Begging the question is the logical fallacy where a person assumes the thing to be true that he is trying to prove. Conditionalists do precisely this when they read various Scriptures dealing with the destruction of people and assume that the destruction spoken of means nonexistence. Nevertheless, conditionalists respond by saying that they have looked at Scripture and have drawn conclusions based on what they’ve read. Therefore, they are not begging the question. All right, fair enough. I do not impugn the motives of conditionalists in their endeavor to understand God’s word. But, in my reading through their material, I have routinely encountered precisely the thing they say they don’t do: begging the question.

As an example, let’s take a look at a verse used by annihilationists to support their belief that the destruction of people means nonexistence.

“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy [apollumi] both soul and body in hell,” (Matthew 10:28).

The conditionalist assumes that the word “destroy” here means non-existence. But the verse does not necessitate that interpretation. Strictly speaking, we have two possibilities for what that word can mean: nonexistence and continued conscious punishment. Both are logically possible since the text itself does not specify either one.

The Greek word for “destroy” in this verse is apollumi. Biblically, it has a variety of meanings, depending on the context.  Below is an outline analysis of every occurrence of the word apollumi that occurs in the New Testament when those verses deal with people. If you want to see the complete list of every occurrence of the word in the New Testament beyond the focus of people, go here.  The word apollumi translated into English as destruction, perished, lost, and destroyed.

1. Cessation of biological life only
   1. Destruction of the physical life demon-possessed boy, Mark 9:22
   2. Destruction of Jesus, which logically would require his continued existence after his physical death (hypostatic union), Matt. 2:13; 12:14; 27:20; Mark 3:6; 11:18; Luke 13:33; 19:47
   3. Dying as Prodigal Son who was dying of starvation.  This meant physical death only, Luke 15:17, 24, 32
   4. Zechariah who physically died, Luke 11:51
2. Cessation of biological and possibly spiritual life.  The exact meaning is not specified.
   1. Judas who perished after he betrayed Jesus, but nonexistence or continued existence is not specified John 17:12.
   2. Destruction of people, but it is not stated if there is continued existence after physical death or not, Matt. 10:28; 18:14; 21:41; 22:7; 26:52; Mark 12:9; Luke 13:3, 5; 17:27, 29; 20:16; John 3:16; 10:28; Acts 5:37; Rom. 2:12; 1 Cor. 1:18; 15:18; 10:9, 10; 2 Cor. 2:15; 4:3; 2 Thess. 2:10; Jude 5, 11
3. People who are lost, but still alive
   1. Lost people, sheep of Israel who are still alive, Matt. 10:6; 15:24;
   2. Lost people who are still alive (sheep, coins), Luke 15:4, 6, 8; 19:10;
4. Christians
   1. Such hindered Christians are said to be destroyed.  The exact meaning is not clear. Rom. 14:15
   2. Persecuted Christians who are not physically destroyed, 2 Cor. 4:9
   3. Disciples who were perishing physically in a storm Matt. 8:25; Mark 4:38; Luke 8:24

I urge you to do your own analysis. But from what I discovered, the meaning of the word destroy/apollumi, in reference to people, can have different meanings.  1) It can refer to the cessation of biological life. 2) the cessation of biological life along with spiritual death. 3) to people who are lost but still alive.  4) and also to Christians who are persecuted and disciplined yet live. So which is it in Matthew 10:28? The conditionalist assumes his position is true and that it means nonexistence. But, I can assume that the traditionalist view is just as true since the word destruction can be used of people who were presently lost [apollumi] but still alive (Matthew 10:6; 15:24; Luke 15:4, 6, 8; 19:10).  It is also used in reference to the destruction of Jesus which would necessitate his continued existence after death (Matt. 2:13; 12:14; 27:20; Mark 3:6; 11:18; Luke 13:33; 19:47).  This latter point is important because Jesus, having two distinct natures, the divine, and the human, cannot have his human nature be destroyed since that would violate the doctrine of the hypostatic union.

Matthew 10:28 and the word “destroy” is an example of how annihilationists impose their assumptions into texts. There are other such examples of imposing various assumptions.

Other Examples of Begging the Question

1. Genesis 2:17, “but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”
   1. Conditionalists interpret the phrase “in the day” is a long period of time and not that very day.  The implications of which interpretation is the correct one directly affect the conditionalist view because if Adam and Eve died that very day that they the fruit, then the death spoken about is not limited to the physical death. It would have a spiritual context separate from the physical. For more information, see the article  Annihilationism and Genesis 2:17 and “in the day”
2. In Luke 16:19-31, we have Jesus’ the account of Lazarus and the rich man who both died.  In the afterlife, the rich man and Abraham had a conversation.  This implies conscious existence after biological death which contradicts the annihilationist position. So, this section of Scripture must be interpreted as a Parable by annihilationists and the representation of consciousness after physical death must be explained away. For analysis of this please go to Annihilationism and The Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16
3. Gehenna means extinction
   1. “Again Jesus identifies Gehenna as the place of final punishment. Here he does not describe its destruction or duration, saying only that those who go there have been discarded and expelled by God. This is no gentle and passive death, but a fearful extinction wrought by potentially excruciating destruction in the fiery pit of the age to come.”¹Fudge, Edward William. The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition (pp. 122-123). Cascade Books, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition
   2. In this quote from a well-known annihilationist routinely presupposes that Gehenna means extinction. Of course, he seeks to make his case, but only the possibility of extinctions taken seriously by him.  Why the prejudicial conclusion?  It is because of his bias.

Conclusion

The annihilationists ought to work to avoid the logical fallacy of begging the question. Though we all do it and there are times when it’s necessary to do so (i.e. assume the validity of God’s existence and his inspired word), we ought to be careful when employing such an approach. The conditionists are making a lot of logical errors in their reasoning and I believe it affects their interpretive abilities. Since their logic is often skewed, so are their exegesis and conclusions.