Body and soul in hell

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Mt 10:28).

For some odd reason, annihilationists treat this as a prooftext for their position. Let's briefly consider it.

i) The Greek verb (apollumi) can mean "ruin, lose, destroy."

ii) On a traditionalist interpretation, the meaning of the threat is straightforward. There's a fate worse that death. Once you're dead, there's nothing more that a persecutor can do to you. Even if he tortures you to death, once you die, you suffering at his hands abruptly ends. You can suffer no further harm. 

By contrast, infernal suffering never ends. Moreover, damnation can magnify mortal suffering.

Conversely, martyrdom is not to be feared because there's life after death (pace annihilationism).

To my knowledge, Mt 10:28 could just as well be rendered: 

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can bring both soul and body to ruin in hell.

Or:

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can cause both soul and body to be lost in hell.

Or:

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can cause both soul and body to suffer loss in hell.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that it's valid to pick any meaning from the lexicon and plug that into a verse. But contextually, these are all suitable meanings. They all make sense in that text and context. 

i) What about annihilationism? To begin with, some (many?) annihilationists are physicalists. They don't think there is a soul distinct from the body. So there's the question of what they imagine the term denotes in this passage. Perhaps a "vital principle" which expires with the body? Man as an animated body rather than an embodied soul. But even the language of "animation" has residual dualistic overtones. 

Then there's the question of what dualist annihilationists think the soul is. Since they say the soul is naturally mortal, do they think it's like subtle matter? Does it have a half life? Is it composed of thermodynamically unstable constituents which undergo spontaneous decay unless God preserves it?

ii) If annihilation simply is death, then a human assailant does have the power to destroy both body and soul. That's not a uniquely divine prerogative. Any human assailant has that godlike power over a fellow human being. 

So, according to annihilationism, the threat is not that an assailant can't annihilate you. Rather, the threat is that God will leave you in oblivion. God won't recreate you. 

Of course, that's not what the text either says or implies.

iii) The text poses yet another problem for annihilationism. If annihilationism is true, then the threat should simply read:

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body.

"In hell" is superfluous. In what respect does God annihilate the damned in hell? Annihilation is really the alternative to hell. 

God doesn't annihilate the damned by putting them in hell. Rather, if, according to annihilationism, the body and/or soul is naturally mortal, then God doesn't have to do anything for the damned to pass out of existence. It's not a question of what he does, but what he refrains from doing. He simply lets nature to take its course. The damned will cease to exist unless God preserves them or recreates them. But in that event, God doesn't destroy the damned "in hell."

By contrast, "in hell" makes perfect sense given conscious everlasting punishment. They are forever lost in hell. Hell is where they experience utter ruin. They lose everything by going to hell.

iv) Finally, the parallel passage in Luke 12:4-5 has no prima facie trace of annihilationism. To the contrary, it supports the traditional position.