly is.
Image a basketball game played between the World Champion Golden State Warriors and a typical high school team. This game would be a rout. The Warriors would probably score 5 to 10 times as much as the high school team. And then, after it was over, imagine that the coach of the high school team says, "What we'll do now is assume that every point scored by the Warriors is actually our point. That means we win! Yay! We beat the world champions!"
Of course that is silly. You just can't do that. And it's equally silly for supporters of ECT to assume they can just wave their hands and suddenly all those verses clearly describing the destruction of unbelievers will now support their position.
Not only do they claim destruction verses as supporting their position, they then double-down on their position. They claim that they have an abundant set of verses that all teach what they want to say. If one responds to them on a specific verse by saying, "But that word means destruction", they'll point to the collection of all the other verses. "Sure, " they'll say, " this one instance might be translated as destruction in isolation, but you have to read this one verse in light of all the other verses that also teach eternal torment." The only problem is that all of those other verses don't exist. Take away all of the verses in the Bible that teach the destruction of unbelievers and then try to argue for eternal conscious torment. What do you have left? Essentially nothing.
You may think I'm exaggerating, but I have first-hand evidence of this. I was eating lunch with a friend who believed in ECT. I was in the process of going through all of the verses that clearly express the destruction of unbelievers, and he said, "OK, so I see those verses, but I could list 10 or more verses that clearly depict eternal torment."
I said, "OK. Name all the verses you know with clear language of eternal torment or eternal separation."
He said, "Revelation 20:10"
I said, "OK, there's one." And I held up one finger.
"And then there's 2 Thessalonians 1:9", he said next.
I couldn't believe that he actually chose 2 Thessalonians 1:9. As a reminder, here it is:
- They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the Lord’s presence and from his glorious strength (CSB)
That's all he came up with - a verse that clearly describes the destruction of unbelievers. Again, let that sink in. I asked him to list verses whose language clearly expresses eternal torment or eternal separation, and after just one verse he had to resort to a verse the clearly expressed destruction. My diagram about the egregious errors of supporters of ECT is not made up. Totally subverting the meaning of some 40 separate verses is what must be done in order to support the notion of eternal conscious torment.
Scriptural interpretation requires that we don't read our own ideas into passages. There's a word for that, and it's 'eisegesis'. It's the opposite of 'exegesis'. Exegesis is the proper technique for interpreting scripture. We should extract from the text what the author put in. It's almost as if supporters of ECT have a syringe full of the ECT doctrine, and they go to all of these passages where the authors clearly expressed the notion of destruction and they inject their own meaning of eternal conscious torment. Then they step back and say, "See. These verses support ECT."
The Choice
As a final attempt to get a handle on this idea of destruction, imagine I created a scale that shows a transition from the concept of Cessation of Existence to the concept of Eternal Existence. Here is what I mean:
As a final attempt to get a handle on this idea of destruction, imagine I created a scale that shows a transition from the concept of Cessation of Existence to the concept of Eternal Existence. Here is what I mean:
Starting at the left...
'Destruction' here will express the idea that an object ceases to exist.
'Ruin' express that an object no longer functions as intended, but does not express the cessation of existence.
'Damage' is less severe than ruin. A damaged object would normally still function.
'Shun' expresses the idea that we leave an object alone. We cause no damage, nor do we impact the object at all.
'Preserve' expresses the concept that we take explicit steps to make sure an objects lasts for a long time.
What I hope to illustrate here may seem obvious: The concept of 'preserving' is at the far end of the scale from the concept of 'destroying'. It is hard to imagine that authors would consistently use the language of destroying to express the concept of preserving something.
Imagine I said "The document was destroyed in the fire". Everyone would understand that the document ceased to exist.
Now, what if a person said, "I destroyed my shirt by spilling tomato sauce all over it." Well, I might find that just a bit strange. That is, it seems more likely that a person would use the word "ruin" if he spilled tomato sauce on his shirt. But that's not terrible. I probably wouldn't think it as terribly odd if a person said that his shirt was destroyed by tomato sauce.
But now, consider a guy who is very attached to his car. Assume that rock flew out from beneath another car and put a dent in his car. He was very discouraged that his precious car had been damaged. We might imagine him saying, "Oh no! That rock destroyed my car!" If we did hear that, we would know he was exaggerating. We might even say, "Hey, I'm sorry about your car, but don't take it so hard. It still runs perfectly and probably nobody will notice the dent anyway." If a person tried to use the word 'destroyed' to express the notion of just 'damage', he would be getting farther and farther away from how the word 'destroyed' would normally be used.
Next, consider the word 'shun'. In picking that word, I was looking for a word that was halfway in meaning between the concepts of damage and preserve. To shun something is to do nothing to it at all. In fact, there are supporters of the doctrine of ECT who claim that God will essentially shun unbelievers after the judgment day. These people say something like this, "Unbelievers have never wanted to be in the presence of God. So at the judgment day, God will give them what they want."
There are multiple problems with this position. First is the problem that the Bible teaches that the final judgment will be in the presence of the Lamb. The judgment will flow from the presence of God. Other verses indicate that God will take an active role in dealing out justice. So, the whole idea that God will just decide to leave unbelievers to their own devices seems to be a contradiction to scripture. But also, and more to the current point, the meaning of the word 'shun' is far removed from what we normally intend to express when we use the word 'destroy'.
Imagine that you are walking through a park and see a hornets' nest in the tree in front of you. You take a wide berth around the nest, and when you get to your friend's house, you say, "I destroyed a hornet's nest in the park just now."
Your friend might say, "Really, how did you do that?"
You reply, "Well, I walked in a really wide berth around it and made sure not to get close."
Your friend says, "I thought you said you destroyed it."
You say, "I did. I left it totally alone."
Isn't that a strange way to use the word 'destroy'? We would all understand if your friend were totally confused. To shun something is far removed from the concept of destroying. Surely, a biblical author would not repeatedly use the word 'destroy' to express the concept of 'shunning'.
Finally, we have this concept of preserving. As I've already discussed, the only way that unbelievers will live forever is if God explicitly takes action to preserve them. It would be very strange if biblical writers consistently used the words meaning 'destroy' to express the concept of 'preserve'.
Imagine a man were fired from his job. Over and above getting fired, one of his office enemies gives him a nasty note on the last day, mocking him and gloating over his dismissal.
The man takes the note home and crumbles it into a wad. But then, he decides to preserve it. He puts it behind glass in a frame, with the intent of keeping it ever before him until he finds revenge on his enemy.
Suppose now that his wife calls him and he tells her about the firing and about the nasty note. She asks, "What did you do with."
"I destroyed it." he says.
"Good for you. That what it deserves." she says.
When she gets home that night, she goes into his office and sees the note in a frame on the wall. What would she say? Surely she would ask him this, "What is that note doing on the wall? I thought you said you destroyed it."
"I did, he said. I wadded it up before I put it on the wall."
"But it's not destroyed!" she says, "It is now preserved forever. That's terrible!"
"Well," he says, "I didn't want to destroy it. I wanted it to be a constant reminder for me and a motivation for me to seek revenge on my enemy. So I put it in a frame and mounted it on the wall."
Again, this is another example where the use of words meaning 'destroy' would seem totally out of place. To destroy something is essentially the very opposite of preserving it. It would be very strange, indeed, if biblical authors repeatedly used the word 'destroyed' when they were actually trying to express the notion of preserving for all eternity. That choice would be very perplexing.
With those thoughts in mind, please consider the drawing below.
'Destruction' here will express the idea that an object ceases to exist.
'Ruin' express that an object no longer functions as intended, but does not express the cessation of existence.
'Damage' is less severe than ruin. A damaged object would normally still function.
'Shun' expresses the idea that we leave an object alone. We cause no damage, nor do we impact the object at all.
'Preserve' expresses the concept that we take explicit steps to make sure an objects lasts for a long time.
What I hope to illustrate here may seem obvious: The concept of 'preserving' is at the far end of the scale from the concept of 'destroying'. It is hard to imagine that authors would consistently use the language of destroying to express the concept of preserving something.
Imagine I said "The document was destroyed in the fire". Everyone would understand that the document ceased to exist.
Now, what if a person said, "I destroyed my shirt by spilling tomato sauce all over it." Well, I might find that just a bit strange. That is, it seems more likely that a person would use the word "ruin" if he spilled tomato sauce on his shirt. But that's not terrible. I probably wouldn't think it as terribly odd if a person said that his shirt was destroyed by tomato sauce.
But now, consider a guy who is very attached to his car. Assume that rock flew out from beneath another car and put a dent in his car. He was very discouraged that his precious car had been damaged. We might imagine him saying, "Oh no! That rock destroyed my car!" If we did hear that, we would know he was exaggerating. We might even say, "Hey, I'm sorry about your car, but don't take it so hard. It still runs perfectly and probably nobody will notice the dent anyway." If a person tried to use the word 'destroyed' to express the notion of just 'damage', he would be getting farther and farther away from how the word 'destroyed' would normally be used.
Next, consider the word 'shun'. In picking that word, I was looking for a word that was halfway in meaning between the concepts of damage and preserve. To shun something is to do nothing to it at all. In fact, there are supporters of the doctrine of ECT who claim that God will essentially shun unbelievers after the judgment day. These people say something like this, "Unbelievers have never wanted to be in the presence of God. So at the judgment day, God will give them what they want."
There are multiple problems with this position. First is the problem that the Bible teaches that the final judgment will be in the presence of the Lamb. The judgment will flow from the presence of God. Other verses indicate that God will take an active role in dealing out justice. So, the whole idea that God will just decide to leave unbelievers to their own devices seems to be a contradiction to scripture. But also, and more to the current point, the meaning of the word 'shun' is far removed from what we normally intend to express when we use the word 'destroy'.
Imagine that you are walking through a park and see a hornets' nest in the tree in front of you. You take a wide berth around the nest, and when you get to your friend's house, you say, "I destroyed a hornet's nest in the park just now."
Your friend might say, "Really, how did you do that?"
You reply, "Well, I walked in a really wide berth around it and made sure not to get close."
Your friend says, "I thought you said you destroyed it."
You say, "I did. I left it totally alone."
Isn't that a strange way to use the word 'destroy'? We would all understand if your friend were totally confused. To shun something is far removed from the concept of destroying. Surely, a biblical author would not repeatedly use the word 'destroy' to express the concept of 'shunning'.
Finally, we have this concept of preserving. As I've already discussed, the only way that unbelievers will live forever is if God explicitly takes action to preserve them. It would be very strange if biblical writers consistently used the words meaning 'destroy' to express the concept of 'preserve'.
Imagine a man were fired from his job. Over and above getting fired, one of his office enemies gives him a nasty note on the last day, mocking him and gloating over his dismissal.
The man takes the note home and crumbles it into a wad. But then, he decides to preserve it. He puts it behind glass in a frame, with the intent of keeping it ever before him until he finds revenge on his enemy.
Suppose now that his wife calls him and he tells her about the firing and about the nasty note. She asks, "What did you do with."
"I destroyed it." he says.
"Good for you. That what it deserves." she says.
When she gets home that night, she goes into his office and sees the note in a frame on the wall. What would she say? Surely she would ask him this, "What is that note doing on the wall? I thought you said you destroyed it."
"I did, he said. I wadded it up before I put it on the wall."
"But it's not destroyed!" she says, "It is now preserved forever. That's terrible!"
"Well," he says, "I didn't want to destroy it. I wanted it to be a constant reminder for me and a motivation for me to seek revenge on my enemy. So I put it in a frame and mounted it on the wall."
Again, this is another example where the use of words meaning 'destroy' would seem totally out of place. To destroy something is essentially the very opposite of preserving it. It would be very strange, indeed, if biblical authors repeatedly used the word 'destroyed' when they were actually trying to express the notion of preserving for all eternity. That choice would be very perplexing.
With those thoughts in mind, please consider the drawing below.
You have a choice to make. There are only two options. Unbelievers either cease to exist, or they will exist forever. Your decision is like a marble placed on the top of a prism. There is no way it can stay there. It will fall to either one side or the other. Even though I earlier presented a scale that showed a gradation of meaning between destruction and eternal preservation, the only two options are the far ends of the scale - that is 'Destroy' or 'Preserve'.
When you look at the cluster of all those verses asserting that unbelievers will be destroyed, do you really think it is likely that the authors were trying to express the opposite concept? Is this what God would have inspired them to write?
In support of the left side (Destroy), we have a set of scriptures that match very closely what we would expect to find if God wanted to express the truth that unbelievers will be utterly destroyed. On the right side (Preserve), we have nothing even close to what we would expect to find if God intended to preserve and torment unbelievers for all of eternity.
For a person to support the notion of Eternal Conscious Torment, he must accept that every biblical author, every time he addressed the fate of the unbelievers (with one exception in Revelation), chose to use the language of destruction to express the idea of eternal preservation. I find that position impossible to embrace.
The overwhelming evidence in scripture refutes the notion that God intends to torment unbelievers for all of eternity. The only way to cling to that conclusion is by an egregious error of Bible interpretation.
When you look at the cluster of all those verses asserting that unbelievers will be destroyed, do you really think it is likely that the authors were trying to express the opposite concept? Is this what God would have inspired them to write?
In support of the left side (Destroy), we have a set of scriptures that match very closely what we would expect to find if God wanted to express the truth that unbelievers will be utterly destroyed. On the right side (Preserve), we have nothing even close to what we would expect to find if God intended to preserve and torment unbelievers for all of eternity.
For a person to support the notion of Eternal Conscious Torment, he must accept that every biblical author, every time he addressed the fate of the unbelievers (with one exception in Revelation), chose to use the language of destruction to express the idea of eternal preservation. I find that position impossible to embrace.
The overwhelming evidence in scripture refutes the notion that God intends to torment unbelievers for all of eternity. The only way to cling to that conclusion is by an egregious error of Bible interpretation.