Introduction Annihilationism is, succinctly, the belief that those who die outside of the parameters of salvation (i.e. in a state of unrighteousness) will suffer, not eternal conscious punishment in hell, but eternal non-existence (death). In it’s purest form, the case for annihilationism is conducted within the parameters of that aspect of personal eschatology which deals with the eternal state and destiny of the unrighteous dead and constitutes one form of a multi-faceted range of options that exclude and reject the traditional doctrine of hell.   ONE The dimensions of the debate In the oft repeated maxim coined by Benjamin Franklin, there is nothing absolutely certain in this world other than “death and taxes”.  The Christian Scriptures concur (at least with the former) but add one further, disturbing, element; the certainty of a post-mortem judgement (Heb 9:27). Christian eschatology, in it’s simplest (and traditional) form, understands this judgement in bi-polar terms. On the one hand the righteous dead are admitted to eternal fellowship with God in heaven whilst, on the other hand, the unrighteous dead  are excluded from it. The nature and manner of this exclusion together with it’s implications for the eternal state and destiny of the unrighteous dead is a matter of some theological complexity and flux, not only at the present time but throughout Christian history. Several options of varying scriptural and theological credibility present themselves in any discussion regarding the fate of the unrighteous dead. (1). The unrighteous will not be raised   a. being naturally mortal, upon physical death the unrighteous     cease to exist   b. although naturally immortal, that immortality is extinguished by     sin or by God and the unrighteous cease to exist upon     physical death.   (2) The unrighteous will be raised to face judgement   a. and suffer eternal punishment in hell   b. and suffer punishment in hell or purgatory with the potential for     subsequent repentance and salvation   c. and suffer temporal punishment before being annihilated   d. and are annihilated without suffering punishment. (3) The unrighteous will be raised to eternal life   a. the immortal soul / spirit in every human will live on and      participate in the life of God after physical death.    b. all human beings will participate in the bodily resurrection and     attain eternal life in heaven. Although options 1a and 1b fit the broad category of annihilationism, the debate has been conducted almost exclusively within the parameters of either option 2c or 2d, where the majority of advocates agree with Louis Berkhof that “there can be no reasonable doubt” the bible teaches the post-mortem existence, bodily resurrection, and judgement of the unrighteous dead. The specific contours of the argument for annihilationism has two further dimensions for proponents of options 2c and 2d. They either proceed from a position of unconditional immortality, whereby human beings are created naturally and inherently immortal,  or from a position of conditional immortality, whereby humans are neither inherently nor naturally immortal.  Both of these forms of annihilationism (and indeed, all of the options listed under pt.1 and pt.2) share in common one salient point in that all reject the traditional doctrine of the eternal punishment of the unrighteous dead in hell (option 2a). Hence, the argument for annihilationism is, essentially, one form of an argument against the existence of hell and the doctrine of eternal punishment therein. TWO Historical contours There can be little doubt that Jewish beliefs about death and the after-life began to change in the ferment of post-exilic syncretism and that some of this evolution of ideas can be seen in the Old Testament itself.  Influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism and the rise of apocalypticism, Jewish eschatology during the inter-testamental period, increasingly, came to understand the cosmos in bi-polar terms,  with the unrighteous dead condemned, if not in the present world, at least in the next one, to eternal punishment in Gehenna (Hell).  This place of arrival is, essentially, the cosmology we find in the New Testament, most lucidly expressed in the judgement scenes of the Olivet discourse (Mt 25:41ff) and Revelation (20:11-15) where, on a literal reading of such apocalyptic texts, the eternal punishment of the unrighteous dead in hell is unambiguously affirmed.  A further, important doctrine impacting Diaspora Judaism was the Greek philosophical concept of the immortality of the soul, an idea that finds its origin in Plato  but which is quite foreign to the holistic anthropology of the Old Testament. It was largely under the premise of this concept (the immortality of the soul) that the Patristic formulation of the New Testament data sustained the eternal nature of the punishment of the unrighteous dead.  Although by no means universal in the early church,  the doctrine (like so many others) passed into orthodoxy via Augustine,  continuing to receive elaborate embellishment via the machinations of Western art and literature during the early and later Middle ages.  THREE Annihilationism and Conditional immortality Donald Bloesch, rightly, observes that “if anything has disappeared” from modern Christian thought and proclamation, it is the belief in hell”.  Whereas revivalist preachers like Jonathan Edwards once literally scared sinners into heaven,  the subject is now “deeply unfashionable”  and is barely heard from today’s pulpits.  Whilst Liberals have, almost without exception since Schleiermacher , abandoned the traditional teaching on hell in favor of some form of universalism,  recent theological currents within mainstream evangelicalism have revealed a move toward annihilationism, especially in the form of conditional immortality.  Such a refining of the traditional, Augustinian position, has been defended on the grounds of both Scripture and theology. (i) Scriptural arguments for annihilationism The biblical argument for annihilationism proceeds largely on the basis of the particular language and imagery used to describe the eternal state of the unrighteous dead in the New Testament. Central to the linguistic argument is the meaning and application of the adjective aijw'nio"  and the verb ajpovllumi.  Having established some semantic license for their claims, annihilationist’s turn to the more fertile source of the often contradictory and clearly symbolic nature of the imagery invoked by the New Testament writers to describe the judgement of the unrighteous dead,  together with the fluidity surrounding the very origin and meaning of the word ‘hell’ itself.  Although these arguments are weighty, the case for annihilationism cannot, however, be established on purely biblical grounds, where it dissolves ultimately into a debate about the nature of biblical inspiration and hermeneutic methodology. (ii) Theological arguments for annihilationism The most compelling arguments for annihilationism proceed from a theological basis. At the heart of the theological debate is the concept of immortality. Beginning with the premise that “according to Scripture, only God possesses immortality,”  annihilationist’s reject the immortality of the soul as a dualistic, Platonic intrusion on Christianity that has replaced the biblical teaching of the resurrection of the body in the Patristic doctrine.  Human beings are, therefore, inherently and naturally mortal (with a starting point, birth, and an ending point, physical death ). Immortality is, potentially, communicated or conferred to humanity exclusively in God’s offer of salvation in Jesus Christ (Jn 20:31). As Stott puts it, “he reveals it and gives it to us through the gospel”  and it is received only at the eschaton (1 Cor 15:53), thus allowing the corollary that the unredeemed who do not receive the gift of immortality via salvation are simply extinguished at death. Perhaps the most telling argument against the eternal punishment of the unrighteous dead in hell is that it is “inconsistent with belief in the justice, goodness and love of God”.  John Hick states the theological dilemma in strong language; “the idea of bodies burning for ever and continuously suffering the intense pain of third-degree burns without ever being consumed or losing consciousness is as scientifically fantastic as it is morally revolting”.  The tension is felt just as acutely in conservative circles, for instance Charles Hodge, who recoils from the doctrine as “one which the natural hearts revolts from and struggles against, and to which it submits only under stress of authority”.  At this level we encounter the problem of whether eternal punishment constitutes a just outcome for all the unrighteous dead.  Although traditionalist’s affirm this on the (unconvincing) basis that sin against an eternal God demands eternal punishment,  this still does not answer the difficulty identified by Wenham, “unending torment speaks to me of sadism, not justice” , without de-rationalizing the whole doctrine as something we must accept in faith with almost fundamentalist naivete. A final, and seemingly conclusive, argument against eternal punishment arises out of the eschatological framework of salvation history, which envisages all of creation being ultimately returned and reconciled to it’s original, pre-fallen condition (as ‘good’) in the eschaton. As John Stott points out, Christ could not possibly “in any meaningful sense” be all-in-all “ (Eph 1:23; 1 Cor 15:28) while an unspecified number of people continue in rebellion against him and under his judgement”.  The eschatological problem with a literal hell is an acute one, for it introduces a dualism of two opposing kingdoms and two opposing realms of existence into the post-consummation world,  in which sin and rebellion against God are not overcome and abolished, but continue, despite the consistent New Testament teaching that “the renewal of creation demands elimination of sin and suffering and death” (Heb 9:26; 1 Jn 3:5; 2 Tim 1:10; Rev 21:4).  As John Wenahm notes, “this is not only a doctrine of everlasting pain, but a doctrine of everlasting sin. Surely this is contrary to Scripture”. FOUR Conclusions The annihilatiosnit position does not preclude either of life after death, a bodily resurrection, or God’s ultimate judgement on sin. It does, however, reject the traditional doctrine of the eternal punishment of the unrighteous dead in hell, concluding with Clark Pinnock that eternal punishment means “God sentences the lost to a final, irrevocable, definitive death”. This does not mean the biblical concept of hell need be rendered entirely absent from our preaching and teaching, only that it must be reinterpreted. As Stephen Travis notes, what will ultimately matter in the eschaton is either relationship or non-relationship with God; if people “have fellowship with God now, they will enter into a fuller experience of his presence then. If they do not know him now, they will know him then”.  Hell is not then a place, but a description of eternal separation from God, a sort of “nothing realm.. and terrible negative”  that forms the ‘shadow’ half of the offer of eternal salvation held out to us in Christ in which the salvific alternatives are heaven  or hell, life or death, being or non-being. In a similar vein, Karl Barth constructs his entire doctrine of election around the pillar that, in the person of Jesus Christ, we meet both God’s Yes to us and his No;  “the crucified but also risen and living Jesus Christ is God’s Yes to man, which includes God’s No, but in such a way that it is a mistake to try to hear the No independently”.  The offer of salvation in Christ is truly universal, in that it is offered to all humanity without exception on the basis that Christ has already died for the sins of all humanity and suffered the punishment thereof. Hence Jesus Christ is both the elect and the reprobate on behalf of all.  In this schema, there can be no room for an eternal punishment already endured efficaciously by Christ. Hell does not then signify the eternal punishment of those who reject the eternal benefits of the cross and choose the road that leads to destruction - it is where that road goes. FIVE Some pastoral implications The pastoral dimensions surrounding the position one assumes on the question of the fate of the unrighteous dead are, in one sense, quite incidental in the face of the terrible human grief generally experienced in the separation caused by death and the pastoral sensitivities required at such a time. No-one but the most ardent fundamentalist is going to assure grieving relatives that because the recently deceased did not accept Christ he / she is probably already experiencing the enduring torments of hell, inflicted by God himself. Even for the families of committed believers, no amount of talk about the resurrection can remove the stark realities of suffering and death. The pastoral problem is most acute, however, with the case of those whose lives have reflected little or no Christian identity. Here the tension between dogma and pastoral care is clearly apparent in the form a funeral liturgy that (more often than not) presupposes a Christian corpse and a Christian congregation. Trevor Lloyd states the dilemma thus; we have the problem of burying the dead person who everyone knows has lived a perfectly pagan life, but we cannot conduct a funeral that assigns them to hell in so many words.  Even raising the possibility can be pastorally disastrous. As the parents of a cot-death victim reported to Janet Lord; “the service was a shock... I was so angry. I can hardly remember the beautiful verses we had chosen from Corinthians, because the minister also read something about fire and brimstone”.   All of this should further convince us that the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell has as many, if not more, pastoral problems as it does theological ones. Yet we cannot escape either the reality that the annihilation of the unrighteous dead is eternal in consequence also (without the pain ) and, as Tony Walter points out, effectively concurs with modernist materialism that conscious experience ends at death,  thus denuding itself of a religious message at all. Thankfully, it is not the place of the Christian pastor to judge either the living or the dead.  Christianity offers, not judgement or condemnation, but hope.  Whatever we may perceive of the spiritual condition of the dying and deceased, we can be at least assured that “in the end, Christian theology emphasizes it is God who is on the horizon both of our human life and our human death”.  Conclusion    The case for annihilationism is strong on both exegetical and theological grounds and must be admitted as, at the very least, a viable and internally consistent eschatological option. At a Scriptural level, annihilationist’s draw attention to the apocalyptic genre of almost all texts dealing with judgement and the eternal states together with the varied and clearly metaphorical nature of the language used to describe it. In theological terms, the annihiliationist position best reflects the character of the God revealed to us in Scripture, as loving, all good, and infinitely merciful, whilst still leaving room for judgement and wrath in an  eschatological consummation at the end of time, yet avoiding the picture of a God who conducts a regime of enduring torture on a scale far greater than anything ever witnessed on earth. Furthermore, only within an eschatological framework embracing either annihiliationism or universalism can God be truly ‘all in all’, can the totality of creation be returned to its pre-fallen condition, and death, suffering, and sin be conquered and abolished, as indeed they were at Calvary.