In analyzing the ultimate demise of the wicked, we are told throughout the scriptures that the wicked will 'be consumed' and 'consume away into smoke', 'be destroyed', be 'devoured', suffer 'the second death', be as 'the tares in the fire', 'chaff', be 'burnt up', be 'as if they had not been', suffer 'extinction', be 'ashes under the soles of the feet', 'perish' and 'left neither root nor branch'.
As Greek scholar R.F Weymouth says about this type of language:
I would like to take a look specifically at the terms 'consume' and 'devour'
The Hebrew used for these terms is ''akal' which means 'to be consumed, to be eaten, devoured'. There is also the word kalah' which means, 'to be completed, finished, consumed'. The Greek equivalent is 'kataphago' which means 'to eat down, devour'
We are told in the bible that the wicked will be 'consumed' and 'into smoke consume away'. We are also told that the fires at the end of time will 'devour the wicked'. The supporters of eternal torment will tell us that the wicked will be tormented consciously for all eternity.
This Greek word is used in Revelation 20:9 when the wicked surround the city of God and the fires come down.
Some will say that this is different than being cast into the lake of fire. They are destroyed, then thrown in. This is wrong for two reasons:
1) You cannot take the events in Revelation 20 chronologically. We must be careful to do this with apocalyptic literature.
2) For this to occur, we would have to have 2 RESURRECTIONS of the wicked. One for them to be gathered and attack the city to be 'burnt up' and 'devoured', and then another to be cast into the lake of fire (for they are apparently consciously tormented in hell according to tradition). There is no support for three resurrections. Only two. One of the just, and one of the unjust.
We must conclude that the fire that comes down from heaven is also part of the lake of fire (the fire from heaven could create a lake).
In complete contradiction to this concept of eternal torment, we see that the terms used to denote the fires that burn the wicked are the exact opposite. Notice Exodus 3:2 with Moses at the burning bush.
We see that constantly, eternally burning is the exact opposite of being 'consumed'! And yet, we'd have the traditionalist tell us the exact opposite will happen to the wicked, that they will continue to burn like the burning bush did.
Yet, we see the eternal fate of the wicked (not the temporary existence on this earth) as described as such.
This is not speaking of temporary existence in this life for two reasons:
1) That would mean that ALL of God's enemies throughout history would only have to have died by fire
2) David is comparing all of this to the ultimate prosperity of the righteous that will only occur at the end of time (vs 9-11, 18)
Notice on the great Day of the Lord when all is set right, what this ''akal' fire does in Malachi 4:1:
This is also supported in the NT of the ultimate fate of the wicked in 2 Peter 2:6:
This Day of the Lord is also spoken of in 2 Peter 3:7,10:
Some would say that this is speaking of the second coming of Christ as the 'thief in the night'. However, this cannot be for the heavens and earths are not 'dissolved' as the ESV says, 'or burnt up' by the coming of Christ. This is speaking of the final eschaetological Day of the Lord when He comes into His kingdom.
We see that the 'fire that consumes' doesn't burn eternally, nor does anything that is thrown in. Fire is about consuming, destroying and burning completely up, not about maintaining a perpetual existence of suffering.
As Greek scholar R.F Weymouth says about this type of language:
"My mind fails to conceive a grosser misrepresentation of language than when five or six of the strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying to destroy or destruction, are explained to mean `maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence.' To translate black as white is nothing to this." (The New Testament in Modern Speech)
I would like to take a look specifically at the terms 'consume' and 'devour'
The Hebrew used for these terms is ''akal' which means 'to be consumed, to be eaten, devoured'. There is also the word kalah' which means, 'to be completed, finished, consumed'. The Greek equivalent is 'kataphago' which means 'to eat down, devour'
We are told in the bible that the wicked will be 'consumed' and 'into smoke consume away'. We are also told that the fires at the end of time will 'devour the wicked'. The supporters of eternal torment will tell us that the wicked will be tormented consciously for all eternity.
This Greek word is used in Revelation 20:9 when the wicked surround the city of God and the fires come down.
"And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city, and fire came down from God out of heaven and 'kataphago'them."
Some will say that this is different than being cast into the lake of fire. They are destroyed, then thrown in. This is wrong for two reasons:
1) You cannot take the events in Revelation 20 chronologically. We must be careful to do this with apocalyptic literature.
2) For this to occur, we would have to have 2 RESURRECTIONS of the wicked. One for them to be gathered and attack the city to be 'burnt up' and 'devoured', and then another to be cast into the lake of fire (for they are apparently consciously tormented in hell according to tradition). There is no support for three resurrections. Only two. One of the just, and one of the unjust.
We must conclude that the fire that comes down from heaven is also part of the lake of fire (the fire from heaven could create a lake).
In complete contradiction to this concept of eternal torment, we see that the terms used to denote the fires that burn the wicked are the exact opposite. Notice Exodus 3:2 with Moses at the burning bush.
"And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush, and he looked and behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not ''akal'"
We see that constantly, eternally burning is the exact opposite of being 'consumed'! And yet, we'd have the traditionalist tell us the exact opposite will happen to the wicked, that they will continue to burn like the burning bush did.
Yet, we see the eternal fate of the wicked (not the temporary existence on this earth) as described as such.
"But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs. they shall kalah', into smoke they shall kalah' away"
This is not speaking of temporary existence in this life for two reasons:
1) That would mean that ALL of God's enemies throughout history would only have to have died by fire
2) David is comparing all of this to the ultimate prosperity of the righteous that will only occur at the end of time (vs 9-11, 18)
Notice on the great Day of the Lord when all is set right, what this ''akal' fire does in Malachi 4:1:
"For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven. And all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall be stubble and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch"
This is also supported in the NT of the ultimate fate of the wicked in 2 Peter 2:6:
"if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly" ESV
This Day of the Lord is also spoken of in 2 Peter 3:7,10:
But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Some would say that this is speaking of the second coming of Christ as the 'thief in the night'. However, this cannot be for the heavens and earths are not 'dissolved' as the ESV says, 'or burnt up' by the coming of Christ. This is speaking of the final eschaetological Day of the Lord when He comes into His kingdom.
We see that the 'fire that consumes' doesn't burn eternally, nor does anything that is thrown in. Fire is about consuming, destroying and burning completely up, not about maintaining a perpetual existence of suffering.