Annihilationism

[Hieronymus]

Matthew 10:28
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. rsv​

Exactly. Destruction, as opposed to construction.
​

Destroy does not mean annihilate. Destroy means to condemn the soul and body to the lake of fire. Destroy means condemnation to eternal hell fire.

Stop torturing the dictionary.
Why would you want death and destruction to mean something else than death and destruction?
Why?

Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.” rsv​

Death.
Not life in torment.

 

[Hieronymus]

The problem with this argument is it relies on the English translation. The Greek word translated destroy/perish is ἀπόλλυμι/Apollumi which occurs 86 times in the NT, of this 71 times, 83%, it cannot mean the destruction/annihilation which some argue supposedly occurs at the final judgment. Here is a list of those meanings.

And there you go again, showing it very well means destruction and death, while ignoring it fervently...

 

[Hieronymus]

I've never believed that God made some people just so that He could condemn them. God gives each person free will to choose.

Not all are called, even less are chosen.
Few people seek God, even fewer find Him.
You suggest He doesn't know this?

 

[Hieronymus]

Eternal life with God or death (condemnation) without Him. Without God there is no eternal life. The opposite of life is death which means condemnation to hell without hope of ever leaving there.

They will leave, as smoke that rises for ever, further and further away, disappearing in the distance.
And the smoke is just a by product of consumption by the fire.
This is what the Harvester does with the chaff, to get rid of it.
Or like the waste incineration facility in Gehenna.

 

[Der Alte]

An absolute deity who tortures a ignorant finite child of his own creation, a child fooled by a Satan creature who was allowed to mislead, that's not a just God at all! But no such deity exists except in the belief of one of the same finite minds.
Justice for those who completely reject life is to return to what they were before God gave life to them. Nothing, they will not exist, no records of them ever having existed.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, unfortunately this opinion cannot be supported scripturally except by quoting isolated out-of-context proof texts. Do you think that God was unjust when the destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah men, women and children? Do you think God was unjust when He destroyed men, women, children, infants in the flood. Do you think God was unjust when He commanded Israel to destroy gentile cities, men, women and children, Deuteronomy 32:25, Joshua 9:24, Judges 21:11, 1 Samuel 15:3,

 

[Der Alte]

They will leave, as smoke that rises for ever, further and further away, disappearing in the distance.
And the smoke is just a by product of consumption by the fire.
This is what the Harvester does with the chaff, to get rid of it.
Or like the waste incineration facility in Gehenna.

You continue to use the false garbage dump in Gehenna argument even after I have provided evidence that there is no archaeological or historical evidence that Gehenna was ever a garbage dump.

The traditional explanation that a burning rubbish heap in the Valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem gave rise to the idea of a fiery Gehenna of judgment is attributed to Rabbi David Kimhi's commentary on Psalm 27:13 (ca. A.D. 1200). He maintained that in this loathsome valley fires were kept burning perpetually to consume the filth and cadavers thrown into it. However, Strack and Billerbeck state that there is neither archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, 5 vols. [Munich: Beck, 1922-56], 4:2:1030). Also a more recent author holds a similar view (Lloyd R. Bailey, "Gehenna: The Topography of Hell," Biblical Archeologist 49 [1986]: 189.
Source, Bibliotheca Sacra / July–September 1992
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted...Articles/BSac-NT/Scharen-GenenaSyn-Pt1-BS.htm​

Note there is no “archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, [that Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump] in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources” If Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump there should be broken pottery, tools, utensils, bones, etc. but there is no such evidence.

“Gehenna is presented as diametrically opposed to ‘life’: it is better to enter life than to go to Gehenna. . .It is common practice, both in scholarly and less technical works, to associate the description of Gehenna with the supposedly contemporary garbage dump in the valley of Hinnom. This association often leads scholars to emphasize the destructive aspects of the judgment here depicted: fire burns until the object is completely consumed. Two particular problems may be noted in connection with this approach. First, there is no convincing evidence in the primary sources for the existence of a fiery rubbish dump in this location (in any case, a thorough investigation would be appreciated). Secondly, the significant background to this passage more probably lies in Jesus’ allusion to Isaiah 66:24.”
(“The Duration of Divine Judgment in the New Testament” in The Reader Must Understand edited by K. Brower and M. W. Ellion, p. 223, emphasis mine)
G. R. Beasley-Murray in Jesus and the Kingdom of God:
“Ge-Hinnom (Aramaic Ge-hinnam, hence the Greek Geenna), ‘The Valley of Hinnom,’ lay south of Jerusalem, immediately outside its walls. The notion, still referred to by some commentators, that the city’s rubbish was burned in this valley, has no further basis than a statement by the Jewish scholar Kimchi (sic) made about A.D. 1200; it is not attested in any ancient source.” (p. 376n.92)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20113-the-burning-garbage-dump-of-gehenna-is-a-myth/ ​

 

[Der Alte]

Exactly. Destruction, as opposed to construction.​

Stop torturing the dictionary.
Why would you want death and destruction to mean something else than death and destruction?
Why?
Death.
Not life in torment.

The lake of fire passages, in context.

Revelation 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.​

And 1000 years later, the beast and the false prophet, who is a person, are still in the lake of fire.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.​

The lake of fire [LOF] is called “the second death” twice in Rev. vss. 20:14 and 21:8. While this is true, Rev. never says that anyone is thrown into the LOF then they die. The terms the “lake of fire” and “ the second death” are interchangeable, “the lake of fire” is “the second death” and the “second death” is “he lake of fire,” thus we can see that it is not synonymous with death or destruction.
.....We also know that being thrown into the LOF is not synonymous with death from Revelation 19:20, where the beast and the false prophet, who is a person, are thrown into the LOF and 1000 years later in 20:10 the devil, is thrown into the LOF. Three living beings, are thrown into the LOF but they do not die, they are tormented day and night for ever and ever. There is not one verse in Revelation which says anyone or anything is thrown into the LOF then they/it dies.
.....Rev 20:14 says death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. Death is the point in time end of life, it has no physical presence and cannot be literally thrown anywhere but there is a scriptural answer which does not involve jumping through hoops mixing literal and figurative in one sentence, there is a death and hell which can be thrown into the LOF.

Revelation 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.​

The angel of death and the demon of hell are thrown into the LOF and their power to kill ended.

 

[expos4ever]

An absolute deity who tortures a ignorant finite child of his own creation, a child fooled by a Satan creature who was allowed to mislead, that's not a just God at all! But no such deity exists except in the belief of one of the same finite minds.

I agree with you, but would point out that if one were only to rely on this kind of argument to make the case for annihilation, those who believe in eternal torment could argue "we understand how your sentiments, and they may appear to make sense, but the Scriptures indicate otherwise - that the lost are tormented eternally".

My point is that even though I share your view stated above, I don't think I even need to appeal to such an argument since I think the Scriptural case alone - at the level of the individual texts - is strong enough to make the annihilation case.

 

[expos4ever]

On the matter of "unquenchable" fire: References to such fires does not work at all to support eternal torment precisely because an unquenchable fire is not a fire that lasts forever, it is a fire that is irresistible over the course of its lifetime.

Consider a fireman facing a raging house fire with a single bucket of water. That fireman will characterize the raging fire as unquenchable since he can do nothing to 'quench' it - to put it out.

But the fire will most assuredly go out, once the house burns down.

Note that I am not addressing texts that talk about a fire that never goes out. That is a separate issue that needs to be addressed separately. But an unquenchable fire is certainly not necessarily an eternal fire.

 

[Colter]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, unfortunately this opinion cannot be supported scripturally except by quoting isolated out-of-context proof texts. Do you think that God was unjust when the destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah men, women and children? Do you think God was unjust when He destroyed men, women, children, infants in the flood. Do you think God was unjust when He commanded Israel to destroy gentile cities, men, women and children, Deuteronomy 32:25, Joshua 9:24, Judges 21;11, 1 Samuel 15:3,

If God had actually done all that then yes. Sodom and Gamorrah was a natural disaster, the result of a meteorite explosion. The flood was a ridiculous genealogical devise used by the Hebrew priest attempting to trace their bloodlines back to the Adam of the ancient Mesopotamian story of Adam and Eve. Unable to do so they decided to drown the whole world in its own wickedness. (The actual secular history books of the Israelites disappeared). God never commanded genocide any more than God commands ISIS to set people on fire!........but those savages really do believe they are lead by Allah to commit such barbarous acts.

Normally, ones sense of justice would be outraged by the sort of behavior you credit God for but the religions of authority require people to deny their own sensibilities.

 

[Der Alte]

If God had actually done all that then yes. Sodom and Gamorrah was a natural disaster, the result of a meteorite explosion. The flood was a ridiculous genealogical devise used by the Hebrew priest attempting to trace their bloodlines back to the Adam of the ancient Mesopotamian story of Adam and Eve. Unable to do so they decided to drown the whole world in its own wickedness. (The actual secular history books of the Israelites disappeared). God never commanded genocide any more than God commands ISIS to set people on fire!........but those savages really do believe they are lead by Allah to commit such barbarous acts.

How convenient when scripture contradicts your assumptions/presuppositions just blow them off as "a natural disaster,""a ridiculous genealogical devise[sic]" and then you concoct a wild tale "The actual secular history books of the Israelites disappeared." According to you just how much of the Bible is true?

Normally, ones sense of justice would be outraged by the sort of behavior you credit God for but the religions of authority require people to deny their own sensibilities.

I believe God when He said in Isa 55:11.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. ​

If God cannot preserve His word for believers we have no basis to believe anything in the Bible and we certainly have no basis for believing everyone who comes along saying, with zero evidence, the Bible is corrupt and I'm the only one who has the real truth.
ETA: My error I just realized that you prefer the book of Urantia over the Bible, there will be no more responses from me.

 

[Colter]

How convenient when scripture contradicts your assumptions/presuppositions just blow them off as "a natural disaster,""a ridiculous genealogical devise[sic]" and then you concoct a wild tale "The actual secular history books of the Israelites disappeared." According to you just how much of the Bible is true?


I believe God when He said in Isa 55:11.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. ​

If God cannot preserve His word for believers we have no basis to believe anything in the Bible and we certainly have no basis for believing everyone who comes along saying, with zero evidence, the Bible is corrupt and I'm the only one who has the real truth.
ETA: My error I just realized that you prefer the book of Urantia over the Bible, there will be no more responses from me.

The Word of God is living truth, the words of Holy men, expressing their opinion about the doings of God, isn't the same thing. I think it a convenience to hide behind the scripture in advancing injustice, dumbing down justice in defense of more injustice. If one fears the torture God it's no wonder one would claim allegiance. Like a child in a dysfunctional family who puts on a good act for dear old dad!

God is good, just and moral. An eternal torture God is an eternally evil deity.

 

[StanJ]

When it's conscious torment, there is no death, for death is the end of consciousness.
When it is ECT there is no purpose to it, and the punishment (God's judgement) is never fulfilled or finished.
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Pretty much most near-death experiences refute that. The Bible definitely doesn't support that because it conveys the fact that Spirits go on to either Paradise or Hades as Luke 16 clearly indicates. See post 604. Perish and death only ever relate to the body not the spirit. Rev 20:10 clearly shows this to be factual, as does Matthew 25:41 and Jude :13

 

[ewq1938]

The second death is eternity in the lake of fire. No one is annihilated by the flames in the lake of fire. The rich man was not annihilated by the flame and neither will any other person be annihilated in the lake of fire.

​

The rich man has never been to the LOF yet. All who enter the LOF will be destroyed. No one will remain alive for eternity. Only the righteous are given immortality.

​

The second death is simply the loss of eternal life with God.

​

No it's death like it says. No life for them.

​

The second death is eternal torment and anguish and this is because God is not there in the lake of fire.

​

Eternal torture is a false doctrine. It is not scriptural.

​

Please note that the unfaithful shall be in the lake of fire. It does not state that they shall be annihilated by the lake of fire.

​

Being in it results in annihilated.

​

 

[StanJ]

They will leave, as smoke that rises for ever, further and further away, disappearing in the distance.
And the smoke is just a by product of consumption by the fire.
This is what the Harvester does with the chaff, to get rid of it.
Or like the waste incineration facility in Gehenna.

Rev 14:11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night.

 

[StanJ]

The rich man has never been to the LOF yet. All who enter the LOF will be destroyed. No one will remain alive for eternity. Only the righteous are given immortality.

Immortality is only given to a body just as death is only given to a body. The soul/spirit exists with or without the body.
The Greek word apollumi does not mean annihilation, but a continuation of existence in a lost or ruined state.
2 Cor 4:3 says; And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing (apollumi). Notice, like the lost sheep, the lost are perishing (lost) NOW. This is present tense! They certainty exist even though they are perishing.

 

[expos4ever]

Here is something from the web from someone who believe that annihilationism is false:

In one of his discourses Jesus declared: “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28 NASB).

The Greek word for “destroy” is apolesai, which derives from the verb form apollumi. The verb occurs about ninety times, and a noun form is found some eighteen times. I do not know of a single reputable English translation that renders the term in any instance, “to go out of existence.” It is translated by such common English words as “perish,” “destroy,” “lose,” or “lost.”

The term is employed of physical items that lose their usefulness. A wineskin that cracks open and is no longer usable is said to “perish” (Luke 5:37). A sheep that wanders away from the safety of the fold is described as “lost” (Luke 15:4, 6), i.e., separated from the shepherd. The wayward prodigal son was “lost” to his father (Luke 15:24), though certainly not annihilated. Food that spoils is said to have “perished” (John 6:27).

The basic argument appears to be:

1. We have cases where "apollumi" does not entail annihilation;
2. Therefore, this casts doubt that the term, when applied to the human "soul" implies annihilation.

I think this argument is quite problematic, despite its obvious superficial appeal. Yes, clearly some things can be "apollumi-ed" without being annihilated. But clearly there is something suspicious in this argument. Consider the following argument about the word "perish" as used in 21st century American English-speaking culture:

1. When food perishes, it is certainly not annihilated;
2. Therefore, when people perish we cannot assume they are annihilated either.

But clearly we can, at least in our present culture where we use the word "perish" (when referring to an end of life scenario) to mean "lights out for good". It appears that the person making the argument I have pasted above is, intentionally or otherwise, ignoring the role the referent (the "thing" that is destroyed, or perishes) plays in determining the sense we apply to the concept of "destroy" or "perish".

In short, the fact that perishing food is not annihilated might 'open the door' to the possibility of a "non-annihilation" sense of "perish". But that door is slammed shut by considering the effect of the referent, as illustrated by the fact that, in our culture at least, we would never say a person perishes and expect our audience to imagine their soul lives on.

So we really do need to ask what the words "destroy" and "perish" (and other similar words) meant in the culture in which in which the relevant Bible texts were penned and, specifically, what they meant as applied to human beings in end of life scenarios. I am not qualified to answer this question, but I will bet a flagon of October ale that, just as in our culture, to say a person "perishes" is to say they are annihilated.

 

[Der Alte]

<Staff Edit>
Do you have any kind of credible, verifiable evidence that any Christian, other than Westboro Bapt., will be "praising God in Heaven," for any misfortune that nonbelievers might experience here in this life or in the hereafter? I don't think so. God does not take any pleasure in the death of anyone, neither do Christians.

Ezekiel 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
Ezekiel 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
1Timothy 2:3-4
(3) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
(4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.​

Indeed, 80 years on average, while not having been called or otherwise haven't found Truth, maybe even unable to bare[sic] the Truth somehow, and the wages of such fruitless life is ECT.
Do you even grasp what eternity is?
And what's the purpose?
So the saved can gloat?
Is that your idea of Holiness?

See above.

 

[expos4ever]

More about this issue of what it means for things to "perish" or be "destroyed". Yes, food that perishes is not annihilated. But, and this is key, it is indeed "annihilated" in the sense that is most important - its food value to us. It has zero food-value to us; it's food-value to us has basically ceased to exist.

When people try to use the argument that "when food perishes, it is not annihilated, therefore we cannot assume that perishing humans are annihilated" they are, I suggest, suspiciously silent about the fact that their concept of "perishing", as applied to a dying human, requires us to believe that the most essential aspect of our being alive - our conscious existence - is not eliminated at all but continues on in full flower of "aliveness". This seems really contrived to me.

When food perishes, it's quintessential property - its food value - is essentially snuffed out of existence.

When a wineskin perishes (see quote at top of previous post), it's quintessential property - its ability to transport wine - is, again, completely snuffed out of existence.

And we are expected to believe that when a human "perishes", the most significant aspect of their being a human - their rich inner world of conscious experiences - continues on entirely undiminished?

Seems like quite a stretch.

Obviously, when a person perishes, their body still exists. But that is hardly an argument that their "soul" (conscious existence, if you will) has not been snuffed out.

The key point here is that it is clear that the concept of "perish" is a nuanced concept - in effect, it applies only to the "essential" property of the referent and indicates that property has been snuffed out; hence we say people perish even though their bodies do not disappear. And we say that food perishes even though it remains on our plate.

 

[Der Alte]

Here is something from the web from someone who believe that annihilationism is false:

"In one of his discourses Jesus declared: “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28 NASB).
The Greek word for “destroy” is apolesai, which derives from the verb form apollumi. The verb occurs about ninety times, and a noun form is found some eighteen times. I do not know of a single reputable English translation that renders the term in any instance, “to go out of existence.” It is translated by such common English words as “perish,” “destroy,” “lose,” or “lost.”
The term is employed of physical items that lose their usefulness. A wineskin that cracks open and is no longer usable is said to “perish” (Luke 5:37). A sheep that wanders away from the safety of the fold is described as “lost” (Luke 15:4, 6), i.e., separated from the shepherd. The wayward prodigal son was “lost” to his father (Luke 15:24), though certainly not annihilated. Food that spoils is said to have “perished” (John 6:27)."​

The basic argument appears to be:

1. We have cases where "apollumi" does not entail annihilation;
2. Therefore, this casts doubt that the term, when applied to the human "soul" implies annihilation.​

I think this argument is quite problematic, despite its obvious superficial appeal. Yes, clearly some things can be "apollumi-ed" without being annihilated. But clearly there is something suspicious in this argument. Consider the following argument about the word "perish" as used in 21st century American English-speaking culture:
1. When food perishes, it is certainly not annihilated;
2. Therefore, when people perish we cannot assume they are annihilated either.
But clearly we can, at least in our present culture where we use the word "perish" (when referring to an end of life scenario) to mean "lights out for good". It appears that the person making the argument I have pasted above is, intentionally or otherwise, ignoring the role the referent (the "thing" that is destroyed, or perishes) plays in determining the sense we apply to the concept of "destroy" or "perish".
In short, the fact that perishing food is not annihilated might 'open the door' to the possibility of a "non-annihilation" sense of "perish". But that door is slammed shut by considering the effect of the referent, as illustrated by the fact that, in our culture at least, we would never say a person perishes and expect our audience to imagine their soul lives on.
So we really do need to ask what the words "destroy" and "perish" (and other similar words) meant in the culture in which in which the relevant Bible texts were penned and, specifically, what they meant as applied to human beings in end of life scenarios. I am not qualified to answer this question, but I will bet a flagon of October ale that, just as in our culture, to say a person "perishes" is to say they are annihilated.

The problem with this argument is the NT was not written in our time and it was not written in English. The NT writers did not use the English words "annihilation,""perish" or "destroy" so it is irrelevant how modern readers understand those English words.
.....The only words we need to understand are ἀπόλλυμι/apolummi and ἀπόληται/apoletai. Apoletai is the second aorist, middle subjunctive of apolummi, not a completely different word. These are the words translated “destroy/destruction/perish” in the NT. Here is the complete definition of apolummi from Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich Greek lexicon which is one of, if not, the most highly accredited Greek lexicon available today.
.....ἀπόλλυμι/Apollumi occurs 86 times in the NT, of this 71 times, 83%, it cannot mean the destruction/annihilation which some argue supposedly occurs at the final judgment. Here is a list of those meanings.
.....(1) ruin, (2) do not bring about his ruin, (3) put to death, the wicked tenants, (4) he will put the evildoers to a miserable death, (5) destroy the wisdom of the wise, (6) destroy the understanding, (7) lose, (8) lose the reward, (9) lose what we have worked for, (10) lose one’s life, (11) lose oneself, (12) The man who risks his life in battle has the best chance of saving it; the one who flees to save it is most likely to lose it’), (13) ruined, (14) die, the man dies, (15) As a cry of anguish, we are perishing!, (16) of disaster that the stormy sea brings to the seafarer, (17) die by the sword, (18) die of hunger, (19) be corrupted, (20) killed by the snakes, (21) those who are lost, (22) of things be lost, (23) pass away, (24) be ruined, (26) of bursting wineskins, (25) fading beauty, (26) transitory beauty of gold, (27) passing splendor, (28) Of earthly food, (29) spoiled honey, (30) Of falling hair, (31) a member or organ of the body, (32) remnants of food, (33) of wine that has lost its flavor, (34) of sheep gone astray, (35) Of a lost son [that returned].
.....Since the majority of occurrences of apolummi in the NT cannot mean destruction/annihilation, no longer existing. Those who insist that it does must show clear and compelling evidence that apolummi can only mean that and nothing else.

ἀπόλλυμι for its conj. s. Bl-D. §101 ( s.v. o[llumi ); Rob. 317; fut. ajpolevsw Hs 8, 7, 5, Att. ajpolw` 1 Cor 1:19 (Is 29:14 ); 1 aor. ajpwvlesa ; 1 pf. ajpolwvleka ; fut. mid. ajpolou`mai Lk 13:3 ; 2 aor. ajpwlovmhn ; the 2 pf. ajpovlwla serves as a pf. mid., ptc. ajpolwlwv" ( Hom. +; inscr., pap., LXX, En. , Philo , Joseph. , Test. 12 Patr.).
1. act .— a. ruin, destroy.
a. of pers. (Sir 10:3 ) Mk 1:24 ; Lk 4:34 . W. ref. to eternal destruction mh; ejkei`non ajpovllue do not bring about his ruin Ro 14:15 . Esp. kill, put to death (Gen 20:4 ; Esth 9:6 v.l .; 1 Macc 2:37 ; Jos. , C. Ap. 1, 122) Hs 9, 26, 7. paidivon Mt 2:13 ; Jesus 12:14 ; 27:20 ; Mk 3:6 ; 11:18 ; Lk 19:47 ; B 12:5; [kill] the wicked tenants kakou;" kakw`" aj. ( s. kakov" 1a) he will put the evildoers to a miserable death Mt 21:41 . tou;" gewrgouv" Mk 12:9 ; Lk 20:16 ; t. fonei`" Mt 22:7 ; t. mh; pisteuvsanta" those who did not believe Jd 5 ; pavnta" Lk 17:27 , 29 . W. sw`sai (1ike Charito 2, 8, 1) Js 4:12 ; Hs 9, 23, 4. Of eternal death ( Herm. Wr. 4, 7) yuch;n k. sw`ma aj. ejn geevnnh/ Mt 10:28 ; yuchvn B 20:1; t. yucav" Hs 9, 26, 3 ( cf. Sir 20:22 ).
b. w. impers. obj. aj. t. sofivan t. sofw`n destroy the wisdom of the wise 1 Cor 1:19 (Is 29:14 ). aj. t. diavnoian destroy the understanding Hm 11:1.— g. without obj. J 10:10 .
b. lose ( X. , Pla. +; PPetr. III 51, 5; POxy. 743, 23; PFay. 111, 3 ff ; Sir 6:3 ; 9:6 ; 27:16 et al .; Tob 7:6 BA; 4 Macc 2:14 ) t. misqovn lose the reward Mt 10:42 ; Mk 9:41 ; Hs 5, 6, 7. dracmhvn ( Dio Chrys. 70[20], 25) Lk 15:8 f ; aj. a} hjrgasavmeqa lose what we have worked for 2J 8 . diaqhvkhn B 4:6, 8. th;n zwh;n t. ajnqrwvpwn Hm 2:1; cf. s 8, 6, 6; 8, 7, 5; 8, 8, 2 f and 5. th;n ejlpivda m 5, 1, 7.— W . colloqu. flavor i{na pa`n o} devdwkevn moi mhv ajpolevsw ejx aujtou` that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me J 6:39 ( Bl-D. §466, 3; Rob. 437; 753).— aj. th;n yuchvn ( cf. Sir 20:22 ) lose one’s life Mt 10:39 ; 16:25 ; Mk 8:35 ; Lk 9:24 ; 17:33 ; cf. J 12:25 . For this aj. eJautovn lose oneself Lk 9:25 (similar in form is Tyrtaeus Lyr. [VII BC ], fgm. 8 Diehl 2 lines 12 ff : ‘The man who risks his life in battle has the best chance of saving it; the one who flees to save it is most likely to lose it’).
2. mid .— a. be destroyed, ruined.
a. of pers. perish, die ( schol. on Nicander , Ther. 188 ajpovllutai oJ ajnhvr =the man dies) 1 Cl 51:5; 55:6; B 5:4, 12; D 16:5; Hs 6, 2, 1 f. As a cry of anguish ajpolluvmeqa we are perishing! ( PPetr. II 4, 4 nuni; de; ajpolluvmeqa ) Mt 8:25 ; Mk 4:38 ; Lk 8:24 ( Arrian , Peripl. 3, 3 of disaster that the stormy sea brings to the seafarer). ejn macaivrh/ aj. die by the sword Mt 26:52 . limw`/ [die] of hunger (Ezk 34:29 ) Lk 15:17 . th`/ ajntilogiva/ tou` Kovre Jd 11 c (because of 11a and b it should perh. = be corrupted; cf. Polyb. 32, 23, 6). uJpo; tino" ( Hdt. 5. 126; Dio Chrys. 13[7], 12) uJpo; t. o[fewn killed by the snakes 1 Cor 10:9 ; cf. vs. 1 0. Abs. of a people perish J 11:50 . Of individuals (Lev 23:30 ) Ac 5:37 ; 2 Pt 3:9 ; 1 Cl 12:6; 39:5 (Job 4:20 ).—Esp. of eternal death ( cf. Ps 9:6 f ; 36:20; 67:3 ; 91:10 ; Is 41:11 ) J 3:16 ; 17:12 . ajpolevsqai eij" to;n aijw`na perish forever 10:28 (Bar 3:3 hJmei`" ajpolluvmenoi to;n aijw`na). ajnovmw" aj. Ro 2:12 ; mwrw`" aj. IEph 17:2; ejn kauchvsei because of boasting ITr 4:1; cf. IPol 5:2. Abs. 1 Cor 8:11 ; 15:18 ; 2 Cl 17:1.— oiJ ajpolluvmenoi ( opp. oiJ sw/zovmenoi , like Plut. , Mor. 469 D ) those who are lost 1 Cor 1:18 ; 2 Cor 2:15 ; 4:3 ; 2 Th 2:10 ; 2 Cl 1:4; 2:5. For this to; ajpolwlov" Lk 19:10 (Mt 18:11 —Ezk 34:4 , 16 ). ta; ajpolluvmena 2 Cl 2:7 ( cf. Dit., Syll. 3 417, 9 ta; te ajpolwlovta ejk t. iJerou` ajnevswsan ). b. of things be lost, pass away, be ruined ( Jos. , Bell. 2, 650 of Jerusalem) of bursting wineskins Mk 9:17 ; Mk 2:22 ; Lk 5:37 ; fading beauty Js 1:11 ; transitory beauty of gold 1 Pt 1:7 ; passing splendor Rv 18:14 ( w. ajpov as Jer 10:11 ; Da 7:17 ). Of earthly food J 6:27 ; spoiled honey Hm 5, 1, 5. Of the heavens which, like the earth, will pass away Hb 1:11 (Ps 101:27 ). Of the end of the world Hv 4, 3, 3, Of the way of the godless, which is lost in darkness B 11:7 (Ps 1:6 ).
b. be lost (Antipho 54 Diels, Vorsokrat. ajpolovmenon ajrguvrion ; X. , Symp. 1, 5; 1 Km 9:3 ) ISm 10:1. Of falling hair Lk 21:18 ; Ac 27:34 ; a member or organ of the body Mt 5:29 f ; remnants of food J 6:12 . Of wine that has lost its flavor Hm 12, 5, 3.—Of sheep gone astray Mt 10:6 ; 15:24 ; Lk 15:4 , 6 ; B 5:12 ( cf. Jer 27:6 ; Ezk 34:4 ; Ps 118:176 ). Of a lost son [who has returned]Lk 15:24 ( Artem. 4, 33 hJ gunhv. . . t. uiJo;n ajpwvlese kai. . . eu|ren aujtovn .—JSchniewind, D. Gleichn. vom verl. Sohn ’40). aj. qew`/ be lost to God Hs 8, 6, 4. M-M. B. 758; 766.
BAG Greek Lexicon online​