Concerning the end of the wicked:
In Philippians 3:19 Paul states that the end of certain men, whom he describes as “the enemies of the cross of Christ,” is destruction. But, what does destruction mean?
Apollumi (Strong’s word 622) is found 92 times in the NT where it is translated “perish” 33 times, “destroy” 26, “lose” 22, “be lost” 5, “lost” 4, “be marred” 1, “dies”1. This variety of meanings reveals the indecision of the translators as to the meaning. Yes, words may have more than one meaning, depending on the context, but “destroy” and “perish” represent the strongest possible meaning, and the word “lost” represents its weakest possible usge. Some expositors have determined that the weakest meaning of this word is its true meaning, that it means to be lost, a condition from which men can be saved. Usually these are advocates of some doctrine of universal salvation, restoration or reconciliation.
In 1 Cor 15:18 apollumi is translated “are perished. The subject of this portion of Scripture in both text and context is the resurrection of the dead, and the importance of resurrection is emphasized by Paul’s declaration that if the dead do not rise, “then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” Looks like God’s Word is telling us that apart from resurrection the state of the dead is not one of heavenly bliss, it is one of destruction. Therefore, I think apollumi is the word used by the Spirit of God to describe that state of death when no resurrection is in view.
I think it is logical to conclude therefore that the Hebrew word sheol and the Greek word hades are used to indicate the state of death when resurrection is in view, since all who are in the state of death will be made alive (1 Cor 15:22), and apollumi signifies the state of death when no resurrection is in view. This is the state even of those who have “fallen asleep in Christ,” if there is no resurrection. So, 1 Cor 15:18 gives us a clear meaning of the word apollumi, a strong meaning, even though this word can have lesser meanings in other contexts.
Some people insist that apollumi sets forth a condition from which men can be saved, and they point to its usage in Luke 15:3-32, where it is used of a “lost sheep,” a “lost coin” and a “lost boy.” But, all these are figurative or metaphorical uses of this word, as can be seen in Luke 15:24, where the father of the prodigal son is quoted as saying: “For this my son was dead and is alive and again; he was lost and is found.” Furthermore, the sheep which as described as being “lost” (apollumi) was in a condition and situation where it could be found (and it was), that coin was in condition where it could be found (and it was), and that boy was in a condition where all he needed to do was make up his mind and walk out of it (which he did).
Please don’t accuse me of using the “straw man” argument again. I am just laying some groundwork and trying to lead up to an answer to your question about the final state of the wicked.
When we come back to Paul’s declaration in Phil 3:19 that “the end” of certain men “is destruction,” we find the strongest possible use of this term. This describes the finish of these men. It is their end. It is not a parenthetical state – destruction is their lot. This is their final state, their end.
At death, I believe no part of man or the man as a whole enters into any new or unknown condition. Man was in the soil before his creation and at death he returns to the soil; the spirit (breath of life) which was with God before it was given to man, returns to God Who gave it. This is the condition of all men in death, it is the state of death. But since man goes into the state of death with resurrection in view, and this is clearly stated in Acts 24:15 and 1 Cor 15:22, we are able to enlarge our definition of sheol and hades so that each time we come upon these words they mean the state of death with resurrection in view. If the fact of resurrection is in some way erased by God from the prospect of man’s future, i.e., his destiny, then sheol becomes destruction.
Thus it is when God says that the end of some is destruction, He has eliminated all prospect of resurrection from their future. This is also true when God says of those cast into gehenna, “their fire shall not be quenched and their worm shall not die.” There will never be any reversal of the judgment that brought them into the state of destruction.
Since the death of the first man to die (Abel) God has been taking the spirit (life) of every living being back to Himself. The man which was formed out of the dust returns to the dust, and the spirit (breath of life) which made the man a living soul returns to God Who gave it. This is not the end of man, for he has simply gone into the state of death where resurrection is in view. Resurrection does not depend upon redemption, forgiveness, or salvation. Paul believed in a resurrection both of the just and the unjust. If it were not for resurrection, death would be the end of man.
Resurrection is not re-incarnation, the idea that something called the soul reappears in another form or body after death. Resurrection is re-creation in which man is again taken from the soil and is given once more the breath of life so that he again becomes a living soul.
Man has a beginning and he can come to a complete end and be as though he had never been. But this does not happen at death. It takes place after resurrection. This is destruction. It is the end of the wicked.
If you will, allow me to clear up two points, followed by another question:
Please don’t accuse me of using the “straw man” argument again.
The straw man argument was ONLY in reference to your category mistake, "immortal spirit", and your misrepresentation that we believe that man "becomes" a spirit being, or an "angel" at death. The Scripture does not teach that and we do not believe that. It does not refer to anything else that you stated.
Resurrection is not reincarnation, the idea that something called the soul reappears in another form or body after death.
We do not believe in reincarnation, either. We believe in the resurrection of the body, and the life of the world to come; not to be confused or conflated with karma, Hinduism, Jainism, esoteric philosophies, Spiritism, gnosticism, and any other pagan religion that you care to think of, including modern ones.
My next question is, what is the final state of the Devil and his angels?
Cordially,
[snip]
At death, I believe no part of man or the man as a whole enters into any new or unknown condition. Man was in the soil before his creation and at death he returns to the soil; the spirit (breath of life) which was with God before it was given to man, returns to God Who gave it. This is the condition of all men in death, it is the state of death.
Where do lexicographers ever define Apollumi as either annihilation, or absence of conscious existence, which is really the way you are defining it, in its strong sense?
If the the soul is just a man's physical life how is it that Jesus said,
"And do not fear those who
kill (apokteino) the body, but are unable to kill (apokteino) the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy (apollumi) both soul and body in hell."
Mt 10:28
If your definition of man were complete then it should be impossible for me to go down to the local 7-11 and kill the store clerk. Obviously it is not impossible, as the police are likely to inform me at the station, so logically there either something wrong with your definition, or there is something wrong with what the Lord Jesus said. I doubt it is the latter. Can you please explain how man cannot kill the soul if a man's physical life and soul are entirely convertible terms?
Paul wrote this about what he considered might be his impending death:
20I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. 21For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.
Philippians 1
If soul and the physical life of the man are convertible terms, can you please explain how Paul 1) could speak of desire to depart and be somewhere else, if there is nothing that departs, and nothing to depart from and nowhere to go, and 2) what precisely are the items of gain to him to be dust for 2,000 years as opposed to living for another few years or decades?
Cordially,