Monday, December 21, 2020

"Everlasting Destruction" (ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον) in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and the Need for Authorities Outside the Bible to Determine Doctrinal Truth

  

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 destructionαινωιον—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)

 

Blog Archive