Introduction to Evangelical Conditionalism – Matthew 10:28

If you’ve ever heard of annihilationism, then you probably have heard Matthew 10:28 referenced. That is not to say that annihilationism stands or falls on this verse. On the contrary, one of annihilationism’s strengths is that multiple different passages and kinds of arguments demonstrate the doctrine independently from each other. This is true of the view broadly and of the specifically evangelical form that we hold to at Rethinking Hell.

Nevertheless, this passage is significant because it conveniently and concisely spells out the doctrine in one place. Annihilationism as a whole is basically just Matthew 10:28 when taken at face value:

And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. ¹ Unless otherwise noted: Scripture quotations taken from the (NASB®) New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995, 2020 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved. lockman.org.

In the following, I will address this verse, explain why annihilationists consider it such compelling evidence for our view, and broadly address some of the objections to the annihilationist case from this verse (and why they fall short). Resources for further study will be noted throughout and can be found in the endnotes.

I don’t expect anyone to instantly change their mind about hell just by seeing that one verse. But it should be pretty evident why this passage is a core go-to verse for annihilationists:

• It warns of destruction. Translations across the board render it this way, even when that means the majority must take “destroy” non-literally as a result (more on that below).
• It speaks of this destruction being applied not only to the body but also to the (supposedly immortal and indestructible) soul.
• This destruction parallels the killing of the body (not just a metaphorical conscious death): man cannot kill the soul but God – unlike man – can destroy the soul.
• This destruction is done at the hands of God himself. ² There is an alternate theory that the passage is actually speaking of the devil as the one who can destroy body and soul in hell. The serious weaknesses of this theory – which help explain why it is quite rare as well – can be found in “Matthew 10:28 Is About God, Not the Devil”.
• This destruction is specifically done in hell.

The passage goes out of its way to describe what hell is, and it is not eternal torment but destruction of both body and soul.

Traditionalist Rebuttal #1: God Can Destroy The Soul But Will Not ³ For those new to the hell debate, the term “traditionalist” has long been used by both sides to describe those who hold to the traditional view of hell as place of eternal conscious hell. Note that this view has been traditionally dominant, but not universal (especially in the early church). For more on this, see “Introduction to Evangelical Conditionalism: The Doctrine of Eternal Torment Was Not Universal in the Early Church“.

While it is technically true that the passage only says that God can destroy both body and soul in hell, not explicitly that God will do it, the statement that we should fear this loses its impact if God would not actually do so. When warning someone to not do something, it is usually implied that a negative outcome mentioned at least could happen if the person does what they are warned against doing. That is the whole point of a warning. If their bodies and souls being destroyed in hell was not a real possibility no matter what they did, then Glenn Peoples is correct that “if this were so, then the same purpose would be served by some absurd warning like ‘be afraid of the One who can turn you into a melon.’” ⁴ Glenn Peoples, “Why I Am an Annihilationist,” 10, Academia.edu, n.d., https://www.academia.edu/45290811/Why_I_am_an_Annihilationist (accessed February 24, 2025). After all, God could do that, even though he won’t.

At least in my experience, traditionalist expositors rarely make the argument that God won’t actually “destroy” body and soul in hell, and understandably so. This is a very weak argument, and most works by traditionalists and conditionalists alike give it little if any attention. I will not devote much space to it, but I will address its weaknesses so it is clear why this argument is rare.

The main idea behind this argument is that God won’t actually destroy body and soul in hell, but Jesus reminded his disciples that God could do so in order to remind them of God’s power (and thus why he should be both trusted and feared).

But why focus on this one thing that God will never do when you could focus on far greater demonstrations of power that God has actually done? Where else in the Bible is God’s power ever appealed to by pointing to things he could do but will not? On the contrary, God’s actual wondrous deeds are the norm for showing his might and glory. For example, consider the creation narratives of Job 38-40 and Psalm 104, God rescuing Israel from the mighty Egyptians in Psalm 114, the numerous deeds of Psalm 105, and the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (e.g. Deuteronomy 29:23).

Furthermore, we should consider also that Jesus’s audience likely anticipated some level of cosmic destruction as part of the apocalypse and final restoration of the universe (e.g. Isaiah 34:4, cf. Hebrews 1:11, 2 Peter 3:10). Not only is this grander and more impressive than the destruction of one or even many individual persons, but it also will happen.

Remember, in this attempt to steel-man the can-but-won’t argument from Matthew 10:28, this reference to destroying both body and soul is not about what will be done, but only about making a point about God’s power. One might argue that humans being made in God’s image gives humans greater worth than stars or galaxies. And I would agree. But in terms of demonstrating power, God has done and will do far more impressive things than the hypothetical uncreating of some humans.

One final point to consider: when Jesus speaks of men being able to kill the body (but not the soul), this is not hypothetical. It was a real fear and something that some of the disciples would eventually fall victim to (albeit not on that specific journey). Jesus was telling them not to worry about something that really could and did happen. Does it not seem odd to then contrast the fear of this with the fear of something that would never happen no matter what? It would be Jesus saying “do not fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul; fear the one who also won’t kill the soul…but could if he wanted to.” It is not impossible that this is what was meant, but it does not fit very smoothly, and it gives us yet one more reason to be skeptical of this theory.

This rebuttal #1 is not very common, and for good reason.

Traditionalist Rebuttal #2: God Can “Destroy” The Soul While Keeping It Eternally Conscious

“Apollumi Does Not Mean To Annihilate!”

The more substantial rebuttal is that when Jesus speaks of God destroying body and soul in hell, it doesn’t mean literal destruction. The body and soul will still exist as conscious, living entities.

This often comes down to the use of the Greek word apollumi (translated as “destroy”). ⁵ For more on the Bible’s use of apollumi, see “622. apollumi,” Bible Hub, n.d. https://biblehub.com/greek/622.htm (accessed July 29, 2025). It is argued that apollumi does not mean to annihilate. For example, consider Robert Morey:

In every instance where the word apollumi is found in the New Testament, something other than annihilation is being described. Indeed, there isn’t a single instance in the New Testament where ‘apollumi’ means annihilation in the strictest sense of the word” ⁶ Robert Morey, Death and the Afterlife (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 1984), 90.

This is one of those statements that is technically true but also meaningless. One does not need to say that body and soul are annihilated “in the strictest sense of the word.” This strict sense is perfectly consistent with annihilationism, of course. But annihilationism only needs to establish that those condemned to hell are annihilated in a much less extreme sense, which would include any sense that would mean a permanent end of consciousness, and that is certainly within the realm of what apollumi can mean. ⁷ For more on what is meant by “annihilation,” see “Introduction to Evangelical Conditionalism: What Do We Mean By ‘Annihilation’?“.

Although death is often used metaphorically by adherents of the eternal conscious hell view, the literal, physical death of a body turns it into inert material with no feeling or experience of any sort. If God simply does to the soul what is done to the body when it is killed, and this state is permanent, then this is the doctrine of annihilationism (or evangelical conditionalism, as we like to call it here).

This is why traditionalists have and do often speak of the soul being immortal, never dying, never being destroyed, etc., despite this being the exact opposite of how the Bible uses such language. We know what these words normally mean. Eternal conscious hell requires eternal life. ⁸ For more on this, see Episode 58 of our podcast, featuring Ronnie Demler

And there is good reason to think of apollumi here as meaning to destroy in the sense of killing. As has been pointed out elsewhere, whenever the synoptic Gospels uses apollumi as a verb to describe what one person does to another, in every other case it means to kill them. Not just ruin or lose, but kill. ⁹ For more on this, see Glenn Peoples, “The Meaning of Apollumi in the Synoptic Gospels“. Of course, this is not the case only in the Synoptic Gospels; it certainly is how apollumi is used in 1 Corinthians 10:9-10 and Jude 5, for example. I believe every other comparable use is at least possibly meant in this way. ¹⁰ See John 10:10, Romans 14:5, and James 4:12. But it is noteworthy that Matthew is a synoptic Gospel, and this use of apollumi is undeniable in the synoptic Gospels.

Such an annihilationist interpretation makes good sense. God kills the unrepentant soul just as he does the body. The question then is whether we should embrace such an interpretation or whether alternative interpretations are superior.

Addressing Alternative Meanings of Apollumi

Alternative Meanings of Apollumi Eliminated By Context

Even without doing a deep dive, context eliminates some of these possibilities right off the bat. For example, it is pointed out that forms of apollumi are used to describe the lost sheep of Luke 15:4 and the lost coin of v. 8. ¹¹For example, see Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman, Sense and Nonsense about Heaven and Hell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 108. But Matthew 10:28 cannot reasonably be speaking of loss rather than destruction. This is because apollumi is being used not to describe a passive state of being (like the coin simply being lost), but rather, it describes what God will actively do to the bodies and souls of those who rebel against him. If loss is in view, then Jesus would be saying “fear him who can lose both body and soul in hell.” That is obviously false on its face. ¹² For more on the alternative meanings eliminated by context, see “Matthew 10:28 and Alternative Meanings of Apollumi That Are Eliminated By Context“.

The one alternative that is at least viable past a surface-level analysis is something akin to apollumi meaning ruin, e.g. “fear the one who can ruin both body and soul in hell.” There are resources here that go more in-depth (see notes below), but a few points can briefly be made here as to why this is not a good interpretation of the text.

The Use of Apollumi In The Synoptic Gospels To Describe Slaying a Person

As noted by Glenn Peoples above, every other comparable instance of apollumi in the synoptic Gospels means to kill (as it does elsewhere in the New Testament). This isn’t a clean state. There is strong precedent to see Matthew 10:28 this way.

Now, along these lines, one may ask why the Bible would use apollumi, a word that translators associate with destroying, rather than the proper term to kill (Greek apokteinó). ¹³ For more on the Bible’s use of apokteinó, see “615. apokteinó or apoktennó,” Bible Hub, n.d. https://biblehub.com/greek/615.htm (accessed July 29, 2025). It is undeniable that some uses of apollumi mean to kill, so my guess is that the point is emphasis. King Herod didn’t just want to kill baby Jesus; he wanted to slaughter him (Matthew 2:13). He wanted him gone. Jesus was a threat and Herod wanted that threat neutralized. Same with the Pharisees; they wanted to slay Jesus like a dragon or an enemy in battle (Matthew 12:14). And in the case of Matthew 10:28, where man kills while God destroys, it makes sense because what is in view is not just a cold, clinical description of death. Rather, the shift from apokteinó to apollumi properly describes the fate of those who are killed when they fall into the hands of the living God.

The Contrast Between the Fear of Men and the Fear of God

In Matthew 10:28, Jesus is not speaking of body and soul being destroyed in a vacuum. The point is what God does in contrast to what men cannot do. Men cannot kill the soul the way that they can kill the body. It makes the most sense by far that such a contrast would be posed if God was actually going to do the same thing then men could not do.

With this in mind, we must remember the response that Jesus tells us not to have. We are not to fear anyone who cannot kill the soul. We are then immediately told that, in contrast, we are to fear someone. Even with nothing else, what would we expect to be true of this being who we are to fear? Of course, it does not end there: to really drive home the point, Jesus tells us that this being we are to fear specifically can [word that often means to kill] the soul.

Humans Vs. Inanimate Objects

Humans are fundamentally different from inanimate objects. Humans are alive. Humans are conscious. Eternal conscious hell requires humans be conscious and sentient (which, for all intents and purposes, means having literal life).

With inanimate objects, there is a question as to whether an object still exists or not after a certain level of damage. Traditionalists often point to this, such as by saying “the tornado destroyed the house.” ¹⁴ Douglas Moo. “Paul on Hell,” Hell under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment, (Zondervan, 2004), 105. One may rebut that after a certain point, being torn apart by a tornado makes a house no longer exist. Just because the physical material still exists (if only in pieces of rubble), that doesn’t mean it is still properly a house. The material that something was made of is not identical to the thing itself.

But such questions are not even relevant for humans because humans are alive. We aren’t just material in a certain shape that does or does not exist when the material gets changed/moved around enough. For eternal conscious hell to be a thing, a human must remain conscious. There are many detailed, metaphysical questions of how a conscious being can exist – much of which requires going far beyond what has been revealed in the Bible. But fundamentally, it is not enough to just exist. One must be conscious. One must be kept alive (at least in the literal sense). A corpse could be kept 100% preserved forever and yet it would still be a corpse that could not feel anything. Whether it “exists” is irrelevant; it cannot experience eternal conscious anything.

The Connection Between Matthew 10:28 and the Meaning of Death

There is also an additional, secondary connection between Matthew 10:28 and hell. Matthew 10:28 establishes that when a person dies earthly death, this first death is only the death of the body, not the soul. Jesus says so explicitly. ¹⁵ Technically, Jesus only says this as it pertains to death by homicide. But few would ever argue that death by natural causes or accident would somehow harm the soul in ways death by murder would not.

This means that, if we want to look at earthly death to see what death as a concept is like, we should look at the death of the body. And what is a dead body like?

Some will appeal to the common, dualistic view of body and soul which states that the soul is conscious after death. They use this as an argument against interpreting death passages in the Bible (such as Romans 6:23) as teaching annihilationism. They reason that when a person dies on earth, they are still conscious, and therefore death does not mean an end to consciousness (even temporarily). But the state of the soul in the intermediate state is irrelevant to what death means or to what hell is like. ¹⁶ Of course, if the soul is not conscious in the intermediate state, then this is a non-issue entirely. But one of the strengths of annihilationism is that it is consistent with either view of the intermediate state – conscious or otherwise. Matthew 10:28 reminds us that the soul is not dead in the first place. That only happens in the second death (cf. Revelation 2:11, 21:8), at the hands of God in hell.

More on the specifics of death in the Bible can be found in articles below ¹⁷ For an in-depth treatment of what death means in the Bible, see “Introduction to Evangelical Conditionalism: Death and Life in the Bible” Parts 1, 2, and 3. For a shorter treatment, see “Whatever Death Means, it Supports Annihilationism“.  But this passage is significant because, like James 2:26, it separates the death of the body from the state of any immaterial part of the human person that might continue on after earthly death. Only the body dies this first death, so only a corpse can shed light on what happens to the body and soul in the second death, when God destroys both body and soul in hell.

Conclusión

This is why Matthew 10:28 comes up so much. Perhaps no verse spells out annihilationism in such a convenient and succinct manner. And while there are arguments made that we should not take the passage at face value, these arguments are left wanting. In my experience with traditionalist literature, including among its best defenders, the case for alternative meanings are not even as in-depth as my overview treatment here. It is stated that apollumi does not mean to annihilate, a few examples of ruined objects and lost sheep are given, and that is considered sufficient.

But this passage is an excruciating uphill climb for the traditional view. I encourage the reader to look at other resources at Rethinking Hell on the passage, both past and future. ¹⁸ In addition to the RH articles cited above, for a useful treatment of apollumi in the Bible, see Darren Clark, “On the Meaning of Destruction in the Bible“. For a thought-provoking deep dive on the potential connection between Matthew 10:28 and 4 Maccabees 13:14-15, see James Harding, “4 Maccabees 13:14-15: Understanding Matthew 10:28 and Eternal Torment“. Not that the evangelical conditionalist needs to go in-depth to explain why warning that God can (i.e. actually will) “destroy body and soul in hell” would mean annihilationism is true. Nevertheless, such treatments (both on this site and elsewhere) can explain why the passage means what it looked like it meant the first time you read it. You don’t need a decoder ring to find annihilationism in the Bible. ¹⁹ For more on the face value positive case for evangelical conditionalism, see “A Face Value Introduction to the Biblical Case for Evangelical Conditionalism“.

Liked it? Take a second to support Rethinking Hell on Patreon!