Three views on hell and judgment


So far I have looked at two doctrinal issues in this series – Three different views of the Bible and three different ways to read it and Three different views of social justice and the gospel – and each time I have concluded that the truth lies between the two more polarised views.

It probably won’t surprise you, then, to find that I think it is the same with the vexed subject of hell and judgment.

The worst side of christianity?

I think the traditional teaching about hell – punishment that goes on forever – may be seen by most non-believers as the most repugnant doctrine christians have ever held. They find it very difficult to reconcile with a God of love.

Of course the counter argument is that God is also just as well as loving, and punishment is the just response to sin, but critics don’t think hell is just either.

So before we believe the traditional teaching, we would want to be very sure it was true.

The three teachings

Everlasting punishment?

On this view, God created us as immortal beings, to live with him, but our sin makes that impossible and angers God. Unless we seek his forgiveness, available through Jesus, we can only live our ongoing immortal lives apart from him, suffering under his punishment and in torment, with no hope of relief.

The end of life?

On this view, we are not immortal, and if God didn’t intervene, our death would be the end. But God will resurrect those who seek him, so that they will live in bliss with him forever, while death remains the end for those who don’t seek him. This view is sometimes called “conditional immortality” or “annihilationism”, but I think both names are a little gross and inappropriate.


This view emphasises God’s love, and teaches that in the end all people will receive salvation and eternal life. This may happen automatically, or because God will give them opportunities to respond to his love and/or submit to him in the life to come, and eventually everyone will.

Can we know which view is true?

I have examined the three teachings in detail, based on the New Testament, and I came to the conclusion many years ago that the middle view is correct, for the following reasons.

It best represents the New Testament teaching

Neither Paul nor the Old Testament speak about hell (Greek: “gehenna”), only about “the grave”. All the 12 New Testament references come from Jesus or the book of Revelation, apart from one reference by James, where he uses hell as a synonym for evil and says nothing about punishment.

Several aspects of Jesus’ teachings are poorly understood by christians:

  1. When Jesus talks about hell, he uses the word “destruction”, and the Greek word used means exactly that – the end. Right through the Bible, the end of the wicked is that they perish.
  2. And the word “eternal” doesn’t mean “everlasting” but “in the age to come”.
  3. The Bible nowhere speaks of souls being eternal, but rather says humans will ‘return to the dust’ except if we are resurrected to new life.

So Jesus doesn’t speak about everlasting torment or punishment, but rather destruction or the end of life, in the age to come. This fits the middle view better than the traditional view.

You can check out the Biblical justification for these statements at Hell – what does the Bible say?

It was what the first century Jews thought

This isn’t totally clear, but it seems that first century Jews discussed more or less the same three views outlined here – and the predominant view may have been the “end of life” view.

Jesus was speaking to first century Jews, and we may see him as using their imagery (the word “gehenna” derives from the rubbish tip in the valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem – a place of destruction rather than punishment), but correcting their views about the afterlife, and God’s judgment in this life too.

What was Paul thinking?

If Paul, the pre-eminent evangelist of the first century, never mentions the word “hell” in his writing, we can perhaps draw the conclusion that he thought differently about it than do modern traditional evangelicals.

Is it loving?

I can only agree with the sceptics here. I cannot see how a loving God could create human beings and judge them in such a way that the majority would suffer forever while a minority would join him in bliss – and he knew that would be the result from the beginning!

Jesus told us to forgive even our enemies. Surely God would do no less?

Is it just?

And I agree with the sceptics here too. A finite amount of sin merits, at most, a finite amount of punishment – “an eye for an eye”. The traditional hell isn’t fair at all.

Can’t God do what he wants?

The immortality argument, that God made us immortal so our final destination must be forever, just doesn’t add up. Even if God made us immortal (which is contrary to Biblical teaching that we are “dust”, which we may interpret as ephemeral, physical), surely a merciful God is able to temper his punishment to a finite time appropriate to the sin, and then mercifully end it all?

I wish universalism was true, but ….

I would deeply love to think that all people would receive God’s forgiveness and blessing in the end. Rob Bell hints that God’s love will win in the end, and I would love to think he was right. But what if some people refuse to accept it?

I believe God will do everything he can to win us over, but I think he has given us the choice, and some will refuse his grace.

Judgment isn’t always bad

Most of us want wrong things to be put right, evil to be ended, and those who do evil to be forced to face up to their wrong. In our best moments, we will want them to repent and turn away from their evil, but if they won’t, we know they shouldn’t be allowed to continue to cause hurt and destruction

That is what God’s judgment is about. So while we don’t want to see anyone suffer punishment, we welcome God’s loving and fair judgment.

Look who knows so much!

Each of the three views has its proponents and its arguments. I think there is a growing move away from the traditional view, but it is still the most commonly held. The Bible isn’t absolutely clear on this.

If we talk about hell, I suggest we may be wise to speak with less certainty, and to argue with humility.

“Above all, put on love” (Colossians 3:14)

Some christians speak of God’s punishment, and of hell, in a triumphalistic way -as if this were a tribal matter and “our tribe” will win! Surely this is totally contrary to the attitude God wants us to have. He wants us to love our enemies and seek the best for them.

If we are going to speak about hell or punishment (and I think we should focus on better things), we must speak with love, with tears. If we can’t do that, we shouldn’t speak about it at all.

If we fall down at this point, there is a danger that we will be impugning God’s good name, the opposite of what we are supposed to be doing.

The end of the matter?

I don’t believe we should be emphasising anything about God more than his grace – after all, the Bible gives us the equation God = love (1 John 4:16). That is our first message, to reveal the character of God as loving. We shouldn’t try to scare people into the kingdom by threats, but rather draw them into the kingdom by love and loving actions.

And I believe we see God’s character in how he gives life to us and accepts our choices. He offers us eternal life and the choice:

  • either we can accept that gift and enjoy life now and in the age to come, or
  • not accept that gift, and enjoy only the gift of this life.

I think that understanding accords most with scripture, reason and the revealed character of God.

Others on the same path

Photo: MorgueFile

🤞 Don’t miss a post!!

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts. Read more about
Subscribing & unsubscribing.


  1. If Francis Chan can admit his agnostic about hell I think there is hope for evangelicals 😉
    Great post… enough info to promote deeper study into the topic. It’s a favorite topic in our book club right now

  2. Hi MM, I didn’t know that about Francis Chan. I’ll have to look it up. I hope your book club looks up the page I linked to in the post – Hell, what does the Bible say? – because it has enough Bible passages to sink a Bible study! 🙂
    Thanks for the kind comment. Thanks to you too, RWWilson.

  3. Eric,
    I really appreciate both the tone and the content of your blog post.
    I grew up believing that God would torture unbelievers forever. I attended a Bible Seminary which taught this view. In fact, in the past I myself defended and taught “eternal conscious torment”. However, as a result of a long journey with LOTS of Bible study on this issue, I now agree with your post that God will permanently destroy those who die outside of Christ.
    There is, however, one thing about the way you describe the “annihilation” view which I think is imprecise. The way you word things seems to me to imply that unbelievers will not be resurrected. I believe that the Bible teaches that they will be resurrected (John 5:29), face judgment, experience some finite amount of conscious suffering, and then be eternally and permanently destroyed such that they no longer exist as conscious people.
    I recently preached a two part sermon on this topic. If you or any of your readers are interested, you can find links to my sermon on my blog post, which is here:
    May God bless you as you continue to seek to share His truth and His grace.
    Grace and Peace,
    Mark (with Hope and Joy!)

  4. Hi Mark, and thanks. Thanks for the link, and the thoughts and references in it. I’m glad you’ve walked that path.
    I understand where you’re coming from about resurrection and “the second death”, but I was deliberately imprecise. I just don’t think we know that much. I don’t know what we read in the Bible is metaphorical, what is a truth on the way to a greater truth, what is misunderstood, etc.
    For example, in what I think is a true story, I heard of a guy who was not a believer and was thrown from a horse. He landed on his head and was in a coma for a long time. When he recovered, he was a christian. He reported that in that time between being thrown and hitting the ground, his life did indeed flash before his eyes, and he turned to God. But no-one would have known if he hadn’t come though.
    So it may be that God’s judgment all happens in the eternity that is that final nanosecond as we leave this life, and that’s the end for some people. That may not be true, and your view may be. But I think both, and other views, are all possible. So I kept it imprecise.
    Thanks again.

  5. Eric,
    Now I see that you were being precise in your imprecision!
    I appreciate your “epistemological humility”, which is a fancy way of saying that you are humble enough to confess that there are places in the Bible where we honestly just don’t know how much is metaphorical and how much is literal. Also, where there is metaphor, we often don’t know with certainty and precision what those metaphors point to.
    All of us seek God’s help to walk a tight rope. On one side is the error of not being confident and clear about truths from God that we should be confident and clear about, such as: God created everything, Jesus was born of a virgin, Jesus died for our sins, Jesus physically rose from the dead, Jesus is going to come back, and we should love our neighbors and forgive those who sin against us. On the other side of the tight rope we can fall off into the error of being “too certain” on issues where the Bible is not that clear. What harm does that cause? Well, for one thing it often leads to unnecessary and painful conflict and division in the Body of Christ. Examples of these types of issues would include details about how to interpret the days of Creation and our understanding of the millennium and tribulation. It’s fine to discuss such issues, but it’s sad to see people hurt each other over them.
    I feel the bodily resurrection of the unrighteous is a secondary issue. By this I mean that I don’t feel it is important enough to divide over. However, that doesn’t mean it is completely unimportant. So please bear with me as I offer (very briefly) what I see as some main of the main points of Biblical support for the view that unbelievers will be raised from the dead and face judgment and some finite conscious suffering before being completely destroyed:
    1. While there are symbolic elements in descriptions of the final judgment which Jesus gives in Matthew 25:31-46 and which John sees in his visions recorded in Revelation, these depictions both include a conscious judgment of resurrected unbelievers.
    2. Jesus seems to clearly and explicitly teach that “those who do evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:29). That seems like a strange thing to say, even metaphorically, if the unrighteous are not raised.
    3. In this life, Christians often suffer unjust persecution. The Lord promises to pay back those who have unjustly harmed us, and the Bible specifically says that this will happen when Jesus returns:
    2 Thessalonians 1: 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you
    7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels.
    4. Sometimes in the book of Revelation we are told what a symbol means. We are told twice that the lake of fire is the “second death” (Rev 20:14 and Rev 21:8). “Second death” is not a symbol, but the explanation of a symbol. “Second death” seems like a strange choice of words if the unrighteous only die once.
    Again, I thank God for your blog, and for your passion for God’s truth combined with your graceful presentation of it.
    In Him,
    Mark (with Hope and Joy!)

  6. Hi Mark,
    I really appreciate your attitude in the way you have approached a mild disagreement, thanks. I appreciate too the passages you reference, and I agree they are the most obvious way to see things.
    But I note that when Jesus came as a fulfilment of so much in the OT, he took most people by surprise. Many of the things they regarded as prophecies did not come literally true, and many of the OT passages that the NT applies to Jesus didn’t seem to have that application in the original context.
    So I feel sure that the same will be true for the end of the age and of each of us – what happens will be at least somewhat unexpected. So I am happy to recognise that perhaps the most obvious teaching is what you say, but I am unsure that the obvious teaching will be the right one.
    But like you, I wouldn’t want to argue or disagree strongly about this. Thanks.

  7. Nice post and thanks for linking to my page as well. I’m going to share it on the Rethinking Hell Facebook group. I’m not sure if you have a FB page but if you do let me know so I can add you to the group (if you want to see the comments on your post)

Comments are closed.