The Hell Debate: Eternal torment or Annihilation?

'Annihilationists' believe that hell is temporary and leads to the entire destruction of the soul, which stands in contrast to the eternal conscious torment view, upheld as orthodox doctrine throughout church history.

With the debate going on regarding whether being condemned to the 2^nd Death is eternal and conscious, as opposed to a temporary annihilation.. I have some thoughts to bring up on the subject.

No matter which way you lean, either eternally conscious or annihilated, Gehenna is a final destination with no escape.

Those of us who hold to the Biblical Gospel, we understand that denying the offer of grace and dying faithless, will have you ending up in Gehenna. So, either way, we don’t want our loved ones assigned there.

We want folks to live forever with Christ Jesus.

“The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . It is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,’ they will be damned forever" 
(Irenaeus -189AD- “Against Heresies” 4:28:2)

So, my view is to take into account the details relating to those who participate in..

1) The First Resurrection (believers)

2) The Second Resurrection (unbelievers)

But what are the differences between them?

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. - Revelation 20:6

To begin with, what does the Greek word "πρῶτος" or "PROTOS", used for "first resurrection" even mean?

The way we often interpret “First” in “First Resurrection”, is that it's the first in a sequence of resurrections, but why would that even matter?

I suggest that “First” is qualitative, not just sequential.

I would personally like to be in the best resurrection, rather than "the one that happens before a different one".

For example, πρῶτος/PROTOS is used in phrases like “high (πρῶτος) priest”. This also has the sense of "Chief" Priest.

Looking at the description given in Daniel 12:2 (see below), whether in Hebrew or LXX (Greek Septuagint), both resurrections, grammatically, may happen simultaneously.

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. - Daniel 12:2  

Perhaps, there will be different timings for different resurrections, with multiple “First Resurrections” at different times, or potentially different timings for the “Second Resurrections”. I don't know for sure.

One can’t exactly be dogmatic about the timings, but we can be certain there are two different qualitative eternal endpoints for the resurrections in our future. 

We can see there is a difference, not simply in timing, but in outcome.

Looking again at Daniel 12:2, you will also see a reference to the Second Resurrection as one of shame and EVERLASTING contempt.

That word “everlasting” is olam in Hebrew.

Eternal States and the word 'Olam' in Hebrew, as it pertains to Eternal Life and Eternal Death (Hebrew4Christians.com)

It means exactly what it says, in context. “For ever” (or.. forever).

Of course, annihilation would also be permanent, but that is not the implication. It appears to imply the shame itself will last a very long time after being resurrected.

I ask the question, and I'm open to be wrong, but what would be the point of resurrecting people and then once they are condemned, annihilating them?

Let’s look at another passage in Matthew 13… 

"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.  Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." - Matthew 13:40-42

In Matthew 13, we see another contrast between the 'First' and 'Second' Resurrection.

If those in the 'First' Resurrection shine perpetually, then the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the 'Second', will most likely match the same scale, and be perpetual.

Here we can see another contrast between the two states, and yet simultaneously we see both use the words “for ever and ever”.

If one is eternal, then the other is also eternal?

You can find the term for ever and ever in both the New and Old Testaments, and they are the same in LXX Greek Septuagint and the Greek NT.

In Hebrew, our friend “olam” is seen in the term “for ever”. For example:

Micah 4:5

For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever. 

Daniel 12:3 

And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. 

Revelation 20:10 

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

If we are going to be aware of our eternal existence, as Christians, of being with God in glory forever, then torment in the lake of fire seems to also be something that will be experienced for eternity, rather than annihilation.

This little article is not exhaustive, but its intention is to point out that if we see some contrasting of destinations with similar language and implications, we can reasonably deduce the individual experiencing it will be aware of their eternal state in both cases.

While annihilation is not 100% refutable, and definitely is not something that is desirable, it would be a terrible situation, no matter what.

One needs to consider that we can’t, no matter what our feelings on the matter, discount eternal conscious torment, even if you think the damned will just simply 'cease'.

For further study, check out Ken Ham's recent video on Youtube about the Kirk Cameron controversy. Alternatively, we also have another article on the subject, which you can read here.