Is the suffering of the lost in hell everlasting, or is it limited in time, with the destruction of lost souls as an end?

This text is from a question-and-answer session with David Gooding.

The doctrine of eternal punishment I find to be an appalling doctrine. I wish it weren't true. And mentally I cannot conceive of it, because I cannot conceive of eternity anyway. And the thought of eternal punishing, I find appalling. But to answer your question briefly and immediately, I believe holy Scripture teaches it. And secondly, any alternative that people have suggested seems to me to be more appalling than the doctrine of Scripture itself.

First of all, I come to our Lord. It is sometimes said that our Lord taught the love and kindness of God, and it was people like Paul who brought in these severe ideas. That is not true. The most solemn things about eternal punishment were spoken by our Lord himself. So let me appeal at once to one of his statements in Matthew 25:46, often quoted in this context: 'And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.' It has often been said, and surely justly, that we must give the adjective 'eternal' the same meaning on both sides. The righteous go into eternal life; and if it means eternal in the normal sense of the term, then, to be fair, the adjective 'eternal' on the other side must mean the same thing. Some people have argued from the meaning of the Greek word aiōnios that it means lasting a long while. But it doesn't mean that when it comes to eternal life, does it? And, with the solemn contrast, the adjective must mean the same on both sides.

There is, however, another question. Should the Greek word be translated 'punishment' or 'punishing'? Some people will agree that there is to be eternal punishment, but they will not agree that it is eternal punishing. And the difference is that eternal punishment could be annihilation because its effects are eternal; but that would be different from eternal conscious suffering. Eternal conscious suffering would be implied by the active noun 'punishing'.

How then should the Greek term here be translated? You cannot, of course, argue absolutely from the construction of Greek words, but the word here is kolasis. In my understanding, the natural meaning of that word would be 'punishing'. It is an active noun. Like praxis, kolasis describes an activity rather than a state.

But not to rest such things on the etymology and so forth of Greek words, let us look at Revelation 14:9–11:

And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, 'If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshippers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.'

It seems to me that these very solemn verses—God's final appeal to the godless world at the end of this age—carry all sorts of important observations for us. Sometimes in this debate, people would quote the words of Isaiah 66:24, 'For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched', to support the idea of eternal punishing. Others reply, 'But the verses say the opposite. It means that the fires that consume them will never go out. If you put a piece of wood in the fire, and the fire never goes out, there is no chance of the piece of wood surviving.' So they say that it means complete destruction.

Or take the verses from Jude about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: they 'serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire' (Jude 7). Granted that Sodom's destruction was temporal, it is an example of the eternal fire. At least, that is how I read the order of the Greek words. But people will say: 'Yes, but again the smoke of the torment going up from the plains of Sodom meant that everybody in the city had perished, and the smoke goes up as a beacon warning. And if that is an example of eternal fire, the eternal fire will completely destroy the impenitent. But it shall remain, so to speak, a beacon to the eternal world. That doesn't necessarily mean conscious suffering, but simply that the fire that destroyed and annihilated them leads to an irrevocable result.'

But you cannot say the same of the verses in Revelation 14. It expressly talks of endless, conscious, restless suffering: 'And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever.' Does that mean they have been annihilated? No, it means that those who worship the beast 'have no rest, day or night'. And then some of the most solemn words of all: '[they] shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb' (Revelation 14:10). In all this solemn document I say to myself, if the Lamb of Calvary who wept over Jerusalem sanctions this punishment, and it is in his presence—that is, he is eternally aware of it—I may trust him.

It is sometimes said, how could God be regarded as a God of love, if he is prepared to be eternally aware of people consciously suffering torment? But that seems to be a less than compelling argument to me. Put it this way round: are the impenitent and evil sinners, who die and pass out of this world, to be immediately annihilated? Well, if they are, exit all justice. In that sense, the wicked have won. No! Even people who believe in annihilation believe that the wicked dead shall be raised to suffer their punishment. And our Lord, in his story of the rich man and Lazarus, depicted the sufferings of one such. How long will it take for the wicked to suffer their punishment, that justice might be done? Can anybody tell us the length of time wherein God's supposed injustice lies? If God can put up with seeing it for five years, a hundred years, a thousand years, where does the point come when God's love could no longer put up with it?

Perhaps that is a somewhat irrelevant question for us to ask, because the Bible talks about eternity in terms of time: day and night, for ever and ever. People say, 'But should we not be wise, especially in a post-Einstein world, to remember that time, even within our own universe, is relative?' And then some of them add that in eternity there is no time, so we must be careful about talking of duration. For my own part, I hesitate to use that argument. I am not personally persuaded that there is no time in eternity. If eternity means that there is no change, tell me: was the Second Person of the Trinity always human? Or, even in eternity, was there ever a point when he wasn't yet human, when eternity was looking forward to his incarnation, crucifixion, death and resurrection? And now that he has gone to glory, he remains human. But he wasn't eternally human, was he? What becomes of the idea 'the Word became flesh' (John 1:14)?

Therefore, to say categorically that there is no before and after, no sense of time in eternity, I wonder have we any biblical authority for saying it, other than the speculation of philosophers? And indeed, on that point, some philosophers argue that there is a different kind of time—but there is time—in eternity. With that proviso, it is true to say that we cannot yet comprehend what 'eternal' means. But if it were all right for God to allow punishing that lasted five years and not if it lasted any longer, is that a sound kind of argument? What is the penalty of sin?

And then there is another consideration that Leon Morris has urged upon us at John 3:19: 'And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.' Leon Morris argues—and I am inclined to accept what he says—that the meaning of that verse is this: in that sense, the judgment is what men have chosen. The light came—they rejected that light and loved darkness rather than light, turned in upon themselves, and kept out the light that they disliked. That is their judgment. They will forever consign themselves to darkness.

In the judgments of God there is, what you might call, penalty. But surely there is also consequence? The man who dies eaten up with pride that is unrepented of in this life and uncovered by the sacrifice of Christ—when he is raised up to face the final judgment, has the pride disappeared? Or is he what he always was? C. S. Lewis talks much about that in his writings: one of the fearful results of sin is the consequence that it brings.

That brings us to another point. It is possible to argue, I suppose, that the impenitent dead are raised to suffer the punishment due to their individual sins, and that they must exhaust that punishment. But when they have exhausted the punishment for their individual sins, then there is another thing. If they could exhaust the penalty for their individual sins, would they be in the clear? They have paid the penalty. If you have incurred a penalty in a human court and you serve your sentence that is you finished. You are acquitted.

Then there arises another consideration: rejection of the Saviour. But why would you need a saviour? If you have already exhausted the penalty for your individual sins, you are in the clear! Why would you need a saviour? But people say that the penalty for rejecting the Saviour is annihilation. That seems to me to be a very rickety argument. If the man has already suffered enough to clear him of his sins, he doesn't need a saviour.

And then it raises yet another problem. That is, the notion of whether a man's choice is genuine and free. Is God ultimately saying that you must choose him, or he shall annihilate you? Does a man have no real option to say no to God? If that is true, he is a very different God from what I thought he was. I believe that Scripture teaches us that the God who gave us our powers to decide, and our will, respects it and will respect it eternally. If God gives us choice and then annihilates us for using it, he is something less than I thought he was. And I repeat the point: if a man has to suffer for his individual sins, does anybody know how long the punishment for murder lasts? I understand that if I have done only one sin, the forgiveness of it would require the infinite sufferings of Christ!

Now let me recur to the verb that is often quoted in this context: the Greek verb apollumi. Used actively it can refer to destroying or losing things. In its middle and passive voices, it can be used of being lost. Therefore, the term 'perish' in Scripture is a frequent one, used of the impenitent; 'God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish' (John 3:16).

What does it mean when it says 'perish'? There are many examples in the New Testament of the word, used in a sense that is less than perishing. The prodigal son was lost; not that he ceased to exist, 'he was lost, and is found.' To bank on the idea therefore, that our Lord said that God is able to destroy both body and soul in hell, seems to me to be risking a lot on the meaning of one word; for the verb 'to destroy' can be used in other senses than to wipe out of existence completely. And in the Old Testament it is likewise true. 'Do you not yet understand that Egypt is ruined?', said Pharaoh's servants (Exodus 10:7). It had not ceased to exist.

And so, for those reasons among others, I do believe in the doctrine of eternal punishing, and I believe that Scripture supports it.

One final comment. It is sometimes said that it is not really apposite to quote from the Book of the Revelation, which is so full of symbols. As a general principle of interpretation, we have to be very careful of that argument. Of course, it is full of symbols and metaphors, and concretized metaphors. But when John says that the Lord sent by his angel and signified these things to John, the word is sēmainō. It is a word that is used in the Gospels when our Lord said, 'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me. This he said, signifying what death he should die' (John 12:32–33). So, 'lifting up' was signifying (Greek = sēmainō) how he should die. How did he die? How would you interpret the phrase 'lifted up'? That he was glorified or something? No, you say, it means it literally! He was lifted up on a cross.

So when we read of these who receive the mark of the beast being tormented ceaselessly, I think we should very unwise to say that we cannot trust it because it might be figurative language. Some have argued that, when it reads that the beast and the false prophet were cast into the lake of fire, it is so obviously symbolic language and you can't take it literally. According to them, the beast and the false prophet are institutions, and you cannot eternally punish or torment institutions. So they say that it is irrelevant to quote it, as it is apocalyptic and symbolic language. But that is not true of the verses in chapter 14. It is not talking there of institutions, but of individuals, and warning them not to accept the mark of the beast. It is each individual who takes the mark of the beast who will be dealt with as these verses declare. To say that this is only one place, as some do, and therefore we cannot really take it safely into account, that seems to me to be penurious. This too is the inspired word of God, and in straightforward language it says that these shall be tormented day and night, and that for ever and ever.

I wish it weren't so. How does one preach it without a bursting heart? But then it moved the Son of God himself likewise to tears. And for our sakes he suffered Calvary. Why, if all he had to suffer it for was a punishment that could be got over in even a thousand years?