What Annihilationists Don’t Want You to Know About the Unbeliever’s Punishment
What the Bible says about the eternal state of unbelievers is dramatically different from what annihilationists say.
Annihilationism is the view that after the final judgment, those who are not saved are completely destroyed — body and soul — so that they no longer exist. Proponents of this view overemphasize language in the Bible that appears to describe the unbeliever’s punishment with such finality. Various explanations are then propounded to explain the Bible’s description of the unbeliever’s punishment as eternal. What results is annihilationism’s attempt to reconcile passages of Scripture that teach both that the unbeliever “perishes” but does so “eternally.”
Annihilationists choose to share a hermeneutical methodology akin to Universalism: explaining away the use of the word “eternal” in connection with the reprobate’s punishment. The only difference between Universalism and Annihilationism at this point is the Universalist’s claim that the punishment is not eternal and the reprobate gets to go free. Whereas, the Annihilationist argues the punishment is punctiliar, and the reprobate ceases to exist.
The crux of Annihilationism hinges upon emphasizing words they deem refer to a punctiliar, finality. Words like “death,” “destruction,” “perish,” etc., with respect to the wicked, are employed to denote the unbeliever’s cessation of existence. Combined with deemphasizing what it means for the unbeliever to experience “eternal punishment.” Finally, Annihilationists are quick to argue that death, destruction, and perish are final, while explaining the use of “eternal” either does not mean eternal or that punishment cannot take place for eternity.
In what follows, I will attempt to show that it is much more consistent to speak of eternal death and destruction as synonyms of eternal punishment, rather than dismissing eternal punishment texts in order to focus solely on apparently punctiliar texts.
Linguistic Arguments
Words may have different meanings in different contexts; no one questions that. The difficulty arises when one does not express a clear methodology for determining why one meaning must be applied to one context and not another. Often, the arguments state that because a word can mean something else somewhere else, it, therefore, must mean the same thing in the passage they are examining. What is clear is not that the same meaning must be imported in both contexts because the contexts demand this, but because it fits their theological position.
2 Peter 3:7 describes the day of destruction of the ungodly. The word for destruction is apōleia, which means waste, destruction, and even annihilation. However, the BDAG lexicon defines it as both complete destruction and destruction in process. Basic definitions of the word alone are insufficient for determining whether an act is complete or in process. What is significant here is the fact that the word absolutely can mean ongoing destruction. BDAG even defines it as “Esp. of eternal destruction as punishment for the wicked.” What distinguishes between destruction or annihilation that is final and one that is ongoing is context, especially if the word is modified by the adjective “eternal.” This should be obvious.
A corresponding Greek word is apollumi, for example, used in Luke 13:3 or Hebrews 1:11 (among numerous other places). 2 Peter 3:9 is particularly relevant, since it describes the Lord’s patience, not willing that any “should perish.” BDAG defines this word as “perish” but, again, notes its eternal nature with respect to the final judgment of unbelievers. What is interesting is the numerous contexts that use this word not in a complete sense, but in an ongoing sense. In Luke 19:10, Jesus says that he came to save those who are “lost” (apollumi). The disciples on the sea in Matthew 8:25 cry out to Jesus for help since they are perishing. The idea of perishing and destruction can be expressed in an ongoing sense, and does not need to result in a final state of non-existence.
What is particularly peculiar is 2 Thess 1:9, which qualifies the unbeliever’s destruction (olethros) as eternal (aiōnios). Annihilationists are quick to assert that the destruction is eternal because the unbeliever is destroyed, and their destruction is permanent. But the use of aiōnios is unnecessary if the word simply means this on its own, as they also claim. Using aiōnios (eternal) as an adjective for destruction, when these words can refer to the ongoing state of being destroyed, necessitates that we interpret them in terms of their ongoing nature.
Far from it seeming strange that a person could experience destruction without ever being destroyed, the Bible describes the reprobate’s experience as just that. Their offense is against a holy, infinite God, and it logically follows that their punishment be eternal. The death of Jesus Christ is the only punishment that can cease. As a man, he is capable of dying. As God, his death can have eternal consequences. On the cross, Christ experienced our punishment and did not cease to exist.
Linguistic Consistency?
The Annihilationist’s insistence on vocabulary definitions at the dismissal of the modifier “eternal” is problematic on its own, but combined with a failure to insist on the definition of words like “punishment,” it creates more inconsistencies.
Matthew 25:46 calls the wicked’s final destination “eternal punishment.” The word “punishment” is kolasis, which, lacklusterdly, means “punishment.” This word is, again, modified by aiōnios, requiring us to interpret this punishment as eternal, ongoing. The reprobates’ experience is contrasted with the believers, who experience eternal life.
Attempts to argue that “punishment” can either refer to the ongoing state of being punished or to the outcome of the punishment fail to consider how it is impossible to experience an eternal state of having been punished when one ceases to exist. There is no reason to qualify a punishment that is over by noting that it is eternal. Furthermore, the assumption is that the result of punishment is non-existence, which Annihilationists presuppose rather than exegete from the text. Even if we concluded that “eternal punishment” meant an eternal state, it does not logically follow that such a state means nonexistence.
Not only so, but what is the annihilationist methodology for determining when the word “punishment” refers to the process or when it refers to the result? Determining which definition is applicable appears to be more of a matter of convenience than exegesis.
References made to other instances of eternality combined with concepts that do not appear ongoing are not compelling. Mark 3:29 has been employed as an example of an “eternal sin,” i.e., the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, for which the person is not eternally sinning. This is a single act with everlasting guilt. But committing an eternal sin means you are eternally sinful, incapable of forgiveness. Not only that, but you cannot be eternally guilty in the Annihilationist scheme. Your punishment at some point is complete. You no longer exist and, therefore, cannot be eternally guilty.
Hebrews 5:9 calls “salvation eternal,” and Hebrews 9:12 calls redemption eternal, but these are all the result of the single act of redemption accomplished by Christ. The results are permanent. Believers continue to exist in an eternally redeemed state. This argument is a sleight of hand, because it introduces a concept not referred to as eternal to describe the punctiliar act. Eternal punishment is the act. In order for this argument to hold, Hebrews needed to have called Christ’s sacrifice eternal.
But what of Hebrews 9:15’s reference to an eternal inheritance? Surely this focuses on the possession of the inheritance and not the act of inheriting? This argument is a distinction without a difference. If I inherited an eternal amount of money, sure, I no longer “am inheriting” but “am possessing” the inheritance. But in this instance, the act of receiving is explicitly mentioned, which results in ongoing possession of the eternal inheritance, which never goes away. I have the inheritance forever.
If we force this as a comparison to “eternal punishment,” it would require us to understand punishment as an eternal possession. As already mentioned, the annihilationist presupposes that the result of the punishment is that the one punished no longer exists. It’s just as easy to conclude that if we are differentiating between the act of punishment and the state of punishment, an eternal state of punishment is one in which one possesses ongoing punishment. Nothing about this argument requires us to believe that the punished person no longer exists.
Daniel 12:2 describes the resurrection of the believer and the unbeliever. One to everlasting life and the other to everlasting contempt. It has been argued that all that this means is that they are constantly an abhorrence to the righteous based on the parallel with Isaiah 66:24. But that doesn’t solve the problem, since there’s no chance the sight of dead corpses can continue to be a horror to the righteous if those dead corpses cease to exist. That literally means that they would cease to be a horror, and no longer “in our sight” (Is 66:24, LXX).
Jesus quotes Isaiah 66:24 in Mark 9:48, in reference to those in hell. The idea that the unrighteous’s worm never dies nor their fire is never quenched, refers to the continued existence of their bodies. The worm is eating them, and the fire is burning them. It’s not enough to say that at some point the worm and the fire will be finished destroying the body, because neither their worm nor their fire goes away. Such would be required if their job were over at some point. It’s a silly thing to say, the worm and the fire are permanent, but not what they are sustained on.
Jesus’s argument in Mark 9 also makes no sense if a person, body an soul, ceases to exist. Jesus argued that it is better to gouge out your eye if it causes you to sin, because it is better to go into heaven with one eye, than into hell with two. Why would it matter that you go into hell whole when your body is going to be destroyed permanently and forever? Jesus’s comparison and motivation not to sin only makes sense if you go into hell with a whole body that experiences a worm and a fire that never die. In the annihilationist scheme, Jesus would have to concede that it is simply better to go into heaven with one eye… but for the wicked, it really doesn’t matter because they won’t exist.
Man is Mortal
Another argument hinges on the fact that man is not inherently mortal. 1 Tim 6:16 states that God alone possesses immortality. Such an argument is really a sleight of hand. Annihilationists routinely believe that man continues to exist after he dies, whether he’s saved or not. It is only after the final judgment that an unbeliever would cease to exist. Furthermore, 1 Tim 6:16 is not contradicted by the fact that believers are granted immortality. In other words, man can be given immortality.
The comparison between the eternal state of the righteous and the wicked will always be a problem for both universalists and annihilationists. The immortality of the believer renders the annihilationists’ argument that man is mortal moot.
The fact that unbelievers are resurrected is also highly problematic for annihilationsim. I’ve already noted that Dan 12:2 shows both believers and unbelievers are resurrected to an eternal state. In 1 Cor 15:22 also makes a similar, all-encompassing statement regarding both the believer and the unbeliever’s resurrection, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22, ESV). The comparison is that as all are dead in Adam, all shall be made alive again. Charles Hodge and Augustine have argued from this passage that the resurrection of Christ provides the basis for even the unbeliever’s resurrection. Jesus’s resurrection is the ultimate defeat of physical death in 1 Cor 15, which is later cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14). Unbelievers must, therefore, experience a different kind of death (the second death), one for which their resurrected bodies are capable of experiencing (Rev 20:15).
The context of 1 Cor 15 necessitates that such vivification is not strictly salvific. Paul’s argument in context is a polemic against those who believe there is no resurrection at all (1 Cor 15:12, 13). Paul does not say “for if the believing dead are not raised.” He states, “for if the dead are not raised” (1 Cor 15:16). Paul argues that if there is no resurrection of the dead at all, then Christ is not raised and believers would not be raised either.
The annihilationist would be quick to respond that 1 Cor 15:18 seems to argue that if believers are raised to life, they would perish in a final sense. To which, I would argue that here appolumi does indeed refer to perishing in a final sense. However, apōlonto is an aorist active indicative verb, meaning it is past tense. It is exegetically sustainable to argue that appolumi is final, since it is in the past tense and since it is only final if there is no resurrection. Paul’s point in 1 Cor 15:18 is to argue that if there is no resurrection, then unbelievers and believers perish totally and finally.
Paul’s argument regarding the resurrection, then, actually requires us to believe that because there is a resurrection of the just and the unjust (c.f. Acts 24:15), then both unbelievers and believers won’t perish totally and finally.
But what about 1 Cor 15:12–34? Certainly, Paul focuses on believers and their bodies (1 Cor 15:23), and seems to suggest a distinction between the believer and the unbeliever in the resurrection (1 Cor 15:24–25). He does describe the believers’ resurrection with terms such as “glory” (1 Cor 15:43) and the “victory of Jesus” (1 Cor 15:57).
Paul’s point, however, is not to describe a distinction in duration but in quality. The believer is raised to imperishable glory. Even with that in mind, Paul does use generic language to describe the bodies of those who are raised, suggesting that some of the terminology easily applies. Natural bodies are sown and raised as spiritual. Both are capable of experiencing their respective eternal states: believers the eternal joy and bliss of God’s loving presence, and unbelievers their unending torment. Augustine explicitly appealed to 1 Cor 15 to describe the bodies of unbelievers as specifically designed to experience fire without being consumed.
The Wicked Do Not Receive Eternal Life
A final consideration is the argument that the wicked do not receive eternal life, signifying that they cannot exist forever. This is quite a leap, however, and does not follow the way the Bible describes death, life, and existence.
Eph 2:1 explicitly states that we are dead in our trespasses and sins, yet such spiritual deadness does not mean we do not exist. Adam and Eve were told they would die on the day that they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, yet they continued to exist. When we are saved, we are raised to newness of life. We have eternal life already; even though we die physically, we never die (John 11:25, 26).
When Jesus was asked to defend the resurrection, he stated that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. All of whom were and still are physically dead. Yet he states that God is not the God of the dead but of the living, in Matthew 22:32. Death is never used to refer to a person’s non-existence anywhere in the Scriptures.
The contrast, then, with “eternal life” is not “eternal non-existence,” but eternity away from the salvific life Christ gave to us, in eternal death characterized by eternal punishment. Revelation calls this a second death, distinct from the first. To say that a person eternally existing would logically require us to believe that they are eternally alive misunderstands what the Bible teaches and defines as death. A person who dies physically continues to exist after their death, as most Annihilationists affirm before the resurrection.
There is no exegetical necessity to equate the ‘second death’ with non-existence (Rev 20:14). To do so overlooks the biblical distinction between ‘life’ and ‘existence.’ Just as the soul continues to exist after physical death while awaiting resurrection (Luke 16:22–23), the ‘second death’ does not imply a cessation of being, but a final state of existence devoid of ‘life’ in the spiritual sense (Eph 2:1). Consequently, ‘eternal death’ should be understood as a permanent state of existing separated from salvation and eternal life, not from existence altogether.
Matthew 26:24 is a peculiar passage in comparison to these issues. Jesus describes the fact that it would’ve been better for Judas to have never been born. Annihilationists have attempted to use this passage to affirm their views of nonexistence after death, but quite the opposite is in view. Why would Jesus argue that it would’ve been better for Judas to have never been born, if Judas was simply going to be non-existent? Jesus equates never being born with non-existence; there’s no question about that. But his argument is that Judas’s nonexistence would’ve been better for him than for him to be the son of destruction. Jesus’ argument is literally that non-existence is better than destruction. Which means that the destruction Judas was to experience was not his non-existence.
Conclusion
There are so many other passages to consider that describe the ongoing torment of the unbeliever. And just a word to the reader, hell is a very real place and is a very real, eternal experience. Eternal life, however, is a blissful experience of enjoying God’s loving presence forever. I don’t believe in trying to “scare” someone into heaven, but the fact is that hell is very scary, and Jesus died to save you from it. Annihilationism offers a more palatable view for the eternity of the unbeliever, but such a position is not being honest with you about what awaits the unbeliever.
