Is Matthew 10:28 a problem for UR?

[davo]

…if Jesus is merely talking of a literal punishment like that of 70AD, why does He contrast killing the body and destroying the ‘soul’ in Gehenna? This makes no sense if we are merely talking of killing someone physically as a punishment, like in the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah.

Hi Catherine… as pantelist I understand it this way. The physician Luke in his expanded account (Lk12:4-7) helps clear up a few misconceptions often automatically assumed of the text as to “what” Jesus was actually talking about.

Lk 12:4-7 “And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who killing the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear the one who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell [Gehenna]; yes, I say to you, fear this one! “Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins? And not one of them is forgotten before God. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Notice that this passage does not say “after death” as is typically read into it the text, but simply “after that”; this is quite literally, after the killing. Now one might conclude there seems little difference between the two but there is subtle enough difference NOT to read into these passages what is NOT actually there… typically a reference to post-mortem destinies. However, read from a more prêteristic perspective “to be cast into Gehenna” should make perfect sense… being understood as speaking to the soon coming deadly end-time conflagrations of the Jewish-Roman wars AD66-70. The ultimate culmination of madness and mayhem coming in AD70 with the razing of Jerusalem and her Temple; a coming period that Jesus alludes to by means of an historic illustration early in the following chapter Lk 13:3-5.

By way of historical context: Just off Jerusalem’s southwest corner walls down in the valley of Hinnom was “Gehenna” – Jerusalem’s infernal rubbish-heap, smouldering continuously “day and night forever”. All manner of city refuge was cast into it and its fires and maggots (worms) consumed without end. This is the backdrop (pardon the pun) to Jesus’ words, all of which his audience would have been completely au fait.

This place allegorically spoke of the most contemptuous and acrid form of disdain, dismissal and utter scorn where one’s IDENTITY or “SOUL” as a Jew became synonymous with total abandonment. Significantly, only the worst and vilest of criminals were consigned to its nether regions, having been summarily executed by the Romans – the masters of crucifixion, from which once dead were duly cast. Thus to be “cast into Gehenna” was the ultimate pronouncement of condemnation, rejection and shame; an apt picture of the old covenant world’s soon coming end and all who clung to and IDENTIFIED with it. For an Israelite, Jerusalem and in particular her Temple WAS the whole “soul” and identity of who and what an Israelite was – and all this was about to be “cast into Gehenna”.

Now the textual context of this passage is primarily that of Jesus reassuring his disciples that during these times of impending tribulation to “fear not!” From the pantelist perspective these passages are NOT, as is most often supposed, dealing with an unbeliever’s post-mortem destiny. Rather this was Jesus reassuring his followers and disciples in the face of real dangers that lay ahead for those committed to Him… dangers that Jesus being fully aware could for some mean potential or actual loss of life; yet Jesus is telling them that “not one of them is forgotten before God” i.e., NOT abandoned to Gehenna.

In other words, unlike the historical record that would end in the criminal contempt of Gehenna for those who clung to their old covenant identity (soul), God’s “called” would be duly numbered and remembered, and so delivered (saved Mt 24:13) and receive their full reward in the Parousia, according to what they had done. For the obstinate however awaited sufferings, shame and loss that clinging to the old covenant mode of existence was inevitably about to bring.

…Jesus’ words regarding ‘hell’ or rather Gehenna were regarding judgmental language of the destruction that would come upon them literally in 70 AD. Some of them would literally be thrown into the local rubbish dump to be burned. I also mentioned how Jesus likens the coming judgment etc, to Sodom and Gomarrah, and how that was temporal and involved real fire.

I think you might find the following interesting… here are a few quotes from prominent 19th century Universalist J.W. Hanson, DD from his 1878 work “Bible Threatenings Explained”.

DESTROY SOUL AND BODY IN HELL
"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. Matt. x:28. “But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: Fear him which, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into Hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him.” Luke xil:5. The reader of these verses and the accompanying language, will observe that Jesus is exhorting his disciples to have entire faith in God. The most that men can do is to destroy the body, but God “is able,” “hath power” to destroy both body and soul in Gehenna.

It is not said that God has any disposition or purpose of doing so. He is able to do it, as it is said (Matt. iii:9) he is “able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” He never did, and never will raise up children to Abraham of the stones of the street, but he is able to, just as he is able to destroy soul and body in Gehenna, while men could only destroy the body there. Fear the mighty power of God, who could, if he chose, annihilate man, while the worst that men could do would be to destroy mere animal life. It is a forcible exhortation to trust in God, and has no reference to torment after death.

Fear not those who can only torture you–man–but fear God who can annihilate, (apokteino). 1 This language was addressed by Christ to his disciples, and not to sinners. 2 It proves God’s ability to annihilate (destroy) and not his purpose to torment. Donnegan defines appollumi, “to destroy utterly.” As though Jesus had said: “Fear not those who can only kill the body, but rather him, who, if he chose could annihilate the whole being. Fear not man but God.” “So much may suffice to show the admitted fact, that the destruction of soul and body was a proverbial phrase, indicating utter extinction or complete destruction.” Paige Dr. W. E. Manley observes that the condition threatened "is one wherein the body can be killed. And no one has imagined any such place, outside the present state of being. Nor can there be the least doubt about the nature of this killing of the body; for the passage is so constructed as to settle this question beyond all controversy. It is taking away the natural life, as was done by the persecutors of the apostles.

The Jews were in a condition of depravity properly represented by Gehenna. The apostles had been in that condition, but had been delivered from it. By supposing the word Hell to denote a condition now and in the present life, there is no absurdity involved. Sinful men may here suffer both natural death and moral death; but in the future life, natural death cannot be suffered; whatever may be said of moral death. Fear not men, your persecutors, who can inflict on you only bodily suffering. But rather fear him who is able to inflict both bodily suffering, and what is worse, mental and moral suffering, in that condition of depravity represented by the foulest and most revolting locality known to the Jewish people." “Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of Hell than yourselves.” Matt. xxiii:15. Looking upon the smoking valley, and thinking of its corruptions and abominations, to call a man a “child of Gehenna” was to say that his heart was corrupt and his character vile, but it no more indicated a place of woe after death, than a resident of New York would imply such a place by calling a bad man a child of Five Points.

We have thus briefly explained all the passages in which Gehenna occurs. Is there any intimation that it denotes a place of punishment after death? Not any. If it meant such a place no one can escape believing that it is a place of literal fire, and all the modern talk of a Hell of conscience is most erroneous. But that it has no such meaning is corroborated by the testimony of Paul, who says he “shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God,” and yet he never, in all his writings, employs the word once, nor does he use the word Hadees but once, and then he signifies its destruction; “Oh Hadees, where is thy victory?” If Paul believed in a place of endless torment, would he have been utterly silent in reference to it, in his entire ministry? His reticence is a demonstration that he had no faith in it, though the Jews and heathen all around him preached it and believed it implicitly.

A careful reading of the Old Testament shows that the vale of Hinnom was a well-known and repulsive valley near Jerusalem, and an equally careful reading of the New Testament teaches that Gehenna, or Hinnom’s vale was explained as always in this world. (Jer. vii:29-34: xix:4-15: Matt. x:28) and was to befall the sinners of that generation (Matt. xxiv) in this life (Matt. x:30) that their bodies and souls were exposed to its calamities. It was only used in the New Testament on five occasions, either too few, or else modern ministers use it altogether too much. John, who wrote for Gentiles, and Paul who was the great apostle to the Gentiles, never used it once, nor did Peter. If it had a local application and meaning we can understand this, but if it be the name of the receptacle of damned souls to all eternity, it would be impossible to explain such inconsistency.

The primary meaning then, of Gehenna is a well-known locality near Jerusalem; but it was sometimes used to denote the consequences of sin, in this life. It is to be understood in these two senses only, in all the twelve passages in the New Testament. In the second century after Christ it came to denote a place of torment after death, but it is never employed in that sense in the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Apocrypha nor was it used by any contemporary of Christ with that meaning, nor was it ever thus employed by any Christian until Justin and Clement thus used it (A.D. 150) and the latter was a Universalist, nor by any Jew until in the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, about a century later. And even then it only denoted future, but did not denote endless punishment, until a still later period.

As you can see, this Universalist held to a very strong FULFILLED eschatological view that in turn informed his soteriology.

[JasonPratt]

Davo,

In other words, we shouldn’t fear the ones who can only kill and cannot throw the body into the physical Hinnom Valley (because after killing they can do no more), but we should fear the one who can kill and after he has killed has the authority to throw the body and one’s identity as a Jew only into the physical Hinnom Valley (not having anything to do with a post-mortem destiny)?

So Christians are not to fear the Pharisees who don’t have authority to do more than kill the body, but Christians should fear Vespasian or Titus (whichever “one” is referred to) who after killing has the authority to throw the body into Hinnom Valley and destroy their identity as Jews?

So you don’t agree with Hanson, whom you quoted, that Jesus meant we should fear God? Because Hanson and I seem to agree that we ought to be fearing God Who can punish post-mortem not merely pre-mortem, even though God doesn’t go as far as He could with that authority (having rather the intention to save the sinner rather than to hopelessly punish the sinner).

Though then again, Hanson goes on to claim that Gehenna (where God has the authority to destroy both body and soul, which he agrees means more than just destroying natural life) does NOT denote “a place of torment after death”, thus not a state of punishment by God after death, thus nothing more than just destroying the natural life in a particular way related to that physical valley.

So he’s rather inconsistent. That being the case, I suppose you could choose between his inconsistencies and go with the latter rather than the former.

But then you’re back to comparing Jewish and Roman authorities about whom Christians should emphatically fear and yet not fear thanks to God. Instead of fearing God instead of pagan (or Jewish) authorities as in Isaiah 8:12-13 (which seems to be the reference in mind). And instead of fearing God instead of pagan or Jewish authorities as the contexts around those Synoptic verses talk about, including apparently the judgment of being denied by Christ (in front of the Father, suggesting the eschaton not a local reduction of Jerusalem which no Christian has had to worry about since 70 despite being persecuted by human authorities for 1945 years since then) for denying Christ.

To me the entire context points rather toward a warning that we ought to fear God rather than men, if we’re going to fear punishment, because God can punish more than any human (or for that matter diabolic) authority; and this warning continues to be valid after 70 CE; just as the assurance continues to be valid after 70 CE that God cares more for people than to throw them away or destroy them like trash, and that the Holy Spirit will help us bear up and give good testimony under persecution after 70 as well as before and during 70 (though apparently not many if any Christians were caught in the slaughter of Jerusalem, having been warned to avoid taking a stand against Rome there.)

Still, either way, not anything to count against Christian universalism.

[steve7150]

‘‘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 (Gehenna).’’ Matt 10:28.

Really this is nothing new, simply means fear God not man. Jesus simply said God can destroy the soul not necessarily that he would. Fearing God is repeated many times in scripture like “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” I think it is pretty clear “fear” doesn’t mean to be terrified but rather “reverence.”
Also this statement would indicate the soul is not immortal as many believe.

[Sherman]

‘‘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 (Gehenna).’’ Matt 10:28.

Really this is nothing new, simply means fear God not man. Jesus simply said God can destroy the soul not necessarily that he would. Fearing God is repeated many times in scripture like “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” I think it is pretty clear “fear” doesn’t mean to be terrified but rather “reverence.”
Also this statement would indicate the soul is not immortal as many believe.

In Matt. 10:28 note that Jesus is encouraging his listeners to not fear man but fear God because God is the ultimate judge and the one who is ultimately in control. It reminds me of my father saying, “I brought you in this world, and I can take you out!”

Also note what follows, “29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.”

So, don’t be afraid of man because God’s ultimately in control and don’t be afraid of God our Father but love him because he loves you and you are precious to him.

This passage is not even warning of judgment, but highlighting the love of God for us.

[Sherman]

In studying the verses where Jesus talks about people being thrown into Gehenna, are we agreed that the ‘Lake of Fire’ which is the second death is the same as Gehenna? I think it is, because of where Jesus says in Matt 25:41: ‘‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’’ We know that fire to be the ‘Lake of Fire’ as explained in Rev 20:10 ‘‘And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.’’

So every time Jesus warns about the judgment of Gehenna, He is referring to the Lake of Fire which is the second death.

Gehenna = Hinnom Valley, and the Lake of the fire and the brimstone likely = Dead Sea. Hinnom Valley recalls to mind the destruction of Jerusalem because of sacrificing their children to Molech. And on the West bank of the Dead Sea are the Ash remains of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. And anything burnt up in Hinnom Valley eventually washes down ravines into the Dead Sea. These concepts are connected, both referencing the judgment of God and the destruction of evil; but they are different locations and call to mind different images.

Another point I’m always confused about, is why Jesus describes Hades (where the dead go) as being a place of flames? Why didn’t He use ‘gehenna’ here too? Very peculiar…

Hinnom Valley is a specific geographic site but it does not have a specific metaphorical meaning. It could reference

1. a trash dump
2. sacrificing one’s own children to your idols
3. destruction of Jerusalem
4. death and destruction in general, and
5. possibly post-mortem punishment of sin.

Hades references death and the realm of the dead.

By Homogenizing these terms we loose their potency, I think!

[anon47460357]

Gehenna = Hinnom Valley, and the Lake of the fire and the brimstone likely = Dead Sea. Hinnom Valley recalls to mind the destruction of Jerusalem because of sacrificing their children to Molech. And on the West bank of the Dead Sea are the Ash remains of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. And anything burnt up in Hinnom Valley eventually washes down ravines into the Dead Sea. These concepts are connected, both referencing the judgment of God and the destruction of evil; but they are different locations and call to mind different images.

Go into more detail on “the lake of fire and brimstone” = “Dead Sea”, please. That intrigues me.

[davo]

So you don’t agree with Hanson, whom you quoted, that Jesus meant we should fear God? Because Hanson and I seem to agree that we ought to be fearing God Who can punish post-mortem not merely pre-mortem, even though God doesn’t go as far as He could with that authority (having rather the intention to save the sinner rather than to hopelessly punish the sinner).

Jason, I pasted those quotes from Hanson for two reasons… 1) Catherine had asked for “UR thoughts” on the text in view (I’m a pantelist), AND 2) because of the plainly prêteristic-type understanding Hanson clearly gives to said and related passages… something surprising and seemingly more absent from present-day “universalists”.

As to the “He” of these passages… I’m inclined to see such as you indicated (Vespasian or Titus) more in line with the likes of N.T. Wright i.e., a local governing power of Rome etc.

To me the entire context points rather toward a warning that we ought to fear God rather than men, if we’re going to fear punishment, because God can punish more than any human (or for that matter diabolic) authority; and this warning continues to be valid after 70 CE;

Yeah look that’s fine (and I agree) in terms of finding personal applicability beyond the specific context where realising any scriptural truth actualises greater blessing in life in an experiential and practical sense where we appropriate and imbibe said values and principles and so find afresh its transforming relevance for living etc.

However, your ‘royal we’ goes beyond the context wherein Jesus was specifically speaking to THEM about THEIR prospective future as it was about to roll out FOR THEM. IOW… said “warning” was literally applicable TO THEM, not us; apart from, as I just suggested above.

Still, either way, not anything to count against Christian universalism.

Yep, and again no problems from my pantelistic side of the fence which butts up right next to yours.

[Catherine]

Guys and gals, great replies. I’m just doing some studying on ‘Gehenna’ so will come back asap to specific points you have made, but for now, this is the meaning I am getting from Jesus:

** ‘‘Don’t fear being killed by man. All they can do is kill the body (temporarily), rather fear my Father, because if He kills you it will be worse’’. **
Now, in what way it will be worse, is what I am trying to determine. So far, I’ve read that the Jews of Jesus’ time understood ‘Gehenna’ to be symbolic of post mortem punishment, and so is Jesus using ‘Gehenna’ in this way too, or purely in a literal way, as is usually offered by URists and those who don’t believe in a literal ‘hell’. Or is He meaning BOTH? One thing seems clear: Jesus repeatedly warns about being thrown into Gehenna. He wants/wanted you to avoid it because it is a terrible punishment. It makes no sense to assume it is some kind of lame threat that God doesn’t carry out. So what is worse than physical death?..

[steve7150]

‘‘Don’t fear being killed by man. All they can do is kill the body (temporarily), rather fear my Father, because if He kills you it will be worse’’.

“Worse” meaning God can also kill/destroy the “soul” which man can not. That’s the “worse” part, the destruction of the soul with Jesus making a clear distinction from the body.
Does this warning mean God will kill/destroy some souls and possibly impact UR? You have to add it to the weight of all the evidence for and against UR and see where it fits in.

[anon47460357]

[T]his is the meaning I am getting from Jesus:

** ‘‘Don’t fear being killed by man. All they can do is kill the body (tempoSorarily), rather fear my Father, because if He kills you it will be worse’’. **
Now, in what way it will be worse, is what I am trying to determine. So far, I’ve read that the Jews of Jesus’ time understood ‘Gehenna’ to be symbolic of post mortem punishment…

1. As far as I can tell, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews of Jesus’s time understood the Valley of Hinnom to be symbolic of post-mortem punishment. The earliest such reference I can find is in St. Justin Martyr, well over 100 years after Christ’s resurrection.

2. Who cares if a man kills us? It doesn’t and can’t hurt us. As St. Paul said, our sufferings are not even worth thinking about, so it is less than nothing if we are murdered. But look at how fearful it is to fall under the judgment of God: The only way to be so judged is to be sinful. Being sinful is a BIG DEAL. That is the ONLY thing that can hurt us. In a nutshell: Do not fear pain and death. Rather, fear being sinful.

[Paidion]

Here is another possible understanding of the text. I wrote this a number of years ago, and forgot about it:

***And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. ***

There are many killers here on earth who may threaten us with death. Often these people carry our their threats. Many early Christians were put to death by burning them at stake, or by throwing them to the lions, or subjecting them to gladiators. In the middle ages, even the religlious leaders put many to death among those who disagreed with them.

When “the body” is killed, the person is gone, seemingly never to return again. But our Lord assures his listeners that these murdered persons are not gone forever! As stated three times in John 6, He will raise them up again at the last day. So their very essence, their self or “soul” is not permanently wiped out by death. They cannot “kill the soul”.

Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

It is important to recognize that some scriptures use “destroy” (apollumi) in a different way from that which the modern person thinks of it. We think of destruction as annihilation, or we think of it as smashing something in such a way that it is rendered useless. It’s original form has been altered. Sometimes “destroy” is used in the New Testament in the sense of refining something, so that the original form is altered to a purified form. Consider the following passage from I Peter 1:3-6 ESV and verse 7:

***Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials… ***

VERSE 7
… in order that the proving of your faith, much more valuable than gold that is being destroyed through fire and being proved , may be found for praise and glory and honour at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Notice it is the proving of your faith which is much more valuable than the proving of gold. Peter speaks of “gold that is being destroyed through fire”. Now we know that gold is not annihilated or even destroyed in the sense of being rendered useless (such as a toy that is destroyed by smashing it). Rather the original form of the gold, the ore, is destroyed and the impurities removed so that after the refining process is complete, only the pure gold remains. So it is with the proving of our faith through various trials. We are refined, impurities removed until we come forth as “pure gold”.

So fear God who is able to destroy a person’s original character in Gehenna, by refining that character, and thus altering it. Why should we fear God lest we are required to be so refined? Because it is a very painful process ---- much better that we should coöperate with the enabling grace of God for purification now, so that we won’t have to undergo that severe process. Even now, we may have to endure hardships which will help us to submit to present purification as the text indicates.

[Sherman]

Gehenna = Hinnom Valley, and the Lake of the fire and the brimstone likely = Dead Sea. Hinnom Valley recalls to mind the destruction of Jerusalem because of sacrificing their children to Molech. And on the West bank of the Dead Sea are the Ash remains of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. And anything burnt up in Hinnom Valley eventually washes down ravines into the Dead Sea. These concepts are connected, both referencing the judgment of God and the destruction of evil; but they are different locations and call to mind different images.

Go into more detail on “the lake of fire and brimstone” = “Dead Sea”, please. That intrigues me.

The Greek text actually calls it “the lake of the fire and the brimstone”. What lake in the middle east is most associated with “fire and brimstone”? The Dead Sea. On the West bank of the Dead Sea are the ash remains of the 5 cities of the plain, the two primary being Sodom and Gomorrah. The Jordan River is actually located in the Jordan Rift Valley where two techtonic plates meet like the San Andreas fault. There is significant geological activity along this rift valley, especially around the Dead Sea. Under the Dead Sea are vast pockets of gas and tar. The tar actually bubbles up and floats on top of the Dead Sea in great chunks, some as big as cars.

The ash remains of Sodom and Gomorrah can clearly be seen today. Walls, buildings, doors, windows, roads and alleys, and ziggarats were made of limestone. Some places the ash remains are in great swirls with chunks of brimstone, (sulfur with traces of magnesium) that made for a very high heat, over 6000 degrees F creates the swirling effect in the ash.

And various documents through history attest to fire and smoke coming from and being over the Dead Sea. It is a place that speaks of the judgment of God. Some scientists believe that vast quatities of sulfur errupted from under the Dead Sea and showered down on Sodom and Gomorrah, a geological event that was understood as judgment by God.

I think the Dead Sea is what John saw in his vision, but it was not called the Dead Sea in that day. I don’t know that it was called the lake of the fire and the brimstone by the Jews, but the Greeks called it Lake Asphaltites (sp?). Anyhow, it makes sense to me that John was referencing the Dead Sea. It is only a few miles from Jerusalem and is spoken of in prophecy as being ultimately healed.

[anon47460357]

Sherman, thank you for that. It is utterly fascinating and looks logical. I’m going to have to study the matter further. Thanks again!

[Catherine]

Thank you for all the replies. I’m struggling again, so haven’t got the energy to discuss this. I’m reading the comments though. Thank you.

[Eaglesway]

[T]his is the meaning I am getting from Jesus:

** ‘‘Don’t fear being killed by man. All they can do is kill the body (tempoSorarily), rather fear my Father, because if He kills you it will be worse’’. **

Now, in what way it will be worse, is what I am trying to determine. So far, I’ve read that the Jews of Jesus’ time understood ‘Gehenna’ to be symbolic of post mortem punishment…

1. As far as I can tell, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews of Jesus’s time understood the Valley of Hinnom to be symbolic of post-mortem punishment. The earliest such reference I can find is in St. Justin Martyr, well over 100 years after Christ’s resurrection.

2. Who cares if a man kills us? It doesn’t and can’t hurt us. As St. Paul said, our sufferings are not even worth thinking about, so it is less than nothing if we are murdered. But look at how fearful it is to fall under the judgment of God: The only way to be so judged is to be sinful. Being sinful is a BIG DEAL. That is the ONLY thing that can hurt us. In a nutshell: Do not fear pain and death. Rather, fear being sinful.

I actually do see Gehenna as symbolic of post-morten punishment. Jesus called the Pharisees “sons of Gehenna”(Mat 23:15) and followed that with
Mat 23:33 Serpents! brood of vipers! how may ye escape from the judgment of the gehenna?(YLT) I do not see any record of Pharisees literally cast into Gehenna, and I think it reasonable to take Jesus metaphorically here.

To me the issue is not so much what is Gehenna, or the lake of fire, so much as what they are for- which is correction/subjection, and how long they last, which is until every knee bows and every tongue confesses. There is one other important thing-

The scriptures have to be integrated or they are worthless. If we have a portion of verses that teach eternal torment, and another portion that teaches the reconciliation and restoration of all things- then why not just believe whatever we want. Where would the authority come from for any particular view? it would come from picking a particular group of verses and ignoring the rest.

I do not need to ignore or marginalize Jesus’ threats of judgement to come in order to be confident about the ultimate salvation of all. I believe in an intense judgement of the wicked, for corrective purposes- the subjection of all things to Christ, “Come, sit at My right hand until I make all your enemies a footstool for your feet”.

For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. **When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.
** 1 Cor 15:25-28

He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. Col 1:18-20

If I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me (John 12:32)

[Origen]

This is an amazing thread. Well done boys & girl.

Tom Talbott also has some interesting remarks on Matthew 10:28 here:

Annihilationism and Universalism (the Glen & Tom dialogue)

Hello again, Glenn: Because my latest post in this discussion dealt only with the first half of your previous post, and because I now have a small window of opportunity, I have decided to comment further on Matthew 10:28. Although I consider this a sidebar of sorts, you are, of course, free to respond in any way you choose. But my own main focus will remain on the three questions I put to you in my previous post, and so I make no commitment, at least not at the present time, to pursue any furth…

I have somewhat similar ideas re Matthew 10:28, as follows, in response to an annihilationist:

As to the meaning of the word “destroy”, Websters’ first definition is “ruin” and second definition is to “put out of existence”: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/destroy

For a mortal body to be ruined or destroyed in Gehenna it evidently involves dieing & being changed in its form, such as by being burnt to ashes & or smoke, etc. It still exists & is not annihilated since matter cannot be annihilated, only changed in its form. Not, at least, until God creates a new universe.

What does it mean that God “can” ruin or destroy a soul in Gehenna? Would this be ruin as in cessation of existence or something like a spiritual death as in, for example, dead in sins (Eph.2:1)? Or as in what God did to the king in the book of Daniel in making him act like an animal for 7 years, before returning his soul back to sanity, resulting in him being humbled & worshiping God? Or, as in being delivered to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme (1 Tim.1:20)? BTW, Satan will be there in the LOF with human blasphemers.

Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme (1 Tim.1:20).

If Satan & demons are there in the LOF to possess people, just casting them into the LOF could result in people being psychologically destroyed/ruined in a multitude of ways we cannot even imagine. I’m sure that experienced shrinks have a bit of an idea of what that might involve. Or deliverance ministers/exorcists.

Of course the spiritually dead are already dead in sins. But this does not preclude there being various degrees of spiritual deadness or destruction (i.e. ruin) of their souls. Otherwise why would the scriptures speaks of those who are worthy of few stripes & others who are worthy of many stripes, & similarly. Surely a distinction is to be made between a relatively innocent infant or child, a rebellious teenager & those who have apostasized from the faith, or demons & Satan. It is conceivable that it is always possible for the spiritually dead to experience greater degrees of destruction to their souls should they continue to rebel in the LOF and until they finally repent. Though, ever given the choice to turn to God, it is mathematically impossible that they would continue to reject God for eternity.

A related matter to the understanding of Mt.10:28 is the use of the same Greek words for “soul” and “destroy” a few verses later in the context of the same chapter 10 of Matthew:

Mt.10:39 He who is finding his soul will be destroying it, and he who destroys his soul on My account will be finding it. clv

Mt.10:28 And do not fear those who are killing the body, yet are not able to kill the soul. Yet be fearing Him, rather, Who is able to destroy the soul as well as the body in Gehenna.

By speaking of “destroying” our own “soul” [v.39] did Jesus mean we could annihilate it out of existence? Evidently not. So why should we think He meant annihilation of the soul earlier in the context [v.28] when speaking of the exact same thing, i.e. a soul being destroyed?

A passage in Matthew that has been interpreted as speaking of the possibility of release from “hell” (Gehenna) is:

Matt 5:25-26 . .Come to terms quickly with your adversary before it is too late and you are dragged into court, handed over to an officer, and thrown in jail. I assure you that you won’t be free again until you have paid the last penny.

This is spoken of by Jesus in the context of references to Gehenna, both before and after this passage.

Matthew was probably written to Jews & in the opening chapter of this book he told his readers that Jesus shall save His people from their sins (1:21), i.e. His people Israel (2:6). I take that to include people like Judas Iscariot & wicked Pharisees who died in their sins. But lest anyone think that is a licence to live sinfully, Jesus gives warnings such as those in Mt.10:28.

Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up (katakaio) the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Wheat is useful to the farmer for food. Chaff is useless, unless it is used for fuel. That occurs by burning it, as in Mt.3:12. Of course burned chaff is not annihilated but changed into something else. This verse does not address the final destiny of people’s souls. It doesn’t even mention the word “soul”, let alone any soul is ever annihilated & God Himself is powerless to resurrect that soul. Neither does it state the wheat & chaff represent different people rather than 2 parts of one person. In fact the previous verse said they would be baptized in the “Holy Spirit and fire” (v.11). Not one or the other. That is salvation. And it was spoken to the Pharisees & Sadduccees whom John called a “generation of vipers” (v.7).

Mark 9:49 For everyone will be salted with fire.

Jesus uses this same word, katakaio, to also describe the final fate of the unrighteous:

Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned (katakaio); then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’"

Jesus’ interpretation of this parable is given in Matthew 13:37-43. He states “at the end of the age” the wicked will be put “into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”. That doesn’t sound like annihilation. Furthermore, there is nothing in this description of “final fate”, but only what will happen “at the end of the age”, with at least two more ages to follow (Eph.2:7). This passage tells us nothing about what happens to those in the fire in the future ages.

We could also mention that oft quoted passage in Matthews’ gospel, Mt.25:46, of which much has been written on this site & of which Tom Talbott has said:

“Isn’t it ironic that the passage most often used to support everlasting punishment is in fact one strongly opposing it when accurately understood?” (Tom Talbott, author of “The Inescapable Love of God”).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Talbott
thomastalbott.com/index.php

[Paidion]

For those who have a problem with Matt 10:28, I would say that the main problem revolves around that little word “destroy.” It is presumed that “destroy” and “destruction” imply either annihilation or confinement to eternal torment. They don’t.

I will comment on I Thess 1:5-10 concerning “aeonion (lasting) destruction” as well as “exclusion from the presence of the Lord” for those who afflict Christ’s disciples. Here the passage:

… God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant rest with us to you who are afflicted, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting judgment upon those who do not know God and upon those who are not persuaded by the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of lasting destruction, and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at in all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. Thess 1:6-10

Let’s first consider the exclusion from the presence of the Lord. The passage tells us the exclusion will take place “when He comes on that day to be glorified in His saints”. I am sure most of us will agree that the Lord Jesus, when He returns will not accept those who have rebelled against Him. The reason is the character of these rebels will not have changed at that time, and so He will “inflict judgment” upon them. It is not necessary to infer from the fact that they will be excluded from His presence “when He comes on that day” that this exclusion will be everlasting.

As to the “aeonian destruction”, I translated the Greek word “aiōnion” as “lasting." It should never be translated as “eternal”, and especially here. “Eternal destruction” appears to be an oxymoron. If something is destroyed, the destructive process has come to an end; it doesn’t continue indefinitely.

I invite you to consider how “destroy” is sometimes used in the scriptures as shown in the following passage from I Peter 1:3-7

Praise be the God and Father of the Anointed Lord Jesus, who, in keeping with His great mercy has regenerated us for the purpose of a living hope, through the resurrection of the Anointed Jesus from the dead, into an incorruptible and undefiled inheritance reserved in heaven for you, who, by the power of God are guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed at the last time. In this you exult, yet for a little while, if necessary, grieving in various trials in order that the testing of you of the faith, very valuable, gold being destroyed through fire, yet being tested, may be found for praise and glory and honour at the revealing of Jesus the Anointed.

Peter compared the testing of his readers’ faith to gold being destroyed by fire. Now we all know that pure gold cannot be destroyed by fire. It can be melted, but cannot be destroyed (in the annihilation sense of the word). What then, did Peter mean? Did he not mean that gold in its original form (gold ore) can be destroyed by fire so that the pure gold can come forth? Was he not referring to the refining process? When we undergo various trials, our character can be refined.

But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner‘s fire and like fullers’ soap. Malachi 3:2 RSV

Both fire and soap can purify. That is what the Lord can do for a person, and sometimes He does it through trials.

Someone may object that some translations refer to gold as being “perishable” in I Peter 3:7, and again in verse 18, where Peter clearly speaks of gold being perishable.

1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers.

However,Peter used a different word from that which he used in verse 7. The word is better translated as “corruptible”. The Greek word is the adjective “phthartos” which is derived from the verb “phtheirō”. The Online Bible Lexicon gives the following note for the latter word:

In the opinion of the Jews, the temple was corrupted or “destroyed” when anyone defiled or in the slightest degree damaged anything in it, or if its guardians neglected their duties.

So gold can be corrupted in this sense, it can be scratched or dirtied, or altered in other ways. But pure gold cannot be “destroyed” in the sense of being annihilated, at least not by fire.

So those precious lost souls whom God loves will be judged and sent to a place or state of correction. They have been corrupted by their sin, but God’s fire and soap can purify them so that they will emerge as refined gold. They will never be annihilated. That would defeat God’s redemptive purpose. All of God’s judgments are remedial.

For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. Luke 19:10

By the way, the Greek word for “lost” in this verse is the 2nd perfect active participle of the verb “απολλυμι” (destroy).
So it could be translated, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the ones who were being destroyed.”

The father of the “prodigal” son gave this instruction after his son’s return:

“And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.” And they began to be merry. (Luke 15:23,24)

Again, a form of that same verb “απολλυμι” (destroy) is used here, being translated as “lost.”

So that which is “destroyed” can be redeemed. And that is exactly what God will do when He will “destroy both body and soul in Gehenna.” They will be lost, but after being dealt with by the Father, they will be found.

Some say that “destroy” even here can be thought of as annihilation, but it is not the person who will be annihilated, but the evil which is within him.

Now to complete what I believe to be Paul’s meaning of lasting destruction of the wicked. They will suffer a severe refinement in the fires of Gehenna which will destroy their sinful, wicked natures, until the pure “gold” shines forth. Of course, they, themselves will have to repent and submit to Messiah Jesus in order for the refining process to be effective. And quite likely, the fully mature sons of God will have a part in bringing the truth to these people. Sometimes, the righteous suffer such a refining process in this life. The refining of the wicked in that day will be possibly be more severe. Perhaps less refining will be necessary for those who have never heard the gospel in this life (some of them have never heard of Jesus). Whatever the case, God will do what is best for every individual.

[Origen]

This is from a discussion on Christian Forums Dot Com:

Matthew 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

Destroy in this verse is the same Greek word used for destroy in Matthew 10:28. The sense in this verse is to kill. This shows that this Greek word can sometimes mean to kill. Of course though, to kill someone isn’t the same thing as annihilation. Yet, if the sense for destroy in Matthew 10:28 is also to kill, how can that not add up to annihilation in that particular context? What is the logic in killing a soul if that soul never really dies? And if a soul dies, that being the 2nd death, how could it still be existing forever instead?

Matthew 10:28 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.

but are not able to kill the soul. Obviously Jesus meant that men can kill the body, but that they can’t also kill the soul. If there is no such thing as the killing of the soul, what was Jesus’ reason for bringing up something impossible? But if there is such a thing as killing the soul, but that man can’t do it, who would be able to do it then? God of course. And that’s exactly what the next part of that verse tells us. It tells the who and the how.

Of course though, to kill someone isn’t the same thing as annihilation. Yet, if the sense for destroy in Matthew 10:28 is also to kill, how can that not add up to annihilation in that particular context?

In the same way Romans 7:11 (which uses the word “kill” for killing a person) doesn’t “add up to annihilation” of the person:

for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. (Rom.7:11).

Sin “killed” him, but he wasn’t annihilated. Thus also God can kill or destroy one without annihilating that one. Why would Love Omnipotent want to annihilate anyone. He wills that all mankind be saved, has ransomed all (1 Tim.2:4-6), & is the Savior of all (1 Tim.4:10). His judgements, anger and wrath are salvific.

What is the logic in killing a soul if that soul never really dies?

To bring a soul to repentance & salvation. To show it what it is like to be separated from God’s will, mercy & love.

In the book of Daniel King Nebuchadnezzar lost his soul when God made him act insanely like an animal for 7 years. God’s destruction/ruining of the kings’ soul meant the loss of his soul for the king.

Likewise the prodigal son “lost” (same Greek word as “destroyed” in Mt.10:28) his soul when he left his father for the world. Later when he “came back to his senses”, he “found” his soul. His Father said his son was “dead” and “lost” (i.e. destroyed). Though he was obviously never annihilated.

How is it that God is “able” to destroy body & soul in Gehenna. Supposedly if angels cast people into it, that in itself could destroy their mortal bodies, due to the fires in Gehenna. But how would literal fire destroy a non corporeal soul? If Satan & demons are there to possess people, just casting them into Gehenna could result in them being spiritually & psychologically destroyed/ruined in a multitude of ways we cannot even imagine, e.g. demon possession. I’m sure that experienced shrinks have a bit of an idea of what that might involve. Or deliverance ministers/exorcists.

Not only is God “able” to destroy [or ruin, lose] both body and soul…Jesus followers are told they must destroy their own souls to “find” them:

Mt.10:39 He who is finding his soul will be destroying it, and he who destroys his soul on My account will be finding it. clv

Mt.10:28 And do not fear those who are killing the body, yet are not able to kill the soul. Yet be fearing Him, rather, Who is able to destroy the soul as well as the body in Gehenna.

Others can kill your body, but not your soul. God can destroy soul and body in Gehenna. v.28

You can destroy your own soul. v.39…that is, ruin it.

By speaking of destroying your own soul, v.39 refers not to endless annihilation of your soul. So, in context, neither does verse 28 when God speaks of destroying a soul.

If you don’t willingly destroy your soul (v.39) in this life, God will/is able to do it for you in the afterlife (v.28). But whether He does it for you or not, you will surely destroy your own soul by “finding” it (v.39) in this life. Since you destroy [but not annihilate] your own soul by finding it, why would God need to destroy it again, even though He is “able”? Though it is conceivable He could destroy it to a greater degree than it was destroyed before. Especially if people in Gehenna continued to rebel and harden themselves…cf Lk.11:26; Mt.12:45…7 times worse can occur. Scripture speaks of evil men shall becoming worse and worse, of the deep things of satan some have known, being possessed with a legion of demons, & few and many stripes (Lk.12:47-48).

What does it mean that God “can” ruin or destroy a soul in Gehenna? Would this be ruin as in cessation of existence or something like a spiritual death as in, for example, dead in sins (Eph.2:1)? Or as in what God did to the king in the book of Daniel in making him act like an animal for 7 years, before returning his soul back to sanity, resulting in him being humbled & worshiping God? Or, as in being delivered to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme (1 Tim.1:20)? BTW, Satan will be there in the LOF with human blasphemers.

Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme (1 Tim.1:20).

Even in this life one can be delivered to Satan for destruction that one may be saved:

1 Cor.5:5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Of course the spiritually dead are already dead in sins. But this does not preclude there being various degrees of spiritual deadness or destruction (i.e. ruin) of their souls. Similarly the Scriptures speak of those who are worthy of few stripes & others who are worthy of many stripes, & similarly. Surely a distinction is to be made between a relatively innocent infant or child, a rebellious teenager & those who have apostacized from the faith, or demons & Satan. It is conceivable that it is always possible for the spiritually dead to experience greater degrees of destruction to their souls should they continue to rebel in the LOF and until they finally repent. Though, ever given the choice to turn to God, it is mathematically impossible that they would continue to reject God for eternity.

And if a soul dies, that being the 2nd death, how could it still be existing forever instead?

The second death could refer to a second physical death like their first physical death. Or if physical death were the first death, and soul/spiritual death the second death, then the second death/lake of fire could conceivably refer to a state/place where such are residing. Not what happens to them there. They are the “twice dead” (Jude 1:12), There they reside and are tormented literally “into the eons of the eons” (mistranslated by pro endless punishment bible versions as “for ever and ever”).

[Bowsixtysix]

@Catherine

** ‘‘Don’t fear being killed by man. All they can do is kill the body (temporarily), rather fear my Father, because if He kills you it will be worse’’. **
Now, in what way it will be worse, is what I am trying to determine. So far, I’ve read that the Jews of Jesus’ time understood ‘Gehenna’ to be symbolic of post mortem punishment, and so is Jesus using ‘Gehenna’ in this way too, or purely in a literal way, as is usually offered by URists and those who don’t believe in a literal ‘hell’. Or is He meaning BOTH? One thing seems clear: Jesus repeatedly warns about being thrown into Gehenna. He wants/wanted you to avoid it because it is a terrible punishment. It makes no sense to assume it is some kind of lame threat that God doesn’t carry out. So what is worse than physical death?..

My Thoughts on Matt 10:28, from a believer in the Apokatastasis. Jesus talking to his disciples.

killing a [body] dose not make sense.The word for kill here is APOKTENIO which is often rendered DESTROY [ie] feed it to the lions, burn it up or simply perish back to the ground. [ie] you couldn’t kill Adam before the breath of life entered him into him but you could [destroy] his lifeless body. So the word [destroy] is a better rendering than the wording [kill] The word for body is [soma] it is either a corpse / which was a similar state to which Adam was before the breath of life / or a living body after the breath of life had entered him. When Adam had the breath of life imparted to him, he [became]’a living Soul. Note he wasn’t [given] an immortal soul. Man cannot kill the [pusche] rendered soul…pusche means the breath of life, the VITAL FORCE which animates the body and shows itself in breathing, in either human or animal.When one dies your breath of life/spirit leaves you and returns to God Eccl 12:7 and your body is either destroyed at death or perishes back to dust after death. Man cannot kill the [pusche] this remains in Gods memory / with God untouched,ready to be reunited with the body at the resserection were man becomes a living soul once again like Lazurs did at his physical resurrection.

It goes on to say…

But to fear the one who has the power to destroy both soul and body [ie] the complete you in being / mind and heart in Gehenna fire. The word here for destroy is APOLLUMI, which is often rendered lose, and lose is how I see it should be rendered here,[ie] to LOSE you both soul and body in Gehenna [ie] the complete you,if not found in the book of life at the end of the second resurrection.

Jhon 17:12… Jesus talking about his disciples.

I find it apt, that Jesus here was referring to his disciples, and the same word APPOLLUMI = to lose, is used when Christ says I have [lost] none that you have given me, except for Judas, who will be lost to Gehenna, for what ever the allotted time span. Judas never heeded Christ’s earlier warnings at Matt 10:28.

The bible never teaches that those persons who appear in the second resurrection are raised immortal, It would only seem that immortality is a gift for those who trust and believe. For those outside of this hope, it may well be that they are punished in their mortal bodies, for me It would make sense that one receives a judgment and its punishment in themselves as they were in their life 2 Corinthians 5:10. I know Rev 9:6 isn’t referring to the resurrection, but it dose show that God can keep people alive in there mortal body’s whilst receiving punishment for however long needed until a confession of Christ as saviour is made. They will be punished / purified through the lake of fire a k a Gehenna and forgiven by Christ and cleansed through the shed blood. Then they will receive immortality of the soul as a [gift] for those who believe. The lake of fire dose not cleanse, it refines/ through corrective punishment, During this punishment a persons attitude towards sin and Christ will be dealt with. Ultimate cleansing will always be through the shed blood of Christ until the ultimate reconciliation of [ALL] things.Judgment starts at the house of God now 1 Pete 4:17: Believers in this age, although hard at times have the kinder judgment.Those in the next will receive a much harsher judgment Matt 21:44. Believers are to die twice [ie] a physical death/ through Adams transgression,unless [translated] and a death to sin Romans 6:11. Those in the next age will have died physically already, but it will be there turn to die to sin and wrong attitudes with far greater/ consequences. This will be their second Death. I believe this process will cause great anguish and regret, but the punishment will be corrective and God through Christ will Bring back [All] who are [apollumi] = lost =Luke 15 parables. I believe the whole point Christ was making to his disciples, was to not fear man who can just kill, because you know you will pass from death to life With immediate blessings at the first resurrection. But rather fear him who can lose you in body and being to an even worse fate than death [ie] Gehenna aka [The lake of fire]. Although a terrifying prospect for those judged to go there,It isn’t some mindless act of God. It will be corrective by nature.As the Rotherham’s emphasised bible correctly translates Matt 25:46. “ and these shall go away into age - abiding correction, but the righteous into age-abiding life.

Hope this helps.

Peace

[Catherine]

Thank you Bowsixtysix. Some really interesting points to ponder.