There are different forms of the word.
Just use a lexicon/concordance and Greek/Hebrew study sites......
Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon
The equivalent Hebrew word appears to be:
07843 shachath {shaw-khath'} a primitive root; TWOT - 2370; v
AV - destroy 96, corrupt 22, mar 7, destroyer 3, corrupters 2, waster 2, spoilers 2, battered 1, corruptly 1, misc 11; 147
1) to destroy, corrupt, go to ruin, decay
Reve 9:11
and they are having of them a king the Messenger of the Abyss, name to him to Hebrew abaddwn <3>, and in the Greecian name is having apolluwn <623>
622. apollumi ap-ol'-loo-mee from 575 and the base of 3639; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:--destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.
3639. olethros ol'-eth-ros from a primary ollumi (to destroy; a prolonged form); ruin, i.e. death, punishment:--destruction.
623. Apolluon ap-ol-loo'-ohn active participle of 622; a destroyer (i.e. Satan):--Apollyon.
624. Apollonia ap-ol-lo-nee'-ah from the pagan deity Apollon (i.e. the sun; from 622); Apollonia, a place in Macedonia:--Apollonia.
684. apoleia ap-o'-li-a from a presumed derivative of 622;
ruin or loss (physical, spiritual or eternal):--damnable(-nation), destruction, die, perdition, X perish, pernicious ways, waste.
4881. sunapollumi soon-ap-ol'-loo-mee from 4862 and 622;
to destroy (middle voice or passively, be slain) in company with:--perish with.
The meaning of “apollumi” in the Synoptic Gospels | Rethinking Hell
One of the key arguments for annihilationism is the fact that the biblical writers frequently claim that those who are not saved in the end will be destroyed. Why this appears to support annihilationism is fairly self-evident. It’s important to stress that this argument does not only rest on the fact that the word “destruction” or “destroy” is used. The biblical writers, like Jesus, sometimes describe destruction without using that specific word. Images of weeds burned up in a furnace or the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah being utterly consumed by fire also serve this purpose. But just now let’s look specifically at the term “destroy.”
It’s common to see those who deny annihilationism claiming that the word “destroy,” when used to refer to the fate of the lost, does not mean destroy in the strong sense of literally kill or wipe out. It means, they claim, something less specific, like “perish,” become “lost,” become “ruined” or something else. Hence, the argument goes, in those texts that refer to final punishment using this term, the meaning is not literal destruction at all, but rather ruination; a state of conscious but miserable existence.
Although the argument ultimately fails, it’s important to note the grain of truth on which it is based. The relevant Greek word for destroy –
apollumi – is part of the
apoleia word group. It is true that, as Don Carson pointed out, “the
apoleia word group has a range of meanings, depending on context.”1 It can be used passively, for example, to refer to a “lost” son or a “lost” coin. It can be used of non-living things like burst wineskins that are “ruined” (although this may not be a good counterexample, because if I was burst like a wineskin I would obviously die in a literal sense). But we should grant the point: The wider word group does have some range of meaning and does not always imply exactly the same thing.
However, once we apply such limiting criteria, what we immediately find is that the range of meaning that was present in the entire
apoleia word group is now filtered out entirely, and one clear emphasis of meaning remains. This is because in
every single instance of the word apollumi where these criteria are met – The example is in the Synoptic Gospels, the active voice is used and the word clearly refers to the actions of one person or agent against another, the term
apollumi – setting aside
Matthew 10:28 – always refers to the literal killing of a person, with not a single exception. I will list just seven representative examples, but the reader is encouraged to check this for themselves:
- In Matthew 2:13, Herod wants to kill the baby Jesus.
- In Matthew 12:14 the Pharisees conspired together about how they might kill Jesus.
- In Matthew 21:41 (story of the wicked tenants) the vineyard owner kills the wicked tenants.
- In Matthew 27:20, the elders and chief priests urge the people to have Barabbas released and Jesus killed.
- In Mark 3:6, the Pharisees plot to kill Jesus.
- In Mark 9:22, the parents of a boy with an unclean spirit tell Jesus that the spirit often throws the boy into water or into a fire, trying to kill him.
- In Luke 6:9, Jesus asks if it is lawful on the Sabbath to save life or kill.
In each and every other instance where all these criteria are met, the meaning is the same. There literally
is no semantic range in these cases. Some claims in biblical interpretation are matters of opinion and open to question, but this is not one of them. This is a feature of the raw data itself – what we think it implies however may be questioned. But at minimum, it is clear that to take a meaning that arises from a significantly different usage of
apollumi – a different voice, or a different body of literature, or a different context (e.g. where we are no longer looking at the actions of one person or agent against another), and to insist that we should attribute
that meaning to a use of the word that conforms to the pattern described here, at very least requires a very robust defence. The mere fact that the wider
apoleia word group is capable of expressing such meanings under different conditions (e.g. ruin, lose etc) cannot be the reason that we should find that meaning in
Matthew 10:28, for this would be a perfect example of the illegitimate totality transfer. However theologically inconvenient it may be for defenders of the traditional doctrine of the eternal torments of hell, this is an instance where the exegetical evidence is very heavily against them, and there is no apparent escape route via an appeal to semantics.
