[Response] Annihilationism: Why I'm Not Convinced, Gavin Ortlund, Truth Unites
Gavin Ortlund’s video on annihilationism raises important theological and pastoral questions about the nature of final judgment, which are explored through distinctions between annihilationism and eternal conscious torment (ECT). Annihilationism is well within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, while some alternative views are not. Scriptural language about destruction, death, and perishing is highlighted as the dominant imagery for divine judgment, challenging the assumption that ‘eternal’ always implies consciousness. Key passages like Matthew 10:28 and Revelation 14 are evaluated carefully, with particular attention to genre, context, and apocalyptic tradition. Philosophical reflections on life, death, and ontology underscore the coherence of annihilationism, especially in light of God as the source of all being. While recognizing that some texts may support ECT more naturally, the overall argument calls for interpretive humility, lexical precision, and a pastoral posture that affirms both God’s justice and the need for salvation.
Gavin Ortlund, whom I have a great deal of respect for, recently posted a video about Annihilationism (also known as Conditional Mortality). His intent was to demonstrate that annihilationism is a valid, orthodox view of hell, while also explaining why he personally disagrees with it. I thought the video was generally very well done, though Ortlund hadn't discussed quite a few things. (For the record, I do not identify as an annihilationist, though I also don’t hold to a traditional view.) I encourage you to watch the video or read the full transcript embedded above; I’ve added headings to both the transcript and the response below, based on Ortlund’s outline near the start of the video. I’m primarily offering this response because Ortlund says, “I want to acknowledge my limitations and say I’m still researching this.” There’s a great deal of information and many arguments on both sides, which is part of why I’ve found it difficult to form a settled conviction on the issue myself. Much of what follows is composed of additions and further reflections rather than direct disagreements with Ortlund. Unless otherwise noted, quotations are from him.
Triage: How important is this issue?
Annihilationism is Not a Heresy Issue
“...the debate between annihilationists and those who hold to eternal conscious torment (...ECT…) is not a matter of orthodoxy versus heresy, or Christianity versus something outside of Christianity. Rather, both sides can affirm the gospel message, trust in Jesus for salvation, and see each other as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.”
I want to affirm this statement, but also to note that there are related theories that should be considered heresy based on early Christian affirmations and Creeds. The Athanasian Creed, for example, emphasizes that “those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.” Though not an eccumenical creed, per se, the Athanasian Creed reflects the majority view of the Church in the West at the very least.
Universalism (Universal Reconciliation or Apokatastasis) teaches that everyone will eventually be saved and reconciled to God (some even emphasizing angelic redemption as part of this theory). Some dodge accusations of heresy, arguing for Hopeful Universalism, which speculatively suggests God may choose to have mercy even on those who are not loyal to Christ. Biblical conservatives tend to reject both versions as contradictions of the Bible’s teaching on God’s wrath and punishment.
Postmortem Salvation (Postmortem Evangelization or Wider Hope Theory) argues that those who die without hearing or responding to the Gospel may have a chance to hear and respond after death.
Purgatorial Hell (Soft Universalism or Purgationism) sees hell as non-eternal, not unlike conditional mortality, but sees hell as a purgatory (lit. a cleansing), as a refining or purifying fire, after which the wicked may enter heaven. There is a wrath and a punishment, but not any sense of eternality (which, Ortlund rightly acknowledges, even annihilationism is an eternal view).
Historical Precedent for Annihilationism
“...annihilationism is not a new or novel idea…especially in the early church, you can find people holding to it. And it’s not that they didn’t believe in hell—they offered dire warnings about it.”
I have no criticism of Ortlund on this point, but want to make a technical note that perhaps may settle some of the confusion about hell and related doctrines. Hell is not seen as eternal in any system (at least it should not be). The biblical theology traces the places for the condemned in the afterlife as follows:
Sheol/Hades is the general realm of the dead prior to Christ’s incarnation. It refers to the unseen realm of the dead, both righteous and unrighteous, and is not necessarily a place of torment, but more like a shadowy holding place for the dead. Jacob expected to go there in mourning (Genesis 37:35). The wicked and righteous are said to go there (Job 3:13-19; Psalm 16:10). Jesus uses “Hades” to describe the rich man's torment after death (Luke 16:23). It should be noted that by Jesus’s day, likely earlier in the Second Temple period, it was seen as having sides for the righteous and the unrighteous (ex. Luke 16:22).
By the time of NT writing, Hades begins to be seen as a place of temporary punishment (“brought down to Hades,” Matthew 11:23) before the final judgment. Other words, such as Gehenna, are used to describe this intermediary state of punishment. The English word hell is derived from the Proto-Germanic haljo, meaning ‘concealed place’ or ‘the underworld,’ and is used to translate or articulate many different ideas about the intermediary state for the condemned.
NOTE: The dual nature of Hades (righteous and unrighteous) is done away with after the event of the Resurrection due to what is often called “The Harrowing of Hell” when the righteous are translated from Hades, to Earth (cf. Matthew 27:52-53), and ascend to heaven, the new intermediary state of the righteous (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:8).
The eternal state is referred to in Scripture as the Lake of Fire. This is the final, eternal punishment after the resurrection of the dead and final judgment (aka, the Second Death). It is distinct from Sheol/Hades or Hell in its ultimacy and eternality. We know it is distinct from ‘hell’ in that “Death and Hades (i.e., hell) were thrown into the lake of fire” (Revelation 20:14). Ortlund makes this connection later in the video, commenting, “The lake of fire itself isn’t said to end.”
That final referent is my point. Many texts are read as though there is an end to Sheol, Hades, or Hell, namely because there is. The Annihilationist will see hell ending in the destruction in the Lake of Fire. ECT adherents will see hell ending when it is emptied into the Lake of Fire, but it is the Lake of Fire that is the place of eternal conscious torment, not hell.
Evangelical Support for Annihilationism
“[Annihilationism]...can arise from a sincere effort to interpret biblical imagery—fire, destruction, death, and so on.”
I appreciated Ortlund’s perspective here. Often, the ECT crowd acts as if their view is the natural or perspicuous reading of Scripture, and others are interpreting symbolic language willy-nilly to come up with whatever view makes them feel better (at least that’s been my experience). But both views are interpreting biblical imagery. Or do the literalists really believe the damned will spend eternity in a burning trash heap outside of Jerusalem (Gehenna)?
Steelman: Arguments for Annihilationism
“...in 2 Thessalonians 1, Paul speaks of ‘eternal destruction’ for the enemies of God at Christ’s second coming. Or consider Matthew 25, the conclusion of the parable of the sheep and the goats, where Jesus speaks of two destinations—life and death—each described as eternal. Some people feel that this settles the debate.”
I just wanted to add Matthew 10:28 to the nick list of verses about annihilationism, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” There’s a problem with interpreting this verse. Destroy can have a figurative meaning, but whatever that meaning is, we have to understand the destruction (semantically, perishing or killing) of the soul and the destruction of the body as connoting the same thing. If there is not a real perishing of the soul, then there is no real perishing of the body, and Jesus’s words make absolutely no sense. But if there is a real perishing of the body, then he refers to a real perishing of the soul. At the very least, we must understand Jesus to be saying that God can perish the soul if he wants to (annihilationism). If the ECT adherent wants to say, ‘Yeah, he can, but he doesn’t!’ then why even bring it up? Jesus must be referring to a known reality: that God can perish the soul, and for the annihilationist, there’s an anticipation that he does.
Lexical and Hermeneutical Caution with “Eternal”
“...the Hebrew and Greek terms translated as eternal don’t always mean unending in a metaphysical or philosophical sense. They can mean enduring, ongoing, or pertaining to the age to come. The Greek word aiōnios often means something like ‘pertaining to the age to come.’ The Hebrew word ʿolam is frequently used to describe things that are clearly not literally eternal—such as certain Israelite cultic practices like the Passover, or references to ‘everlasting hills.’ So, the word doesn’t always imply metaphysical eternality.”
Ortlund is right to point us to the contextual understanding of words. Words are not meaningless apart from context, as some argue, but the semantic range of a word is always narrowed in its grammatical usage.
Still, I think concerning Matthew 25, the text in question, we can understand the text even if we take eternal in its most natural English terms. We know that ‘into eternal life’ (v. 46) means unending or forever. But this verse also says the reprobate go ‘into eternal punishment.’ The verse speaks of location. It does not say they are eternally punished, but speaks of the finality of their place. Indeed, we must read beyond this verse to believe that ‘into eternal life’ means that the living don’t eventually die again (whatever that would mean). This text really teaches little about the eternal experience of the righteous or the unrighteous, but only speaks of the finality of their location, whether in life or in punishment. A more paraphrastic reading that might get to the point more precisely would be “these will go away forever to the place of punishment, but the righteous go forever to the place of life.” Therefore, the place of punishment is the final destination, but it does not say if that punishment ends in destruction or endures consciously and eternally.
Consequences vs. Duration in Biblical Judgment Language
“...sometimes it’s not the person being punished who is described as eternal, but rather the consequence, effect, or nature of the punishment…For example, Jude 7 refers to Sodom and Gomorrah as undergoing “a punishment of eternal fire.” But the fire that fell on those cities wasn’t literally eternal—it ended. The term eternal here refers to the consequence of the fire, not the duration of the fire itself.
This pattern (with the other examples Ortlund provided in the video) reinforces the discussion from above on eternality. Most evangelicals have been taught ECT, and therefore, we can assume it onto the pages of Scripture when there may be a more natural way to see the text. I can see the pushback: “Aren’t those destroyed at Sodom and Gomorrah undergoing a punishment of eternal fire in hell?” The answer to that question is only ‘yes’ if you assume ECT. That’s why Ortlund calls for “caution and thoughtful self-awareness in how we interpret scripture.” We need to be aware of subconscious biases.
Ontological Argument: Separation from God = Death
“If God is the source of all being, and a damned soul is cast away from God into the outer darkness, what sustains that soul in existence? What causes it to endure? Doesn't separation from God imply deprivation of all goodness—and therefore, of all life and existence? Life and existence are good. Isn’t that what is implied by the term ‘death’?”
Ortlund suggests the ECT crowd might be smuggling Greek philosophy into their biblical metaphysics. There is insufficient space to write a thorough response here, but I wish I could. In short, biblical cosmology sees all things as contained in the essence of God.
For point of illustration: If you’ve read Dante, he ascends to the seventh level of Paradise, and there at the end is another gate. When he opens the gate, everything that exists beyond the gate is the pure essence of God, referred to as the “Empyrean Paradiso.” This is understood as “the fiery realm of Paradise,” and on the cosmology charts, you can see that all of Paradise, but especially the fire of God, surrounds the cosmos, even the Inferno (hell). We understand, even hell, as being under or within the confines of the glory of God, though he is not present in goodness or blessing; for the reprobate, the fire of God is a consuming fire. This is why, in the biblical theology, Jesus holds the keys to death and Hades. It’s under his dominion (cf. Philippians 2:9-10).
Immortality as a Gift
“Romans 2:7 says, ‘To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.’ That seems to imply that immortality, or ongoing existence, is not an inherent feature of creaturely life. It's something given by God. Your soul doesn’t just run on forever by default.”
This may be another place that Greek philosophy sneaks into our thinking. It’s a good observation, but it’s not quite the deal-breaker many annihilationists think it is–and this is one of my hesitancies towards annihilationism. We could say that death has reigned since Adam, and therefore, only those who are alive in Christ have eternal life. But Acts 24:15 reads, “...there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.” There is life in Christ for the reprobate, even if only provisionally.
Dominant Imagery in Scripture is Destruction, not Torment
“…the big one: the overwhelming majority of images for hell and damnation in scripture involve death and destruction. This includes both symbolic imagery and explicit statements.”
Not much needs to be said about this. I find it a very compelling reason to take an unbiased look at annihilationism.
Hell Can Be Dreadful without Being Eternal
“It doesn’t need to be eternal to be dreadful. And in most cases, the motive for annihilationism isn’t to soften hell.”
I agree with this. Annihilationists aren’t trying to soften hell, thus diminishing the call to evangelization. That’s a ridiculous caricature. On the other hand, I also don’t find it to be a very compelling argument for annihilationism. It’s more used as a response to critics.
Evaluation: Why Gavin Rejects Annihilationism
“More than just a question of existence or non-existence, we need to consider the nature of eternal life as the parallel opposite of eternal death.”
I’m certain that Ortlund is incorrect here. In Matthew 25, the word eternal needs to mean the same thing within the context. That’s true. But life and death are not opposites. Death is actually the absence of life. It’s entirely irrational to suggest (Ortlund does not say this pointedly, but many adherents of ECT will argue this way) that the state of life as eternal demands the state of death be eternal as its opposite. Again, life and death are not opposites.
ILLUSTRATION: Light and dark are not opposites. Darkness is the absence of light. I can go into a dark room and shine a flashlight into it, and it will illuminate. But I cannot go into a lit room and shine a darklight into it, and cause the room to darken. Darkness is not a power. Light is the power.
Similarly, God spoke life into a lifeless void, and life emerged. But–if I can wax philosophical a bit–death is not a power that emerges in judgment. Death is the absence of life, the byproduct of the power of life being removed from an individual (the battery running out). In this way, it is nonsensical to suggest that a person could eternally experience death. What could it possibly mean to live (power) out a sentence of death (no power) eternally? It’s as nonsensical as a darklight.
Death Language is Underdetermined
“...while there is a lot of death and destruction language in scripture, that language is underdetermined. We must look at the nature of that death and destruction. It might not mean non-existence or the cessation of conscious awareness.”
This is true, but it's difficult to understand death as anything like life. One of the weaknesses of ECT is that it fails to explain what it means to live out eternal death for exactly the reasons mentioned above. Indeed, ontology is meant to wrestle with the nature of being, so what it means to ‘be a dead being’ must coincide with what it means to be a living being. To Gavin’s point, though, I don’t think we’re responsible for understanding every metaphysical reality. So if the biblical theology really does teach a life of eternal death, it would not be the first doctrine we chalk up to the mystery of God.
Immortality and Resurrection are Biblical, not just Greek
“The second point is a response to the ontological argument about the soul's immortality and the claim that it’s an intrusion from Greek philosophy. I think that’s a valid concern for some aspects of church history. But eternal conscious torment (ECT) is not reducible to that influence. The biblical text is explicit about the resurrection of the body—both for the righteous and the unrighteous.”
This is exactly correct in my estimation, as mentioned previously.
“So then, how do we engage the relevant texts? I’d say many are underdetermined. They affirm the reality and terror of hell but don’t provide enough detail to definitively describe the experience.”
Perhaps the reasons for this phenomenon are that a) metaphysical realities are difficult to quantify from the perspective of temporal human experiences and b) the focus of Scripture is not on the damned, but on God’s gracious gift of eternal life, an experience that recieves far greater attention in the Scriptures. (I realize this is not a sufficient response to the question, but it is anecdotally true.)
Key Texts Favor ECT more Naturally
“In Revelation 14, the fate of those who worship the beast is described as torment. They have no rest, day or night. The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. Then in Revelation 20, the beast, the false prophet, and the devil are thrown into the lake of fire and tormented day and night forever and ever. And here’s the key: we don’t merely have the language of ‘forever’ attached to words like ‘death,’ ‘contempt,’ or ‘punishment.’ We have it attached to ‘torment’ and the phrase ‘no rest day or night.’”
This text presents a valid concern. Ortlund is absolutely correct, and this is a weighty argument, for at least Eternal Torment. But, when placed next to another clearly annihilationist text such as Matthew 10:28, I agree with the Analogy of Faith that the simpler interprets difficult passages. Revelation is filled with imagery. Right here in the immediate context, we have the Beast, Mount Zion, the 144,000, and many other clear images presented in the form of a vision. I think it's reasonable to suggest we read the ‘forever and ever’ language as giving weight to the ultimate argument, which is pastoral: John notes this is a “call for the endurance of the saints” (Revelation 14:12).
This passage is also a known allusion to the Apocalypse of Enoch: “And in those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: and to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined forever” (1 Enoch 10:13-14). It’s entirely likely the ‘forever’ language is employed, not to teach metaphysical realities, but to draw on a larger apocalyptic tradition in the Second Temple period.
Symbolic Genre Doesn’t Override Plain Meaning
“John Stackhouse writes, ‘The language of apocalyptic is typically extravagant, poetical, and elusive. We ought not to press the language of everlasting torment into a metaphysical construction of an actual state of affairs in which these strange beings suffer forever.’ And I agree we need caution. Revelation is a unique and difficult book filled with symbolism…But why would John use this kind of language — ‘they will be tormented day and night forever and ever’ — if he didn’t mean to convey that Satan would actually experience endless torment? It would seem like a very odd way to say something else entirely.”
Ortlund is correct. We cannot use symbolism or figurative language to dismiss theological realities. But we also cannot do as the literalists do, insisting that the Bible must always be understood literally or else we compromise the nature of Scripture and biblical inferrancy and infallibility. I literally believe the Bible; I just don’t believe that parts of it were meant to be read literally. And yet, as I understand the craft of ancient mythology, I doubt that any text meant figuratively is entirely disconnected from real experience.
One way to understand this issue in Revelation 14 is to appeal to the apocalyptic tradition as mentioned above. But, even so, it's a worthwhile venture to ask what the Second Temple apocalyptic tradition believed about the eternality of judgment’s fire. That is, did the author and readers of 1 Enoch and other texts believe that the angels would burn ‘forever and ever’? Or is that euphemistic? If so, then it might be right for ECT to be brought into the biblical theology of Revelation. If, however, it was not understood this way, then perhaps John is merely using the language to create a point of reference in the apocalyptic tradition. My intuition is that there would be no end to the study of this issue and no conclusive results. So Revelation 14 remains, to me, elusive regarding eternality.
Pastoral Conclusions
I agree with all of Ortlund’s concerns from this point on. I find it refreshing to listen to scholars who are also pastors, considering the pastoral implications of the truths as they wrestle with them. I highly recommend watching the video or reading this part of the transcript.
