Who shall be punished
with everlasting destruction (ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον) from the presence of the Lord,
and from the glory of his power. (2 Thess 1:9)
Commenting on the phrase translated as “everlasting
destruction,” Constantine Campbell in his recent book, Paul and the Hope of
Glory, wrote the following about the ambiguity of this phrase and how the
doctrine of annihilationism would either be supported by, or refuted by, this
phrase (!) showing the difficulties of Bible translation, and how, in reality, we
need other authoritative sources, not just the Bible (cf. Not
By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura):
If eternal
destruction (ελεθρον αιωνιον) refers to the eternal state of ruination (of having been destroyed . .
.) then it cannot also refer to annihilation. IF someone is in a statue of
ruination eternally, then it seem they cannot become nothing at some point
in time. If they become nothing, they can no longer exist in an eternal state
of ruination. Nonexistence is incompatible with existence—whether ruined or
not. There are only two ways in which annihilation is not contradicted
by this eternal destruction. First is if we understand destruction to
include dissolution and disappearance—the person is destroyed to the
point of no longer existing. That would remove the tension between 2
Thessalonians 1:9 and the theory of annihilationism, but it smuggles in an idea
that it is not normally associated with ολεθρος (not to be conflated with φθροα, which can
indicate the dissolution and disappearance of matter in organisms, for
example). Since dissolution and disappearance is not an attested sense of ολεθρος, this
first option does not undo the tension between 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and
annihilationism. Second, the other word in the phrase translated eternal
destruction—αινωιον—may no offer an eternal qualifier to destruction, since
it can refer simply to an age, era, or aeon. If interpreted this way, the
phrase suddenly no longer contradicts annihilationism.
Since it is virtually
impossible to decide between these two well-attested meanings of αιωνιος, the
matter must remain unresolved. If ολεθρον αιωνιον refers to eternal destruction
(understood without the added sense of dissolution or disappearance, as above),
then the phrase seems to stand against the notion of annihilationism. But if ολεθρον αιωνιον refers
to an era-bound destruction, then it does not contradict annihilationism but
would instead offer the position further support. (Constantine R.
Campbell, Paul and the Hope of Glory: An Exegetical and Theological Study
[Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2020], 400)