Does apollumi mean “destroy”?


By admin - Posted on 23 February 2009

I have been receiving requests lately about words and grammar that all relate to the issue of annihilationism and potentially universalism. I don’t know if these connections are explicit in the mind of the writers, but that is the common thread. Interesting.

Recently someone asked about the precise meaning of the Greek verb apollumi. Perhaps this is a good time to talk about how words have meanings.

A word does not have “a” meaning. A word as a bundle of meanings. Different people use different metaphors, but I like the image of a bundle. The technical term for this is “semantic range.” Words are like bundles full of many sticks. Some words have a few sticks; some have many sticks. But every word has a bundle or meanings. This is true in any language. Perhaps you are able to think of a word that has only one meaning, but that is rare.

When your mind is looking for just the right word to say, it is analyzing bundles of meanings, looking for just the right stick for that particular context, and then selects the word. There are many factors that go into the selection process, factors of nuance, emphasis, precision, etc. Is it okay to say “go,” or is the emphatic “run” more appropriate, or perhaps the more specific “enter.” But whatever be the specifics, it is the context that determines which word is used and what stick is intended.

From the point of view of the reader, then, the process is the reverse. We see a word, recognize its bundle of meanings, and choose the stick that best fits the context. As always, let context be your guide. No word has exactly the same meaning in every context except perhaps very technical terms. (Of course, even technical terms can have bundles. The “atom” is a precise scientific term, but when I hear the word — and I am not a scientist but love science fiction — I think of Atom Ant, the hero of the Hymenoptera order and all children who love fantasy — but I digress.)

So what does apollumi mean? The gloss in my grammar lists, “I destroy, kill,” and in the middle “I perish, die.” My dictionary gives a wider range, from “to destroy, kill,” to “to make void” (the wisdom of the wise, 1 Cor 1:19), “to lose” (one’s reward, Mt 10:42), “to be lost” (referring to the lost sheep of Israel, Mt 10:6). BDAG lists these glosses: “1. to cause or experience destruction”; “2. to fail to obtain what one expects or anticipates, lose out on, lose”; “3. to lose someth. that one already has or be separated from a normal connection, lose, be lost.” This is the same range of meaning I follow in the main entry in my Dictionary (page 423).

Quite a range of meaning. You can see the general idea is one of loss and destruction, but it does not necessarily mean the utter and permanent destruction of something. Now comes the hard work. What does it mean in a particular context. (The following citations are all from the ESV.)

  • The demons say to Jesus, ““What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24).
  • Paul tells the Romans, “For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died” (14:15).
  • “The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him” (Mark 3:6).
  • The people respond to Jesus’ parable of the tenants with these words: “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons” (Matt 21:41).
  • James says, There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor? (4:12).
  • The disciples thought the storm would in fact kill them. They cry out to Jesus, “Save us, Lord; we are perishing” (Matt 8:25).
  • Jesus challenges his followers with these words: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28).
  • Peter is warned, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

So what do we learn? opollumi has a range of meanings, extending from losing (such as the woman losing one of her ten coins, Luke 15:8) to death (such as dying by the sword, Matt 26:52).

It is when we get to the overtly theological passages that these distinctions become important. John 3:16 sets destruction in contrast to eternal life: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Jesus says that that we should fear God who can “destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28).

Sorry to not be able to give you a cut and dry answer. There is nothing in the word that necessitates apollumi means a permanent and total destruction. I think this was the question I was asked. It certainly can carry that meaning, but it is context (including one’s theological understanding of the ideas conveyed by the word) that make the final decision.

In what sense will people “suffer the punishment of eternal destruction (olethros), away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thess 1:9)? The semantic range of a word gives you the possible meanings. Context — both literary and theological — picks the right stick out of the bundle.

Even if it is true that people are not punished in hell for eternity, there is no indication how long their punishment will last. The translation to "destroy", "die", "perish", etc. does not solve this. Perhaps those judged outside of the family of Christ are perishing in hell for millions of years. We just do not know. What we do know is that it is terrible and there is an alternative - - follow Jesus Christ.

So I have a couple sincere questions for you. Your credentials indicate that you are a Greek expert, so I do hope you'll answer these questions. You quoted verses at the end that have both the words "eternal" and "hell" in them. As a Greek expert/teacher, do you not have trouble with these two translations? Isn't it shown that "eternal" cannot mean "eternal" and that "hell" is not anywhere in the Greek? You told the woman that there are technically no biases, yet verses like Matthew 16:25 translates "psuche" as "life" twice while 16:25 accurately translates psuche as "soul" twice. So I guess another question I have for you...can "psuche" ever really mean "life"? There is the word "zoe" that means life, so wouldn't it be more accurate to translate it as soul? In my humble opinion, I believe the translators definitely had an agenda and a bias in translating psuche as life instead of soul in many places. They did not want us to know that Jesus gave His SOUL as a ransom for man, and that we are told to put our own soul to death now or God will do it later in the lake of fire (symbolized by Gehenna). I would love to hear your feedback on all this in case you think I'm making critical errors. thank you.

First of all, "into the ages" can and often does mean "eternal." Greek just uses an idiom to express it. It can also mean other things, and that is part of the debate. And yes, "hell" is the normal English translation of the Greek word "Hades," so I would guess either would make an accurate translation. I checked the main Greek lexicon and it says it can mean "life"; you could check out the references. But I would be extremely careful of making an accusation about translators agenda and bias. That is a serious charge of integrity, and you don't know them.

I think translating hades as hell is a bad translation. The hebrew concept of Sheol seems to be what the new testament authors mean when they use that word. (givent that the LXX often translates it that way) Otherwise we have problems in Rev. 20 when it says that death and hades were thrown into the lake of fire.

Your last comment, "Context - both literary and theological - picks the right stick out of the bundle." begs the question, can Bible translation really every be free from bias. Does your theological bias lead a person to chose one word over another to transmit one's own theological bias, or context, if you prefer to soften it.

Technically, yes. There almost always is some judgment call made when looking for the right "stick in the bundle." But it isn't always a theological issue. Some times it may be ignorance of ancient custom, or my own context getting in the way. Certainly theology and an understanding of the whole of the biblical passage affects our choice of individual words. But not all the words.

When scripture is studied in whole, it becomes evident that God GIVES eternal life, rather than man innately possessing eternal life/ immortality.

"Let this MORTAL put on immortality" ... when?

Paul says believers become "immortal" when the "change" occurs "at the last trump", I Cor. 15:52-53. The Bible teaches that unbelievers "perish", "burn up", and "comsume away" by receiving the consequences of the "second death", no part of which really means any sort of "life". Immortality is a GIFT from God for those who qualify:

"For the wages of sin is DEATH, but the GIFT of God is ETERNAL LIFE through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23

DEATH is contrasted with ETERNAL LIFE. Also in John 3:16:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not PERISH, but have EVERLASTING LIFE."

PERISHING is contrasted with EVERLASTING LIFE. Those are the options; DEATH (not living) or EVERLASTING LIFE (living).

To make absolutely sure that we can KNOW what happens to those who receive the consequences of the second death in the lake of fire Malachi says this:

"The day cometh that shall burn like an oven ... and all that do wickedly shall be stubble, and the day that cometh shall BURN THEM UP .. and it shall leave them neither root nor branch." Malachi 4:1-2

Also:

"But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they CONSUME AWAY." Psalm 37:20

PERISH = DIE

The false doctrine of immortality, "ye shall not surely die", reigns in nominal psuedo Christianity. The truth is that the options for mankind are permanent DEATH or permanent LIFE. Duet. 30:19

"Live conscious torture in flames" is certainly NOT the teaching of scripture, but rather is a horrendous doctrine of men that denigrates the character of a loving, merciful God who created man MORTAL not inherently immortal. Who ALONE is inherently immortal? GOD ONLY is inherently immortal, I Tim. 6:15-16.

I think your argument would be a little stronger if you did not say "doctrine of men." There are verses that appear to teach the eternal punishment of the wicked in hell. While the verses you quote are good, a good argument is made better when you deal with all the verses. I agree that the soul is not created eternal but is a gift bestowed at judgment.