(This is an excerpt from a longer essay here. After identifying a set of verses that clearly describe the destruction of unbelievers, I set about to understand what is meant when we talk about 'destruction')
The Meaning of Destruction
At this point, we have a multitude of verses that describe the destruction of unbelievers. Sometimes, this notion of destruction is communicated with words that are defined to mean 'destruction' and sometimes this notion is communicated using images that depict destruction, like burning weeds.
Supporters of ECT recognize these verses expressing the notion of destruction, and yet they continue to claim that unbelievers will exist forever. Clearly, they must reject the notion that this 'destruction' will end the existence of unbelievers. Let's examine in more detail this notion of destruction. The verses above express clearly express that unbelievers will be destroyed, but what does that mean?
At this point, let’s take a big step back here. What is it that we are looking for as we press forward? In this essay, we are hoping to learn what will be the eternal state of those who reject Christ. (And please remember that Christ and the apostles taught frequently on this topic, so it is important for us to understand it.)
The two competing theories I am considering can be labeled in different ways, but the one I am opposing is called Eternal Conscious Torment. The very name of this theory asserts that human beings will be both conscious and in torment. Some might say those two words are redundant, but let’s ignore that for now. I want to make the point that eternal conscious torment requires that a person has both thoughts and feelings. A human being that is suffering torment feels the torment and has thoughts regarding that torment. A human being that had neither thoughts nor feelings would be incapable of experiencing torment.
Therefore, the crucial question to ask is whether the final judgment will result in human beings that have thoughts and feelings. Or, to say it another way, and to bring it back to our current discussion, will the ‘destruction’ that is described in the Bible eliminate the thoughts and feelings of unbelievers, or will those thoughts and feelings continue after the destruction of the final judgment?
This question can be difficult because we normally don’t consider thoughts and feelings in questions of destruction during our everyday conversations. Let me use an example as an illustration.
Consider a cell phone. Unfortunately, many of us have experienced the unfortunate episode of dropping our cell phone into water. (Although many cell phones are now impervious to water, imagine an earlier model that was not.) When we drop our cell phone into water, it ceases to function. It doesn’t work. We can’t even turn it on and we can’t make phone calls or take pictures. It has ceased to function.
But does it still have thoughts and feelings?
“What?” you might ask. “What a stupid question! The phone never had thoughts and feelings to begin with.”
And you would be right. And that is what makes it tricky. How do we apply these words like ‘destruction’ and ‘ruin’ to human beings, that have thoughts and feelings?
It’s gets fuzzy when you try to think about it. The essential function of a phone is to make phone calls, but what is the essential function of man? Why was man created? The Westminster Catechism says this:
If a partially functioning human being were possible, then how would we describe that? What words would we use? If somebody were to say that this person had been ‘destroyed’, it would be difficult to disagree with that assertion. He has lost his primary function, he has been ruined. And this meaning, this loss of function, is within the range of meaning expressed by those Greek words in the Bible that are translated as ‘destruction’.
Where does that leave us? Given the semantic range of the words involved, are we unable to reach a clear conclusion what the Biblical authors intended? Are we stuck here in an argument that can’t be resolved?
No, we are not stuck. In spite of the semantic range of the words involved, we can reach a confident conclusion about exactly what was intended by the Biblical authors.
We can reach a confident conclusion by doing two things:
1) Consider the notion of existence.
2) Examine how we all intuitively understand the language of damage and destruction.
(One note here about my use of words. I'm using the word 'damage' here to represent all forms of harm that you might do to an object, up to and including its total destruction. One might argue that the word 'damage' is not severe enough to describe total destruction. That may be so, but I do want a more general word than destruction, and I've decided to use 'damage' as that word. Please understand that I would consider total destruction to be the most severe form of damage.)
In our earlier example of a phone that was dropped into water, we agreed that it no longer functions, but let me now ask a different question. Does the phone still exist?
I think we would say, ‘Yes, the phone still exists.” A phone is a physical object with a certain look to it. We can hold it in our hands and turn it around. If we can hold an object in our hands, it is pretty easy for us to say that it exists, and we can distinguish that concept of existence from the concept of function.
But what if the nature of the damage were different than dropping it into the water? What if, instead of dropping it into water, we used a mortar and pestle to grind into powder. And then we took that powder, place it into a cartridge, and shot it into the sun? After that, would the phone still exist? No, of course not. Perhaps the electrons and protons that once made up that phone still exist in the universe, but nobody in their right mind would say that the phone continued to exist.
With this in mind, when we talk about human beings, perhaps we can also go beyond the confusing question of function and instead talk about existence. If we talk about existence, the concepts are clarified. A human being that no longer exists would no longer have thoughts and feelings. So, if we can establish that cessation of existence is intended by Biblical authors, we can totally set aside all of those confusing issues of function as applied to human beings. Questions about the functions of a human being will become moot points if we knew that the person ceased to exist.
We have already said that the Greek words used in the Bible can be used in situations where the total cessation of existence is being expressed. But were the Biblical authors intending to use the words in that way?
How can we know?
We can know. We can know it by closely examining the language of damage.
We often converse with others about damage to things. There can be a wide range of results from damage. The thing that is damaged might be scratched, or dented, or seriously harmed, or ruined or totally annihilated.
In most of these conversations, we have a pretty clear understanding of what the other person intended. We human beings have learned through time to apply certain rules to the language of others so that we can best understand what they are trying to convey. I will look at a few examples shortly to clarify what I mean, but let share my conclusions first:
In our daily lives, we intuitively understand conversations regarding damage by considering two things:
I’ll explain using an illustration of a wooden chair.
Assume I had a wooden chair in front of me. This chair 'exists'. Now, assume that I pounded on the chair with a sledge hammer, breaking it into pieces. Does the chair continue to ‘exist’? It’s a tough question.
Can you still sit on it? No, not if it’s broken into pieces. Certainly, it no longer functions as a chair.
But you could imagine that it might be repaired. Right? If it were repaired, is it the same chair as before? I think we would say, “Yes, it is the same chair as before. It has been repaired.” If its the same chair, then it must have continued to exist. Is that right, or not?
Let’s go back to the rules I identified above. In this case, the thing we’re discussing is a chair composed of wood and the damaging force is a sledge hammer. Does a sledge hammer end the existence of the wooden chair? In my mind, I would have to say, “Not necessarily.” I'm not sure if this chair ceased to exist or not.
In this case, the thing damaged is a wooden chair, and the damaging force is a sledge hammer. If we read the statement 'He destroyed the chair by hitting it with a sledge hammer', we would have a fairly clear idea of what was intended. We would suspect that the chair now lay in several pieces on the floor. Even if we struggled on how best to describe it (Does it exist or not?), we would still know the essential state of the chair.
My point is this. In spite of the fact that words of destruction can have a range of meaning, we normally can gain a clear understanding of the current state based upon the composition of the damaged item and the nature of the damaging force.
To understand this better, let’s consider this same chair with a different damaging force. What if we threw this wooden chair into fiery furnace and burned it up? Would it then cease to exist? Yes, it would cease to exist. It no longer functions and it could never be repaired. There is no question that it has ceased to exist and no question about the current state of the chair.
With those thoughts in mind, consider these sentences:
The specific verb tells us that the chair is being damaged, but the verb is not of primary significant in conveying the concept. In our attempts to understand the meaning, we would probably say that the first two sentences were literal and the third was a metaphor or an exaggeration, because the chair wasn’t technically annihilated. But all of those discussions would be academic and would not change what was being communicated. We understand what was being communicated because understand 1) the composition of a chair and 2) the nature of what a sledge hammer does.
Now, consider these three sentences:
Probably the first thing that stands out to me is that sentence number (2) is nonsensical. I can’t imagine anybody saying that I ruined a chair by throwing it into the fiery furnace. The only way that would make sense if I quenched the fire before its damage was completed, or maybe if I retrieved the chair out of the fire before the damage was completed. But nobody would ever say that I ruined a chair by throwing it into a fiery furnace and leaving it there. Something that ceases to exist is not ruined.
Another observation is this. Most would probably say that sentences (1) and (3) were literal. The chair was truly destroyed and the chair was truly annihilated, with no hint of exaggeration or metaphor.
So, you see once again that the verbs of damage are not what clearly conveys the primary meaning. We understand what is being communicated because we understand 1) the composition of a chair and 2) the nature of burning fire.
I hope you grasp the importance of this. I’ve been discussing this topic for years, but I never really enunciated this truth clearly until now. I spent many years trying to plumb the depths of the definition of the words being used in discussions of destruction. In hindsight, it is obvious that the definitions of the words are not sufficient to express what is being communicated. In discussions of damage to things, the primary components which convey the meaning of the language are (1) the composition of thing damaged and (2) the nature of the damaging force.
Let’s briefly consider another thing that suffers damage. Consider a marriage. A marriage is not a physical thing, and yet it certainly exists. What if one partner had an affair? Most would agree that an affair causes damage to a marriage. With that in mind, consider this sentence:
What does that mean? Does the marriage still exist? I can’t sure.
If a divorce ensued, then the marriage no longer exists. Divorce ends the existence of the marriage. But I think we can imagine other possible meanings for the sentence above.
We can imagine a husband and wife, both filled with bitterness and strife, who continue to live in the same house following an affair. The legal entity we call a ‘marriage’ might still be intact, and yet all the intimacy and comfort that should normally exist in a marriage might be gone. In that case, we might say that the marriage had been destroyed.
Let's apply the rules to this example. (1) What is the composition of a marriage? It is a complex question. Is it just a legal entity, or is it a relationship? (2) What is the nature of the damaging force? The affair. OK. Does an affair end the existence of a marriage? Again, it's a complex question. An affair doesn’t always bring about divorce, and does not always end the relationship. So, we can't reach a definite conclusion.
Do you see? Our original language was that “the marriage was destroyed by the affair”. In this case, the language is ambiguous. No clear meaning can be understood from the single sentence we considered, because marriage is a complex entity, and an affair does not always bring the cessation of existence.
One more quick illustration. What if a friend said this to me:
Let’s apply our rules. (1) What is the composition of the ‘Cubs’? A baseball team. (2) What is the agent of damage? A baseball game. Clearly, the baseball team called the Cubs continues to exist after this game. If this were said to me, I would understand immediately what was being communicated. Even though this very severe word ‘annihilation’ was used, I would never suppose for a minute that some loss of life or property occurred. It was simply a case of hyperbole, of exaggeration.
My goal is to highlight what we currently do. I am not proposing a set of rules that should be used. Instead, I am making the claim that these are rules we always intuitively use whenever we hear language of damage. Whether we are talking about phones or chairs or marriages or baseball teams, the same set of rules apply. The composition of the thing involved and the nature of the damaging force determines the meanings of the language. Sometimes, the meaning is clear. Sometimes, the meaning is ambiguous.
With that in mind, let’s get back to the Biblical discussion of the destruction of unbelievers. Can we extract a clear understanding of what was intended by the Biblical authors? The thing being damaged is man, and the damaging force is the final judgment of God. What is the composition of man, and what is the nature of the damaging force? Overwhelming, we see this:
For those who know the scripture, those two sentences above should trigger the recall of many verses.
Do you remember all of those Old Testament images which compare man to stubble and chaff? Do you recall all of those mentions of God as a fire, and as consuming fire? Consider the illustrations in the New Testament in regard to the judgment. Men are compared to chaff and to weeds and to dried branches. God is referred to as a consuming fire and the final judgment as a lake of fire.
By comparing the composition of man to things like stubble and chaff and the nature of the final judgment to fire, the authors were be explicitly clear about what they were communicating.
Quibbles over definitions should become less important. Don’t you see? Definitions are not the primary tool we use to determine the specific meaning of destruction language. The primary thing that matters is the composition of the thing being destroyed and the nature of the destroying agent. The Bible declares, over and over again, that man is destructible (often compared to flammable items) and God can certainly bring about the end of his existence (often compared to a consuming fire). The verses are too many to list here, but you could find themselves if you wish. In regards to the composition of man, all you need to do is search your Bible for words like chaff, stubble and weeds. In regards to the destructive nature of God, look up words like fire, flaming and consuming. Here are just a few examples:
With those verses as part of the broader context of Biblical expression, we can have a very clear idea of what was intended when authors use the word 'destruction' to express the final judgment by God upon man.
The evidence is clear and beyond dispute. When the Bible discusses the final destruction of man, the ultimate result of that destruction is clear. Man can be consumed, and the final judgment is a consuming fire that will do just that.
The Meaning of Destruction
At this point, we have a multitude of verses that describe the destruction of unbelievers. Sometimes, this notion of destruction is communicated with words that are defined to mean 'destruction' and sometimes this notion is communicated using images that depict destruction, like burning weeds.
Supporters of ECT recognize these verses expressing the notion of destruction, and yet they continue to claim that unbelievers will exist forever. Clearly, they must reject the notion that this 'destruction' will end the existence of unbelievers. Let's examine in more detail this notion of destruction. The verses above express clearly express that unbelievers will be destroyed, but what does that mean?
At this point, let’s take a big step back here. What is it that we are looking for as we press forward? In this essay, we are hoping to learn what will be the eternal state of those who reject Christ. (And please remember that Christ and the apostles taught frequently on this topic, so it is important for us to understand it.)
The two competing theories I am considering can be labeled in different ways, but the one I am opposing is called Eternal Conscious Torment. The very name of this theory asserts that human beings will be both conscious and in torment. Some might say those two words are redundant, but let’s ignore that for now. I want to make the point that eternal conscious torment requires that a person has both thoughts and feelings. A human being that is suffering torment feels the torment and has thoughts regarding that torment. A human being that had neither thoughts nor feelings would be incapable of experiencing torment.
Therefore, the crucial question to ask is whether the final judgment will result in human beings that have thoughts and feelings. Or, to say it another way, and to bring it back to our current discussion, will the ‘destruction’ that is described in the Bible eliminate the thoughts and feelings of unbelievers, or will those thoughts and feelings continue after the destruction of the final judgment?
This question can be difficult because we normally don’t consider thoughts and feelings in questions of destruction during our everyday conversations. Let me use an example as an illustration.
Consider a cell phone. Unfortunately, many of us have experienced the unfortunate episode of dropping our cell phone into water. (Although many cell phones are now impervious to water, imagine an earlier model that was not.) When we drop our cell phone into water, it ceases to function. It doesn’t work. We can’t even turn it on and we can’t make phone calls or take pictures. It has ceased to function.
But does it still have thoughts and feelings?
“What?” you might ask. “What a stupid question! The phone never had thoughts and feelings to begin with.”
And you would be right. And that is what makes it tricky. How do we apply these words like ‘destruction’ and ‘ruin’ to human beings, that have thoughts and feelings?
It’s gets fuzzy when you try to think about it. The essential function of a phone is to make phone calls, but what is the essential function of man? Why was man created? The Westminster Catechism says this:
- Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
If a partially functioning human being were possible, then how would we describe that? What words would we use? If somebody were to say that this person had been ‘destroyed’, it would be difficult to disagree with that assertion. He has lost his primary function, he has been ruined. And this meaning, this loss of function, is within the range of meaning expressed by those Greek words in the Bible that are translated as ‘destruction’.
Where does that leave us? Given the semantic range of the words involved, are we unable to reach a clear conclusion what the Biblical authors intended? Are we stuck here in an argument that can’t be resolved?
No, we are not stuck. In spite of the semantic range of the words involved, we can reach a confident conclusion about exactly what was intended by the Biblical authors.
We can reach a confident conclusion by doing two things:
1) Consider the notion of existence.
2) Examine how we all intuitively understand the language of damage and destruction.
(One note here about my use of words. I'm using the word 'damage' here to represent all forms of harm that you might do to an object, up to and including its total destruction. One might argue that the word 'damage' is not severe enough to describe total destruction. That may be so, but I do want a more general word than destruction, and I've decided to use 'damage' as that word. Please understand that I would consider total destruction to be the most severe form of damage.)
In our earlier example of a phone that was dropped into water, we agreed that it no longer functions, but let me now ask a different question. Does the phone still exist?
I think we would say, ‘Yes, the phone still exists.” A phone is a physical object with a certain look to it. We can hold it in our hands and turn it around. If we can hold an object in our hands, it is pretty easy for us to say that it exists, and we can distinguish that concept of existence from the concept of function.
But what if the nature of the damage were different than dropping it into the water? What if, instead of dropping it into water, we used a mortar and pestle to grind into powder. And then we took that powder, place it into a cartridge, and shot it into the sun? After that, would the phone still exist? No, of course not. Perhaps the electrons and protons that once made up that phone still exist in the universe, but nobody in their right mind would say that the phone continued to exist.
With this in mind, when we talk about human beings, perhaps we can also go beyond the confusing question of function and instead talk about existence. If we talk about existence, the concepts are clarified. A human being that no longer exists would no longer have thoughts and feelings. So, if we can establish that cessation of existence is intended by Biblical authors, we can totally set aside all of those confusing issues of function as applied to human beings. Questions about the functions of a human being will become moot points if we knew that the person ceased to exist.
We have already said that the Greek words used in the Bible can be used in situations where the total cessation of existence is being expressed. But were the Biblical authors intending to use the words in that way?
How can we know?
We can know. We can know it by closely examining the language of damage.
We often converse with others about damage to things. There can be a wide range of results from damage. The thing that is damaged might be scratched, or dented, or seriously harmed, or ruined or totally annihilated.
In most of these conversations, we have a pretty clear understanding of what the other person intended. We human beings have learned through time to apply certain rules to the language of others so that we can best understand what they are trying to convey. I will look at a few examples shortly to clarify what I mean, but let share my conclusions first:
In our daily lives, we intuitively understand conversations regarding damage by considering two things:
- What is the composition of the thing being damaged?
- What is the nature of the damaging force?
I’ll explain using an illustration of a wooden chair.
Assume I had a wooden chair in front of me. This chair 'exists'. Now, assume that I pounded on the chair with a sledge hammer, breaking it into pieces. Does the chair continue to ‘exist’? It’s a tough question.
Can you still sit on it? No, not if it’s broken into pieces. Certainly, it no longer functions as a chair.
But you could imagine that it might be repaired. Right? If it were repaired, is it the same chair as before? I think we would say, “Yes, it is the same chair as before. It has been repaired.” If its the same chair, then it must have continued to exist. Is that right, or not?
Let’s go back to the rules I identified above. In this case, the thing we’re discussing is a chair composed of wood and the damaging force is a sledge hammer. Does a sledge hammer end the existence of the wooden chair? In my mind, I would have to say, “Not necessarily.” I'm not sure if this chair ceased to exist or not.
In this case, the thing damaged is a wooden chair, and the damaging force is a sledge hammer. If we read the statement 'He destroyed the chair by hitting it with a sledge hammer', we would have a fairly clear idea of what was intended. We would suspect that the chair now lay in several pieces on the floor. Even if we struggled on how best to describe it (Does it exist or not?), we would still know the essential state of the chair.
My point is this. In spite of the fact that words of destruction can have a range of meaning, we normally can gain a clear understanding of the current state based upon the composition of the damaged item and the nature of the damaging force.
To understand this better, let’s consider this same chair with a different damaging force. What if we threw this wooden chair into fiery furnace and burned it up? Would it then cease to exist? Yes, it would cease to exist. It no longer functions and it could never be repaired. There is no question that it has ceased to exist and no question about the current state of the chair.
With those thoughts in mind, consider these sentences:
- I destroyed the chair with a sledge hammer.
- I ruined the chair with a sledge hammer.
- I annihilated the chair with a sledge hammer.
The specific verb tells us that the chair is being damaged, but the verb is not of primary significant in conveying the concept. In our attempts to understand the meaning, we would probably say that the first two sentences were literal and the third was a metaphor or an exaggeration, because the chair wasn’t technically annihilated. But all of those discussions would be academic and would not change what was being communicated. We understand what was being communicated because understand 1) the composition of a chair and 2) the nature of what a sledge hammer does.
Now, consider these three sentences:
- I destroyed the chair by throwing it into the fiery furnace.
- I ruined the chair by throwing it into the fiery furnace.
- I annihilated the chair by throwing it into the fiery furnace.
Probably the first thing that stands out to me is that sentence number (2) is nonsensical. I can’t imagine anybody saying that I ruined a chair by throwing it into the fiery furnace. The only way that would make sense if I quenched the fire before its damage was completed, or maybe if I retrieved the chair out of the fire before the damage was completed. But nobody would ever say that I ruined a chair by throwing it into a fiery furnace and leaving it there. Something that ceases to exist is not ruined.
Another observation is this. Most would probably say that sentences (1) and (3) were literal. The chair was truly destroyed and the chair was truly annihilated, with no hint of exaggeration or metaphor.
So, you see once again that the verbs of damage are not what clearly conveys the primary meaning. We understand what is being communicated because we understand 1) the composition of a chair and 2) the nature of burning fire.
I hope you grasp the importance of this. I’ve been discussing this topic for years, but I never really enunciated this truth clearly until now. I spent many years trying to plumb the depths of the definition of the words being used in discussions of destruction. In hindsight, it is obvious that the definitions of the words are not sufficient to express what is being communicated. In discussions of damage to things, the primary components which convey the meaning of the language are (1) the composition of thing damaged and (2) the nature of the damaging force.
Let’s briefly consider another thing that suffers damage. Consider a marriage. A marriage is not a physical thing, and yet it certainly exists. What if one partner had an affair? Most would agree that an affair causes damage to a marriage. With that in mind, consider this sentence:
- The marriage was destroyed by the affair
What does that mean? Does the marriage still exist? I can’t sure.
If a divorce ensued, then the marriage no longer exists. Divorce ends the existence of the marriage. But I think we can imagine other possible meanings for the sentence above.
We can imagine a husband and wife, both filled with bitterness and strife, who continue to live in the same house following an affair. The legal entity we call a ‘marriage’ might still be intact, and yet all the intimacy and comfort that should normally exist in a marriage might be gone. In that case, we might say that the marriage had been destroyed.
Let's apply the rules to this example. (1) What is the composition of a marriage? It is a complex question. Is it just a legal entity, or is it a relationship? (2) What is the nature of the damaging force? The affair. OK. Does an affair end the existence of a marriage? Again, it's a complex question. An affair doesn’t always bring about divorce, and does not always end the relationship. So, we can't reach a definite conclusion.
Do you see? Our original language was that “the marriage was destroyed by the affair”. In this case, the language is ambiguous. No clear meaning can be understood from the single sentence we considered, because marriage is a complex entity, and an affair does not always bring the cessation of existence.
One more quick illustration. What if a friend said this to me:
- The Cardinals annihilated the Cubs last night
Let’s apply our rules. (1) What is the composition of the ‘Cubs’? A baseball team. (2) What is the agent of damage? A baseball game. Clearly, the baseball team called the Cubs continues to exist after this game. If this were said to me, I would understand immediately what was being communicated. Even though this very severe word ‘annihilation’ was used, I would never suppose for a minute that some loss of life or property occurred. It was simply a case of hyperbole, of exaggeration.
My goal is to highlight what we currently do. I am not proposing a set of rules that should be used. Instead, I am making the claim that these are rules we always intuitively use whenever we hear language of damage. Whether we are talking about phones or chairs or marriages or baseball teams, the same set of rules apply. The composition of the thing involved and the nature of the damaging force determines the meanings of the language. Sometimes, the meaning is clear. Sometimes, the meaning is ambiguous.
With that in mind, let’s get back to the Biblical discussion of the destruction of unbelievers. Can we extract a clear understanding of what was intended by the Biblical authors? The thing being damaged is man, and the damaging force is the final judgment of God. What is the composition of man, and what is the nature of the damaging force? Overwhelming, we see this:
- That which is damaged (man) is repeatedly compared to things that might truly cease to exist.
- The damaging force (God’s judgment) is repeatedly compared to a fire.
For those who know the scripture, those two sentences above should trigger the recall of many verses.
Do you remember all of those Old Testament images which compare man to stubble and chaff? Do you recall all of those mentions of God as a fire, and as consuming fire? Consider the illustrations in the New Testament in regard to the judgment. Men are compared to chaff and to weeds and to dried branches. God is referred to as a consuming fire and the final judgment as a lake of fire.
By comparing the composition of man to things like stubble and chaff and the nature of the final judgment to fire, the authors were be explicitly clear about what they were communicating.
Quibbles over definitions should become less important. Don’t you see? Definitions are not the primary tool we use to determine the specific meaning of destruction language. The primary thing that matters is the composition of the thing being destroyed and the nature of the destroying agent. The Bible declares, over and over again, that man is destructible (often compared to flammable items) and God can certainly bring about the end of his existence (often compared to a consuming fire). The verses are too many to list here, but you could find themselves if you wish. In regards to the composition of man, all you need to do is search your Bible for words like chaff, stubble and weeds. In regards to the destructive nature of God, look up words like fire, flaming and consuming. Here are just a few examples:
- Isa_5:24 Therefore, as a tongue of fire consumes stubble And dry grass collapses into the flame, So their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away as dust; For they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts And despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
- Isa_33:11 "You have conceived chaff, you will give birth to stubble; My breath will consume you like a fire.
- Mal_4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze," says the LORD of hosts, "so that it will leave them neither root nor branch."
- Oba_1:18 "Then the house of Jacob will be a fire And the house of Joseph a flame; But the house of Esau will be as stubble. And they will set them on fire and consume them, So that there will be no survivor of the house of Esau," For the LORD has spoken.
- Mat_13:30 'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"
- Mat_13:38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
- Luk_3:17 "His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
- Joh 15:6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
- 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 12:29 for our God is a consuming fire.
- 2Pe 3:7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
- 2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass
- Rev 14:10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
With those verses as part of the broader context of Biblical expression, we can have a very clear idea of what was intended when authors use the word 'destruction' to express the final judgment by God upon man.
The evidence is clear and beyond dispute. When the Bible discusses the final destruction of man, the ultimate result of that destruction is clear. Man can be consumed, and the final judgment is a consuming fire that will do just that.