Category: Biblical Exegesis

D.A. Carson is a recognized expert on biblical exegesis. But even the experts can sometimes get things wrong! Let’s take a look at an interesting example.

“¹⁰See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. ¹²What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? ¹³And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. ¹⁴So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.”
–Matthew 18:10-14¹Unless otherwise indicated all quotation of the Bible will be from the ESV.

What does the word perish mean in this context?

In my reading of traditionalists’ commentaries to better understand how they interpret Matthew 18:14, I noticed something interesting in D. A Carson’s handling of this verse.

There are two books where he comments on the verse. The first that I will quote is from his commentary on Matthew, where he states,

Jesus drives the lesson home: the heavenly Father is unwilling for any of “these little ones” … to be lost. If that is his will, it is shocking that anyone else would seek to lead one of “these little ones” astray. … This love for the individual sheep is not at the expense of the entire flock but so that the flock as a whole may not lose a single one of its members.²D. A. Carson, Matthew, Kindle ed. (Zondervan, 2010), Kindle locations, 14328-14336.

In another book that focuses on themes in Matthew, Carson discusses this verse again,

Similarly, in 18:10–14 the expression “one of these little ones” must be understood to refer to believers, true disciples of Jesus who have honestly humbled themselves. Not one of them is to be despised; for on the one hand, “their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.” (Whatever this clause means, it implies that the little ones should not be despised because their dignity is in God’s eyes very great.) On the other hand, the shepherd, the Father Himself (18:14), is concerned for each sheep in His flock, so much so that He goes after the one that strays. After all, it is not His will that even one of these little ones, these humbled, true believers, should perish. If that is His attitude, it is an abomination for anyone else to try to make the little ones stumble.³D. A. Carson, God with Us: Themes from Matthew (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 112–113.

I know the ESV renders ἀπόλλυμι as ‘perish’, but I want to make it clear that I do not think that Carson is erring by using the word ‘lost’. The reason for this will become apparent as I discuss this subject. What does Carson mean by ‘perish’ and ‘lost’? The Greek word behind “perish” is the much contested verb, ἀπόλλυμι. Since ἀπόλλυμι does have a range of meaning including “to destroy”, “to ruin”, “to perish”, and “to lose something”⁴William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 115. traditionalists have had room to argue for connotations of this verb that they think support the doctrine of eternal torment in hell. This is the case in Carson’s The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism, where he interacts with John Stott’s argument that the biblical language of destruction supports the doctrine of annihilationism by arguing,

The àπώλεια word-group has a range of meanings, depending on the context. It can refer to the “lost” coin or son of Luke 15, and to the “ruined” wineskin of Matthew 9:17: in neither case is cessation of existence in view. Similarly, the ointment lavishly poured out on Jesus is in the mind of his disciples a “waste” (Matt. 26:8): the same noun is deployed, with no suggestion that the ointment goes out of existence.

Moreover, when “life” and “destruction” are contrasted (as in John 3:16, etc.), one might reasonably infer that “destruction” refers to cessation of existence only if “life” means no more than mere existence. But is Christ doing no more than contrasting mere survival and extinction? Rather, Christ is contrasting two qualitatively different types of existence, one involving a loving communion with God and another lacking it (a state of ‘ruin’).”⁵Carson, D. A.. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism, Kindle ed. (Zondervan, 1996), Kindle locations, 11886-11895.

It is clear that for Carson, whatever ἀπόλλυμι means in Matthew 18:14, it cannot involve the idea of complete destruction or the death of the person as conditionalists maintain. However, in his introduction to the section spanning Matthew 18:10-14, Carson makes two observations that help the case that Matthew 18:14 supports conditionalism rather than the doctrine of eternal torment in hell. Carson’s first observation is as follows,

Verse 10 clearly follows vv.5–9; but because it also forms a neat inclusio with v.14, vv.10–14 must be read together in the light of the preceding pericope.⁶Carson, Matthew, Kindle locations, 14277-14283.

An inclusio is a “literary framing device in which the same word or phrase stands at the beginning and the end of a section.”⁷Matthew S. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek, (InterVarsity Press, 2001), 71 An inclusio tells the reader where a given literary unit of writing begins and ends. It is meant to be read and thought of together. In this case, Carson is saying that the inclusio of Matthew 18:10-14 is linked with the immediately preceding literary unit of Matthew 18:5-9.⁸One may wish to quibble over whether the preceding literary unit also incorporates Matthew 19:1-4 but for our purposes it is sufficient to note that what Jesus says in Matthew 18:8-9 must be considered for what Jesus meant to say in verse 14, and vice versa.

His second observation has to do with the possible parallel passage, Luke 15:3-7. On the face of it, Luke 15:3-7 may appear to have the same point in view but Carson writes,

It is remarkable how different Matthew’s and Luke’s forms of the parable are when closely compared in the Greek text. Almost every relevant term is not the same as in the parallel, and the few that are the same are well within the bounds of repetition expected in an itinerant ministry (see comments at 5:1–2). The evidence suggests that these are two similar parables, both taught by Jesus, but with very different aims… Matthew is not concerned with “faithful pastorship in the community” … but, following the preceding pericope, with the importance in Messiah’s community of harming no member, of sharing the Father’s concern that none of “these little ones” be lost.⁹D. A.; Carson, Matthew, Kindle locations, 14283-14295.

In the study of the Synoptics, it is important to be aware of parallel passages so one can evaluate the extent to which the parallel(s) should impinge on the interpretation of the passage being exegeted. Luke 15:3-7 is the kind of passage that traditionalists might cite to deny that the use of ἀπόλλυμι has to do with the destruction of the little ones in Matthew 18:14 at all. With his observations, Carson has ruled this move out entirely. Both of Carsons’ observations mean Matthew 18:1-9 and similar passages within Matthew itself should be the main lens through which an interpreter understands the meaning of perish in Matthew 18:14.

How do we apply that to our exegesis of this verse?

First, I would point out that Carson is correct to say that Matthew 18:5-14 is a cohesive unit. His argument can be supplemented with the observation that the literary unit of Matthew 18:1-14 is bound together by similar phrases like ‘become like children’ (Mat 18:3), ‘this child’ (v4), ‘one such child’ (v5), ‘one of these little ones’ (v6), ‘one of these little ones’ (v10), ‘one of these little ones’ (v14). This does not mean that every section of the passage make exactly the same point. Verse 1-2 are an introduction to the section with verses 3-4 establishing the prerequisite of becoming like children as a prerequisite for entering the kingdom. This means that verses 5-9 do not necessarily have infants in view but believers who have become like children in some respect. They are the little ones who are in view in the remainder of the passage.

Verses 5-9 and 10-14 express overlapping themes. In verses 5-9 the focus is on the danger to people who might cause these little ones to sin while verses 10-14 focus on the protection of the little ones from perishing (or being lost). Given the warnings of severe treatment in store for those who cause the little ones to sin (v 6) and Jesus’s comments about avoiding sin so one can avoid being thrown into the fire of Gehenna/eternal fire (vs 8-9) it stands to reason that in Matthew 18:14 Jesus is referring to a fate that is of eternal significance. That is, when Jesus says ‘it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish’ he has their final fate in mind.

Second, if Matthew 18:5-9 (and not Luke 15:3-7) is the primary lens through which one must read Matthew 18:14 then it stands to reason that thematic, and verbal clues from that passage that hark back to similar Matthean passages also form part of that lens. That is, where we can see that Matthew 18:5-14 contains words, phrases, and themes that are used elsewhere in Matthew when discussing a similar theology, then those passages form part of the lens through which we should interpret the text being exegeted.

Having established those two points, it follows that the exegete must explore any literary, thematic or verbal cues in Matthew 18:5-14 and elsewhere in the narrative that may shed light on what verse 14 teaches. As it turns out, there are several clues in Matthew 18:5-14 that do make the reader remember previous passages in Matthew.

One example is the use of the verb σκανδαλίζω (skandalizō) ‘to cause to stumble’ throughout the passage. It occurs where you see the English ‘cause … to sin’ in verses 6, 8, and 9. The cognate noun, σκάνδαλον (skandalon) ‘stumbling block’, occurs twice in Matthew 18:17 and is rendered as ‘temptation to sin’ and ‘temptations’. That noun also occurs in Matthew 13:40-42.

⁴⁰Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. ⁴¹The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, ⁴²and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This is part of Jesus’s own explanation of what the parable about weeds secretly being sown in the kingdom (Matt 13:24-30) means. Jesus says all ‘causes of sin’ will be thrown into the fiery furnace and burned up just as the weeds in the parable are burned up in a harvest fire (v30). To be sure, he also says there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, but that occurs whilst they are consumed in that fire. That is a clear indication about what the eternal fire will do to people. It will kill them.

The verb, σκανδαλίζω, occurs in Matthew 5:29-30.

²⁹If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. ³⁰And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

In this case, body parts rather than people are in view as the cause of sin. Now, if you are familiar with what commentaries have to say on this passage you will know that there are discussions about how this ought not to be taken literally so that we can obey this passage even when we do not actually tear out an eye or cut off a hand. This is because, when we give up what causes us to sin, we do permanently lose access to something we loved as much as an eye or a hand. So the point is to rid ourselves of anything that causes us to sin, even if one must do away with that cause of sin by destroying it completely at great and permanent cost.

I have more to say about this passage below.

One more obvious example of verbal allusion to other passages is the use of the language of ‘the eternal fire’ (v8) and ‘the hell of fire’ (v9). The phrase ‘the eternal fire’ appears again in Matthew 25:41 where Jesus indicates evil humans will be thrown into the fire that is prepared for the Devil and his angels. That verse does not indicate what that fire does to those who are thrown into it. Moreover, the adjective phrase, ‘eternal punishment’ (Matt 25:46) is ambiguous so that provides little help in clarifying what the eternal fire does to people thrown into it.

What about the phrase, ‘the hell of fire’?

The Greek behind this phrase is τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός. This is one of those passages where Jesus uses the word γέεννα (geenna). As it turns out, the exact phraseology τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός occurs in Matthew 5:25. Bruce Chilton states,

In 5:2, the first usage of γέεννα in his Gospel, Matthew adds “of fire” to the term in order to make its meaning clearer. In vv. 29 and 30 of the same chapter, no such qualification is necessary, because the concept has already been introduced with its explanatory qualifications. The order of sayings therefore seems to reflect a conscious plan of presentation…¹⁰Bruce Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus’ Own Interpretation of Isaiah, (SPCK, 1984), 103-104.

One implication of this is verses like Matthew 10:28, where γέεννα is the place where the soul and the body can be destroyed, imply that the instrument through which God would destroy the whole person is the fire of Gehenna. There is debate over exactly what ‘destroy’ means in that verse, but I have yet to find adequate rebuttals to the arguments for the conditionalist reading of the verse provided at the Rethinking Hell website.¹¹Glenn Peoples, ‘The Meaning of “APOLLUMI” in The Synoptic Gospels, Rethinking Hell [blog], October 27, 2012, ’https://rethinkinghell.com/2012/10/27/the-meaning-of-apollumi-in-the-synoptic-gospels/, and Darren Clark, Exegesis Interrupted: A Critique of Stand To Reason’s Article “Hell Interrupted, Part 2”, Rethinking Hell [blog], https://rethinkinghell.com/2018/11/13/exegesis-interrupted-a-critique-of-stand-to-reasons-article-hell-interrupted-part-2/

I will not be going over old ground here except to say that even though traditionalists are correct that the Greek word behind ‘destroy’, ἀπόλλυμι, does have a range of meaning allowing debate over what Matthew 10:28 means, all the contextual evidence supports the conclusion that ἀπόλλυμι means ‘to slay’ in that verse. This brings us to the point where we can observe that the point Jesus is making in Matthew 10:28 is the same one he makes in Matthew 13:40-42: Those who end up in that fire will be killed.

Finally, comparing the way ἀπόλλυμι is used in Matthew 5:29-30 and in 18:14. In the earlier passage, ἀπόλλυμι is used when referring to the body parts. The exact phraseology in Greek in both verses is as follows, συμφέρει γάρ σοι ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν τῶν μελῶν σου, which is rendered in the ESV as ‘For it is better that you lose one of your members’. “Lose” renders ἀπόληται. What does it mean in this context? Carson explains,

Just this: we are to deal drastically with sin. We must not pamper it, flirt with it, enjoy nibbling a little of it around the edges. We are to hate it, crush it, dig it out. “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexually immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry” (Col. 3:5).¹²D. A. Carson, Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount and His Confrontation with the World: A Study of Matthew 5-10, (Baker Publishing Group, 1987), 56-57.

Put the offending body part to death!

Obviously this is a figurative way of referring to doing away with sin or what tempts us to sin. Having recognized that, Carson is not using death with some ‘spiritual’ sense of separation or whatever traditionalists mean when they talk about spiritual death. He has in mind the normal meaning of death as killing a living being: ‘a permanent cessation of all vital functions: the end of life’.¹³Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/death, s.v. ‘Death’.

Yes, Jesus is speaking hyperbolically but the whole point of talking about plucking an eye out or cutting off a hand is to say we must destroy that which causes us to sin without expecting to get it back. If you sever body parts you kill that part of you. Those body parts will wither away into nothing, and it’s stated that you “enter the kingdom” without that body part. This is surely not literally true of body parts (our glorified bodies at the resurrection will have all their limbs), but it is true at least in general of causes of sin. Even rendered as “lost,” that kind of permanent destruction is what ἀπόλητα refers to here. You lose it because it will be destroyed and so it can never cause you to stumble into sin. The intent is to say that we must kill and destroy those things that might cause us to stumble in sin.

How does this relate to what Matthew 18:14 means? Carson himself ruled out looking to the parallel in Luke 15:3-7. As it turns out, Jesus uses some of the language from Matthew 5:29-30 in 18:14.

²⁹If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose (ἵνα ἀπόληται) one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. ³⁰And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one (ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν) of your members than that your whole body go into hell.–Matthew 5:29-30

¹⁴So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish (ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν).–Matthew 18:14

I have inserted the Greek into the translation just to give the reader a sense of where the language fits. This particular construction (word order) is rare in the NT, only being used in these two passages in Matthew and in John 17:3. That is not in and of itself enough to draw firm conclusions, for there can be variations in the syntax of the clauses in which these words are used. However, keep in mind that Matthew had, as noted above, a penchant for repeating words from earlier passages in later passages while addressing the same theme. This does mean we have warrant for arguing the use ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν in Matthew 5:29-30 ought to inform our understanding of the use of the same construction in 18:14. Just as ἀπόλλυμι is used to the killing or destruction of the body parts in Matthew 5:29-30, so also the use of the same verb in 18:14 has to do with being killed or destroyed!

There are several implications that can be noted from this analysis.

First, it matters little that ἀπόλλυμι is rendered ‘lost’ or ‘perish’. In Matthew 5:29-30 ἀπόλλυμι is usually rendered as ‘lost’ but people do not think this means the hand or eye is merely misplaced. Most recognize that these body parts are lost precisely because they are destroyed. This means that Carson’s argument that ἀπόλλυμι has a range of meaning (see the quote from his The Gagging of God above) does nothing to establish what that word contextually denotes in any particular context in the hell proof-texts. Carson is correct that ἀπόλλυμι does have a range of meaning, but better exegetical practice would have led him to consider Matthew 18:14 in light of 5:29-30. That could have led him to the conditionalist reading of these verses.

Second, since Matthew 18:5-14 form one literary unit it stands to reason that what Jesus says in verse 14 helps clarify what he says in verses 8-9. In verse 14 Jesus says the little one is rescued from death. Given Jesus’s emphasis on not causing others to sin (vs 6-7) and the need to excise any cause of sin in our own lives (vs 8-9) then the final fate of sinners must be in view in this passage. This means that verse 14 also has the final fate of the little ones in view. Having noted that, we are able to better analyze the contrast in verses 8-9. Here are those verses,

⁸And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. ⁹And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Notice the contrast. It is better to destroy an offending body part than to end up in the eternal fire/fire of Gehenna. If verse 14 has in view the death of the lost one who had gone astray, then we can conclude that the ultimate fate in that fire is the death of the whole person. This means the contrast is between lacking a part of your body when you enter the Kingdom or having your whole body destroyed in that fire. As such, this rules out the typical traditionalist assumption that the contrast is between the implicit pain involved in destruction of a part of our bodies and eternal torment in the eternal fire.

Third, this fits with what Jesus says about the final fate of the lost in the other Gospels. Most notably, the aorist subjunctive form of ἀπόλλυμι used in Matthew 18:14, ἀπόληται (‘perish’), is used in John 3:16. There is already very good exegetical evidence that John 3:16 teaches conditionalism¹⁴See Darren Clark, “Perish the Thought: How John 6 and 11 Challenge the Traditionalist Reading of John 3:16, [blog]”, June 14, 2019, https://rethinkinghell.com/2019/06/14/perish-the-thought-john-3-16/, and Darren Clark, “Perish The Thought, Part 2: More Challenges to the Traditionalist Reading of John 3:16 [blog]”, December 27, 2019, https://rethinkinghell.com/2019/12/27/perish-the-thought-part-2-john-3-16/. The use of ἀπόλλυμι in such similar contexts is just another piece of evidence that when Jesus said in John 3:16 that believers should not perish but have eternal life he really did mean we are saved from dying at the final judgment.

Then there is Luke 12:4-5 where Jesus says,

⁴I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. ⁵But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!

The word for ‘killed’ in Luke 12:5 is not ἀπόλλυμι but ἀποκτείνω (apokteinō). However, the two verbs are used synonymously in Matthew 10:28, where ἀπόλλυμι is translated as destroy but has the meaning of ‘to slay’. The verbs are also used synonymously throughout the Synoptic Gospels. They are used when it is Herod’s determination to kill another person is in view (ἀποκτείνω is used in Matt 14:5; Luke 13:31 and ἀπόλλυμι in Mat 2:13), when people sought to kill Jesus (ἀποκτείνω is used in Matt 16:21, 17:23 26:4; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; 14:1; Luke 9:22; 18:33 ἀπόλλυμι is used in Mat 27:20; Mar 3:6; 11:18; Luk 19:47). The parable of the tenants who kill a king’s messengers is a good example of the two verbs being used synonymously (ἀποκτείνω is used in Matthew 21:35, 38-39; Mark 12:5, 7; Luke 20:14-15 while ἀπόλλυμ is used in Matthew 21:41; Mark 12:9; Luke 20:16). When ἀπόλλυμ is used it can be rendered as ‘destroy’ but the meaning is always, ‘to slay’.

Then there is Mark 9:42-48.

⁴²Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. ⁴³And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. ^{[44] 45}And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. ^{[46] 47} And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ^{[48] ‘}where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’

Considering there are little ones in view in this passage as there are in Matthew 18:1-14, this passage is particularly relevant. The statement, ‘their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched’ is a near verbatim quote of the LXX of Isaiah 66:24.

²⁴And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.

Isaiah 66:15-16 is the context of that scene.

¹⁵For behold, the LORD will come in fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. ¹⁶For by fire will the LORD enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many.

Jesus is using a scene where the unburied corpses of the slain enemies of God are abhorred by the still living righteous, while “their worm” prospers and their fire burns. This is akin to what Jesus says in Luke 12:5 where the thing to be feared is having your corpse “having been killed” then dumped in Gehenna.

It is about being killed, not remaining alive forever.

That’s what Jesus consistently talked about when referring to the final fate of the lost. Matthew 18:14 is no exception. Talking about the little one being rescued from perishing is just another way Jesus emphasized that he rescues us from a final punishment in the form of execution.

In the final analysis, it is disappointing that Carson failed to follow up on his introductory observations on Matthew 18:10-14. I consider him to be a fine exegete because he often does follow the exegetical evidence where it leads. Perhaps if he had in this case he may have come to see that Jesus talked of the final fate of the lost not in terms of their experience of ongoing punishment but in terms of their death.

“Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities,
which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and
pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example
by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”–Jude 7¹Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical references will be from the ESV.

Imagine I said to you that Jesus serves as an example of suffering and therefore loving your enemies.

What comes to mind? Would you think I am referring to the NT record of his ministry and death? What if someone argued that the use of the present tense “loving” must mean that Jesus really is loving the enemies with him in heaven right now?

My guess is the majority of people would remember the Gospel narratives of Jesus going to his death so would think the use of the present tense is not an unusual way to refer to his past sacrifice. Even though we were not present when he died, the Gospel narratives are cognitively present to us because we are intimately familiar with those narratives. I think most people would intuitively recognize that simply pointing to the present tense of “suffering” or “loving” would not be sufficient to establish otherwise.

Yet, this is exactly the kind of argument that some traditionalists use with respect to the following statement about Sodom and Gomorrah in Jude 7, “serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” Here are some examples. Matt Slick argues

If we look at the text and analyze what the Greek says, it becomes evident that the wicked people of Sodom and Gomorrah are presently experiencing the punishment of eternal fire.

In verse 7, Jude says that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (7a) who went after strange flesh (7b) are presently an example (δεῖγμα, deigma, 7c) in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire (7d). Jude knew that the fires of Sodom and Gomorrah were extinguished, yet he chooses to say they are an example of the punishment of eternal fire, which is happening now (present participle). This is because he is using the permanent judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah to illustrate the permanent judgment of the wicked who are presently” undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”²Matt Slick, ‘Annihilationism and Jude 6-7, angels and the wicked undergoing punishment of eternal fire’, https://carm.org/annihilationism/annihilationism-and-jude-6-7-angels-and-the-wicked-undergoing-punishment-of-eternal-fire/, last accessed, 11/06/2022

Notice Slick’s appeal to the represent tense of the participle ‘undergoing’. To his credit, Slick does quote from accepted authorities on the Greek text such as Daniel Arichea and Howard Hatton.

The verb for undergoing is in the present tense, which means that the inhabitants of Sodom are at the moment going through their punishment…The word translated example is literally “sample”; that is, here is an actual case of sinners being punished; this serves both as proof and as a warning to future generations of the reality of divine punishment (note TEV “plain warning”).³Daniel C. Arichea and Howard Hatton A Handbook on the Letter from Jude and the Second Letter from Peter, (United Bible Societies, 1993), 25–27

He also quotes Bill Mounce, a respected NT grammarian.

“ὑπέχουσαι [from ὑπέχω hupéchō] is present tense, so it might imply a present punishment. However, remember there is no absolute time significance outside the indicative, and this is a participle. So all the tense of ὑπέχουσαι says is that it is undefined in its aspect. However, if relative time is accounted for, since πρόκεινται is present, the linear ὑπέχουσαι would be describing action happening at the same time as πρόκεινται and hence a present “undergoing.” So the suggestion is that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are currently being punished for their sins, and their current punishment serves as a current warning to us.⁴Bill Mounce, ‘Sodom, Gomorrah, and Pornography (Jude 7)’, https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/sodom-gomorrah-and-pornography-jude-7, last accessed 11/06/2022.

A member of the Rethinking Group made a similar argument recently.

… what continues to stick out to me is that Jude switches from the aorist (past tense) participle “having given themselves over to sexual immorality” and [having] gone after strange flesh” to the present tense participle “undergoing punishment.”

As I continue to read the passage, this change is striking. I cannot see any good reason that Jude wouldn’t say “having undergone punishment” if he wanted to refer to a past judgment. There is nothing in Greek to prevent this and everything to expect this. I find no reason for Jude to use the present tense participle instead of the aorist tense which he used immediately before.

It seems to me the most likely conclusion is that Jude is intentionally using the present tense participle to communicate that Sodom is currently undergoing punishment and this serves as an example of eternal fire.⁵J.D. Martin, “Many think my interpretation of Jude 7 is a complete stretch…” Rethinking Hell [Facebook discussion], posted 09/15/2022, https://www.facebook.com/groups/rethinkinghell/posts/5359831707467333/?__cft__[0]=AZWbqJkx5Tel4B7NBCvpXydGUsA6kforsW4eSuJSbf7H7Ck-oaJ3f-H19FX0LEVDB3hwch8go-md85B0G-XxtXAIZ4PcfGzTUjLOvD9VStRa50qqFyE0NOhRcU5vWjbJfio&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R, (last accessed 11/06/ 2022).

The argument has also made its way into academic journals,

The present participle in the clause δίκην ὑπέχουσαι (“undergoing punishment”) in conjunction with the present tense verb in the clause Πρόκεινται δεῖγμα indicate the ongoing nature of the punishment and thus its particular effectiveness in continuing to serve as an example.⁶Robert L. Webb ‘The Eschatology of the Epistle of Jude and Its Rhetorical and Social Functions, ed. Craig A, Evans, in Bulletin for Biblical Research, Vol. 6 (1996): 139-151, n.17

The argument is simply that since the present tense is used then Jude must have had in mind the ongoing punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah as he was writing his letter. However, this assumes the present tense was used because Jude was saying Sodom and Gomorrah were being punished in Hades while he was writing. Douglas Moo helps to explain why this is a false assumption,

Jude concludes, then, that these sinful cities on the plain “serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” Indeed, God’s judgment was spectacular and final. According to Genesis 19:24, “the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens.” Writers contemporary to Jude saw in the topography of the area, with its sulfurous odors, smoke, and terribly desolate appearance, continuing evidence of this awful judgment of God on sin. This is one of the reasons why Jude uses the present tense here at the end of verse, for the cities “serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”⁷Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, Kindle ed., (Zondervan, 1996), Kindle locations, 4955-4963

Moo correctly identifies that the present tense was used by Jude because Sodom and Gomorrah had already come to be regarded as an example of what it is like to undergo divine punishment. This is no assumption on Moo’s part. Kelly is indicative of most commentators on Jude who emphasize “Their destruction (more particularly Sodom’s) became a proverbial object-lesson of God’s vengeance on sin”.⁸J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, (Hendrickson Publishers, 1969), 259. I am listing some examples from a range of sources prior to and including the NT era to show why these scholars draw this conclusion.

Isaiah 1:9 If the LORD of hosts had not left us a few survivors, we should have been like Sodom, and become like Gomorrah.

Isaiah 13:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the splendor and pomp of the Chaldeans, will be like Sodom and Gomorrah when God overthrew them. 20 It will never be inhabited or lived in for all generations; no Arab will pitch his tent there; no shepherds will make their flocks lie down there. 21 But wild animals will lie down there, and their houses will be full of howling creatures; there ostriches will dwell, and there wild goats will dance. 22 Hyenas will cry in its towers, and jackals in the pleasant palaces; its time is close at hand and its days will not be prolonged.

Ezekiel 16: 48 As I live, declares the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.

Zephaniah 2:9 Therefore, as I live,” declares the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, “Moab shall become like Sodom, and the Ammonites like Gomorrah, a land possessed by nettles and salt pits, and a waste forever. The remnant of my people shall plunder them, and the survivors of my nation shall possess them.”

3 Maccabees 2:5 You consumed with fire and sulfur the people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices; and you made them an example to those who should come afterward. (NRSV)

Wisdom 10: 6 Wisdom rescued a righteous man when the ungodly were perishing; he escaped the fire that descended on the Five Cities. 7 Evidence of their wickedness still remains: a continually smoking wasteland, plants bearing fruit that does not ripen, and a pillar of salt standing as a monument to an unbelieving soul. (NRSV)

4 Esdras 2: 8 “Woe to you, Assyria, who conceal the unrighteous within you! O wicked nation, remember what I did to Sodom and Gomorrah, 9 whose land lies in lumps of pitch and heaps of ashes. That is what I will do to those who have not listened to me, says the Lord Almighty.” (NRSV)

Jubilees 16:5 And in that month the LORD executed the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah and Zeboim and all of the district of the Jordan. And he burned them with fire and sulphur and he annihilated them till this day just as (he said), “Behold, I have made known to you all of their deeds that (they were) cruel and great sinners and they were polluting themselves and they were fornicating in their flesh and they were causing pollution upon the earth.” 6 And thus the LORD will execute judgment like the judgment of Sodom on places where they act according to the pollution of Sodom.⁹James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom, and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, vol. 2 (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1985), 88.

The Testament of Asher, 7 1 “Do not become like Sodom, which did not recognize the Lord’s angels and perished forever.¹⁰James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (New York; London: Yale University Press, 1983), 818.

Philo, “even to this day the visible tokens of the indescribable disaster are pointed out in Syria—ruins, cinders, brimstone, smoke and murky flames which continue to rise from the ground as from a fire still smoldering beneath”¹¹Quoted in Richard Bauckham, Jude-2 Peter, (Zondervan Academic, . (p. 55). Kindle Edition.

Luke 17: 26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 They were eating and drinking, and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them. 28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, 29 but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed all of them 30 — it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

2 Peter 2:6 and if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example of what is coming to the ungodly;

It is important to note that in no place in biblical or extra-biblical literature was Sodom and Gomorrah spoken of in terms of an example of punishment in Sheol or Hades. The point is, all the evidence indicates the past destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was widely regarded as a tangible example illustrating how God destroys the wicked when he judges and punishes them. This means when people thought of Sodom and Gomorrah in the context of divine judgment they naturally thought of the story of the destruction of those cities in Genesis 19.

This brings me back to where we started. Just as saying Jesus serves as an example of loving your enemies would remind any Christian of the passion narratives in the Gospels, so also referring to Sodom and Gomorrah would have reminded Jude’s audience of the original story of the destruction of those cities. In such cases, the present tense is used because people will already have been thinking of the events in the story with which they were familiar. That is, the present tense was used because the OT story of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction was already cognitively present to his audience,

Traditionally, NT grammarians have understood the Greek tense of a verb to convey the time in which the action of the verb takes place. It was the idea that the tense itself had encoded within its form the idea of progression through time. So, if a NT author or speaker used the present tense, he did so because he thought the verbal action was taking place in his present. When I was learning NT exegesis, we were taught that the tenses function as follows.

Tense	Relationship to verbal action in time
Present	A verbal action that is ongoing in the present at the time of writing or speaking.
Future	A verbal action that is ongoing in the future.
Imperfect	Relates to a verbal action that is ongoing in the past
Aorist	Undefined with respect to ongoing action
Perfect	The action has been completed in the past with implication flowing from that completed act

This looks simple. If the present tense was used then the author this was because the verbal action was taking place in real time, at the time he was writing. This is sometimes called aktionsart. It is the theory that “the verb tenses of Greek are used to convey how an action objectively occurs.”¹²Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament , 2nd ed., (Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 27. If this is how the present tense functions then traditionalists would be right to point to the present tense in Jude 7 (“serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire”) and conclude that Jude had in mind the present, ongoing punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah in Hades.

That is not the whole story on Greek tenses, though. Advancement in studies on Greek tenses have shown that the tenses themselve relate more to an author’s subjective view of the verbal action than to any objective verbal aktionsart. This is called verbal aspect. I will include a link to an introduction to verbal aspect to assist the reader to understand this feature of Greek tenses.¹³Master Biblical Languages (Daryl Burling), ‘Verbal Aspect: What is it and is it important?‘, YouTube video [7:59], posted 07/18/2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCINNdEcDIU&t=479s, accessed 11/06/2022. In short, while the aorist tense was used to talk about an event as a whole, the present tense was used when an author was thinking about something from the perspective of someone watching the event unfold. This would be like my statement that Jesus is an example of suffering and therefore loving one’s enemies. I do not mean to use the present tense because it conveys how Jesus’s suffering is objectively taking place in real time. I used the present tense because I wanted to use it as a verbal cue prompting people to think of his past death in a way that puts attention on the story of his suffering and death.

Stanley Porter, one of the pioneers of studies in Greek verbal aspect, explains it like this,

The analogy of a parade proves useful. If I am a television correspondent in a helicopter flying over the parade, I view the parade in its immediacy from a vantage outside the action as ‘perfective’; that is, in its entirety as a single and complete whole. If I am a spectator standing with others along the side of the road watching the parade pass by in front of me, I view the action immersed within it as ‘imperfective’; that is, as an event in progress. And if I am the parade manager in corporate headquarters considering all of the conditions in existence at this parade, including not only all the arrangements that are coming to fruition but all the accompanying events that allow the parade to operate, I view the process not in its particulars or its immediacy but as ‘stative’; that is, as a complex condition or state of affairs in existence. For example, in Rom. 8.11 with ἐγείραντος (aorist), 2 Cor. 1.9 with ἐγείροντι (present), 2 Tim. 2.8 with ἐγηγερμένον (perfect): each verse uses a different tense-form to refer to the same event, the raising of Christ. The use of each depends upon the author’s contextual emphasis.¹⁴Ibid., 24.

…verbs function in Greek as indicators of the speaker or writer’s view of a particular action, regardless of how that action might ‘objectively’ have transpired in the real world or ‘when’ it might have transpired. The verb tenses grammaticalize (i.e. represent a meaning by selection of a particular verb tense-form) this subjective viewpoint through the category of verbal aspect.1 Greeks were still able to make reference to various times of the day or night and to distinguish kinds of action, but they did so by using a variety of indicators, with verb tenses as only one factor in establishing the temporal context.”¹⁵Ibid.

The point is not that the present tense itself is not used to express the idea of progression through time. Porter draws attention to how the Greek tenses were used to express something about the author’s subjective perspective of the verbal action. It is not a simple case of the present tense itself being used because it relates to what is objectively in time as the author was writing. The way an interpreter can detect progression in time in the use of the present tense involves much more than recognising the author used verbs and participles with the present tense form. Porter is at pains to emphasize this as he frequently revisits this point.

… in Greek the temporal ordering of events is not measured in relation to a fixed point (absolute time), but by the relations established among the involved events with regard to each other and to the context. This relating is achieved by a variety of indicators available in the language (e.g. use of temporal adverbs, such as νῦν, τότε). In other words, elements other than verbal aspect (context, for example) are the primary conveyors of temporal information in Greek. This applies in the case not only of the non-indicative mood forms, but of the indicative mood as well.

A variety of contextual features (often called deictic indicators) must be analyzed to establish temporal values: references to person, place and time, and discourse features.

The last of these appear to be the most significant … The interpreter’s task is to consider all of the relevant information—including verb tenses, discourse type and so forth—before deciding when an event is to be conceived of as occurring.¹⁶Ibid., 25–26.

This all means the traditionalist argument that the present tense of “undergoing” shows Jude was saying Sodom and Gomorrah were actually being punished as he wrote his letter is based on an outdated view of NT Greek tenses. Traditionalists must identify other factors demonstrating their interpretation of Jude 7 is accurate. The only traditionalist I have seen attempting to buttress the present tense argument this way is Bill Mounce. After stating he believes the present tense conveys the idea that Sodom and Gomorrah are currently undergoing a punishment he says,

How could they be a present example? The historical descriptions of the traditional location of Sodom and Gomorrah certainly serves as an example to all who see it, and smell it. Wisdom 10:7 says, “Evidence of their wickedness still remains — a continually smoking wasteland, plants bearing fruit that does not ripen, and a pillar of salt standing as a monument to an unbelieving soul” (in Kelly, 259). You could even translate πρόκεινται as “are serving” to make the point clear.¹⁷Mounce, ‘Sodom, Gomorrah, and Pornography’

Here is the problem with this. The example Mounce uses from Wisdom 10:7 refers to evidence of the past destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is one of the texts I quoted above when I pointed out that it was widely regarded as a tangible example illustrating how God destroys the wicked when he judges and punishes them. It is not evidence that anyone, including Jude, thought that the people of the twin cities had connected that destruction to their current suffering in Hades. It simply highlights that when an author pointed to Sodom and Gomorrah they were reminding their audiences of the story of the demise of those cities. It was a way of making them think about that story. As such, it meant that as they thought about that story it would be serving as a current example to them. Pointing to the present tense of the word behind “serve” does not change this, Rather, it is like my example of Jesus swerving as a current example of suffering and therefore loving your enemies.

Mounce lets the cat out of the bag in another way when he says this,

Jude writes, “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve (πρόκεινται) as an example by undergoing (ὑπέχουσαιa) punishment of eternal fire” (ESV).

ὑπέχουσαι is present tense, so it might imply a present punishment. However, remember there is no absolute time significance outside the indicative, and this is a participle. So all the tense of ὑπέχουσαι says is that it is undefined in its aspect.¹⁸Ibid.

Since the participle “undergoing” is a participle then its aspect is undefined even though it is in the present tense form. This means the use of the present tense of “undergoing” itself cannot in and of itself bear the weight for the claim that Jude had in mind the current suffering of Sodom and Gomorrah in hades.

In no way does noting Jude’s use of the present support this claim.

If traditionalists are responding to conditionalist exegesis of Jude 7 and all they have is an argument from the present tense, then the appropriate response is to ask them what else they have got to offer. If all they have is an argument from the present tense then they have nothing.