Section II.

Reply to the Assumption that the Word Destruction Means Annihilation, or Loss of Conscious Existence.

The word destruction in a few instances, is applied to the end of the wicked, and hence it is argued that they will be annihilated, or cease to exist. The argument assumes that destruction means annihilation, or loss of existence, and that to destroy is to reduce to a state of nonentity. This, we, of course, do not admit, and will attempt to prove that the word has no such meaning, when applied to the destiny of the wicked. We will commence with the strongest text relied upon by annihilationists.

2 Thes. i. 9: "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power." If this text does not prove that the wicked will cease to exist, it cannot be proved from any use made of the word destruction in the Scriptures. Around this text then we will rally our reply and meet the argument on its strongest ground.

I. The word destruction, does not necessarily mean loss of existence. The Greek word is olethron, and is thus defined in Grove's Greek and English Dictionary: "Destruction, ruin, plague, pestilence; death; a wretch, villain." In the Polymicrian Greek Lexicon it is defined thus: "Perdition, destruction, ruin, misery." Were we to leave the subject without another remark, the judicious reader would never rely upon the meaning of the word destruction, to prove annihilation in the face of all the direct evidence that has been offered on the other side. Here are three renderings of which it will admit, either of which will make perfect sense, and be perfectly consistent with the endless existence of those threatened with destruction. The text, according to the definitions above given, might be translated thus: "Who shall be punished with everlasting perdition." Or thus "Who shall be punished with everlasting ruin." Or thus "Who shall be punished with everlasting misery" This is sufficient to show that no certain conclusion can be drawn from the meaning of the word in favor of annihilation.

II. A fair exegesis of the text cannot fail to show that in this particular case, destruction cannot mean annihilation. There are three points in the text which are against the idea of annihilation.

1. This everlasting destruction is a punishment, which has been shown to be a suffering and not annihilation. In the sixth verse the same punishment is called tribulation, which implies suffering, and not loss of existence.

2. The punishment threatened, which is called tribulation, is everlasting destruction. The word, everlasting, cannot well be applied to any term denoting annihilation. If the destruction be an utter extinction of being, it is necessarily irrecoverable, as there will then be nothing where such destruction has taken effect, and where nothing is, nothing must ever remain God himself cannot restore a person thus destroyed. There bing an entire loss of existence, a ceasing to exist, there is nothing to be restored. God can create another being, but as it cannot be moulded out of the defunct being, that having no existence, having ceased to exist, and, as per consequence, God must form the new being out of some other material, or from nothing, it cannot be the same creature that was, but which has ceased to be. Destruction, therefore, if it signifies loss of existence, necessarily implies a loss beyond restoration, and to call it everlasting is an abuse of language; the word everlasting, adds no force to destruction, if such be its meaning, while it implies that there may be a destruction which is not everlasting, and to admit this would be to abandon the argument founded upon the meaning of this term. Destruction is a noun, and everlasting is an adjective added to it, to qualify its meaning. If, then, the word destruction signifies an entire loss of existence, in the sense of annihilation, the adjective adds no quality to it, nor can it express any quality concerning it which the noun does not express without the adjective. The very fact, therefore, that the word destruction has everlasting appended to it, proves, beyond a doubt, that the word does not of itself express an entire loss of existence or annihilation, and the argument designed to prove that the wicked will cease to exist, being based upon it, must fall, unless it has some other and more sufficient support.

3. The nature of this punishment called destruction, proves it not to be annihilation. It consists in being banished "from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power." The expression, "from the presence of the Lord and from e glory of his power," clearly implies exclusion fro he immediate presence and glory of God, which will constitute the happiness of the righteous. Banishment and annihilation are not the same, and are irreconcilable with each other.

We know that some have urged this idea of banishment from the presence of the Lord, as positive proof of annihilation, on the ground that God is everywhere, and that there is no such thing as going from his pres. nice, only by going out of existence. This view is so weak and unscriptural, that it only proves how severely those feel pressed who adopt it. It is not denied that God's presence is everywhere in one sense, but not in the sense in which he is said to be in heaven. It is written, "no man hath seen God at any time;" and again, it is written, "blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." We are taught to pray, "Our Father who art in heaven." God is then in heaven, in a sense in which he is not everywhere, otherwise we might just as well pray, our Father who art on earth, or in hell. It is written again, Isa. lix. 2: "Your iniquities have separated between you and your God." There is a sense then in which we may be separated from God, and banished from his presence; that is, from his visible and glorious presence, which angels enjoy, and which saints shall enjoy. The Saviour prayed, John xvii. 24: "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory." But to the unbelieving, he said, Luke xiii. 28: "Ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you, yourselves thrust out." Again, it is written, Matt. xxv. 41: "Depart from me ye cursed ;" and again, verse 46: "These shall go away into everlasting punishment." These texts clearly show what is meant by the expression, "from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power." It does not mean exclusion from his general presence, in the sense in which he is everywhere, but it means exclusion from his favor and visible presence, which the saints will see and enjoy in heaven. This is the everlasting destruction which is threatened, a punishment consisting in banishment from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory o his power, and a punishment consisting in such an exclusion from heaven, absolutely forbids the idea of annihilation. Thus it appears that a fair exegesis of the text, proves that annihilation cannot be meant.

III. A few illustrations of the use of the word, destruction, in other senses, must close these remarks.

Hosea xiii. 9: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thy help." Destruction here does not mean loss of existence, but only injury of ruin.

I Cor. i. 19: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise." Here destruction means no more than to expose and confound, by showing its false pretensions.

Rom. iii. 16: "Destruction and misery arc in their ways." Here destruction means ruin or perdition. To make misery to lie in their path, after annihilation, would not make very good sense.

Matt. vii. 13: "Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction." In this text destruction means ruin or perdition.

Luke xvii. 27: "The flood came and destroyed them all." Here destruction means death by drowning.

Acts ix. 21: "Is not this he that destroyed them which called on his name in Jerusalem" Here destroy means to persecute, or at most to kill; to "kill the body," as Christ called it.

Matt. v. 17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law." Here destroy means to repeal or abrogate. With these remarks, we dismiss our consideration of the word destruction.