I now believe in Universal Salvation, and my wife and I have written a book, ‘God’s Plan for All’, which is free online. My understanding with regard to ‘ destruction of both soul and body’ is given below which is an excerpt from Chapter 12, ‘God’s Plan for All’. We certainly do not have to ‘explain away’ this passage.

Kind Regards

——–
Let us now understand why Jesus says that He will destroy both soul and body of those who do not fear God in gehenna, meaning in the Lake of Fire.

Matthew 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (gehenna).

Please note that in this verse ‘hell’ is a mistranslation of the Greek word gehenna, as we explain in detail in Chapter 16.

In this scripture, Christ says that we must not fear men who at worst can only kill us physically, but they cannot ‘kill the soul’, meaning they cannot take away the resurrected immortal life, which God will grant to all people. However, we need to fear God because if we do not fear Him in this life before we die, then there is judgement awaiting us in gehenna, meaning in the Lake of Fire on God’s Great White Throne Judgement Day.

In Matthew 10:28 above, Christ is speaking in spiritual terms referring to the Second Death of unbelievers. Of course, a resurrected unbeliever in his immortal body cannot be annihilated or destroyed out of existence. In the Lake of Fire, God’s consuming and refining Spiritual Fire will put the fear of God into the hearts of unbelievers so that they can hear God to receive the Gospel. God will destroy unbelievers’ sinful Adamic ‘old man’ completely, ‘both soul and body’ (the Second Death) in the Lake of Fire so that they become born again believers to enter the Kingdom of God.
……

1Sa 2:6 KJV
(6) The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.

1Sa 2:9 KJV
(9) He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail.

Although this is not an explicit preaching of the doctrine of the resurrection, it seems that it was something that Hannah was able to take for granted.

1Sa 2:10 KJV
(10) The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed.

Her description of the fate of the wicked as being “silent in darkness” and “broken to pieces” when “the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth” seems to contradict the Infernal Eternal Conscious Torment imagery as well.

Although it might be argued that Hannah was not necessarily a prophet, she is spoken of in a positive light, and God had granted her request for a son. We aren’t given any reason to think that Hannah was mistaken.

If anything, soul sleep whispers from the pages of the Bible, and I think that it is highly unlikely and requires the dispensing of and twisting of a large number of passages that indicate otherwise.

Job says that the poor and the wicked alike rest in death, Solomon says that the dead are without thought or knowledge or device, David says that the dead cannot praise the LORD and have no being, Jesus said the dead sleep, Paul said the dead sleep, and death is called “going down into silence” and associated with “darkness” … which are hardly terms that could be used to describe consciousness in any state.

The total cessation of consciousness in death is something that can be inferred from observing God’s creation (the invisible things of the world are clearly seen … Romans 1:20). This is not a whisper, but a screaming hammer that destroys any notion of an “immortal soul.” When death is allowed to mean “death” in the normal meaning of the word, the scriptures are very clear.

Where are a “large number of passages that indicate clearly otherwise?”

In the New Testament, following the return of Christ with trumpets, the devil which accuses the brethren is banished live into a bottomless pit, put there by the hand of .an angel with a great chain.

Without relying on mythology or extra-biblical books, doesn’t there seem to be some sort of connection here?

If we consider the Old Testament, the Pharisees would have been well acquainted with a very specific (and very famous) Jew who called Abraham father, had five brothers, and is even described as wearing clothing “dyed in the blood of the grape. He had Moses and the prophets. His mother was Leah, and his name was Judah, and his father prophesied that he would become a line of kings, “the scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from beneath his feet, until Shiloh come…” (Genesis 35:23, Genesis 49:11, 20).

If we consider the gospels and the context of that present day, there was indeed a connotation and a meaning behind being associated with dogs, even desiring crumbs from the rich man’s table. In Matthew 15 and Mark 7 we read of a Greek woman that asks Christ to heal her daughter. Jesus replies that he is sent to Israel, and that he should not cast the children’s bread unto dogs, and the woman replies that even the little dogs receive the crumbs that fall from their table. Christ responds to this faith and heals her daughter.

If the rich man is Judah, then who is this Lazarus that has not Moses and the prophets that desires the crumbs that fall from his table? In John 4:22, Jesus told the Samartian woman that “Salvation is of the Jews” but that there was a time coming when true worshipers would worship in spirit and truth. Jews had Moses and the prophets, but the gentiles did not.

In another parable in Luke 20, Jesus spoke of a vineyard where the workers stoned the messengers and killed the son. When he said that the lord of the vineyard would destroy those husbandmen and give the vineyard to others, his audience replied “God forbid.”

If the rich man is Judah, the Jewish nation, then his counterpart Lazarus would represent the Gentiles, or gentile peoples. One had Moses and the prophets, and the other did not. The Jews despised the Gentiles, but neither would they accept the prophets, the Messiah, or his signs… even if one came back from the dead.

I think Lazarus was chosen as a name either because:
1) Lazarus had already been raised from the dead (whom the leaders sought to kill, thus Jesus was rubbing salt in their wounds)
2) Jesus knew that he would soon raise an actual Lazarus from the dead (thus this was also a prophecy concealed in a parable)

The hell of this parable is not the Hebrew concept of death or the grave, but the Greek concept of hell (Hades). In contrast, Abraham’s bosom was a common Jewish metaphor for Jewish reward. In this story, the expected outcome of the Jew is reversed, finding himself in a Greek Hades while the gentile receives the reward of Abraham.

It is an obvious parable, no more meant to reinforce the Greek Hades than it is to teach that beggars are carried by angels to be hugged by Abraham when they die.

Abraham himself is a symbol that should be interpreted consistently with the other scriptures. Although the Jews took pride in being “sons of Abraham” Jesus said that the devil was their father, and we are later told that if we be Christ’s, we become Abraham’s seed and heirs to the promise. In this sense, Abraham is not literal, but symbolic of a covenant of faith and grace.

Jesus did come to offer salvation to both Jew and Gentile, and the Jewish nation (who had Moses and the prophets) suffered a reversal of fortune. They would not believe, even if one rose from the dead, Jerusalem was destroyed, they were scattered, and now a different people keeps not only the Old Testament but also a New Testament. The gentiles that desired the crumbs from the rich man’s table have been welcomed into the arms of Abraham.

If the Jew believed Moses and the prophets and accepted their Messiah they would also be welcomed, but the gentiles which received bad things in their lifetimes now are comforted.

Joh 5:45-47 KJV
(45) Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
(46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
(47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

And if Moses can be used symbolically in this fashion above, why not Abraham in a literal parable? Moses does not simply mean “the person Moses” but also the writings of Moses. Abraham does not simply mean the person Abraham but also his faith and covenant.

For those that would insist that Luke 16 contains only literal histories or that their elements must be taken literally, I would ask if they would also insist that we interpret all scriptures by the same standard? If so, then wouldn’t the parable of Judges 9 also prove that trees were sentient, talked with each other, elected kings, and consumed each other with fire?

Although I can point to many bible passages that even specifically state that the dead know nothing, feel no pain, are at rest, and the like, I cannot point to one single scripture that denies that trees are sentient. If we do not allow trees as conscious beings based on common sense, then why would we allow for the dead to be conscious in spite of numerous biblical statements to the contrary?

When we allow scripture to interpret scripture, much becomes clear. But this is not a teaching about any “intermediate state” (or lack thereof) or the judgment at the end of world. The characters are conscious and speak to each other because otherwise it would be a very “dead” parable, and how could we interpret its symbols without words?

Let’s meditate Acts 8:5-17 carefully prior to tackling the query above:

Acts 8:5-6, “…PHILIP WENT DOWN TO THE CITY OF SAMARIA, AND PREACHED CHRIST UNTO THEM…” Acts 8:8-10, “…But there was a certain man, called Simon,… bewitched the people of Samaria,…saying, This man is the great power of God.”

Did the Samaria believe in Jesus after Acts 8:5, “…Philip (had)…preached Christ unto them…”? Yes, they did believe since Acts 8:12, “(mentions that)…THEY BELIEVED…concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of JESUS CHRIST…”

After Acts 8:12, “(Samaria had)…believed…(in) Jesus Christ”, did they follow up with water baptism? Yes, they did since in the latter part of Acts 8:12, “(it is mentioned that)…THEY WERE BAPTIZED, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN.”

Not only Samaria had been baptized, Acts 8:13, “…Simon himself believed also: and…(had been) baptized…”

What did the apostles do after knowing Samaria had Acts 8:12, “…believed (in)…Jesus Christ…(and) were baptized (with water baptism)…”? Acts 8:14-17, “…when the apostles which were at Jerusalem HEARD that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when THEY were come down, PRAYED FOR THEM, THAT THEY MIGHT RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST.”

Did Samaria receive the Holy Spirit immediately after Acts 8:12, “…they (had) believed (in)…Jesus Christ…”? No, they did not receive the Holy Spirit at the time of their belief since Acts 8:14-17, “(mention that)…the apostles…heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they…c(a)me down, PRAYED FOR THEM, THAT THEY MIGHT RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST.” Obviously there is a gap (between Acts 8:12 in which they had believed in Jesus and yet Acts 8:17 that they received the Holy Ghost) in which the Holy Spirit was not inside their bodies at the time of their belief. As Acts 8:14-17, “…the apostles… (came) down, (and) prayed for (Samaria) that they might receive the Holy Ghost” after Acts 8:12, “… they (had) believed… (in) Jesus Christ…”, it implies that believing does not lead to immediate receipt of the Holy Spirit.

Did Samaria receive the Holy Spirit immediately after Acts 8:12, “…they…were baptized (with water baptism)…”? No, they did not receive the Holy Spirit immediately since Acts 8:14-17, “(mention that)…THEY…come down, PRAYED FOR THEM, THAT THEY MIGHT RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST: (For as yet he WAS FALLEN UPON NONE OF THEM: ONLY THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.) …”

For instance, if the doctrine, that believing leads to immediate receipt of the Holy Spirit, is true, the people of Samaria should have received the Holy Spirit in Acts 8:12. For instance, if the doctrine, that water baptism could direct immediate receipt of the Holy Spirit, is true, the people of Samaria should have received the Holy Spirit in Acts 8:12. As the people of Samaria did not receive the Holy Spirit until Acts 8:17, “…Peter and John…prayed for them…”, it implies the possible absence of the Holy Spirit at the time of belief.

Now, let’s tackle the question above that some commentators support that Samaria should be treated as gentile Christians and these led them to pray for the Holy Spirit:

Who were these Samaria? The following are the extracts from Strong Concordance and it could be located at: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4540&t=KJV

Samaria = “guardianship”
1)A TERRITORY IN PALESTINE, which had Samaria as its capital

The phrase, a territory in Palestine, is mentioned in this definition and yet in the ancient map of Israel, Palestine was located at the border of Israel and yet Samaria was classified as part of Israel.

As Samaria was part of Israel (1 Kings 16:29, 21:18, 22:51, 2 Kings 3:1, 3:6, 10:36, 13:1, 13:10 and 15:8) instead of to be considered as gentiles, it is erroneous to interpret Acts 8:5-17 to be the event that Peter had not seen the Holy Spirit fell upon the gentiles and that Jewish Christians did not accept them and these caused them to pray for the receipt of the Holy Spirit.

Nevertheless, the event in Acts 8:5-17 does provide the proof that believing does not lead to immediate receipt of the Holy Spirit and that is why sinner’s prayer should be stressed.

The following are four distinctive cases from the Bible that have brought us to the attention that not all the people, that proclaim Jesus is Lord, have received the Holy Spirit:

a) Instance that Saul could proclaim that Jesus to be the Lord prior to receiving the Holy Spirit.

Let’s meditate Acts 9:1-18 with detailed analyses as follows:

Acts 9:1, “And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,” Acts 9:4, “And HE FELL TO THE EARTH, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”

After falling down, did Saul question the Lord who was He? Yes he did question the Lord since Acts 9:5, “(mentions that)…he said, WHO ARE THOU, LORD? …”

What was the reply to Saul after questioning who was He? The Lord admitted that He was Jesus since Acts 9:5, “(mentions that)…the Lord said, I AM JESUS whom thou persecutest…”

Did Saul call Jesus to be the Lord after realizing that the One that he spoke to was none other than Jesus Himself as mentioned in Acts 9:5? Acts 9:6, “And he trembling and astonished said, LORD, WHAT WILT THOU HAVE ME TO DO? …”

If you would refer to the definition of the word, Lord, in Acts 9:6 from Strong Concordance, you would have discovered that its original meaning is identical to the word, Lord, in Romans 10:9 that is defined as allowing Jesus to take control of Saul’s life to be his Master. Or in other words, when Saul mentioned the word, Lord, in Acts 9:6, it implies his desire to have Jesus to take control of him to be his Master.

Could Saul have sight problem after opening his eyes? Acts 9:8, “And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.”

Did Saul receive the Holy Spirit when he called Jesus to be the Lord in Acts 9:6 after realizing that Jesus is Lord in Acts 9:5? No, he did not receive the Holy Spirit when he called Jesus to be the Lord in Acts 9:5 since Acts 9:17, “(mentions that)…Ananias…said, BROTHER SAUL, …that THOU MIGHTEST RECEIVE THY SIGHT, AND BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST” and Acts 9:18, “…immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.” Thus, despite Saul proclaim Jesus to be the Lord in Acts 9:6 after realizing that the One that he spoke to was none other than Jesus in Acts 9:5, yet he only received the Holy Spirit in Acts 9:18 since the phrase, there fell from his eyes as it had been scales…and was baptized, is mentioned then.

Nevertheless, there is an obvious gap (between Acts 9:6 in which he called Jesus to be the Lord and Acts 9:18 that the Holy Spirit came upon him) in which he believed in Jesus and yet the Holy Spirit was not with him, it implies that a person that calls Jesus to be his Lord might not necessarily have received the Holy Spirit.

What was the reason that the Holy Spirit was not with Saul even though he did proclaim Jesus to be his Lord in Acts 9:6 and that led him to be baptized with the Holy Spirit in Acts 9:18?

Let’s meditate James 2:17-19 for clarification:

James 2:17-19, “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”

As the phrase, faith…hath not works is dead, is mentioned in James 2:17, it implies that our confession to Jesus to be our Lord has to be accompanied with action or else our faith is in vain. As the word, Lord, in Romans 10:9, 10:13 and 1 Corinth 12:3 has been defined in the Strong Concordance as allowing Jesus to come and control the lives of non-Christians to be their Master, they have to follow with action to request the Holy Spirit to come into their lives and that is why there is a need for the request of the receipt of the Holy Spirit. We are told from the Scripture not to be the hearers of God’s words but be the doers.

James 2:19 mentions that even the devils believe and yet tremble. The reason is simply that the devils believe and yet they do not follow with action to receive Him as their Master.

The same is mentioned in Matthew 7:21, “(that) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven; but HE THAT DOETH the will of my father which is in heaven.” Non-Christians are urged to be the doers of the Scripture instead of hearers. When the Scripture demands non-Christians to call Jesus as the Lord, it demands them to allow Jesus to come into their lives to take control of them.

Despite Saul proclaimed Jesus to be his Lord in Acts 9:6, his action to receive Jesus Christ was in Acts 9:17-18 and that caused him to be converted then.

b) Instances below that give us the implication that people could proclaim Jesus to be the Son of God even prior to the resurrection of Jesus:

i) Matthew 14:33, “Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, of a truth thou art the Son of God.”

ii) Matthew 27:54, “Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.”

iii)Mark 15:39, “And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.”

iv) John 1:49, “Nathamael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the king of Israel.”

v) John 11:27, “She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.”

The following are the extracts that prove that those people, that are mentioned in Matthew 14:33, 27:54; John 1:49, 11:27, and Mark 15:39, did not receive the Holy Spirit prior to the resurrection of Jesus:

i) John 7:39, “(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive, for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]: because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)”

ii) John 16:7, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.”

Despite Matthew 14:33, 27:54; Mark 15:39; John 1:49 and John 11:27 were the events occurred prior to the day that Jesus was glorified and these people should not have received the Holy Spirit as mentioned in John 7:39 and 16:7, yet they could proclaim Jesus as the Son of God at the absence of the Holy Spirit. This gives the ultimate conclusion that those people, that could proclaim Jesus to be the Son of God in this modern society, do not give any strong proof that they have God to be dwelt within their bodies.

c) Instances from the Scripture to prove that demons could comment that Jesus is the Son of God and yet God do not dwell within their bodies. The following are the extracts:

i) Matthew 8:29, “And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?”

ii) Mark 3:11, “And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.”

iii)Luke 4:41, “And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuke them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.”

iv)Luke 8:28, “When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, what have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most High? I beseech thee, torment me not.”

From the above explanation, these could arrive at the conclusion that it is irrational to determine whether a person has received the Holy Spirit by simply hearing him/her in proclaiming that Jesus is the Son of God.

d) The less obvious event that proves that believing does not lead to immediate receipt of the Holy Spirit is taken from Acts 8:27-39 about the conversion of the eunuch. The following is the analysis:

Acts 8:27-28, “…a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch…had come to Jerusalem for to worship, was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet”

What did Philip do when he met the eunuch? Acts 8:35, “…Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.”

When did Philip believe in Jesus as mentioned in Acts 8? Let’s Meditate Acts 8:36-37 below prior to tackling this question:

Acts 8:36, “… THE EUNUCH SAID, See, here is water; WHAT DOTH HINDER ME TO BE BAPTIZED?” Acts 8:37, “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD.”

Some might support that the eunuch believed in Jesus in Acts 8:37 since Acts 8:37, “(mentions that he).. answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” However, some might argue that it should be in Acts 8:36, “(since)…the eunuch said, …what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Their support to be in Acts 8:36 would be due to there should not be any justifiable reason for him to ask to be baptized if he did not believe in Jesus. In any of the above analyses, the eunuch should have started to believe in Jesus either in Acts 8:36 or in 8:37.

Did Acts 8 mention that he did receive the Holy Spirit after believing? No, it did not mention that, except the phrase, be baptized him, is mentioned in Acts 8:38. The following is the extract:

Acts 8:38, “And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”

As nothing is mentioned whether the eunuch did receive the Holy Spirit except the phrase, he baptized him, in Acts 8:38, it might come to the conclusion that he only received the Holy Spirit in Acts 8:38.

For instance, if he only received the Holy Spirit in Acts 8:38, there is a gap of time in which the Holy Spirit should not be with him in the early part of Acts 8:38, “(that mentions that)…he commanded the chariot to stand still…” and he had not received the Holy Spirit until after the latter part of Acts 8:38 despite he had believed in Jesus in either Acts 8:36 or 8:37.