Theology in the Raw - Debating Hell: Annihilation or Eternal Conscious Torment? Dr. Paul Copan and Chris Date

Episode Date: February 22, 2026

Get your ticket for the Exiles Conference in Minneapolis! April 28-May 2! https://www.theologyintheraw.com/exiles26In the last few months, there’s been fresh conversation about hell—sparked in part by Kirk Cameron's seeming endorsement of annihilationism. Of course, this sparked a flood of Twitter threads, and YouTube reactions about the nature of hell. But this isn’t a new debate.Christians have wrestled with the nature of hell for centuries. While eternal conscious torment has been the dominant view in the Western church, annihilationism (or conditional immortality) has deep historical roots as well. And proponents on both sides take Scripture seriously.In this episode, I sit down with Paul Copan and Chris Date to talk through the biblical and theological case for their respective views. Paul is a philosopher and apologist at Palm Beach Atlantic University and the author of over 40 books, including Is God a Moral Monster? Chris is a theologian and the voice behind Rethinking Hell and Theopologetics, where he’s written and spoken extensively in defense of annihilationism.If debates aren't your thing... don't worry. This one was super conversational and friendly. They disagree, but they're good friends and are confident enough in their convictions that they don't feel the need to attack or strawman each other. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hey, friends, welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. I am so excited about this conversation. Oh, my goodness, we've got two awesome scholars here today on Theology and Ra talking about the nature of hell. This is going to be a dialogue about whether hell is a place of eternal conscious torment or eternal conscious punishment, as we talk about in this episode, or is it a place of annihilation, otherwise known as the doctrine of conditional immortality. And I have two amazing scholars to discuss this. Dr. Paul Copan has a PhD in philosophy from Marquette University. He's a Christian theologian, analytic philosopher, apologist and author. He is currently a professor at Palm Beach at Atlantic University in Florida

holds the endowed Pledgeer family chair of philosophy and ethics. He's the author or editor of 45 books, including one of my favorite books, is God? A Moral Monster is an incredible book. It deals with a lot of the hard things in the Old Testament, which there are many. Paul also wrote a companion volume called Is God a Vindictive Bully? Paul will be a speaker at this year's Exiles and Babylon Conference doing a dialogical debate with Shane Claiborne about Christians and War. Be sure to check that out. I'll share more about that in a second.

Chris Date has a master's degree from Fuller Theological Seminary. adjunct professor of Bible and theology at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. And he's one of the leading thinkers and faces of the popular Rethinking Hell ministry. It's a podcast. It's a YouTube channel. And the website has just a wealth of resources discussing the nature of hell. Chris is also the editor and contributor to several books, including Rethinking Hell and a Consuming Passion. And both Chris and Paul are finishing a really incredible book that I've been able to have a sneak peek at a book which they co-edited, and it deals with the nature of hell, specifically the eternal consciousness torment view

versus the annihilation or conditional immortality view. And Chris, of course, is a past speaker at the Exiles in Babylon Conference. Speaking of which, if you want to attend this year's exiles in Babylon Conference, head over to TheologyNorah.com. It's April 30th to May 2nd, just outside of Minneapolis, Minnesota. And it is going to be. super engaging. All the information is at TheologyNirau.com. So please go check it out. Okay, please welcome back to the show. Paul Copan and Christi. All right. Thanks Paul and Chris for coming on Theology and the Raw. Really looking forward to this. You both were part of a pretty highly anticipated and highly watched roundtable conversation

with two other scholars regarding the nature of hell. Hosted by Kirkman. Kurt Cameron, who has made some waves online for coming out as at the very least sympathetic with an annihilation or conditional immortality position. What was that experience like? I mean, it seemed like you guys got along. It was a great conversation. Was that a good experience for both of you? Yeah, Chris, feel free to jump in.

Yeah, I very much enjoyed and appreciated it. You know, I've been saying for several years now that my biggest reason for being involved in this ministry, ministry on this topic, is that I want to say. see the division come to an end. You know, we, this is not a topic over which Christians should divide. We should be able to unite arm and arm and take the life-saving gospel to a dying world that desperately needs it, but so often this topic generates more heat than light and tears communities apart. And so I, my interest in Hellgate, as Kirk Cameron chose to call it, none of us decided to call it that. That was, that was Kirk's decision. My goal very much was,

and foremost, modeling a healthy way that Christians can disagree. And not only for Christians' sake, you know, if we're to be a city on a hill, right, a light on a pedestal, we can show the world around us how people can disagree in a way that isn't unhealthy. And that's so needed right now, the way that politics are dividing people and social issues. So anyway, it was just, it was an incredible breath of fresh air, like encountering an oasis in the desert. with how divided things are right now. And I'm incredibly thankful for the opportunity. And then, of course, the topic itself made for great conversation.

I thought we talked about a lot of important and relevant topics. We covered some of the areas where we agree, where we disagree. And I think it'll be a great introduction for a lot of people who just don't have much familiarity with the debate. That's good, yeah. Yeah, and I would also add to that too. Thanks, Chris. I would just add that, you know, the comments at Kirk Cameron's YouTube channel

are largely positive that though there are some people who are calling Kirk and, you know, and Chris and Dan, heretics and so forth, and also bringing Gavin and me into that loop that we're kind of tolerating heresy. It's largely been very affirming that this is the kind of conversation Christians should be having the kind of spirit in which they should be engaging. And that's really what we want to highlight. And I would just add, too, that a lot of the people whom I have and continued to respect in biblical scholarship, you know, theology as well, these are people who, you know, a number of people, I Howard Marshall or John Stod or whomever, these are people who have taken the annihilationist, conditionalist position. And this is just how they've come to see the scripture.

Is there some like Ben Withrington who are agnostic on the issue? And I just want to emphasize the importance of giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are really wrestling with scripture. I've known some people who have kind of secretly told me that don't tell anybody, but I'm really sympathetic with the conditionalist position, even though I don't want to publish on this and get excoriated. And, you know, but again, a lot of people are just, you know, and I really appreciate, Chris's effort to show that this is not a heretical position that Christians ought to have these sorts of principal discussions. And one of the things that comes out in the book that we can also talk about is that Chris and I are co-editing with IBP academic is that we are presenting this

from a number of different angles in an interdisciplinary way. And that we want this to be, you know, this conversation, our book, and so forth, you know, we just want this to be an opportunity for Christians to come together to have conversations in a principled way rather than demonizing and so forth. And it really reflects the spirit of Protestantism, doesn't it? When we want to go back to the scriptures, re-examine them afresh as John Stott urges us to do, and say, you know, have we been looking at these texts properly? And I think a lot of this discussion emphasizes the kind of weight that we give to certain biblical language. You know, Chris is going to talk about, and we'll, I know we'll get into this, but Chris is going to talk about the, you know, perishing, destruction and so forth,

and that's very powerful language. But there's also the element of consciousness that often seems connected with that. So how do we balance these things? How do we work them through? And so that's part of the discussion today. And so looking forward to getting into that. Chris, Paul mentioned the book you guys are working on. Do you want to just say a few more words about this book? I know, So unfortunately, my audience might be like, oh, I want to get this. It's not going to be out for another almost a year. But yeah, tell us more about the book you guys worked on, Chris. Yeah, thanks.

And I'm really excited about it. The way that we pitched it to IVP originally was by pointing out that there's a gap in the literature on multiple view debates. Right. So you've got monographs where one single person argues for a particular view. And usually an individual author is going to have one or two. areas of specialty. And then you've got like the two and four views books where one author represents each of you. So they're approaching the topic from the one or two disciplines that are their specialties. And then you've got sort of multi-author edited volumes like Hell Under Fire,

where you do have multiple disciplines represented, but it's all on favor of one side. The gap in the literature that Paul and I think we've identified is bringing specialists from multiple disciplines together in dialogue, a multidisciplinary dialogue. And that's what we've done in this book. So what we've brought together is four scholars on each of the two sides of the debate represented here. So the eternal conscious punishment side represented by Paul, the conditional immortality and annihilationism side represented by me. And each scholar comes at the topic from their specialty and then responds to their corresponding interlocutor on the other side. The six disciplines are biblical theology. exegesis, historical theology, systematic theology, philosophy, and pastoral theology. And so since you

get scholars whose specialties are these different disciplines engaging in the topic, you get the best that each of these disciplines has to offer into the conversation in a way that I just don't think you find anywhere else. So I'm really excited. I think it's going to open up a new, you know, segment of the multi-view genre on other topics. But even if I'm wrong, about that, I think this book will make a lasting contribution to the literature on this topic, which I think is really valuable. Well, I've read about fourth of it, at least early manuscripts that you let me look at. And, man, it is so good.

It is so good. As one who has edited a multi-volume work on hell, I think yours is doing something way more thorough and in depth. And it made me a little bit like, ah, man, I should have done what you guys did. No shame in the book that I edited, but I'm very much excited and agree that this is doing something. Yeah, different is going to contribute to the conversation. Did you know that 30% of you are grinding your teeth while you sleep? Over the years, all that wear and tear adds up.

If that's you, then it's time to check out Remy. Remy's custom night guards are clinically tested and FDA clear to prevent teeth grinding, reduce jaw tension, and facial muscle strain and improve sleep quality. You don't even have to set foot in a dentist office. I hate dentist offices. No offense to you, Dennis, out there. It's just it's not a fun place to go. And so, Rebbe will send you everything you need right to your door

and give you step-by-step instructions to get your perfect impression. Then they'll craft and ship a custom night guard right back to you so you can start protecting your teeth. So start the new year right and use code TITR to get 50% off your purchase of a new night guard. That's 50% off at shop Remy. Okay, shop R-E-M-I.com forward slash T-I-T-R with code T-I-T-R. Thank you, Remy for sponsoring this episode. Can women be leaders in the church? Pastors, overseers, teachers, preachers and elders. This is a question that I have long been interested in, but haven't studied it out for myself. And as always, the strength of our passion should match the depth of our study.

So this is what I did. I spent over three years researching what the Bible says about women in leadership. And I wrote a book about my conclusions. It's called From Genesis to Junia. And on a search for what the Bible really says about women in leadership. And in it, I thoroughly examine all the main passages and arguments on both sides of the debate and try to treat them as fairly as I know how. The book comes out in March, March 3rd, but you can pre-order it today wherever books are sold. Well, let's jump in and, you know, we talked offline and just to let the audience know, you know, each of you are going to have 10, 15 minutes to kind of explain your viewpoint. You know, obviously that's not near enough time, but to give kind of a broad overview, why you hold to the positions you do. And then we're just going to engage in a kind of a free flowing dialogue. This is not like a formal debate.

I would love, you know, just a genuine conversation between you two, you know, you can push on each other's views, ask. questions, whatever, and have you respond. But yeah, I want to continue the spirit in which we've already started. This isn't a central matter in scripture in this. I mean, obviously, it's super important, but there's enough diversity within the church tradition that would suggest that this is not kind of a, or lack of better terms, a gospel issue where if you don't believe a certain view, you're not a Christian. And you too very much affirm that point of view. So Paul, since you represent the so-called traditional or eternal conscious punishment view, why don't you start? Give us an overview of why you hold to this position. Yeah. I take the view and talk about this in the summary

comments that Chris and I make in the book. I take a view similar to that of, say, Craig Keener or David De Silva, who recognized that the majority position, for example, in the Intertestimental Jewish literature is that there is torment, conscious punishment, followed by annihilation. Although there is a minority viewpoint that the most heinous sinners will experience everlasting punishment. And they, especially Craig Keener, argues that you say John the Baptist and Jesus and other New Testament authorities carry forward this minority position, but apply it to all who refuse to repent. So even though there's fire and perishing destruction language mentioned, there's also a connection to ongoing conscious existence, perhaps best illustrated in, say, Revelation 2010. I know it's apocalyptic and we'll no doubt get into that, where the lake of fire apparently doesn't extinguish, where there is, you know, of course, kind of reflecting the language of Jesus from Matthew 25, the place prepared for the devil and his angels, that there is, you know, that he is, you know, the devil is, is tormented.

day and night forever and ever. It doesn't sound like the lake of fire is actually doing the extinguishing here. And that's in Revelation 2010. And then in 2015, it says that anyone whose name is not written in the book of life is cast into the lake of fire. So apparently, you know, they're not necessarily extinguished either. And as I read the New Testament, consciousness seems to be connected to that final state of the wicked, you know, the state of Revelation 14, having no arrest or Romans to trouble and distress or kind of a state of misery and so forth. And I do maintain that the judgment, as Luke 12 reflects, is a matter of degrees, that it's not the same for everyone, that there will be, and that that, those degrees of punishment

will be neither too lenient nor too severe. And of course, I don't relish the idea of defending this view. It's a, it's a, you know, the final state of the wicked is a state of loss of ruin. And of course, God does not desire that any should perish and neither should we. So this is not obviously reflecting God's desire. You know, but, but let me just maybe mention some texts and we can get into more, but, but maybe just talking about some of the, some of the key texts. And just press and tell me when to stop, you know, because I'm, you know, call me butter because I'm on a roll. So we can just maybe jump, you'll just feel free to interrupt.

I'll just list a few texts. I'll shoot up a hand saying like two more minutes or something. Okay, all right. Sounds good. Sounds good. That as we read texts like, of course, Matthew 25, you know, Revelation 14, Revelation 20, and various texts in the synoptic gospels themselves. And these are some texts that we need to understand are not.

we should be careful about taking every biblical text literally. Some people say, I read the Bible literally. Well, we don't read every text in the Bible literally. We have to look at the genres. We have to look at the types of literature that there are some, like apocalyptic literature, needs to be read as highly symbolic. And you're not going to read it like, say, historical narrative. But we do see language that's kind of standard apocalyptic imagery of, say, weeping

and gnashing of teeth, which is a kind of, this is just language of conscious, conscious awareness, conscious punishment. And this is Jesus' description, the standard description of Jesus of the final state. And he connects it to conscious existence. So there is the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth. And he says, it's that place where, that place of, as the general descriptor for that. And of course, the gnashing of teeth reflects the hostility toward God, those who are about to stone Stephen. They were gnashing their teeth at him before they stoned him to death. And Jesus also in Matthew 13 connects this final state of weeping and gnashing of teeth to Daniel 12's final separation of the resurrection of the just and the unjust. And the unjust are raised to shame and eternal

disgrace. And it's a picture of degradation and enduring kind of like the memory, the shameful memory of the wicked in the minds of the righteous. And we can certainly include that. But it's also the place connected to conscious, you know, consciousness too. We're aware in Matthew 13, it's weeping and actually have teeth, whereas the righteous will shine forth as the sun. So, yes, there is that degradation language taken from Daniel 12, but also Jesus is connecting that to an ongoing conscious awareness.

Luke 13, 28 and 29, Jesus is talking about this table that is spread for Gentiles, reclining at table, as it were, in the presence of their enemies, Jesus' hostile contemporaries who are looking on, it says, in that place, there will be weeping and gnashy of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out. So again, I can appreciate where Chris is coming from on the language of kind of fire and perishing and so forth, but it seems like these, that the ongoing consciousness still see that stem seems to linger there. Now, I should clear away something that perhaps is important for just in general to keep in mind, because a lot of Christians have this notion that the

immortality of the soul is a Christian doctrine. It is not. And we're not talking about the immortality of the soul or souls, you know, in, in the lake of fire. We're talking about, you know, we're talking about physical existence here. So the righteous are not merely, you know, the unrighteous are physically raised to life in the final resurrection, but without any immortal spiritual body that Jesus had and that we believers will have as we inhabit the transformed physicality of the new heavens, the new earth. And so when Jesus talks about being cast body and soul into hell and so forth, you know, that there is this bodily dimension here. And so this, you know, and we can, and G.K. Beal writes this. He says, if there are two different kinds of deaths, it is plausible to infer that two

different resurrections would reflect the same dual nature of the deaths. That is, the resurrection of believers is spiritual, whereas the resurrection of unbelievers is merely physical. The first physical death of saints translates them into the first spiritual resurrection in heaven, or more specifically than do heaven is the new earth, whereas the second physical resurrection of the ungodly translates them into the second spiritual death. And, you know, and the reason that the script, Revelation 20 talks about Hades and death being casted like a fire. There is no more death after this, that the righteous dead and the unrighteous dead, they're all resurrected. And so death is no longer a physical death is no longer a category here. And also Hades and death and Hades are not

being described as being tormented, I think, which is an important word to look at. What does torment mean. We see that throughout the book of Revelation, the synoptic gospels, the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint uses this in reference to conscious awareness. You know, there's the language of fire and darkness and so forth that they were taken literally, they would cancel each other out. And so there's that element that we could also talk about as well. Craig Blomberg suggests that when we look at, say, Matthew 25, where it talks about eternal punishment and eternal life, you know, that there is this final separation of the ways. And Craig just asked, what if we looked at the different outcomes of the redeemed and the condemned without any textual indicators

that the two are to be taken differently? And he says that this paired use, which is different, say, from the singular use of, say, eternal redemption in Hebrews 9, 12, but when you're pairing them together. He says, at least the surface reading would suggest this. And we can go into more detail here. But it is interesting that you read, say, the demons who are talking to Jesus and Matthew 28, 29, they're saying, you know, what business do we have to do with you? Are you, son of God, or have you come to torment us before our time? You know, there is that, there is that language that is being utilized there. I could talk about the, you know, in the first Thessalonians, second Thesslonians, 19, which talks about being removed from the presence of God, according to some readings. But I think

this is simply that the presence of God is there, that the presence of God, the face of God is unavoidable. So it's not as though the believer, the unbeliever is removed from the presence of God, but simply is removed from communion with God ultimately. And I think that's what Revelation 14 is talking about, that they are before the presence of God and that God's presence, his loving presence, has a wonderful effect on the believer, that there is joy and peace and so forth. But the presence of God also brings distress for those who refuse to repent and enjoy communion with God. So people are not removed for the presence of God, contrary to how some interpret Second Thessalonian is one, but rather it is the loving presence of God that, as it were, warm sun, but makes others uncomfortable and distresses them.

So I would just maybe go on to mention a few others in Revelation 14 and also Revelation 20. I've touched on this a little bit. But that language of torment that is used, it says that there talks about the smoke of their torment going up, but also says that they will have no rest day or night, which sounds continuous, sounds like conscious awareness. And it's also a matter of, it's in contrast to the saints, just. a couple of verses later in 1413, that they are, these saints are resting from their labor. So in contrast to the rest that the saints have, those who are unbelievers have no rest. And then again, I touched on, as I said, Revelation chapter 20, where we have that kind of a layout of the

language of the lake of fire that the, that in a sense connected perhaps seemingly to the day and night of Revelation 14 and forever and ever and so forth, that there is a kind of, as it were, a burning that does not burn up, that there is this enduring conscious punishment that exists. And we see, too, we could mention Revelation 22, 15, and also Revelation 21, 8, and 27, where there's this vice list, you know, outside the city in Revelation 22, 15 says, are the dogs, the sorcerers, immoral persons, and murders and idolaters and so forth. And I used to just kind of ignore that text, but then I read G.K. Beal's shorter commentary on Revelation 2215, and he says, you know, as in 2021, 8, and 27, the reference in 2215 to those being excluded from the final inheritance

and consummate form of the city, these reprobates are outside the city, indicates that they will have no place in the new creation, since the new creation in the city are probably synonymous concepts. This outside location is the lake of fire, since the godless people listed in 21-8 are in the lake of fire. The punishment of being cast outside the garden continues for the reprobate into eternity on an escalated scale. So initially I dismissed this, but then I actually reading a conditionalist who dismissed it because G.K. Beale didn't bring this out in his larger commentary.

And then I was, well, actually, G.K. Beal is actually pointing this out in his later commentary. And so I think even if we do have the, it's interesting too, because you do have some partial conditionalist. Chris is a full conditionalist. And you do have partial conditionalists who mention that, who maintain that the fire, you know, annihilates, you know, wicked human beings, but does not annihilate the devil and his angels, as it were, that they continue to endure torment forever and ever. But I think even if you are a full conditionist, I think there is that problematic language of both the image that is supposed to annihilate or consume the lake of fire, but then you still have that ongoing torment that exists day and night forever and ever. And so there is still a kind of untidy picture, whether you're a traditionalist or a conditionalist, that there is this ongoing mention. of torment for the devil, for his angels, his cohort.

And so even though we believe that Christ is going to be all in all, that there is this picture of those who have chosen to depart from the way who have freely separated themselves from repentance, from communion with God, that this is the lot of those. And I do take the view of C.S. Lewis, that the door of hell is closed from the inside, that the Lord says to those who, who, you know, those who don't want to obey him.

He says, you know, thy will be done. And so that's where I come down. I could unpack a lot more, but that's just a general overview. Sorry if I've gone a little bit over, but. No, no, you're good. But thanks so much for giving you the opportunity. And I know Chris has lots of great answers. And I would say, before we get to Chris, let me just say this.

A lot of people who call Chris Date and his lot heretics, I would just challenge them, set up a debate with Chris Date. He is a compelling debater. He knows his stuff. He knows a literature better than anybody I know. He's been studying it for years. And I just say, okay, put your money where your mouth is. Just take up a debate with Chris Date, and he's debated some prominent people. And I think he's done just a superb job in showing the biblical nature of his position that his is not a heretical position that you can see.

You know, I get this. I see the language. And I know a lot of people who are traditionalists. say, I can understand where the conditionalist takes his stance, why he takes that position that he does. And I know Preston, you take that view too. But anyway, that's, I just want to put that out there because a lot of people who are dismissing the conditionalist position, I think they'd be very daunted to have a debate with Chris because he just knows his stuff, the language, you know, there's a lot there. So Chris, a shout out to you and just want to say, I appreciate your engagement

on this topic. And I myself have been, as it were, I'm a chastened traditionalist having gone through this and having to review all of these things in my own mind. So I'm really grateful to you, Chris, for what you've done to help me think through this and also to have an increased respect. Not that I didn't have respect, but just really an increased, you know, yeah, I mean, I'll just say that just increased respect for your position, although I had it before. I guess I'm a refining fire. There you go. Thankfully, I wasn't perished. perishing through it. Anyway, we got to keep the hell jokes to a bit of a view. I appreciate that, Paul.

Thank you for that clear and compelling overview. Chris, I'll pass it over to you. Awesome. Well, first, thanks for those kind words, Paul. I very much appreciate them. So the doctrine of eternal torment, I want to start by making sure viewers understand what the doctrine of eternal torment historically has been. All true Christians, regardless of their view of on hell, believe in a general resurrection of both the saved and lost, whether you're a premillennialist who believes those are separated by a thousand years, or whether you're a postmill or a millennialist like me and believe it's all at the same time. Either way, we all believe that all humankind is going to be physically resurrected from the dead one day.

And we also all agree that the saints upon being resurrected will be made physically immortal and they'll live physically forever. Where the three views on hell disagree is what happens to the resurrected lost. from the late second century's Tatian of Adiabene and Athenagoras of Athens, through the scholastics like Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, right through to the modern day with the likes of Wayne Grudham and Robert Peterson, the doctrine of eternal torment has always entailed the lost being resurrected with physically immortal bodies and living physically forever thereafter in hell.

So you might call the doctrine of eternal torment, and for that matter, the doctrine of universalism, forms of unconditional immortality. There are no conditions that people have to meet in order to be raised physically immortal and thereafter live physically forever. God renders everyone immortal at the resurrection indiscriminately and universally. That's where we annihilationists disagree. We believe in conditional immortality. Only those raised who meet the condition of being saved in Christ will be immortal and go on living forever. The lost will be raised mortal again and they'll be judged and sentenced to death, literally capital punitive.

They'll be killed, destroyed, never to live again. And if humans have spirits or souls that remain alive after the first death of their bodies alone, those souls or spirits will die with their bodies in the second death, bringing an end to their conscious existence altogether and forever, which is why our view is called annihilationism. Now, I really appreciate Glenn People's case from biblical theology, so I'll start there. He argues from four biblical themes that run throughout Scripture, which both individually and collectively seem to demand conditional immortality.

So first is the theme of substitutionary atonement. Sacrifices in the Old Testament, which prefigured that of Christ, were substitutionary. Specifically, the lives of animals were taken in the place of Israelites whose lives were forfeit because of disobedience. And Jesus is, of course, our Passover lamb. He's the ultimate substitutionary atoning sacrifice. He took what was coming to us in our place, the consequences of sin. But what did he take in our place? Well, he died physically. Put the death in the flesh, as Peter puts it. And as Glenn Peoples puts it, the judgment of God on sin can be seen

in full view on the cross. This is what it looks like, death. So what must befall those in hell who aren't covered by Jesus' substitutionary atoning blood? Well, they must bear the consequence of sin themselves. They must die the death they deserve. Second is the theme of immortality throughout scripture. In Genesis 3, after Adam and Eve's sin, God kicks them out of the Garden of Eden with the express purpose that they not be able to take from the tree of life and eat and thereby live forever. And lacking access to that tree of life, Adam and Eve, as well as all of their progeny, eventually die. But the tree of life reappears in the closing chapters of Revelation, where only the saved have access to its fruit as the inhabitants of New

Jerusalem, symbolizing that only they will be immortal and live forever. And that's why Paul says in Romans 2-7 that immortality is something that's got to be sought after and God must grant it, which he will grant to those who in seeking glory and honor and immortality do good. So resurrected immortality is available only to those who are in Christ. As Jesus says to Jewish hearers in John 6, your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness and they died. I am the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat of it and not die. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever.

Paul tells Timothy that immortality was brought to light through the gospel. And he says in 1st Corinthians 15, that it is those who are in Christ, who will put on immortality at the resurrection, because immortality is a precondition for inheriting the kingdom of God. And one other example in this theme is Luke 20, verses 35 and 36, where Jesus says it's the sons of God who in the resurrection will be unable to die, implying that those counted not as sons of God will remain mortal and die.

The third biblical theme that Glenn People's cover, in his biblical theological case for conditionalism is the theme of divine holiness. So as peoples explains, when God's holiness was transgressed in the community of Israel, the penalty was one that nearly anyone today would find jarring. Execution. Anyone who profaned what was holy to Yahweh was cut off from the people. So in Leviticus 10, for example, when Nadab and Abihu violate God's holiness, fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them and they died before the Lord. And again, at the rebellion of Cora in number 16, fire came out from the Lord and consumed the 250 men offering the incense. The author of Hebrews thus says, our God is a consuming fire. You see,

we conditionalists believe God is so holy, so wrathful towards sin that in hell he obliterates every last trace of it, doing to sin what light does to darkness by purging it from existence. The doctrine of eternal torment, by contrast, says that God is holy enough, hates sin enough, to punish it forever, but evidently he's comfortable supernaturally guaranteeing the everlasting existence of sin by immortalizing the resurrected loss to persist in it forever. The fourth and final theme that peoples covers is the biblical picture of eternity future. So the biblical picture of eternity future is not one in which sin and darkness continue to stubbornly rebel against God in some dark, gloomy corner of the cosmos. It's a picture in which sin and rebellion

are no more, anywhere at all, all of God's creation having been brought into reconciled relationship with their loving creator. In Isaiah 66, for example, explicitly talking about the new heavens of the new earth, God kills his enemies by sword and by fire, leaving only the righteous who then constitute all flesh worshiping God. In Ephesians 1, Paul describes the mystery of God's will as a plan for the fullness of time to gather up all things in him in heaven and on earth. And in 1st Corinthians 15, Paul says that in the end, God will have destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. And when all things are subjected to him, so that God, God may be all in all. You see, according to Scripture and according to conditional immortality,

after God has destroyed all his enemies in hell, all that remains is reconciled to God. The reconciliation of all things, as Scripture puts it, leaving no room for evil anywhere in creation. Now, a quick look at some individual text confirms this conditionalist conclusion that Glenn Peoples comes to from his biblical theological case. Some of the most famous verses in Scripture teach it almost explicitly, like John 316, in which God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him would not live immortal forever in torment and hell. Sorry, sorry, sorry, I got that wrong. Would not perish, but have everlasting life. And if there was any doubt as to what Jesus means by perishing there,

verse 16 of John 3 follows on the heels of verses 14 and 15 in which Jesus compares himself to the bronze statue of a serpent that Moses held up in the wilderness. And when Israelites who'd been bitten by otherwise fatally venomous snakes would just look at that bronze statured, statue that Moses held up, they would literally have their lives saved. And likewise, Jesus says here that the son of man must be lifted up so that whoever believes in him might have everlasting life. And in Roman 623, Paul says the wages of sin is death. And if there were any doubt, what Paul means by death, he goes on in the very next verses to say that when a woman's spouse dies, she's free to remarry. So we know what Paul means by death. Death as ordinarily understood,

no longer being embodied and breathing. Conditionalism is in fact also taught in texts historically cited as support for eternal torment. In Matthew 2541, Jesus says eternal fire awaits the devil and his angels along with lost humanity. But his brother, Jude, uses the exact same phrase, eternal fire to refer to fire that came down from heaven in Genesis 19 and killed the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. And then in verse 46 of Matthew 25, Jesus says only the righteous will go into eternal life. So the risen must not, the risen lost must not rise immortal to live forever. Instead, they'll get the only eternal punishment that can be inflicted on somebody who doesn't also go on to live forever. The punishment of death forever. And in Mark 948, Jesus says that in hell,

their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched, but he's quoting Isaiah 6624 in which it's explicitly corpses, pegarim in the Hebrew, dead bodies being consumed by fire and by maggots. And then in the symbolic imagery of Revelation chapter 14, beast worshippers are made to drink God's wrath. They're tormented in fire and smoke rises from their torment forever. But those same symbols converge in the very same vision only a few chapters later to describe the fate of mystery Babylon, the blood-drunk vampiric prostitute writing on the back of the beast. She too is made to drink of God's wrath. She's tormented in fire and sulfur. Smoke rises from her forever and ever. But an interpreting angel tells John toward the end of chapter 18 what this symbolizes.

It symbolizes that the city she represents will be found no more. The city she represents will be destroyed and many of her inhabitants will be slain. And then in Revelation 20, personifications of death and Hades are thrown into the same like a fire into which all God's other enemies are thrown, symbolizing what God says just a few verses later, death shall be no more. And that being no more is what the imagery symbolizes as the fate of all God's enemies. Now, in just a last couple minutes, I just want to cover a little bit of the historical terrain, not throughout church history, but the time immediately preceding the New Testament and immediately following. So it is true that we have a couple of texts that are very close to the time of Christ, which might or seemingly do indicate a belief in eternal torment.

Judith, written in the Maccabian era in the second century BC, changes Isaiah's picture of corpses being consumed by Maggot in fire into a picture of living people suffering continually. And Fourth Maccabees, which is written around the same time as the New Testament, uses the expression eternal destruction of the tyrant as roughly synonymous with eternal torment by fire. So we do have roughly contemporaneous with the writing in the New Testament at least a little bit of Jewish testimony toward belief in eternal torment. But leading up to that time and in the time of Christ, a lot of intertestimental Jewish literature expresses belief in annihilation, the book of Jubilees, the Dead Sea Scrolls as community ruled, the wisdom of Solomon, the book of Tobit, the book of Syrac, the Psalms of Solomon, the book of fourth Ezra. It's all throughout the Jewish literature, as Paul even acknowledged, that was the dominant Jewish stream. And then what we see in the New Testament is the Jewish

writers of the New Testament and the Jewish figure himself, Jesus, using the same kind of language as was used in the Intertestamental Jewish literature to refer to the torment ending in destruction of the Wiccan. And then leading out of the New Testament in the writings of the early church father, the earliest church fathers, the apostolic fathers all appear to have been annihilationists as well. Clement of Rome, writing around 100 AD, says that life in immortality is a blessing gifted by God. Ignatius of Antioch says that immortality and eternal life are found only in Jesus, who is the medicine of immortality and the antidote to prevent us from dying. And he says that if God were to reward us according to our works, we would cease to be. Polycarp of Smyrna teaches conditional immortality and annihilationism.

The Didiqae speaks of two ways, one of life and one of death. And the words for life and death that the Didaqa uses, it continues to use throughout the Didiqaq to refer to ordinary embodied life and death. The Epistle of Barnabas seems to teach annihilationism and conditional immortality. Second Clement, which is erroneously attributed to Clement of Rome, it appears to teach conditional immortality. The epistle to Diognitus does. All of these are late first and early to mid-second century texts that all teach annihilationism or conditional immortality. And then getting into the second century, the late second century, you have Ironaeus of Leone in his against heresies, who says that God will give to the saved continuance forever and ever.

and length of days forever and ever. But these will not be given to the lost, who deprives himself of continuance and length of days forever and ever. So we've got, from the Intertestimental Jewish Literature, we've got torment culminating and destruction as the majority Jewish view. Stretching into the New Testament,

the New Testament writers and figures all follow this language of torment culminating and destruction. And then the earliest church fathers into the second century all appear to continue this through line that connects the eschatological teaching of the Jews, the New Testament Christian, and the post-New Testament Christians.

But then what happens is in the late second century, you start to see eternal torment in the likes of Tachina of Badi Albania and Athanagoras of Athens, and you begin to see universalism in the likes of Clement of Alexandria and origin of Alexandria. But prior to them, we see this consistent through line from the Intertestamental Jewish literature into the New Testament and into the Apostolic Fathers and beyond,

where the final fate of the lost is one of death, perishing being no more and forever, the universe thereafter only being the redeemed. And so I'll leave it there and look forward to the rest of the discussion. Thank you, Chris. I'm sure the listeners might have to hit rewind and go back and listen to that. Both of your talks a few times is a lot there. I appreciate that. I appreciate both presentations. Very compelling. I've got, I've been writing questions and notes, but I'm trying to, I'm trying to sit in the back. I'm in the stands. I'm in the stands watching the ballgame, even though I'm what the coach to put me in. But that's, that's a, that easily doesn't work out well. Well, since Chris just went, maybe Paul, what questions or, or clarification or pushbacks on anything that Chris said.

Yeah. Yeah, I'll mention a few of my own comments, but, you know, I've spoken to some people and they've said, you know, they've wondered, you know, what would Chris say to, and you've, you've hinted at it, but maybe you just to explicate this further. You know, what would Chris say to, you know, what would Chris say to. You know, you know, what would Chris say to. You know, the, maybe the naturalist or the Theravada Buddhist or others, you know, like Epicurus who maintain that, you know, that once you die, that's it. You don't have to fear death and so forth. You, you didn't exist once. You're existing now. You're not going to exist again. You're just going back to the way things were before. And so there was a, so he said, just kind of keep calm. live your life. Don't worry about the gods. They're enjoying themselves on their own. So don't trouble yourself with thinking about theological things. What do you say to those who say, well, you know, the naturalist says, well, yeah, I agree that that's the fate. It doesn't, you know, terrorize me. For some, it does. But doesn't, you know, fill me with terror that I'm going to be obliterated. I just accept that as my faith. That's just the entailment of naturalism. You know, what do you say in response to that? So that just, again, I have a feeling. I know what you're going to say.

you've hinted at it, but just if you could unpack that, that would be helpful because people have asked me about that. Yeah, I appreciate that. It seems to me that the Epicurean endeavor was an utter failure. And I think a lot of philosophers acknowledge as much as well that, you know, the Epicureans were trying to counter the widespread, almost universal human fear of death that was evident around them. There was a reason why the Epicureans were arguing what they did. They knew that people do, in fact, fear death, very often understood to be annihilation. And after the time of Epicurious, humans continue to be deathly afraid of death. It's the premise of all sorts of horror movies. I mean, I like the Saw series of movies.

I'm a bit of a glutton for horror movies. And the whole premise of the Saw movies is that people will do the most deplorable of things at times in order to keep themselves alive. There's a long strain, a long tradition of, albeit perhaps a minority of humankind, that expresses deep terror at the prospect of death understood to be annihilation. The first century Greek historian Plutarch said that his fellow countrymen would much prefer to be tormented forever than to be annihilated. Augustine in the city of God said that if you were to offer the impenitent criminal, the impetent sinner, the choice between being eternally tormented or being annihilated, they would joyfully choose to be eternally tormented. The 20th century agnostic poet Philip Larkin writes in his poem, Albaid, about his fear of death,

his abject fear of death. And he says, people try to tell us, you know, don't worry, you won't be around when you're gone. So there's nothing to fear. And he responds, that's exactly what we fear is no longer being around, no longer experiencing anything ever again. I remember like 10 years ago, Premier Christian Radio's magazine did a profile on a professor named Mark Bauerline who converted to Christianity precisely because he was terrified of the prospect of being annihilated. So this is a very common human experience. I mean, even Clay Jones, a mutual friend I think of several of us, in his book Immortal that he published about a decade ago, documents how humankind universally fears death and goes to great lengths to try to secure some semblance of immortality.

That's what the transhumanist movement is all about. People are pouring millions of dollars into technology hoping to secure some kind of immortality. But the immortality that offers, if it offers one at all, is one that does nothing about sin, does nothing about classism and racism and murder and jealousy and violence and all of that. So the gospel offers a life that everybody longs to live forever, one that is devoid of pain, devoid of evil. And it offers as the stick, the punishment that everybody already fears is coming to them,

which is death and annihilation. So yeah, I just don't find that argument very compelling. But most importantly, and then I'll end with this, I frankly don't think it matters much what we subjectively think is worse, what we subjectively fear, whatever. What matters is what scripture teaches. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, good. Thanks for sharing that.

Because that question has come up, and thanks for a fuller explanation here. I appreciate that. I also think it's worth, just as a side note, I'd be interested in hearing more from scholars on Buddhism because I don't think that the Buddhist understanding of annihilation, so to speak, is quite the same thing as annihilationism, the likes of which we're talking about. The Buddhist view of annihilation is really sort of eval consciousness collapsing into like a single consciousness. It's an annihilation of individuality, not annihilation of being. And I think that's an important difference between the things we're talking about here. But I could be wrong

about that. I'm no expert on Buddhism. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think that the, I think there is an annihilation of being, at least, you know, as some emphasize it in the, in that tradition, where to cease from desire, which leads to suffering, one, one needs to cease to exist, which is, kind of the irony of desiring one's own non-existence to cease from desiring. But that's, you know, so anyway, I don't want to get too sidetracked here and talking about Buddhism, but yeah, a point perhaps worth talking about later. I would make a few distinctions here. I know, Chris, we talked about this when we were with Kirk Cameron and Nashville,

and I distinguished between everlastingness and immortality. I know that, you know, in the, you know, in the early literature, immortality is used to, is equated to everlastingness. But, of course, the New Testament itself connects immortality to that transformed physicality of bodily resurrection, that that is the lot of the believer, that just as Christ's body was raised, immortal. So ours, too, will be raised. And so I want to make a, you know, to distinguish between that, you know, kind of immortality, just lumping it all together that ever, you know, you know, You know, immortality just means living forever. Well, no, there's a, there's a, this is a distinctive imprint of the, of the biblical, you know, biblical faith where immortality means resurrection. You see that, especially in 1st Corinthians 15.

I know you, you know that. But so I don't want to qualify that. I'd also, one of the reasons that I, the traditional viewpoint is called eternal conscious torment. And I know that the word torment is used, but as I said that there are. Luke 12, there are punishments in different degrees, that there are different words associated or synonyms associated with that, quote, torment, like having no rest or distress and trouble, and so forth. And I'd want to just, you know, the reason I'm just using eternal conscious punishment

instead of eternal conscious torment is because of these degrees of punishment that are there. And I think torment also gives the idea that this is a divine torture chamber that God is putting people into, that this is kind of a cruel, vindictive, vengeful, spiteful sort of a thing, kind of delighting in the distress of others. And we need to avoid that kind of a language. So that's why I'm qualifying a few things here. And I know a few New Testament scholars who said, I would rather use the term mutual conscious. punishment than torment because of the, again, the degrees and also just what the connotations often are in this regard.

You know, we touched on this too in Nashville, Chris, and I don't want to belabor some of these things, but I do think that, yes, there is death, but there's also, when we look at, you know, there's also suffering involved in the death of Jesus. It's not as though, and even before we get to, even before we get to the, you know, you know, to the death of Jesus. I mean, you know, he's like a Mark 831, you know, Jesus says that the son of man has to suffer many things, that he's going to be rejected by the chief priests, the elders, chief priests, and scribes and, you know, and then be killed and after three days rise again. So, so I think that there is something significant about the

very suffering of the Son of God. I know it culminates in death, and that's your point. But I think that it's something that we ought to also bring into the picture, you know, first Peter, second Peter, First Peter chapter one, you know, Christ's suffering that we might follow in his steps or effect chapter two, and so forth. And even, you know, Isaiah 53, you know, talking about, you know, the anguish or the grief of the soul of the suffering servant, the Messiah, you know, it does emphasize this sort of thing. So I would want to simply stop with death. And I know you talk about there can be suffering before death. But I also think that there's something very, that ought to be weighed. Not that there's this rift between the father and the son that's

heretical. But I think that all that the son of God endured in that whole process of betrayal, you know, betrayal going to the cross and so forth, that there's, I think, a lot more weight needs to be given to that. Also, you know, as you had mentioned before, too, Chris, this, the notion of people not wanting to lose their own existence, that this is something that is horrific, it's terrorizing and so forth. And we could perhaps see, and I know people like Jerry Walls argue this, that it's a, a God is actually loving who does not obliterate us from existence, that God's love, in a sense it's a mark of the love of God's, the enduring love of God, not to obliterate his own creatures, that being, there's a goodness to being, however corrupted,

however, say, rebellious that being is, and that that is a mark of the, in a sense, kind of the triumph of love in not obliterating the personal existence of those who have rebelled against him. And so it kind of like an N.T. Wright talks about this, that the prodigal son and his older brother, in Luke 15, and of course he uses that language of lost and, you know, the lost son, the lost coin, you know, there's ruin and so forth, you know, there's connected to that word, you know, destruction. But, but there's that imagery of the, of the prodigal son's older brother who just kind of remains outside. You don't want to, you know, make the parable walk on all fours, as it were, but, but NT Wright says that God isn't going to hold up the party, the celebration of those,

as it were, who dwell outside, Revelation 2215, that the party is going to continue, and of course, it's a challenge to the older brother, those who are listening who are the position of the older brother, to, you know, what are you going to do? Are you going to go in and celebrate? Or are you going to sit outside and sulk? But the party's going to go on whether you're part of it or not. And so, so you're left kind of lingering. What is the decision going to be? Are you going to be like the older brother who sits outside? Are you going to repent, as it were, and receive, just as heaven rejoices when one sinner repents? Are you going to rejoice at the return of your lost, a ruined brother who was dead, but now he's alive? Anyway, just a few comments there.

There's a lot there. And Chris, I want to give you plenty of time to respond. You can respond to whichever one you want. Just a point of clarification, though, because he raised an interesting theological point, Paul, with regard to the suffering of Jesus leading up to his death. are you, just for clarity, are you suggesting that there's some sort of correlation between the substitutionary nature of Jesus' suffering, which therefore pays, you know, takes the place of the suffering of the redeemed. And if you're not redeemed, therefore you have to do your own suffering in a conscious state of hell. Yeah. No, I'm not saying that in a kind of a tit-for-tat sort of a way. But rather, I just say that there is a lot more involved in the sacrifice of Christ,

the spotless Lamb of God, who takes upon himself our sin, the penalty of our sin and makes available the opportunity that we don't have to bear their ourselves. So I don't want to get, in a sense, sidetracked in this way. But I just want to emphasize, you know, more of, rather than just simply focusing on the death of Jesus, that there's a lot more involved in this and a lot more involved in the rejection of that gift of salvation through God. So it's a rejection of this infinite gift, this, you know, from the, from the infinitely good creator. So it's not merely, you know, say, a string of finite sins that we're dealing with. It's simply a rejection of the greatest good that there could be, namely union with God. And, you know, there's also the, you know,

there's also the matter of the ongoing rebellion of human beings that sin continues and and we could talk about say analogies from say C.S. Lewis is great divorce and so forth. And human beings, you know, in a sense continuing in their rebellious ways and, you know, certainly Satan and his angels. But, but, you know, if there is that ongoing rebellion, you know, of course, then there's the question, well, is, you know, is, is God simply sustaining the, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the wicked in their existence that this somehow doesn't seem appropriate if Christ is all and all. Well, you do have the language of Satan being tormented, the devil being tormented day and night forever. It seems like there is this, at least a picture of sustaining them and

is him in existence, not to mention in Revelation 2215, those who are outside the city who seem to be continuing on in existence. So anyway, those are some things that I would also throw out there that there's a kind of an untidiness that is there, that the scriptures themselves, as it were, present. But go ahead. Yeah, Chris, take, you got a lot of time to respond to whatever. Hopefully I can touch on just about everything there. So first of all, yeah, Jesus suffered a lot more than just death on the cross. He suffered a lot more than just the sufferings on the cross. It seems to me that the biblical emphasis, far and above anything else, is on his death. So, for example, the Greek prepositions Huper and Auntie that are so often pointed to as support

for the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, these prepositions are used dozens of times in expressions like Jesus died for us, Jesus died for his people, Jesus died for sinners, etc., indicating that death is the primary means in which he substituted for his people. The very thing that the doctrine of eternal torment says will never happen to the resurrected loss. So that's important. And also it's worth noting that it's in his work on the cross that he fulfills what was prefigured by those substitutionary atoning sacrifices in the Old Testament. And those had nothing whatsoever to do with suffering. It was all about their death. In fact, the animals were killed in a humane way that minimized suffering, indicating, I think,

that the primary facet of substitutionary atonement in Scripture is the life that's taken. from the substitute in the place of the one whose life deserves to be taken. Now, you mentioned your understanding the word immortal, and you mentioned that your preference for eternal conscious punishment over torment. And I'm perfectly fine with that. But one thing I think that's worth observing is that contrary to the claims of some defenders of traditionalism, it doesn't appear to be conditionalists who are air conditioning hell. And I'm not saying that's what you're doing either, Paul.

But what I am saying is that it's every bit as much the eternal torment or eternal conscious punishment side that is also doing things that might be characterized as air conditioning hell. Both sides are just trying to follow scripture where it leads. And it seems to me that by avoiding wanting to avoid the language of immortality for the lost in hell and wanting to use the word punishment instead of torment, I think that means giving up to a degree anyway, the historical, the strength. of the historical case for eternal torment. If we're going to deviate so far from the ways that historical advocates of eternal torment or defenders of it, if we're going to deviate so far from the way they spoke about the nature of hell, it loses something of its historical weight, it seems to me. But does immortality mean more than ongoing physical life in scripture? I don't think so. But more importantly than the specific word immortality, Athanasia in 1st Corinthians 15,

and athartos incorruptible in 1st Corinthians 15, even aside from those specific words, you've got other ways of expressing the same idea. Adam and Eve are excluded. Their access to the tree of life is excluded with the express purpose that they not be able to take from it and eat and live forever. So living forever is also a way of describing immortality, and it's something that isn't possible apart from a tree of life. We have Jesus telling the Sadducees in Luke 20, verses 35 and 36, that it's those who are counted worthy of the resurrection and to attain to that age, who because they are sons of God, will be unable to die.

So there's another way of describing immortality, and it's something that's only given to the righteous, those that are considered sons of God. You've got the pictures of the Eschaton in which the wicked are all slain and reduced to corpses and only the righteous go on living, like Isaiah 66, and so on and so forth. It's not that the language of immortality itself makes the case for conditionalism. I think it's the variety of ways in which this concept of ongoing physical life being attributed only to the saved is something that also further supports conditional immortality. You mentioned that perhaps it's an act of love on God's part to keep the lost alive in hell forever rather than obliterate them, kill them, allow them to die, whatever. And I think that that's actually a challenging position. I think that challenges my view a little bit. And I admit as much in the conclusion to the book, I say that Zach Manus's contribution, the philosopher on the eternal torment side, he makes a good case that because God is love, according to Scripture, his actions toward the lost in hell must flow from his love for them. And admittedly, at least at sort of face value, it seems difficult to square God executing his beloved enemies in hell, if that's an act of love. But I don't think that that's an altogether compelling challenge, because it seems to me that we have lots of examples in popular art

that resonates with us of people who do kill people out of love for them. I give the example of Wolverine killing his love, Jean Grey, at the end of the Third X-Men movie, precisely because if he were not to kill her, she would be overcome and consumed by the dark phoenix within her. And there are countless other examples of people killing others out of love in a way that resonates with us as viewers. Now, of course, God is not limited in resources and empower the way that characters like the ones I've been talking about are. And so theoretically, there are other ways that he could love the lost in hell without killing them. But it doesn't seem to me as if that's an incredibly compelling argument, especially when if his loving presence, he may not in for his loving presence to cause the loss to experience distress and torment. That's what

Manus argues in his contribution to our book, is that that's not what God intends for the lost by unveiling his presence unmitigated to them. He intends for it to be life-giving and blissful the way that it is for the redeemed, but he doesn't intend that for the lost. But the problem is is that love isn't only about what you intend. It's what you know, it's what you know will be experienced by those receiving your actions. And it does seem to me a little bit difficult to say that God is loving the lost by unveiling his unmitigated presence to them in a way that causes them unending misery. It seems a case could be made that it's much more merciful in the sense of alleviating distress and alleviating pain to end their misery, to put them out of their misery,

not just the misery of the pains of being killed, but also the pains emotionally and spiritually of being separated from God. The last thing, I guess I'll just say, because I've been talking for a while, is this idea of the the lost continuing to sin in hell. I think that's true. I think the lost aren't going to be regenerated in hell, so they're going to continue to be rebels. But this isn't any kind of challenge to conditionalism for a couple of reasons. First of all, scripture only ever depicts the punishment of hell being based on deeds committed

in life, not deeds committed in hell. There is no record in scripture anywhere of the ongoing judgment of hell being based upon deeds that are being done in hell or a disposition that is exhibited in hell. But secondly, and more importantly, the death penalty can accommodate even sins committed up until the moment that the executed criminal breathes his last. If you imagine a death row criminal being marched to the electric chair and they break free and assault the guards and break their noses, but then he gets back under control, they're not going to go put him back in prison and go through a trial for assault and

punish him for that before taking him to the death, the chair. No, they're going to drag him to the chair and kill him like they'd planned because that can cover even those last crimes that they committed on their way to the electric chair. Meanwhile, the problem with the continuing sin or any explanation used to justify eternal tormented hell is that justice is never fully satisfied. There will always remain sins and sinfulness that remains to be punished, whereas in conditional immortality, the everlasting punishment for sin is secured on the day of judgment when a loss are finally destroyed and forever. There's no more further punishing that's got to be done in order to bring justice. So I think that the, I think there are a variety of reasons why even

these ways of trying to justify sort of a theodicy of hell, they actually end up working against the doctrine of eternal torment in ways that I think favor my view. I can say more, but hopefully that's enough for now. Let's maybe take just a brief moment here just for any sort of Paul if you want to respond to anything. I think Chris responds, but let's keep this really short because I want to give Chris a chance to

raise questions towards Paul just to make sure we're being fair. Some ways I thought he was doing that, but I know he's also answering. Well, I think because you raised a bunch of questions to him and he was responding to that. I just want to make sure I get it. I get it. But you know, it's certainly making good points. I guess that

as we're right in terms of the matter of ongoing rebellion in hell that this is not an argument against conditionalism, but rather, as it were, an extrapolation from the notion of ongoing conscious existence. What does this look like? And I would say, that is for the wicked. And I I would say that there do seem to be indicators that anchor conscious existence, you know, despite the language of, you know, the furnace burning up the tears and so forth. And in Matthew 13, but, you know, you also have the connection to that place of the furnace that is that is, you know, where there is weeping a gnashy of teeth. And you, Chris, you would say that's kind of the preliminary.

and then there's the cessation of existence. But it does seem to be the natural, the typical descriptor that Jesus uses of that final state, weeping and gnashing of teeth, consciousness. You do, it does seem that there is a, the devil continues to exist in being tormented day and night forever. Yes, I'm aware of the, you know, the language of the smoke rising, the, you know, the language of fire, consuming fire, and so forth. but it doesn't seem that the devil is being consumed.

And then you have a text like 2215 in Revelation, where there are people who do seem to be outside the city. And again, mentioned both, you know, there and also Revelation 21. They're outside the city. So I guess they're just, you know, and Chris, I totally see the coherence of your points. You know, I think you make a very, very strong case. And that's why I've really appreciated working with you and have admired your tenacity and your grasp of the literature. But I guess there are just some things that I that still linger that and again, it's a, I think a lot of times I say it's a matter of giving a scribing weight to these sorts of issues.

You know, where do we where do we come down? What seems to stand out more or what are some things that just you can't quite shake. And I guess it's that conscious existence that you kind of get hints of, you know, in the New Testament. You know, there's other past, certain texts talk about it more strongly, like Revelation 20 and so forth. But again, it's one of those things where, okay, now that, you know, if indeed there is this conscious awareness, what does that look like if you're continuing to exist in a state of resistance to God, you know, refuse that you've refused to repent. And so what does that look like in this in this final state? So that's really what I'm trying to what's what I'm wrestling with. And, you know, and torment does

have that meaning of torment or, you know, to varying degrees. But so, but I, but I appreciate your, you know, your weighty comments. I mean, there's certainly a lot to be a lot to consider here. And I, and I hope that this conversation will illustrate to the listeners that, you know, there is a, a solidity to your position. This is not out of mainstream, you know, off the path of mainstream evangelicalism. It really fits. And I was just even looking recently at kind of old, like Bible dictionaries, you know, edited by, you know, David Wright and J.I. Packer and so forth.

You look at the entries on hell and they're like F.F. Bruce wrote one on, you know, well, it's kind of divided. You can go one way or the other. It's not as clear cut as we would imagine. And so a lot as even the tradition has held. And so I want to respect that too. And hats off to you, Chris, for ably defending your position. And I can see where you're coming from.

I totally can. Well, thanks. I appreciate that. Hopefully it goes without saying I can see where you're coming from as well, having believed that for the first 10 years of my faith. So, yeah, I think these are exactly the kinds of conversations we want. people to be having and to be seeing because like you said, there is a lot more room for debate here than at least people on the Eternal Torment side often don't think there is. So I'm glad

they're seeing us get to go back and forth on this stuff. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I do, that text in Revelation 22, it is really interesting. Let me just read it, because this does seem to support some things Paul was saying where it says, you know, Blessed are those who wash a road. this is 2214, that they may have right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. So this is kind of a metaphor for the new creation. And right to the,

they have access to the tree of life. But then the next verse says, outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexual immoral. So there's people existing, as Paul would say consciously, who don't have access to the tree of life.

That seems to be, that seems to support the view that, yes, you have this, you know, narrow concept of immortality, talking about maybe the quality of living foreverness, but there is also the possibility of another kind of existence where you're not, you know, you don't have access to the tree of life. How do you respond to that, Chris? I'm sorry to jump in and stir things up, but I've been pretty quiet for an hour. Sorry. No, I'm glad you did because I wanted to speak to this passage in Revelation. I think a lot of people don't understand quite how the book of Revelation works. And I think, they misunderstand what this passage is. So there are two responses I'll offer to this. Number one, as we acknowledged in our roundtable with Kirk Cameron, the conditionalist isn't saying that in

John's vision, the wicked are depicted being annihilated. We're saying, no, in John's vision, they're depicted being tormented forever. The question isn't what's happening in the vision, or at least that shouldn't be. Our question should be what does what's happening in the vision symbolize in reality because that's the way all these kinds of visions work throughout scripture. You won't find a single example in scripture of somebody being shown the future literally. It's always foretold by means of bizarre pictures. So we're already acknowledging as conditionalists that the vision depicts ongoing unending torment.

And so it wouldn't be a surprise to see the lost continuing to suffer outside the gates in the lake of fire the way that Paul is interpreting the end of Revelation. we would still point to all the evidences that we already point to as support for this imagery symbolizing the final end of God's enemies, like the fact that death and Hades personified as horsemen are thrown into that lake of fire, presumably to be tormented forever like everything else. But that symbolizes the end of death and Hades, not their everlasting life in torment. But the second response I want to give is just that actually Revelation 22, 15, and 16, or whatever the verses we're talking about here, they are no longer.

part of the vision. That's where people misunderstand the way Revelation works. So Revelation begins with prologue, and then it has many, many chapters of a record of John's vision, and then it ends with epilogue. The John's vision proper ends in the first half of Revelation 22 when John says, I saw these things, I heard these things, Jesus is coming soon, etc. it's after the closing of the vision that he then goes and talks about it blessed of those who wash their robes that they may have the right to enter the city nobody he's not saying that it's possible for the people outside the city gates and the lake of fire to wash their robes of course not now is the time when we have the opportunity to wash our robes and earn the right to enter the city gates and have access to the tree of life and if it seems weird to people to describe the people who are in and out of the new jerusalem in the future as if that's the case in the present, you know, you are in the New Jerusalem now or you're out of the Jerusalem, New Jerusalem right now, even though the New Jerusalem is at some point in our future. If that seems odd to people, just go read the book of Hebrews, where the author of

Hebrew says that you have come to the heavenly city. And he's talking to saints in the here and now. So by virtue of whether we're united to Christ or not in the here and now, we are already either in or outside of the new Jerusalem. And this passage we're talking about at the end of Revelation isn't even part of the vision to begin with. So this is kind of the part of the already not yet. It's in the already where people have kind of a one foot in what's going to be a reality. Okay.

Oh, that may, okay. But again, just like I said, we're already acknowledging that the vision depicts unending torment. So you wouldn't expect to see them anything other than outside the city gates in the vision. It just so happens we don't have that vision. Yeah, but I think one of the points here that needs to be made is that that same list is found within the apocalyptic, you know, text of Revelation, you know, 21 versus 8 and 27. That same list is there. And it seems to kind of bring together, you know, all three of those texts into the kind of the outsiders. they can't enter in, their outsiders, and that that continues.

So, so it does, again, a lot of times it's a matter of emphasis, but even, you know, your point on the lake of fire and death and Hades being cast into it. Well, of course, you know, the lake of fire is indicative of finality, final judgment, and so forth. But of course, one, there is no more, you know, that this, you know, that physical death, Hades, that these are in a sense, as it were, empty categories. They're done with. You know, both the righteous and the unrighteous have been bodily resurrected. There is no more, you know, grave or anything like that.

But also, I would, I would mention that they're not depicted as being tormented either. So we need to understand that is something that is specific. attributed to say the the devil in his cohort. And the devil is a personal being, of course. But I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge that the language does indeed express that. And then we have to ask the question, what does it mean? What's behind it? And I guess, and maybe to people who maybe interpret this ongoing conscious punishment as, you know,

not understanding apocalyptic literature, there's some pretty. significant interpreters, people who understand apocalyptic literature pretty well. Oh, yeah, G.K. Beal, for example. And so I wouldn't want to diminish there. These guys are kind of no bodies, but the conditionless have the market cornered. So anyway, I just wanted to bring that out to you. No, that's fair. And I'll just add, I'll just respond really briefly by pointing out that in Revelation 21, verse 8, where you've got that vice list and the people in the lake of fire, God interprets, the symbolism for readers there. He says, the Lake of Fire is the second death. And this is the

stock way in which interpreters interpret visionary imagery going back to when Joseph tells Pharaoh that the seven cows are seven years, right? So yes, people are depicted in unending torment in John's vision. But when God interprets that vision for John, and John does the same thing in Revelation 2014, they say that this symbolizes the second death. And the whole point, point of interpretation is that you take meaning that is hidden in perplexing imagery and you explain it in straightforward language. Second death just sounds like the second time people die. And as it turns out, that's what the expression means in the Aramaic Targums, where John appears to be getting this language of second death. Everywhere the phrase of second death appears in the Aramaic Targums,

which, by the way, is the only intertestimental Jewish source from which the phrase second death can even be found. Everywhere the expression is used in the Targums, and in some of those places it's used right next to Gehenna, the word that Jesus uses for hell, second death means exactly that, dying a second time and not participating in the life to come. So it seems to me that that's one of several reasons, along with death and Hades being annihilated in reality by being depicted thrown into the lake of fire and other reasons. All of these reasons, this is why I explained it like a scale when we talked with Kirk, Paul, is that we have to take seriously that on one side of the scale, the imagery does depict

unending torment, and that's a weight that we have to take seriously. But as I put on the other side of the scale, all of the various factors that indicate what that symbolism means, it far outweighs in the conditionalist direction. Every single detail that we might look at to help us

understand what the imagery symbolizes, seems to me to point in favor of annihilationism. I would love to, we have several minutes left here. you know, the big three often come up. And without laying my cards out too much, I don't, you know, I think there's, there's, you know, a lot of evidence for both, both views. And I think there's a lot of

evidence for, you know, the annihilation view. But there are, there are these kind of three texts that if, from my vantage point, if this is all we had, if we took these three texts, gosh, I think it would be a done deal with eternal conscious torment. The big three, of course, are Matthew 25, 46. We've touched on it a little bit, Revelation 14, 9 to 11, and then Revelation 20, 10 to 15. Can we, yeah, can we discuss these for a bit? I mean, we've touched on them, but I really would love to camp out on these. So Matthew 25, 46, that the righteous will go into eternal life.

but the unrighteous, the sheep and goats in terms of that metaphor there, will go away into eternal punishment. And it's that, as Paul raised in passing, it's not just, you know, eternal punishment by itself could be open to different interpretations, but it's the contrast between eternal life. And as the case for ECT or ECP goes, because life is everlasting, therefore punishment it must also be everlasting. Paul, do you want to just, I've kind of put words in your mouth there. Do you want to frame your take on this passage in your way, you know, somewhat briefly.

Yeah, I mean, in some ways I already have. But I've also connected it to other indicators within the synoptic gospels, that there is this connection to what seems to be language of conscious awareness, you know, brought in, you know, Romans chapter 2 and so. forth, but it does seem that there is this, that it's more than just Matthew 25, but other texts in the synoptics. And indeed, you know, just even the, you know, I mentioned from Luke of the, you know, the religious leaders who are kind of look, you know, when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, you know, you'll be cast to the place where there's gnash, you know,

weeping and gnashia of teeth, you know, when you see this, you know, this, you know, the the Abraham Isaac of Jacob sitting with people who have come in from, from all four corners of the world incorporating the Gentiles. You know, you, you know, again, as I said, this is the weeping and ashtheteeth is the leading descriptor that Jesus uses of the final state. That final state, of course, you have it in Matthew 25, mentioned, you know, Matthew, yeah, Matthew 24 and 25,

mentioning these things. And, you know, if this is the place that is prepared for, the devil and his angels. And we see that we can kind of connect it to Revelation 14, which talks about those who have no rest. Again, the place of this final destiny was prepared for, specifically for the devil and his angels. But we see that those who are worshiping the beast, they drink the cup of wrath individually. So it's not just Babylon that drinks a cup of wrath, but it's also individuals mentioned in chapter 14 of Revelation, who are also, anyone who worships the beast in his image,

that one will also drink the cup of God's wrath. And I guess in Revelation 20, he is tormented, along with his cohort, tormented day and night forever. So we could even maybe connect these texts by saying, this is what Jesus is, you know, this is the pronouncement he's making in Matthew 25. And, you know, so again, I did talk about the parallel of eternal punishment, eternal life. But there's also the, you know, and I would simply mention that there is a, this kind of, you know,

Chris talked about the analogy of faith. You know, we look at the scriptures, compare scriptures with scriptures. And Chris is doing a, you know, I think a marvelous job of that in making his case. But I think you can also make these sorts of connections. So I wouldn't say it's just the kind of the big three, but there's actually synoptic tradition, Jesus' own labels of consciousness. And I just find that that's, you know, I just find that persuasive. And I'm not willing to let go of that.

It just seems that there is that strong descriptor there. And so, yeah, I don't want to get belaborate. I've said a few things there. but I think it's an interesting contrast that, you know, those who, you know, they have no rest day or night, Revelation 1411, and in contrast to the saints that do have rests, this ongoing conscious awareness. So we, in a sense, have that parallel existence, as it were, conscious awareness, conscious awareness for the wicked, for the, for the, for the righteous. So I'm just trying to piece these things together as best I can. And I don't mean to imply that like the ECP position rests on these three passages. There's many other arguments that people can make. But these are, I think the way I see it, like these are the, at least in my own personal journey, like these are the big three that like, oh, wow, there's a good case for annihilation.

But these three passages seem to clearly teach eternal conscious torment. So yeah, Chris, how do you read these passages? Yeah. So first of all, I'm not sure I would agree that Jesus is most popular. popular way of describing the lost in hell is with the language of consciousness like weeping and gnashing. He also very often uses language of destruction. And when he uses that language, it seems to be talking about death and destruction as we annihilationists understand it. So for example, in Matthew 1028, he says, don't fear men who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul,

rather fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna. And the word destroy there, a psalomy. Paul is right. It has a semantic range, such as, that it can be used to describe things that are lost, people that are lost, things that are ruined, etc. But everywhere in the synoptic gospels that the word apollomie is used in the active voice with a human being as the direct object, it means slay or kill. For example, Herod wants to apollomie the baby Jesus, and nobody thinks he wanted to lose or ruin the baby Jesus. He wanted to kill him. And the Pharisees wanted to apollomie the adult Jesus, and nobody thinks they wanted to lose or ruin Jesus. They wanted to kill him. So when Jesus says,

fear the one who can destroy, kill, slay, both body and soul and hell. He's saying that what you think about when you see a dead body, it's lifeless, it's inanimate, it's motionless, it's inert. All of that will be true of the soul as well in hell, meaning all conscious existence comes to an end. But speaking of Matthew 25 specifically, the way I argue in my contribution to our book is that leading up to this passage, Matthew is going to great lengths to prime. the reader to be thinking about hell as a place where the wicked will finally be destroyed. So, for example, at the very beginning in Matthew 312, John the Baptist declares that Christ's winnowing fork is in his hand and the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. And traditionalists

often hear unquenchable fire and they have this picture of fire that never dies out. But that's not what unquenchable fire is. Unquenchable fire is fire that can't be put out. And what does unquenchable fire, fire that can't be put out, do? It completely burns up. And that's why John says that this unquenchable fire will burn up. Katakayo is the Greek word, the chaff. So you've got this picture of being reduced to ashes right at the beginning of Matthew's gospel. And then you continue reading and you've got Matthew 1028, which we just talked about. You've got expressions of weeping and gnashing that Paul, you mentioned.

In Matthew 13, for example, you've got the weeping and gnashing, yes, but it's in Jesus's interpretation of his parable in which weeds are burned up in fire. And then in interpreting that parable, he says, just as the weeds are burned in fire, so will all causes of sin and all lawbreakers be thrown into the fiery furnace. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. But notice, he's just offered a parable in which that which represents the wicked is burned up, produced to ashes. And he says, that's just as that. That's what will happen to the lost.

In fact, the furnace of fire comes directly from the book of Daniel, where Daniel's friends are thrown into Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace. and they survive because they have divine protection from God. But Nebuchadnezzar soldiers who just get close to that furnace of fire, unprotected by divine favor, they die just from the heat of approaching that fire. So this weeping and gnashing in Matthew 13 seems like it will culminate in the death of the wicked, which is the same thing that you see when weeping and gnashing is used in Jesus' parable of the wedding banquet. He says that an improperly dressed servant is bound hand and foot and thrown out into the darkness out,

that's all outer darkness means people sometimes misunderstand that as some kind of euphemism for hell it's not it just means the darkness outside the the wedding banquet hall in jesus's earthly setting um so if you imagine somebody bound hand and foot unable to do anything and they're thrown outside of a brightly lit wedding hall at night into the darkness dark wilderness of first century judea somebody bound hand and foot unable to protect himself is going to die either at the hands of passing bandits like the Good Samaritan story, or at the teeth and claws of scavenging beasts and birds, or just by exposure to the elements. So even where weeping and gnashing of language is used, it's in the context of a weeping and gnashing that ends with death. And just as a side note,

the New Testament scholar Kim Pope Iwano argues in his book, the geography of hell and the teaching of Jesus, that this language of weeping and gnashing, the reason why that's so emphasized as characteristic, of this of hell is because it captures the anger and regret that people will experience who thought that they would be ushered into God's kingdom because they were faithful or thought they were faithful Jews, faithfully carrying out the law, but will be shocked and dismayed and angry to discover that actually on this day they're going to be excluded from God's kingdom. But there is no place in creation that is outside of God's kingdom in the biblical picture of eternity.

So anyway, coming back to Matthew 25, then, it seems to me as if eternal life is just what it sounds like. It's living forever. And the only everlasting punishment that could possibly be inflicted on somebody who doesn't go on living forever is eternal capital punishment, death forever. And so I actually think that Matthew 25 not only doesn't challenge annihilationism, I think it is actually support for annihilationism, given both the contrast between eternal life, which the wicked don't get an eternal punishment, which must exclude eternal life. But also because of all of the various ways in which Matthew has primed readers to anticipate the end of the wicked being death and destruction rather than life in torment. And I could go on, but hopefully that's enough for that one. So you would say it's not everlast, it's not the everlasting act of punishing, but the death itself is the punishment and death isn't reversed. That's right. Is that the, okay. Yeah, the Greek word colicist translated punishment is just like the English word punishment. It can refer to a variety of different kinds of punishments. And there are certainly the examples in which it's used to describe corporal punishments, you know, the ongoing infliction of

pain or a lack of freedom or whatever. But you've also got several places in the Intertestamental literature where it refers to the death penalty. And Augustine himself acknowledged that we don't measure the duration of capital punishment in how long it takes to die. We measure the duration of capital punishment in how long one remains dead. So eternal punishment is the punishment of death forever, and it's the natural antithesis to everlasting life. are running short on time. I do want to highlight one thing that Paul has touched on a few times. And you might, if I missed them, I apologize, Chris, if you responded, but in Revelation 14, 9 to 11, specifically, so the smoke of their torment will rise forever and ever. And we know

that that's drawing on, is Isaiah 34, you know, an earthly destruction of Edom and the smoke rose forever and ever. So you can make a good case based on the Old Testament imagery that smoke rising forever and ever could be a symbol of the comprehensiveness of destruction. Kind of like what the picture of a mushroom cloud evokes in our minds today. Yeah. The one that does get me and Paul touched on it is the addition of there will be no rest day or night. That is I'm not, is that language in Isaiah 34 or two or is that, Day and night language is, but restlessness isn't, no. So that, that to me is significant.

Here's my two questions. What do you do with no rest day and night? Or here's another question that I often don't see people wrestle with. Is Revelation 14, 9 to 11 talking about final punishment? Nowhere in the surrounding context is he talking about, he's talking about the present time, the first century, you know, situation. Yes, Revelation 20 is clearly talking about, you know, the final days, Matthew 25, clearly talking about that.

I just, I don't know, I would want to see at least an argument that John is not talking about the end of time. All of a sudden, he jumps to the end of time for these couple verses and then jumps back to, you know, for several chapters talking about the present day. Are you saying that they're, that the cup that they are drinking, which is in the verse before, is referring to something that's happening in the present in their day? Or is this, does this not look like a future drinking of the cup just like? Like Babylon drinks that cup when it falls.

Well, first of all, I'm not suggesting it. It is a genuine question. So to be clear, the language of verses 9 to 11 absolutely seems like its final judgment. It's just the surrounding context gives us no cues that he's talking about that. And here is my, at least I would raise the possibility given the apocalyptic, the nature of apocalyptic literature and what it does. does, it can describe earthly things in very elaborate, you know, like hyperbolic ways. So, yeah. So, yeah, but I'm generally, it's a genuine question.

I think it's a legitimate question to ask. And there are, I think, interpreters on both sides of the debate who would take the view that it refers to something in the first century. I mean, I'm, for example, what's known as a preterist, not a so-called full preterist, or what I prefer as a hyperpreterist to describe that heresy. I don't hold that view, but I do think that the bulk of revelation was fulfilled in the first century, and I think that includes this passage and Mystery Babylon's downfall. But I don't think one needs to arbitrate that question in order to say that this passage doesn't challenge our view. You're right that there's this additional language of what sounds like restlessness day and night.

I'll come back at that in a moment. But that doesn't all of a sudden overturn the other symbols that converge there, that converge just a few chapters later to refer to the destruction of a city and the deaths of her inhabitants. It seems to me that what the traditionalist is doing is saying, okay, yeah, all of these other symbols converge later to refer to death and destruction. And in the Old Testament, once they come, it's all about death and destruction. But because restlessness is added, all of a sudden it means something entirely different. That strikes me as a little bit incredulous. But nevertheless, I do have to face the question, well, then what about this restless language?

Well, I'll offer two responses. Firstly, the annihilation of the lost, by definition, would not be rest. Because in order for somebody to rest, they have to still be alive. Or at the very least, they have to still be conscious. And what we're talking about is a destruction that renders them, they're completely gone. They are no more. There is no one around left to be resting. So the last thing that is experienced by the lost as they breathe their last in hell

is this distress, is this duress, is this restlessness. And so there will never come a point in time where they rest. Whether we're talking in the way that rest is ascribed to the saints, which I think is more than just merely a relief from activity, it's eschatological rest, it's rest from works, right? It's blessed presence of God no longer having to deal with one's old sin, nature, and so forth. And all of these aspects of rest are things that never come to the loss in hell. So I think that's one way to explain it.

But secondly, and this is something that doesn't get discussed much, and I'll only be able to touch on it briefly here, but we can explore it later in the future. I actually highly question the legitimacy of the translation. They have no rest day or night. A few chapters earlier, the exact same Greek expression is used to say that the elders before God's throne never cease worshiping. The exact same Greek expression isn't translated, they have no rest day or night. It's they never stop, they never cease worshiping day or night. And so if you just look at the grammar in Revelation 14, the same way that it's used earlier and I think it's chapter four, what I think it's actually saying is these beast worshippers never cease worshiping the beast.

It's not really about a restlessness at all. It's about an unceasing worship of the beast, which is the cause for their death and destruction, which is what these symbols converge apparently to communicate. So I think there are a number of reasons why this restless language in Revelation 14 just does not challenge our view. But again, I want to reiterate, we're already acknowledging that the imagery depicts unending torment, and it's appropriate to characterize that as some kind of ongoing restlessness. The question, of course, is what does this symbolism mean?

And when we look at all of the factors that might help answer that question, we have every reason for concluding that it teaches annihilation. Paul, some quick words, and we've got to wrap things up, and I'll give you just maybe a one minute to give your final shout out. Yeah, it's not, I wouldn't say that this is just kind of, you know, with Revelation 14, kind of, here's, let's just, as a last gasp effort, throw this language of consciousness in there and say that it applies to the final state. As I said, I think there are these interconnections of consciousness in the final state for the wicked. and that this is reflects a continuity there. I do have a, you know, in this, in David DeSilva's commentary, he's kind of, I guess, a boss on Apocalyptic literature.

I mean, he does say. David DeSilva's awesome. Yeah. So, I mean, he does say the grim picture, referring to. He listens to this podcast from time to time too. Yeah, yeah. The grim picture of public torment without rest or reprieve for those who worship the beast or receive its mark is just opposed to the rest and,

by those who have died favored or blessed by God. And, you know, he, and he, I've interacted with him on, on some of these texts. And he said that he, yeah, there are just some, some passages that he can't get away with. He would prefer to, to take the conditionalist position. But just when it comes to exeating revelation and so forth, he just does, he's not persuaded, though he would like to be persuaded. Craig Keener says the same thing. And, and so I, you know, I, I think that.

that there is a, I think, a fair-minded dispute here where we just say, well, I'm just not persuaded where I'm not, I can't go, you know, go to those lengths. But let me just say maybe a couple final words, and then I know we need to wrap up, but even when it comes to the destruction of Babylon, I think we can, is Babylon can be destroyed, the system that has been opposed to God, kind of like Nazism was destroyed, dismantled, you know, the hierarchy dismantled, the symbols destroyed, and so forth. But yet the German people still remained in place. They contributed to Nazism, and then this was a stripping away of that and basically the demise of Nazism. And I think that there could be a fair case made that this is the sort of thing

that's being, that we're looking at here. Of course, there's a demonic element as well. But just as Babylon drinks the cup of judgment, so individuals drink the cup of judgment in in Revelation 14, who are part of that system. But I don't know that we need to conclude that this necessitates their utter, utter obliteration. I can go, I can say more, but I just maybe a few, those are a couple of comments to leave things with. Yeah.

Final word? Chris? Oh, two things. Well, actually, no, just one thing that I'll introduce by following up on something Paul observed, which is that there are traditional. like Craig Keener, like Craig Blomberg, like others, David De Silva, who would like to be persuaded of conditional immortality. And I understand that. There are those of us who are in the exact opposite position. I wish I could be persuaded of eternal torment again. For at least a couple of reasons, one of which is that being a conditionalist and yet also being conservative and reformed makes me not get along very well with a lot of people in the very community that I hold dear.

And it would be so much easier for me if I could be persuaded of eternal torment again. But the other reason is because I'm one of that minority of humans that finds a prospect of annihilation far more terrifying, far more dreadful than being alive forever in misery. And if it were up to me, my lost loved ones would not be annihilated. They would instead live forever, albeit in some kind of misery. But this just highlights the subjective nature of these kinds of intuitions. And what I love about Paul and the conversation that we had with Dan and Gavin and Kirk is that we all acknowledge that there are a lot of these intuitions at play that people on both sides of the debate try to point to in support of their case. But these intuitions are so often subjective, so often coming from biases and presuppositions.

And what we've got to do on both sides of the debate is set those presuppositions and intuitions aside and allow the biblical text to dictate our content. convictions. I know that that's what Paul and Gavin Ortland are trying to do. I know that that's what Dan Patterson and I are trying to do and Hugh Preston. And if that's what we as Christians who disagree on this topic do, we lock arm in arm in fellowship and in ministry, but we dig into the word together to try and let it be what dictates and shapes our intuitions and our convictions, I think that's a win. I think it's a beautiful thing when God's people disagree in a God-honoring Christ-centered way. And I'm so thankful to have people like Paul who are doing that alongside me. So thank you for that, Paul. And I hope that the conversation we've modeled here and on Kirk Cameron's Hellgate will

encourage people to have light conversations moving forward. Thank you, Chris. Likewise. Very much so. That's a good word. I do have to run into a meeting. So I have to go ahead and end us here. Thank you both for taking such a long time to devote to this. And I hope it spurs on lots of conversations. And as both of you have expressed, if at the end of the day, people are opening up their Bibles and lingering more often and searching to see, you know, if these things are so, as the Bereans did, then that's a win on both sides. So thank you both for your graciousness and your wisdom and thoughtfulness. Thanks for having us.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it, brother.