2 Thess 1:9 ‘They will undergo the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength,’

The apostle reassures his readers that God will reward afflicted believers with rest, and that he will punish the afflictors with eternal destruction on the day of judgement.

Two aspects of this present verse are relevant in debates about the duration and nature of eternal punishment.

1. The meaning of ‘eternal destruction’

Does it mean everlasting torment, or permanent annihilation?

According to Brookins it could mean either:

‘The adjective “eternal” could indicate either duration (“forever and ever”) or finality (“once and for all”). ‘

Green, however, is confident that it implies everlasting punishment:

‘The apostle by no means implies that those who have rejected God will be annihilated eternally, a notion that appears to take the edge off the severity of divine judgment. Rather, the punishment will endure and will not end.’

Shogren notes the argument of some, viz. that the Jews (and therefore Jewish Christians) did not have a word for ‘everlasting’, and so that cannot be the meaning here.  Shogren suggests that there are two fallacies here: (a) that because language does not have a specific word for something, the concept must itself be unknown to them; and (b) that the meanings of words should not be tied too much to their etymology (in this case, aoinios – ‘pertaining to the age to come’),

For Shogren, the use of aoinios in the NT almost always indicates eternal/everlasting.  He cites 2 Thess 2:16; Heb 5:9; 1 Pet 5:10; 2 Pet 1:11 as examples.  However, these examples relate to some aspect of the blessedness of the redeemed, and noone is suggesting that this is not everlasting.  The point to be proved from Scripture is that aoinios, when applied to those outside of Christ and his salvation, refers to the everlasting nature of their destruction (they are destroyed and experience the torment of that destruction for ever and ever, rather than to the everlasting effects of their destruction – they are destroyed, never to live again).

For Beale, the phrase:

‘The actual phrase everlasting destruction (olethros aiōnios) occurs only one other time in biblically related Jewish literature and refers not to annihilation but to unending suffering in the afterlife (4 Macc 10:15). This “eternal destruction” is defined by the context not as annihilation but as unending suffering of a persecutor of saints, which is virtually equated with his “eternal torture by fire” (4 Macc 9:9) and “indestructible torments” (4 Macc 10:11) that would “cling” to him “for all time” (4 Macc 12:12; cf. 12:18; 13:15). In short, 4 Maccabees is the most relevant (and contemporary) parallel for 2 Thessalonians because: (1) the afterlife is the focus; (2) the same phrase is used; and (3) those being punished have also persecuted saints. The parallel points toward Paul’s use of the same phrase to indicate an everlasting punishment, not a literal annihilation of a person’s existence that lasts forever.’

Best judges that Paul is ‘almost certainly not’ referring to ‘ultimate or everlasting annihilation’.  He offers the following reasons:

(i) The following phrase suggests that Paul sees the punishment of persecutors as consisting in separation from the Lord; for this to mean anything they would have to continue to exist.

(ii) In many other parts of the N.T. this separation is regarded as one of suffering continuous punishment (Mt. 18.8f; 25.41; Jude 7) and nowhere is annihilation implied.

(iii) Equivalent expressions to our phrase are found in 1 QS 2.15; 5.13, and in these passages the wicked are not considered to be annihilated (cf. 2.7, 8, 17; 4.12-14), and in Ps. Sol. 2.35; 15.12f (cf. 3.11), where again 2.34f; 15.10 do not suggest annihilation (cf. also 4 Macc. 10.15A).

Harris (Navigating Tough Texts, Vol 2) comments:

‘This term “destruction” (olethros) does not here refer to the act of destroying (as in 1 Cor 5:5) but to the state of ruin (as also in 1 Thess 5:3). Clearly it is not annihilation, for it is described as being “eternal” (aiōnios). Originally, this adjective meant “belonging to the age [aiōn] to come.” But when it describes God (e.g., Rom 16:26), the sense is “without beginning or end”; when used of past time (e.g., Rom 16:25), “long ago”; of other entities, such as olethros here, it means “eternal” in the sense of “with a beginning but without an end”—that is, “destined to last forever,” “of unending duration.”’

According to Beale (IVPNTC), the phrase ‘everlasting destruction’ (olethros aiōnios) occurs only one other time in biblically-related literature.  In 4 Macc 10:15 the context suggests that everlasting punishment, rather than annihilation, is meant.

Morris is confident that ‘destruction means not “annihilation” but complete ruin.’  He does not justify this conclusion, however.

More cautiously, Moo states that these words ‘need not mean “destruction” in the sense of “extinction”.  But, adds Moo:-

‘The key words for “destroy” and “destruction” can also refer to land that has lost its fruitfulness (oletbros in Ezek. 6:14; 14:16); to ointment that is poured out wastefully and to no apparent purpose (apōleia in Matt. 26:8; Mark 14:4); to wineskins that can no longer function because they have holes in them (apollymi in Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37); to a coin that is useless because it is “lost” (apollymi in Luke 15:9); or to the entire world that “perishes,” as an inhabited world, in the Flood (2 Pet. 3:6). In none of these cases do the objects cease to exist; they cease to be useful or to exist in their original, intended state.’

(Morgan, Christopher W. Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment)

For Moo, the fact that the ‘destruction’ is ‘eternal’ is in favour it being regarded as ‘ruin’, rather than as ‘extinction’.  A punctiliar action, such as ‘annihilation’, cannot be described as ‘eternal’, says Moo.

Annihilationists would respond in either of two ways:

(a) ‘eternal’ means ‘pertaining to the age to come’, rather than ‘everlasting’; but, replies Moo, the age to come is an age that has no end, and, in any case, most scholars agree that the word has a mainly temporal significance.

(b) More promising for annihilationists, says Moo, is to regard the word translated ‘eternal’ as referring not to the action itself, but to the result of the action.  The life which is exterminated stays exterminated, everlastingly:-

‘There is some point to this claim: In other New Testament passages where “eternal” describes a noun of action, it is sometimes the results of the action that are indicated. The “eternal sin” of Mark 3:29, for instance, means “a sin whose consequences last forever” (see also Heb. 5:9; 6:2; 9:12; Jude 7). Nevertheless, even if this is the sense of the word here, one must still ask how a destruction whose consequences last forever can be squared with annihilationism. For eternal consequences appear to demand an eternal existence in some form.’  (Morgan, Christopher W. Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment (Kindle Locations 2491-2495). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.)

It is clear that Moo himself thinks that this argument on the part of annihilationists has some force; and I find his implied rebuttal (‘one must still ask how a destruction whose consequences last forever can be squared with annihilationism’) unconvincing.  After all, capital punishment has consequences that last for ever (to put it bluntly: once a man has been executed, he stays executed).

Green, similarly:

‘The apostle by no means implies that those who have rejected God will be annihilated eternally, a notion that appears to take the edge off the severity of divine judgment. Rather, the punishment will endure and will not end.’  Green does attempt, by means of an appeal to Marshall, to support his assertion: ‘In favour of everlasting punishment it can be argued: (1). Jesus believed in it, and Paul will have shared his outlook (Matt. 5:29–30; 12:32; 18:8–9; 25:41, 46; Lk. 16:23–25); (2). Jewish teaching of the time accepted the fact of eternal punishment (1QS 2:15; 5.13; Pss. Sol. 2:35; 15:11; 4 Macc. 10:15); (3). In the present context the reference to separation from the Lord is of little significance if those punished are not conscious of their separation.’

Gupta, on the other hand, drawing on C.S. Lewis:

‘I am persuaded by the direction that C. S. Lewis goes, where the language of eternality is less about duration than it is about finality—their verdict is complete, it cannot be undone or overturned. So, Lewis writes, “That the lost soul is eternally fixed in its diabolical attitude we cannot doubt: but whether this eternal fixity implies endless duration—or duration at all—we cannot say.” I believe Lewis’ eschatological agnosticism is wise. The little bits and pieces of references to hell do not build a complete picture: “We know much more about heaven than hell, for heaven is the home of humanity and therefore contains all that is implied in a glorified human life: but hell was not made for men. It is in no sense parallel to heaven: it is ‘the darkness outside,’ the outer rim where being fades away into nonentity.’

Gupta (A New Covenant Commentary) expresses agnosticism on the matter:

‘I am persuaded by the direction that C. S. Lewis goes, where the language of eternality is less about duration than it is about finality—their verdict is complete, it cannot be undone or overturned. So, Lewis writes, “That the lost soul is eternally fixed in its diabolical attitude we cannot doubt: but whether this eternal fixity implies endless duration—or duration at all—we cannot say.” I believe Lewis’ eschatological agnosticism is wise. The little bits and pieces of references to hell do not build a complete picture: “We know much more about heaven than hell, for heaven is the home of humanity and therefore contains all that is implied in a glorified human life: but hell was not made for men. It is in no sense parallel to heaven: it is ‘the darkness outside,’ the outer rim where being fades away into nonentity.” Gordon Fee interprets Paul likewise: “Paul had little or no interest in ‘hell’ as such. For him eternal glory has to do with being in the presence of the Father and the risen Lord. The eternal judgment of the wicked is the absolute loss of such glory.”’

Philip Hughes writes:

‘Everlasting life is existence that continues without end, and everlasting death is destruction without end, that is destruction without recall, the destruction of obliteration. Both life and death hereafter will be everlasting in the sense that both will be irreversible.’

(Quoted in Morgan, Christopher W. Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment (Kindle Locations 4907-4909). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.)

2. The mearning of ‘destruction…away from the presence of the Lord’

Does this mean, ‘destruction that comes from the Lord’, or, that the punishment consists in separation from God?

In other words, is it causal, or spacial?  Does it refer to the source or to the location of the destruction?

(a) Green argues for a causal interpretation:

‘While the preposition that begins this clause in the Greek text (apo) is construed in the NIV as signaling that the judged will be excluded from the presence of the Lord, the thought is rather that the presence of the Lord is the source from which the judgment proceeds.’  Paul may well be thinking of Isa 2:10 here: ‘Go into the rocks, hide in the ground from the dread of the Lord and the splendour of his majesty!’

Paul Marston (Hellfire and Destruction: What Does the Bible Really Say about Hell?) draws attention to the one other NT passage where the exact phrase apo prosōpou tou kyriou occurs – Acts 3:20 –

“…so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and so that he may send the Messiah appointed for you—that is, Jesus.”

Marston concludes:

‘The clear implication is that the “presence of the Lord” will bring refreshing to the repentant in Acts but will bring destruction to those in Thessalonians who are persecuting the Christians.’

Clearly, these ‘times of refreshing’ do not involve separation from God.  They will, rather, come from him.

Peter Bolt regards the understanding previously noted as ‘almost certainly misguided’ (The Cross from a Distance: Atonement in Mark’s Gospel).

Paul Marston (Hellfire and Destruction: What Does the Bible Really Say About Hell?) remarks that the Greek phrase occurs only once elsewhere in the NT –

Acts 3:20 (NET) — “…so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and so that he may send the Messiah appointed for you—that is, Jesus.”

Marston comments:

‘The times of refreshing are clearly not because they will be separated from the presence of the Lord, but will be the effect of his presence. The clear implication is that the “presence of the Lord” will bring refreshing to the repentant in Acts but will bring destruction to those in Thessalonians who are persecuting the Christians. It makes no sense to translate the identical phrase differently.’

Gene Green:

‘The idea that 1:9 conveys is not merely that the disobedient will be excluded from the Lord’s presence but that from this presence the everlasting destruction comes forth.’

Brookins offers a variant of this interpretation:

‘In both the OT and NT, theophanic encounters, or “face-to-face” encounters with the Lord, are depicted as highly dangerous, even fatal. Isaiah exclaims his own destruction when he stands before the Lord’s throne (Isa. 6:5). In Exodus it is said that no one could see the “face” of the “Lord” and live (33:20). Clearly alluding to this text, in 2 Corinthians Paul solemnly states that no one could gaze at the “face” of Moses because of the “glory” that he derived from face-to-face encounters with the Lord (3:7). Later in 2 Thessalonians, Paul predicts that Jesus will “destroy” the man of lawlessness with the breath of his mouth (2 Thess. 2:8). Finally, the scene that Paul sets here is quite inconsistent with a spatial interpretation: Paul visualizes Jesus descending from heaven with mighty angels in a flame of fire to “give vengeance”—a very unfitting description if destruction implies “separation.” Rather, this surely implies an encounter. The causal meaning, then, should be preferred: it is destruction at the sight of the Lord and the glory of his might (1:9).’ (Emphasis original)

Among the older writers, the contributor to Matthew Henry’s Commentary adopts this view:

‘This destruction shall come from the presence of the Lord, that is, immediately from God himself. Here God punishes sinners by creatures, by instruments; but then he will take the work into his own hands. It will be destruction from the Almighty, more terrible than the consuming fire which consumed Nadab and Abihu, which came from before the Lord.’

Matthew Poole allows for, but does not insist upon, this interpretation:

‘From the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; the preposition from in the first expression noting separation, in the second noting efficiency. Others conceive efficiency to be meant in both, their destruction proceeding from the face of Christ frowning on them, frowning them into hell, (which smiling upon others, will bring their salvation,) as well as from his glorious power manifested against them to destroy them, Rom. 9:22. And yet others interpret the preposition in both places to note separation, both from the face of Christ, which the saints shall behold and rejoice in for ever, and from his glorious power; which will work in some for their complete salvation in the day of his appearing, as it had done before in their first conversion, and sanctification.’

The interpretation of this phrase may be relevant to the debate about everlasting conscious punishment versus annihilation.

Fudge (The Fire That Consumes) discusses both interpretations, concluding that either is consistent with the doctrine of annihilationism.

In his 1983 commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians, I Howard Marshall had interpreted 2 Thess 1:9 as teaching everlasting torment of the wicked:

‘In favour of everlasting punishment it can be argued: (1). Jesus believed in it, and Paul will have shared his outlook (Matt. 5:29–30; 12:32; 18:8–9; 25:41, 46; Lk. 16:23–25); (2). Jewish teaching of the time accepted the fact of eternal punishment (1QS 2:15; 5.13; Pss. Sol. 2:35; 15:11; 4 Macc. 10:15); (3). In the present context the reference to separation from the Lord is of little significance if those punished are not conscious of their separation.’

But Marshall had something of a change of mind.  In his 2007 work ‘Aspects of the Atonement‘ he writes, in a footnote to p33, that he would now be

‘more inclined to argue that this does not mean eternal, conscious punishment but rather final, irreversible destruction than I was when I listed these possibilities in [the] earlier publication.’

But it is a biblical thought that those who are without God in the present life (Eph 2:12) will be without God in the life to come.

For some interpreters, this implies everlasting punishment, rather than annihilation.  Beale, for example, argues:

‘If Paul had intended to convey a notion of annihilation, he could have merely said, they will be punished with everlasting destruction, without mentioning that those judged would be excluded from God’s presence. Thus, the punishment “fits the crime,” in that those who refuse to know God (1:8) and want to be separate from him in this life will be punished by being separated from God in the next life.’

But others, such as Atkinson, agree with this interpretation but find within it support for a doctrine of anihilationism:

‘this destruction must be annihilation or personal extinction, since it is destruction from the presence of the Lord. All will agree that the presence of the Lord is everywhere. To be destroyed from the presence of the Lord can therefore only mean to be nowhere.’

(Christopher M. Date, Gregory G. Stump, Joshua W. Anderson. Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism, p101)

This interpretation, regarded by Atkinson as probable (not certain), seems strained.

Hughes argues:

‘Everlasting life is existence that continues without end, and everlasting death is destruction without end, that is destruction without recall, the destruction of obliteration. Both life and death hereafter will be everlasting in the sense that both will be irreversible.’

(The True Image, p405)

Arguing that ‘annihilation’ of the wicked is not a ‘soft option’, Hughes writes:

‘The horror of everlasting destruction will be compounded…by the unbearable agony of exclusion. To be inexorably excluded from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his kingdom, to see but to be shut out from the transcendental joy and bliss of the saints as in light eternal they glorify their resplendent Redeemer, to whose likeness they are now fully and forever conformed, to be plunged into the abyss of irreversible destruction, will cause the unregenerate of mankind the bitterest anguish of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. In vain will they have pleaded, “Lord, Lord, open to us!” (Matt 25:11f.; cf. 7:21– 23). Too late will they then wish they had lived and believed differently. The destiny they have fashioned for themselves will cast them without hope into the abyss of obliteration. Their lot, whose names are not written in the Lamb’s book of life, is the destruction of the second death. Thus God’s creation will be purged of all falsity and defilement, and the ancient promise will be fulfilled that “the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind” as the multitude of the redeemed are glad and rejoice forever in the perfection of the new heaven and the new earth (Isa 65:17f.; Rev 21:1– 4).’

(In Christopher M. Date, Gregory G. Stump, Joshua W. Anderson. Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism, p197)

(a) Spacial: the punishment in question consists in separation from the Lord.

This is the view of many commentators (Barnes, JFB, Hendriksen, Morris, Stott, Bruce, Shogren, Fee, Williams, Beale, Holmes, Witherington, Evans, Gupta, Hoehner, Thurston, Wanamaker, Martin), who note that the idea of separation from God frequently occurs in Scripture, Gen. 3:23; Matt. 25:41; Luke 16:26; Rev. 21:27; 22:15.

Martin (NAC) comments:

‘It is ironic that those who would reject God receive as punishment God’s rejection. It implies that the so-called freedom from God’s influence that the rebellious desire is not freedom but condemnation. It is a hellish banishment from the true and only source of goodness and blessing.’

Beale, similarly:

‘The punishment “fits the crime,” in that those who refuse to know God (2 Thess 1:8) and want to be separate from him in this life will be punished by being separated from God in the next life.’

And Witherington:

‘Those who want to ignore and be separated from God in this life will continue to be so in the next, and those who long to obey God and to be in his presence in this life will do so forever in the next (4:17). In each case the outcome is appropriate and fits the response in this lifetime.’

Holmes:

‘Paul’s definition of “destruction” (cf. 1 Thess. 5:3) here is precisely the opposite of his definition elsewhere of salvation as being with the Lord always (1 Thess. 4:17) and sharing in God’s glory (Rom. 8:17–18, 30; 2 Cor. 4:17; Phil. 3:21).’

JFB:

‘Cast out from the presence of the Lord is the sting of eternal death; the law of evil left to its unrestricted working, without one counteracting influence of the presence of God, the Source of all light and holiness (Isa. 66:24; Mark 9:44).’

According to Harris, there is a twofold deprivation:

‘In its essence, the devastating destruction is permanent banishment (cf. Matt 7:23; Luke 13:27) from the presence of the One who is the ultimate source of everything that is positive and rewarding and pleasant (cf. Matt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30); and it also involves permanent exclusion (cf. Luke 16:26) from the overwhelming delight of witnessing the majesty and endless power of the Creator.’