This is the last in a 13-part series wherein I give you Hell, a little booklet by the inimitable Dr. Jeff Obadiah Simmonds.

We humans know instinctively that needless suffering is bad. When we have a sick or injured animal, we have it put down, because we do not want to see them suffer. We feel grieved when we hear of people dying slowly of cancer, and are upset by images of starving people on television. We know that the boy who pulls the wings off flies is cruel—recognising that even flies should not have to suffer needlessly.

If we, as seriously flawed humans, know that we must alleviate suffering, how much more will God, who is all-good and all-perfect, prevent the suffering of His creatures? If we shoot a horse with a broken leg, or put a wounded cat to sleep, how could God tolerate the eternal torment of humans?

We know that a person dying of cancer should be given pain relief—to withhold morphine would be inhuman. Suffering in this situation may only continue for weeks or months—but even this would be intolerable for us. How could God, then, withhold “pain relief” for those in hell, whose suffering does not last for months, but for trillions and trillions of years, and on into eternity?

We may, conceivably, tolerate the eternal suffering of what me might call “truly wicked men” like Hitler and Pol Pot—but Evangelicals imagine that all those who have not made a personal, conscious decision to “accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour” will be thrown into hell forever. This means that otherwise moral people, who are non-Christians, will be eternally tortured.

If I were to burn my daughter with cigarettes or poke out my son’s eyes with a pencil, I would be arrested and sent to prison. Even the most irreligious of people would find my behaviour to be obscene. Yet this is precisely what many Evangelicals believe about God, who is portrayed as One who inflicts torture on a truly massive scale—eternally afflicting His children. If, as a defence, I said that I burned my daughter and blinded my son because I was holy, and my righteousness demanded that I punish sin, people would be repulsed. An act of brutality would not be a manifestation of righteousness, but of unrighteousness—not of holiness, but of terrible evil. Yet Christians say that hell exists because God is holy, and His righteousness demands that He must punish sin.

While I certainly believe God to be both righteous and holy, if hell is an eternal torment of all non-Christians, then God would be neither. He would not deserve our worship but our scorn.

The theory of annihilationism has certain implications, especially for evangelism. Interestingly, the response of many Christians when they hear an annihilationist position is: “What is the point of being a Christian then?” The prospect of an eternal torment in hell is a motivating force for many people to remain believers—if no such punishment exists, surely we are free to eat, drink and be merry, for the worst that will happen is that we cease to be!

But the question must be, what are we saved from and what are we saved to? Jesus offers life, in all its fullness and abundance. We cannot say that if there is no endless torture for unbelievers that “there is no point” in believing. We are believers not because we want to avoid hell, but because we want to have unending fellowship with God, and because we desire the life He offers us. The fact that unbelievers miss out on his fellowship and life is not a reason for us to turn to “wine, women and song”!

Our desire should be to present this offer of eternal bliss to others, so that they too may know God and have fellowship with Him. Evangelism should not be to save people from the torment of hell, but to save people to life. Too often our presentation of the Gospel has been negative—hell has been a big stick with which God will (eternally!) hit people who do not accept Him. Our evangelism is therefore undermined by an inherent contradiction: on the one hand, God loves you; on the other, if you do not believe that He loves you He will torture you forever!

However, from an annihilationist perspective, we may present the love and mercy of God to others, and His offer of eternal life, in a way that does not do violence to the character and nature of God.

The idea of annihilation seems to fit more with what we know of God, as revealed in the Bible: the God who is loving and merciful, and whose holiness compels Him to destroy the evil which He cannot co-exist with. The theory of annihilationism also fits better with what we know of the Jewish context in which Jesus spoke. At the same time, annihilationism remains just a theory (although the traditional view is also just a theory).

Which view most accurately represents what the destiny of the unrepentant will be revealed in due course. In the meantime, we should, at the very least, recognise that annihilationism is, increasingly, a valid evangelical option. In the words of John Stott, annihilationism should “be accepted as a legitimate, biblically sound alternative to [the doctrine of] eternal conscious torment” (Stott 319-32).

This is the twelfth in a 13-part series wherein I give you Hell, a little booklet by the inimitable Dr. Jeff Obadiah Simmonds.

One text which seems to speak of eternal torment is found in Revelation:

“If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of His wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises up for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image… (Rev 14.9-11)

Revelation is, of course, a difficult book to interpret. It is full of apocalyptic images, most of which should not be taken literally. (See Obadiah’s Little Booklet #8 on the Book of Revelation.) One must wonder how literally we should take this burning sulphur (or “fire and brimstone”) when it is said to issue from horses’ mouths (Rev 9.17). This fire is symbolic—it is not literal. We may compare it to a similar image of God’s judgement: “they shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God” (Rev 14.10). Most Christians will recognise that the “wine” is symbolic—though many will still think that the fire of hell is literal.

The figurative—or poetic—nature of Revelation’s imagery should be clear when we read that “death” is thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20.14). Obviously death cannot literally be thrown into hell—we are dealing with metaphor and symbolism. Death is symbolically destroyed.

How we are to understand the mark of the beast and the punishment of those who take it is highly debatable. Given the abuse which Revelation has been subjected to through excessively literalistic interpretations we should, at very least, proceed with caution when building doctrines on a passage in a book which is symbolic and figurative.

Revelation says that in the future there will be “no more death, neither sorrow, or crying, neither shall there be any more pain” (Rev 21.4).

We may understand that in heaven there will be no more suffering—but what of those whose loved ones are suffering in hell? When one of my children becomes sick, I am saddened. When my mother-in-law got cancer and died, we suffered, to some extent, alongside her. If Helen, my wife, were to be seriously injured in a car accident, I too would feel pain. If I were to go to heaven and find that some of those whom I love were suffering in an even more severe way, I would not be ecstatically happy—I would feel sorrow and pain. If everyone in heaven knows that people are being eternally tortured by God, including friends and family, how could heaven be a place of bliss? In what way would it be a place of “neither sorrow, nor crying, nor pain”?

And how could we feel love for a God who kept such loved ones eternally alive, merely to see them suffer? And how could such eternal suffering be justified if it is a judgement for deeds committed in ignorance in just a handful of years on earth?

This is the eleventh in a 13-part series wherein I give you Hell, a little booklet by the inimitable Dr. Jeff Obadiah Simmonds.

A very significant text is Matthew 25.41, 46:

“Then he will say to those on his left: ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’…”
…Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

This is a key verse for those who believe in an eternal torment for the unrighteous.

Firstly, we read that hell is “an eternal fire”—we may admit that hell itself is eternal, but not necessarily that those thrown into it will be eternally tormented. Again, an “eternal punishment” is one which endures forever. Remember the message of Isaiah concerning the Edomites—this will be an “eternal punishment”: no survivors will remain. In this way “all evildoers… will be forever destroyed” (Ps 92.7).

The fate of the wicked is contrasted with that of the righteous—which is “eternal life” or immortality. If the righteous receive eternal life as a reward, the wicked do not receive eternal life, they receive eternal death—an eternal punishment not of torment but of extinction.

The word “punishment” here is derived from a Greek word meaning “to prune” trees. If one imagines humanity as a tree with good and bad branches, the judgement is one in which the bad branches will be pruned and cut off from the source of life, so that they die. Jesus said:

“I am the vine, you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in Me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.” (John 15.5-6)

Again, the image of fire is one of destruction. Having been removed from its life-source, the branch “withers” and becomes dead wood. In a similar way, God—the One who is immortal—is our source of life. Those who are removed from Him wither and perish. They are thrown into the fire, not as “immortal souls” in endless torment, but as dead wood which is consumed and is no more.

Again, we must ask what the point of the parable of the sheep and the goats is. Those who receive this “eternal punishment” are those who have not visited the sick and imprisoned, fed the hungry, given clothing to the naked and shown hospitality to the stranger. It would be incomprehensible if God were to punish those who have not alleviated suffering by causing infinitely more suffering Himself. God would be condemning flawed humans for doing something that He Himself does! Indeed, God’s actions would be worse than those He is condemning, since the damned are merely those who passively did not help those who suffered, whereas God would be actively causing endless suffering.

However, we should understand this judgement to be one in which they depart “into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mt 25.41), a fire which consumes and destroys that which is thrown into it.

There are actually two words used in the Gospels which are translated as “hell.” The first, Hades, is the equivalent of the Hebrew word “Sheol.” This refers not to “hell” as such—to a place of eternal torment—but to the abode of the dead. Often, in the Old Testament, this is simply translated as “the grave.”

The other word is “Gehenna.” This was an actual place outside Jerusalem. Gehenna was the name of the city dump of Jerusalem. It was a ravine south of the city—rubbish, animal carcasses and the corpses of criminals were thrown into this refuse pit. This tip was constantly burning. Jesus used this image of Gehenna to refer to the fate of the unrepentant. However, a criminal thrown into Gehenna was already dead—he was not tormented by the fire which burned day and night. The image, therefore, is one of extinction and destruction, not of enduring torture. There are half a dozen references to this valley in the Gospel of Matthew.

Jesus says that a person who calls another person “fool” will be “in danger of the fire of Gehenna” (Mt 5.22). Is Jesus saying that those who call others “fools” will be eternally tortured in an after-life in the centre of the earth? Or is He using the metaphor, familiar to His audience, of destruction?

Jesus said that it is better to enter heaven with one eye than be thrown into “Gehenna” with two, where “the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9.48). This is also taken as evidence for an eternal torment. However, unquenchable fire and undying worms do not necessarily demand an eternal torment. Jesus is quoting Isaiah 66.24:

And they will go and look at the dead bodies of those who rebelled against Me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.

These “worms,” or maggots, feed on corpses—on dead bodies—not on the living. Those upon whom the maggots feed are not being tormented, but have ceased to be.

This is the tenth in a 13-part series wherein I give you Hell, a little booklet by the inimitable Dr. Jeff Obadiah Simmonds.

Another text used to prove the existence of hell as a place of suffering is where Jesus referred to a place of misery where there would be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 25.30). Jesus was contrasting those who are in “the Kingdom of God” with those who are excluded from the Kingdom and mourn their unfortunate situation. We tend to project the Kingdom of God into the after-life—”the Kingdom of God” means “heaven,” and therefore those who are weeping and gnashing are therefore also in the after-life, but deprived of entry into heaven, and are therefore in hell.

I would see things somewhat differently. The Kingdom of God exists where-ever God’s rule is manifested. Obviously God’s rule is manifested in heaven, but the purpose of Christ’s coming was to bring this rule—the Kingdom—to earth. The Kingdom of God is therefore not something we enter when we die, but when we submit to God’s dominion by becoming the disciples of Jesus. Those who are outside this dominion are deprived of life and meaning and will suffer. The picture which Jesus presents in His parables are not necessarily of judgement in the after-life.

Jesus taught the coming of this Kingdom—an invasion of God’s rule into this world—in which the rich and powerful would be deprived of wealth and power. In that day, says Jesus, they “will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 8.12) while those who are currently marginalised will sit down to feast in God’s great banquet. But this is not a picture of what will happen when we die, but when this world is transformed by the Gospel and the Kingdom.

As such, the image of weeping and gnashing does not provide evidence of eternal torment of the wicked in hell.

However, some of these “weeping and gnashing of teeth” texts do seem to refer to the Judgement. But here the image of burning fire is used. In the parable of the weeds, for example, Jesus speaks of the wheat being brought into God’s barn, while the weeds are “tied in bundles to be burned” (Mt 13.30). Again, while judgement by fire may be read as an eternal torture in hell, it may more reasonably be read as a metaphor of judgement and destruction—weeds are not subjected to eternal burning, but are thrown into a fire so that they may be consumed and be no more. However, Jesus explains this parable and says that those who cause sin will be weeded out of His kingdom and the angels will “will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 13.41-42). The question is whether the weeping and gnashing constitutes conclusive evidence that those thrown into the fire will be consciously tortured for all eternity.

Will the wicked weep and gnash their teeth while they are being consumed by fire—a short-lived pain which ends in their destruction, or shall we assume that Jesus is speaking an eternity of torture? The Scripture is ambiguous in that the case can be argued either way. I would suggest, however, that the image of fire as destruction tips the scales in favour of an annihilationist interpretation.

A similar parable occurs in Mt 13.47-50. The judgement is compared to the separation of fish caught in a net. The unrighteous, who are “thrown into the fiery furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” are compared to unkosher fish which are “thrown away”. The point that inedible fish are destroyed, like the weeds, and not subjected to enduring torment again may point in the direction of destruction, and not torment, of the unsaved.

Annihilationists say that the annihilation of the wicked is eternal—this sentence will never be reversed. As such, this extinction of being is eternal punishment.

This is the ninth in a 13-part series wherein I give you Hell, a little booklet by the inimitable Dr. Jeff Obadiah Simmonds.

Having said that humans are not inherently immortal, and only possess immortality if it is bestowed upon them by God, the Bible does indicate that there will be a resurrection of the dead—not only of the righteous, but also of the unrighteous—and that there will be a final Judgement.

“Those who have done good will rise to live, but those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.” (Jn 5.29)

The book of Revelation also describes the final judgement:

The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the Second Death. If anyone’s name was not written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev 20.13-14)

The Second Death is best understood as extinction or annihilation. While the lake of fire itself is described as a never ending fire, there is no indication that those who are thrown into it will be eternally tormented. The exception is the devil, the beast and the false prophet who are thrown into the lake of burning sulphur and “will be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Rev 20.10)

Prior to the resurrection of the dead and the last judgement, the dead are said to dwell in a shadowy abode called Sheol (in the Hebrew Old Testament) and Hades (in the Greek New Testament). It is said that Jesus descended into Hades after His death—that is, not into hell, but into the underworld.

The story of Lazarus and the rich man (Lk 16.19-31) refers to Hades. Lazarus is in paradise, while the rich man suffers in Hades. This story, more than any other, is used by opponents of annihilationism to indicate that the wicked suffer eternal torment. The story raises a number of questions: is the story a parable or an account of an actual event? Are we to understand it literally or metaphorically?

This story is in the context of a number of parables—the lost sheep, the pieces of silver, the prodigal son, the unjust steward and the rich man and Lazarus. Both the story about the rich man and Lazarus and the parable immediately before it, the unjust steward, begin with the same words: “There was a certain rich man…” (Lk 16.1, 19)

I am more inclined to see this as a parable, and therefore as a symbolic story rather than an account of an “historical” event in the afterlife. However, even if we were to understand it literally, we may note that Hades is the abode of the dead until the last judgement, and therefore the rich man’s condition is not (necessarily) eternal. After the resurrection of the dead, we may surmise, Lazarus will be raised to life and the rich man will be raised to condemnation, thrown into the lake of fire, and annihilated.

When we read any part of the Bible we must ask what the author’s point is. It is not legitimate to read a meaning into the story which the author did not intend. We may ask, then, if Jesus’ purpose was to describe in literal terms the condition of the afterlife, or if He was making another point. I would suggest that the intended message is twofold: firstly, that those who oppress the poor and needy now will, in the future, receive punishment, while those who are afflicted now will be comforted and receive a good reward. This is true regardless of whether we think of hell as torture or annihilation. Secondly, the point is that “if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Lk 16.31). The question has to do with what will convince the Pharisees of the truth of Jesus’ claims—miracles and even resurrections will not suffice. Probably, the purpose of the story is not to give a realistic description of the eternal destiny of the wicked.

However, it would be dangerous to build a doctrine of eternal punishment on a parable, especially when there is no indication that the rich man is being eternally punished. If anything, the parable is about the condition of the wicked prior to the final judgement.

This is the eighth in a 13-part series wherein I give you Hell, a little booklet by the inimitable Dr. Jeff Obadiah Simmonds.

The image of God as a destroyer is hardly a popular one today. Personally, I think it is a much more Biblical idea than the image of God as one who tortures His enemies in hell for ever and ever. This makes God into an evil tyrant. Amnesty International does a tremendous job in opposing the use of torture in the world today. (They deserve our support for doing so.) But the torture of some African dictator or Middle East extremists would be nothing compared to the horror of a mass torture of billions of souls in hell, which lasts not for days or weeks, but for trillions of years and on into eternity. This view of God is, I believe, completely unbiblical. There is not a single instance where God commanded torture. Such forms of punishment are always evil and satanic. Crucifixion—one of the most ingenious torture devices—was the invention of the Romans, not a punishment devised by God. Christ endured the cross, but his suffering lasts for a few hours. The fires of hell would be greater torture still, and would last forever! God would not permit or tolerate the existence of such a place, since God always came to the rescue of the oppressed and the suffering.

We must be clear that we are not saying that God would never send anyone to hell because He is a God of love and will forgive everyone. This is simply not true, for God will judge those guilty of injustice or evil by destroying them. But, given that God’s judgement comes upon such nations for the suffering they inflicted on others, God is hardly likely to inflict such suffering Himself.

The doctrine of hell is often based on the idea of God’s justice. This is understood to mean that because God is just He must punish sin. However, “justice” really means to act with righteousness. When we talk about social justice we think of concern for the poor, the widows and orphans. Specifically to do justice is to side with the oppressed and the victims and to alleviate suffering and remove oppression.

This, indeed, is central to the Biblical doctrine of the justice of God. While God does indeed punish sin, God’s justice does not cause him to inflict suffering but to alleviate it. God is concerned with justice—that those who cause suffering and affliction are opposed and overthrown.

It would therefore be contrary to God’s character to become One who causes affliction and suffering. Yet the usual view of hell is a place of eternal torment. However, just as God sided with the Hebrews who were suffering in Egypt, and as He sided with the outcasts in first century Jewish society, so too the character of God would demand that He side with those who suffered in hell, if indeed it was a place of endless torment and suffering.

One evangelical writer says:

Everlasting torment is intolerable from a moral point of view because it makes God into a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die. (Pinnock [1990] 253) How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness whose ways include inflicting everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been? Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards, and by the gospel itself. (Pinnock [1990] 246-47)