On Hell: Part 2
Brian Dainsberg
Annihilationism—the view that the lost will ultimately cease to exist rather than endure eternal punishment—has gained renewed traction in some theological circles. On Hell: Part 1 framed the discussion and addressed two of the four primary arguments advanced by annihilationists. This essay considers the remaining two arguments and concludes with several broader theological reflections.
Fire and the Imagery of Destruction
A central pillar of the annihilationist case is the biblical imagery of fire. Passages such as these are frequently cited.
“Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matt 3:10).
“The chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire” (Matt 3:12).
“It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire” (Mark 9:43).
“Where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:48).
Annihilationists reason that fire consumes its fuel. Because fuel is finite, the fire of judgment must also be finite. Hell, then, lasts only until the wicked are fully consumed and cease to exist.
At first glance, this argument feels intuitive. Fires burn things up; nothing burns forever. Yet the texts themselves resist this conclusion. Jesus repeatedly describes the fire as unquenchable. By definition, an unquenchable fire does not burn itself out. If fire requires fuel and the fire never ends, then the fuel does not end either.
The same logic applies to the image of the undying worm. Worms exist only as long as there is something to consume. Once the food source is exhausted, the worm dies. Yet Jesus insists that the worm “does not die.” The imagery points not toward extinction, but toward continuation—ongoing corruption, decay, and judgment.
The key question, then, is whether these texts naturally lead the reader to conclude non-existence. If anything, they press in the opposite direction. The annihilationist reading does not arise organically from the text; it must be imported into it.
The Love and Justice of God
When exegetical arguments falter, annihilationists often pivot to philosophical concerns about divine love and justice. The discussion usually begins with shared ground. Scripture teaches that human beings are judged according to their deeds:
“The dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done” (Rev 20:12).
This principle of proportional justice runs deep in the biblical tradition. Exodus 21:23–25 famously articulates the lex talionis—life for life, eye for eye. Punishment fits the crime.
The annihilationist objection follows naturally: how can finite sins committed by finite creatures warrant infinite punishment? Is there not a profound disproportion between sins committed in time and torment experienced eternally? Stackhouse gives voice to the concern, suggesting that God keeps rebels alive only as long as necessary for them to “pay their debts and purge their guilt” [1]. On this view, eternal punishment gives way to eventual extinction.
What this reasoning overlooks, however, is a category Jesus himself introduces: eternal sin.
“Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:29).
Whatever debates surround the precise nature of this sin, the category itself is unmistakable. If sin can be eternal in scope, what kind of punishment does it warrant?
Jesus provides further clarity in his parable to Simon the Pharisee. Two debtors owe different amounts, but neither can repay. At that point, the size of the debt becomes irrelevant. Whether small or large, an unpayable debt is effectively infinite. Sin, Jesus implies, functions this way. No amount of moral capital suffices. Even the wealthiest moral “Elon Musk” still comes up infinitely short.
The annihilationist objection treats sin as merely quantitative. Scripture treats it as relational and qualitative—an offense against an infinitely holy God. The issue is not simply how long the sin took to commit, but whom it was committed against and whether restitution is possible. When restitution is impossible, the debt does not diminish with time.
A Fly in the Ointment?
After the new heavens and the new earth are established, after final judgment has been rendered, and after the New Jerusalem is set in place, Scripture offers this striking description:
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood” (Rev 22:14–15).
This language strongly suggests that hell remains a real place, inhabited by real people who experience real separation from God—even in the eternal state.
Notably, in Rethinking Hell, a volume written by twenty-one annihilationist contributors, only one addresses this passage, and only briefly. John Wenham dismisses it as “another way of describing destruction” [2]. The broader silence on Revelation 22:14–15 is telling.
Wenham’s explanation is especially difficult to sustain in light of the present, active participles in the text. Those outside are described as people who “love” and “practice” falsehood. These verbs depict ongoing, real-time activity—not a condition already extinguished. The wicked are portrayed as existing and acting in Revelation 22.
Commenting on this passage, G. K. Beale concludes that it “implies that the existence of the wicked is coterminous with the eternal blessedness of the righteous” [3].
At this point, John Stott’s well-known admission becomes illuminating:
“I do not minimize the gravity of sin as rebellion against God our Creator…but I question whether ‘eternal conscious torment’ is compatible with the biblical revelation of divine justice, unless perhaps the impenitence of the lost also continues throughout eternity” [4].
That ongoing impenitence is precisely what Revelation 22 depicts: a final, settled picture of humanity in which the redeemed enter the city, while the unrepentant remain outside—still loving and practicing falsehood.
Concluding Reflections
At this point, a doctrinal minimalist often objects: Why divide over this? Doesn’t doctrine just hurt people? Why not simply love Jesus and feed the poor? Such appeals, however well-intentioned, fail to reckon with the downstream consequences of theological commitments.
Three brief reflections are in order.
1. Softening Judgment Has Always Been Dangerous
In the garden, the serpent’s first move was not to deny God outright, but to soften his judgment: “You will not surely die.” That revision proved catastrophic. Moral collapse followed theological compromise.
It is worth asking whether annihilationism represents a modern replay of that ancient strategy. If judgment is ultimately less severe than Scripture suggests, sin inevitably feels less dangerous. History gives us ample reason to be wary of doctrinal revisions that dull the sharp edges of divine judgment.
2. Annihilationism Empties Hell of Meaning
Under a strict annihilationist framework, hell has no enduring reality for the lost. Once annihilation occurs, there is no subject left to experience anything. In that sense, hell is not bad—it is nothing. Fear, dread, and warning language become incoherent.
Yet Jesus repeatedly appeals to hell as a genuine motivator for repentance and obedience (e.g., Matt 5:22). Fear requires an object. A non-existent state cannot terrify anyone. The simplest explanation is also the most straightforward: hell is real, conscious, and to be feared.
3. Annihilationist Hermeneutics Raise Serious Concerns
Finally, the interpretive moves required to sustain annihilationism are troubling. Texts describing “eternal punishment” are redefined so that eternal modifies the result but not the experience, while eternal life remains fully experiential. Imagery of weeping, gnashing of teeth, and torment is said to describe entities that no longer exist. Parables depicting conscious suffering are dismissed as metaphors that ultimately point to nothing.
At minimum, this approach renders Scripture less clear. Applied consistently, it raises deeper questions about biblical authority and interpretive integrity.
Conclusion
The disagreement between those who espouse eternal conscious punishment and annihilationists does not immediately overturn the core of the gospel. Nevertheless, annihilationism remains unfaithful to the biblical witness. Beneath annihilationism lurks a Pandora’s box of theological revisionism—one that risks eroding confidence in Scripture and, over time, nicking away at the gospel itself. Not in one decisive blow, but by a thousand small cuts.
Brian Dainsberg - Alliance Bible Church - Mequon, Wisconsin
[1] Four Views on Hell, ed. Stanley Gundry and Preston Sprinkle, p. 80.
[2] John Wenham, “The Case for Conditional Immortality,” Rethinking Hell, ed. Christopher Date, Gregory Stump, and Joshua Anderson, p. 81.
[3] Hell Under Fire, ed. Christopher Morgan and Robert Peterson, p. 116.
[4] Ibid., 54 (emphasis mine).