Don Carson on Hell

[tabibito]

If immortality is a quality common to all humankind, I would be interested to see where this teaching is to be found in Scripture.

Should the questions not be - Is there reason to believe that there is a difference in the natures of believers' and unbelievers' spirits and souls? do soul or spirit continue to exist after death of the body (whether or not eternally - which continued existence does not necessarily imply.)? Does resurrection involve receiving a body, or restoring the soul or spirit to conscious existence? If indeed the soul and spirit of a believer should cease to exist upon his death, how would that have an impact on Jesus' statement that the believer will never die?

[The Remonstrant]

Should the questions not be - Is there reason to believe that there is a difference in the natures of believers' and unbelievers' spirits and souls? do soul or spirit continue to exist after death of the body (whether or not eternally - which continued existence does not necessarily imply.)?

Again, I will note that we are off-topic (see message #89). This thread isn't specifically about the state of the dead. I will state that I do not personally believe the dead are presently conscious in any capacity.

Does resurrection involve receiving a body, or restoring the soul or spirit to conscious existence? If indeed the soul and spirit of a believer should cease to exist upon his death, how would that have an impact on Jesus' statement that the believer will never die?

The whole person will be reconstituted and brought to consciousness when he/she is raised from the dead. We know essentially nothing of the "unglorified" bodies the unrighteous will receive, but believers will be raised to immortality in imperishable bodies (see 1 Cor.15:53,54). Concerning the second advent, Paul writes the saints at Philippi: "our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself." (Phil.3:20,21).¹ The hope of believers is in the second coming of Christ and the resurrection when we will be joined to the Lord forever in glory.

As for Jesus' statement concerning "never dying", I believe you have John 11:25,26 in mind: "Jesus said to her [Martha], 'I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?'" This is set in the context of Lazarus' imminent resurrection. Jesus was about to raise Lazarus from the dead. Martha believed Lazarus would be raised "in the resurrection on the last day" (v.24), but she evidently did not believe Jesus was able (or willing) to raise Lazarus before this time. We certainly have no clear indication of a conscious, disembodied intermediate state in John's Gospel.

²¹ Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. ²² But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you." ²³ Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." ²⁴ Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." (John 11:21-24)

Note

¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV).

[The Remonstrant]

Traditionalist Ambivalence regarding "Eternal Separation from God"

First, for the sake of clarity, the only author in the Scriptures to employ the term "second death" is John of Patmos in The Apocalypse. This terminology is not used in the three texts you cited above (Matt.7:23; 25:41; 2 Thess.1:9), which I will be addressing below. (I believe you are quite aware of this, but I believe it needs to be said nevertheless.)

Second, whether it be true that "The second death is an eternal separation from God" as you say, it must be noted that John of Patmos himself does not refer to the second death as "eternal separation from God".

He doesn't refer to the second death as "eternal separation from God" but I absolutely believe he implies it. After all, Rev. 20:14 states: "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire." So the second death is the lake of fire. Can you show me any indication that the lake of fire is a temporary dwelling place?

The Lake of Fire & the Second Death

You are arguing in circles. You have not demonstrated that the lake of fire in Revelation is an actual "dwelling place" where unrighteous persons—namely the whole of wicked humankind—are endlessly tormented. Rev.20:15 and 21:8 do not indicate that the general mass of lost humankind will be tortured (much less eternally). Reread the verses. They do not say what you wish them to say. You assume the lost will endure endless torment based on your literalistic understanding of Rev.20:10. The difficulty you seem to be having is in accepting that the lake of fire is a metaphor or a symbol for the second death. The latter elucidates the meaning of the former. The second death adds clarity, rather than confusion, to the lake of fire concept in The Apocalypse.

When death is understood as the reversal of life (as it can indeed be demonstrated from Scripture),¹ we may disabuse ourselves of the notion that death is a transition from one state of existence or quality of life to another. The scripturally unfounded presupposition of universal human immortality is the plague infecting virtually all traditionalist exegesis.

Can you demonstrate that death and Hades are, in actuality, being perpetually tormented in the lake of fire in John's vision? Would you even care to argue such an absurdity? If, then, death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire and are not understood to be "tormented" (much less endlessly), they are done away with. Death undergoes the second death (20:14). It is another way of saying that death shall be no more. As I have noted before, we read in Revelation that death will no longer have a place in God's new created order only a few verses later in the following chapter picturing the untainted glory of the new heavens and the new earth (21:1-7). Death is abolished once and for all in the lake of fire.² How can this be all that difficult to understand? It's rather simple when the poetic language in The Apocalypse is allowed to unfold without constantly reading eternal torture into texts depicting the end of death and sinners. I can imagine it is only difficult for one to grant the destroying, purging function of the lake of fire when he/she is unwilling to let go of the notion that immortality is somehow common to all.

Revelation 20:10 & the Lake of Fire (Again)

As I have written above (#79), the devil is the only one depicted in John of Patmos' vision as being tormented "to the ages of the ages" (with the possible exception of the beast and the false prophet). I have also noted above that the beast and the prophet may not be personal beings at all (#79). This is granted even by a number of traditionalist interpreters.

Concerning the beast and the false prophet in Rev.20:10, Edward Fudge notes: "According to many Bible scholars these are not actual people but represent governments which persecute believers and false religions which support those governments. Neither institution will be perpetuated forever, nor could they suffer conscious, sensible pain."³ If Fudge's interpretation is correct, at least two of the three figures in Rev.20:10 are incapable of enduring endless torment. In the case of the beast and the false prophet, then, the lake of fire would serve as a symbol for destruction or final annihilation. This despite the fact that the text literally depicts their ongoing torment in the lake of fire. If this is so, Rev.20:10 must be understood as a partially hyperbolic declaration concerning the end of two entities. We are subsequently allowed the room to question whether we may understand the devil's torment in the lake of fire (as recounted in John's vision) similarly.

Whatever we are to make of this, Rev.20:10 does not speak of the general fate of human beings. I noted this before (#79), but it bears repeating. You may argue vigorously for at least one creature suffering endless torture in the lake of fire if you wish, but a careful reading of the following verses in Revelation 20 and its succeeding chapters will not allow you to smuggle this doctrine into 20:14,15 and 21:8 as you have previously attempted, for there is not the slightest indication that humans will endure everlasting torment in these texts.

(More forthcoming.)


Notes

¹ This will require a more in depth look at the nature of death from the beginning of Scripture to end. I do not plan to do that here. In a future post on this thread, however, I will post a word on this subject examining one of the books of the Bible.

² The picture of death and Hades being tossed into a fiery lake in Rev.20:14 conveys the reality of death being brought to a complete and utter end in God's economy. At the final judgement, death will be made a thing of the past, belonging to the first (or former) things belonging to fallen creation. Death will pass away along with the first heaven and the first earth and thus no longer have a place in God's new creation (21:1,4).

³ E.W. Fudge, "The Case for Conditionalism" in Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p.78.

[Scrawly]

You are arguing in circles. You have not demonstrated that the lake of fire in Revelation is an actual "dwelling place" (as you call it) where unrighteous persons are endlessly tormented. Rev.20:15 and 21:8 do not indicate that the general mass of lost humankind will be tortured eternally. Reread the verses. They do not say what you wish them to say. You assume the lost will endure endless torment based on your literalistic understanding of Rev.20:10. The difficulty you seem to be having is in accepting that the lake of fire is a metaphor or a symbol.

It is quite accepted that metaphorical language is used to describe hell, however, that does not mean that hell is merely a metaphor, as you would agree. Hell is real, the question is how far are we to take the descriptions of it literally. This is the point at which I think you are in exegetical error. I do not see any sufficient warrant whatsoever for believing that the lake of fire is merely symbolic. The fact of the matter is that the devil is pictured as being tormented day and night, forever and ever. This is the experience of the devil. Therefore, we have at least one sentient being undergoing conscious torment forever. Now, if we have one sentient being undergoing eternal torment, it is difficult to reason why human beings should be a special case.

The second death elucidates the meaning of the former. The second death adds clarity, rather than confusion, to the lake of fire symbol in The Apocalypse.

When death is understood as the reversal of life (as it can indeed be substantiated from Scripture), we may disabuse ourselves of the notion that death is a transition from one state of existence or quality of life to another. The scripturally unfounded presupposition of universal human immortality is the plague that infects traditionalist exegesis.

I have yet to read your prior post on this subject matter, so I will save my remarks for the time being.

Can you demonstrate that death and Hades are, in actuality, being perpetually tormented in the lake of fire? Would you even care to argue such an absurdity? If, then, death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire and are not understood to be tormented endlessly, surely they are done away with. Death undergoes the second death (20:14). It is another way of saying that death shall be no more.

Well, keep in mind that earlier Death and Hades were personified (Rev.6:8), so it makes sense in the apocalyptic setting that they could be sent to the same "place" as other persons. The point seems to be that death is the last enemy to be abolished and Christ's church shall never again have to worry about death or being in a state of a disembodied Spirit.

In fact, we read in Revelation that death will no longer have a place in God's new created order only a few verses later in the following chapter picturing the untainted glory of the new heavens and the new earth (21:4). Death is abolished once and for all in the lake of fire not tormented.

I agree that the Church needn't worry about death anymore. That is not to say that a place of torment hasn't been established for the enemies of God outside the gates, so to speak, of the New Jerusalem where the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever.

How can this be all that difficult to understand? It's all very simple when the poetic language in The Apocalypse is allowed to unfold without constantly reading eternal torture into texts depicting nothing of the sort. I can imagine it is only difficult for one to grant the destroying, purging function of the lake of fire when one is simply unwilling to let go of the notion that immortality is common to all.

I have no exegetical reason to dismiss the natural reading of the texts which clearly indicate torment that lasts forever and ever.

Revelation 20:10 & the Lake of Fire (Again)

As I have written above (#79), the devil is the only one depicted in John of Patmos' vision as being tormented "to the ages of the ages" (with the possible exception of the beast and the false prophet). I have also noted above that the beast and the prophet may not be personal beings at all (#79). This is granted even by a number of traditionalist interpreters.

Let's not forget 20:15 - "And if anyone's name [not just the beast, the false prophet, or even the devil himself] was not written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire". Why therefore should it be thought that they would be consumed, yet that same fire not consume the devil, but only manage to torment him "day and night forever and ever". Again we are told in 21:8 that the unbelieving will "be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death". The reference is to the lake of fire in Rev. 20:15. So, once again, what is the warrant then for believing utter and total annihilation is in view?

Concerning the beast and the false prophet in Rev.20:10, Edward Fudge notes: "According to many Bible scholars these are not actual people but represent governments which persecute believers and false religions which support those governments. Neither institution will be perpetuated forever, nor could they suffer conscious, sensible pain."[If Fudge's interpretation is correct, at least two of the three figures in Rev.20:10 are incapable of enduring endless torment. In the case of the beast and the false prophet, then, the lake of fire would serve as a symbol for destruction or final annihilation. This despite the fact that the text literally depicts their ongoing torment in the lake of fire. If this is so, Rev.20:10 must be understood as a partially hyperbolic declaration concerning the end of two entities. We are subsequently allowed the room to question whether we may understand the devil's torment in the lake of fire (as recounted in John's vision) similarly.

Despite the fact that "Bible scholars" believe that, I find it rather unconvincing. I think the best interpretation of the beast and false prophet, and "many scholars" agree, is that they represent various enemies of God throughout history, culminating in two individuals.(1) In any event though, I think the Devil’s identity is quite transparent and there is no doubt that he is a personal being capable of suffering, and that is precisely what John teaches when he says that the Devil “will be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Rev. 20:10).

Whatever we are to make of this, Rev.20:10 does not speak of the general fate of human beings. I noted this before (#79), but it bears repeating. You may argue vigorously for at least one creature suffering endless torture in the lake of fire if you wish, but a careful reading of the following verses in Revelation 20 and its succeeding chapters will not allow you to smuggle this doctrine into 20:14,15 and 21:8 as you have previously attempted to do, for there is not the slightest indication of humans undergoing sustained torment in these texts.

And I think it is worth repeating that we ought not forget about 20:15 "And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire". I think I have demonstrated the exegetical reasoning behind my view that the devil shares the same fate as the enemies of God, namely, everlasting torment, where their worm does not die.

----------------

(1) D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God, 527.

[Scrawly]

Anthropological Considerations: Immaterial, Immortal Human Souls(?)

Now we are entering into a discussion of biblical anthropology. We are thus no longer dealing strictly with the topic of final punishment (as the thread title would appear to indicate).

I will grant that questions pertaining to the nature of man/humankind are closely related to the doctrine of future and final punishment. If, for example, human beings are in possession of immaterial souls that survive the body at (physical) death, then the question must be raised: Are all human "souls" endowed with immortality? In other words, are all persons constituted immortal (either by nature as an innate quality or supernaturally)?

If immortality is a quality common to all humankind, I would be interested to see where this teaching is to be found in Scripture. I will submit to you that this notion is alien to the biblical authors. If, however, the assumption of universal human immortality is merely taken for granted or given a free pass (as it oftentimes is in Christian circles), the doctrine of endless conscious torment is sure to follow suit (unless, of course, one subscribes to an absolute universalism whereby all persons without exception are eventually reconciled to God). As for my position, I would personally dispute the very notion that all humans are in some way presently in possession of immortality or will be made such by God at some point in the future. In actuality universal immortality is nowhere explicitly present in Scripture.

The State of the Dead Entails the Existence of Immaterial/Immortal Souls(?)

Not only are we now delving into anthropological considerations, we are venturing into a discussion concerning the state of the dead. In all honesty, these topics require a separate thread. I have little hope of persuading you to abandon your current understanding of the state of dead in terms of "soul survival" under these circumstances. If you have the interest, you will need to further investigate the matter on your own.

You make the assertion above that 2 Cor.5:8; Luke 16:19-31; 23:43,46; Phil.1:23; Heb.12.:23; and Rev.6:9 "teach survival of the soul after the death of the body".¹ Is this really so? When these texts are each considered carefully in their respective contexts and the broader framework of Scripture as a whole taken into consideration as well, I do not believe such an interpretation is required.

Though this topic may be considered as related to final punishment, a particular understanding of the state of the dead is not absolutely required in order to maintain the final annihilation of wicked. The state of the dead is an interim period and as such is often referred to as "the intermediate state" by theologians. Whether conscious or unconscious during this time, the righteous and unrighteous dead will arise to divine judgement at the parousia. Whatever we are to make of the interim period, when Christ returns and the righteous and unrighteous are raised, the final judgement will take place and irreversible verdicts will be rendered.² Whether the unrighteous will be eventually annihilated or tormented in some fashion endlessly is our primary concern in this thread.

(More forthcoming.)


Notes

¹ It is interesting to note that you failed to cite any corresponding texts from the Hebrew Scriptures pertaining to immaterial "souls" surviving the death of the body.

² For the sake of convenience, I am treating the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous as both taking place at the time of Christ's second advent. Premillennialists would of course take exception to this, for they do not believe the two resurrections take place simultaneously. Rather, according to premillennialists, the unrighteous will be raised one thousand years after the second advent of Christ and the resurrection of the just.

Right, I agree. This is a discussion for another time.

[apostoli]

It is quite accepted that metaphorical language is used to describe hell, however, that does not mean that hell is merely a metaphor, as you would agree. Hell is real, the question is how far are we to take the descriptions of it literally. This is the point at which I think you are in exegetical error. I do not see any sufficient warrant whatsoever for believing that the lake of fire is merely symbolic. The fact of the matter is that the devil is pictured as being tormented day and night, forever and ever. This is the experience of the devil. Therefore, we have at least one sentient being undergoing conscious torment forever. Now, if we have one sentient being undergoing eternal torment, it is difficult to reason why human beings should be a special case.

Of a major curiosity: What happened to the Devil's legions of fallen angels? As far as I can tell they were exterminated never to rise again (?)

[tabibito]

Revelation 20:4 Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands.

[The Remonstrant]

The Lake of Fire & the Second Death

You are arguing in circles. You have not demonstrated that the lake of fire in Revelation is an actual "dwelling place" where unrighteous persons—namely the whole of wicked humankind—are endlessly tormented. Rev.20:15 and 21:8 do not indicate that the general mass of lost humankind will be tortured (much less eternally). Reread the verses. They do not say what you wish them to say. You assume the lost will endure endless torment based on your literalistic understanding of Rev.20:10. The difficulty you seem to be having is in accepting that the lake of fire is a metaphor or a symbol for the second death. The latter elucidates the meaning of the former. The second death adds clarity, rather than confusion, to the lake of fire concept in The Apocalypse.

It is quite accepted that metaphorical language is used to describe hell, however, that does not mean that hell is merely a metaphor, as you would agree. Hell is real, the question is how far are we to take the descriptions of it literally. This is the point at which I think you are in exegetical error. I do not see any sufficient warrant whatsoever for believing that the lake of fire is merely symbolic.

I find it strange that you should insist on such a stark literalism when attempting to exegete an apocalyptic work where symbols are plentiful and hyperbolic language bountiful as well. This does not surprise me, however, for this is rather commonplace among traditionalist interpreters.

As for the language of "hell', I deliberately choose to avoid the word as much as possible. We may speak of Gehenna, the lake of fire (and so on, and so forth), but the term "hell" is a loaded one. When one hears the word he or she is apt to think of the doctrine of endless conscious torment (which of course suits your present understanding of final punishment).

The fact of the matter is that the devil is pictured as being tormented day and night, forever and ever. This is the experience of the devil. Therefore, we have at least one sentient being undergoing conscious torment forever. Now, if we have one sentient being undergoing eternal torment, it is difficult to reason why human beings should be a special case.

It is true that "the devil is pictured" as enduring perpetual torment in John of Patmos' vision in Rev.20:10. Nevertheless, as Bowles noted, the surrounding context is rife with hyperbolic language. That said, you may maintain that the devil will be everlastingly tortured if it suits you. I am done arguing over this point at present.

Your entire view essentially hinges on one or two texts in The Apocalypse (14:11; 20:10), one of which does not even address the general fate of the unrighteous (20:10). This places you in a precarious situation though you act as if you are arguing from a position of stength. The presupposition of universal immortality underlies all your musings on the everlasting torture of humans even when the biblical authors employ language indicating the exact opposite.

Revelation 2:10,11: Death, the Crown of Life & the Second Death

Based on your uncompromising acceptance of the devil's literal ongoing torment in the lake of fire, you deduce that lost human beings must be everlastingly tormented in the lake of fire as well. This despite the fact that humans are not portrayed as enduring endless conscious torment in Rev.20:15 and 21:8 at all. This is a point that I have called special attention to more than once in the vain hope of having you pause for a moment in order to reexamine and/or reconsider the texts you are marshaling in support of endless torment in Revelation. Unfortunately, at present it appears as though you are so locked into the traditionalist grid of interpretation that you are completely unable or unwilling to even countenance the possibility that "the second death" in Revelation indicates the full and final end of sinners and not their endless conscious torment.

As you noted in an earlier message on this thread, the terminology of second death occurs four times in The Apocalypse: Rev.2:11; 20:6; 20:14; and 21:8. Its very first usage in the book is instructive:

¹⁰"'Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death [thanatou], and I will give you the crown of life. ¹¹ He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death [thanatou].'" (Rev.2:10,11)¹

In Jesus' message to the church in Smyrna, the saints are exhorted to be faithful until death. For our purposes, we may refer to the death envisioned in Rev.2:10 as "the first death" (though I will of course grant that this terminology is nowhere employed by John of Patmos in Revelation). The message is set in the context of an impending persecution of the saints which may result in the actual death or martyrdom of many in the church for maintaining their faithfulness to God and Christ. Those who persevere and do not apostatize in the heat of persecution will ultimately be rewarded with "the crown of life" by Jesus himself (presumably on the day of judgement).

In the very last verse of this message to the Smyrnean church, they are given the following promise: "the one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death." When verses 10 and 11 are compared, we are provided no contextual grounds for taking "the second death" of 2:11 in a completely different sense from the death written of one verse earlier (2:10). The first death envisaged is clearly the temporal, earthly bodily death of human beings. It cannot rightly be understood in a figurative or metaphorical sense. The second death is contrasted with life in The Apocalypse, not defined as an alternate form of everlasting existence or immortality for the unrighteous. The second death is, in fact, not a place but a state in Revelation. It is a state of eternal non-life, a death from which there is no recovery or return. The crown of life in 2:10 is set in stark contrast with the second death in 2:11. One is the reward of God's faithful, the other punishment for the unrighteous and apostates.

Given the comparison between life and death in Rev.2:10,11, the fairest inference to be made is that the crown of life represents everlasting life and fellowship with God in renewed creation (cf. 2:7). As death is said to belong to the "first things" in The Apocalypse (21:4), on the day of judgement unrighteous human beings are tossed into the lake of fire which is the second death prior to God's new creation (20:14,15; 21:1). In other words, the second death is temporally prior to the divine creation of a new heavens and new earth. God first purges the old creation of all that is harmful, sinful and vile before making all things new. The strict cosmological dualism that you have taken for granted throughout our exchange where evil eternally coexists alongside good and is never completely done away with is grounded in Augustine not Scripture.

As elucidated above, the eternal preservation of unrighteous humans in torment does not fit the bill for Revelation's "second death". The only human beings who will be granted immortality in the age to come are those belonging to the Lamb. Only they will inhabit God's new heavens and new earth. There is no place for the wicked to dwell (much less an eternal "dwelling place" for them to inhabit), for they have not been granted everlasting life. Eternal life is not common to all. The lost are not given the crown of life nor permitted to eat of the tree of life or drink of the water of life.


Note

¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all Scriptures are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV). All emphases added.

[Scrawly]

I find it strange that you should insist on such a stark literalism when attempting to exegete an apocalyptic work where symbols are plentiful and hyperbolic language bountiful as well. This does not surprise me, however, for this is rather commonplace among traditionalist interpreters.

As for the language of "hell', I deliberately choose to avoid the word as much as possible. We may speak of Gehenna, the lake of fire (and so on, and so forth), but the term "hell" is a loaded one. When one hears the word he or she is apt to think of the doctrine of endless conscious torment (which of course suits your present understanding of final punishment).

OK

It is true that "the devil is pictured" as enduring perpetual torment in John of Patmos' vision in Rev.20:10. Nevertheless, as Bowles noted, the surrounding context is rife with hyperbolic language. That said, you may maintain that the devil will be everlastingly tortured if it suits you. I am done arguing over this point at present.

I think the eternal torment of the devil in the lake of fire needs to be maintained and consistently highlighted because the devil is not the only one pictured there. Indeed, 20:15, once again, states that if anyone's name [not just the beast, the false prophet, or even the devil himself] was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Therefore, we have the devil suffering the same fate as unregenerate humanity.

Your entire view essentially hinges on one or two texts in The Apocalypse (14:11; 20:10),

Revelation 14:9-11 states: "Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 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."

Now, if I can briefly come back to 14:11 in light of what Jesus Himself made abundantly clear - that though the physical places of Sodom and Gomorrah were forever destroyed, the souls of the wicked people who lived there are still alive and awaiting judgment. Indeed "it will be more tolerable," said Jesus, "for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment" than for the cities who rejected His disciples (Mark 6:11). Peter affirms the same for the people who lived in the days of Noah (1 Peter 3:18-20) – their spirits are alive and awaiting judgment. Scripture is quite clear that the physical body dies because of sin but the soul lives on to face judgment and endure punishment. Moreover, these texts strongly indicate that "destruction" needn't refer total annihilation/cessation of existence, but rather, an irreversible consignment to the wrath, judgment and punishment of God.

one of which does not even address the general fate of the unrighteous (20:10).

As previously stated - unregenerate humanity shares the same fate as the devil. "And if anyone's name [not just the beast, the false prophet, or even the devil himself] was not written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire". The devil is being tormented "forever and ever" in the lake of fire. Unregenerate humanity is likewise in the lake of fire - why should it therefore be thought that unregenerate humanity is consumed but that same fire doesn't manage to consume the devil, but rather, torment him "day and night, forever and ever"? Again we are told in 21:8 that the unbelieving will "be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death". Clearly the reference is to the lake of fire in 20:15 where the torment never ends. You have not provided sufficient exegetical reasoning as to why thoroughgoing, utter annihilation is in view.

This places you in a precarious situation though you act as if you are arguing from a position of stength. The presupposition of universal immortality underlies all your musings on the everlasting torture of humans even when the biblical authors employ language indicating the exact opposite.

I beg to differ.

Revelation 2:10,11: Death, the Crown of Life & the Second Death

Based on your uncompromising acceptance of the devil's literal ongoing torment in the lake of fire, you deduce that lost human beings must be everlastingly tormented in the lake of fire as well. This despite the fact that humans are not portrayed as enduring endless conscious torment in Rev.20:15 and 21:8 at all. This is a point that I have called special attention to more than once in the vain hope of having you pause for a moment in order to reexamine and/or reconsider the texts you are marshaling in support of endless torment in Revelation. Unfortunately, at present it appears as though you are so locked into the traditionalist grid of interpretation that you are completely unable or unwilling to even countenance the possibility that "the second death" in Revelation indicates the full and final end of sinners and not their endless conscious torment.

I have given your position due consideration and found it wanting. solid exegetical grounds for your view seem to be MIA.

]As you noted in an earlier message on this thread, the terminology of second death occurs four times in The Apocalypse: Rev.2:11; 20:6; 20:14; and 21:8. Its very first usage in the book is instructive:

'Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death [thanatou], and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death [thanatou].'" (Rev.2:10,11).
In Jesus' message to the church in Smyrna, the saints are exhorted to be faithful until death. For our purposes, we may refer to the death envisioned in Rev.2:10 as "the first death" (though I will of course grant that this terminology is nowhere employed by John of Patmos in Revelation). The message is set in the context of an impending persecution of the saints which may result in the actual death or martyrdom of many in the church for maintaining their faithfulness to God and Christ. Those who persevere and do not apostatize in the heat of persecution will ultimately be rewarded with "the crown of life" by Jesus himself (presumably on the day of judgement).

OK.

In the very last verse of this message to the Smyrnean church, they are given the following promise: "the one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death." When verses 10 and 11 are compared, we are provided no contextual grounds for taking "the second death" of 2:11 in a completely different sense from the death written of one verse earlier (2:10). The first death envisaged is clearly the temporal, earthly bodily death of human beings. It cannot rightly be understood in a figurative or metaphorical sense. The second death is contrasted with life in The Apocalypse, not defined as an alternate form of everlasting existence or immortality for the unrighteous. The second death is, in fact, not a place but a state in Revelation. It is a state of eternal non-life, a death from which there is no recovery or return. The crown of life in 2:10 is set in stark contrast with the second death in 2:11. One is the reward of God's faithful, the other for the unrighteous and apostates.

I disagree. I have shown that the second death is the lake of fire. The Scripture explicitly states as much in verse 21:8. This is the same "place" that the devil dwells in and he is in a state of torment forever and ever. The second death, clearly, is not "a state of eternal non-life". "The second death" is characterized as "the second death" because it follows physical death; it is designated as death because it is the terminal separation from the Lord (Mt. 7:23; 25:41; 2 Thes.1:9). Annihilationists seem to believe in a "second annihilation." The very expression represents an absurdity. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that the lake of fire will involve the extermination of either Satan, demons, or wicked humans

Given the comparison between life and death in Rev.2:10,11, the fairest inference to be made is that the crown of life represents everlasting life and fellowship with God in renewed creation (cf. 2:7). As death is said to belong to the "first things" in The Apocalypse (21:4), on the day of judgement unrighteous human beings are tossed into the lake of fire which is the second death prior to God's new creation (20:14,15; 21:1). In other words, the second death is temporally prior to the divine creation of a new heavens and new earth. God first purges the old creation of all that is harmful, sinful and vile before making all things new. The strict cosmological dualism that you have taken for granted throughout our exchange where evil eternally coexists alongside good and is never completely done away with is grounded in Augustine not Scripture.

Well, I am afraid I cannot buy into this sort of reasoning for exegetical reasons stated previously, and other reasons which I will now state: Revelation 22:10-11: ""And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. "Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."" As Carson notes, "Of course the primary emphasis is on the "now" until judgment: there is a kind of realized judgment, within time, that sometimes takes place. Nevertheless, the parallelism is telling. If the holy and those who do right continue to be holy and do right in anticipation of the perfect holiness and rightness to be practiced throughout all eternity should we not conclude that vile continue their vileness in anticipation of the vileness they will live and practice throughout all eternity? Moreover, does not revelation 16:21 provide a portrait of those who are being punished and therefore curse God?
[/B](1)

Furthermore, evil that remains unpunished does indeed detract from God's glory in the universe, but we must also recognize that when God punishes evil and triumphs over it; the glory of His righteousness, justice, and power to triumph over all opposition will be seen (Rom. 9:17, 22-24). The depth of th riches of God's mercy will also be revealed. As JI Packer puts it: "It is said that the joy of heaven will be marred by knowledge that some continue under merited retribution. But this cannot be said of God as if the expressing of His holiness in retribution hurts him more than it hurts the offenders; and since in heaven Christian's will be like God in character and loving what He loves and taking joy in all His self-manifestation, including His justice, there is no reason to think that their joy will be impaired in this way" (2). I hope that gives you a slightly different view of the new order and the fullness of the glory (not dualism) that awaits - even the glory of God's justice.

As elucidated above, the eternal preservation of unrighteous humans in torment does not fit the bill for Revelation's "second death". The only human beings who will be granted immortality in the age to come are those belonging to the Lamb. Only they will inhabit God's new heavens and new earth. There is no place for the wicked to dwell (much less an eternal "dwelling place" for them to inhabit), for they have not been granted everlasting life. Eternal life is not common to all. The lost are not given the crown of life nor permitted to eat of the tree of life or drink of the water of life.

I disagree and once again you bring up the topic of immortality of the human soul. A couple remarks on this:

a) Man is neither like the animals nor divine. Man alone was made uniquely in the image of the immortal God. “Let us make man in Our image,” said God, “after Our likeness.” (Gen 1:26).

b) Robert Yarbrough demonstrates that eternal punishment was almost unanimously believed by the earliest church writers. "Augustine is not the problem," says Yarbrough, "for people were saying the same thing three hundred years earlier."Yarbrough demonstrates how the Epistle of Barnabas and the Martyrdom of Polycarp Tatian, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Papias of Hierapolis all expressed a disaffection with Hellenistic thought and yet still held to a belief in eternal punishment. Yarbrough concludes, It is by no means clear that Plato was anything like the authority for early church leaders that, say, Aristotle was for Thomas Aquinas…Early patristic writers do not defer to Plato in this way with respect to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. It is more likely they inferred it from a combination of Old Testament teaching and views expressed by Jesus and various New Testament writers…The Lord Jesus through the Scriptures, not Plato through surreptitious historical influences, bequeathed the discomforting doctrine of hell to the church (3).

c) Far more Scripture can be appealed to that, I think, clearly demonstrates the immortality of the soul, however, even if the human soul is not immortal, that still would not substantiate the annihilationist position. For John 5:28-29 speaks of the resurrection of the just and unjust. What purpose does the latter serve? The annihilationist can say that the resurrection of the unjust speaks to the resurrection of their mortal bodies - but the text does not say.

d) Quite obvious but should be highlighted: Annihilationists seem to imply that immortality is unbiblical simply because Plato believed it. What's more, Plato could be said to have shared a beautiful truth: "Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. (Ecc. 3:11).

----------------------------------------------------

1) D.A Carson - "The gagging of God"

2) James I. Packer "The problem of eternal judgment"

3) Robert Yarbrough "Hell under fire: modern scholarship reinvents eternal punishment"

[The Remonstrant]

Scrawly:

For the record, I will leave only one or two messages as my final response on this thread within the next few days. You are free to have the last word if you wish in this exchange, but there is no possible way I can or will go on exhaustively responding to all of your messages and criticisms of final annihilation. I do appreciate your interaction, but I can see that there will seemingly be no end to our interaction. There are far too many issues to interact with now especially as you keep bringing forth more considerations into the exchange (e.g., scriptural anthropology, the state of the dead, the doctrine of final punishment in church history, the concept of a continuing judgement or punishment for post-mortem sins, aionion texts, Isaiah 66:24 and Mark 9:48). As I have more or less indicated in a previous private correspondence with you, I cannot keep up in responding.

If you'll notice, in this thread I have not brought forth a host of texts and argued positively for my position. Instead I have argued primarily on the defense. Much of the argument has been over the book of Revelation and this itself is problematic. In my judgement the overall testimony of Scripture teaches that death is the penalty for sin (and as such cannot be arbitrarily defined as everlasting life in torment), immortality is only granted to the righteous as a gift, and the age to come will be completely devoid of the existence of evil and wicked persons. (Arguments may be made that the devil will be literally tormented forever, but this itself is disputable based on the imagery following the judgement text in Rev.20:10. In any event, unrighteous humans are never depicted by the biblical authors as inheriting immortality and being tortured endlessly by God as the final punishment for their sins.) That said, I will not be defending my position at any length in this thread. I have already been drawn further into this thread than I had originally intended and do not wish to go much further.

[apostoli]

Revelation 20:4 Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands.

??? Who are replying to

I'm curious to know what happened to the Devil's legion of angels in the end times. As I previously said, imu, they were eterminated never to rise again (?) Imu Revelation is silent on their circumstance after the day of judgement. I simply assume that whatever happened to them happens to those not in the book of life who followed after their master...

An argument I have encountered is that the Devil and his fallen angels, being angels (divine) cannot die, so they undergo eternal torment. Mankind was created conditionally (ie: mortal) thus, imu, the only way such can be tormented eternally is that they are granted eternal life (divinity). The idea is 100% against scripture which is very specific that eternal life is restricted to those that followed/follow Christ instead of Satan the Devil...

[The Remonstrant]

LeRoy Froom on Aiōnios: Excerpts from The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers

Aiōn and aiōnios, when used in connection with life (zōen) for the righteous, mean constant, abiding, eternal, measureless. It involves unbounded existence and duration in the world to come. But when used of the continuance (or more accurately of the consuming) of the wicked, who are to be destroyed, it is transitory, and comes to an end. Everything consequently and consistently depends upon the nature and destiny of the substantive that it modifies. That is the golden rule of interpretation of these terms. It is perpetuity within limits—the duration being determined by the person, or thing, or condition to which it is attached. (p.433, para.3)

Thus with the fate of the wicked. It is until their destruction is accomplished—not a process going on forever. The "fire" that shall not be "quenched" does not mean that it shall not ultimately cease. The fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was "unquenchable" (no one could put it out), but i finally ceased burning. But this was not until its objective was accomplished. (p.434, para.1)

The fact that the adjective aiōnios is applied to some things that are "endless" does not for a moment prove that it always means endless, for such a rendering would, in many passages, be manifestly impossible and absurd. Further, the adjective "eternal" (aiōnios) and the adverbial phrases that express eternity (such as "forever," and "forever and ever"), indicate an indeterminate duration, whereof the maximum depends upon the nature of the person or thing that it modifies.

It is clearly infinite when predicated of God and eternal things, which are above and beyond time, or of beings who live by faith in communion and connection with Him. On the contrary, it is only relative for other beings, such as mortal man. Thus the sufferings of perishable creatures logically cannot be prolonged longer than is compatible with their perishable nature.

The length must be inferred and determined from the context and the nature of the thing or persons under consider- (p.438, para.3-5)

ation. For example, in Romans 16:25, 26 the mystery of the gospel, hidden in times past—"chronois aiōnios" (along with eternal times, but which have come to an end)—is placed in contrast with aiōniou Theou ("eternal God," v. 26, R.S.V., endless and independent of all time). To hold that aiōnios in the one instance must mean the same as the other is manifestly an absurdity. (p.439, para.1)

. . . the meaning must be sought not in [the adjective] aiōnios but in the noun to which it is attached. Let us apply the principle: If the noun stands for that which is essentially eternal, then the accompanying adjective (aiōnios) is properly translated eternal. But if it is applied to that which is temporal and terminable, then aiōnios simply means lasting to the natural limits of the noun. Thus the "eternal God" (Rom. 16:26, R.S.V.), "eternal Spirit" (Heb. 9:14), and "eternal kingdom of our Lord" (2 Peter 1:11, R.S.V.) are all clear and incontrovertible. Here the adjective has the meaning of endless, for the existence of Deity and His divine attributes and kingdom are without end.

But when aiōnios modifies nouns of action, such as an "eternal judgment" (Heb. 6:2), "everlasting punishment" (Matt. 25:46), and the everlasting fires of Gehenna, it must be understood as lasting "forever" in the sense of everlasting results rather than an everlasting process. It is the verdict of the judgment that is immutable and stands forever—eternity of result, not of process. The same is true of "eternal redemp- (p.441, para.3,4)

tion" (Heb. 9:12). This is not an endless process, but the eternal result of Christ's once-for-all redemptive activity for man's salvation.

Similarly with "eternal destruction." A thing that is not destroyed until the act of destroying comes to an end. The results of the destructive process are therefore eternal. When aiōnios modifies "punishment," the process is not one of eternally punishing but the eternal result of a terminative process. When a criminal is hanged, electrocuted, or gassed, the process is not one of eternal hanging, electrocuting, or gassing. The criminal is deprived of life forever.

In the case of "eternal fire" (Jude 7), the duration is determined by the nature of the fire, which burns until it consumes that upon which it is feeding, and then ceases—as with Sodom and Gomorrah, where the complete destruction of the cities is set forth as an example of the puros aiōniou which will destroy the wicked. (p.442, para.1-3)

—L.E. Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers: The Conflict of the Ages Over the Nature and Destiny of Man, volume I (Wahington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1966), emphasis in original.

[The Remonstrant]

Aiōnios & That Which Will Endure Forever

There is no dispute that the coming age will be everlasting. God, Christ and his kingdom will indeed endure forever. They are aiōnios in the strongest sense of the term. That said, rightly discerning how aiōnioszōe aiōniosAiōnios & the "Eternal Sin" of Mark 3:29

For our purposes, I will briefly examine the "eternal sin" of Mark 3:29 and its Matthean parallel below.

²⁸ "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, ²⁹ but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness,but is guilty of an eternal [aiōniou<sup>301 2 3

31</sup> "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. ³² And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age [aiōni] or in the age [aiōni] to come." (Matt.12:32,33)

In the Markan account above Jesus is recorded as denouncing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as an "eternal sin" (aiōniou hamartēmatos, 3:29). In Matthew's account we are informed more specifically as to the precise nature of this "eternal sin". In Matthew we learn that it is a specific sin made during a specific point in time that will neither be forgiven in the present (passing) age⁴ or in the age to come (the age which will endure forever). The sin under discussion, then, is not one which takes place over the course of a long period of time, much less over an eternal or everlasting duration. It is an "eternal" sin in the sense that its effects will endure from the present age to the age to come. As Edward Fudge notes,

Where Matthew uses the apocalyptic language of the two ages, Mark compresses the same idea into an eschatological adjective. The person "will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sinnot forgiven, the form of his punishment is beside the point. He is no more pardoned if he is executed for his crime than if he spends 100 years in prison.⁵

Notes

¹ Literally, "whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit does not have forgiveness for the age" (cf. the Lexham English Bible's margin note for Mark 3:29 and Young's Literal Translation). The Common English Bible captures the essence of Mark 3:29 in rendering it as follows: "But whoever insults the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. That person is guilty of a sin with consequences that last forever."

² Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV), emphasis added.

³ Some manuscrips read "eternal judgement/condemnation [aiōniou kriseōs]" (cf. the NKJV).

⁴ In Matthew's Gospel it is understood that the present age will come to a close (12:32; 13:19,39,40,49; 28:20). In Jesus' explanation of the parable of the sower, those who are preoccupied with "the worries of this age [aiōnos]" (13:22 HCSB) are among those who hear the message of the kingdom (13:19) and do not bear fruit. In Luke's account it is clear that bearing fruit and perseverance are held in tandem: "But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance." (Luke 8:15 NASB)

In the Pauline literature, the church of Rome is told not to conform to this age (aiōni, Rom.12:2). To the church of Corinth, Paul writes that the end of the ages (aiōnōn) has come upon them (1 Cor.10:11); and Satan is referred to as the god this age (aiōnos, 2 Cor.4:4). To the church of Galatia, Paul declares that the Lord Jesus Christ "gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age [aiōnos], according to the will of our God and Father" (Gal.1:4). To the saints of Ephesus, Paul exalts the superiority of Christ who is now "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age [aiōni] but also in the one to come" (Eph.1:21). In 1 Tim.6:17; 2 Tim.4:10; and Titus 2:12 this age is referred to as enestōtos (present), implying its temporal duration.

⁵ E.W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, reprint edition (Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 1982, 2001), pp.180,181.

[Scrawly]

Snip

1) "The Hebrew words translated "consume" are used in many contexts where the meaning cannot possibly be annihilation (e.g., Ps. 78:45; Lam. 3:4; Ezek. 13:13; etc.) Therefore, we should not assume automatically that the mere presence of the word "consume" ipso facto proves annihilation. Context is always determinative. Now, let us grant that fire normally represents that which consumes or annihilates its fuel until nothing but ashes are left. Normal fire dies out once the fuel has been consumed. But the fire of judgment is no normal fire: it is described as an eternal fire (Jude 7) which is unquenchable (Mark 9:48). The fact that the smoke is said to rise "forever and ever" is not evidence that "the fire has done its work," as Stott wrongly infers, but rather that the fire is doing its work through a process of endless combustion. Annihilationist's replace the "unquenchable" fire of Jesus with the "quenchable" fire of the annihilationist's.
The same argument holds for the undying worms (Mark 9:48). Worms are able to live as long as there is food for them to consume. Once their food supply has been consumed, the worms eventually die. But the torments of hell are likened to undying, not dying worms. This is because their supply of food — the wicked — never ceases."(1)

2) Rem raises the standard argument of the Annihilationist's that eternal punishment occurs once for all but has eternal results. In "The Gagging of God" D.A Carson notes: "As common as the argument is, even some annihilationist's acknowledge it is very weak, and several other has roundly challenged it (citations pur). The critical question the adjective aiōnios (eternal), even when applied to salvation, refers only to the once-for-all work of Christ and its results? Can the redeemed in heaven not say they are being saved by Christ, but only that they have been saved by Christ? In any case, "salvation" itself has a broad semantic range; it can refer to the ongoing blessedness introduced by the consummation - and if this is the case, one must at least ask if "eternal punishment" likewise refers to ongoing punishment. More importantly and more commonly, aiōnios has temporal/eternal overtones, rather than qualitative force. And even when it has the latter the temporal sense is rarely forfeited.(2)

3) Rem also makes the point through the natural inference from the language of fire that it totally consumes what it burns. But as Carson notes, thoroughgoing exegesis must be undertaken to see "if there is anything in the text that encourages this reading of the language, or, alternatively, if there are elements that point away from such inferences. For example, if the worms do not die, what keeps them alive after they have devoured all of the people? The question is ugly and silly, precisely because it is demanding a concrete and this-worldly answer to the use of language describing the realities of punishment in a future world still largely inconceivable. In fact there are more than a few hints in the text that the annihilationist reading is incorrect. Observe the wording of Jesus' famous words: If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. (Mark 9:47-49). it is not the worm but their worm. Which suggests that it is perpetually bound up with those who are suffering. By itself, fire that is "not quenched" might be taken to mean "unquenchable" in the sense that nothing can stand in its path for as long as it burns, rather than in the sense that it burns forever. But this leads to new difficulties. In a parallel passage Jesus speaks to those who are thrown into the eternal fire (Matt. 18:8). Besides one is surely entitled to ask why the fires should burn forever and the worms not die if their purpose comes to an end. And if one draws the inferences Stott draws about being totally consumed, must we not also infer that fire consumes everyone more or less at the same rate and that death (i.e cessation of existence) would be almost instantaneous? Where then is there place for degrees of punishment before annihilation, as usually accepted by those who espouse annihilationism or conditional immorality? It appears that the interpretation of these passages is going off track precisely because illegitimate or arbitrary inferences are being drawn from the language, against the more natural readings, in order to support a theory that is being imposed upon the text.(3)

4) Rem cites Heb 9:12: "Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." But surely the phrase means "redemption which the believer will eternally and continually live in and benefit from, which can never be undone". In this the most natural sense then, "eternal punishment" is "punishment which the unbeliever will eternally and continually live in and suffer from and which can never be escaped". The emphasis is on the continuing impact on the person. We will continually feel the impact of our redemption eternally, just as the unbeliever will continually feel the impact of God’s punishment eternally. Rem also brings up Jude 7 which speaks of the lasting marks of the fire that consumed the cities irreparably and indeed it is a type of the eternal fire to which the inhabitants have been consigned (2Peter. 2:6).(4)


---------------------------------------

(1) www.bible-researcher.com/hell5.html

(2) D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 527.

(3) D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 528.

(4) http://www.academia.edu/5579795/The_...nnihilationism

** I apologize for sloppy citation. Whole cloth statements were taken from the sources listed.

[Scrawly]

5) 'destruction' is not always synonymous with 'annihilation'. Douglas Moo comments on 2 Thess 1:8-9:

"The words need not mean “destruction” in the sense of “extinction”. In fact, leaving aside for the moment judgment texts, none of the key terms usually has this meaning in the Old and New Testaments. Rather, they usually refer to the situation of a person or object that has lost the essence of its nature or function…The key words for “destroy” and “destruction” can also refer to land that has lost its fruitfulness (olethros in Ezek 6:14; 14:16); to ointment that is poured out wastefully and to no apparent purpose (apoleia in Matt 26:8; Mark 14:4); to wineskins that can no longer function because they have holes in them (apollymi in Matt 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37) to a coin that is useless because it is “lost” (apollymi in Luke 15:9); or to the entire world that “perishes,” as an inhabited world, in the flood (apollymi in 2 Pet 3:6). In none of these cases do the objects cease to exist; they cease to be useful or to exist in their original, intended state…The people who are the objects of destruction continue to exist in some form. It makes little sense to describe people who have been annihilated as being separate from the presence of God.” (1) Grudem agrees, saying, “It must be said that the passages which speak of destruction do not necessarily imply the cessation of existence."(2).

--------------------------------------

(1) Morgan, Christopher W., Robert A. Peterson, (chapter 4 by Douglas Moo: "Paul on Hell"), Hell under fire: modern scholarship reinvents eternal punishment (Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 2004), 104-105, 108

(2) Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Nottingham, England: Intervarsity Press, 1994), 1150.