We have seen so far that the vast majority of the Biblical text supports the idea that the unrighteous will perish. What about the texts which are used to suppport the idea that they will not be destroyed, but instead will suffer eternal torments?
Let us take a work of systematic theology that argues for the eternal torment of the lost, and examine every one of the texts presented to support this view. If anyone wishes to supply any other passages, I will be glad to add them to this list! We have:
Matthew 25:41, 46; 18:9; Mark 9:44 quoting Isaiah 66:24; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; Jude 7, 13; Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10.
This list comes from Know the Truth by Bruce Milne (IVP 1982, revised 1998). To be fair, Mr Milne does allow that the terms commonly used in the Bible, "such as 'destruction', 'ruin' and 'perishing' can imply some eventual termination of life" (as if you can perish or be destroyed without having your life terminated!) - but he clearly prefers the traditional position, even if it is uncomfortable.
We have already looked at the 2 Thessalonians passage in section 3d. Here are the others. And, remember, this is the best evidence in the Bible that the wicked will suffer eternal conscious torment.
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" (Matthew 25:41)
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:46)
The first thing to note is that this is a parable - the parable of the sheep and the goats. A parable is a story with a message. It is not an allegory: you cannot take every detail in the story as significant.
The point of the story is that one group of people enjoy a good destiny based on the way they lived, the other group a bad destiny based on how they lived. However, if the details of the destiny are significant, what are we told?
The goats are to depart into eternal fire, which is eternal punishment. Remember - fire means destruction, not pain. Punishment can involve pain, but there are many forms of punishment which do not.
So there is nothing in this parable to suggest that the wicked suffer eternal conscious torment. Instead, it fits very well with the 2 Thessalonians passage we looked at - being consigned to the fire as an eternal punishment corresponds perfectly to the doctrine of everlasting destruction: destruction which can never be reversed, a final punishment which can never be changed.
If the punishment is destruction, why is the fire described as being 'eternal'? The answer is given in the passage. The fire is eternal because it is not designed for people. The fire was prepared for the devil and his angels.
There is a serious case which can be made for the Bible teaching eternal conscious torment. But it is not the eternal conscious torment of human beings: it is the eternal conscious torment of the devil and his angels. We will come back to this when we look at Revelation.
"And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell." (Matthew 18:9)
Not a lot here about eternal conscious torment. Unless you have already decided, against all the evidence, that 'the fire of Hell' must mean eternal conscious torment, you would naturally read this as describing two possible fates: you can either enter life (and thus, presumably, live), or you can be thrown into the fire of Hell (and thus, presumably, die).
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. (Mark 9:43-44)
The fire never goes out - this could be a reference to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, but in the present context it probably just means you should not hope to get lucky - don't gamble on the possibility that someone will have let the fire go out on the day you arrive down there.
(We will look in more detail at the Biblical meaning of 'eternal' very soon.)
The word for 'Hell' is 'Gehenna', which comes from the Valley of Hinnom to the South-West of Jerusalem (ge'hinnom in Hebrew) where the rubbish was dumped and burned. The fire never went out because there was always rubbish being burned.
Mark goes on to quote from Isaiah 66. The passage is not entirely clear. It seems to be describing a massive procession in which all (redeemed) mankind go and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against the Lord. Talking about these dead bodies, Isaiah ends with the following description (partly quoted by Mark).
"And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, not will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." (Isaiah 66:24)
The description is of dead bodies rotting and burning, not live souls writhing in agony. The worms and the fire serve to emphasise the horror of their fate, the deadness of these dead bodies, as opposed to the vitality of the survivors. It emphasises that these people are well and truly dead, and nothing is going to change that. There is not a single hint of the dead people suffering in any way.
"And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgement of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 6-7)
These are... "wild waves upon the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever." (James 13)
The punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah is eternal, in the sense that it will never be changed or undone, but not eternal in the sense that the occupants are not still there being punished. Being killed by fire probably hurt - I am not trying to suggest that God's punishment does not involve any pain - but it does not hurt for all eternity.
I am not entirely sure what the 'nether gloom of darkness' means exactly - but it is not exactly convincing proof of the reality of eternal torment. And, for those who think that these things are all intended to be taken literally - how do you combine eternal fire with eternal darkness? A special kind of dark fire, perhaps? Maybe a special sort of dark fire that does not hurt as it burns? Sorry - I am just making the point again that the New Testament writers never intended us to take 'fire' literally. It is symbolic, and means 'destruction', not 'torment'.
A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:9- 11)
I should say at the outset that this is the ONLY passage in the Bible that seems to teach us about humans suffering eternal torment. If you want to believe in it, and you want a Biblical foundation for that belief, this passage is all you have.
It does clearly talk about torment. "He will be tormented with burning sulphur" seems clear enough. The eternal fate of the wicked may be destruction, but this does not mean that no suffering is involved - only that the suffering will not be eternal.
But even this passage does not explicitly talk about eternal torment. It talks about: (a) drinking the wine of God's fury; (b) being tormented with burning sulphur; (c) the smoke of the torment rising for ever; and (d) lack of rest day or night.
The language here is quite fascinating. It would have been very easy to say "He will be tormented for ever with burning sulphur," but even here the idea of eternal torment is avoided. The only 'for ever' is the smoke going up - the consequence of the torment can be seen for ever.
The natural way of reading this passage is that these people will be tormented. The torment will produce smoke. The torment will cease, but the smoke produced will continue to rise for ever.
And this only leaves the final phrase on which to build a doctrine of eternal torment. "There is no rest day or night" for these people. Now, God is quite capable of being clear when there is something He wants us to know, understand and believe, and whatever this means, it it clearly not a clear statement of the doctrine of eternal torment.
Some people understand this passage to say that the torment continues day and night, which is why there is no rest. But 'day and night' is not forever. Even if this is the right interpretation, it does not establish the doctrine of eternal torment: it only says that the torment, while it is taking place, continues without breaks.
If a person is tormented day and night, we would normally expect this to go on for days or weeks. There is no reason to suppose that 'day and night' is actually intended to convey the idea of eternity.
Moreover, in the context of the book of Revelation, the phrase 'day and night' is almost proof that the lack of rest is not eternal: by the time we reach Revelation 21:25, there is no more night.
But even if we put all these considerations to one side, it is still a very odd choice of words. If you want to convey the idea of continual torment, it is very easy to say: "He will be tormented day and night with burning sulphur" - but the passage does not say that. Can you imagine describing someone being tortured? Could you possible use the phrase 'he had no rest day or night' to indicate that the torture continued without any break? It simply does not fit.
'No rest' suggests mental discomfort rather than physical. I could keep you awake for a long time by continually inflicting pain, but would you describe this process as being given 'no rest'? I think not.
On the other hand, if you have done something dreadful, if you have let down and hurt someone you loved or someone who deserved a much better response from you, then remorse, guilt and regret may give you no rest. And this makes perfect sense in the context of the passage: these people have chosen to worship the beast, and now they know the full extent of their folly.
If it is the regret which produces no rest day or night, then the most natural way to read the "tormented with burning sulphur" bit is as a symbolic representation of the internal torment these people inflict on themselves.
So the reading of this pasage which makes the most sense in context is that these people are tormented - they torment themselves for their own folly.
In any case, the passage does not say that they will be eternally drinking the wine of God's fury, eternally tormented, or that they will have no rest for ever.
So the only passage in the entire Bible dealing with the subject of eternal torment of unbelieving people still does not teach, or even mention, eternal torment.
We have already noted that terms like 'eternal' and 'everlasting' are generally used to refer to purpose, not duration. In this context, we should note that a few chapters later, the smoke from Babylon ('the great prostitute') is described as going up 'for ever and ever' (Revelation 19:3) without any hint of eternal torment. And, shortly afterwards, we see 'a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away' (Revelation 21:1). Are we expected to imagine the smoke from Babylon drifting up somewhere in the new heaven? I honestly can't imagine that this is John's intention.
All of which is to say, that in the context of this part of Revelation, I would not rely too much on the words 'for ever' meaning 'time without end'. As in other passages, the obvious, simple and consistent understanding is that it refers to purpose, not duration.
Perhaps I don't need to say this, but just in case... It is a well-established principle that you do not attempt to establish doctrine on the basis of a single text. Another well-established principle says that you do not use obscure passages to establish doctrine which contradicts other clearer passages.
Both these principles caution us against using the only passage in the Bible which suggests there may be eternal torment as a simple 'proof text' for the doctrine.
It is, moreover, my personal opinion that anyone who establishes doctrine on the sole basis of finding it in a single passage in the book of Revelation needs their heads examined. If you are the one person in the world who can accurately distinguish between the literal and the symbolic parts of the Revelation... please do not get in touch with me. I have talked with enough such people to last me a lifetime.
One final point to close off this section: even if we are supposed to interpret this passage literally, even if it does talk about eternal conscious torment, it is still (as yet) an academic issue. Nobody who has yet died has suffered this fate - not according to the passage being quoted.
This passage does not currently allow you to say anything to anyone about the possibility of them suffering eternal torment. Remember: if you do decide, against all sound theological advice, to base your belief in this one passage, you cannot apply it to anyone until after the angel flying in mid air has proclaimed the gospel to everyone living on the earth, and after Bablyon the Great has fallen (Revelation 14:6-9), and then you can only promise this dreadful fate to people with the mark of the beast on their foreheads or their hands.
"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet has been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Revelation 20:10)
This passage talks about eternal torment. It is the only passage in the entire Bible which talks about eternal torment. But notice who is being tormented: it is the devil, the beast and the false prophet. Jesus may have told us that the fire was prepared for the devil and his angels, but this passage suggests that most of the angels will escape this fate - if you interpret it literally, that is.
And yet again, there is no suggestion here that wicked people - wicked human people - will be tormented for ever.
We should also remember that Isaiah 47:14 and Ezekiel 28:18-19 suggest that the devil's suffering will also come to an end, so maybe even for him, 'for ever' means 'until it is finished'.
The one 'obvious' passage which is not referenced by Bruce Milne is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus - Luke 16:19-31. The reason, of course, is that you cannot derive doctrine from the incidental details in a parable.
If you want to take this one parable as an accurate piece of on-the-spot reporting, you must also conclude that Paradise and Hell are close enough to hold a conversation across the gap, and there will be no judgement at the throne of God.
But even if this were to be taken as an accurate description, it is clearly a description of a single incident in the after-life. It does not say, or suggest that the torment is eternal. In fact, since the stated basis of the torment is the unfairness of their earthly experience (certainly not an eternal state!), the most obvious implication is that the different treatment after life will also be limited in time.
The message of the parable is found in the final verse. Everything else is building up to and supporting that one simple message. Basing any doctrine on the supporting details of a parable can lead you to all kinds of interesting conclusions - but you won't discover sound theology that way.
This is probably as good a place as any to point out that there are various places in the Bible where 'for ever', 'eternal' or 'everlasting' do not mean what we think they mean. We think they refer to duration - to time that will never end - but very often they actually refer to purpose. 'Never fail' would often be a more accurate translation than 'never end'.
Let us look at a few examples. A good place to start is Jonah 2:6, where 'for ever' lasted just three days and three nights! The promise to keep a descendant of David on the throne of Israel 'for ever' (2 Samuel 7:13) lasted more like 400 years. The threat to Eli that God will 'judge his family for ever' (1 Samuel 3:13) does not refer to a Heavenly court case that goes on interminably, but to a punishment for their sins that is finite, but the consequences of which will last for ever.
We are told in Jude 7 that Sodom and Gomorrah serve as an example to us "by undergoing a punishment (literally, 'vengeance') of eternal fire." For anyone who has not yet woken up: Sodom and Gomorrah are not still burning! The fire lasted for as long as it took to complete the job. That's as long as any fire needs to burn for.
In Psalm 148 we read, referring back to the sun, moon and stars of verse 3,
"He set them in place for ever and ever;
he gave a decree that will never pass away." (Psalm 148:6)
Despite this assurance, the scientists tell us that the sun and stars will not always remain - in a few billion years, they will have burned out and disappeared. The Bible agrees that they will pass away. Revelation tells us that there will be no more sun (Rev 22:5), and that the first heaven and the first earth will pass away (Rev 21:1).
In 2 Kings 5:27, we hear that Naaman's leprosy will cling to Gehazi and his descendants "for ever". We don't know how long this punishment is to last for, but it is hard to imagine his leprous descendants inhabiting the New Jerusalem for all time.
Finally, in 1 Samuel 1:22, 'always' means 'for his whole life'. You have to interpret these terms in their context.
This is a really important point. We can rely on the Bible as God's revelation to us. But we have been given the Bible, not a collection of individual texts which can be taken to stand alone out of context.
Some Christians say things like: "The Bible says it, so I believe it." But we must interpret what the Bible says in the light of the rest of what the Bible says.
One simple and obvious example of this can be seen in Acts 23: 12-13. In verse 12, we read that 'the Jews' formed a plot to kill Paul. Out of context, this has a clear meaning: the entire Jewish nation joined in a plot to kill Paul. But verse 13 says that there were 'more than forty' people in the plot. So it was not the whole Jewish nation, only forty individuals. In context, the meaning is clear. But if you take the text out of context, you cannot understand it correctly.
The aim of this article is to look at what the Bible teaches on the subject of the fate of the wicked - both at the key passages which contain relevant material, and also on the context of those passages as this shapes their meaning. If you think I have not paid sufficient attention to either the content of the passages being considered, or to their context, please me me know.
There are many passages in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, that clearly teach the wicked will perish, die, or be destroyed. There is not a single passage that teaches the wicked will suffer eternal torment, and only one passage (Revelation 14) which might possibly teach that a few specific wicked people will be tormented for ever - but even that passage is more likely to be talking about a limited period of intense regret for personal sin.
The only clear reference to eternal torment (Revelation 20) is not about people, but about the devil, and this one passage needs to be balanced against two passages which suggest the torment will not be for ever, and even Satan will one day be turned to ashes and the fire be allowed to go out.
As I said at the outset, it is possible to hold to a belief in eternal torment for the wicked. But in the light of all the Biblical evidence on this subject, is it not much more likely that the wicked will simply die?
