When Christ uses this example it's because he is talking about Gehenna and the worms/maggots that are feasting on the dead, it's a sign of destruction. And the fire continually kept going because more was added to it. It doesn't mean things are being kept alive, etc. That's also why Christ is using this as an example of unquenchable fire because again, the fires in Gehenna kept going. It's kept going to consume, not keep alive. That's what a fire does.
So, do real worms die, especially in fire? Yes. OK, then we know that the worm that it spoken of is not real worms.
If Gehenna’s fire were literal, no real living worm could survive it. Therefore, Jesus’ words in
Mark 9:48 are symbolic, showing the ongoing condition of the wicked in eternal judgment, the worm represents the person enduring shame and punishment, not literal insects.
If the point were simple consumption, the phrase “their worm does not die” makes no sense, maggots die when there’s nothing left. Jesus pairs undying worm and unquenchable fire to describe an ongoing state of judgment, reinforced elsewhere by weeping and gnashing of teeth, which requires conscious persons, not ashes.
Here is another verse to show you how the word "worm" was used as a descriptive word to show disgust upon someone.
Job 25:6 "How much less man, who is a maggot, And a son of man, who is a worm?”
And another
Isaiah 41:14 "Fear not, you worm Jacob, You men of Israel! I will help you,” says the Lord And your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel."
Not to forget the one I previously pointed out.
Psalms 22:6
"But I am a worm, and no man; A reproach of men, and despised by the people."
So, the worm is the person. A person is a soul. That is who we are, and the word "worm" is simply describing this person.
It's life or death. One shouldn't have to add to God's word to produce a doctrine.
Biblically, what is everlasting death? If life is to be with God, then death must be to be away. To be away from God is a physical state. But to be annihilated is to be nowhere.
1. Exile
Exile only works if the person still exists.
You cannot exile someone who no longer exists.
Biblically, death is repeatedly described as banishment or separation (Gen 3;
Isa 59:2;
Eph 2:12), not erasure.
2. Prison vs Execution
A prisoner is alive but cut off from freedom.
Execution ends existence.
Scripture speaks of punishment, outer darkness, exclusion, and weeping—all prison language, not non‑existence language.
3. Darkness
Darkness is not “nothingness.”
It is the absence of light experienced by someone.
“Outer darkness” (
Matt 8:12;
22:13) requires a subject who is conscious of the loss.
4. Death of a Relationship
A marriage can be “dead” while both people are alive.
Death describes rupture, not disappearance.
Biblically, death functions the same way: broken communion with God.
5. Cut Off from the Source
A branch cut from a tree is “dead” because it is severed from life (John 15).
It still exists; it exists without life.
That is exactly how Scripture defines death.
You cannot be “away” from God unless you still exist. Annihilation is not separation; it is erasure. Biblically, death is loss of life
with God, not loss of existence itself.
Oh, of course. Imagine thinking the Bible actually means what it says. What a silly concept! Well, at least for those with a doctrinal ax to grind that the plain meaning of the Scripture just doesn't support. Then you have to resort to the "what that really means is _________". technique.
It sounds like you are getting upset. I have been trying to word things without being offensive. I simply use a biblical meaning while you choose to put your own meaning on the word "death"
Ah, I see! It requires your personal dictionary!. What it says just can't be depended on. If requires your doctrinal Rosetta Stone to be correctly understood, right?
Once again, please do not get too upset.
Yeah, it just isn't clear enough to be properly understood until it's passed through your bunch's patent doctrinal filters, and then it's as plain as is the summer sun. <Laugh>
And again.
Here is a helpful hint. When discussing something do not use language that shows you are getting angry. If you do show that you are getting angry, it most likely means that you are not winning the discussion. If you were winning, then you would have no need to get angry.
No lie, man. Years ago in one of these threads arguing eternal torment vs annihilationism, there was seriously this one guy who resorted to telling me that I just did not have the Holy Spirit to give me the discernment to understand how the Bible is really teaching me eternal torment, when I questioned how I was supposed to glean eternal torment out of such and such verse that is using pretty plain wording like destroy, death, perish, burn up, consume, be no more, etc.
That was his rebuttal, to just tell me that the Spirit is with him but not me, such that he gets the decoder ring to be allowed into Jesus' secret inner circle of "true" Christians. That's all they can ultimately resort to when arguing for ECT; just imply that you are one of the damned if you don't buy into their arguments for a doctrine that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ as being Son of God Who died for our sins (not all adherents to the traditional ECT doctrine act that way, mind you, but quite a few, far more than there should be).
That is a sad way of arguing. I would not do that.
