DarrenJClark

I just saw your comment. This is a scene of corpses being devoured by fire and worm. What about this verse tells you that the wicked are alive and conscious?

Yup, but just quoting a passage is not enough. Note that Jesus is quoting almost verbatim Isaiah 66:24. "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." In Isaiah the righteous are looking upon the slain enemies of God. The fire and the worm are consuming corpses. This is a scene that depicts the utterly shameful fate for the Jews, which was to not be buried after dying. It is not one that communicates the corpses are somehow alive and conscious. In Mark 9:43-48 Jesus is drawing on this imagery to make the same point about those who end up in hell. They will be dead and abhorred. That this imagery is used in the NT to depict the complete destruction of the wicked is seen in Matthew 3:12, "Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Here the imagery of unquenchable fire is used to depict the burning to ash of the wicked. This is evidence supporting my exegesis of Matthew 10:28, which tells us that hell is where the body and soul will be killed/destroyed. "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." So, yes, I can see that Mark 9:43-48 is an important passage for understanding hell. As you should be able to see it contributes to the idea that in hell the wicked will be killed/destroyed.

Yup, I noticed what the verse says. However, those arguing for a tripartite view of anthropology consisting of the body, soul, and spirit need to interpret "piercing to the division of soul and of spirit" and "of joints and of marrow" (Hebrews 4:12) in two different ways or they would not have a tripartite view. If they were consistent they would have a four or five part view of human anthropology. I currently do not have a firm view of biblical anthropology and the attempts by JustPassingThru to make me have a view is misunderstanding my argument. My argument from Matthew 10:28 is that "body and soul" is a merism. That does not exclude any view of biblical anthropology so the attempt to force me to a particular view is an exercise in missing the point I have argued. I could be a physicalist, a dualist, or hold to the tripartite view and still say "body and soul" in Matt 10:28 is a merism. Rather than trying to force me to a view of anthropology JustPassingThru should be asking me how I know "body and soul" in Matt 10:28 is a merism. That would directly relate to a claim I am making and rightly demand that I justify it exegetically.

I answered your questions. You just do not like the answer.

"Do I understand you correctly?" No, you do not understand me. I am saying that "body and soul" in Matthew 10:28 is a merism. That does not exclude that humans have a spirit alongside a soul. It does not exclude any view of anthropology. Another example of merism is found in the very first verse of the Bible with "God created the heavens and the earth", is a way of referring the whole f creation without excluding the idea that their is also an atmosphere, or the oceans, ect. in Matthew "body and soul" is a way of referring to the whole without necessarily excluding other parts of humans. "You say our spirit and soul are the same?" I am making no claims whatsoever about whether the spirit or soul are the same. If you can get your head around merism then you will understand this. "And bone and marrow are the same thing in the human body." Yeah right, and you get to arbitrarily decide that in Hebrews 4:12 "soul and of spirit" should indicate two separate elements of a human but "bone and marrow" do not. I am not arguing one way or another but you had better do a better job of interpreting Scripture more consistently if you want to convince me. "Let's keep it simple, as per your definition of a straw man argument, please just answer the two questions with a yes or no. " If you want to avoid the strawman argument then please engage with what I have actually argued. I appreciate and thank you for the attempt to do that here (no sarcasm intended). May you find peace in God.

Ok. A strawman argument is one where you focus on a weaker or non-existing point in your opponent's case and pretend you have addressed the stronger or fuller argument. I never denied pain is involved so your argument that pain is involved is addressing no part of my exegesis. By any standard my exegesis of Matthew 10:28 is in no way conjectural and I am guessing you go not know what a merism is or you would have seen I have answered your objection. Just for the sake of the argument let's go with your reading of Matthew 10:28 and say that the body and soul are destroyed but the spirit is not. That means you have a view of the final fate of the wicked where two thirds of the human is destroyed and one third is not. That is in no way representative of the historical view of hell. It is much more an outlier view of hell than my view of conditionalism is. Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." And, your reading of Hebrews 4:12 is very much an outlier interpretation of that verse. If you are going to push that verse to say that there is a separate soul and spirit you are going to have to say the same for the bone and marrow. So, in your reading of the Bible we have a body, a soul, a spirit, a bone, and a marrow. Maybe you should do some study in biblical figures of speech.

I never claimed the destruction in Matt 20:28 is painless. You are assuming my view involves a pain free demise then are refuting that. This is called a strawman argument. And you seem to be making the mistake that I think the punishment is not eternal. That is another strawman argument. I believe the punishment is eternal. At least try to engage with what I have actually argued, please. And, in the Bible the wages of sin is death and Christ's own death and resurrection is what is specifically pays that penalty for us. He suffered, yes, but where is his suffering said to be the part that pays our penalty. The wrath that was poured out on Christ killed him and that same divine wrath poured out on the wicked at the last judgement will kill them too. Can we get back to discussing my exegesis?

An argument from silence brought on by your precommitment to a particular view of anthropology and leads you to eisegesis (reading into) the verse. My reading does not require or deny any view of anthropology so does not fall into this fallacy.

So what is the point of the statement then. Do not be afraid of men who can kill but be afraid one who could destroy you but won't? That render the whole point of the verse moot. Jesus might as well have said do not be afraid of one who can send you to a circus, but he won't. That is bad exegesis because it refutes the very point of the verse.

You do realize there is no consensus on biblical anthropology, right? There are physicalists, dualists, and the tripartate view. To varying degrees you will find that people argue a range of things regarding that terminology. Are you going to label everyone who disagrees with you as not relying on the HS? I read "body and soul" as a merism denoting the whole person but that is not my statement that there are not necessarily other part of the human (nor is this statement an affirmation that there is more). It is a merism. At least someone is finally engaging with my argument and the verse.

So, you have been commenting on my spirit and you have no idea what I believe? There are many evangelicals who hold to the doctrine of conditional immortality. Evangelicalism has a high view of Scripture and places the Gospel at the centre of our doctrine (alongside essential doctrines like the Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ's dual natures in his person). Conditionalism merely holds that only God has immortality. Since humans are created and do not possess natural immortality then the only way they can receive that is through Christ. So any immortality we do have is conditioned on being a believer in Christ. As humans are not inherently immortal they will be destroyed at the last judgment. This last statement is literally the only point I differ from the traditional idea of hell in Evangelicalism. I do not deviate from any core Evangelical doctrine. I would share some information with you to help you understand my view but I fear you will interpret that as some kind of plot to steer you away from the faith. I am happy to answer any questions you have about Evangelical conditionalism of it help allay any fears you have but that was not the point of my original post. I just want people to engage with my arguments about Matt 10:28 so that I can test them.

What spirit are you talking about? All I have done is demonstrate from the Bible that there is very good contextual evidence that Matthew 10:28 teaches Gehenna is the place where the body and soul (the whole person) are killed. I am inviting people to critique my arguments directly to test them. I have not denied, and never would deny, that Christ is the means to escape the LoF. I am an Evangelical conditionalist. Jesus Christ is the God-man who died on the cross and was resurrected. It is only by being in him that we have salvation. Those without Christ will perish. That doctrine is central to my faith as an Evangelical and as a conditionalist. Again, please, stop fabricating this story of my intentions and poisoning the well. If you could address my arguments regarding Matthew 10:28 and effectively rebut them then I would change my understanding of that verse. I am an exegete, that is what good exegetes do.

What are you talking about? What group? Who is Gilbert? Who is contacting people by private message? Not me. You are poisoning the well without addressing my arguments. Please stop speculating on my background and motives.

I need to clarify something because you clearly do not understand my view of hell. I believe there is a hell and that there is eternal fire, etc. So posting an article designed to affirm there is a hell to try and prove me wrong is just an exercise is missing the point.

Yes, I have read that article several times before and I can show you of my exegesis on those texts. I did say in my original post that I recognize there are other verses and I can explain them. What you are not doing is speaking to my exegesis of Matt 10:28. You are just avoiding it.

I am noticing that literally no one is commenting on my exegetical reasons for my reading of Matt 10:28. How can I be said to be wrong if no one can show me why my exegesis is faulty. C'mon everybody. This is me trying to test the strength of my exegesis. I want you all to comment on the arguments I do make rather than just circle around what I do say. Stop nibbling at the edges. Just telling me I am wrong, or you disagree, is just broad dismissal of my arguments. Tell me specifically which argument is wrong and why it is wrong. Thankyou.

If you are saying that my reading of Matthew 10:28 is one a universalist would make then you do not understand my argument or universalism. I am a conditionalist. Universalists do not like my interpretation of this verse because they need the wicked to remain alive in Gehenna to be purified by it and eventually be saved. I am saying that this teaches the wicked are killed. This could not be more antithetical to the teaching of universalism on this verse.

Check out my response to missmuffet. Why do you think I do not depend on the HS? Why could the HS not have led me to read Matt 10:28 literally for what it says?

I am reading Matthew 10:28 for literally what it says. Are you saying that you are not reading it literally? If you want other verses that, when read literally teach the same kind of thing see Psalm 37; Isa 66:24 Malachi 4:1 Matt 3:12; 13:40-42; 18:8-9; 25:46; John 3:16; Rom 6:23; 2 Thess 1:9-10; and, Rev 14:11. Just read them literally for what they teach and you will become a conditionalist (well you should if you are just going to go with what is literally taught there). I offered a reading of Matt 10:28 that demonstrates an exegetically robust case that Jesus was teaching the wicked will be killed in Gehenna. Do you have any reason from the context of Matthew 10:28 to disagree with my interpretation? Anything? If not then your comments about literalism my reading being dangerous is simply your unsupported opinion.

I think Matthew 10:28 is evidence against the idea that the wicked will suffer eternal conscious punishment (ECP) in hell for several reasons. Matthew 10:28 "And 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. " 1. The Greek word for destroy is apollymi and when it is used of one person destroying another in the Synoptic Gospels it always clearly means to kill (e.g., Matt. 2:13; 12:14; 21:41; 27:20; Mark 3:6; 9: 22; Luke 6:9) . Jesus is here just using the language as he normally uses to indicate the body and soul (whole person) will be killed in Gehenna. 2. There is parallelism in Matthew 10:28 which means the verbs "to kill" and "to destroy" should be seen as synonyms. 3. In the preceding context of the verse Jesus had commissioned the disciples (Matt 10:1-13) and informed them that they faced persecution as they completed their mission (10:16-20). Jesus reassures the disciples by telling them that they will receive assistance form the Holy Spirit to speak boldly in the face of their persecution (10:19-20) but does not address the threat of death (10:21). This is the specific concern that Matt 10:28 is addressing. Jesus will go on in Matt 10:39 to encourage the disciples to remain faithful to him. In that verse he uses apollymi with the passive sense of losing one's life. To lose one's life in the service of Christ means one will find life. There is an identifiable flow of thought that informs us of what Jesus intended to say. Therefore, the surrounding context tells us exactly what Jesus meant when he used apollymi to refer to the destruction of the body and soul in Gehenna. 4. While it is true that apollymi can be used with the sense of "to ruin" that is only in relation to inanimate objects or plants. Insisting that this shade of meaning is available in Matthew 10:28, when nothing in the context would indicate this meaning is in view, constitutes the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer. That is the fallacy of assuming all shades of meaning of a word are automatically available for interpretation in all contexts. There is nothing in the context nor the verse itself that tells us that the "to ruin" meaning is in view in 10:28 or that the killing/destruction in view is the kind that would leave someone alive and conscious. Since apollymi is being used with its usual sense of "to kill" and the context tells us this is exactly what was intended, I conclude that Matthew 10:28 teaches that the body and the soul (the whole person) will be killed (as in all life taken away like when capital punishment is inflicted on someone) in Gehenna (hell). This verse is thus evidence against the idea that the Bible teaches ECP. I would appreciate thoughts on my exegesis but ask that y'all focus on commenting on my arguments a they relate to interpreting this verse rather than skipping to other verses. We can get to those other verse later (I have a lot I can say about them too). Thankyou.

That was in response to my statement "Right, and I guess you think your reading and interpretation is the benchmark for how the Bible should be read. " So if you think this is true then why not let Matt 3:12; 10:28; 13:40-42; John 3:16; Heb 10:27; and, 2 Thess 1:9 tell you that the wicked will be destroyed at the last judgement? That would make sense of why John calls the LoF the second death when he says those whose names are not found in the book of life are thrown into it. Revelation 20:14 - 21:1 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. It would also make sense of why John says the beast is actually going to its destruction. Revelation 17:11 11 As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. There are ample examples in the Bible and in Revelation where the plain language tells us the wicked will be destroyed and killed at the final judgment. Why do you not read that language with its plain sense as God interpreted it for you?

I showed exactly how the Bible interprets itself. You are just ignoring it.

Right, and I guess you think your reading and interpretation is the benchmark for how the Bible should be read.

Who is taking liberties with God's word?

It is your choice about how you engage with the evidence but your characterization of explaining away simple meaning in clear text turns back onto you. The present tense participles are clearly and simply in the text of Rev 14:11 as is John's use of Is 34:10. You are not even bothering to look at the detail so are not even getting to the stage of explaining it away. You are just ignoring it. That leaves you with exactly no basis for a rebuttal.