From: Clayton Bartholomew (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Apr 29 1997 - 05:50:51 EDT
> This concerns the usage of APOLUW in Mt. 10:28:
> I'm thinking about "apolesai" theologically here. In the aorist
> infinitive, it signifies undefined - but complete - action, does it not?=20
> Or am I wrong in my understanding of how the aorist functions here as an
> I was just pondering the argument of some annihilationists re: the doctri=
> of hell, specifically Clark Pinnock, who interprets this verse to suggest
> complete and utter destruction in the final fire of the judgment.
> My question is this: theological positions aside, does the verb APOLUW
> signify complete and utter destruction??? Furthermore, would this verb i=
> the aorist infinitive (as it is here) signify the same?
I am not an expert but I'll comment anyway.
I think the word you are after is apollumi, no?
There are several issues here. First, beware of any argument that overthrows 2000
years of Church dogma by focusing on a narrow definition of a common Greek or Hebrew
word. D.A. Carson calls this "Unwarranted Restriction of the Semantic Field", (page
57 of Exegetical Fallacies).
A single example is enough to overthrow Pinnock's argument. In Luke 5:37 Apollumi is
used in the parable of the wineskins. No one would ever argue that the old wineskins
go out of existence when new wine is put in them. The old wineskins break, burst or
whatever but they are not annihilated.
Finally, I don't think that being an aorist infinitive restricts the semantic domain
of a word.
Now you can go on and read the responses from the experts.
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:13 EDT