(Note: This was originally a section of essay on II Thessalonians, but I decided it made the essay too long, and was responding to a very silly point anyway. I put it here so I can retrieve it if necessary)
Eternal Destruction
Let me address the use of the word ‘eternal’ in the phrase ‘eternal destruction’. Since I take destruction to mean the cessation of existence, then ‘eternal destruction’ would be the ‘cessation of existence with no hope of future resurrection’. Or perhaps, “the cessation of existence of the spiritual person, i.e. the soul”. The Bible teaches that all men will be resurrected for judgment, so the cessation of existence that happens at physical death is not an ‘eternal’ destruction. It is a ‘physical’ destruction. Therefore, if Paul wanted to be clear that he was talking about a spiritual and irreversible destruction of the soul, then applying the adjective ‘eternal’ to the noun makes perfect sense.
Others believe differently. Here is a passage from Robert Peterson’s discussion of II Thessalonians 1:9:
I don’t find this way of denoting obliteration to be cumbersome at all. In fact, consider the use of OLETRHON (destruction) in Hebrews 11:38:
Most would agree that this passage is talking about the physical death of the firstborn during the Passover. I highly doubt that the writer of this passage is attempting to make a theological statement about the eternal destiny of those who were killed during the Passover. This passage is simply saying that they were killed. If Paul wanted to make clear in II Thessalonians 1:9 that he was talking about an eternal destruction - destruction of the soul – then it makes perfect sense for him to attach the adjective eternal to the noun to distinguish this destruction from the physical destruction we find in Hebrews 11:38. There is nothing cumbersome about it at all.
Consider now the final sentence in Dr. Peterson’s quote above. If extinction were meant, why not just say ‘destruction’?
If I were to expand that sentence a little bit, Dr. Peterson appears to be saying this: If there were a passage in Scripture where Paul simply says that unbelievers will be punished with ‘destruction’, then we should understand passage to express the idea of annihilation.
As it turns out, I count 6 other times in Scripture where Paul does just that (assuming Hebrews is written by Paul)
According to Peterson’s assertion regarding II Thessalonians, these passages should be taken as clear evidence that Paul taught the annihilation of unbelievers. The argument can’t go both ways.
Eternal Destruction
Let me address the use of the word ‘eternal’ in the phrase ‘eternal destruction’. Since I take destruction to mean the cessation of existence, then ‘eternal destruction’ would be the ‘cessation of existence with no hope of future resurrection’. Or perhaps, “the cessation of existence of the spiritual person, i.e. the soul”. The Bible teaches that all men will be resurrected for judgment, so the cessation of existence that happens at physical death is not an ‘eternal’ destruction. It is a ‘physical’ destruction. Therefore, if Paul wanted to be clear that he was talking about a spiritual and irreversible destruction of the soul, then applying the adjective ‘eternal’ to the noun makes perfect sense.
Others believe differently. Here is a passage from Robert Peterson’s discussion of II Thessalonians 1:9:
- Contrary to annihilationist claims, ‘eternal destruction’ is a cumbersome way to denote the obliteration of the wicked. If extinction were meant, why not just say ‘destruction’?
I don’t find this way of denoting obliteration to be cumbersome at all. In fact, consider the use of OLETRHON (destruction) in Hebrews 11:38:
- By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that he who destroyed (OLETHROS – verb form) the firstborn would not touch them.
Most would agree that this passage is talking about the physical death of the firstborn during the Passover. I highly doubt that the writer of this passage is attempting to make a theological statement about the eternal destiny of those who were killed during the Passover. This passage is simply saying that they were killed. If Paul wanted to make clear in II Thessalonians 1:9 that he was talking about an eternal destruction - destruction of the soul – then it makes perfect sense for him to attach the adjective eternal to the noun to distinguish this destruction from the physical destruction we find in Hebrews 11:38. There is nothing cumbersome about it at all.
Consider now the final sentence in Dr. Peterson’s quote above. If extinction were meant, why not just say ‘destruction’?
If I were to expand that sentence a little bit, Dr. Peterson appears to be saying this: If there were a passage in Scripture where Paul simply says that unbelievers will be punished with ‘destruction’, then we should understand passage to express the idea of annihilation.
As it turns out, I count 6 other times in Scripture where Paul does just that (assuming Hebrews is written by Paul)
- Rom 9:22 (prepared for destruction)
- Gal 6:8 (reap destruction)
- Phil 1:28 (sign they'll be destroyed)
- Phil 3:19 (destiny destruction)
- 1 Tim 6:9 (plunge into destruction)
- Heb 10:39 (shrink back & destroyed)
According to Peterson’s assertion regarding II Thessalonians, these passages should be taken as clear evidence that Paul taught the annihilation of unbelievers. The argument can’t go both ways.