Why wasn't Jesus eternally tormented?

[reba]

The OT sacrifices died. The end. Hell was not an option.

The Passover lamb died. The Israelites lived.

As the blood of the OT sacrifices was put on the 4 corners of the altar. His Blood covers the 4 corners of the earth.

 

[gr8grace]

He was the sin offering.

Care to expound on what you believe are the implications of your statement is?

If you don't mind, would you expound on Matt 10:28. I am Personally curious How one comes to the conclusion in this verse that the Soul is made non-existent.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

He was the sin offering.

Care to expound on what you believe are the implications of your statement is?

If you don't mind, would you expound on Matt 10:28. I am Personally curious How one comes to the conclusion in this verse that the Soul is made non-existent.

I expounded on it here.. but my contention is how does something continue on existing and being tortured when both body and soul are destroyed.

The Greek word used here ἀπολέσαι and while it has in it's semantic range the idea of lost or ruin and is translated this way in certain instances surely does not mean this here. Here is something you must understand about the Greek language, just because a Greek word has the possibility within the semantic range for such a meaning does not alone warrant that. Context is king when it comes to defining a word's usage within it's context. Let's examine the verse again so I can further demonstrate how this word is used exactly how I am saying it is.

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. Matthew 10:28

Jesus is speaking to his twelve disciples here as he is sending them out and tells them not to fear those who CAN (important word here) kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Let's make some observations:

1. The Greek word for kill here is ἀποκτεῖναι and it means what it is translated as, to kill, to put to death, to slay, to murder.
2. That man can kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
3. Note the usage δυναμένων (can, is able) Jesus is talking about the inability of men to kill the soul.

He then rather tells them to fear the one who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. Let's make some observations about this portion of the text.

1. This fear is not of reverence but is a serious fear in regards to a possibility of a punishment rendered.
2. You pointed out that it says "can" not "will" and used that as a potential argument. Which is no offense rather a silly argument as it demonstrates you aren't reading the full text. The usage of δυνάμενον (can, is able) is used in the first and second clause of the sentence to demonstrate not an absolute indicative but as a possibility and reason for fear. Man kills the body but cannot kill the soul... God destroys both body and soul in Gehenna. We should fear him because he is able to do this, if he didn't destroy any souls in Hell then why would there be reason to fear?
3. Jesus doesn't simply say ἀποκτεῖναι or kill here to describe what God will do, but he uses a more powerful word in ἀπόλλυμι which is a strengthened form of ollumi which means to "utterly destroy." This usage of the word would have caused the disciples to regards as far more severe the destruction possible at the hands of God than the simple being put to death by men.

The text simply cannot support the traditional position.

Let me know if you need me to expound further.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The Greek word used here ἀπολέσαι and while it has in it's semantic range the idea of lost or ruin and is translated this way in certain instances surely does not mean this here. Here is something you must understand about the Greek language, just because a Greek word has the possibility within the semantic range for such a meaning does not alone warrant that. Context is king when it comes to defining a word's usage within it's context. Let's examine the verse again so I can further demonstrate how this word is used exactly how I am saying it is.

You're absolutely right, context is king. And throughout the Bible, the dual concept of both destruction and eternal punishment go hand in hand. The definition of apollumi includes the concept of "eternal destruction," the marriage of destruction and eternal punishment. Just because it makes no earthly sense does not mean it is not a biblical principle. It most assuredly is both.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You're absolutely right, context is king.

Amen!

And throughout the Bible, the dual concept of both destruction and eternal punishment go hand in hand.

I have some problems with this statement..

1. Of course destruction and eternal punishment go hand in hand because both are words used to describe the final punishment of the wicked. However, you are assuming that eternal punishment means eternal torment in the lake of fire to which there is no return. Your statement seems to be implying it's meaning towards your definition without that being proven.
2. How many in the Old Testament were threatened with eternal torment in the after-life? Did God say if you eat of the fruit you will be tortured forever in hell? No, he said that he will surely die. The consistent message of the Old Testament was most certainly not the concept most evangelicals now accept. This idea was completely foreign to ancient Judaism until around 300 AD.

The definition of apollumi includes the concept of "eternal destruction," the marriage of destruction and eternal punishment.

The definition of ἀπόλλυμι includes the concept of "eternal destruction?!" Where on earth do you get such an idea? There is not a single Lexicon I have read that supports this conclusion.

You must be referring to the text in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 which illustrates even further your ignorance to even comment on the meaning of ἀπόλλυμι. In 2 Thessalonians 1:9 the Greek word is ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον.. aionion being the adjective here modifies the noun olethron which the thought then is this.. destruction that lasts unto the ages.

You're demonstrably wrong on this point and I suggest you look into this topic a bit more.

Just because it makes no earthly sense does not mean it is not a biblical principle. It most assuredly is both.

What's strange to me is the total unwillingness of the majority to come to the Bible with fresh eyes to rethink this matter in humility. Sad...

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The definition of ἀπόλλυμι includes the concept of "eternal destruction?!" Where on earth do you get such an idea? There is not a single Lexicon I have read that supports this conclusion.

Have you read Thayer's? It is most assuredly there.

What's strange to me is the total unwillingness of the majority to come to the Bible with fresh eyes to rethink this matter in humility. Sad...

I find that insult unworthy of a brother in Christ. Perhaps it is you who needs "fresh eyes."

The punishment of the wicked dead in hell is described throughout Scripture as “eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41), “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12), “disgrace and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2), a place where “the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44-49), a place of “torment” and “agony" due to the flame” (Luke 16:23-24), “everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9, an more on your comment about that verse in a moment), a place where “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever” (Revelation 14:11), and a “lake of burning fire” where the wicked are “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10). Undeniably, and regardless of your attempted (and incorrect) spin of the original Greek, both destruction and punishment are eternal in hell, even after it is thrown into the Lake of Fire.

The punishment of the wicked in hell is as never ending as the bliss of the righteous in heaven. Jesus Himself indicates that punishment in hell is just as everlasting as life in heaven (Matthew 25:46). The wicked are forever subject to the fury and the wrath of God. Those in hell will acknowledge the perfect justice of God (Psalm 76:10). Those who are in hell will know that their punishment is just and that they alone are to blame (Deuteronomy 32:3-5). Yes, hell is real. Yes, hell is a place of torment and punishment that lasts forever and ever, with no end. Praise God that, through Jesus, we can escape this eternal fate (John 3:16, 18, 36).

So, too, is the destructive aspect of hell. Or would you deny that fire consumes, destroys, lays waste? You have attempted to change the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 by incorrectly conjugating the verb. Aionion always has an eternal, never-ending meaning. It never means anything remotely connected with "unto the ages." Therefore, aionion appolumi can have no meaning other than "eternal destruction." Consider that gehenna, which is used by Jesus repeatedly as a descriptive word for hell, was a "never ending destruction" of the refuse and garbage of Jerusalem. The fire never went out, the destruction was ongoing. The image is of a place where the fire never stops consuming the flesh, but the flesh is never entirely consumed, either. Destruction and punishment, ongoing for eternity. That is hell. To make it less than that by which it is described doesn't affect your salvation, but it denies God's word at the same time.

 

[gr8grace]

So in 2 Thess 1:9 We have "destruction that is agelasting." What "age" is in view in this verse, a infinite age or an finite age? We have a subject that is separated from a infinite deity with infinite Glory.

And We have the modified noun olethron, what type of destruction is this?

I see a subject that is separated from an infinite deity. A destruction that lasts unto the ages. So a subject that has to exist, in some form or another.

So the Key is what is the age lasting? Is it the finite age or is it the infinite age?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Have you read Thayer's? It is most assuredly there.

Thayer's Lexicon.. this Lexicon is outdated and should not be used since the Lexicography has far exceeded what was known during his time. Which was the understanding that Koine Greek was purely a Holy Spirit invention. Again you need to investigate this word on your own and not just rely on the opinion of others.

I find that insult unworthy of a brother in Christ. Perhaps it is you who needs "fresh eyes."

You need to calm down...

1. This was a general statement about those who hold to the traditional view, not a direct personal attack on you.
2. I was simply voicing my opinion on the fact that so many people in Christianity hold to the eternal torment view of hell which does great damage to the goodness of God and the Biblical texts, and the unwillingness of some to look beyond simple proof-texting saddens and frustrates me.

If you're willing to call me out and say that I am not a brother because I feel this way then you will be the one to be held accountable for such a judgement.

The punishment of the wicked dead in hell is described throughout Scripture as “eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41), “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12), “disgrace and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2), a place where “the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44-49), a place of “torment” and “agony" due to the flame” (Luke 16:23-24), “everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9, an more on your comment about that verse in a moment), a place where “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever” (Revelation 14:11), and a “lake of burning fire” where the wicked are “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10). Undeniably, and regardless of your attempted (and incorrect) spin of the original Greek, both destruction and punishment are eternal in hell, even after it is thrown into the Lake of Fire.

You see this is the exactly what I was talking about. You simply proof-text each of the texts that you believe supports your conclusion and then fail to prove otherwise but rather arrogantly assume that they speak for themselves.

The punishment of the wicked in hell is as never ending as the bliss of the righteous in heaven. Jesus Himself indicates that punishment in hell is just as everlasting as life in heaven (Matthew 25:46).

I am not a universalist... I am not arguing that aionion here only means an age or a certain amount of time. You're reading a lot more into eternal punishment then what is actually there..

Those in hell will acknowledge the perfect justice of God (Psalm 76:10).

This absolutely does not refer to those in hell....

1. David had no concept of hell.. he believed in Sheol, the realm of the dead, where both righteous and wicked would go to.
2. The dead don't praise God. For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Sheol who will give you praise? Psalm 6:5
3. This is talking about how human sin only enhances God's glory, and he uses it like a weapon.

Those who are in hell will know that their punishment is just and that they alone are to blame (Deuteronomy 32:3-5).

This reasoning is logically fallacious as you assume that the eternal torment view is correct and then use texts about God's just punishment to substantiate that. Let's stick to the texts that actually talk about it.

Yes, hell is real. Yes, hell is a place of torment and punishment that lasts forever and ever, with no end. Praise God that, through Jesus, we can escape this eternal fate (John 3:16, 18, 36).

Whoever believes shall not go to hell and be tormented forever and ever with no end, but have eternal life? No whoever believes shall not PERISH, the middle voice of ἀπόλλυμι.. the same Greek word found in Matthew 10:28.

So, too, is the destructive aspect of hell. Or would you deny that fire consumes, destroys, lays waste?

If you told me that a fire consumed a piece of paper what would you conclude? That the paper still exists? Think about it...

You have attempted to change the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 by incorrectly conjugating the verb. Aionion always has an eternal, never-ending meaning.

Sigh...

1. I am not a universalist and am not arguing that Aionion has a less than "eternal" (Hebraic thought didn't have a concept for this idea).
2. You assert that Aionion ALWAYS has an eternal, never-ending meaning. This is very easily proven to be false.
- in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began (Titus 1:2) I'd like you to guess what word is used for the last section of text? It's χρόνων αἰωνίων which all of the top scholars translate it as long ages ago. Denoting not an infinite never ending amount of time, but simply a long time ago before the earth began. If you'd like to be proven wrong on more accounts I can consult αἰωνίων in the LXX as well as in Classical Greek Literature.

It never means anything remotely connected with "unto the ages."

Actually it does... the root word is αἰών (aion transliterated) and means AGE. Aionion is a strengthened form of that word that literally means to the ages, or unto the ages. Where are you getting your sources?

Therefore, aionion appolumi can have no meaning other than "eternal destruction."

That's interesting because that phrase appears no where in the Bible, again you need to actually look at what Greek is being used in 2 Thessalonians 1:9....

Consider that gehenna, which is used by Jesus repeatedly as a descriptive word for hell, was a "never ending destruction" of the refuse and garbage of Jerusalem. The fire never went out, the destruction was ongoing. The image is of a place where the fire never stops consuming the flesh, but the flesh is never entirely consumed, either. Destruction and punishment, ongoing for eternity. That is hell. To make it less than that by which it is described doesn't affect your salvation, but it denies God's word at the same time.

Busting out the Ol' Myth huh? Gehenna was NOT a flaming garbage dump outside of Jerusalem that Jesus drew his example from... this was an invention of the Rabbi David Kimhi in 1200 AD and has 0 historical or archaeological basis beyond that. Rather γεέννῃ (Gehenna) is the Greek form of "the Valley of the sons of Hinnom (BenHinnom)" and it was a place where child sacrifices were burned to Moloch in Jeremiah, the place was cursed by God saying that it will not longer be known as the Valley of the sons of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter. Thus the imagery is rather idolaters facing the judgement of God to be slaughtered.

Note your myth about the burning garbage dump does not come from Scripture, my hypothesis does...

 

[childeye]

I have always felt that because he had no sin and the death was based on the law, that hell had no right to hold him.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I have always felt that because he had no sin and the death was based on the law, that hell had no right to hold him.

Hi Childeye,

Thanks for stopping by. Is it your understanding that Jesus descended into hell? If so what is your basis for such a belief?

Thanks,
Servant of Jesus

 

[childeye]

I have always felt that because he had no sin and the death was based on the law, that hell had no right to hold him.

Hi Childeye,

Thanks for stopping by. Is it your understanding that Jesus descended into hell? If so what is your basis for such a belief?

Thanks,
Servant of Jesus

It depends on what one means by hell. I know he went somewhere from where he arose again and he now has the keys to hell and death.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

It depends on what one means by hell. I know he went somewhere from where he arose again and he now has the keys to hell and death.

Indeed it does depend on what one means by "hell." As Hell is a bad translation.

1. Jesus descended into Hades or properly to quote from the Hebrew text, Sheol which was referring to the grave.. not the place of eternal punishment as some have come to understand it as.
2. Jesus has the keys to death and HADES, which is an allusion to the OT in which death and Sheol were commonly seen together and Jesus has the power to release those from the powers of death and Sheol through the resurrection.

Hope this helps,
Servant of Jesus

 

[childeye]

It depends on what one means by hell. I know he went somewhere from where he arose again and he now has the keys to hell and death.

Indeed it does depend on what one means by "hell." As Hell is a bad translation.

1. Jesus descended into Hades or properly to quote from the Hebrew text, Sheol which was referring to the grave.. not the place of eternal punishment as some have come to understand it as.
2. Jesus has the keys to death and HADES, which is an allusion to the OT in which death and Sheol were commonly seen together and Jesus has the power to release those from the powers of death and Sheol through the resurrection.


Hope this helps,
Servant of Jesus

Actually I was hoping for a small comment on what I had said originally. I have always felt that because he had no sin and the death was based on the law, that hell had no right to hold him.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Thayer's Lexicon.. this Lexicon is outdated and should not be used since the Lexicography has far exceeded what was known during his time.

You've just blown your whole argument out of the water and negated your entire post, because your comment here is irrelevant. Thayer's was first published in 1879. For over a century, Thayer's has been universally recognized as one of the top two or three New Testament lexicons available. Students of New Testament Greek have used this resource extensively, and it is a required purchase for most seminary-level Koine Greek language courses. Thayer's provides dictionary definitions for each word and relates each word to its New Testament usage and categorizes its nuances of meaning. Its exhaustive coverage of New Testament Greek words, as well as its extensive quotation of extra-biblical word usage and the wealth of background sources consulted and quoted, render Thayer's an invaluable resource. It is the only resource used by ALL the online Bible study sites, though each may supplement it with other information, such as assigning Strong's numbers to the Thayer word definitions.

That you would disparage what has long been one of the most thorough and complete works, a work that is constantly updated with new information when and if it becomes available, paints you, with your pretentious "name," as one who cannot be trusted to discuss honestly or forthrightly the differences another member here may have with you. Therefore, I bid you adieu, and God's blessings.

 

[n2thelight]

Most Christians in the world today affirm the Penal Substitutionary Atonement position that Jesus took our punishment standing in our place at the Cross suffering the wrath of God so that we might be forgiven.

However, if the punishment for sin is eternal torment in the lake of fire... why wasn't Jesus tormented in hell for eternity? Wouldn't we say that Jesus only overcame an aspect of our punishment.. when in fact those were punished suffered a totally different punishment than the one Jesus endured.

Because most believe that Christ took on our sins and therefore your question is a reasonable one,however the fact of the matter is,He didn't take on our sins,He paid the price for them.......

We don't believe someone is extinguished after death... we believe simply that the second death really means what it says.. that the wicked die.. that they are completely consumed.. that both body and soul are DESTROYED in Gehenna.

AMEN to that one!!!!

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Thayer's Lexicon.. this Lexicon is outdated and should not be used since the Lexicography has far exceeded what was known during his time.

You've just blown your whole argument out of the water and negated your entire post, because your comment here is irrelevant. Thayer's was first published in 1879. For over a century, Thayer's has been universally recognized as one of the top two or three New Testament lexicons available. Students of New Testament Greek have used this resource extensively, and it is a required purchase for most seminary-level Koine Greek language courses. Thayer's provides dictionary definitions for each word and relates each word to its New Testament usage and categorizes its nuances of meaning. Its exhaustive coverage of New Testament Greek words, as well as its extensive quotation of extra-biblical word usage and the wealth of background sources consulted and quoted, render Thayer's an invaluable resource. It is the only resource used by ALL the online Bible study sites, though each may supplement it with other information, such as assigning Strong's numbers to the Thayer word definitions.

Sigh...

This is rather embarrassing.. I don't mean to be condescending but you really do need to be educated on this matter. Heck if you had just even wikipedia'd Thayer's Lexicon you'd know this...

Thayer's Lexicon was only relevant for a short period of time until 1889, and was quickly discounted by the works of Gustav Adolf Deissmann and his research on at that time, newly discovered Egyptian papyri and inscriptions that clarified and improved Koine Greek Lexicography. Many people seem to be ignorant of this, and it is especially true now as Lexicography has far surpassed the level at which was there as well which makes his Lexicon outdated and irrelevant to the modern debate.

Did you go to Seminary? Do you know of a Seminary that uses this Lexicon as a resource, because if so that is rather embarrassing..

There are also some major issues with Joesph Henry Thayer's doctrine, as it is questionable if he was a Unitarian and also did not hold to Biblical inerrancy.

Simply because an online Bible study website offers this Lexicon as a resource does not validate it's reliability. As none of the best Lexicons are offered for free because they still have VALUE today.

That you would disparage what has long been one of the most thorough and complete works, a work that is constantly updated with new information when and if it becomes available, paints you, with your pretentious "name," as one who cannot be trusted to discuss honestly or forthrightly the differences another member here may have with you. Therefore, I bid you adieu, and God's blessings.

Wow, so I insult the integrity of Thayer's Lexicon and you insult me personally in response? Claiming that I have a "pretentious name..." You then basically call me liar...

Here are some tips for you, though I don't expect I will discuss much more with you as you take things far too personally and overreact and insult me every chance you get...

1. Don't attack the poster, attack the argument.
2. Allow the evidence to be laid out before you go passing judgement, I have VERY good reasons for why I think this way about Thayer's Lexicon... Don't assume that I am being dishonest... That's extremely rude... I might be wrong (thought I'm demonstrably NOT on this point) but I'm not dishonest..
3. Don't make sweeping statements about a poster and insult them... then back out of the conversation and are not to be called to account for such statements. Look for the best in people and if someone comes on to a forum and claims to be Christian (I do) and that they are a Servant of Jesus (I do my best) then give me chance to defend myself.
4. Even if I made one error in my post, it is a logical fallacy to then throw out the rest of my entire argument on account of such. We're all probably wrong in little areas here and there, but each point must be examined and discussed individually.

Hope this helps... and I hope you're willing to listen to reason this one..
Servant of Jesus

 

[P31Woman]

2. I understand that it's not only a body that is cast into the hell but also the soul is. So... What does Scripture say? And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul, but instead be afraid of the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Mt 10:28).

In all my reading of commentaries and debating with people of the traditional view I have never once seen a good explanation of this verse, but rather appeal to the meaning of the word destroy as lost or ruin as that is in the semantic range of the word ἀπόλλυμι, yet it is demonstrably not the usage in Matthew 10:28 given the context as I explained in my OP. Both body and soul are destroyed utterly in Gehenna.

I would highlight to words "who is able to". To me this verse is simply speaking of God's power and what He is capable of doing. I am putting myself in the shoes of those who have just been told they will be persecuted. I see this as Jesus reminding them of how powerful God is and how important their message is.


From my point of view that verse is really a non-issue. That does not mean it's not an issue for you and others.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I would highlight to words "who is able to". To me this verse is simply speaking of God's power and what He is capable of doing. I am putting myself in the shoes of those who have just been told they will be persecuted. I see this as Jesus reminding them of how powerful God is and how important their message is.


From my point of view that verse is really a non-issue. That does not mean it's not an issue for you and others.

I already covered this issue in my exegesis earlier but I will do so again for your sake.

Jesus tell his disciples to not fear those who kill the body but CANNOT (are note able to) kill the soul.

-The Greek words for not able are μή δύναμαι which is a negative construction, which means that these men shouldn't be feared because they do not have the ability to do anything to the soul.

Jesus Rather tells them to be afraid of the one who is able (can) to destroy both body and soul in Gehenna.

- The same Greek word δύναμαι is employed here from the first clause and is not demonstrating a subjunctive relationship, but rather Jesus is giving them cause to fear for a couple reasons.

1. He switches from the Greek word to kill ἀποκτείνω and uses a much stronger word ἀπόλλυμι which means "to destroy utterly." This indeed would have been cause for the Disciples to fear God instead of man and for them to live in the light and know that what was done in secret will be made known.
2. The men who would be persecuting them could do nothing to the soul.. they could kill the body but that would not end their existence. However, they should fear God because he is ABLE.. he CAN.. destroy both body and SOUL in Gehenna.

You see Jesus isn't tell them about God's power and what he is capable of doing.. as if he wouldn't do it. He is telling THEM.. the DISCIPLES to fear God.. this in the imperative mood, it's a command just as them not fearing those who can kill the body is also a command. This is a command because the reality of being destroyed in Hell is a possibility if they v.33 deny Jesus before men. Therefore they ought to go out boldly and proclaim the gospel and rather not be afraid for their Sovereign Father cares for them. That the God who knows when a sparrow falls or knows the number of hairs on their head will watch over them as they go out. They ought to not be afraid of those who persecute them even more so for that reason.

Your interpretation simply does not stand up to criticism and the flow of the language used here does not support your conclusion.

Hope this helps,
Servant of Jesus

 

[gr8grace]

I would highlight to words "who is able to". To me this verse is simply speaking of God's power and what He is capable of doing. I am putting myself in the shoes of those who have just been told they will be persecuted. I see this as Jesus reminding them of how powerful God is and how important their message is.


From my point of view that verse is really a non-issue. That does not mean it's not an issue for you and others.

I already covered this issue in my exegesis earlier but I will do so again for your sake.

Jesus tell his disciples to not fear those who kill the body but CANNOT (are note able to) kill the soul.

-The Greek words for not able are μή δύναμαι which is a negative construction, which means that these men shouldn't be feared because they do not have the ability to do anything to the soul.

Jesus Rather tells them to be afraid of the one who is able (can) to destroy both body and soul in Gehenna.

- The same Greek word δύναμαι is employed here from the first clause and is not demonstrating a subjunctive relationship, but rather Jesus is giving them cause to fear for a couple reasons.

1. He switches from the Greek word to kill ἀποκτείνω and uses a much stronger word ἀπόλλυμι which means "to destroy utterly." This indeed would have been cause for the Disciples to fear God instead of man and for them to live in the light and know that what was done in secret will be made known.
2. The men who would be persecuting them could do nothing to the soul.. they could kill the body but that would not end their existence. However, they should fear God because he is ABLE.. he CAN.. destroy both body and SOUL in Gehenna.

You see Jesus isn't tell them about God's power and what he is capable of doing.. as if he wouldn't do it. He is telling THEM.. the DISCIPLES to fear God.. this in the imperative mood, it's a command just as them not fearing those who can kill the body is also a command. This is a command because the reality of being destroyed in Hell is a possibility if they v.33 deny Jesus before men. Therefore they ought to go out boldly and proclaim the gospel and rather not be afraid for their Sovereign Father cares for them. That the God who knows when a sparrow falls or knows the number of hairs on their head will watch over them as they go out. They ought to not be afraid of those who persecute them even more so for that reason.

Your interpretation simply does not stand up to criticism and the flow of the language used here does not support your conclusion.

Hope this helps,
Servant of Jesus

So this is what I see in Your post.

You are telling us that Jesus was personally warning his close friends, his disciples, that He would innihilate them personally if they Go out and deny Jesus before men?

YOU SAID,"You see Jesus isn't tell them about God's power and what he is capable of doing.. as if he wouldn't do it. He is telling THEM.. the DISCIPLES to fear God.. this in the imperative mood, it's a command just as them not fearing those who can kill the body is also a command. This is a command because the reality of being destroyed in Hell is a possibility if they v.33 deny Jesus before men. Therefore they ought to go out boldly and proclaim the gospel and rather not be afraid for their Sovereign Father cares for them. That the God who knows when a sparrow falls or knows the number of hairs on their head will watch over them as they go out. They ought to not be afraid of those who persecute them even more so for that reason.

Your interpretation simply does not stand up to criticism and the flow of the language used here does not support your conclusion.

Hope this helps,
Servant of Jesus


Do you believe in Eternal Security for the believer?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

So this is what I see in Your post.

You are telling us that Jesus was personally warning his close friends, his disciples, that He would innihilate them personally if they Go out and deny Jesus before men?[/B]

Let me clarify some things for you.

1. I am not using the language of annihilation (you are) I don't try to read my theology into the text but I am rather just trying to draw out what is there. Thus the meaning of the word ἀπόλλυμι means to utterly destroy in this context, as I have demonstrated several times in this thread.
2. Jesus said in v.33 that he will deny them before the Father if they deny him before men, and it will the God the Father who casts them into Hell. Jesus isn't referring to them fearing HIM in v.28 but God the Father.
3. The context is provided by v.5 where Jesus begins to send out his disciples to the Jews and gives them instructions. NO ONE ELSE is present to hear these word as they were spoken specifically to them. If Jesus is speaking in the imperative mood, giving them a command to fear God rather then men and in a way that isn't just for reverence then why should we deny this explicit remark?

This is the Jesus who said.. "Repent or Perish" Or "Take up your cross, deny yourself and follow me" or "the way is broad that leads to destruction," His ministry and message was radical and hard to hear for many. We must do as Paul said in Romans 11.. to note the kindness AND the SEVERITY of God.. "Kindness towards you, if you continue in his kindness.. and severity towards those who have fallen away."

This is the consistent teaching of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

Do you believe in Eternal Security for the believer?

I hold that only those who BELIEVE presently are eternally secure, that the Bible offers no assurance to those who are not actively believing in Christ and evidencing fruit of a transformed life. However, I do think it is possible to genuinely fall away.