Dozier/Johnson Debate on Eternal Punishment

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The scriptures teach that the eternal punishment of lost man is a 
final, irrevocable punishment in a lake that burns with fire and 
brimstone.

Affirm:  James Johnson
Deny: Robert Dozier
Eternal Punishment Second Affirmative 

I first want to apologize to Sam Dawson for misrepresenting his 
position.  I claimed that he takes a figurative view of hell, but 
that is true only so far as the Lake of Fire is concerned.  Sam 
does not believe that the Lake of Fire and Gehenna are the same.  
He believes that Gehenna is the literal Valley of Hinnom, but the 
Lake of Fire is figurative of God's judgment against the 
nations.  The web link that I gave does not demonstrate his views 
of Gehenna hell as figurative, but the link rather demonstrates 
his view that Gehenna is the literal Valley of Hinnom.  I express 
my sincere apology to Sam for my carelessness.  A better link for 
reading regarding his views of prophecy as figures of speech is
http://dawson.fountaingateway.com/documents/matt2425.htm
The original link does show his regard for the Lake of Fire as 
symbolic of judgment against the nations. 

I want to deal in the beginning of my second affirmative with the 
issue of whether Gehenna is the Lake of Fire.  In the section 
that follows we demonstrate that the Bible teaches that they 
are.  Gehenna, the Lake of Fire, and eternal torment are all the 
same thing in the Bible.  We first notice that the Lake of Fire 
is the same as the place of eternal torment of Mt 25:41.  We 
learn that the place of eternal torment and the Lake of Fire are 
the same because both the Lake of Fire and eternal torment are 
the final abode of the Devil.  Here are the scriptures:  

The everlasting fire is prepared for the Devil:
"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for 
the devil and his angels" (Mt 25:41)

The Devil is to be thrown into the Lake of fire and brimstone:

"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire 
and brimstone" (Rev 20:10) 

The Lake of Fire is the same as the torment of fire and brimstone 
in Rev 14:10 because both of these are the eternal abode of the 
damned.  Here are the scriptures: 

The damned are tormented with fire and brimstone: 
He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of 
the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb 11 And the smoke 
of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no 
rest day nor night (Rev 14:10-11) 

Fire and brimstone are in the Lake of Fire:
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire 
and brimstone (Rev 20:10)

The damned are cast into the Lake of Fire:
15  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was 
cast into the lake of fire. 

The Lake of Fire is the same as Gehenna hell because the damned 
are cast into Gehenna (Mt 5:29-30, Lk 12:5), but the damned are 
cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev 20:15).  Here are the scriptures: 

The damned are cast into Gehenna:

And if thy right eye offends thee, pluck it out, and cast it from 
thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members 
should perish and not that thy whole body should be cast into 
[Gehenna] (Mt 5:29).

But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after 
he hath killed hath power to cast into [Gehenna]; yea, I say unto 
you, Fear him (Luke 12:5).

The damned are cast into the Lake of Fire

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast 
into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15). 

If Gehenna is the same as the Lake of Fire, it is then clear that 
in the gospels when Jesus referred to Gehenna, He was speaking of 
the Lake of Fire. He referred to the literal Lake of Fire by the 
name of Gehenna because: 

1.  The prophets place the future location of the Lake of Fire, 
like Gehenna, nearby Jerusalem and to its south (Rev 14:10, Isa 
34:5,9-10, Isa 66:23-24). 
2.  Gehenna, like the Lake of Fire, is a deep valley in the earth (Mt 10:28, Rev 19:20)
3.  Gehenna was a place where the city's garbage was burned
4.  It was a nasty place that nobody would want to go to 
5.  It was a place where humans were burned in the fire
6.  It was a place where demons were once worshipped and hence fittingly should be punished there
7.  The actual Valley of Hinnom may be the northern boundary of the Lake of Fire on the new earth.  Enoch says

And when all this took place, from that fiery molten metal and 
from the convulsion thereof in that place, there was produced a 
smell of sulphur, and it was connected with those waters, and 
that valley of the angels who had led astray (mankind) burned 7 
beneath that land [in the valleys of the earth En 10:12]. And 
through its valleys proceed [underground] streams of fire, where 
these angels are punished who had led astray those who dwell upon 
the earth. 8 But those waters shall in those days serve for the 
kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who dwell on the 
earth [Herod had a palace near the hot springs at Ezion Geber 
(Eilot) on the Red Sea.  The area along the Dead Sea also even 
now has hot springs resorts in the Great Rift Valley.
See  http://www.goisrael.com/discoverisrael/spaswellbeing/index.asp
for the healing of the body, but for the punishment of the 
spirit; now their spirit is full of lust, that they may be 
punished in their body, for they have denied the Lord of Spirits 
9 and see their punishment daily [i.e. the heat from the fire 
that drives the hot springs], and yet believe not in His name. 
And in proportion as the burning of their bodies becomes severe, 
a corresponding change shall take place in their spirit for ever 
and ever; 10 for before the Lord of Spirits none shall utter an 
idle word.  For the judgment shall come upon them, 11 because 
they believe in the lust of their body and deny the Spirit of the 
Lord.  And those same waters will undergo a change in those days; 
for when those angels are punished in these waters, these water-
springs shall change their temperature, and when the angels 
ascend [from their prison in the valleys at the end of the world-
Rev 9:14-15], this water of the 12 springs shall change and 
become cold.  And I heard Michael answering and saying:  This 
judgment wherewith the angels are judged is a testimony for the 
kings and the mighty who possess the 13 earth. Because these 
waters of judgment minister to the healing of the body of the 
kings and the lust of their body; therefore they will not see and 
will not believe that those waters will change and become a fire 
which burns for ever. (En 67:6-13) 

When you take the above considerations regarding Gehenna and the 
Lake of Fire and eternal punishment, it is easy to see how they 
are the same and a literal place south of Jerusalem where "they 
shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have 
transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither 
shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto 
all flesh" (Isa 66:24).  On the other hand, from the 
annihilationist's point of view, it makes no sense to understand 
Jesus to be referring to the literal Valley of Hinnom.  Were the 
people of Jesus day literally to worry about being cast into the 
city's garbage fire?  Would they even care if they were already 
dead?  Is it actually worse to be cast into the city garbage fire 
after you are dead than to cut off your hand or put out your 
eye?  Unless Jesus is talking about eternal punishment at the end 
of the world, the literal Valley of Hinnom notion makes no sense 
whatever, and from the viewpoint of annihilationist one cannot 
understand how people are going to be punished in the literal 
Valley of Hinnom at the end of the world, because they don't 
believe in a literal new earth.  Why they insist for a literal 
Valley of Hinnom and then turn around and require that the 
eternal nature of the fire there is figurative is baffling to 
this author.  Do they expect God to light a figurative eternal 
fire in the literal Valley of Hinnom at the end of the world into 
which He places all of the wicked to be annihilated?  If the 
eternal fire is a figure of speech, why is not the Valley of 
Hinnom a figure of speech?  Why is there such insistence that it 
is literal place?  They are not consistent.  Jesus warned that it 
was worse to fall into the hands of God who could kill you and 
then raise you from the dead and then throw you into Gehenna (Lk 
12:5).  Can we honestly believe that men of Jesus day were 
literally in danger of God killing them, raising them from the 
dead and then casting them into the figurative "eternal fire" 
that would actually go out but it was in the literal Valley of 
Hinnom?  Does the annihilationist really believe that it will be 
God's judgment that the wicked will be burned to ashes in the 
literal Valley of Hinnom?  Surely they do not believe that, but 
that is what the Bible says if we apply their definitions to the 
use of "eternal fire" and "Gehenna" in the NT.  If we understand 
Jesus' use of Gehenna to be a reference to the literal Lake of 
Fire that will be revealed south of Jerusalem starting at the 
Valley of Hinnom and extending down into Edom (Isa 34:5, 9) and 
that it is a place where their worm dieth not and the fire is not 
quenched and burns there forever, the text is perfectly 
understandable in a literal sense.   

Jesus said that it was better to cut off your hand or foot or put 
out your eye and to enter into life maimed rather than to be 
whole and be cast into the everlasting fire, that is, Gehenna.  
Is not Jesus' idea that we remove that member that is causing us 
to sin such as the kleptomaniac's hand, the feet swift to shed 
blood, and the vessels used to sexual dishonor (I Thes 4:4)?  Why 
would one remove the offending member?  Because the sin that 
comes by the offending member places the whole body in jeopardy 
of eternal torment.  Jesus is not worried that men are going to 
have a dishonorable burial.  He is worried that they are going to 
burn for ever in hell.  To avoid hell, it is worth even cutting 
off offending members so we cannot sin. We might go to our grave 
maimed, but having overcome sin (Rev 2:10) we then enter into 
life.  In the resurrection, our bodies will be restored (Acts 
3:21).  Is it worth cutting off your hand or being castrated so 
that your body would not be burned after you are dead?  Obviously 
not.  Jesus said that what He was talking about was worth maiming 
yourself to avoid.   

Jesus said that being killed was less than what He was talking 
about.  He said that God was able to do worse than just kill 
you.  Jesus said that God was able to do something subsequent to 
death.  After we are dead, God is able to cast both body and soul 
into Gehenna.  Does the soul go to the literal Valley of Hinnom?  
Nobody believes that the soul was burned in the fires of Gehenna 
along with the criminals body, but the text says that the soul 
goes to Gehenna (Mt 10:28), and that is the literal Valley of 
Hinnom in the view of many of the annihilationists.  If the 
annihilationists are going to take Gehenna as the literal place 
instead of a type of hell, then the passage must make sense when 
taken literally.  It does not, because the annihilationist does 
not believe in a literal new earth or a literal Lake of Fire.  It 
is difficult to understand exactly what they believe regarding 
fire and the punishment of the wicked.  The wicked are 
annihilated, but it is not a literal Lake of Fire.  The wicked 
are thrown into the literal Valley of Hinnom and annihilated, but 
it is not the Lake of Fire.  The whole thing makes no sense. 

The annihilationists like Maxey (http://www.zianet.com/maxey/amtt2.htm
and Fudge(http://ivpress.gospelcom.net/title/exc/2255-1.pdf
do not even believe that man has an intermediate state.  They 
believe that when a man dies, he entirely ceases to exist.  
However, the Bible says that God will cast both body and soul (Mt 
10:28, Lk 12:5) of some men into Gehenna subsequent to their 
death.  If the soul of man ceases to exist at his death, how can 
the soul be cast into the Valley of Hinnom?  If God is talking 
about the literal Valley of Hinnom, why does the soul go there 
instead of Hades?  Is the Valley of Hinnom haunted?  The NT 
consistently uses Gehenna as a type of the Lake of Fire.  Jesus 
never meant that men should fear being cast into the literal 
Valley of Hinnom. 

The annihilationists do not believe there is anything worse than 
death. Fudge, Maxey, the Seventh Day Adventists and others do not 
believe in the intermediate state of the dead, because if the 
soul can survive Hades, it can survive Gehenna.  If the fires of 
Gehenna can consume the soul, then it obviously cannot endure the 
fires of Hades either.  These annihilationists therefore do not 
believe that the soul continues past death.  In their view man is 
entirely annihilated at the moment of death.  One consequence of 
that view is that there is nothing for God to raise at the 
Resurrection.  God creates a clone from His memory of the 
person.  The clone is then judged for something it didn't do, 
found guilty, sentenced to Gehenna, and annihilated for crimes it 
never committed.  This is totally senseless, because there is 
actually nothing left to judge.  Men are annihilated at death and 
cloned from God's memory of them at the resurrection only to be 
immediately slain for sins they didn't commit. 

One of the most grotesque consequences of the annihilationists' 
view of Hades, is the requirement that Christ was annihilated 
when He died.  This fact alone should send men screaming in the 
other direction.  If man's soul cannot endure past death, then 
Jesus' soul did not either.  If Jesus' soul endured past death, 
ours does too.  If Jesus' soul went to Hades (Acts 2:21), 
obviously there is a place called Hades.  Why is there a place 
called Hades if nobody's soul but Jesus' went there?  It is 
obviously a useless place.  However, the Bible says that Christ 
preached to the spirits in prison, that is, Hades (I Pet 3:18), 
so obviously death does not annihilate men.   

If man is annihilated at death, why has man not then paid the 
price for sin? Of what further use is it to torment someone who 
does not exist?  Why does man even need a Savior if nothing 
survives death?  The whole concept of salvation, resurrection, 
eternal life, etc. becomes meaningless if Christ and man cease to 
exist at death.  If nothing real is accomplished by the present 
creation, God could just as well have created man the way He 
wanted him in the first place and skip the charade of death and 
resurrection.   

Though the above is typical of the majority of annihilationists, 
Robert apparently does not agree with the above scenario.  He 
believes that men go to Hades at death to await the 
Resurrection.  When they rise from the dead, God sentences them 
to terms of various lengths in Gehenna.  The worse get longer 
terms and the better get shorter terms in accordance with Lk 
12:47-48.  Eventually, though, both body and soul succumb to the 
flames and are entirely annihilated.  He says the reason that 
they are annihilated is that they are cut off from God who 
sustains existence and being cut off from God causes 
annihilation.  His solution has a flaw, however.  If God's 
presence is required to sustain life, and God's presence is cut 
off when men are cast into Gehenna, they should immediately cease 
to exist.  The fact that Robert admits that they do not 
immediately cease to exist is evidence that God can sustain the 
damned apart from His presence.  If they can exist for a year or 
ten years or a thousand years apart from God's presence, then why 
not eternity?  Obviously if they can exist for a time apart from 
God's presence, there is nothing inherent in the fact that men 
are apart from God that causes them to be annihilated.   

If God casts into the flames, the punishment is eternal.  The 
meaning of "eternal" is either in reference to the type of 
punishment or the length of it.  If eternal has reference to the 
type of punishment and means the damned are cast into the Lake of 
Fire, then if it is the effects that are eternal, that should be 
the last word.  In Robert's view, it is not.  Men are cast into 
the Lake of Fire for a time, but eventually they burn up.  The 
effect of their punishment is not eternal, because the effect 
eventually changes from burning in the fire to non-existence.  On 
the other hand, if "eternal" is in reference to the duration of 
the punishment, the fact that the damned eventually burn up is 
not of eternal duration either.  Neither definition of "eternal" 
will fit Robert's proposed temporal solution to hell. 

When men face a puzzling passage, one of the easiest solutions is 
to follow the lead of Augustine (AD 354-430) and declare the 
spiritual to be much preferred over the literal.  By declaring a 
passage "spiritual" or "figurative" the force of it can be 
negated or even made to mean the opposite of what it says.  By 
labeling a passage "figurative" the expositor can attach any 
meaning to it that imagination can devise (D. R. Dungan, 
Hermeneutics, p183).  A "figurative" passage without a Bible key 
has ceased to be of any practical value.  Hence Robert can 
eliminate the entire book of Revelation by declaring it to be 
figurative, and thus of uncertain or unknown meaning.  Robert 
claims that because Christ "signified it by his angel" (Jn 1:1) 
that therefore the whole book of Revelation is symbolic, and he 
thereby renders the whole book unusable.  He needs to do that 
because Rev 14:10-11 and Rev 20:10 both clearly teach that hell 
and its torment are unending.   

In dealing with language, whether it is the Bible or any other 
writing, the presumption is that the text is to be understood 
literally unless the context demands that it be taken 
figuratively.  Any other rule leads to chaos.  Consider the 
following table: 

How should we read Rev?        Consequences
The entire book is symbolic         The book is basically
                                    unusable and God 
                                    made a mistake 
                                    giving it to us

None of the book is symbolic       Several passages are 
                                   specifically identified
                                   as symbols and their meaning
                                   is provided (Rev 1:20, 4:5,
                                   17:9-10)

We can arbitrarily take any part   The expositor sets him-
of the book as symbolic            self up as God 

The context determines if it's    It is the sensible rule
symbolic                          whereby any document is
                                  interpreted 

Robert says that because Rev 1:1 contains the word "signified" 
that we must understand the whole book of Revelation to be 
figurative.  He says that we should not slavishly attend to any 
rule, but he wants to slavishly attend to his rule that all of 
Revelation is figurative merely because the KJV uses "signified" 
in Rev 1:1.  Some rule will be used to interpret Revelation. 
Should not the rule used be sensible and consistent?  The rule 
that we use to interpret scripture will fundamentally affect what 
we get out of it. Since God expected man to be able to understand 
it, there obviously is some rule of interpretation that God 
expects to be use.  Since Robert's rule apparently is something 
to the effect that we may, at the expositor's whim, declare an 
entire book to be figurative without any regard for the context, 
then we could just as easily declare Rev 1:1 to be figurative 
since it is in Revelation.  Then we can say, "Well, when Jesus 
signified by His angel, He meant that the angel made gestures to 
John that John should accompany him. It had nothing to do with 
the content of the book."  If not, why not?  Using the same rule 
that Robert uses of willy-nilly declaring texts to be figurative 
and having no Bible key to explain the supposed figure, we render 
HIS argument irrelevant and show his rule to be the inconsistent 
and arbitrary silliness that it is.  Only by following the rules 
of good Bible hermeneutics can we hope to make any sense out of 
any Bible text.  The word "signified" does not require that every 
text in Revelation is symbolic. Even in Revelation the context 
must determine if the text is literal or figurative. 

Most of the recent translations, however, do not use the word 
"signified" at all.  They use "made it known" (NIV), 
"communicated it" (NASU), "made it clear" (BBE), or some similar 
terminology.  These terms do not at all imply that the entire 
book of Revelation is symbolic.  Even if Revelation contains 
symbols (and it does), then the local context of the passage 
would be what would determine if a specific text was symbolic or 
not.  If a determination was made that a specific text is 
symbolic, then a Bible key must be supplied to unlock the 
meaning.  We cannot just make up any meaning that we choose. 
Neither can we dismiss an entire book based upon the fact that it 
contains some symbols. 

In considering eternal hell and symbology, there is a sensible 
way to approach determining whether a passage is literal or 
figurative.  We need to first ask ourselves if the passages under 
consideration can possibly make sense if taken literally.  After 
all, the presumption is that a passage speaks plain truth unless 
the context demands that we take it otherwise.  Is it possible 
that God could actually be planning to cast the Devil, his 
angels, and incorrigible humans into a Lake of Fire for all 
eternity?  Based upon what we considered of God's justice in the 
first installment of this series, we concluded that it is 
entirely fair to take men who refuse to repent even after 
suffering the fires of Hades, or who refused to repent during 
their lifetime when they were knowingly opposing God, and to send 
these incorrigible men to eternal torment, because they will not 
yield to God.  If we understand the trichotomous outcome of the 
Judgment (the elect, the nations, the damned), God's fairness is 
no longer a question.  Since these men refuse to obey God, to 
permit them entrance into New Jerusalem or the new earth would be 
to permit hardened men who are impervious to goodness to pollute 
God's new creation (Isa 65:17, 66:22).  These hardened criminals 
would ruin it.  What choice then does God have but to cast off 
these ruined sinners into torment?   

We then wonder at the fairness of burning even incorrigibly evil 
men for ever.  The parable of the man who owed the king 10,000 
talents (Mt 18:24) gives us some help here.  The penalty for that 
man was that he was to be cast into prison until he should pay 
the debt that they owed.  As we have seen, man has absolutely 
nothing with which to pay a debt to God.  Even every man's 
physical life is forfeit to Adam's sin.  We can't even die for 
our sin, because our life is not ours to give.  If these men will 
not accept God's payment for their sin by yielding to Christ, 
then they can try to pay the debt themselves.  They did, after 
all, of their own free will, incur enormous debt to God by their 
transgression and added to it by spurning the offer of His Son.  
Since they are unfit to be with decent people, they must be 
separated from them.  Since they are transgressors, they must be 
punished for their iniquities.   

What is a fit punishment for their sins?  To answer the question 
of a fit punishment, we need to obtain some idea of the enormity 
of the debt of sin. We may do that by considering the debtor in 
Mt 18:24.  His debt of 10,000 talents equates to many millions, 
even hundreds of millions, of dollars. The parable teaches us 
that sin incurs a great debt to God.  In the parable the king 
delivers the debtor to the tormenters to force him to pay his 
great debt.  The torment is not payment of the debt.  It is 
motivation to the sinner to pay his debt.  The sinners cast into 
hell have no means of expiating their sin, but the punishment 
encourages them to pay it.  Since they can never pay for their 
sin, they can never come forth from there, and the punishment 
never ceases.  Since they owe God, to annihilate them would leave 
them owing a debt to God and would work an injustice to God.  The 
injustice of an unpaid debt to God is a serious factor that is 
almost always overlooked in considering the justice of eternal 
hell.  Because they owe Him and can't pay, God therefore is just 
in maintaining them as a spectacle to the world of what happens 
to God's enemies (Isa 66:22-24).  These incorrigible men will not 
willingly serve Him, but they will serve Him, willingly or not.  
As Paul says, "In a great house there are not only vessels of 
gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to 
honour, and some to dishonour" (II Tim 2:20).  These dishonorable 
vessels in hell will serve God as an eternal warning to those on 
the new earth and all those in the ages to come. 

In view of the foregoing, it is entirely reasonable and fair for 
God to punish men for ever who cannot pay and who rejected His 
offer to pay their debt.  There is, then, no reason based upon 
the justice of God to reject the literal statements regarding 
eternal torment.  Is there any other grounds upon which "eternal" 
should be taken in a figurative sense?  God is certainly capable 
of maintaining men eternally in eternal life (Mt 25:46). There is 
then no logical reason that He could not maintain them literally 
and eternally in torment.  Is there any other reason that 
"eternal" should be taken figuratively in the passages on hell?  
The words "eternal" or "everlasting" are often used to describe 
the unending nature of God (Dt 33:27, Gen 21:33, Isa 40:28, Rom 
16:26).  As we have noticed above, by Robert's admission the fact 
that men are cast into Gehenna does not automatically result in 
their annihilation.  They persist for a time in torment before 
succumbing to the flame.  There is therefore nothing inherent in 
the fact that men are cast into hell that makes us suspect 
"eternal" is used in the sense of the effect of God's Judgment.  
We have also noticed that it is entirely just for God to punish 
wicked men eternally.  There is therefore no reason to take 
"eternal" in any but its ordinary and obvious sense of unending 
duration.   

We have considered whether the texts in Revelation should be 
rejected based upon the fact that they reside in a book that 
contains some symbols.  We have found that an outright 
declaration of all of Revelation to be figurative is unreasonable 
and does not harmonize with the rules of hermeneutics.  The 
reason for wanting to eliminate Revelation becomes obvious when 
one considers two texts in Revelation that very strongly show 
that hell is a state of everlasting suffering for the damned.  In 
an effort to avoid the very clear teaching of Rev 14:10-11 and 
Rev 20:10, those of the hell-is-not-for-ever persuasion declare 
that Gehenna is not the same as the Lake of Fire.  In response to 
the view that they are not the same, we present the following 
table to show that Gehenna is simply another name for the Lake of 
Fire.  The table gathers the various characteristics of Gehenna 
and a Lake of Fire and presents them in a side by side comparison 
such that the reader can see that both of them have the same 
characteristics.  If Gehenna and the Lake of Fire are equal to 
the same thing, they are equal to each other. 



     
 Characteristics of Gehenna Hell
 Reference
 Characteristics of Lake of Fire (Hell)
Reference

 Evil speech causes danger of Gehenna fire
 Mt 5:22

Sinner’s whole body can be cast into Gehenna
 Mt 5:29, 30
 The sinful Man of Sin and the False Prophet are cast alive into the LOF
 Rev 19:20

 God can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna
 Mt 10:28
 the living beast and false prophet are thrown there
 Rev 19:20

 Mt 18:9
 whoever’s name was not written in the book of life is cast there
 Rev 20:15

 Proselytes of Pharisees were 2-fold more child of Gehenna
 Mt 23:15

 How will hypocrites escape the damnation of Gehenna
 Mt 23:33
 Those damned at the Judgment go there
 Mt 25:41

It is better to live maimed than to go to G whole
 Mk 9:43
 torments in the presence of holy angels and Lamb forever & ever
 Rev 14:10

 Its fires will never be quenched
 Mk 9:43
 smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever
 Rev 14:11



 everlasting fire is prepared for the Devil and his angels
 Mt 25:41



 the Devil and his angels are tormented there day and night forever
 Rev 20:10



 death and Hades are cast there
 Rev 20:14



 there is no rest day or night forever
 Rev 14:11

 The two eyes of a man can be cast into Gehenna
 Mk 9:47

 God can cast into G. after He has killed you, man can’t
 Lk 12:5
 it is the second death where God casts the lost men at the Judgment
 Rev 20:14

 God sets the uncontrolled tongue on fire in Gehenna
 Jas 3:6
 those there are tormented with fire and brimstone
 Rev 14:10


The following table lists all of the characteristics of Gehenna 
and the Lake of Fire in the various passages where they are 
found.  For each of the characteristics we note the location and 
ask whether the listed characteristic supports the idea of 
annihilation or eternal torment.  Most of them are probably self-
evident.  An exception is Mt 10:28.  Robert has argued that 
"destroy" in Mt 10:28 means that the body and soul are 
annihilated.  I list that passage as a "No" in supporting 
annihilation because he has not demonstrated a single place that 
shows that it is possible for fire to annihilate a soul.  Since 
there is zero evidence that a soul can be annihilated by fire, 
"destroy" does not equate to annihilation. 



Characteristic of Hell
Reference
Supports Annihilation?
Supports Eternal Torment? 

Evil speech causes danger of Gehenna fire
Mt 5:22
N
N

Sinner's whole body can be cast into Gehenna
Mt 5:29, 30
N
N

God can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna
Mt 10:28
N
N

Your literal eyes can be cast into Gehenna
Mt 18:9
N
N

Proselytes of Pharisees were 2-fold more child of G.
Mt 23:15
N
N

How will hypocrites escape the damnation of G?
Mt 23:33
N
N

Those damned at the Judgment go there
Mt 25:41
N
N

It is the place prepared for the Devil and his angels
Mt 25:41
N
N

It is better to live maimed than to go to G whole
Mk 9:43
N
N

Its fires will never be quenched
Mk 9:43
N
Y

The worm of those cast there does not die
Mk 9:43
N
Y

The two eyes of a man can be cast into G
Mk 9:47
N
N

God can cast into G. after He has killed you, man can't
Lk 12:5
N
N

Everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord
II Thes 1:9
N
N

God sets the uncontrolled tongue on fire in G
Jas 3:6
N
N

Living beings can be cast there
Rev 19:20
N
N

The living beast and false prophet are thrown there
Rev 19:20
N
N

Torments in the presence of holy angels and Lamb
 forever & ever
Rev 14:10
N
Y

Smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever
Rev 14:11
N
Y

Those there are tormented with fire and brimstone
Rev 14:10
N
Y

There is no rest day or night forever
Rev 14:11
N
Y

The Devil and his angels are tormented there day and
 night forever
Rev 20:10
N
Y

Death and Hades are cast there
Rev 20:14
N
Y

It is the second death
Rev 20:14
N
N

Whoever's name was not written in the book of life
 is cast there
Rev 20:15
N
N

The worm dieth not (Mk 9:44, Isa 66:24)
Jesus says that in the Gehenna hell that He is talking about, the 
fires do not go out and the worm does not die.  What is the worm 
that does not die? Is it the soul that is in man?  That is one 
possibility.  Job 25:6 says that man is a worm.  In that case, 
the verse flatly states that the essence of the man never dies, 
and the annihilationist theory is therefore wrong. Another, and 
perhaps more to be preferred possibility suggests itself.  The 
worm is a maggot, that is, the kind of worm that eats rotting 
things.  In that case, the text says that the rotting flesh of 
the damned is continually infested with feeding worms.  Of course 
such a thing requires an unknown mechanism to sustain it, but our 
ignorance does not permit us to even explain how our own spirits 
dwell in our own bodies, nor do we know how God can sustain an 
everlasting fire.  We do know that the Bible says that God will 
do so (Mt 18:8, 25:41).  With God nothing is impossible (Mk 
14:36). Such an eternal infestation of maggots also requires an 
asbestos worm that does not perish in the flame.  Since God can 
make His ministers flames of fire (Heb 1:7, II Thes 1:7-8), it is 
certainly possible that God can make a worm impervious to the 
flames of hell.   

A maggot worm is the more likely meaning of Mk 9:44, 46, and 48 
because it says "their worm".  It is a plural group of the damned 
that has a single worm.  All of the damned are infested with a 
common plague.  They are all eternally being eaten by a single 
kind of worm.  They do not have a common soul, but they have a 
common worm, a common plague.  When the Bible texts have 
reference to man as a worm, they say that he IS a worm, not that 
he has a worm, but the rotting corpses of Mk 9 and Isa 66 possess 
a worm that does not die.   

Robert says the fires of hell will eventually consume the wicked 
and will eventually go out, because, figuratively speaking, 
everlasting fire does not mean without end, but rather denotes, 
in his view, an unalterable judgment. Mk 9, however, removes the 
possibility of this explanation.  The text says, "Their worm 
dieth not".  If "death" in the annihilationists' view is "non-
existence", then certainly in their view not-dead IS existence.  
If the worm does not die, then the worm continues in existence 
for ever.  If the maggot continues in existence for ever, then 
the bodies of the people that it infests continue for ever, or 
the souls of the damned continue for ever. Either way, the idea 
of annihilation is totally wrong. 

Robert says the fires of hell will go out.  However, Jesus says 
the fire is not quenched.  It is not "eternal fire" or 
"everlasting fire" such as Robert noted that went out at in Sodom 
(but still burns in the Lake of Fire), but Jesus' statement is a 
simple statement of fact, "The fire is not quenched." It is not a 
special kind of fire, but a simple statement regarding a fire 
that does not go out.  The fires of hell do not go out, Robert.  
When we say they do not go out, we are not assuming anything.  We 
are interpreting the text in accordance with sound hermeneutics.  
We are taking the statement as a plain declaration of fact.  If 
Robert wants to take the passage figuratively, he must explain to 
us why the passage cannot be taken literally.  God is able to 
make the redeemed to exist unendingly.  Why is it impossible for 
God to make the damned to exist unendingly?  Jesus says that 
their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.  Robert 
says their worm does die and the fire is certainly quenched.  
Which one do you suppose is correct:  Jesus or Robert? 

Robert first scoffs at the idea of a fire-hardy, eternal worm, 
and then says the worm lasts as long as the burning man does.  If 
God can prolong the worm for the many years the damned linger in 
the fires of torment, He is surely able to make it last for 
ever.  Jesus, plain as day, says, "Their worm does not die".  
Robert does not believe that. 

No night there

Robert argues that Rev 14:11 cannot be literal because it 
describes the Lake of Fire as having day and night whereas Rev 
21:25 and Rev 22:5 both state that there is no night in heaven, 
New Jerusalem.  Now, Robert, you choose to take both Rev 21:25 
and Rev 22:5 as literal statements of fact.  These are the only 
places in the Bible that say there is no night in heaven.  Why is 
it that these two statements are literal and Rev 14:11 is 
figurative?  By what rule do you arrive at your conclusion?  Is 
it not the "expositor is God" rule?  You are certainly not 
consistent with your thesis that the entirety of Revelation is 
figurative.  Your argument here depends completely upon a literal 
understanding of these two verses in Revelation.  The consistent 
rule is that you must take statements literally unless the 
context forces you to understand them figuratively and even then 
you must have a Bible key to unlock the meaning. 

The fact is that Rev 14:11 and Rev 21:25 and Rev 22:5 can all be 
taken literally and all of them be in harmony.  Rev 21:25 and Rev 
22:5 are both talking about New Jerusalem.  It is a literal city 
that has existed since the beginning of creation (Ex 20:11, Heb 
11:10) that God moves to the new earth (Rev 21:2).  The City of 
God is what we think of as heaven, but it is not the earth.  It 
comes down to sit on earth.  The City of God is also enclosed.  
It is either a cube or a pyramid with a square base 1500 miles on 
a side and a height equal to its base (Rev 21:16).  Inside of the 
City of God is the throne of God and the Lamb (Rev 22:1).  It is 
inside the city of God that there is no night (Rev 21:25, 22:5).  
God and the Lamb give light to the city (Rev 21:23).  Outside the 
city is the new earth (Rev 21:1-2). On the new earth there is day 
and night (Isa 66:22-24).  As Isaiah says,  

Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I 
will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your 
seed and your name remain.  23 And it shall come to pass, that 
from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, 
shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. 

There will be new moons and Sabbaths on the new earth.  The new 
moons indicate that the moon can be seen and the new moon is only 
visible at sunset.  "From one Sabbath to another" indicates that 
men will keep track of the days of the week and there must 
therefore be some means of determining when a day has gone by.  
The place of the damned, the Lake of Fire, is outside of New 
Jerusalem (Rev 22:15).  There is, as we have seen, day and night 
outside of New Jerusalem.  God also promised that the earth will 
abide for ever (Ecc 1:4), and while the earth remains, day and 
night shall not cease (Gen 8:22).  All of the statements in Rev 
14:11, 21:25 and 22:5 are literally true.  They are simply 
referring to different locations.  Inside the City of God is 
eternal day.  Outside, on the new earth, there is still day and 
night. 

Lk 12:47-48

Robert assumes that Lk 12:47-48 applies exclusively to 
Gehenna/the Lake of Fire.  However, Lk 16:22-25 reveals to us 
that some men are punished in fire in Hades before the 
Resurrection.  Since both Gehenna and Hades have fire, the 
context must determine which of these places has temporal fire 
and which of these is eternal.  Since the punishment of Gehenna 
is eternal, it cannot be the place where few stripes are 
administered.  Those who suffer the punishment of Hades are the 
ones who are candidates for "few stripes", because the suffering 
of Hades has an end (Rom 14:10).  Since the men thrown into the 
Lake of Fire suffer eternal destruction from the presence of the 
Lord, their punishment is not temporal.  They suffer day and 
night for ever (Rev 14:11), and suffering day and night for ever 
is not a description of "few stripes"  However, the men in hell 
cannot stop burning and satisfy the requirement of eternal 
destruction.  If men received few stripe in Gehenna, and then 
vanished, their punishment is not eternal.  It goes on for a 
while, and then stops.  It is not eternally the same, for it 
changes from burning in the fire unto non-existence.  Those two 
punishments are not identical. Therefore, men cannot receive few 
stripes in Gehenna and satisfy the constraint of everlasting 
destruction, because then their punishment would change after 
they went to hell, and neither the effects nor the duration is 
eternal.  The few stripes must occur prior to the Judgment.  The 
"few stripes" inflicted on the guilty but ignorant in Hades is 
actually the solution to the fairness of God at the Judgment.  
The ignorant but penitent suffer the "few stripes" for their sins 
in Hades.  The penitent are then graciously granted life at the 
Judgment (Mt 25:37, En 50:2-3).  The Sibylline Oracles even say 
that God will grant the petition of the righteous to bring some 
out of the restless flame [of Hades] in order that they may 
escape the raging fire and endless gnawing anguish [of Gehenna] 
(Sib Orc II:404-413).   

The eternal fire of Jude 1:7
Robert, if the "eternal fire" of Jude 1:7 is still burning, would 
you receive the truth about eternal hell?  In the summer it is a 
frequent occurrence that fires break out in the forests of the 
West.  These great fires burn thousands of acres.  Often a fire 
will rage for days or weeks. Firefighters give these fires names 
and the names are constants even though the fire may move far 
away from the place for which it was named.  The fires may travel 
great distances.  It will burn through a place and the fire at a 
specific location will go out, but men recognize that the same 
fire still rages on elsewhere.  Sodom is the same way.  God 
poured some of the eternal fire of hell on Sodom and it burned 
for a while there in Sodom and went out, just like the forest 
fire goes out at a specific location, but rages on elsewhere.  
Instead of concluding that "eternal fire" is a figure of speech 
for a temporal fire that God sent and that later went entirely 
out, why not instead take the statement at its face value-God 
used some of the fire that ceaselessly rages in hell to 
demonstrate His wrath on Sodom.  There is no compelling reason to 
take the "eternal fire" of Jude 1:7 as an example of eternal fire 
that goes out, because the eternal fire from which that fire was 
taken still ceaselessly burns (En 21:7), just like the forest 
fires of the great West still burn after they pass through a 
region.   

In order for annihilation in Gehenna to be what the Bible teaches 
on eternal punishment, it requires that: 

1. We must adopt a hermeneutic that is so flexible that it allows 
one to make the Bible say anything he wants.  
2. We dismiss the entire book of Revelation as basically 
meaningless.  
3. Because the adopted hermeneutic makes the entire book 
symbolic, the authority of all statements in Revelation is 
dismissed and one therefore places himself under the curse of one 
who takes away words from the book of Revelation (Rev 22:19).  
4. One understands Revelation in the same way as people who make 
Genesis symbolic and therefore meaningless.  
5. We must understand "destruction" to be annihilation, even 
though countries and cities "destroyed" have inhabitants 
“eternal" is finite
"everlasting" ends
"unquenchable" goes out
"for ever and ever" is for a little while
"death" is annihilation and never separation, though this 
definition will not allow for an intermediate existence of the 
soul 

Jesus was annihilated because He died.

Our soul, made in the image of the eternal God, is entirely 
mortal

The soul is consumed in the fires of hell even though the fires 
of Hades do not consume it.

Nothing of man survives beyond death.

The Resurrection is a recreation of a clone from God's memory of 
the person.

God Judges a clone for something it did not do.

God annihilates a clone for sins it did not commit when it was 
already non-existing before its sentencing. 

If death is annihilation, then what's the point of Jesus' death?  
If death is annihilation, why were the wages of sin not paid at 
our own death?

This view of death makes the whole scheme of redemption 
meaninglessness.

Man has no existence beyond the grave, and there is nothing to 
redeem.

The last resort of a failed teaching is appeal to figures of 
speech, because the author cannot find a literal text to support 
his theory. 

Rev 20:10 speaks of the Devil being cast into the Lake of Fire 
where he will be tormented day and night for ever.  Robert does 
not believe this passage is relevant to the discussion because 
this debate is regarding man's fate and not the Devil's.  It is 
true that the proposition is regarding man's eternal fate, 
however, there are at least two points relative to the Devil's 
fate that have a significant impact upon our understanding of the 
eternal fate of man.  The first germane item that we notice is 
that men are cast into exactly the same place that the Devil is 
cast (Mt 25:41, Rev 20:10, 15).  We learn from what happens to 
the Devil that the Lake of Fire does not end.  The torment goes 
on day and night for ever.  The second germane fact is that 
though he is in Gehenna and thus separated from the presence of 
the Lord for ever, the spirit of the Devil is not annihilated.  
The fact that the Devil's spirit is not annihilated for ever, 
destroys the notion (though it does not annihilate it) that men 
whose access to God is destroyed (II Thes 1:9) must necessarily 
be annihilated, because God's presence is necessary to maintain 
our existence.

James Johnson