II Thessalonians 1:9

Some English translations of II Thessalonians 1:9 support the notion that unbelievers will experience eternal conscious separation from God, while other translations support that notion that God will annihilate unbelievers. These two notions are dramatically different. Supporters of each position pick specific translations of this passage to support their own position and refute the opposition. For that reason, I have spent significant effort trying to understand what Paul truly intended when he wrote this passage.

To determine which set of translations are most accurate, we must examine the original Greek source. Here is a scanned image of II Thessalonians 1:9 from Greek to English Interlinear New Testament, published by World Publishing:

The ability to read Greek will not be necessary to understand my analysis, but I want to show the correspondence between the Greek and the English words in this passage.

The table below presents three translations of II Thessalonians 1:9. The first is the word-for-word Greek translation take directly from the above image, the second is the NASB translation and the third is the King James translation. The NASB translation is often quoted by those who support the notion of eternal conscious separation, while the King James translation appears to support the notion of annihilation. (Note that I’ve underlined the word ‘away’ in the NASB translation.)

To clarify the respective positions, I have written two paraphrases of this passage, one from the perspective of those who believe in eternal torment and one from those who believe in annihilation:

By comparing those paraphrases to the actual translations, I hope it becomes clear how each side has interpreted the passage to come to their respective positions.

Now, to determine the intended meaning of the passage, two key questions must be answered:

1. When Paul said that these men would suffer 'destruction', did he mean that they would cease to exist, or did he mean that they would suffer ongoing existence in a ruined state?

2. On the day described by Paul in this passage, will God act to annihilate unbelievers and end their existence, or will he act to separate unbelievers to some other place?

I will first address the question of cessation of existence versus ruin, and then address the question of annihilation versus separation.

Destruction or Ruin?
The word translated as ‘destruction’ in this verse is OLETHROS (or OLETHRON is an alternative spelling).   The basic definition is ‘ruin, destruction’. Let’s initially consider the English meaning of those two words.

‘Ruin’ tends to imply a loss of function and therefore normally applies to objects that have some function. For example, we say that a cell phone was ruined by water. In that instance, the phone continues to exists, but it no longer functions as phone.   Or, we might say a shirt was ruined by a stain. In that case, the shirt continues to exist, but it ceases to function as a shirt for us because we no longer want to wear it due to the stain.   In both of these instances, the object continues to exist, but no longer functions as intended.

‘Destruction’, along with the verb form ‘destroy’, tends to imply the cessation of existence. For example, we might write that the records were destroyed in the fire, and the reader would understand that the records no longer exists. Or, we might write that a person's confidence was destroyed by an incident, and the reader would understand that his confidence no longer exists. On the other hand, sometimes the word ‘destroy’ in English can mean ruin - a loss of function with continued existence. We might write that the car was destroyed in the wreck. In that case, we would understand that the car continued to exist as a mass of twisted metal, but no longer functions as a car.   Therefore, our English word ‘destruction’ could be used to mean either loss of function or cessation of existence.

In that way, the Greek word OLETHROS parallels very closely the way the word ‘destruction’ is used in English – it can be used to express either loss of function or cessation of existence.   Given the multiple meanings of OLETHROS, we can’t know purely by definition whether Paul intended to express the loss of function or the cessation of existence.
Even so, we can gain additional clues by examining how Paul uses that word elsewhere in Scripture.

OLETHROS is used by Paul only four other times (Note: My bible software groups Hebrews with those books written by Paul. That seems unlikely, but I think it's fair to use Hebrews as an additional example of how words were used near the time of Paul). The table below lists those instances in the left column, with my conclusion as to its meaning in the right column:

By my count, OLETHROS is used twice to express cessation of existence, once to express ruin with ongoing existence, and once in a way that is unclear. This score of 2-1-1 lends credence to the suggestion that Paul intended to communicate that those who suffered the destruction in II Thessalonians would cease to exist, but it is not conclusive.

Unfortunately, the passages above are the only passages in the entire New Testament where OLETHROS is used, so we can't refer there for other instances. But we can continue our investigation by asking this question:

Does the Bible contain passages that demonstrate the presence of God as an annihilating force?

Living with the Consuming Fire
Even though we have limited data to examine regarding the specific word (OLETHROS) that Paul used, we can see if there are other examples in the Bible regarding this concept of annihilation in the presence of God. That is, we can briefly shift our study from looking at the definition of a specific word and instead examine the concepts that might lie behind the word that Paul used. If we do conduct that investigation, we do see multiple instances where the presence of God causes the cessation of human existence.

Consider these verses below:

Lev 10:1-2 Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.
Exo 33:18-23 Then Moses said, "I pray You, show me Your glory!" And He said, "I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion." But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!" Then the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen."
Num 16:20-21 Then the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, "Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them instantly."
Deu 9:3 "Know therefore today that it is the LORD your God who is crossing over before you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and He will subdue them before you, so that you may drive them out and destroy them quickly, just as the LORD has spoken to you.
Isa 33:14-15 Sinners in Zion are terrified; Trembling has seized the godless. "Who among us can live with the consuming fire? Who among us can live with continual burning? He who walks righteously and speaks with sincerity, He who rejects unjust gain And shakes his hands so that they hold no bribe; He who stops his ears from hearing about bloodshed And shuts his eyes from looking upon evil;
Dan 7:10-11 "A river of fire was flowing And coming out from before Him; Thousands upon thousands were attending Him, And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him; The court sat, And the books were opened. Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire.
Heb 10:26-27 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
Heb 12:28-29 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire.

In several of those instances, the fire is a literal fire which destroys, or threatens to destroy, physical bodies. This physical illustration is very common in the Old Testament and in the teaching of Jesus. God often uses physical phenomenon to illustrate spiritual truths. One clear example is the passover lamb to illustrated the sacrifice and salvation of Christ. And Jesus talks about never thirsting again, being born again, and eating his flesh and blood. In those instances, he uses a physical phenomenon to illustrate a spiritual truth.

So, for example, when Leviticus 10:2 describes the fire that comes from the alter and consumes Nadab and Abihu, I believe that God was making a very clear point. Don't come into the presence of God lightly. His presence and holiness is wonderful and terrible thing, and we must treat it as such.

In looking at the verses above, we see God depicted and a fire that consumes. But we something else that is interesting. God does not annihilate all beings in his presence. He is depicted as a consuming fire, but those who are under his grace are able to live in the presence of that consuming fire.

Notice what Isaiah says in chapter 33. He asks this:

Who among us can live with the consuming fire? Who among us can live with continual burning?

What is his answer? Here it is:

He who walks righteously and speaks with sincerity,

After the coming of Christ, we can look back on this passage and realize that God's grace will give us the opportunity to live in the presence of God. That is wonderful beyond expressing. But what about those who are apart from that grace? Isaiah does not explicitly say, but the obvious conclusion is that they will be destroyed. If you are not able to live, then you will die. There is no mention of some other place of fire to which they sent. There is no mention of eternal separation in some tormented existence. They will be faced with the consuming fire and continual burning of God's very presence.

This is also illustrated clearly in Daniel 7, where it says this:

A river of fire was flowing And coming out from before Him;

The river of fire comes from his very presence. And we read in Daniel 7 that the beast will be destroyed and his body thrown into the lake of fire. Again, there is no separate place of burning fire. There is only God's presence. Some will be destroyed by that presence, some will thrive in the beautiful holiness of God.

The author of Hebrews says it explicitly. God is a "consuming fire" and the fire will "consume the adversaries".

One other point. Those passages that reference fire are especially applicable to II Thessalonians 1:9 because we are told immediately preceding this verse that, “the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” According to Paul, fire is the means which he will use when dealing out his retribution. This illustration of fire that is used by Paul is very consistent with illustrations of fire that are used throughout scripture.

One more point on this topic. I know of no place in Scripture where the presence of God leaves a man alive, but in a ruined state.   Are we to believe that the God who is repeatedly described as a consuming fire will, at the final judgment, be transformed into a ruining fire? Will the fire of final judgment be less damaging that the fire that has been referenced throughout scripture? Surely not.

A clear precedent exists that the presence of God will totally consume unbelievers. The annihilationist's view of this passage is the view that is most consistent with other passages that describe what happens when the fire of God’s presence is directed toward men who have not received the grace that he offers.

Separation
In my mind, the most significant difference among various translations is whether Paul intended express an action of separation in this passage, or an action of annihilation. In the NASB translation above, this notion of separation is indicated by the insertion of the word ‘away’ into their translation. What is the justification for this?

At the heart of the issue is the correct translation of the Greek word APO. APO is defined to mean ‘from, off from, away from’. In II Thessalonians 1:9, the NASB translators have translated the Greek word APO as ‘away from’. Given that ‘away from’ is one option included in the Greek to English dictionaries, it might appear that ‘away from’ is a valid translation in this instance. A deeper investigation reveals some problems with that conclusion.

APO is used in Greek almost exactly the way ‘from’ is used in English.   There are many variations of what APO can mean, but it most often expresses either the idea of source or the idea of separation.   You might say, ‘I received a letter from (APO) John’. In that use, APO is used to connect a letter to its source, John. Alternatively, you might say, ‘Step away from (APO) the edge.’    In that use, (APO) is used to connect the verb (step away) to the object from which separation is desired, the edge.

As an undergraduate at DePauw University, I took two semesters of Greek. That does not qualify me as an expert in Greek. However, it does give some skill in making use of Greek dictionaries and other resources. One of those resources is Dr. Carl Huffman, who was my professor for those two semesters of Greek. Dr. Huffman is a wonderful Greek scholar but is not a theologian, by his own admission. I asked him if this word APO should be translated as ‘from’ or ‘away from’ in this passage.

He did generally concur with the Greek-to-English dictionary in saying that APO should sometimes be translated as ‘away from’. Here is an example he gave:

EBOKETO             MOUNOS            APO                      ALLON
grazing                 alone                    away from           the others

In this passage, a man comes upon a cow that is grazing alone, away from the other cows. The best translation of APO is ‘away from’. Why is that? Because the context demands it. The words immediately preceding APO are ‘grazing alone’ and the words immediately after are ‘the others’. That context makes it unambiguously clear that APO is intended to express separation and therefore validates the translation of APO as ‘away from’. Because of situations like this, authors of a Greek to English dictionary would need to include the possibility of translating APO as ‘away from’.

However, nothing about the word APO expresses separation on its own. APO can properly be used in situations where the context demands an understanding of separation, but the presence of APO does not bring to a passage any connotation of separation – it is only a connector.

Consider this passage from Paul in Romans 1:7

to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from (APO) God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

It would be absurd to assert that Paul intended to mean, "Grace to you and peace away from God..." Nothing in the immediate vicinity of APO implies any concept of separation, so we clearly understand that God is the source of the grace and peace.

Let’s look at another example from Scripture that closely resembles II Thessalonians 1:9. The exact phrase ‘from the presence of the Lord’ that is found in II Thessalonians is also found in another book of the New Testament. In Acts 3:19, Peter says this:

Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from (APO) the presence of the Lord;

If the translators of the NASB were to translate this verse in the same way they translated II Thessalonions, they would translate it this way:

Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come away from (APO) the presence of the Lord;

Of course they didn’t do that. Why? Because there is no context expressing the idea of separation in this passage. It would be poor translating to insert the word ‘away’ into Acts 3:19. It makes much more sense to say that the presence of the Lord is the source of the refreshing.

I would like to demonstrate this even more clearly. Referring back to my undergraduate professor Dr. Huffman, he went on to say that the best way to understand what Paul meant is to look at other examples of his own writing. To properly translate passages, general examples from the language can be helpful, but specific examples from the same writer are the most conclusive.

I used software to find every instance in the NASB where Paul used the word APO. You can see those verses here. I found 105 verses (Note: my software includes ‘Hebrews’ as one of Paul’s letters) Of those 105 instances, only 5 times did the resulting English sentence include the phrase ‘away from’. That is, in 100 times out of 105 possibilities, APO is translated simply as ‘from’. Clearly, the translators of the NASB believe that APO should not be translated as ‘away from’ in the vast majority of situations.

First, let’s consider those 5 verses in Paul’s writing that contain the word APO and where the resulting NASB translation contains the phrase ‘away from’:

(Col 1:23) if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away (METAKINOUMENOI) from (APO) the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.
Note: the Greek verb METAKINOUMENOI means being moved away
(2Th 1:9) These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from (APO) the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,
Note: No verb indicating separation
(2Th 3:6) Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away (STELLESTHAI) from (APO) every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.
Note: the Greek verb STELLESTHAI means withdraw
(1Ti 6:10) For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away (APEPLANETHESAN) from (APO) the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
Note: the Greek verb APEPLANETHESAN means were seduced
(Heb 3:12) Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away (APOSTENAI) from (APO) the living God.
Note: the Greek verb_APOSTENAI means departing

In each of the examples above, except for II Thessalonians 1:9, a verb exists immediately before APO that expresses some form of separation. In those passages, it makes perfect sense to include the word ‘away' in the translation. Consider the key phrases in the four verses above, other than II Thessalonians 1:9:

moved away (METAKINOUMENOI) from
keep away (STELLESTHAI) from
wandered away (APEPLANETHESAN) from
falls away (APOSTENAI) from

When looking at those verses, one might say that APO is translated as 'away from'. However, it would seem more legitimate to say that the word 'away' actually comes from the verb and not from APO. That is, the verbs could be considered to be 'moved away' and 'keep away' and 'wandered away' and 'falls away'. Using that approach, then even in these four verse, APO is translated as just 'from' and not 'away from'. In that case, II Thessalonians 1:9 would be the only verse of Paul's writings where the NASB translators chose to translate APO as 'away from'. That should be seriously considered.

But regardless of whether you attach 'away' to the verb or to APO in those four examples above, you undoubtedly have clear context that expresses the notion of separation. That is not the case in II Thessalonians 1:9, where APO does not even follow a verb at all. That is, the phrase 'from the presence of the Lord' directly modifies the noun 'destruction'. Nothing in the context of that verse expresses any notion of separation.

I want to be totally clear on this, so please look at another set of verses. These verses contain no verb that denotes separation. In fact, these verses contain no verb at all the clearly denotes what was intended. So then, what was Paul trying to communicate in these verses? What you can see in every one of these examples is that APO expresses source in those situations where no verb, or any immediate context, brings in the notion separation:

(Rom 1:7) to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from (APO) God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(1Co 1:3) Grace to you and peace from (APO) God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(1Co 1:30) But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from (APO) God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
(2Co 1:2) Grace to you and peace from (APO) God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(2Co 3:18) But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from (APO) the Lord, the Spirit.
(Gal 1:3) Grace to you and peace from (APO) God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,
(Gal 2:6) But from (APO) those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.
(Gal 4:24) This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding (APO) from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. (Note: The NASB inserted the verb 'proceeding' into this verse to make the meaning clear, but that verb was not in the original Greek)
(Eph 1:2) Grace to you and peace from (APO) God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Eph 6:23) Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from (APO) God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Php 1:2) Grace to you and peace from (APO) God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Php 1:28) in no way alarmed by your opponents--which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from (APO) God.
(Col 1:2) To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from (APO) God our Father.
(2Th 1:2) Grace to you and peace from (APO) God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(1Ti 1:2) To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from (APO) God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
(2Ti 1:2) To Timothy, my beloved son: Grace, mercy and peace from (APO) God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Tit 1:4) To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from (APO) God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
(Phm 1:3) Grace to you and peace from (APO) God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Heb 13:24) Greet all of your leaders and all the saints. Those from (APO) Italy greet you.

Paul was very comfortable using APO without a verb to express the notion of source. Just to be very clear about this, please read again the translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 from the Christian Standard Bible:

They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from (APO) the Lord’s presence and from (APO) his glorious strength.

When reading that verse in light of the previous verses, it becomes very easy to conclude that Paul intended to use the word APO to indicate the source of the destruction.

In fact, go one step further and remove the phrase "from the Lord's presence" from the verse, so that we can consider the second part of the phrase. (That last sentence is actually a perfect example of this current point. You'll notice that word 'remove' in that prior sentence is the key verb that expresses the notion of separation. Clear context expressing separation is always required, in addition to the word 'from', before a sentence will take on a meaning of separation.) In that case, we would have this sentence:

They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from his glorious strength.

It makes perfect sense to say that the source of the destruction will be the glorious strength of the Lord. As mentioned earlier, our God is described as a 'consuming fire', so the notion of destruction coming from his strength is very consistent with many other scriptures. But does it make any sense at all to say that the destruction will be away from the glorious strength of the Lord? To me, it does not.

The only conclusion I can come to is that the NASB translators chose to translate APO in II Thessalonians 1:9 in a way that was totally unique from the way they translated APO in any other of Paul’s writings. It’s as if the translators brought their own meaning with them to the passage, effectively saying, “We know Paul must have intended to express the idea of separation in this verse, so therefore we are justified for inserting the idea of separation into this verse by inserting the word ‘away’.”

Look again at the table below comparing the word-for-word Greek and the translations:

Do you see how this verse was so significantly altered by the insertion of the word ‘away’? Insertion of the word 'away' is totally unjustified if one considers the clear and repeated habits demonstrated by Paul in his other writings.

Before moving on, let me share just one more verse that I found in my research. This comes from Hebrews. I won't delve into the argument of who wrote Hebrews, but nobody would deny that it is written in language that is contemporary with Paul. Consider this verse:

(Heb 7:26) For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated (κεχωρισμενος) from sinners and exalted above the heavens;

What we can see is here one example where the author truly did want to express the notion of separation. In order to make that clear, he explicitly inserted the verb κεχωρισμενος. Yet one more bit of evidence that Paul was not trying to express separation in 2 Thessalonians 1:9.

After reviewing the evidence of other passages from Paul, Dr. Huffman said this:

So I think that you have made your case very well. It is true that outside of Paul there are some cases where apo means ‘separated from’ without a verb, but Paul's own usage is surely the best evidence for Paul. The puzzle then remains why scholars have typically translated the apo in the wrong way.

A puzzle, indeed. Just like in Acts 3:19, where the presence of the Lord was the source of the refreshing, the most obvious and straight-forward translation of this verse is that the presence of Lord is the source of the destruction.

A Different Approach
Let’s investigate even further. To do so, I want to change my approach. Up to this point, we have been starting with the words Paul used and asking asking what he meant when he used those words, as illustrated in this diagram:

That is a natural way to approach the problem, but is not the only way to investigate the passage. Another way to approach the problem is to ask how Paul might have expressed himself, given a certain belief, as illustrated in this diagram:

First, how might Paul have expressed a belief in eternal separation or torment? To answer that question, lets first consider how it might be expressed in English. We have examples from modern day English writers who believe in eternal torment. What you will consistently find among those who believe in eternal torment is the use of words like ‘never-ending torment’, ‘eternal conscious torment’ and ‘eternal separation from God’. It is unlikely that a modern-day biblical scholar would express his opinion as believing in eternal torment with the phrase “everlasting destruction”. It would be too easy for his audience to conclude that he meant “an eternally irreversible cessation of existence”.

So, the obvious question is this: If modern writers would not express eternal torment with the phrase 'eternal destruction', then why do we assume that Paul would express the concept that way? Greek words that mean ‘torment’, ‘conscious’ and ‘separation’ were available to Paul. If he wanted to express himself clearly, why didn’t he use those words? Not once in all of Paul's writings do we find the phrases ‘never-ending torment’, ‘eternal conscious torment’ or ‘eternal separation from God’. Would Paul trust that his doctrine of eternal separation would be sufficiently understood by his readers based only upon his description of ‘eternal destruction’?

We can observe how Paul expressed the concept of separation in other places. As just one example, here is 2 Corinthians 5:6-8:

2Co 5:6-8 Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent (EKDEMEO) from (APO) the Lord-- for we walk by faith, not by sight-- we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent (EKDEMEO) from the body and to be at home with the Lord.

This is a clear example of how Paul chose to express the idea of being absent from the Lord, and also absent from the body. He used the verb EKDEMEO. I don’t claim that this verb is the only way to express the concept of separation, but I do claim that Paul was able to clearly express what he wanted to say. Patterns exist in his writing. It is presumptuous to assume that he must have failed to be clear in II Thessalonians 1:9 and therefore we are justified to inject into his sentences words that he chose not to include.

On the other hand, what if Paul believed in annihilation? How might he have expressed himself? First, we should recognize that the words ‘annihilation’, ‘obliteration’ and ‘extinction” are Latin words and did not exist in the Greek language. Many of the English words that express cessation of existence today were not available to Paul. In fact, Professor Carl Huffman knows of no Greek word that unambiguously means annihilation. OLETHROS is one of the strongest words available in the Greek language to express the cessation of existence.

Besides the basic definition of the term OLETHROS and Paul’s use of that word in other passages, other evidence also exists to support the notion that Paul would have expressed annihilation using the word OLETHROS. Plato’s dialogue Phaedo might be the most famous Greek work on the subject of death and immortality. This dialogue recounts the day that Socrates was executed and records the conversation between Socrates and his students as he was awaiting his death.

Given the prominence of this dialogue in Greek culture, it is likely that its use of words had a lasting impact on how they were used. As a more modern example, the Declaration of Independence made famous the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’. Not only did it make that phrase famous, but it effectively defined how that phrase was to be used by future generations. At this point in history, if any American uses the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ in a discussion of human rights, it would be assumed that he intended to express the meaning given that phrase in the Declaration of Independence.

The Greek culture in existence at the time of Paul undoubtedly would have been impacted by Phaedo’s use of language. I can’t claim for sure that Paul was influenced by Plato’s Phaedo, but I do know that he was highly educated and I suspect he had read it. Given that, consider these statements from the Phaedo:

But he might say that no one knows beforehand the particular death and the particular dissolution of the body which brings destruction (OLETHROS) to the soul, for none of us can perceive that. Now if this is the case, anyone who feels confident about death has a foolish confidence, unless he can show that the soul is altogether immortal and imperishable. Otherwise a man who is about to die must always fear that his soul will perish utterly in the impending dissolution of the body. (88)
And, Cebes, I believe, granted that the soul is more lasting than the body, but said that no one could know that the soul, after wearing out many bodies, did not at last perish itself upon leaving the body; and that this was death--the destruction (OLETHROS) of the soul (91)
You demand a proof that our soul is indestructible and immortal (ANOLETHRON)… And although we show that the soul is strong and godlike and existed before we men were born as men, all this, you say, may bear witness not to immortality, but only to the fact that the soul lasts a long while, and existed somewhere an immeasurably long time before our birth, and knew and did various things; yet it was none the more immortal for all that, but its very entrance into the human body was the beginning of its dissolution (OLETHROS) , a disease, as it were; and it lives in toil through this life and finally perishes in what we call death (95)

In each of these instances, OLETHROS is used to unequivocally expressed the cessation of existence. And that cessation of existence in these examples is applied but to the soul - the very object that we are currently considering. (One additional note. In that last passage above, I indicated Plato’s use of the word ANOLETHRON to express ‘immortality’. Not only is OLETHROS clearly used to expression the cessation of existence of the soul, but its opposite is used to express the immortality of the soul.)

Given Plato’s repeated use of OLETHROS in the Phaedo to express the cessation of existence of the soul, is it likely that Paul would have used the same term to express an ongoing existence? This seems very unlikely to me.
On the other hand, given all of the evidence I’ve laid out above, is it likely that Paul would have used the word OLETHROS to express the annihilation of the soul? Yes, I believe it is very likely.

Isaiah 2:10-22
On multiple occasions, I have read supporters of the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment refer to Isaiah 2:10-22, claiming that this passage bolsters their argument that Paul intended to express the notion of eternal separation from God in 2 Thessalonians 1:9. This is a very weak argument. In fact, referring to Isaiah 2:10-22 strengthens the case that Paul expects unbelievers to be annihilated on the day of judgment.

Here is the passage in question:

Isa 2:10-20 Enter the rock and hide in the dust from the terror of the LORD and from the splendor of His majesty. The proud look of man will be abased And the loftiness of man will be humbled, And the LORD alone will be exalted in that day. For the LORD of hosts will have a day of reckoning Against everyone who is proud and lofty And against everyone who is lifted up, That he may be abased. And it will be against all the cedars of Lebanon that are lofty and lifted up, Against all the oaks of Bashan, Against all the lofty mountains, Against all the hills that are lifted up, Against every high tower, Against every fortified wall, Against all the ships of Tarshish And against all the beautiful craft. The pride of man will be humbled And the loftiness of men will be abased; And the LORD alone will be exalted in that day, But the idols will completely vanish. Men will go into caves of the rocks And into holes of the ground Before the terror of the LORD And the splendor of His majesty, When He arises to make the earth tremble. In that day men will cast away to the moles and the bats Their idols of silver and their idols of gold, Which they made for themselves to worship, In order to go into the caverns of the rocks and the clefts of the cliffs Before the terror of the LORD and the splendor of His majesty, When He arises to make the earth tremble.

In the passage above, I’ve underlined one phrase that appears three different times. That phrase is the terror of the LORD And the splendor of His majesty. This phrase is very similar to the one Paul uses in 2 Thessalonians 1:9. In fact, I suspect most scholars agree that Paul used his phrase specifically to allude to this passage in Isaiah.

This is the essence of the argument I’ve read in reference to the above passage:

Since the passage above expresses clearly that men try to separate themselves from God’s presence, we must conclude that Paul was also expressing the notion of separation from God’s presence in 2 Thessalonians 1:9

I can list three distinct reasons why this is a weak argument:

The passage above expresses separation through the use of the verbs “hide” and “go into”. The Greek preposition APO does not express separation on its own, which is the case we have in 2 Thessalonians 1:9
The passage above clearly expresses the image of a fearful and terror-inducing God. It is absurd to propose that Paul would use this passage to represent the beauty of God's presence.
The scenario described in the passage above is one where evil men are fleeing the justice of God, prior to them being apprehended. This passage says nothing about what will happen to them once they are apprehended and brought to judgment.

Let me address each one of these in detail now.

Expressing the Notion of Separation
As I’ve already detailed above, the Greek word APO (from) does not express the notion of separation on its own. I listed 104 examples in Paul’s writing where he used the word APO, and not once did he use it to express the notion of separation on its own. That’s just not the way APO works.

In this Isaiah passage, we clearly have the notion that these proud men will try to separate themselves from God’s presence. They are mortally terrified of falling into his hands, so they do all they can to hide themselves and escape his presence. The way this notion of separation is express can be seen in these three sentences:

Enter the rock and hide in the dust from the terror of the LORD and from the splendor of His majesty
Men will go into caves of the rocks and into holes of the ground Before the terror of the LORD And the splendor of His majesty
In order to go into the caverns of the rocks and the clefts of the cliffs Before the terror of the LORD and the splendor of His majesty

In each case, it is the verb that clearly expresses the notion of separation, not the existence of the word APO (from) in the passage. It is silly to use these sentences to support the notion that APO can express separation on its own.

In 2 Thessalonians 1:9, there is absolutely no verb expressing separation, nor anything else in the context that expresses a notion of separation. APO absolutely does not express separation in that verse.

Exclusion from Paradise
The passage above offers evidence that the presence of God is sometimes expressed as a fearful and terrible thing. However, other passages in Scripture clearly express the presence of God as very desirable - a beautiful, comforting and gentle thing. These expressions are not contradictory, but express the complex fullness of God, which includes both his holiness and his love. Here are just a few examples of scriptures which express the positive elements of God’s character, and I’ve underlined those nouns which apply to God :

Psa_36:7 How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God! And the children of men take refuge in the shadow of Your wings.
Psa_27:4 One thing I have asked from the LORD, that I shall seek: That I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, To behold the beauty of the LORD And to meditate in His temple.
Isa 63:7-9 I shall make mention of the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, the praises of the LORD, According to all that the LORD has granted us, And the great goodness toward the house of Israel, Which He has granted them according to His compassion And according to the abundance of His lovingkindnesses. For He said, "Surely, they are My people, Sons who will not deal falsely." So He became their Savior. In all their affliction He was afflicted, And the angel of His presence saved them; In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them, And He lifted them and carried them all the days of old.
Act 3:19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;

The NASB version of II Thessalonians implies the positive elements of God. We know this because we are told that the unbelievers will be forced to spend eternity away from this presence. They will be forced to spend eternity away from the presence of God.

If Paul had intended to express the positive elements of God’s presence, we would expect him to make use of these same types of words. These words express those positive elements of God which stir desire in those that hear it and which would be withheld from a person that was separated from his presence.

What words did Paul use in II Thessalonians?

...with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution…
…the glory of His power

These words don't sound much like the words in those passages which express those most desirable elements of Gods' nature. In using the word ‘power’, Paul seems generally to be concentrating on God’s ability to act. His power might conceivably be considered something to be desired, but it is far more frequently used in Scripture as something to be feared.

Clearly, this passage is not intending to express the warm, beautiful and loving elements of God. If Paul were intending to express those elements of God’s character which unbelievers would be excluded from, it is almost inconceivable that Paul would choose to reference this Isaiah passage to express those desirable elements of God.

I want to make this very clear with an illustration. Assume I have an 11-year old son. Assume also that the most wondrous and magical place that he can imagine is Disney World. I once thought something close to that.

Now, assume also that I want to motivate my son to act with wisdom and justice. As part of that motivation, I offer to take him to Disney World if he behaves well. Conversely, I warn him that he might be excluded from Disney World if he misbehaves.

In this analogy, I want to use Disney World as an analogy of the paradise that we are offered as believers in Christ. (I would never want to imply that we make it to heaven based upon our good works, but do want to set up an illustration where person might be excluded from the most wonderful place he can imagine.)

Now, I want to add one more element to this illustration. If I do a search on the phrase “tragedies at Disney World”, I can find several examples of tragedies that occurred at Disney World. (This is not intended to impugn their record of safety - no amount of effort would be enough to avoid all tragedies.) Sadly, one actual event is that an 11-year old boy child was killed after being a struck by a bus at one of the resorts.

Given that setup, imagine I said this to my son:

If you don’t behave, you’ll never get to go to Disney World, where that boy was struck and killed by a bus!

Obviously, that’s an absurd way to motivate my child. If I were truly wanting to emphasize the possibility of his being excluded from Disney World, the last thing I would do would be to mention a terrible thing that happened there.

What I would say is something like similar to one of these statements:

…where Dreams Come True
…where all of your friends went
…where you get to ride on Space Mountain

Isn’t that clear?

If Paul wanted to emphasize beauty of God’s presence, it is counterproductive for him to allude to an Old Testament passage where God is depicted as a fearful and terror-inducing agent of judgment.

Fleeing from Judgment
Clearly, this passage is describing a scenario when the Lord comes down in judgment. The images described concentrate on the majesty and terror of the Lord during this approach, and the utter fear of those who will be subject to his judgment.

However, this passage ends before we find out what happens. Essentially all this passage says is that God will approach and men will try to hide. The ultimate result is left for a later resolution.

Paul starts out in very similar manner, when he says this:

2Th 1:7-8 …This will take place at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels, when he takes vengeance with flaming fire on those who don’t know God and on those who don’t obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. (Christian Standard Bible)

Unlike Isaiah, however, Paul does not leave it there. He goes to the end of the story, and clearly tells us what will happen to these proud men once they are apprehended:

2Th 1:9 They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the Lord’s presence and from his glorious strength. (Christian Standard Bible)

They will suffer a destruction that will never be reversed.

The supporters of eternal torment seem to assert that these passages are describing the same elements of the final judgment. To hear them tell it, the final day of judgment will be similar to God’s entrance into a room infested with cockroaches. He will flip on the great glory of his eternal light and then watch with glee as unbelievers scurry away into whatever crevices they might find in God’s great thrown room. And then, God will be content to just let them spend eternity in those hiding place, while he proceeds to party with his elect.

Obviously, I’m being a little silly with my illustration, but it’s not far from the truth of what some seem to be claiming. Isaiah describes men who find caves and holes where they try to hide from God. At the final judgment day, no hiding place will be available to them, and they will be subject to the full fury of God’s wrath – his consuming fire. The fact that would wish to hide from God tells us nothing about what their fate will actually be.

Bible Translation Errors
Let me address one other element from the context of this verse which provides significant clues as to what Paul intended. Imagine you read this sentence:

Tomorrow, Jim will suffer ten hours of solitary confinement

Do you find anything illogical in that sentence? I don’t. It makes perfect sense. But now consider this sentence:

Tomorrow, Jim will suffer 48 hours of solitary confinement.

That one doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s not possible to suffer 48 hours of anything in a single day. If we did read that sentence, we would probably conclude that there was a typo, or that it was just sloppy writing. Or maybe Jim will be sentenced to 48 hours of solitary confinement tomorrow, or Jim will begin 48 hours of solitary confinement. One of those explanations must be true, because the sentence is logically impossible as it stands.

Now, read this quote from the NASB, with a few words omitted:

These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord… on that day.

By looking at the II Thessalonians 1:10, the verse immediately following the one in question, we see that these events that Paul is describing will happen in one day. This statement by Paul is very similar in structure to the sentence I made up about solitary confinement. If you assume that ‘eternal destruction’ means ‘an eternal duration of ruined existence’ then you have a logical contradiction. It is not possible to suffer ‘an eternal duration of ruined existence’ in one day, but that is what the NASB translation asserts.

The translators of the NIV seem to have noticed this contradiction. (The NIV belongs to that set of translations that tends to support eternal separation from God.) You can examine the way they resolved the contradiction by reading their translation here:

They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

By adding the word ‘and’ plus the verb ‘shut out’, they solve the problem. Since it is logically possible to be ‘shut out’ on a single day, this translation avoids the logical inconsistency that exists in the NASB translation.

But wait a minute. Are translators supposed to insert words into their translations? Of course not. There is neither logical nor grammatical necessity for inserting any words into that passage. This insertion is an egregious error and I am dumbfounded by the fact that they chose to insert 'and shut out' into this verse.

Let me illustrate just how egregious this is. Most of you are probably aware that there were arguments in the early church about the importance of circumcision. Some argued that Christians must continue to be circumcised even after Jesus came. Imagine that some from the circumcision group reasoned this way:

We are sure that Jesus agrees with us on this. Jesus believed in the crucial importance of circumcision and considered it a necessary act of true faith. Belief and circumcision are inseparable. Therefore, we can be sure that whenever Jesus spoke of believing, he was also implying that a man must also be circumcised. Given that truth, John 3:16 should properly be translated as follows:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him and is circumcised should not perish, but have everlasting life.

There you have it! Proof from the lips of Jesus himself that circumcision is required for salvation.

Of course, this translation is absurd. Translators can’t just insert words into verses to make them line up with their own beliefs. John 3:16 might be the most famous verse in the entire Bible, so it is especially jarring when words are inserted. But my hypothetical insertion there is almost exactly the same as what was done by the translators of the NIV in translating II Thessalonians. They inserted the word ‘and’ plus a verb into the sentence and in so doing, made a dramatic alteration to the meaning of the verse. There would be almost no limit to the alteration of Scripture that would be possible if translators were willing to insert the word ‘and’ plus a verb into any passage.

As I close this essay, I want to address one more topic. I want you to get a clear glimpse of the way in which some people argue for their belief in eternal torment.

InterVarsity Press published a book entitled Two Views of Hell. In this book, Edward Fudge argues the annihilationist position and Robert Peterson argues the position for eternal torment. In this book, Dr. Peterson deals at length with II Thessalonians 1:9. As I understand it, Dr. Peterson is very knowledgeable about the Greek language. He chose to use the NIV translation for his analysis of this passage. Not only did he use the NIV, but he emphasized repeatedly that unbelievers were to be ‘shut out’ from the presence of God. In a section of this paperback book less than four pages long, Peterson refers to the phrase “and shut out” six different times.

His argument is relying extensively on the very portion of the translation that was inserted into the text.

I’m not claiming that believers in eternal torment are the only ones who employ these strategies, but I have certainly read many unsound arguments in support of this position. Don’t be persuaded to believe something just because a person who is reputed to be a biblical scholar makes an argument. Investigate closely what is being said.

Wrapping up, is it likely that Paul meant to express in II Thessalonians 1:9 his belief in the eternal conscious separation and torment of unbelievers? That conclusion is almost impossible to support, for these reasons:

Paul’s used OLETHROS in two other places to expresses the cessation of existence, so using it in a different way here would be strange
Plato's the use of the word OLETHROS to express the soul's total dissolution would have established a clear precedence for using that word. It is very like that Paul understood that precedence and relied upon it.
The Bible repeatedly depicts God as a consuming fire. Along with that, those under his grace will dwell with that consuming fire, but those apart from his grace will be destroyed by it.
If it difficult to imagine that the consuming fire of God's presence will only ruin men at the final judgment.
Paul uses APO in 104 other passages and not once does it express the notion of separation on its own.
Nothing in the context of this passage expresses the notion of separation from God.
Paul's reference to Isaiah 2:10-22 only emphasizes the terrible nature of God's judgment and would be totally counterproductive as a way to illustrate the desirable qualities of God, from which unbelievers will be excluded.
The practice of inserting words into this passage in order to convey the notion of separation is obviously highly questionable.

Instead, the much more obvious and straight-forward conclusion should be embraced. This passage makes a strong and clear statement that unbelievers will be annihilated on the day of judgment.