There are those in the theological world that seek to define themselves as evangelical nowadays. I don’t consider them evangelical with such assumptions as “Hell is not a place of torment but a place where the wicked will burn until they cease to be.” Some, however, accept those with such a view (called Annihilationism) under the “Evangelical” umbrella.

I however, think that such an acceptance is a problem when one considers that to be “evangelical” means to accept the gospel for all that it is. The gospel not only includes the good news (that we can live with Jesus and have eternal life with Christ) but also bad news: that is, those who do not believe in Jesus will live forever, but they will live in a place of outer darkness, where, as Jesus says in Matthew 25, there shall be “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

You cannot proclaim the gospel with its two options and be “iffy” or unsure about what the second option is for those who believe. Suppose you don’t understand the choices God lays before us, or spend your time trying to re-interpret the fate of the unbelieving and wicked to mean something more palatable for your human conscience. In that case, you can only present, at most, a half-gospel: “believe or…something else.” And that just isn’t good enough when souls hang in the balance and eternal destiny is at stake.

So Annihilationism is a view I cannot accept as evangelical in any way, shape, form, or fashion. While I respect my presumably Christian brothers and sisters who adopt such a view, and while I truly love and care about them, I must respectfully and in love disagree with them regarding their theological position.

Fanning Hell’s Flame: Brimstone, Theion, and The King James Version

However, while annihilationists tend to “water down” or “douse” the flames of Hell so as to put them out in theological discussions and Scripture (they try to downplay what eternal torment is according to the Word of God), some conservatives err in the other direction: they are too busy “fanning Hell’s flame,” so to speak.

What does it mean to “fan Hell’s flame”? It means to exacerbate the situation. Some conservatives have decided that, instead of letting the text on judgment speak for itself (“the lake of fire,” for example, is a dangerous description for Hell alone), they will add to it to make Hell “even more terrible” than it already sounds. Instead of Hell being a reference to “the lake of fire,” they now want Hell to refer to “the lake of fire AND SULFUR” or “the lake of fire and brimstone,” as the King James Version (KJV) of Scripture says. And if you look at many commentators of Scripture, they will tell you that the English meaning is brimstone or sulfur.

This is where “the lake of fire and brimstone” comes from and explains why old-time preaching is called “fire-and-brimstone preaching.”

How can this be?

It starts with a look at the Greek word theion. The Greek word comes from the Greek theos, meaning God or divine. How we get from what is neutrally “a divine substance” to “sulfur” or “brimstone” is an interesting study indeed.

Theion, Sulphur, and Brimstone: exegetical and scientific evidence

The Greek word theion is only used seven times in the New Testament. The word is first used in the NT in Luke 17:29. The reference is to Genesis 19, when Lot flees Sodom and Gomorrah because he is told by the angels that God would destroy the cities. God “rained fire and brimstone” from Heaven and “destroyed/consumed everything,” the text says. The Greek word theion, as said above, is a reference to God, but now “divine substance” is being used with reference to one chemical in particular, sulfur (or brimstone, as the KJV says).

Scientific evidence from Sodom and Gomorrah (the now-destroyed area, post-OT and NT, that is), shows that sulfur deposits are located in the Dead Sea. These salt deposits were spread far and wide at the scene of what some believe to be the Sodom and Gomorrah of Scripture, though there is no exact proof that the location is the Sodom and Gomorrah of the Old Testament. There is melted pottery there as well as smoke that ascends, which indicate fire and flames. However, there is nothing there indicative of brimstone (sulfur) at all.

Religion News followed up with a report on the matter last year, where they say that a massive explosion took place because so many items were charred:

“What was unlike destruction caused by earthquakes or warfare were pottery shards with their outer surfaces melted into glass, some bubbled as if boiled, “bubbled” and melted building brick and plaster, suggesting some unknown high-temperature event. Objects of daily life, carbonized pieces of wooden beams, charred grain, bones and limestone cobbles were burned to a chalklike consistency.” There is still debate as to whether or not the place in question is Sodom and Gomorrah, however. No word on that, and certainly no word on the “divine substance,” the theion, that was used in the disaster if the location in question is the real Sodom and Gomorrah of the Old Testament.

If the destruction of the presumed Sodom and Gomorrah testifies to burning (though no proof of burning sulfur or brimstone is present), how did translators go from “divine substance,” the meaning of the Greek theion, to “burning sulfur” or “brimstone”?

Let’s examine the remaining texts before we get ahead of ourselves. Luke tells us of the Genesis 19 event with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, but the remaining passages that use theion in the New Testament come from the Book of Revelation. It is there that we now turn our attention.

Theion in Revelation 9:17, 18; 14:10; 19:20; 20:10; 21:8

The remaining verses that mention the Greek word theion are found in Revelation 9:17, 18; 14:10; 19:20; 20:10; and Revelation 21:8. That’s one of the first things I find so remarkable: how do we know the word theion refers to sulfur/brimstone in particular when most of its usage is in a book that shows believers the future?

In Revelation 9:17-18, we see that those who sat on the horses had fire, smoke, and theion proceeding from their mouths. In Revelation 14:10, the angel declares that those who worship the beast and his image shall be “tormented” by fire and theio before the holy angels and before the Lamb.” Theio is a noun form for theion, which we have been discussing in this post. We have the clear word for “fire” in the Greek text, pur, but this divine substance is still being translated as “brimstone” in the King James Version, though we have no inherent textual clues as to why this is the case.

Revelation 19:20, 20:10, and 21:8 refer to the “lake” of fire and brimstone in the King James Version. Revelation 19:20 is unique in that it says “the lake of fire burning in theio,” but again, theio is still a mystery because we don’t know what it means. “The lake that is burned with fire and theio in Revelation 21:8 still provides no clue as to what the divine substance for judgment is here.

What we have seen is that the Greek theion/theio is being used to refer to brimstone or sulfur, though there are no clues in the text. Additionally, the presumed Sodom and Gomorrah site provides no clues about the use of sulfur, though fire clearly melted the scene (if this is indeed the place of God’s divine judgment in the Old Testament).

Why Does The King James Version Use “Brimstone” for Theion/Theio?

We have seen nothing in the text of Scripture itself (nothing in Greek, even) to interpret theion and theio as brimstone or sulfur, so why does the King James Version go with such an interpretation?

Brimstone is an old English word that means “sulfur.” The old English word was used as early as the 1300s or fourteenth century. It would have been around long before 1611 when King James created the Authorized Version that would become the dominant English Bible, even today in 2023.

However, did Brimstone exist in the first century when the Apostle John wrote The Book of Revelation? Would John have been aware of its existence? If brimstone didn’t arrive in the English language as a substitute for sulfur until the late 1300s, the word brimstone would be anachronistic to John’s text — that is, brimstone would have been 1300 years too late in time to have been used by the Apostle. Brimstone, then, is a word King James used in his translation because it would have been familiar to his English constituents. While the word may have helped his English kingdom, it doesn’t get serious Bible students any closer to what the actual word would have meant to the Apostle John in the first century.

King James used a meaning for theion that was popular in his day and time, but where did it come from?

From Theion To Sulfur: An Exegetical Journey

King James clearly used brimstone to refer to sulfur, but where did sulfur as the meaning for theion originate? A number of modern-day commentators use the meaning “sulfur/brimstone” for the Greek word without providing any background on just how the meaning arrived to this neutral term. If you search for a bit of information on this, there is some out there — just don’t be surprised if what you find leaves a lot to be desired.

According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary, the word theion referred to “fire from heaven. Places touched by lightning were called theia, and as lightning leaves a sulphurous smell, and sulphur was used in pagan purifications, it received the name of theion.” Thayer’s Greek Definitions says that theion “refers to divine incense, because burning brimstone was regarded as having power to purify, and to ward off disease.” I was fortunate to find information for both these resources in a discussion on the subject at TheFaithLog.com.

Theion was referred to by pagan Greeks as “fire.” However, John used the Greek pur to refer to fire in Revelation. Additionally, whereas pagan Greeks referred to lightning-struck places as theia, John referred to lightning in Revelation with the use of the Greek word astrapai (Revelation 4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16:18). Apparently, John, contrary to King James’s assumption, did not intend to use sulfur the way the KJV does.

If John doesn’t use the word in the same way, then John doesn’t have the same meaning. He didn’t intend to use the word theion the same way King James and his scholars believed John did. Fire is not being used to purify the wicked in Revelation. What Revelation tells us is that the wicked will burn day and night forever and ever. Hell will be a place of torment and punishment, not purification.

As for the interpretation that the divine substance in question is incense, it could be. There seems to be some evidence that the wrath of God, fully poured out on His enemies is a sweet-smelling aroma, a divine incense, if you will, to God. After all, Jesus, who was given the fullness of God’s wrath in the atonement, is called “a sweet-smelling aroma” by the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 5:2). Perhaps God’s wrath is a sweet-smelling aroma to Him because it is the justice He promised He would inflict on His enemies.

But perhaps John meant theion to be “a divine substance.” And perhaps we should leave it at that and focus on the lake of fire as the Terror Of The Lord, using it to persuade men to flee from the wrath to come. It would behoove us to let John’s words in Scripture speak for themselves, rather than add or take away from them.