Month: octubre 2025

Gavin Ortlund is one of my favorite Christian apologists. He is kind in his critique of those with whom he disagrees. His YouTube channel is replete with irenic, thoughtful, and knowledgeable interaction with a range of people with whom he disagrees. Recently, Ortlund published a video on his YouTube channel entitled Annihilationism: Why I am not convinced.¹While Ortlund uses the word annihilationism, I prefer the word conditionalism to describe my view of the final fate of the lost. In this video he seeks to steelman conditionalism and then offers reasons why he has not adopted this view of hell. There is already a lengthy response video available by RH called Responding (again) to Gavin Ortlund. In this article, I do not intend to relitigate all that was said in that video. Instead, I would like to simply outline why Ortlund failed to convince me that his rejection of conditionalism is merited.

It is safe to say that Ortlund holds to C. S. Lewis’s view of hell. This version of traditionalism emphasizes that hell should be seen in terms of self-exile as much as it entails divine judgment on unrepentant sinners. As such, ‘the judgment of hell is not an arbitrary one’.²Gavin R. Ortlund, ‘A Losing Battle Against Reality: C. S. Lewis On The Nature And Necessity Of Hell’, in Bibliotheca Sacra, 176:703 (Jul 2019): 342. Hell is to be seen as the ‘logical implication of the related doctrines of God and sin’.³Ibid., 327. God is ‘primal and necessary being’,⁴Ibid., 333. and so ‘union with that Nature is bliss and separation is horror’.⁵Ibid, 334. This is the basis for the conclusion that ‘hell is simply being banished from God’s presence and favor’.⁶Ibid., 334. Hell is also seen as a logical implication of human sin. Sin is defined as the refusal to submit to God. For Lewis (and Ortlund), human evil is to be seen as a trajectory where those who freely reject God will continue on that path, so hell is the culmination of a path of opposition to God. God will judge people according to their sins, and their rejection of God is the rationale for why they are punished. This is how Ortlund comes to the conclusion that God’s punishment of people eternally is not arbitrary or cruel. Ortlund frequently states that those who end up in hell will eternally be miserable, but he rejects the notion that hell is a torture chamber.⁷Joseph Dear has already published articles that directly and indirectly interact with Ortlund’s view. You can read his articles here and here. It is unclear whether Ortlund thinks those in hell will experience torture of some sort, but he does hold that hell will be awful for them.

In Annihilationism: Why I am not convinced, Ortlund gives several reasons why he remains unconvinced that conditionalism is the biblical view of hell. The first reason he gives for his skepticism is that he does not think that conditionalism coheres with all the passages relevant in the hell debate. Ortlund later identifies Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10, and 22:15 as the main verses that he thinks cannot be explained by conditionalists. The language Ortlund thinks tips the scale in favor of ECT is ‘they have no rest, day or night’ in Revelation 14:11, for he thinks this does not sound like people who cease to exist in hell. He also points to ‘they will be tormented day and night forever and ever’. Later on, Ortlund discusses some arguments that might be offered in response to his view. He briefly discusses some arguments made in response to his position on these verses, but does not address some of the stronger arguments offered by conditionalists. Due to the limited scope of this article, I will focus on showing how those stronger arguments work to show that Revelation 14:11 and 20:10 are no obstacle to conditionalism.⁸Readers can watch Ortlund’s video and make their own assessment of his response to the arguments he does discuss.

Perhaps the weakest argument from Ortlund is his appeal to Revelation 22:15. Unfortunately, Ortlund has missed that Revelation 22:6-21 is the epilogue to the book and so is not part of the vision itself.⁹Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, Kindle ed., (William. B. Eerdmans: 1997), Kindle loc., 8271; George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, (William B. Eerdmans: 1972), 289; G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, (William B. Eerdmans: 1999), 1122; Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Kindle ed. (Baker Publishing Group: 2012), Kindle loc., 17243 The function of the epilogue is described by Beale,

The epilogue now shows clearly that the purpose of the book is to induce holy obedience among God’s people so that they may receive the reward of salvation.¹⁰Beale, The Book of Revelation,, 1122.

Revelation 22:14-15 is a general statement issued from a perspective prior to the coming of Christ (c.f. Rev 22:12). It is a statement referring to believers and unbelievers generally. Verse 15 says nothing about the wicked other than the fact that they are not in the city with the righteous. There is no clarification that the wicked will be alive to experience eternal torment and conditionalists can just as easily say that the wicked are in the place where they will be killed. This verse is not evidence for Ortlund’s view of hell.

With respect to the phrase ‘they have no rest, day or night’ in Revelation 14:11, I contend that Ortlund has missed two strong arguments from conditionalists. The first strong argument is put forward by Ralph Bowles in his Does Revelation 14: 11 Teach Eternal Torment? Examining a Proof-text on Hell, where he presents the case that the structure of Revelation 14:9-11 consists of a chiasm. A chiasm ‘is a literary device in which a sequence of ideas is presented and then repeated in reverse order’. The chiasm looks like this.

9 And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice,

–(A) “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,

—-(B) he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger

——(C) he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.

——(Ci) And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever

—-(Bi) they have no rest, day or night

–(Ai) these worshipers of the beast and its image, if anyone receives the mark of its name.”

This is the ESV, but I have made an adjustment at line Ai so it reads ‘if anyone’ instead of ‘and whoever’. This is warranted on the basis that the εἴ τις clause in Ai (‘if anyone receives’) is syntactically and grammatically identical to the εἴ τις clause in line A (‘If anyone worships’). If there is a chiasm in this passage,¹¹I will be defending Bowles’s thesis that Revelation 14:9-11 has a chiasm in another article I am currently writing. then the statement about the ongoing lack of rest does not clarify the meaning of ‘the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever’. Rather, the reference to continual lack of rest refers ‘to the intense experience of the judgement as it happens; it’s a full-strength outpouring of God’s wrath that leaves no rest or break while it is unfolding’.¹²Ralph Bowles, Does Revelation 14: 11 Teach Eternal Torment? Examining a Proof-text on Hell, 28.

Another approach to Revelation 14:9-11 is taken by Chris Date and William Tanksley in a Rethinking Hell presentation called Hell and the Book of Revelation. Date and Tanksley focus on the way that visions and dreams can be interpreted in a passage. In his presentation of this argument, Date often begins with a discussion of Joseph’s interpretation of the dreams of others in Genesis 40-41. For instance, Date points out that Joseph interprets dreams involving three vine branches (Gen 40:9-11) or three baskets (Gen 40:16-17) as having to do with three days (Gen 40:12, 18). He also points out that Joseph interprets Pharaoh’s dream of seven cows and seven ears of a plant (Gen 41:1-7) as having to do with seven years of good harvest and seven years of famine (Gen 41:25-31).

Brian J. Tabb has identified ways in which Revelation routinely interprets its visions. Some of the examples he identifies are as follows: seven lampstands are interpreted to be seven churches (Rev 1:19-20), seven lamps are interpreted to be seven spirits of God (Rev 4:5), seven horns and with seven eyes are interpreted to be seven spirits of God (Rev 5:6), golden bowls are interpreted to be the prayers of the saints (Rev 5:8), two olive trees and lampstands are interpreted as the two witnesses (Rev 11:3-4), the 144,000 are interpreted to be undefiled followers of the Lamb (Rev 14:3-4), and fine linen is interpreted to be the righteous deeds of the saints (Rev 19:8).¹³This is from page 2276 of Zondervans -NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible- Revelation Brian J. Tabb Bethlehem College & Seminary PhD, London School of Theology – Zondervan. The NIV Zondervan Study Bible, eBook: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message . Zondervan. Kindle Edition. There is no doubt that Revelation incorporates interpreted imagery throughout the work.

Date and Tanksley adopt a whole picture approach to interpreting Revelation 14:9-11 and 20:10. This means that they agree that the symbolism as a whole depicts a final punishment of eternal torment (even though the individual passages might not exactly all show that), but each of the passages is individually interpreted to mean a miserable end rather than endless misery. For example, although the Beast is seen as tormented forever in Rev 20:10, the interpreting angel says it will go to its destruction (Rev 17:8, 11). Likewise, elements of Revelation 14:9-11 (the cup of wrath, torment, and rising smoke, Rev. 18:6-7, 9-10; 19:3, c.f. 16:19) are applied to Babylon, who is said to be found no more once she has been destroyed. Given the use of the elements of “the cup of wrath,” “torment,” and “rising smoke” refer to the completed and total destruction of Babylon, it follows that the use of the same elements in Revelation 14:9-11 should communicate the same point. Date and Tanksley also point to the statement ‘This is the second death, the lake of fire’ in Revelation 20:14 (c.f. Rev.21:8), arguing that this is an interpretive note clarifying that the imagery in Revelation depicting eternal torment means those who are punished by fire and sulfur will die a second time. If so, this interpretive note serves to clarify that Revelation 14:9-11 also means those punished by fire and sulfur will die as a result.

There is more that could be said in defense of the thesis put forward by Bowles and the thesis offered by Date and Tanksley, but the main point I wish to make at this juncture is that neither thesis contests the usual meaning of the language of torment. In both cases, the usual meanings of the verb βασανίζω (basanizō, Rev. 14:10, 20:10) and the noun βασανισμός (basanismos, Rev. 14:11) as having to do with torture/torment are not contested. This is because both approaches to the hell texts in Revelation are fundamentally focused on the prima facie meaning of the words in the text they are discussing.

In contrast, though Ortlund states that he cannot get past the use of the language of torment in Revelation 14:9-11 and 20:10, his own version of ECT does not at all fit with that language. To be sure, Ortlund does conceive of hell as being a horror for those who end up there, but this is a result of ‘being banished from God’s presence and favor’. This is a far cry from the imagery in Revelation 14:9-11 and 20:10, where fire and sulfur are the means of punishment causing the physical torment of those who are being punished, and that torment is supervised by the Lamb. One might respond by pointing out that the verb βασανίζω could be used with reference to the battering of a boat by a storm (Matt 14:24; Mark 6:48), great mental distress (2 Pet 2:8), pain resulting from disease (Mat 8:6), or pain in childbirth (Rev 12:2) elsewhere in the NT. However, the idea is still that the person experiences great pain and suffering. In contexts where someone causes another extreme pain, especially through a medium like fire, it is difficult to see how this does not amount to torture. This is likely why William Mounce defines βασανίζω in terms of physical torture when discussing its use in Revelation 14 and 20.

But basanizō can also denote the retributive judgments on impenitent sinners at the close of this age (Rev. 9:5; 11:10) as well as the doom that awaits those who worship the beast and his image (14:10). John also uses this term to describe the horrendous torture in the lake of burning sulphur that awaits Satan and his agents at the end of history (20:10)—a torment that will last “day and night for ever and ever.” Such a horrific future for the unbeiever (sic.) should serve as a catalyst for the Christian to preach the gospel. That torment will be real and the only hope to avoid it is Christ.¹⁴William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Zondervan: 2006), 737.

Furthermore, the noun βασανισμός (Rev 14:11) does not have the same range of meaning as its cognate verb, βασανίζω. There is little evidence of the use of βασανισμός prior to the NT, but it is used in 4 Maccabees 9:6 and 11:2, where it unequivocally refers to torture. Thus, highly regarded lexica of NT Greek define the word in terms of torture.¹⁵‘‘the severe pain experienced through torture, torment’, William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 168; ‘βᾰσᾰνισμός -οῦ, ὁ βασανίζω examination, torture, torment’, Franco Montanari, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, ed. Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015); ‘severe pain associated with torture and torment’, Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 286.

One caveat is required at this juncture. I do not intend to imply that the Biblical authors intended to convey the idea of sadistic torture, as is the case in 4 Maccabees. If this is all that Ortlund rejects, then I would have less reason to dispute his argument. Having said that, it is inescapable that both βασανίζω and βασανισμός as they are used in Revelation 14:9-11 and 20:10 have in view the idea that intense pain is being inflicted on those being punished. This is one reason why Ortlund’s view of hell does not cohere well with the traditionalist proof texts.

Another reason for this disjuncture between Ortlund’s view of hell and the traditionalist proof texts has to do with how the scene in Revelation 14:9-11 has the torment of the Beast worshippers as taking place in the presence of the Lamb and his angels. That is, the punishment takes place in the throne room, which can hardly be said to fit with the notion of banishment that forms a central role in Ortlund’s own defence of traditionalism. I have no doubt that Ortlund will be able to think of ways to synthesize this scene with other biblical data on the final fate of the lost, to show that the punishment does not take place in the great throne room after all. But that will come at the cost of his argument that the prima facie meaning of the words in Revelation 14:9-11 supports his view rather than conditionalism. If he no longer takes ‘in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb’ (V10) at face value, then why can he legitimately appeal to the face value of ‘they have no rest, day or night’ as a way to defeat conditionalism?

This problem is not restricted to these select traditionalist proof texts. For instance, Matthew alone uses multiple words and phrases that do not cohere with Ortlund’s version of ECT. Matthew 10:28 is a well-known verse cited in defense of conditionalism. The basic argument put forward is, when the Greek word behind ‘destroy’, ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi) is used in the Synoptics in contexts where one person is destroying another person, it always has the nuance of ‘to slay’. Glenn Peoples has an article here, where he outlines this argument. I would add that ἀπόλλυμι is used interchangeably in the Synoptics with a verb that means ‘to kill’, ἀποκτείνω (apokteinō). The reader can compare those verses in Matthew that use ἀπόλλυμι (Matt. 2:13; 12:14; 21:14; 22:7; 27:20) or ἀποκτείνω (Matt. 14:5, 17:23; 21:35, 38-39; 22:6; 23:34, 37; 24:9: 26:4). In each case, one verb can be swapped out for the other without changing the meaning of the verse. That list grows when we consider the other Synoptic Gospels. This is because in this specific kind of context that is in view in Matthew’s narrative, these two verbs function as synonyms. Matthew 10:28b, therefore, refers to the body and soul being killed in Gehenna. This being so, then all other verses from Matthew that are cited in the hell debate also refer to the complete destruction of the person.

There are other problems that these verses pose for Ortlund. In Matthew 3:12, Matthew uses two compound verbs communicating that the chaff will be completely done away with. I have previously discussed this verse here and shown how the motif of an unquenchable fire has to do with being unable to put that fire out and so prevent it from fully consuming what it burns, and not necessarily with a fire that never goes out. We know that elsewhere in scripture, it does describe fires that go out (e.g. Ezekiel 20:47). The question I would ask Ortlund is, if Matthew intended to convey the idea that people survive that fire forever, then why was the image of chaff used?

In Matthew 13:40-43, Jesus interprets his own parable of the wheat and tares (Matt. 13:24-30). At first glance, the reader might think that the statement about weeping and gnashing of teeth indicates an endless period of suffering. However, the text gives no indication that the weeping and grinding of teeth will continue forever. That this event will happen at the end of this age does suggest a finite period of weeping and gnashing of teeth. There are also two clear clues that Matthew intended to say that those thrown into that fire will be completely burned up by it. I have discussed these clues here, but will summarise them briefly. The first clue is in verse 40, where Matthew says ‘Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age’. The idea here is that the incineration of weeds at a harvest (Matt 13:30) gives a picture of what will happen to those who are punished at the culmination of the current age. The second clue falls in verse 42 with the statement ‘throw them into the fiery furnace’. The Greek phraseology behind ‘fiery furnace’ has a combination of εἰς (eis, into) + κάμινος (kaminos, ‘furnace’) + πῦρ (pur, fire). This particular combination of words is only found in LXX in Daniel 3, where variations of the phrase are used with reference to the superheated fire into which Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are thrown (LXX Dan 3:6, 11, 20-21, 23, 26), and 4 Maccabees 16:21, which is a direct reference back to Daniel 3. In LXX Daniel 3, the verb καίω (kaiō ,’to burn’) is part of the construction. It is used as a participle that adds a sense of intense ferocity at which that fire burned. While 4 Maccabees does not use καίω at all,¹⁶4 Maccabees 16:21 has a truncated version of the construction with εἰς κάμινον πυρος. Matthew uses καίω in verse 40 when Jesus refers to the incineration of the weeds at a harvest as the example of what will happen to those thrown into the eschatological fire. In doing so, Matthew not only evokes a sense that the fire will be superheated to a point where it is guaranteed to incinerate those thrown into it, but he also adapts Daniel’s phraseology to explicitly state this is what would happen. People can weep and gnash their teeth as they are brought to and thrown into the place where they are killed, but they most certainly cannot weep and gnash their teeth forever if they are killed by fire (keep in mind that Matthew has the body and soul killed in this fire, which sets it apart from the scene in Luke 16:19-32).

There are a few comments that we might make at this point. The prima facie meaning of the words and image in Matthew 3:12, 10:28, and 13:40-42 fail to cohere with Ortlund’s view of hell. Furthermore, if these three texts teach that the whole person is killed, then this would establish that other contested passages in Matthew also refer to the actual death of the sinner. For instance, since Matthew 10:28 does teach that Gehenna is where the whole person is slain, then those other places in Matthew that refer to Gehenna refer to the same fate (Matt 5:22, 29-30l 18:8-9). Likewise, Jesus’s statement about the wide path leading to destruction (Matt. 7:14), which is followed by a statement that those who do not bear good fruit will be disposed of in a fire (Matt. 7:19), and an analogy of a house that is completely destroyed by a storm and flooding (Matt. 7:27) should be read as statements about people being killed.

Furthermore, Matthew’s use of the OT helps us to see that he viewed those texts he drew from as teaching conditionalism. As discussed above, Matthew drew from LXX Daniel 3 when describing the sheer intensity of the fire he had in mind Matthew 13:40-42. Commentators also note ‘the righteous will shine like the sun’ (v43) echoes language from LXX Daniel 12:3 (Th.).¹⁷Donald Alfred Hagner, Matthew 1-13, (Zondervan Academic: 2000), 394; Walter T. Wilson, The Gospel of Matthew, vol. 1: Matthew 1–13, Kindle e., (William. B. Eerdmans: 2022), no Kindle loc. given; D. A. Carson, Matthew, Kindle ed., (Zondervan: 2010), no Kindle loc. given; Craig A. Evans, Matthew (Cambridge University Press: 2012), 281; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, (William. B. Eerdmans: 2007), 537. This is striking since Daniel 12:2 is one of the texts cited frequently by traditionalists in support of the doctrine of eternal torment. The structure of Matthew 25:46 also appears to be based on LXX Daniel 12:2, as has been noted by Davies and Allison,

The line in antithetical parallelism is based upon LXX Dan 12:2–3: ‘And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall rise, some to life everlasting (εἰς ζωην αἰώνιον), some to reproach, and some (οἱ δέ) to dispersion and eternal shame.¹⁸W. D. Davies & Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 3, (T&T Clark: 2004), 432.

While it is true that LXX Daniel 12:2 and Matthew 25:46 do not contain the same language with respect to what happens to the unrighteous, they share the same language with respect to what happens to the righteous. The prepositional phrase εἰς ζωην αἰώνιον (eis zōēn aiōnion) appears in both Matthew 25:46 and LXX Daniel 12:2. Εἰς ζωην αἰώνιον is also used in LXX Psalms of Solomon 3:16 and 4 Maccabees 15:3. The second text was penned after Matthew so would not be a source text for his thought processes. LXX Psalms of Solomon 3:15-16 possibly could have played a role in shaping how he expressed his thoughts, as it does refer to the fate of the righteous vis-à-vis the unrighteous, but LXX Daniel 12:2 is much closer to Matthew 25:46 in terms of its pithy syntax. Furthermore, Matthew also picks up on the use of the adjective δίκαιος (dikaios, ‘just, righteous) from an alternative Greek text of LXX Daniel 12:3 (Th.). On balance, the evidence suggests that Davies and Allison are correct. We can be confident not only in the fact that Matthew crafted his narrative in such a way that it unequivocally teaches conditionalism, but also in thinking that he thought OT texts like Daniel 12:3 are also conditionalist texts.

A similar observation can be made with respect to Matthew’s quotation of LXX Psalms 36:9 and 11 (the meek shall inherit land) in Matthew 5:5 (“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth).¹⁹NT quotations of the OT are rarely exact so in the context of studies of biblical intertextuality the description of one author quoting another refers to a high degree of verbal correspondence between an author’s text and the OT source text. It will be fruitful to read LXX Psalms 36:9-11 in full.²⁰LXX Psalm 36 aligns with Psalms 37 in our English Bibles.

For the ones who act wickedly will be destroyed. But the ones who wait upon the Lord, they will inherit the earth. And yet a little while, and the sinner will surely not exist (οὐ μή + ὑπάρχω), and you will seek for his place, and you will surely not find (οὐ μή + εὑρίσκω) him. But the meek will inherit the land, and they will delight in the multitude of peace.²¹Unless otherwise indicated all quotes from the LXX will be from Rick Brannan, Ken M. Penner et al., The Lexham English Septuagint, 2nd Edition (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020).

LXX Psalms 36:10 juxtaposes the construction οὐ μή + εὑρίσκω with the construction οὐ μή + ὑπάρχω (ou mē + huparchō). The verb ὑπάρχω does have a range of meaning broader than ‘to be’, ‘exist’. However, in the case of LXX Psalms 36:10, ὑπάρχω translates the Hebrew ʾayin, which means ‘non-existence; nothing; not, no; without’.²²The Lexham Analytical Lexicon of the Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012). This is similar to LXX Isaiah 41:11-12.

Look! All who oppose you will be dishonored and feel shame, for they will be as though they did not exist (ὡς οὐκ ὄντες), and all your adversaries will be destroyed. 12 You will seek them, and you will not find the people who rage against you, for they will be as though they did not exist (ὡς οὐκ ὄντες), and those who wage war against you will be no more (οὐ μή + εὑρίσκω).²³Rick Brannan, Ken M. Penner et al., The Lexham English Septuagint, 2nd Edition (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020).

Shalom M. Paul notes that two words in the Hebrew in verse 11 express nonexistence.²⁴Paul identifies the Hebrew words as אַיִן and אֶפֶס. Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, (William B. Eerdmans: 2012), 168. The LXX has ὡς οὐκ ὄντες (hōs ouk óntes) the much-debated verb ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi). Ὄντες is the participle form of the verb to be εἰμί (eimi), so ὡς οὐκ ὄντες is a way of saying that a person no longer exists. In verse 12, the construction οὐ μή + εὑρίσκω is used in parallel with the phrase ὡς οὐκ ὄντες. This shows οὐ μή + εὑρίσκω was a way of saying that someone had died and so had ceased to exist. Matthew does not use any variation of this construction (except c.f. Matt 2:18 where a single negative particle is used). It is, however, remarkable that he quoted parts of LXX 36, which does appear to state the wicked will be annihilated, then speaks of the destruction of the whole person throughout the rest of his narrative. Matthew surely must have viewed LXX 36 as a thoroughly conditionalist text.

Much more could be said about the way in which the other Gospel authors interacted with OT texts when referring to the final fate of the lost reveals their view that those same OT texts support their view of conditionalism. There is a lack of space to lay out that case here. I will say, if one holds that the divine inspiration of the Bible means there is a high degree of cohesion between individual authors on theological issues, as I am sure Ortlund does, then it stands to reason that Mark, Luke and John were conditionalists who regarded their OT source texts as support for conditionalism.²⁵This is not to say this the only way we know that Mark, Luke and John were conditionalists, since the work has been done to show that they were. If Matthew unequivocally taught that the whole person will be killed at the last judgment, then what room is there to say that there is any ambiguity with respect to his fellow Gospel authors’ teaching on the final fate of the lost?

This goes a long way towards eroding the force of Ortlund’s arguments that not all texts conditionalists cite have to do with the final fate of the lost. His point is to say that the body of biblical evidence cited in support of conditionalism may contain passages that only refer to death from this earth and not to the ultimate fate of the wicked. I can readily concede that the temptation to see conditionalism in every possible text is real, and conditionalists can at times claim evidence for our point of view that the passage does not support. Nevertheless, once we account for these more ambiguous passages, we are still left with a sizable body of evidence that we conditionalists have shown to support conditionalism. We have endeavored to apply the rules of hermeneutics to these passages to ensure we are not reading our view into these texts. That body of evidence is still much larger than the three passages from Revelation that cause Ortlund to remain unconvinced about conditionalism. This raises the question of why just three passages should keep him from accepting conditionalism when a much larger body of evidence really does support this view. Ortlund’s calculus seems to be off at this point, since the greater body of evidence in favor of conditionalism should tip him towards this view.

Part of Ortlund’s argument is that many claimed conditionalist passages do not clearly refer to non-existence. My response to this is that we do not have the burden to show any given passage explicitly says that the lost will be rendered non-existent. Rather, our burden is to show that these passages refer to the death of the person, the end of their life, as the punishment. If the person is said to be dead, then I resist entirely the notion that traditionalists like Ortlund can legitimately expect conditionalists to show that these passages speak to non-existence. I would suggest that the ambiguity he sees in these texts is a result of the assumptions he brings to the passages and are not inherently in them. Ortlund has – perhaps unintentionally – shifted onto conditionalists a burden to prove something we do not claim, while offering a select few verses from Revelation that prima facie conflict with his particular version of traditionalism.

One aspect of Ortlund’s argument has to do with ‘the nature of eternal life as the parallel opposite fate of eternal death.’ Ortlund contends that eternal ‘involves the quality of one’s existence, not just ongoing existence’. This is a self-defeating argument. Putting aside the debate about whether the biblical language of eternal life includes the idea of a quality of life, Ortlund admits here that it also has to do with ongoing existence. This means, if a biblical author states that unbelievers are denied eternal life, then they are denied an eternal quality of life and ongoing existence. This has some bearing on some of my previous comments. Those passages that do not explicitly say that a person is rendered non-existent need not do so if they explicitly state that unbelievers will be denied eternal life. Some of Ortlund’s reasons for rejecting conditionalism end up providing ways of defeating other arguments.

I truly respect Ortlund and appreciate his ministry. My comments here are not intended to attack him but simply outline why I remain utterly unconvinced of his reasons for rejecting conditionalism. Given the broad range of subjects that he discusses on his YouTube channel, I can understand that he was not able to cover everything in the depth of detail as I have in my response. That will just be the result of the nature of his ministry. He should keep doing what he does, as he adds a sane voice to a diverse range of controversial subjects. Having said that, Rethinking Hell is a single-subject project. We have already spent years studying the subject in great detail and, in most cases, have already more than adequately shown why Ortlund’s arguments against conditionalism fall flat. I would hope that when he has the time, Ortlund would review our material in more depth. Either way, I will still consider him a potential friend of the Rethinking Hell ministry.