The debate over what is hell, what is the final punishment, is it some sort of everlasting ongoing torment or is it annihilation? They’re both defensible, textually. The debate turns on how to answer the question of the death of death, Revelation 20:14-15. This is the great white throne judgment, we read, Then death and hades were thrown into the lake of fire, this is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. We get language in First Corinthians 15:54-57 about the death of death. This raises a logical question of interpretation, should we take this metaphorically or is death really destroyed?
If it’s the latter, if death is destroyed, then there can be no more death, once death is destroyed. If that’s the case, it makes no sense to have ongoing eternal death, ongoing eternal punishment, because if death is destroyed, there is no more death, then how can you have more death, if it’s ongoing. There’s this logic and it relates to interpretation of this conundrum. It’s easy to argue that you have the death of death, if you take the passage that way, that means annihilation is the view we should hold. They’re both permanent, they’re both everlasting punishment in that sense, one is ongoing, you have people continuing to die, even though you have the death of death.
We have to figure out, how do we take this language so that it makes sense, that’s one side and then the other side would say, we’re just going to take it at face value and say that it’s annihilation, because once you’re annihilated, that’s permanent too. They’re both on the table interpretively. How do we take this language? The annihilation view seems to conform more to the original vision, in Eden, originally there was only life, there was no death. But death gets introduced, it’s a foreigner. In the new Eden, there’s no more death, there’s only life, just like the original Eden.
Now the traditional view typically does not focus on this set of questions put out here. The defense of the traditional view is verses like Revelation 14:11 there’s a phrase about the smoke of their torment but in Revelation 19:3 it’s her torment, Babylons smoke goes up forever and ever. They say that’s eternal punishment, it’s eternal suffering, because their smoke keeps going up forever and ever and that sounds like a clear reference to ongoing, never ending punishment, but Revelation 19:3 could be argued that kind of muddies the picture. Revelation 19:3, it’s the judgment of the beast and Babylon, the great prostitute and specifically it says the smoke from her, her punishment goes up forever and ever.
Here’s the question and this is a legitimate interpretive question, is God’s vengeance against Babylon and the beast going to be forever ongoing, even in the new Eden, is God still taking revenge against Babylon and the beast or does the language just mean it was permanent and irreversible? We’re back to the same question, does the language say it favors annihilation, it’s permanent or irreversible or is it this ongoing vengeance, ongoing dying, the issue being the death of death. How do we take the language of the death of death, because we get this phrase and the assumption is, that phrase itself settles something, but it actually doesn’t, because we have to ask interpretive questions like this, if we’re 5,000 years into the new global Eden, is God still taking revenge on the beast, or was it a long time ago and it’s permanent, we’re done with that, it has no part in the new Eden. It’s your interpretive crossroads now.
If it’s the latter, if death is destroyed, then there can be no more death, once death is destroyed. If that’s the case, it makes no sense to have ongoing eternal death, ongoing eternal punishment, because if death is destroyed, there is no more death, then how can you have more death, if it’s ongoing. There’s this logic and it relates to interpretation of this conundrum. It’s easy to argue that you have the death of death, if you take the passage that way, that means annihilation is the view we should hold. They’re both permanent, they’re both everlasting punishment in that sense, one is ongoing, you have people continuing to die, even though you have the death of death.
We have to figure out, how do we take this language so that it makes sense, that’s one side and then the other side would say, we’re just going to take it at face value and say that it’s annihilation, because once you’re annihilated, that’s permanent too. They’re both on the table interpretively. How do we take this language? The annihilation view seems to conform more to the original vision, in Eden, originally there was only life, there was no death. But death gets introduced, it’s a foreigner. In the new Eden, there’s no more death, there’s only life, just like the original Eden.
Now the traditional view typically does not focus on this set of questions put out here. The defense of the traditional view is verses like Revelation 14:11 there’s a phrase about the smoke of their torment but in Revelation 19:3 it’s her torment, Babylons smoke goes up forever and ever. They say that’s eternal punishment, it’s eternal suffering, because their smoke keeps going up forever and ever and that sounds like a clear reference to ongoing, never ending punishment, but Revelation 19:3 could be argued that kind of muddies the picture. Revelation 19:3, it’s the judgment of the beast and Babylon, the great prostitute and specifically it says the smoke from her, her punishment goes up forever and ever.
Here’s the question and this is a legitimate interpretive question, is God’s vengeance against Babylon and the beast going to be forever ongoing, even in the new Eden, is God still taking revenge against Babylon and the beast or does the language just mean it was permanent and irreversible? We’re back to the same question, does the language say it favors annihilation, it’s permanent or irreversible or is it this ongoing vengeance, ongoing dying, the issue being the death of death. How do we take the language of the death of death, because we get this phrase and the assumption is, that phrase itself settles something, but it actually doesn’t, because we have to ask interpretive questions like this, if we’re 5,000 years into the new global Eden, is God still taking revenge on the beast, or was it a long time ago and it’s permanent, we’re done with that, it has no part in the new Eden. It’s your interpretive crossroads now.
