Matt 10:28 does God really "destroy BOTH" Body AND soul in fiery hell??

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
I have consistently been making the case that in this life we suffer the "first death". In Matt 10:28 that is the one where the body is destroyed but not the soul.

DHK
That can only be determined by the context, for the terms soul and spirit are often used interchangeably in the NT. Therefore your argument falls apart very quickly.

Before jumping straight to the conclusion - make your point first. Show in the text that you have a way to solve the problem in your favor.

Quote:
In the second death BOTH body AND soul are destroyed.

DHK
Chapter and verse please.

Hmmm... let me think....wait a minute! I got one!

Matt 10:28 Let's look at it "in detail". I post now from post-20 on this thread - since it has been so long - you probably forgot.

Note that in Matt 10 when Christ contrasts the first death with the second death the same concept of Kill and “Destroy” that he applied in the real world (first death) really being killed by real wicked people is applied to BOTH the body and the soul in hell fire in Christ’s warning regarding the 2nd death. .(In Matt 25:41 we are told that the everlasting fire of the 2nd death is “prepared for the devil and his angels” – and we see that very thing happening in Rev 20 where the devil is cast alive into eternal fire).

Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear [b]those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/b]

Christ argues that we should not fear first death scenarios – but rather second death. Do now fear what wicked men plan to do regarding the first death – and in fact DO – to the saints. “Kill the body” since in those things they are not able to “kill” the soul. Rather fear what God plans to do – and in fact WILL do in the fiery hell to come – to “destroy BOTH body AND soul” IN fiery hell -- doing that which sinful men CAN NOT do to their fellow man. He does not merely say – “fear Him who could choose to destroy BOTH body and soul if he should ever be inclined to do such a thing” – rather He states it in the affirmative saying WHERE and when he will do it “IN fiery hell”

IN THIS life - those who kill the body INDEED kill the body - but not the soul as "the spirit goes back to God who gave it".

But in the NEXT - we see the resurrection of the wicked in Rev 20 and the fiery hellish lake of fire into which they are cast -- fire and brimstone -- everlasting fire -- and there they suffer "the second death" according to Rev 20.

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But what is incredibly amazing is that you believe God "WILL infinitely torture you INSTEAD of destroying both body and soul in fiery hell".

If the intent as you say is simply to conjur up "fear" with a big scary monster story - no matter how unlikely the threat - then using your
"INFINITE TORTURE INSTEAD of destorying BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell" idea would have been FAR MORE scary than "DESTROY both body and soul" even by your OWN confession sir.

Just believing and accepting the text of Matt 10:28 for what it says in this case - makes far more sense.

DHK said
God is omnipotent, Bob, and is able to do as he pleases. To emphasize my point in perhaps a more credible way to you consider:

When Peter cut off the ear of Malchus, Christ said put up your sword...Know ye now that I am able to call 12 legions of angels from my Father.
He could have called 72 thousand angels (or more) to defend him from going to the cross. He was able, but he didn't. He went willingly to the cross instead to die for you and me.

While I don't agree that Christ pointing to something that God "will NOT DO" as the reason to fear Him -- I will still point out that even given such a wild suggestion - your argument still makes no sense EVEN by your OWN example!

In your example Christ does not say to the Soldiers "STOP FEAR God who COULD call 12000 angels to shush your mouths. Of course what He is REALLY going to do is roast you alive right here and now". In other words Christ does not use a LESSER "imaginary" fear when a GREATER real fear is about to take place.

RATHER in your OWN story you have Christ speaking of a GREATER fear when in fact what is really about to happen is Christ is going to be turned over to the wicked mob and abused.

So placing this back in the context of your "infinite torture" vs my "destroy BOTH body and SOUL in fiery hell" -- Matt 10:28 would become "Fear Him who is able to INFINITELY torture you --- even though He would never do such a thing - in reality He is just going to destroy BOTH body and soul in fiery hell".

ONLY IN THAT case would you have YOUR example of (fake) yet GREATER fear being held forth when in fact a far LESSER fear is the real reality. Basically you have been caught in your own game. By why go through all the trouble to begin with - why not just accept the Matt 10:28 text as REAL??

Others do! (Get ready - cause you just knew this was coming)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

notice that these authors do NOT speculate "this is an emptry threat by God"




Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

In Luke 12:5 Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (JFB) also show that this same "Fiery hell" rather than "the grave - HADES" of Rev 20 is the focus -- Just as I did.

5. Fear Him . . . Fear Him--how striking the repetition here! Only the one fear would effectually expel the other.
after he hath killed, &c.--Learn here--(1) To play false with one's convictions to save one's life, may fail of its end after all, for God can inflict a violent death in some other and equally formidable way. (2) There is a hell, it seems, for the body as well as the soul; consequently, sufferings adapted to the one as well as the other. (3) Fear of hell is a divinely authorized and needed motive of action even to Christ's "friends." (4) As Christ's meekness and gentleness were not compromised by such harsh notes as these, so those servants of Christ lack their Master's spirit who soften down all such language to please ears "polite." (See on Mr 9:43-48).

http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=012




Matt 10
http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=010

28. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul--In Lu 12:4, "and after that have no more that they can do."
but rather fear him--In Luke (Lu 12:5) this is peculiarly solemn, "I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear," even Him
which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell--A decisive proof this that there is a hell for the body as well as the soul in the eternal world; in other words, that the torment that awaits the lost will have elements of suffering adapted to the material as well as the spiritual part of our nature, both of which, we are assured, will exist for ever. In the corresponding warning contained in Luke (Lu 12:4), Jesus calls His disciples "My friends," as if He had felt that such sufferings constituted a bond of peculiar tenderness between Him and them.


Adam Clarke

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=010
Verse 28. Fear not them which kill the body

Fear him
It is, not hell-fire we are to fear, but it is God; without the stroke of whose justice hell itself would be no punishment, and whose frown would render heaven itself insupportable. What strange blindness is it to expose our souls to endless ruin, which should enjoy God eternally; and to save and pamper the body, by which we enjoy nothing but the creatures, and them only for a moment!

Burton Coffman –
http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=010

Verse 28
And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Tertullian wrote of this:
Suffice it here to note that Gehenna, or the Valley of Hinnon, was used by Christ as a metaphor to describe the place of eternal punishment of the wicked. Whatever metaphor was employed, Christ left no doubt of the reality and dreadful nature of that punishment.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Let me ask you “How do YOU know that?” Scripture is a book written by men in the vernacular of their day, inspired by the Holy Spirit. What gives you the right to insert your private narrow definitions to the words soul and spirit?

I can only guess that you are a Baptist, because this is the most common attack that I ever see aimed when preaching.

I resigned a former position because one of the elders stated, "I don't care what the Bible says, that goes against what I've always been taught."

There was another elder who was KJVO. (OK, he stated, "I am not KJVO, but if it does not line up exactly 100% with what the KJV says, it's not truth.) I had always assumed that "eternal" was simply poor translation of the word "aionios", which cannot mean "forever", no matter how you twist it. Well, when I found out that "eternal" simply meant "a long time" in English until the 18th century, he then rejected the KJV, as "they had no way to express 'forever'". He didn't care what the Scriptures say either, unless they say exactly what he wants them to say.

We have to let the Spirit guide us, but if the spirit guides us to something that clearly contradicts Scripture, it's not the Holy Spirit that's guiding us.

I would suggest that you consult the BDAG and the RMAC. I would also suggest that you avoid reference works aimed at specific denominations, as they "prove" whatever it is that specific denomination wants it to prove.

But, the words mean certain things. Words are important. Grammar is important.

A modern example of this recently happened in Canada in which a company lost $1million because of a misplaced comma.

The soul is the life of man.

Animals have souls.

Both of these statements are supported by the language and the Scriptures.

But, I suspect that you will also reject the scholarship of the men who are the experts, because it makes you closely inspect what you already believe.

As you say, they used the language they had at the time. Why not look at the language of the time instead of the ______ Independent Baptist Doctrinal Statement?

As an aside, I liked what a former seminary Greek professor said quite regularly: "How can I teach someone Greek if they don't understand English?" (This is, of course, only applicable to English speaking students.)

I would modify it to say, "How can someone learn the Scriptures when they don't care what the words and grammar actually mean?"

 

[BobRyan]

I can only guess that you are a Baptist, because this is the most common attack that I ever see aimed when preaching.

I resigned a former position because one of the elders stated, "I don't care what the Bible says, that goes against what I've always been taught."

Sadly that confession by the elder is factually the "practice" (though usually not the bold statement) of many Christians today.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

I think that an analysis of Mathew 10:28 overwhelmingly favours a conclusion that God can indeed destroy, in the sense of "really do away with - annihilate", souls in Hell. And this is not merely a statement of an ability that will never be acted on. The message is clear - if certain conditions are not met, we will have our souls annihilated in hellfire.

Here is the text:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

I think that the only arguments available to the "eternal torment" supporter are the following:

1. "destroy", when applied to souls, does not mean to "annihilate" but rather to "preserve in a never-ending state of conscious separation from God";

2. "destroy" indeed mean to "annihilate", but the text only speaks of an ability, and as such gives us no reason to believe that God will actually destroy souls in hell.

I will deal with the first position in this post and will repost a modification of a response I have already provided in respect to the second.

Any attempt to argue that "destroy" in reference to a soul does not imply the annihilation of that soul is very untenable specifically in light of the preceding reference to one who can "kill the body but cannot kill the soul". We know what it means to kill a body - it means to basically reduce the actions of that body to zero, followed by its physical decomposition into dust. It cannot mean to place the body in some kind of state of continued existence. A body that is killed is emptied of all its functional and experiential content and then decays to dust.

It would seem exceedingly odd that Jesus would use the word "kill" in a completely different way when he, in the very breath after referring to the killing of the body, refers to the matter of "killing the soul". So, it seems clear that Jesus is saying that man cannot kill the soul in the same "reduce it to nothingness" sense as is obviously used in the reference to killing the body. Is it reasonable to believe that the first use of "kill" (re the body) means to reduce to nothingness while the second use refers to "preserve in a state of continued conscious existence"? Not likely, I should think.

Jesus then refers to the ability of God to destroy the soul in the very next sentence. Again, it is a real stretch to think that Jesus is introducing a concept of "destruction" that differs in its basic meaning than the concept of "kill" - which obviously has to mean to "annihilate" since we know that this is the result of the killing of bodies. The 2 sentences are clearly designed to be read as a coherent whole - the word "rather" drives home this connection. If "kill" means to annihilate (which it obviously does), there would be no point in Jesus uttering the second sentence of verse 28, if he were not intending the word "destroy" to have the same connotation as the word "kill".

For Jesus to do such a thing would be like me uttering the following 2 sentences one after the other:

"Do not fear the man who can kill your cat but cannot kill your dog. Rather, fear the man who can put both your cat and your dog in the pound."

Do you see the problem?

The problem is this: When we read the statement about putting dogs and cats in the pound, we ask ourselves "What does that have to do with the first sentence, which is obviously about distinctions between cats and dogs in respect to the matter of killing?"

In the same way, when Jesus talks about destroying souls in the second sentence of verse 28, He must be referring to the killing of souls - if He is not, then the "rather" qualification makes little sense. Would someone say that "Do not fear Fred who can lift 100 lb weights but not lift 200 lb weights. Rather fear Joe who can [INSERT anything other than a synonym for "lift"] both 100 lb weights and 200 lb weights"? I do not think so.

Consider the examples:

"Do not fear Fred who can lift 100 lb weights but not lift 200 lb weights. Rather fear Joe who can melt down both 100 lb weights and 200 lb weights".

"Do not fear Fred who can lift 100 lb weights but not lift 200 lb weights. Rather fear Joe who can sell both 100 lb weights and 200 lb weights".

"Do not fear Fred who can lift 100 lb weights but not lift 200 lb weights. Rather fear Joe who can slide across the floor with his foot both 100 lb weights and 200 lb weights".

None of these sentence pairs make sense, because the expected connection between the first sentence and the second, created by use of the connective "rather", is not honoured.

Same with Matthew 10:28. In the second verse, Jesus has to be talking about "destroy" as in "kill".

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andre: We know what it means to kill a body - it means to basically reduce the actions of that body to zero, followed by its physical decomposition into dust. It cannot mean to place the body in some kind of state of continued existence. A body that is killed is emptied of all its functional and experiential content and then decays to dust.

HP: Something to consider is whether or not the physical body is in fact annihilated in death. Scripture speaks of those long since dead raised out of the grave to live again. If physical death is annihilation, can something be raised from nothing? Case in point, the individuals that came out of the grave on resurrection day.

What is going to come up out of the grave when the Lord returns? Can something that has been truly annihilated be raised anew from nothing? It would appear that decaying to dust again is not synonymous with annihilation to me.

 

[DHK]

I think that an analysis of Mathew 10:28 overwhelmingly favours a conclusion that God can indeed destroy, in the sense of "really do away with - annihilate", souls in Hell. And this is not merely a statement of an ability that will never be acted on. The message is clear - if certain conditions are not met, we will have our souls annihilated in hellfire.

Your conditions or God's??

Here is the text:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

I think that the only arguments available to the "eternal torment" supporter are the following:

1. "destroy", when applied to souls, does not mean to "annihilate" but rather to "preserve in a never-ending state of conscious separation from God";

2. "destroy" indeed mean to "annihilate", but the text only speaks of an ability, and as such gives us no reason to believe that God will actually destroy souls in hell.

I will deal with the first position in this post and will repost a modification of a response I have already provided in respect to the second.

Any attempt to argue that "destroy" in reference to a soul does not imply the annihilation of that soul is very untenable specifically in light of the preceding reference to one who can "kill the body but cannot kill the soul". We know what it means to kill a body - it means to basically reduce the actions of that body to zero, followed by its physical decomposition into dust. It cannot mean to place the body in some kind of state of continued existence. A body that is killed is emptied of all its functional and experiential content and then decays to dust.

"We know what it means to kill the body" you say. Is the body of Jesus Christ dead? Why or why not?
Was the body of Jesus Christ dead?
Did the body of Jesus Christ meet your requirements of death or "killing the body" (reducing the actions of that body to zero, followed by its physical decomposition into dust)? Why not?
Was the body of Jesus Christ emptied of all its funcitional and experential content and then did it decay to dust? Why not?

It sounds like you have made up your own definition of death and then inserted it into the Bible, at you own whim, to support your own preconceived ideas--the ideas of man and not the doctrines of God. When you define your words with man's defintions and not God's definitions you come up with man's doctrines and not God's doctrines. Biblical doctrine requires Biblical definitions. There is no support for annihilation of the wicked in the Bible. Ask me to prove it. I can't because it isn't taught in the Bible. I can't prove something that doesn't exist. It is a logical fallacy. However I can demonstrate from Scriptures (and have done so) that the eternal punisment of the wicked is taught in the Scriptures.

 

[BobRyan]

Scripture speaks of physical death as a "from DUST TO Dust" cycle.

Functionally - the body ceases to exist when "reduced to ashes" or dust.

In Matt 10:28 That same "reduction" is being applied to the soul in the case of the second death.

Minicing words about "yes body turned to dust but not annihilated" is not a discussion that has much life to it. compare a single part - say a human eye - to a lump of dust and notice the vast difference in "function".

For my purposes if the reduction of BOTH body AND soul are such that they are both DESTROYED "by reducing them to ashes" in the 2nd death - it accomplishes all that I have claimed in that case.

If others seek to find some comfort in minicing words to the point of "well ashes but not yet annihilated the way I like to think of Annihilated" - then that is perfectly fine.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Obviously we see no "eternal destroying" going on here rather we see END of LIFE – REAL death not “living on in an unrepentant state”

Matt 10:28 “destroy both BODY AND SOUL” in fiery hell –

Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. (destroy - Apollumi )


Matt 2:13
13Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him."

Matt 12
14But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.

Obviously we see no "eternal destroying" going on here in Matthew's use of the term in the cases above..

Mark 3:6
The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.

John 10:10
"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.



Not only is the term used as such by the Gospel writers - but the meaning "to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin " fits perfectly with the catastrophic term used in 2Peter 2:6 "Destroy by reducing them to Ashes"
Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. (destroy - Apollumi )

 

[BobRyan]

Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather [b]fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/b]

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;


Luke 17:29-30
29 but on the day that Lot went out from [b]Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all
30 "It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

 

[DHK]

Scripture speaks of physical death as a "from DUST TO Dust" cycle.

Functionally - the body ceases to exist when "reduced to ashes" or dust.

In Matt 10:28 That same "reduction" is being applied to the soul in the case of the second death.

Minicing words about "yes body turned to dust but not annihilated" is not a discussion that has much life to it. compare a single part - say a human eye - to a lump of dust and notice the vast difference in "function".

For my purposes if the reduction of BOTH body AND soul are such that they are both DESTROYED "by reducing them to ashes" in the 2nd death - it accomplishes all that I have claimed in that case.

If others seek to find some comfort in minicing words to the point of "well ashes but not yet annihilated the way I like to think of Annihilated" - then that is perfectly fine.

In Christ,

Bob

Your statement is telling:
"the way I like to think of annihilation. I suppose it doesn't matter to you what the Bible says. Only your opinion counts. But for the sake of something more authoritative than your opinion, at least look at a dictionary definitioin of "annihilation"

Etymology: Late Latin annihilatus, past participle of annihilare to reduce to nothing, from Latin ad- + nihil nothing -- more at NIL
transitive verb
1 a : to cause to be of no effect : NULLIFY b : to destroy the substance or force of
2 : to regard as of no consequence
3 : to cause to cease to exist;
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/annihilation

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/annihilation
You have chosen to use the third definition of Merrian-Webster's dictionary. The definitions are put in order of importance. The primary definitions are put first. The primary definition of annihilation is simply "cause to be of no effect." Why are you so eager to change even the basic dictionary meaning of the word annihilation to suit your purposes. Causing to be of no effect is far different than "ceasing to exist."

 

[DHK]

Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather [b]fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/b]

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;


Luke 17:29-30
29 but on the day that Lot went out from [b]Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all
30 "It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

Nice of you to quote Scriptue Bob.
I also believe the Bible.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Sadly that confession by the elder is factually the "practice" (though usually not the bold statement) of many Christians today.

In Christ,

Bob

I have dealt with that attitude my entire life.

It left me flabbergasted when an elder actually stated it.

Not that it means that everyone who does care what it says is going to agree. Far from it. If there are 10 people, there will 25 opinions on what it means.

But, at least with those who do care, there is some foundation for fellowship.

 

[BobRyan]

Nice of you to quote Scriptue Bob.
I also believe the Bible.

That is good news sir.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Scripture speaks of physical death as a "from DUST TO Dust" cycle.

Functionally - the body ceases to exist when "reduced to ashes" or dust.

In Matt 10:28 That same "reduction" is being applied to the soul in the case of the second death.

Minicing words about "yes body turned to dust but not annihilated" is not a discussion that has much life to it. compare a single part - say a human eye - to a lump of dust and notice the vast difference in "function".

For my purposes if the reduction of BOTH body AND soul are such that they are both DESTROYED "by reducing them to ashes" in the 2nd death - it accomplishes all that I have claimed in that case.

If others seek to find some comfort in minicing words to the point of "well ashes but not yet annihilated the way I like to think of Annihilated" - then that is perfectly fine.

In Christ,

Bob

Your statement is telling:
"the way I like to think of annihilation. I suppose it doesn't matter to you what the Bible says.

#1. you are rabbit trailing again - the point in the post above is that inspite of "your efforts" to insert the term "annihilation" my point rests on the texts as they read - because my point is MADE simply by observing that JUST as the body really IS destroyed in this life - SO in the 2nd death "BOTH body AND soul" are destroyed ... And the definition for that is SEEN in the EXAMPLE God gives of fire and brimstain rained down from heaven - Sodom and Gomorrah, where HE says it is "destroyed by reducing them to ashes" --

As opposed to "destroyed by giving them eternal life in an inconvenient way"

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And the definition for that is SEEN in the EXAMPLE God gives of fire and brimstain rained down from heaven - Sodom and Gomorrah, where HE says it is "destroyed by reducing them to ashes" --


Originally Posted by BobRyan
Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather [b]fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/b]

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;


Luke 17:29-30
29 but on the day that Lot went out from [b]Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all
30 "It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

 

[Andre]

The purpose of this post is to correct a flaw in my relatively recent post about Matt 10:28. After posting it, I realized that it was vulnerable to a certain counterargument (a counterargument which no one has provided yet). So what follows is a correction, not the full argument (which has already been given).

Here is the text again:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

We know what it means to kill the body - it means to reduce its functionality to zero and begin the process of decomposition. A body that has been killed is certainly not a body that has any kind of existence for a never-ending time. So to kill a body is to effectively annihilate it. Jesus then refers to the inability of man to kill the soul. This implies that the soul can indeed be killed. Now I completely understand that the "eternal torment" supporter can object as follows: "The 2nd sentence of verse 28 refers to God's ability to destroy the soul, not kill it - This is evidence that Jesus is referring to an even worse fate than annihilation, namely eternal torment". Let's call the preceding argument (for eternal torment) argument "A".

This is, at first glance, a very reasonable objection indeed. But, it does not really pan out when the text is further analysed. If argument A is correct, we must, for the sake of consistency, apply the same sense of "destroy" (namely eternal torment) to the body as well, since Jesus refers to the ability of God to "destroy both body and soul" in hell.

Does it even make sense to talk of eternal destruction of the body as specifically distinct from the soul? I maintain that it rather obviously does not. While it is at least plausible that a disembodied soul can exist in a state of torment forever in some kind of "spiritual fire", we cannot reasonably say this of a body. If the body is in hell-fire, then we really need to conclude that it will be reduced to ashes - that is what fire does to physical things - it breaks them down to basically nothing. So it really is nonsensical to say that God "destroys" bodies in this "eternal preservation" sense. And yet this is what we have to conclude in order for argument A to be internally consistent.

So argument A fails and the initial argument appears solid - God is indeed able to destroy souls in hell, in the sense of annihilating them.

In fact, the only way I can see for the eternal torment position to survive Matt 10:28 were to be if it were written as follows:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy the soul and kill the body in hell.

In this case, objection A would at least be plausible.

 

[DHK]

We know what it means to kill the body .

The whole premise of your argument lies on this one statement. And this one statement is an assumption (we know), not a fact. It is your opinion not based in fact, but rather based in something that you have made up that we do not agree on. Therefore everything you have said falls apart, and is not true Biblically because the fasle assumption that you have startred on is not true.

 

[Andre]

We know what it means to kill the body .

The whole premise of your argument lies on this one statement. And this one statement is an assumption (we know), not a fact. It is your opinion not based in fact, but rather based in something that you have made up that we do not agree on. Therefore everything you have said falls apart, and is not true Biblically because the fasle assumption that you have startred on is not true.

You are right. My argument in respect to Matt 10:28 is indeed based on this one statement - that we know that "killing" a body renders that body entirely non-functional and, sooner or later, such a killed body returns to dust. Again, I fully admit that my argument rests on the assertion that killing a body, whatever it may mean in the actual details, certainly precludes the possiblity of that body existing forever in some functional state (which is what "killing" would have to mean for the "eternal torment" argument to survive the effects of Matt 10:28).

Let the readers decide for themselves if "killing" a body can result in a state where that body is not ultimately reduced to dust....