Jesus warns of everlasting punishment in the age to come, and he also explains the nature of that punishment, as do Paul and John among others. It is the second death, the wages of sin. It is everlasting destruction, at the hands of God who is able to destroy both soul and body. To undergo this punishment is to perish – eternally and entirely, fully and forever – and to forfeit eternal life, the gift of God that throughout the New Testament always stands as the blessed alternative to death, destruction and perishing. [2]

On October 10, 2014, the New York Times published an article entitled “ Tormented in the Afterlife, But Not Forever ”, which analyzed the growing popularity of annihilationism among evangelical scholars. Two major advocates of this view are Edward Fudge and John Stott, along with lesser known, yet still influential advocates such as Clark H. Pinnock and Greg Boyd.[1] Evangelical annihilationism, sometimes termed “conditionalism”, is the view that the “ unsaved… will be permanently excluded from eternal life by means of a final death (loss of being; destruction of the whole person; Matthew 10:28) .” In other words, the saved will enjoy eternal life, while the unsaved will be both physically and spiritually destroyed – removed from existence. Fudge explains in more detail:

Annihilationism disagrees with Eternal Conscious Torment, sometimes referred to as the “traditional” view, which holds that the damned suffer in hell eternally. Clark H. Pinnock has discussed the theological difficulties of the traditional view:

Torturing people without end is not the sort of thing the “Abba” Father of Jesus would do. Would God who tells us to love our enemies be intending to wreak vengeance on his enemies for all eternity? […] Torturing people forever is an action easier to associate with Satan than with God, measured by ordinary moral standards and/or by the gospel. And what human crimes could possibly deserve everlasting conscious torture? The traditional view of hell is a very disturbing concept that needs reconsideration.[3]

How does annihilationism respond to the theological and eschatological issues of eternal conscious torment? Is this doctrine of hell the better alternative to the traditional view?



Annihilationism (Contra Eternal Conscious Torment)

Annihilationism, for Pinnock, is the best eschatological possibility partially because it makes sense of the biblical texts that discuss the afterlife,[4] anthropology, metaphysics, the justice of God, and also because it passes “the moral test”.[5] This view holds that God does not force people into heaven or hell (as in Calvinism’s doctrines of irresistible grace and double predestination), but that God allows humanity to exercise their free will, even if it means their demise. In other words, in annihilationism, “God is morally justified in destroying the wicked because he respects their human choices”.[6] Humans choose to go to hell by rejecting God and, in doing so, they reject the source of life and, consequently, their own existence. The moral baton is passed from God to humanity, who “have a moral ‘right’ to hell”.[7] In annihilationism, those that deny the salvation of God must pay the penalty for their sins, which is the second death. For advocates like Chris Date, an independent theologian who runs rethinkinghell.com, “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6.23) means that those who will not repent of their sins “will be exterminated as the penalty for their sins.”[8]



Pinnock has also critiqued the argument “that our sins are worthy of an infinite punishment because they are committed against an infinite majesty”.[9] He criticized these “old arguments” as belonging only to Anselm and the Middle Ages, because no modern judge “would calibrate the degree of punishment on a scale of the honor of the one who has been wronged”.[10] He goes on:

What purpose of God would be served by the unending torture of the wicked except those of vengeance and vindictiveness? Such a fate for the wicked would spell endless and totally unredemptive suffering. Here would be punishment just for its own sake. Surely God does not act like that… Unending torment would be utterly pointless, wasted suffering that could never lead to anything good. My point is that eternal torment serves no purpose at all and exhibits a vindictiveness totally out of keeping with the love of God revealed in the gospel.[11]

There is also a hidden tension that often gets overlooked in the traditional view: the co-existence of heaven and hell after the judgment scene. Boyd asks how we can enjoy “heaven when we know that fellow human beings — and perhaps former loved ones — are locked in an endless nightmare from which they shall never awake”.[12] How can God be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15.28) while there are many who have rejected God in hell? According to Boyd, if hell lasts forever, then an “ugly dualism reigns throughout eternity”.[13] Annihilationism’s doctrine of eternal destruction, “the second death”, resolves this tension. If the wicked are damned to non-existence, then only the righteous will be those in the New Heavens and New Earth enjoying the presence of God. Pinnock declares that the complete victory of God occurs when “evil is removed and nothing remains but light and love”.[14] This removal happens through the annihilation of God’s enemies, when they are totally consumed by the fires of hell. Boyd suggests that this is God’s justice and mercy coming together:

From the annihilationist perspective, God’s justice and mercy unite in condemning the wicked to extinction. He justly punishes their sin and forbids them a place within the Kingdom. And he mercifully annihilates them precisely so they will not endlessly endure what the traditional view says they endure. [15]

Thus, the doctrine of annihilationism is endorsed as making the most sense of eschatological issues in Christianity and the interpretation of afterlife passages in Scripture.[16] God is not a torturer, people receive a just penalty for their sins (“the wages of sin is [ultimate] death”), hell does not exist forever, and evil is annihilated. There are certain sentiments that I agree with here. The God of Christianity, the God who is Love, is definitely not a torturer. The eternal existence of hell and those that rebel against God are major eschatological issues that “traditional” approaches seem to overlook. However, is annihilationism truly the solution to the issues brought up in the doctrine of eternal conscious torment?



Enduring Issues in Annihilationism



Is annihilationism murder? It is, after all, called annihilationism. And if I annihilate a group of people we know that I’ve murdered them. So while annihilationism might seem more humane than the vision of God roasting people for eternity we have to wrestle with this notion that God is terminating a human life. Humans call that murder. So, is the God of annihilationism guilty on this score? [19]

Taking up Pinnock’s notion of passing our doctrines of hell through “the moral test”, we cannot give annihilationism a free pass simply because it is “better” than the traditional view.[17] This doctrine rightfully pictures the “New Heavens and New Earth” as free from hell and evil. However, in order to paint this picture, God needs to completely remove sinners from existence. We must now ask annihilationism a “moral” question: what does this say about God’s character? One reason many are opposed to eternal conscious torment is because it portrays God as an eternal torturer. Earlier, we saw Boyd’s suggestion that God’s justice and mercy unite in annihilationism, in addition to Pinnock’s statement that “God is morally justified in destroying the wicked”. However, this view of God assumes a retributive framework in regards to God’s judgment. In fact, both Fudge and Date use the term “capital punishment” in regards to God’s annihilation of the wicked.[18] Richard Beck pushes back on the “morality” of annihilationism:

Beck also considers the possibility that God does not actively annihilate humans, but that God “simply removes his life-giving presence from these people.”[20] God leaves these people in hell, where the fires of hell consume them. This passive view leaves humanity to deal with the consequences of their sins. This is similar to “pulling the plug” in medical settings, and in most situations, when we allow life-support to be removed, it is considered murder. However, Beck criticizes such an analogy:

The trouble with this view is that we only allow the plug to be pulled when people are brain dead, when they are not conscious and they have no way, biologically speaking, to carry their biography forward. But that’s not what is going on in annihilationism. The damned are, presumably, conscious and want their lives to continue. They may even be begging for mercy. And yet, God pulls the plug over their protests, petitions, and screams for mercy. And that, it seems to me, is murder. Annihilationism and Fudge’s book [The Fire That Consumes], I concluded, were well named. [21]

In light of Beck’s critiques, there is a second moral question annihilationism must answer: do the ends justify the means? In other words, is the murder of the wicked the only path to a sinless world? Does God destroy so that there will be no more destruction? Some utilitarians will reply “yes”, that this is the only true path for the salvation of the cosmos. One must ask how this is “morally” better than eternal conscious torment. One view has the eternal torturer of humanity, the other view has the ultimate annihilator of humanity.[22]



However, is it even right to hold hell up to a moral standard? In some sense, yes. Hell tells us something about God, and a capricious god has no place in Christianity. God is Love, so St John tells us. This entails that God’s judgment is loving, and, at the very least, moral. However, it isn’t right to interpret around morality. I am skeptical of interpreting with a so-called “moral intuition” that Pinnock is so confident about because there is no definitive “moral guideline” in Protestantism when interpreting Scripture and the doctrine of hell.[23] One could say that Beck is also interpreting the doctrine of hell through “moral intuition”, but it is at odds with annihilationism. Pinnock is aware that his moral intuitions are subjective, but he believes that annihilationism is more morally justifiable than other doctrines of hell.[24] So who is more moral: Beck or Pinnock? It is difficult to say because using general “moral intuition” in biblical interpretation is often indeterminate. However, Pinnock also alludes to interpreting the doctrine of hell in relation to other biblical doctrines elsewhere:

Of all the articles of theology that have troubled the human conscience over the centuries, I suppose few have caused any greater anxiety than the received interpretation of hell as everlasting conscious torment in body and soul, an anxiety which is heightened only by the cluster of other dark notions that cling to it in the tradition: I refer to the beliefs such as double predestination, the fewness of salvation, and the idea that the plight of the damned brings delight to the saints who behold it from heaven’s glory… [I]t would be a mistake not to point to the larger pattern to which the traditional view of hell belongs and which accentuates the horror. According to the larger picture, we are asked to believe that God endlessly tortures sinners by the million[s], sinners who perish because the Father has decided not to elect them to salvation, though he could have done so, and whose torments are supposed to gladden the hearts of believers in heaven. [25]

He is critiquing not just the traditional view itself, but also the traditional view within high Calvinism. Hell in this system is theologically incoherent: God creates “non-elect” people who have no chance of receiving salvation and whose destiny it is to burn in hell. This is where Pinnock’s critique is, in my view, the strongest (though this critique seems geared more towards Calvinism): while there is a moral aspect involved, Pinnock allows the traditional view to “self-destruct” by playing out the logical theological conclusions within this system. This theological approach to hell, by setting it up in relation to other doctrines, is also applicable to critiquing annihilationism.



Christ and Humanity as The Image of God



The same dimension of the term “image” also appears in the Apostle’s fundamental teaching that man, to be made whole, must put on “the image of the heavenly” man, who is Christ (1 Cor 15:49), in order to attain “to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13) , and this “that we may no longer be children” (Eph 4: 14). [27]

Any study of eschatology should begin with protology. In other words, the doctrine of hell in must be understood in relation to the doctrine of creation. Genesis reveals that God originally created all things very good (Genesis 1.31). However, humanity was not only created good, but also created in the image of God (1.27). The expression “image of God” or “in the image” has been understood in different ways, including man’s free will, rational faculties, characteristic of self-determination, and sometimes the soul along with the body, the mind, the distinction between nature and person, etc., and sometimes comprehensively the whole man.[26] However, we will observe this concept, humanity made in the image of God, in relation to the New Testament understanding that Christ “the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” and “is the image of the invisible God” (Hebrews 1.3 and Colossians 1.15, NRSV). One faces a theological question here: what is the relationship between humanity, as made in the image of God, and Christ, who is both the “exact imprint of God’s very being” and “the image of the invisible God”? Why does the New Testament point to Christ as the image of God while Genesis points to humanity as the image of God? Greek theologian Panayiotis Nellas ties these two concepts together:

Nellas, building upon the theological formulations of early church theologians, attempts to unite “the Pauline theme of Christ – image of God with the Genesis theme of man – in the image of God.”[28] In other words, “Christ constitutes the image of God, and man the image of Christ; that is to say, that man is the image of the Image.”[29] Nellas points to the Incarnation, specifically Christ’s hypostatic union of both God and Humanity as the archetype for man.[30] In Christ, humanity and God are in full communion, an “unconfused union of uncreated divinity and created contingency.”[31] This union of God and man was the original destiny of Adam and Eve, but this destiny is fulfilled in Christ. If “in [Christ], all things in heaven and on earth were created” and all things were made “through him and for him” (Colossians 1.16-19, NRSV), then it is possible to say that “[Christ] was the archetype for those who have been created.”[32] It is significant that Christians are named Christians, as they attempt image the perfect Image of God.



Of course, the Fall is a factor in understanding humanity as made in the image of God. There is a tendency in some theological circles to declare that humans are nothing but “worthless sinners” and “totally depraved”. It should be noted that God never revoked the Divine image from mankind. We do not have space to discuss what was lost in the Fall, but it is assumed in the Early Church that humanity is still made in the image of God, Christian or not.[33]



Another Type of “Image” of God

The Second Council of Nicaea in 787 A.D. was centered around the controversy of icons and iconoclasm in Christian worship. We do not have space to discuss the entire history of this issue, so only the relevant information will be discussed. For those unfamiliar with the topic, icons are pictorial depictions of Christ, Mary, and Saints of the Christian faith that are venerated (honored, adored) because they “incarnated” God in their lives. These icons, especially the icons of Christ, are “images” of God. The controversy was rooted in the traditional Jewish prohibition against making images of God (Exodus 20.4; Deuteronomy 5.8). Stephen W. Need explains the struggle surrounding the Second Council:

On the one hand there were those for whom icons were perfectly legitimate and who felt that worship was enhanced by their use. For such Christians, Christ somehow legitimized the use of images against the Jewish prohibition. Christ had brought in a new dispensation and indeed was himself an ‘image’ of God. God had also made human beings in his own image (Gen 1.26) and was therefore an ‘image-maker’. This surely gave license to human beings to make images and showed beyond doubt that God could be ‘imaged’ or made known in an image. These people maintained especially that in the incarnation of the Logos in flesh or matter God himself had shown that he could be imaged in the stuff of creation. On this view, the incarnation legitimized icon-making and use. [34]

Although the key words overlap in most languages, John makes the basic distinction between ‘worship’ (latreia), which is due to God alone, and ‘veneration’ (proskunesis), which is due to a number of people or things associated with God. In the latter category are Mary and the saints, the holy places in which God became human, for example Nazareth or Bethlehem, and objects associated with worship, such as the Gospel books and crucifixes. Indeed proskunesis could be given to the emperor… The bottom line is that John does not wish to worship creation or matter, but the creator who became matter in the incarnation, thus validating the making and use of icons. [39]

Those who opposed the creation and use of icons were concerned with idolatry: “were not Christians who used icons in worship opening themselves to the possibility of worshiping the images of icons themselves instead of God?”[35] Christ’s incarnation, for this group, “rendered any further image-making contrary to the will of God.”[36] Certain extremists from this group were so against icons that they began destroying them. These icon destroyers became known as “iconoclasts”. This group became a powerful force “not only among the populace but also among rulers and emperors”.[37] There were more “moderate” movements against the use of icons, but the damage from the iconoclasts was so widespread that nearly “all the icons across the empire from the period before the iconoclastic controversy were destroyed”.[38] St John of Damascus was one of the major critics of the iconoclast movement, writing Three Apologies Against Those Who Attack the Divine Images. Stephen Need explains that one of St John’s important points was the distinction between “worship” and “veneration”:

Through the efforts of St John of Damascus, St Theodore the Studite, and the Second Council of Nicaea, icons were officially established as objects to be venerated, not worshiped, because they are “places of incarnation and revelation and as thoroughly continuous with God’s action in creating human beings and Jesus Christ in his own image”.[40] According to St Basil (330-379 A.D.), “the honor given to the image passes to the archetype”.[41] Inversely, to dishonor the images is to pass dishonor. St John of Damascus lays a heavy critique against iconoclasts, telling them that they “are not waging a war against images, but against the saints.”[42] One way we honor God, according to St John, is by venerating each other because we are all made in the image of God. We should be constantly “humbling ourselves before one another and fulfilling the law of love.”[43]



Annihilationism: God, The Great Iconoclast?

What does this have to do with our current discussion about annihilationism? Recall that Genesis speaks of humanity as being made in the “image” of God. The Greek word for “image” is eikṓn (εἰκών),[44] which is also the same term that St John of Damascus used in his discussions of icons.[45] Let us re-frame the discussion of the iconoclast controversy from the destruction of pictorial icons to human icons of God. For those that venerate pictorial icons, to dishonor an icon is to dishonor the Creator. Thus, the destruction of a human person is the destruction of an icon of God. All humans carry the image of God, Christian or not, saved or unsaved, righteous or unrighteous, sinner or saint. Despite the “sinful inclination” of humanity, we did not lose our Divine image.[46] Anthony Bloom, Metropolitan Bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, once stated:



Every one of us is in the image of God, and every one of us is like a damaged icon. But if we were given an icon damaged by time, damaged by circumstances, or desecrated by human hatred, we would treat it with reverence, with tenderness, with broken-heartedness. We would not pay attention primarily to the fact that it is damaged, but to the tragedy of its being damaged. We would concentrate on what is left of its beauty, and not on what is lost of its beauty… We must learn to look, and look until we have seen the underlying beauty… Only then can we even begin to do something to call out all the beauty that is there. [47]

If humans are like damaged icons and annihilationists hold that God completely annihilates human beings through the fires of hell, then the doctrine of annihilationism makes God the Great Iconoclast, the destroyer of human icons. God would be destroying the very Creation meant for communion, repeating the actions of the iconoclasts that were condemned in the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Instead of treating these icons “with tenderness, with broken-heartedness” and calling out the beauty that is there, as Bloom stated, annihilationism holds that God inflicts “capital punishment” upon these images, that the fires of hell will consume them, similar to how the iconoclast extremists “tore down icons from their places in churches and broke them up and burnt them”.[48] The God of annihilationism is the God of the iconoclasts, the ultimate destroyer of God’s images.



Conclusion

Some critics of this post will find that I did not discuss any biblical passages at length, which is one supposed strength of annihilationism.[49] However, locating the claims of annihilationism within the theological understanding of humanity as made in the image of God is problematic, as I have shown. What are the eschatological alternatives, then? Do we return to the traditional view of eternal conscious torment? Do we rethink Catholic purgatory? Do we fully embrace some form of universalism? I have no answer to this mystery, but I am theologically opposed to annihilationism. However, I am not claiming that my argument is air-tight. What I am proposing is that we put annihilationism under the same scrutiny that we put the traditional view under, not giving it a free pass because it coincides with our personal “moral intuition”. I close this discussion with a conversation between St Silouan of Athos and another Athonite hermit, who stated “with evident satisfaction”:

‘God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.’

Obviously upset, [Silouan] said, ‘Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there looked down and saw somebody burning in hell-fire – would you feel happy?’

‘It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault’, said the hermit.

[Silouan] answered with a sorrowful countenance: ‘Love could not bear that’, he said. ‘We must pray for all’. [50]

Love also cannot bear the supreme capital punishment. Love cannot bear God as the Great Iconoclast.



__________

[1] Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Pub, 2011), 4. David L. Edwards and John Stott, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Pr, 1989), 314-320. See Clark Pinnock’s contribution and responses in Four Views On Hell, William Crockett, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), especially 135-166. Greg Boyd, “The Case for Annihilationism”, http://reknew.org/2008/01/the-case-for-annihilationism/, Retrieved 12/13/14.

[2] Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 4.

[3] Pinnock, “The Conditional View”, Four Views on Hell, 140.

[4] Ibid., 143-148. See also Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 9-234, where Fudge approaches biblical and non-biblical texts from an annihilationist point of view.

[5] Pinnock, “The Conditional View”, Four Views on Hell, 151. Pinnock states that the annihilationist view makes sense “biblically, anthropologically, morally, judicially, and metaphysically”. Ibid., 165.

[6] Ibid., emphasis mine.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Chris Date, “Everlasting Torment or Eternal Punishment?”, http://rethinkinghell.com/2014/08/everlasting-torment-or-eternal-punishment/. Retrieved 12/14/14.

[9] Pinnock, “The Conditional View”, Four Views on Hell, 152.

[10] Ibid., 152-153.

[11] Ibid., 153.

[12] Boyd, “Case for Annihilationism”.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Pinnock, “The Conditional View”, Four Views on Hell, 154-155.

[15] Boyd, “Case for Annihilationism”.

[16] See footnote 5. Fudge also makes this comment: “Does the Word of God teach the eternal conscious torment of the lost? Our modest study fails to show that it does. Mere assertions and denunciations will not refute the evidence presented here [in this book], nor will a recital of ecclesiastical tradition. This case rests finally on Scripture. Only Scripture can prove it wrong.” Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 378.

[17] Pinnock, “The Conditional View”, Four Views on Hell, 151.

[18] Date, “Everlasting Torment or Eternal Punishment?”. Date here is citing Fudge. Also, Date is cited as using this term in Mark Oppenheimer’s “Tormented in the Afterlife, But Not Forever”, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/us/tormented-in-the-afterlife-but-not-forever-conditionalism-gains-ground.html. Retrieved 12/14/14.

[19] Richard Beck, “Musings about Universalism, Part 4: Why I Rejected Annihilationism”, http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2011/03/musings-about-universalism-part-4-why-i.html. Retrieved 12/15/14.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Pinnock responds to such accusations: “[Annihilationism] does not portray God as being a vindictive and sadistic punisher. Hell is the possibility that human beings may choose in their freedom and thus break relations with God. God loves these persons and does not choose death for them, but hell is nevertheless a possibility rising out of their sin and obduracy.” Pinnock, “The Conditional View”, Four Views on Hell, 137. In light of Beck’s critiques, whether Pinnock’s objections are sustained or not is up to the reader.

[23] Ibid., 149.

[24] Ibid., 164-165.

[25] Ibid., 135-136.

[26] Panayiotis Nellas, Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives On the Nature of the Human Person, trans. Norman Russell (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Pr, 1987), 22.

[27] Ibid., 24.

[28] Ibid. Author’s italics.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid., 34-42.

[31] Ibid., 27.

[32] Nicolas Kavasilas, The Life in Christ 6, PG 150, 680 A. As quoted in Nellas, Deification, 35.

[33] Nellas, Deification, 199-218.

[34] Stephen W. Need, Truly Divine and Truly Human: The Story of Christ and the Seven Ecumenical Councils (Great Britan: Baker Academic, 2008), 131.

[35] Ibid., 132.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid., 135-136.

[40] Ibid., 143.

[41] As quoted in John of Damascus, Threat Treatises on the Divine Images, trans. Andrew Louth, (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003), 35 (Treatise 1.21). Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 18.45 (ed. Pruche, 406)

[42] John of Damascus, Divine Images, 32 (Treatise 1.19).

[43] Ibid., 109 (Treatise 3.37).

[44] Andrew Louth, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on the Old Testament I: Genesis 1-11 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001), L.

[45] Bissera V. Pentcheva, The Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and the Senses in Byzantium (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2013), 71-77.

[46] Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition, 3rd ed., trans. Seraphim Rose, (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2009), 169.

[47] As quoted in http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/quotes. Retrieved 7/28/2014. Italic’s mine.

[48] Need, Truly Divine and Truly Human, 132.

[49] See footnote 4.

[50] As quoted in Andrew Louth, Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 159.