'A canon of interpretation which should be constantly borne in mind is

that a figurative sense of words is never admissible except when

required by the context'.

To this all will heartily agree who believe that God's Word is His

revelation, and to this we seek to adhere.  When we read in Hebrews 11:31,

'By faith, the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not', we do

not understand the word 'perish' to signify living in agony or remorse, but

that Rahab was saved from the fate which awaited the inhabitants of the city

of Jericho.  Let Scripture tell us what 'perishing' in Hebrews 11:31 means:

'And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and

woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the

sword ... and they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein

... and Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive' (Josh. 6:21-25).

Here inspired comment is absolutely opposite to the orthodox teaching

concerning this word 'perish'.

In Luke 6:9 the Lord Jesus, speaking with reference to healing on the

Sabbath Day, says, 'Is it lawful ... to save life or to destroy it?'  Here

the word 'destroy' (apollumi) is used in its simple primary meaning, and is

contrasted with 'save'.  A reference to Matthew 12:11 will show, further,

that the Lord used as an illustration, the case of saving the life of an

animal.  In Luke 17:27 the same word is used of the Flood which 'destroyed

them all', and in verse 29 of the effect of the fire and brimstone which fell

upon Sodom and 'destroyed them all'.  When we read Luke 9:56, 'For the Son of

man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them', why should we

distort the meaning of the word?  Why not believe that the Lord used a fit

and proper word, indeed the most suitable word which the language provided?

It is the same word translated 'perish' that occurs in that oft-quoted

passage John 3:16, 'For God so loved the world, that He gave His only

begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have

everlasting life'.  Here the subject is lifted to the highest level.  Here is

no ambiguous phraseology, neither figure, nor parable, but the plain gospel

spoken in solemn earnestness by the Lord Jesus Himself.  He stated that there

are two alternatives before men, the one -- life everlasting, the other --

perishing, utter destruction (Heb. 11:31; Josh. 6:21), and from this doom, He

came to save those that believed in Him.  Hence we read in Luke 19:10, 'The

Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost (apollumi)'.  Man

by nature was on the road which leadeth to destruction.

The primary meaning, 'perish' or 'destroy', becomes changed in the

transition of language to the derived and secondary meaning 'lost'.  Thus we

read of the 'lost' sheep, and the 'lost' son in the parables of Luke 15, and

in the 'lost' sheep of the house of Israel in Matthew 10.  The fragments left

over from the miraculous feeding of the five thousand were gathered so that

nothing should be lost (John 6:12).  It is pitiable to hear those who should

know better, arguing that because we read of a 'lost' sheep, which could not

mean a 'destroyed' sheep, therefore the plain, primary meaning of the word

must be ignored and the secondary derived meaning understood in such clear,

solemn passages as John 3:16 etc.

Notice the way in which the Lord uses the word in Matthew 10:28, 'Fear

not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul, but rather

fear Him Which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (gehenna)'.