On Hell: Part 1
Brian Dainsberg
Christian social media was recently stirred when a former Hollywood actor released a podcast advocating annihilationism, a view of hell that has appeared periodically throughout church history. While interest in the topic may ebb and flow, the doctrine of final judgment remains among the most difficult and sobering teachings of Scripture. Its gravity demands careful, reverent reflection rather than reactionary conclusions. This article, and a follow-up to come, aim to examine annihilationism with seriousness and restraint.
Annihilationism, though expressed in several variations, can be summarized simply: unbelievers will eventually cease to exist, either at death or sometime after judgment. Hell, therefore, is not an eternally experienced reality. By contrast, the historic Christian position—often called eternal conscious punishment or torment—holds that the punishment of unbelievers consists of an unending, conscious experience of judgment.
Four principal arguments are commonly advanced in support of annihilationism. The first two are addressed here; the remaining arguments will be considered in a subsequent article.
Destruction and Perishing
A central argument for annihilationism appeals to biblical language describing the fate of unbelievers as “destruction” or “perishing.” Some annihilationists argue that when these words are used of final judgment, they indicate cessation of existence. A sampling of such passages includes:
“Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28).
“Whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
“All who have sinned…will perish” (Rom 2:12).
“The day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly” (2 Pet 3:7).
The words translated “destroy,” “perish,” and “destruction” in these passages all derive from the same Greek word: apollumi and its cognate apoleia.
It is true that apollumi can mean “to kill” in certain contexts. For example, Herod’s desire to “destroy” the infant Jesus (Matt 2:13), or the Jewish leaders’ plots to destroy him (Matt 12:14; 27:4), clearly involve physical death. John Stott therefore suggests that if killing deprives the body of life, hell may represent the deprivation of both physical and spiritual life—namely, extinction of being [1].
Similarly, annihilationists point to the intransitive or middle voice of apollumi, translated “to perish.” In 1 Corinthians 10:9, the Israelites who “perished” by snakebite clearly died physically. The same grammatical form appears in passages such as John 3:16, Romans 2:12, and 2 Peter 3:9, which speak of the fate of unbelievers. The grammatical parallel is often emphasized as decisive.
Yet this argument falters when the full semantic range of apollumi and apoleia is considered. These words do not uniformly denote cessation of existence. They frequently describe loss, ruin, waste, or relational separation rather than annihilation.
For example, apollumi is used repeatedly in Luke 15 to describe the “lost” sheep, coin, and son. In each case, what is lost still exists. Likewise, when the disciples object to the expensive perfume poured on Jesus, they call it a “waste” (apoleia, Matt 26:8)—yet the ointment has not ceased to exist.
Even in transitive uses, apollumi does not always mean “to kill.” In Luke 6:9, Jesus contrasts saving life with destroying it in the context of healing a man’s withered hand. Here, “destroy” refers not to ending existence but to leaving a life diminished, wasted, or rendered useless.
The same point applies to the intransitive use of “perish.” After feeding the five thousand, Jesus instructs his disciples to gather the leftovers “so that nothing may be lost” (apollumi, John 6:12). The food has not ceased to exist; it would simply be wasted if left behind.
These examples demonstrate that annihilationists often import the idea of existential cessation into words that do not inherently carry that meaning. Notably, if the biblical authors wished to convey the idea of absolute cessation, they had access to a clear Greek term—pauō (“to cease”)—yet this word is never used to describe the fate of unbelievers.
In the original languages, “destruction” or “perish” and “annihilation” are distinct concepts expressed by different words. The diversity of meaning within the apollumi/apoleia word group calls for interpretive restraint. It is therefore unwarranted to conclude that biblical language of “destruction” or "perish" necessarily implies nonexistence.
Matthew 25:46
Matthew 25:46 is a pivotal text in the debate: “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Both sides recognize the importance of the parallelism. As a second argument, annihilationists contend that while the punishment is eternal in its effect, it need not involve eternal conscious experience. John Stott suggests that Jesus does not define the nature of the punishment in this passage, and therefore one cannot assume it is consciously experienced [2]. Similarly, John Stackhouse contends that “eternal punishment” may refer to a punishment with everlasting consequences rather than ongoing experience [3].
This reading, however, faces serious grammatical and contextual difficulties. The verse presents a clear parallel construction: eternal punishment is set alongside eternal life. The most natural reading demands semantic symmetry. If eternal life is consciously experienced, eternal punishment should be understood in the same way. To argue otherwise introduces an asymmetry not indicated by the text.
Furthermore, the meaning of “punishment” (kolasis) must be addressed. Does punishment require existence? In the New Testament, kolasis appears only one other time, in 1 John 4:18: “Fear has to do with punishment.” In this context, punishment is clearly an experienced reality. There is no biblical evidence that kolasis refers to an unexperienced result divorced from conscious awareness.
Historically, careful exegetes have recognized the weight of this parallel. Nearly two centuries ago, Moses Stuart concluded that the biblical declarations concerning eternal punishment stand or fall with those concerning eternal life. Because Scripture consistently affirms the endless happiness of the righteous, it likewise affirms the endless punishment of the wicked. The antithesis allows no middle ground [4].
Conclusion
Faithful biblical interpretation requires following the textual evidence wherever it leads, even when the conclusions are uncomfortable or culturally unpopular. Annihilationism may offer some emotional relief by softening the doctrine of final judgment, but that relief comes at the cost of stretching key texts beyond their natural meaning. When practiced consistently, such an interpretive approach threatens the integrity of Scripture itself. However difficult the doctrine of eternal punishment may be, fidelity to the biblical witness requires that it be affirmed—not because it is palatable, but because it is taught.
Brian Dainsberg - Alliance Bible Church - Mequon, Wisconsin
[1] John Stott, “Judgment and Hell”, Rethinking Hell, ed. Christopher Date, Gregory Stump, and Joshua Anderson, p. 51
[2] Ibid., 53.
[3] Four Views on Hell, ed. Stanley Gundry and Preston Sprinkle, p. 78
[4] Moses Stuart, Exegetical Essays on Several Words Relating to Future Punishment, p. 62