Header Image: The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by John Martin (1852)
I know that "Conditional Immortality" is quite a divisive topic, and one you may have come across before (sometimes referred to as “Annihilationism”); and have been told outright that it’s “heresy” or false, or that it’s an emotional argument people want to believe because it ‘sounds nicer’ than the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT). Or maybe you’ve never even heard of this before and you didn’t realise there were alternative interpretations and views on hell. If you are new to this, in brief it means that “the wicked” will be removed from existence after judgement and finite torment, rather than living forever in torment.
Any discussion on “hell” is going to cover a lot of ground, and refer to many, many places throughout Scripture; so with that said, this will be a long one, so get comfy! I will do this in two parts as it will become too lengthy for one blog post.
This article will just focus on the Scriptural basis for the position of Annihilationism, as opposed to ECT, but to begin with I’ll define some terms as words like “hell” have become quite loaded with extra and unbiblical meaning over the centuries.
What is hell, anyway?
If you read through the Old and New Testament in older translations like the KJV, you’ll see the word “hell” a lot more often than in more recent Bible translations, which will most likely transliterate the Greek words instead. Not all the words get this treatment, and some still get presented as the word hell in English, for example, the NIV and NRSV will convert the word Gehenna into “hell”, but keep the Greek word Hades as-is (see: Matt. 5:22; 11:23).
The etymology of “hell” and its origins and how it became the word we know today in English, would take more time than I have space for here, but in short, there are three main Greek words which often get translated as the word “hell”, even though they are each different words with different underlying meanings:
Gehenna Literally means “valley of Hinnom”, which is a place near Jerusalem where children were once sacrificed to Baal (see Jer. 19:5–6). Due to its history, it took on a more eschatological/spiritual meaning as a place of judgement and destruction.
Hades (Sheol) This is the Greek form of the Hebrew Sheolfound in the Old Testament, usually (and properly) translated as “grave”, or meaning the general place of the dead (similar to the place of the same name in Greek mythology).
Tartarus This only appears once in the New Testament in 2 Peter 2:4 and is used in relation to the angels who sinned and were put in chains. Interestingly, it’s another word borrowed from Greek mythology, for the prison where the Titans were sent as punishment.
If you are interested in how we got the word “hell” in our English language, and more importantly, into our Bibles, I highly recommend that you read this study: The Real Hell.
A Case for Conditional Immortality (aka Annihilationism)
We are often taught that our souls, human souls, are inherently immortal. But where does this idea come from, because it’s never actually stated in Scripture that this is so. This is an Hellenistic philosophical assumption brought into the text (mainly from Plato’s influence) which can taint our interpretations. If we look at 1 Timothy 6:16 we can see that it is God alone who is immortal:
It is he [God] alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see; to him be honour and eternal dominion. Amen.
Any other mention of immortality or eternal life is only ever spoken of as a gift given to us by Jesus, and is often contrasted with the alternative: death, perishing and/or destruction.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
2 Timothy 1:10 …but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
John 10:28; 17:2 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. […] since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
1 John 5:12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
See also the many other times the New Testament authors speak of this as a gift: John 3:16,36; Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:42–43; 50, 54; Gal. 6:8. We also see from Hebrews 1:3 that Christ “sustains all things by his powerful word”, so even if the soul survives death, it would only be because God willed it to be so for his purpose of judgement. There’s nothing to suggest immortality (or even life in general) is inherent in anyone other than God unless it is given or sustained by him.
Destruction and Annihilation
This then leads us to the other side of the coin — death and destruction of the wicked. Throughout the Bible the way of salvation and following God is always presented as a choice between life and death; eternal life with God, or destruction and perishing. Both of these consequences for our choices are eternal as well, but it’s the how of it which is the key factor here.
In the first verse below which renders the Greek as “hell”, I’ll put in brackets the underlying word for clarity, which you can contrast with the previous section where I discussed these words. This Matthew passage is especially important in this discussion as it is where Jesus makes a strong point that what humans can do to one another (ie. kill the physical part), God can do to the spiritual part. A similar message is taught by James in his epistle (Jam. 4:12).
Matthew 10:28 Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna).
It’s also interesting to note that in this next Galatians verse, the word rendered “corruption” in the NRSV, is translated as “destruction” in the NIV and others. Looking at the Greek word φθορά (phthora) it can mean ‘destruction, corruption, perish’, all of which still speak to the finality of the fate of the wicked.
Galatians 6:8 If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit.
The following verses use the word “destruction”, which is an accurate rendering and a different word from the Galatians verse, all of which come from same Greek word ἀπώλεια (apóleia) that can be defined as: destroying, utter destruction, a perishing, ruin, destruction.
Romans 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction…
Philippians 3:18–19 For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears. Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things.
1 Thessalonians 5:3 When they say, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape!
2 Peter 3:7 But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of the godless.
As you can see from these few examples, there is a pretty uniform semantic range here, which in any other context would mean what it says without any implication of ‘unending pain and torment’ which is often read into the text; and shows that the fate of the wicked is consistent in the New Testament as it is in the Old. See Psalm 92:7 for one (of many) examples which speaks of evil people being condemned to “destruction forever”, rather than them in a constant state of being destroyed continuously forever, as the ECT doctrine would suggest.
It’s also interesting to note that the contemporary usage of this particular Greek word in various non-Biblical texts uses it in the same face-value meaning of the word (i.e. being completely destroyed), and some translations even rendering the word in English as “annihilation”, as in the quote below:
Elsewhere in Greece, as people learned the seriousness of the danger hanging over the Thebans, they were distressed at their expected disaster but had no heart to help them, feeling that the city by precipitate and ill-considered action had consigned itself to evident annihilation (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 17.10.1 — emphasis mine)
See the other examples of the word usage in: Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 14.28.2; Galen, De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis, 7.4.17; Philo of Alexandria, Legatio ad Gaium, 233; Josephus, Bellum Judaicum, 5.559–560; and 1 Maccabees 3:42. This in itself should display the normal usage and understanding of this word around and during the first century. If something is destroyed, it’s gone.
The Eternal and Unquenchable Fire
Other than destruction, Scripture has references to an “unquenchable fire” and “undying worm” throughout the Old Testament as well. If looked at in context, this becomes clear that it is speaking about the finality of judgement, and not its duration; see: Isa. 66:24; 2 Kings 22:17; 1:31; 51:8; Jer. 4:4; 7:20; 21:12; Ezek. 20:47–48. Looking closely at these passages, we can see that the fire is “unquenchable” and the worm “undying” in the sense that nothing and nobody can stop the process before it’s achieved its purpose of destruction and consuming — but the object in the fire doesn’t last forever, only until it is destroyed or dead.
The idea of an eternal fire doesn’t originate with Jesus, as we see from the verses above, so clearly the imagery is being drawn from the Old Testament and its usage in those texts, and is then applied in the new covenant Kingdom context (eg: “It is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into the eternal fire.” Matt 18:8).
This phrase is not only restricted to the Gospels, though; Jude and Peter shed light on the meaning of the eternal fire and the punishment of the ungodly:
Jude 1:7 Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
2 Peter 2:6 …and if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example of what is coming to the ungodly
Here we can employ the principle of letting Scripture interpret Scripture. Jude says that Sodom and Gomorrah underwent the punishment of “eternal fire” in their destruction, and yet, that fire isn’t burning anymore. Likewise, Peter says that the reduction of Sodom and Gomorrah to “ashes”, and condemnation “to extinction”, is an example of what is coming to the ungodly in the final judgement. These two passages alone give a pretty clear demonstration that eternal fire and complete extinction go hand-in-hand within the judgement of God.
Just when this concept was beginning to become a little clearer, Isaiah throws another spanner in the works when he speaks of the “devouring fire” and “everlasting flames” and those who are to be burned in the fire;
Isaiah 33:12, 14–15 And the peoples will be as if burned to lime, like thorns cut down, that are burned in the fire. […] The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling has seized the godless: “Who among us can live with the devouring fire? Who among us can live with everlasting flames?” Those who walk righteously and speak uprightly, who despise the gain of oppression, who wave away a bribe instead of accepting it, who stop their ears from hearing of bloodshed and shut their eyes from looking on evil…
The phrase translated “everlasting flames” in the Septuagint (LXX) is very similar to the phrase “eternal fire” in the New Testament. But here we see that it is God himself who is the fire, and the righteous are able to dwell within the eternal fire, whereas the wicked are burned up like discarded thorns and chaff.
Wheat, Chaff and Gnashing Teeth
This leads us nicely to the final point I want to make in this post. There’s still much more that can be covered, but I will leave that for a second part as this is already getting pretty long and heavy!
Jesus also uses images like chaff in a furnace or the destruction of body and soul. His parable in Matthew 13 foretells a day when the wicked will be cast into a fiery furnace like chaff (which has echoes of that Isaiah passage above), where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth”.
It is often assumed that weeping and gnashing of teeth refers to pain and torment, which seems logical and understandable, but that’s not how either of those figures of speech are used in the Old Testament. Instead, they are phrases speaking of mourning and anger:
Job 16:9 He has torn me in his wrath, and hated me; he has gnashed his teeth at me; my adversary sharpens his eyes against me.
Psalm 35:16 …they impiously mocked more and more, gnashing at me with their teeth.
Psalm 112:10 The wicked see it and are angry; they gnash their teeth and melt away; the desire of the wicked comes to nothing.
Lamentations 2:16 All your enemies open their mouths against you; they hiss, they gnash their teeth, they cry: “We have devoured her! Ah, this is the day we longed for; at last we have seen it!”
Notice how gnashing, anger and despair are linked together throughout these verses. Contrast this with how Jesus uses the phrase in his parables and teaching on those who will be locked or thrown outside of the Kingdom, and it becomes clearer that this is a figure of speech displaying the anger of those people who aren’t allowed in, rather than any physical torment or fire put on them;
Luke 13:28 There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrown out.
After analysing these texts, phrases and the underlying Greek words, I find it just threads everything together and keeps the whole of Scripture consistent in the message of the Gospel: turn to God and have life, else go your own way in sin and end up with its wages: death. All of the times where Scripture speaks of the end result for the ungodly and wicked, their end is destruction, fire and ashes, not a continual life of torment forever. These ideas must be read into the text if we aren’t going to take what it says at face-value (or the “plain meaning”).
The Early Church
If we can accept that this view of Scripture is accurate, and that the Bible doesn’t say that humans are inherently immortal, then logically it should follow that the earliest teachers of Scripture, after the Apostles, should have said the same, or similar, following their forebears.
Clement of Rome, one of the earliest Church Fathers writing somewhere between AD 30–100, wrote about the punishment of God on the unrighteous in terms of death and perishing; he even uses a phrase similar to a Pauline term found in 2 Thess. 2:8 (“The Lord Jesus will destroy him with the breath of His mouth”):
Because they could furnish no assistance to themselves, they perished. He breathed upon them, and they died, because they had no wisdom. […] for wrath destroys the foolish man, and envy killeth him that is in error. — Clement of Rome, 1 Clement, chap. 39
Ignatius of Antioch, another early bishop, writing around AD 107, sent a letter to the Ephesian church to teach against heresy. He used similar language found in the Biblical texts of “everlasting fire”, but also speaks in such a way that suggests the wicked will “perish” if they haven’t received the immortality which Christ breathed into his Church:
[False teachers] shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him. […] For this end did the Lord suffer the ointment to be poured upon His head, that He might breathe immortality into His Church. […] Why do we foolishly perish, not recognising the gift which the Lord has of a truth sent to us? — Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Ephesians, chaps. 16–17
Similarly, in his epistle to the Magnesian church, Ignatius makes the claim that if Jesus were to “reward us according to our works, we should cease to be”! Though he doesn’t elaborate on this point, it squares with the New Testament message that the “wages of sin is death”.
Written around the same time as Ignatius, was the Epistle of Barnabas, who, in his conclusion, states that: “For the day is at hand on which all things shall perish with the evil [one].”. This would even imply that the devil will eventually perish as well, along with everything that doesn’t belong to the Lord.
A little later on from these text around AD 130, the anonymous Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus gives a similar interpretation that “death” truly means death and that the fire consumes those in it “even to the end”, implying the condemned survive long enough to be punished, but will eventually be consumed by the fire:
…when thou shalt despise that which is here esteemed to be death, when thou shalt fear what is truly death, which is reserved for those who shall be condemned to the eternal fire, which shall afflict those even to the end that are committed to it. — Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chap. 10
So we see that even the earliest writers seemed to keep within the biblical tradition of speaking about death and perishing as being the final end to those who turn from God or do evil. It’s later on, towards the end of the second century that we really begin to see a shift in interpretation of the fire being more of an eternal torture chamber rather than a furnace.
To Be Continued…
I continue with this exposition on the fate of the wicked in part two here, where I examine more of the Old Testament usage of “unquenchable fire” and also the references we find in the book of Revelation.
I hope that you have found this study edifying, useful and eye-opening; or maybe it’s given you more questions than answers! Whichever the case, please leave a comment below and let me know your thoughts.
Further Reading/Sources
Four Views on Hell, by John F. Walvoord (Contributor), Zachary J. Hayes (Contributor), Clark H. Pinnock (Contributor), William Crockett (Editor), Stanley N. Gundry (Series Editor)
Enjoying this? Consider contributing regular gifts for this content on Patreon. * Patreon is a way to join your favorite creator's community and pay them for making the stuff you love. You can simply pay a few pounds per month or per post that a creator makes, and in return receive some perks!
Welcome to Part Two of my study and examination of Conditional Immortality (aka Annihilationism). If you missed part one, you can read that one here.
As with part one, this will be a long post as there is still much ground to cover before we can really grasp the bigger picture about what Scripture teaches. So with that said, I’ll pick right up where we left off. In part one, I covered a lot of New Testament texts, a few Old Testament passages, plus a look at what some of the earliest church leaders also wrote on the topic to the early church. In this one, we will be looking at a few more Old Testament examples and how they relate to the imagery used in Revelation, amongst other things.
Unquenchable Fire and Undying Worms
What of unquenchable fire and undying worms? Do these phrases really mean that the fuel of the fire and the worms must last forever and ever? We have a few references to shed some light on the meaning of these phrases which we can examine below:
Ezekiel 20:46–48Mortal, set your face toward the south, preach against the south, and prophesy against the forest land in the Negeb; say to the forest of the Negeb, Hear the word of the Lord: Thus says the Lord God, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree in you and every dry tree; the blazing flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from south to north shall be scorched by it. All flesh shall see that I the Lord have kindled it; it shall not be quenched.
So, in our first example, Ezekiel was obviously not prophesying that the forests of Negeb would burn forever and never go out. Instead, fire that “shall not be quenched” is used to mean fire that cannot be interrupted or stopped in its destructive purpose. No one is able to stop a fire like this until it has run its course, or it is stopped by something greater, which is what the word “quench” actually means. It is an action performed by something external which stops the flames — what it doesn’t mean is a fire burning out naturally once it consumes its fuel. The fire will continue regardless.
Jeremiah 17:27But if you do not listen to me, to keep the sabbath day holy, and to carry in no burden through the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates; it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and shall not be quenched.
Here is another reference to an unquenchable fire consuming something and not being stopped even after the object of destruction has been “devour[ed]”. The image is one of a fire which rages on and on, even after everything in it is burnt up and destroyed.
Now let’s move onto the “undying worms” and see how that phrase is used. In the New Testament we see this phrase used in Mark 9:47–48, which originally comes from Isaiah, and also a similar theme in Jeremiah.
Isaiah 66:24And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.
A little earlier in Isaiah 66 (v.16) we see that God executes judgement with fire and “by his sword, on all flesh”, and that the dead will be many, ending the chapter with the verse quoted above. Jeremiah picks up on a similar theme of God’s judgement, people being killed to such an extent there won’t be room to bury them. This is also where we find a reference to Gehenna, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, as its name means (also called Topheth), in chapters 7 and 19. The concept of Gehenna as a place of punishment is then picked up by Jesus in Matthew 10:28, which he uses in a more eschatological sense.
Jeremiah 7:32–33Therefore, the days are surely coming, says the Lord, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of Slaughter: for they will bury in Topheth until there is no more room. The corpses of this people will be food for the birds of the air, and for the animals of ...
Book review on Rob Bell's “Love Wins” (originally written March 2013)
This book was quite openly condemned by some prominent Christian leaders when the book was first announced back around Spring 2011, mainly mainly accusing Bell of being a universalist and denying the existence of hell.
Lots of leaders formed opinions about the book and thus lots and laypeople took on various opinions as their own without much insight or research. The problem was that these leaders hadn't even READ the book! It wasn't released yet at the time. They decided their opinions based on the blurb and promo video which posed provocative questions about the doctrine of hell.
The book starts up asking lots of questions concerning salvation and how are you “attain” it and the consequences if you don't – while the same time pointing out the flaws in modern theology and general beliefs held by many in the Church today.
He then presents a lot more question to get you thinking and quotes Jesus' words, and a few other scriptures, which leads to more questions. Therein lies the purpose of this book – not for Rob to push you to believe what he does, but to get you to question and really think about the things we say we believe.
Bell then moves on to heaven. Unless you've really studied the Bible on Heaven, this chapter will likely smash a lot of cultural ideas you hold without you really realising it – the same can be said about the the chapter after which deals with hell.
Prepare for an eye-opener, and a lot of "Gospel Truth" that has somehow got lost, changed, misrepresented and mixed up in Medieval tradition and imagery over the last few centuries.
Anyone who is aware of the controversy that was/is surrounding this book and who heard that that Rob Bell "doesn't believe in hell" can rest assured that this isn't the case.
To quote the book, Bell writes:
"There is a hell now, and there is a hell later, and Jesus teaches us to take both seriously." (pg. 79)
It's not only that he believes in hell "later" (i.e. after death), but also that because of our freedom of will in this life we can, and do, create hell on earth through our actions and sins.
Likewise, we can also create heaven on earth in the same way. This is what Jesus referred to when he prayed "Your will be done on earth as in heaven" – bringing the kingdom of God to the here and now.
The book then continues on from what is explained in these chapters to explore the rest of our theology and doctrines on salvation, the cross and the hereafter, often taking our contemporary doctrines (which aren't always as scripturally based as we may think) to their sometimes extreme logical conclusions; which often shows up the absurdities in them that we can overlook.
The book ends by examining the Good News, explaining that "it's better" than we first imagine; that God has done so much more through Jesus on the cross than we can comprehend at times – God's reconciliation is, literally, awesome and that ultimately, one way or another, love wins.
Whatever your thoughts or opinions on Rob Bell, whatever your beliefs about heaven, hell and everything in between, I highly recommend this book. Go in without an agenda – read it with an open mind and a willingness to learn and let the Spirit guide you. You may not come out agreeing with everything written, but if you at least question and think about your views on hell and who goes there and, more importantly, why you think that – then I believe this book has served purpose.
Five stars – Well-written, easy to read and a thought-provoking book that everyone who takes Jesus' Gospel seriously should read at least once, even if they think they'll disagree....
Have you ever wondered why God asks us to resist temptation and practise self-control? At first glance, it might seem like God is just trying to limit our enjoyment of life, especially when the world tells us to “follow your heart” and “give in to what feels good.” But what if I told you that resisting temptation is not about taking away your joy, but about protecting and blessing your life — spiritually, emotionally, and even mentally?
I was recently watching a TV series with my wife (called Perception, if you’re interested) about a neuroscience professor who consults for the FBI. The series often gives some interesting facts about the brain and human behaviour, and in one episode the main character capped off the episode by talking about how resisting temptations benefits your mental health.
This piqued my interest, as it made me think of the obvious Scriptural connections, so I looked it up to see if the episode was accurate.
And it was!
A 2017 neuroscience research study highlights how beneficial self-control and resisting temptation are for your brain and mental health. These findings echo the timeless truths of Scripture, showing us that God’s design for self-control is not just a moral obligation but a pathway to wholeness and flourishing as a healthy person.
The Science Behind Resisting Temptation
The study on self-control and temptation explored the brain’s salience network — the system responsible for detecting what’s important — and found something really very interesting: people better at resisting temptation have a healthier dynamic between this network and other parts of the brain, such as the visual system. In other words, their brains are better at ignoring distractions and focusing on what truly matters.
Here are some of the benefits of self-control revealed by the study:
Improved Focus — Resisting temptation strengthens your ability to stay on task and avoid distractions.
Emotional Resilience — Self-control helps regulate emotions, making you less reactive and more at peace.
Mental Clarity — It improves how your brain processes information, aiding decision-making.
Protection from Harm — It reduces the risk of mental health issues like depression, addiction, and impulsive behaviour which may help mitigate some symptoms of ADHD by strengthening attention regulation and executive function.
Spiritual Growth—Though not a part of the study, self-control aligns with God’s call for holy living and leads to greater spiritual maturity.
This isn’t just science talking; it’s evidence of God’s amazing design for your body and mind which has been testified to in the Scriptures for thousands of years, long before neuroscience could confirm it. I couldn’t help but be struck by this connection when I came across this study.
What Does the Bible Say?
The New Testament repeatedly highlights the importance of self-control and resisting temptation. These teachings are not arbitrary rules to suck the “fun” out of life, but divine guidance to help you thrive. Let’s explore how the Bible speaks to this:
Self-Control is a Gift from GodThe Bible teaches that self-control is a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22–23) and that God has given us a spirit of “power and of love and of self-discipline” (2 Timothy 1:7). The ability to resist temptation is not something we muster up alone; it’s a gift God gives to help us grow in Him and rely on His strength.
Resisting Temptation Brings FreedomJames 1:14–15 warns us that temptation, if left unchecked, leads to sin and ultimately to death. Science backs this up, showing that unchecked impulsivity can lead to destructive behaviours like addiction and emotional instability. God’s commands to resist temptation protect us from harm and lead us to freedom in Christ (John 8:36).
Your Mind MattersRomans 12:2 urges us to “be transformed by the renewing of your minds.” Resisting temptat...
Monarchical Trinitarianism, also referred to as the “Monarchy of the Father,” is a theological perspective that asserts the Father as the sole source (or monarch) within the Trinity. This view maintains a clear distinction of roles among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit while upholding their unity in essence. It is essential to distinguish this from Monarchianism, a heretical belief condemned in the 4th century, which posited that God is a single person rather than three distinct persons.
The Eternal Begottenness of the Son
The term “created” used by the early pre-Nicene Fathers does not align with the Arian view, which posits that the Son was created ex nihilo (out of nothing), making Him a creature. As Arius infamously declared, “there was a time when the Son was not”. Rather, the Fathers articulated that the Son was begotten out of the Father, emphasising His divine origin and eternal existence within the Father’s bosom (cf. John 1:18 in Greek). As Justin Martyr explains, “For Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 46). This highlights that the Son, the Word, existed eternally with the Father before being begotten and manifested.
Similarly, Hippolytus expounds on this concept, noting that “God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world … For He was neither without reason, nor wisdom, nor power, nor counsel And all things were in Him, and He was the All. When He willed, and as He willed, He manifested His word in the times determined by Him, and by Him He made all things. … And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that it is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one power, which is from the All; and the Father is the All, from whom cometh this Power, the Word. And this is the mind which came forth into the world, and was manifested as the Son of God.” (Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Chapter 10–11). Here, Hippolytus underscores the eternal existence of the Word within God, proceeding from the Father and being of the same essence.
The Procession of the Holy Spirit
The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is another essential aspect of Monarchical Trinitarianism. The Spirit, like the Son, derives His essence from the Father, ensuring that He is co-equal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Tertullian speaks to this procession in his work, Against Praxeas, explaining how the Word and Spirit derive their essence from the Father.
But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. … Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, while it at the same time guards the state of the Economy. (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 8).
Looking at how Tertullian describes this doctrine, we can see how he has gone to lengths to carefully explain how the relationship within the Trinity exists together and relate to one another, while keeping intact the source and essence of divinity united and uncompromised. When we talk about these things, we use terms like “ontological” and “economy” to help to describe the Godhead. Ontology is the study of being, and what make...
The Trinity is a cornerstone of Christian faith, defining God as one Being in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, throughout history, various misunderstandings and false teachings — known as heresies — have arisen, challenging this core doctrine. Understanding these heresies can strengthen our faith and deepen our appreciation for the truths held by the Church since its earliest days.
What Is the Trinity?
Before diving into the heresies, let’s briefly review what we mean by the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one essence in three distinct Persons:
The Father: The Creator and sustainer of all.
The Son (Jesus Christ): God incarnate, who lived, died, and was resurrected for our salvation.
The Holy Spirit: The presence of God active in the world and within believers.
This concept is rooted in Scripture and has been affirmed by the Church through various councils and creeds.
Common Historical Heresies
Arianism
What It Taught: Arius, a priest in the early 4th century, claimed that Jesus Christ was not of the same substance as the Father. He taught that the Son was a created being, distinct and subordinate to the Father.
Church’s Response: The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD condemned Arianism, affirming that the Son is “of the same substance” (homoousios) as the Father. This is reflected in the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God… of one Being with the Father.”
Patristic Quote: Athanasius, a staunch defender against Arianism, wrote, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God” (On the Incarnation, 8:54).
Modalism (Sabellianism)
What It Taught: Sabellius proposed that God is one Person who reveals Himself in three different modes or aspects: as the Father in creation, as the Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in sanctification. This denies the distinctiveness of the three Persons.
Church’s Response: Modalism was rejected because it undermines the relational aspect of the Trinity. The distinct Persons interact with each other, as seen in Jesus’ baptism where the Father speaks, the Son is baptised, and the Spirit descends like a dove.
Patristic Quote: Tertullian argued against Modalism by affirming the distinctiveness within the Godhead: “We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation… there is the Son, who has issued from the Father, and the Spirit, who has issued from both Father and Son” (Against Praxeas, 2).
Nestorianism
What It Taught: Nestorius, a 5th-century bishop, suggested that Jesus Christ was two separate persons — one human and one divine — rather than one Person with two natures.
Church’s Response: The Council of Ephesus in 431 AD declared that Jesus is one Person with two distinct yet united natures: divine and human. This ensures that Jesus is fully God and fully man, capable of bridging the gap between humanity and divinity.
Patristic Quote: Cyril of Alexandria emphasised the unity of Christ: “Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.” (Cyril of Alexandria Letter to John of Antioch).
Docetism
What It Taught: Docetists believed that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion and that He only seemed to suffer and die on the cross.
Church’s Response: The Church affirmed that Jesus’ incarnation and suffering were real, as this is essential for our salvation. Jesus’ true humanity allows Him to truly represent us and atone for our sins.
Patristic Quote: Ignatius of Antioch stressed the reality of Jesus’ incarnation and suffering: “He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and powe...
This past Sunday at church, we were looking at Genesis 14 in the sermon. There’s a lot going on in this chapter with nine different kings all at war fighting one another, and Abram and Lot somehow mixed up in the middle of it (this is before Abram is renamed to Abraham). Sodom gets invaded, Lot gets taken captive (along with everyone else) and then Abram mounts a daring rescue with 318 of his men! It’s really quite action-packed for such a short chapter. I don’t know about you, but I always think of Abraham as this kindly old man, not some tribal warrior ready to go all “Taken” on his enemies (Gen 14:14–16).
Abraham, probably
It’s in the midst of all this action that we meet a mysterious character who pretty much just turns up out of nowhere: Melchizedek, king of Salem.
He is one of those characters from the Old Testament whose actions reverberate down through history into the New Testament era and beyond and into our present-day worship. Despite the number of kings fighting all across Canaan, Melchizedek doesn’t appear to be a part of these conflicts and only enters the scene when it’s all over, and Abram has rescued Lot and subdued the king who captured Sodom. Then “the king of Sodom went out to meet [Abram] at the Valley of Shaveh, that is, the King’s Valley.” (Gen 14:17), which is modern-day Kidron Valley, just outside of Jerusalem. So the meeting was local and close to Melchizedek, but still doesn’t explain what happens next to Abram:
Genesis 14:18–20And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. He blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth,and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”
The blessing of bread and wine by Melchizedek connects us with the divine thread that will flow through all time and history: the then-future Passover and, ultimately, with Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist. This connection underscores a sacred continuity that we, as Christians, continue to partake in today until Jesus returns.
Melchizedek: Priest and King
Melchizedek appears in Genesis 14:18–20, where he is described as the king of Salem and a priest of the Most High God. His encounter with Abram (Abraham) is brief but significant. He brings out bread and wine and blesses Abraham. He then responds by giving Melchizedek a tenth of everything. Both of these acts point to aspects of the Law, tithes and sacrifices, which at this point in time had not yet been given, which leaves us with more unanswered questions regarding what this priesthood of Melchizedek was (and its origins), and also why Abraham would give a tenth like a tithe.
Salem, which is understood to be the ancient name for Jerusalem, means “city of peace”. This is highly significant as it links to the messianic prophecy of Jesus being the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). The connection between Melchizedek being the king of Salem and Jesus being in the lineage of David, who reigned in Jerusalem, ties the notion of peace directly into the divine narrative. Melchizedek’s role as a king and priest in the city of peace prefigures the ultimate role of Jesus as Messiah.
Jesus, the Prince of Peace, not only fulfils the royal lineage through King David but also the priestly order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:2–3 elaborates on Melchizedek’s name and title, explaining that Melchizedek “means ‘king of righteousness’; next, he is also king of Salem, that is, ‘king of peace’.” This dual kingship of righteousness and peace perfectly summarises Jesus’ ministry and mission.
Psalm 110:4 further cements Melchizedek’s significance by declaring the Messiah as “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”. This eternal priesthood signifies a lasting peace and righteousness that Jesus embodies and imparts to His followers (John 14:27). Thus, Melchizedek’s brief appearance becomes a profound for...
Over the years, I’ve encountered many Christians who’ve quoted from Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons as if it were a solid historical resource. The book claims that the Roman Catholic Church is not truly Christian but rather a continuation of ancient Babylonian religion. It’s self-assured and sweeping, and for many people, it seems to explain everything, from Marian devotion to Lent and Easter, to Christmas, as rooted in paganism. But is it accurate?
In short: no, it really isn’t.
Hislop’s work is a classic example of 19th-century pseudohistory — a polemical piece, written to prove a point, not to explore any historical truth.
Flawed Methods and Wild Claims
Hislop argues that most Catholic practices — from the Mass and clerical robes to festivals like Christmas and Easter — were somehow borrowed from Babylonian religion. The problem being that Hislop doesn’t rely on primary sources or credible historical data. Instead, he draws connections based on word similarities (like Easter and Ishtar) or visual resemblances (like Mary and child compared with mother-goddess statues from ancient cultures). But phonetic resemblance isn’t evidence, and neither is visual similarity.
For example, if I say “sun” and “son” in English, they may sound alike, but they aren’t the same thing. That’s the level of reasoning at work in much of The Two Babylons. Hislop often lumps together completely different ancient figures — Isis, Semiramis, Ishtar, Aphrodite — as if they were all just variations of the same deity. He then tries to say Mary is just the Christian version of this pagan goddess figure. But there’s no credible evidence for that at all. Mary is understood through the lens of Scripture and Christian theology, not through pagan myth. The earliest depictions of Mary and the Christ-child date back to the second century and do not resemble any of the pagan idols. But, again, the common accusations are based on superficial similarities of a woman nursing a child. That’s going to look the same no matter who or what does that!
Oldest depiction of Mary. Dura-Europos Church, Syria, 2nd century
What About Lent and Tammuz?
One of Hislop’s more popular claims is that Lent comes from a Babylonian mourning ritual for the god Tammuz, mentioned in Ezekiel 8:14. He argues that early Christians borrowed the 40-day mourning period and just rebranded it.
But this doesn’t line up with the evidence. Lent developed as a time of fasting and repentance leading up to Easter — especially for new believers preparing for baptism. The number forty comes from Scripture: Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness, Moses’ fast on Sinai, and Elijah’s journey to Horeb. Church Fathers like Irenaeus and Athanasius saw it as a time for self-denial and spiritual renewal — not mourning a pagan god.
Yes, there are pagan festivals that involve seasonal death and rebirth stories. But similarity does not mean origin. If that logic held, then even Jesus’ resurrection would be suspect because pagan cultures also told resurrection-like stories. Yet the gospel stands apart — not because of myth but because of history and revelation.
Why Hislop’s Work Persists
Even though The Two Babylons is poor scholarship, it’s unfortunately had a long shelf life. That’s partly because it appeals to a certain kind of suspicion. If you’re already sceptical about the Catholic Church, Hislop offers an easy explanation: “It’s all pagan!”. But history isn’t ever that simple. And theology — especially the theology handed down through the ages by the faithful— isn’t built on conspiracy and apparent obscure connections, but on Christ and the truth of the Scriptures.
Interestingly, even Ralph Woodrow, a minister who once wrote a book defending Hislop’s ideas, later retracted his views after digging deeper into the evidence. He eventually wrote a book called The Babylon Connect...
Guest post by Darwin to Jesus
Dostoevsky famously said, “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
For years, as an atheist, I couldn’t understand what he meant, but now I do…
Here’s a simple analogy that shows why only theism can make sense of morality:
Imagine you just got hired at a company.
You show up, set up your desk, and decide to use two large monitors.
No big deal, right?
But then some random guy walks up to you and says: “Hey, you’re not allowed to do that.”
You ask, “What do you mean?”
They say, “You’re not permitted* to use monitors that big.”
In this situation, the correct response would be: “Says who?”
We’ll now explore the different kinds of answers you might hear — each one representing a popular moral theory without God — and why none of them actually work.
Subjective Morality
The random guy says, “Well, I personally just happen to not like big monitors. I find them annoying.”
Notice that’s not a reason for you to change your setup.
Their personal preferences don’t impose obligations on you.
This is what subjective morality looks like.
It reduces morality to private taste.
If this were the answer, you’d be correct to ignore this person and get back to work — big monitors are still permitted.
Cultural Relativism
Instead, they say, “It’s not just me — most people here don’t use big monitors. It’s not our culture.”
That’s cultural relativism: right and wrong are just social customs, what is normal behavior.
But notice customs aren’t obligations. If the culture were different, the moral rule would be different, which means it isn’t really moral at all.
You might not fit in. You might not be liked.
But you’re still permitted to use big monitors.
Emotivism
Here after being asked “says who?” the person just blurts out, “Boo, big monitors!”
You reply, “Hurrah, big monitors!”
That’s the entire conversation.
This is emotivism. On this moral theory when we talk about right and wrong we’re actually just expressing our personal feelings towards actions, I boo rape, you hurrah rape.
But shouting “boo!” at someone doesn’t create real obligations.
You’re still permitted to use large monitors.
Utilitarianism
Here, the person says, “Your big monitors lower the overall productivity of the office. You’re not permitted to use them because they lead to worse consequences.”
This is utilitarianism: morality is based on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
But even if that’s true — so what?
Who says you’re obligated to maximize group productivity?
And what if your monitors actually help you work better?
Utilitarianism might tell you what leads to better outcomes, but it doesn’t tell you why you’re morally obligated to follow that path — especially if it comes at your own expense.
You’re still permitted to use large monitors.
Virtue Ethics
Here they say, “Using big monitors just doesn’t reflect the virtues we admire here — simplicity, humility, restraint.”
This is virtue ethics. Morality is about becoming the right kind of person.
But who defines those virtues?
And why are you obligated to follow them?
What if your idea of a virtuous worker includes productivity and confidence?
Without a transcendent standard, virtues are just cultural preferences dressed up in moral language.
If you don’t care about virtue or their arbitrary standards, then you have no obligation.
You’re still permitted to use large monitors.
Atheist Moral Realism
But what if they say, “Listen, there’s a rule. It’s always been here. It says you can’t use monitors that large.”
You ask, “Who made the rule?”
They say, “No one.”
You ask, “Who owns this company?”
They say, “No one owns it. The company just exists.”
You look around and ask, “Where is the rule?”
They say, “You won’t find it w...
We often hear that Jesus was “about 33 years old” when he was crucified and only had a three-year ministry. But have you ever wondered how precise that number is, or why we assume that was his age, especially when Scripture doesn’t specify?
Table of Contents
The Gospel of Luke: “About Thirty”
Early Church Testimony: Irenaeus and the Longer Ministry
Historical Anchors: Birth, Pilate, and the Crucifixion Window
The Death of Herod
Cross-referencing with Pilate, Caiaphas, and Jesus
When Did Tiberius Begin to Reign?
1. From his co-regency with Augustus (AD 11–12)
2. From the death of Augustus (AD 14)
How Does This Affect Jesus’ Age and Ministry Start?
Astronomy and the Timing of Passover
Estimated Lengths of Jesus’ Ministry
Why This Matters
In Summary
Further Reading
I’ve long wondered about this, especially when the Pharisees accused Jesus of not being close to fifty, which seems odd if he was only in his early 30s. Then I later discovered Irenaeus also had similar thoughts in the second century, and the plot thickened! I’ve had this rumbling around in the back of my mind for a few years now and slowly chewed it over. So now I’m going to try and present the evidence, rather than rely solely on tradition and assumptions, and piece together what the Gospels, early Church Fathers, historical data, and even astronomy can tell us about the potential age of Jesus and the length of his ministry.
What follows is a deeper, richer look at the life and death of Jesus and what we can learn by following the evidence.
The Gospel of Luke: “About Thirty”
Luke 3:23 tells us plainly:
Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work.
This statement has historically been the anchor point for dating Jesus’ ministry. Most take this to mean he was around 30 at his baptism, which marked the beginning of his public ministry. Something to bear in mind here is that Luke isn’t exact and only says “about thirty”, so he could have been slightly younger or older at the time. But being around the age of 30 would align with the requirements of priests, which Jesus was also fulfilling the role of (Hebrews 2:17; Numbers 4:1–4; Numbers 8:23–25).
But from there, it’s traditionally assumed that Jesus ministered for just three years before his death, mainly based on the Gospel of John, which mentions three Passovers (John 2:13, 6:4, 11:55).
However, John also says at the end of his Gospel in John 21:25:
But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
This is a clear reminder, even if John is being hyperbolic here: not everything was recorded. Considering that the Synoptic Gospels only mention one Passover, the number of Passovers we read about in John may not reflect the total number Jesus experienced during his ministry. They may also serve a theological point (three being a prominent number in Scripture) rather than a chronological one.
Early Church Testimony: Irenaeus and the Longer Ministry
In the second century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon and disciple of Polycarp (who had also known the Apostle John and was likely his disciple), made an interesting claim about the age of Jesus — and backed it up by saying it was verified by the Apostle John himself!
In Against Heresies (2.22.4–6), Irenaeus wrote:
…our Lord possessed [old age] while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify, those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. … Some of them, moreover, saw not only John but the other apostles also, and heard the same account from them, and bear testimony to this statement.
He argued that the line in John 8:57:
Then the Jews said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraha...
This is a guest post by “KingsServant”
In 2019 a book called Defying Jihad was published by Tyndale House, the reputable Christian publisher telling the story of “Esther Ahmad” a pseudonym used by the author alongside her co-author Craig Borlase, who has previously written alongside, well known Christian personalities such as Matt Redman the singer and Andrew Brunson, an American pastor imprisoned by the Turkish government.
As I began to read this book over this past year I was expecting an encouraging account of how a former Jihadi found Christ and escaped her previous accomplices. Very quickly, however, I became uncomfortable, her descriptions of her background involved allegedly committed Muslims doing very un-Islamic things and the unnamed militant group doing unusual things that didn’t fit my knowledge gained from years of study of Islam and interactions with Muslims, including extremists. As my doubts about the authenticity of the book solidified, and yet I couldn’t find anyone else who had questioned these things before me, or on the other hand provided verification of her story. I decided to contact Craig. During our brief and cordial email exchange he told me that he had been in touch with people who knew Esther after she escaped her family home, but so far has not suggested he has any other lines of evidence confirming any of the key elements of her account before that time. As a result, I am writing this article to draw attention to the aspects that raise suspicion.
According to “Esther’s” story, she was raised in Pakistan where she was sent to an extremist madrassa (or Muslim school) for girls, there they were shown images of victims of violence and told that Christians and Jews were responsible - the emphasis on Jews and particularly Christians by a militant group based in Pakistan is strange. All the terrorist groups in Pakistan direct their efforts towards Hindus (especially in Kashmir) or other Muslims, since Christians are such a tiny minority there.
Things rapidly become even stranger when a Mullah displays weapons to the group of girls telling them “… one day you will get to handle these” as the book continues describing them being encouraged to aspire to physical violence towards Jews and Christians specifically, the description of “Aunt Selma” volunteering for and dying fighting Jihad is likewise out of place. Islamic terrorist groups very rarely recruit women for combat roles, as Devorah Margolin describes Hamas and ISIS as departing from convention by encouraging female participation in violence and even then in only a very restricted way under particular circumstances with a specific fatwa (or Islamic ruling) being issued.1
On page 33, the militant group leader “Anwar” suggests that Esther could find a husband in the west to bring him to Islam. It is strictly forbidden for a Muslim woman to marry a non Muslim man, the idea that they would be encouraged by a scholar to date is about as unbelievable. In a conservative Pakistani culture, she would more likely find herself the victim of a so-called “honour killing” for such a thing.2
After her initial chance encounters with her future husband “John” (not as a result of trying to follow “Anwar’s” advice), on page 92 it is recorded that he said to her “… I’m not against your faith and beliefs…”, it’s the kind of thing that we might expect a liberal in the west to say, but not a Pakistani believer who knows that Islam denies that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for sinners.
Following her conversion according to her account, she engaged in a number of public debates with clerics in which she defended her decision to leave Islam and follow Christ. It is not uncommon for apostates to have meetings with scholars arranged by their family members in the hope that they might be won back to Islam, but it is very surprising that her influential father would want to give his apostate daughter su...
Heart Soul Mind Strength: The Greatest Commandment
My new book is now available Order now wherever you get books!
Discover the transformative power of Lectio Divina. This comprehensive guide invites you on a spiritual journey, enriching your prayer life and deepening your relationship with God through the ancient practice of Lectio Divina.
