Annihilation versus Eternal Torment: What Does the Bible Really Teach?

A very good article by JC Lamont

For more information, please visit my website for: The Truth About Death and Hell

A: Judaism has always held to annihilation for the wicked (kiluy neshama). 

#1 – Old Testament

God: The soul that sins, it shall die. If a man is righteous and does what is just and right, he shall surely live. If he has a son who is violent (list of other evil deeds), he shall not live. But if a wicked person turns away from his sins, and does what is just and right, he shall surely live (Ezekiel 18). Obviously, this is not talking about the physical death of the body, as everyone, including the righteous, die physically.

#2 – The Talmud (commentary on Judasim written by Orthodox Jews)

Rosh Hashanah 17a: The bodies of those liable to [the penalty of] being “cut off” cease to exist. That is, the body’s strength or animal power ceases, and “their souls are burnt up.”

#3 – New Testament

Jesus (a Jew): For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him, will not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16). Jesus states that immortality (eternal life) is conditional on believing in Himself. According to Strong’s Concordance, the definition of perish is: “destroy, put an end to, kill.”

Jesus: Do not fear those who can kill the body, but fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna (Matthew 10:28). If the Jews were wrong about believing in annihilation, then Jesus did a horrible job of trying to get them to see the error of their ways.

Paul (a Jew): Seek for glory and honour and immortality. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life. (Rom 2:7 and 1 Timothy 6:12). Paul, a Jew, held to conditional immortality. If we are inherently immortal, there is no reason to seek it, or lay hold of it.

Paul also believed the wicked would be destroyed: those who disobey God “shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.” (2 Thessalonians 1:9) According to Strong’s Concordance, the definition of destruction is: “ruin, destroy, death.”

B. The Greeks believed in the inherent immortality of the soul and eternal punishment. 

#1 – Phaedo (also known to ancient readers as Plato’s On The Soul): One of the main themes in the Phaedo is the idea that the soul is immortal, in which Socrates offers four arguments for the soul’s immortality.

#2 – Josephus: The notion that “the souls are immortal, and continue forever” is “an unavoidable bait for such as have once had a taste for their [Greek] philosophy.” (War of the Jews 2, 8, 11)

#3 – Greek Religion: Hades, god of the underworld, tortured the souls of the wicked in fiery chambers. (This is where Christians get the false notion that Satan rules hell, when in fact, hell was created for Satan, and you don’t give the key to the jail to the highest maximum security prisoner).

C: Lost in translation: The Greek “anionios” translated to the English “eternal.”

The problem we see today lies in the English definition/understanding of “eternal / everlasting / forever” which is: without beginning or end. But the Hebrew and Greek definition of “eternal / everlasting / forever” which is “without ceasing until the end.” There is much proof of this:

#1 – Many Ancient Greek scrolls contain numerous examples of Roman emperors being described as aionios, the Greek word translated “eternal” in English Bibles. But all that is meant is that they held their office for life — not that the emperor was immortal, or that his reign never ended.

#2 – Dead Sea Scrolls: the wicked will suffer “unending dread and shame without end, and of disgrace of destruction by fire of the region of darkness. And all their time from age to age are in most sorrowful chagrin and bitterest misfortune, in calamities of darkness till they are destroyed with none of them surviving or escaping” (1QS 4.11-14). Note that according this is saying punishment in hell without end UNTIL they are destroyed.

It should be noted that Jesus’ use of the words kill, perish, and destroy, and Paul’s use of the word destruction (as well as both of their stressing conditional immortality) demonstrates that the Greco-Roman belief in the inherent immortality of the soul was the inaccurate view, not the Jews’ belief in annihilism.

D: Combating Universalism.

So how did the early church, which believed in conditional immortality and annihilation, turn into a church that held to inherent immortality and eternal torture?

The early church was plagued with Gnosticism (John’s gospel and three epistles were written against Gnosticism) for centuries. Gnostics denied the resurrection, and many held to universalism (the belief that everyone eventually goes to heaven). As universalism started to spread (and even adopted by some Church fathers such as Origen), other church fathers started writing against this heresy and stressing that the punishment does not end (it is final, there is no coming back; you go into Gehenna, you do not come out; there is no end to the punishment in the sense that God does not eventually let everyone go to heaven).

Since the Church Fathers (and all the newly-converted Gentile Christians) came from a Greco-Roman background, both philosophically (they believed in the inherent immortality of the soul) and religiously (they believed the souls of the wicked were tortured), it is quite easy to see how quickly conditional immortality and annihilism could simply evaporate into thin air. And by the time Universalism was finally condemned several centuries later, eternal torment was the predominant belief of the church.

The Bible’s use of “eternal / everlasting / forever” denotes the finality of the punishment of sin, not the duration. The duration will likely be based on the particular individual as Jesus said the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better than Capernaum (Matthew 10:15), and elsewhere that some would receive few “blows” and others “many” blows (Luke 12:48). And regardless of how long it takes the fires of Gehenna to burn one’s soul into nothing, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The Bible’s stress on the finality aspect of this punishment clearly denies the validity of universalism, and for good reason. Universalism is probably the most dangerous doctrine that could ever be purported, and if it had prevailed in the early church, would have been the death of true Christianity. But the doctrine of eternal torment, originating in paganism, also poses a threat to Christianity as it slanders the very character of God, and makes Him into a mortal monster.

"But who do you say I am?"

Response To Jesse Morrell’s “The Trinity – Plurality of Personalities within the One God.”

The following are excerpts taken from Jesse Morrell's blogspot.  He states:

An issue that has greatly interested me as of late, though I had extensively studied it as an early Christian, is the doctrine of the Trinity. The mystery of this truth is marvelous to my soul.

The doctrine of the Trinity is something God has been revealing ever since the beginning of when He started writing the bible. For example, scriptures like, “And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness” (Gen. 1:26) and also, “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of US, to know good and evil.” (Gen. 3:22) This all reveals the internal plurality of the one God!

I don't think that Trinitarians are aware that this verse is no longer used by serious theologians to prove the Trinity doctrine. They have rejected the notion that Genesis 1:26 implies a plurality of persons in one God.  For example, Gordon J. Wenham, who wrote the "Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis" says on page 27 concerning Gen. 1:26

Christians have traditionally seen [Genesis 1:26] as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.

 The New International Version Study Bible confirms in its commentary,

Us… Our… Our. God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; I Kings 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jeremiah 23:18).

Charles Caldwell Ryrie (The Ryrie Study Bible) writes his short and to-the-point annotation on Genesis 1:26,

Us…Our. Plurals of majesty.

Jerry Falwell remarks,

The plural pronoun “Us” is most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax. (Liberty Annotated Study Bible, Lynchburg: Liberty University, 1988, p. 8)

 Aside from what these handful of theologians say, let's get back to scripture and ask some honest questions.  A sincere student of scripture, if taking context into consideration, cannot at this point dispense names or titles to "Us" in Genesis 1:26.  Furthermore, how does a trinitarian assume the "Us" consists of only three individuals? Why just the number three?  The immediate CONTEXT of Genesis chapter one does not reveal who the "Us" is.

Another thing to consider is the following verse:

 Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.  

How does a trinitarian explain the fact that the personal pronouns in verse 27 are all SINGULAR?  Genesis 1:27 shows only one individual is doing the creating, God!  Even Jesus tells us that.  He says,

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,"  (Matt. 19:4)

Why didn't Jesus say, "...that WE which made them at the beginning made them male and female?"   Jesus attributes the creating to God Almighty alone.  Even God (Yahweh) says,

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF"  (Isa_44:24).

When it comes to Genesis 1:26, I believe, as others, that in the Hebrew scripture God Almighty is addressing His ministering angels or angelic hosts when he says "us" or "our."  Two chapters later (chapter 3) God still uses the pronoun "us" when speaking to His angelic hosts about Adam and Eve eating from the tree.  The Creator instructs the Cherubim to stand at the gate of the Garden of Eden, with a flaming sword, to prevent them entering the garden and eating from the tree of life.

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” – therefore the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.  (Genesis 3:22-24)

There is nothing in Genesis one that proves the Creator was talking to Jesus the Messiah or that there are three persons who supposedly make up one God. To say, "The doctrine of the Trinity is something God has been revealing ever since the beginning of when He started writing the bible," is not true at all and no evidence to support such a suggestion.

Trinitarians declaring that Genesis 1:26 is talking about three personalities in one God would have to ignore the fact that just one verse later we have the SINGULAR pronouns "he" and "him." For that matter, how does a trinitarian explain that over 11,000 times the singular pronouns tell us God is a single person?  How do they explain that whenever the Bible speaks of God in the third person it reads "He" or "Him" or "His?"  These facts and questions are simply ignored by Trinitarians.  As someone has well stated,

The idea that God is speaking to Himself (allegedly as two different persons of Himself) has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into what the scripture actually says, and such has to be assumed only to conform to preconceived doctrine, which also has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, each and every scripture that is used to allegedly support the extra-Biblical doctrine.

Jesse continues:

In the book “The Nature & Character of God” Winkie Pratney dedicated a large portion of his book to the Trinity, (pages 255-429)

 Here is a section from his book that I read last night which I thoroughly enjoyed:

Response:  There are many things we can "thoroughly enjoy," but that does not make it truth.  It would do us well to test what authors and preachers are trying to indoctrinate in us. We are to test the spirits.

Continuing Jesse's article:

God is dinstictly called 'one Lord' (Duet. 6:4, Mark 12:29), but we must examine closely as to how the word one is being used.  There are two kinds of unity or 'onenesss'  both English and Hebrew; an absolute unity and compound unity. Absolute unity is that of singularity; I give you one apple, and you get a single apple. But if you ask for ‘one’ bunch of grapes, you don’t simply get one grape! ‘One’ in this case is a word of compound unity, the many in the one.

One (Hebrew)

Yachead is the OT word for absolute unity; a mathematical or numerical one. It is used about 12 times in the OT, but never to describe the unity of God (Gen. 22:2, 12; Zech. 12:10)

Echad however speaks of a compound or collective unity. In marriage “the two shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24); a crowd can gather together ‘as one’ (Ezek. 3:1); or be of one mind or heart: “All the rest of Israel were of one heart to make David king” (1Chron 12:38). This is the compound plural always used of God when He is called “one” Lord.

Response:  The Hebrew word “echad” is simply rendered as "one."  A common-sense understanding of the Sh'ma (Duet.6:4) tells us that echad is only one person and that one person is our Father, Yahweh.

Pratney, as many other Trinitarians, would have us believe that 'echad' really refers to a "compound unity."   If I told you, "We have one baseball team coming to town," you would automatically think of one baseball teams as opposed to 2 or more of them.  However, within that one baseball team, there are many baseball players within that one team, I believe twenty-five of them.  Now, if we are to understand the word 'echad'  as Pratney and other Trinitarians would have us believe, then the passage should be translated like this:

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is a compound unity."

Of course there must be an alternate understanding of 'echad' in order to endorse the Trinity doctrine!  The word 'echad' is used over 970 times and in a vast majority of places it explicitly refers to the simple numerical digit one, both in Hebrew and English.

Pratney wants to use grapes to try and prove a compound unity of the word 'echad'.   The deception is a clever one.  Let's put this to the test:

Does "one baseball team" mean that "one" means twenty-five?

Does "one tripod" mean that "one" means three?

Does "one quartet" mean that "one" means four?

Does "one centipede" mean that "one" means 100?

As Raymond C Faircloth has well stated:

The Hebrew word echad occurs 970 times in the Hebrew Scriptures.  It is an adjective meaning "one single" i.e. a numerical absolute.  Yet a few Trinitarians have tried to redefine it as meaning one in unity -a compound one.  By so doing they attempt to restate the shema regarding the one God of Israel as allowing for the Trinity.  However, this is false because all reputable lexicons show that echad is used in exactly the same way the English one is used.  When used with a collective noun, that is, a noun containing the idea of plurality e.g. one heard of cattle, the one still means "one single" i.e. one single heard of cattle.  Whatever number of cows constitute the heard is not relevant.  Nowhere in Scripture is there any Hebrew or Greek word that refers to a One that encompasses three divine eternal persons.

'Echad' means "one single," "one only," and not more.  One cluster of grapes does not mean two clusters or three clusters.   One family is still one family, not two families, not four or five families.

There is only one God, not three.  Even in 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul tells us, "There is one God, THE FATHER."  Jesus is not God, nor is he the Father.

Jesus, while praying to his Father says,

"And this is everlasting life, that they may KNOW YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent." (John 17:3)

Jesus said his Father is the only true God.  Jesus has a God and this ONLY true God is his God and our God, his Father and our Father.

Jesus said unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.  (John 20:17)

He that overcomes will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.  (Rev. 3:12)

Jesse continues quoting Pratney or making his own comment:

 So “Yachead” is the Hebrew word of absolute unity and it is NEVER used for God. But “Echad” is the Hebrew word of collective or compound unity and is ABUNDANTLY used for God.

“Elohim” is the plural term for the singular “El”. “El” = God but “Elohim” God’s. (not that there are many Gods, but that there is a plurality of personalities which make up one God).

“Adonai” is the plural version for the singular “Adon”. “Adon” = Master while “Adonai” = Master’s. (Again, not to suggest any polytheism, but rather to teach a plurality of personalities in God.”

Response:  He states, "Not that there are many Gods..."   What happened to 1 Cor. 8:5 where we are told "there are many gods, and many lords?"   Of course there is only one true God, which is the Father.

The word “elohim” can mean either plural “gods” or singular “god.” There is nothing in the word elohim that means a “plurality of individuals or personalities,” anymore than its use of Moses in Exodus 7:1 where God said to Moses: “See, I have made thee a god [ELOHIM] to Pharaoh.” No one would say Moses is a plurality of individuals or personalities.

Please also note that 'elohim' in the plural means “gods” — not persons. The argument that its plural usage means a Trinity would mean that there are three gods (or more), not three persons in one God, as claimed for the Trinity doctrine.

The creed of the Jews and what Jesus confirmed is this,

“Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”  

Not three or a compound unity.

Jesse writes in his response following the post:

Also, Jesus prayed ‘that they may be one, even as we are one’ (John 17:22).

Now, if Christians are to be One just like the Father and the Son is one, this poses a problem for Unitarians. Because if the Father and the Son are One in personhood or consciousness, that would mean that Christians are supposed to be one personhood or consciousness. But that is absurd as we are distinct persons.

The obvious meaning is that the Father and the Son are in perfect harmony being of one mind. In the same way the Church is meant to be of one mind. So the Father and the Son being One by no means denies the Trinity, it requires it.

 Response to Jesse:

Actually, the verse poses a problem for Trinitarians.

1.  If you want to say that Jesus and the Father are of the same substance or nature (metaphysical unity) or one in personhood or consciousness to try and prove the trinity doctrine, then that is exactly what Jesus is praying for!   All of us would eventually become God - be of one substance or nature with God!  And I agree, that is absurd.

2.  Those who are biblical monotheist have no problem with Jesus' prayer because Jesus is praying for his disciples and  future disciples who will believe through their Gospel message that they may be one in mind and purpose. Paul requests the same unity in 1 Cor. 1:10.

The verse is not talking about the Trinity and does not demand it.  It's about future glory given to Christ and his  immediate disciples and future disciples. When Jesus was praying he was not yet glorified (John 7:39).  He is simply praying about his future glorification as if he currently has it.  Jesus was glorified when God raised him from the dead.

Luke 24:26 says,

"Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?"

Acts 3:13 says,

"The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His son Jesus, whom you delivered up, denying Him in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to let Him go."

Trinitarians fail to see that when Jesus was praying in chapter 17, he was also praying in verses 20-22 for his disciples and future disciples who do not yet exist, but yet Jesus has given future disciple, past tense, this same glory.

And I have given them the glory which You have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

This glory is the future resurrection to a life of immortality in the future Messianic Kingdom on earth. This is glory in prospect and promise as in 17:5, which does not teach a literal preexistence of Jesus the Messiah.  If John 17:5 is to mean that Jesus literally existed before the world was, then all the disciples at the time and future disciples existed before the world was, before they were born, but Trinitarians ignore their own inconsistencies of interpretation.

Image of God

Since we are made in God’s image, this means we have the capacity to reflect God’s character.  We have corrupted that image through sin.  Jesus was, and still is, a human being (resurrected from the dead) who was made in the image of God and fully reflected God’s character in his own life, and therefore could say that if they have seen him, they have seen the Father, not that he was the Father as some would claim.  Jesus is said to be the “image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15), “and the express image of his person” (Heb. 1:3).  This does not mean Jesus is God. The “image” of something is not the very thing or person itself.  It is a representation separate from the original.  We have the image of Presidents on our currency and coins.  If one is to argue that an image of something means the same thing as the original, then being conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29) would mean that we can actually be Jesus the Messiah.