Category: Darren Clark

Biblical Exegesis, Darren Clark

Hey Jude, Don’t Be So Tense: A Note on the Grammar of Jude 7

“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.

 

References
￪1 Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical references will be from the ESV.
￪2 Matt 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
￪3 Daniel C. Arichea and Howard Hatton A Handbook on the Letter from Jude and the Second Letter from Peter, (United Bible Societies, 1993), 25–27
￪4 Bill 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.
￪5 J.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).
￪6 Robert 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
￪7 Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, Kindle ed., (Zondervan, 1996), Kindle locations, 4955-4963
￪8 J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, (Hendrickson Publishers, 1969), 259.
￪9 James 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
￪10 James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (New York; London: Yale University Press, 1983), 818.
￪11 Quoted in Richard Bauckham, Jude-2 Peter, (Zondervan Academic, . (p. 55). Kindle Edition.
￪12 Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament , 2nd ed., (Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 27.
￪13 Master 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.
￪14 Ibid., 24.
￪15 Ibid.
￪16 Ibid., 25–26.
￪17 Mounce, ‘Sodom, Gomorrah, and Pornography’
￪18 Ibid.
Criticisms, Darren Clark

When the Exception Proves the Rule: Yes, The Fire Does Not Consume… The Righteous!

If you have participated in the debate over the validity of the conditionalist interpretation of verses such as Matthew 3:12 or 13:40 you may have encountered traditionalists who appeal to the burning bush (Ex 3:2) as a way of implying that the fire in these conditionalist proof texts may not incinerate the wicked after all. Others might have appealed to the story where Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego survive a superheated fire (Daniel 3:18-28) to make the same point. Over the years, I have mostly thought of this as a suboptimal argument that is easily addressed by conditionalists but have noticed it is being used more frequently. To my surprise, there are even traditionalists who should know better who have made the argument in print. For instance, the following quote is from John Blanchard’s book called Whatever Happened to Hell?

Others add the argument that as fire always consumes whatever is put into it, it would be impossible for anyone to endure the fire of hell for ever; but there are two things that can be said in reply. The first is that if we think in terms of literal fire (which is how the point is being made), it is not true to say that fire always consumes. On the contrary, nothing that is burnt by fire is extinguished in the sense of becoming non-existent. It is simply changed into another form of existence, such as vapour, gas or dust.

Secondly, there are two instances in Scripture where there was burning without consuming. At a crucial point in God’s dealings with Moses, ‘The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed’ (Exodus 3: 2). Many years later, when three of God’s faithful servants, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, infuriated King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon by refusing to worship a golden idol, he had them thrown into a blazing furnace which had been heated ‘seven times more than it was usually heated’ (Daniel 3: 19). The heat was so intense that it killed several of the soldiers who threw the men into the flames, yet some time later Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego walked out of the furnace, and everybody could see that ‘the fire had not had any power over the bodies of those men. The hair of their heads was not singed, their cloaks were not harmed, and no smell of fire had come upon them’ (Daniel 3: 27). These two instances alone should be enough to warn us against trying to force the teaching of the Word of God into the tiny limits of our own logic.1John Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell?, Kindle ed., (Evangelical Press, 1993), Kindle locations, 4241-54.

To be fair, Blanchard is addressing the claim that fire always consumes that which it burns. Since he failed to cite who makes this argument it is impossible to interact with his claim in terms of how fairly he represents the claim. That being said, Blanchard’s point is that these examples show we cannot assume that when a fire is mentioned in the Bible it must always be fully consuming that which it burns.

When responding to John Stott’s discussion of the use of fire imagery in the Bible with respect to the final fate of the lost,2Stott’s argument was as follows:the fire itself is termed “eternal” and “unquenchable,” but it would be very odd if what is thrown into it proves indestructible. Our expectation would be the opposite: it would be consumed forever, not tormented forever. Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has done its work) that “rises forever and ever” (Rev 14: 11; cf. 19: 3). John R. W. Stott, ‘Judgment and Hell’, in Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism , Kindle ed.,(Cascade Books, 2014), Kindle Locations 1344-47. Larry Dixon argues,

If God can use a burning bush to communicate to His chosen person in Exodus 3 without consuming it, who is to say that His fire of judgment cannot punish those who refuse to believe the Gospel without consuming them? (cf. Dan. 3:19–27).3Larry Dixon, The Other Side of the Good News: Confronting the Contemporary Challenges to Jesus’ Teaching on Hell, (Christian Focus Publications, 2003), 99.

Like Blanchard, Dixon’s argument is that we cannot assume that simply because fires normally consume things that this necessarily means the fire included in the hell prooftexts will also fully consume the wicked.

David Pawson is more direct with his argument.

But it’s not quite as simple as that. Words can carry different meanings, depending on the context in which they are used. Theology cannot live on terminology alone! Supernatural revelation requires more than natural reason to unlock its secrets.

For example, while fire usually ‘burns to ashes’, there are biblical examples of it behaving quite differently. Moses was surprised that the bush was not ‘consumed’, though the flames were real enough; Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were not even singed in a white-hot furnace (if the first case was not ‘natural’ fire, the second certainly was). It may be difficult for man to control fire but God has no problem doing so (as when he directed it at Elijah’s altar on Carmel).

It would be perfectly possible for God to limit the ‘physical’ effect of fire to intense heat and discomfort …

So the concept of ‘fire’ in hell is ambiguous. Our earthly experience cannot have the last word in our exegesis. Sooner or later all ‘natural’ fire burns up all its fuel and dies out.4David Pawson,The Road to Hell: Everlasting Torment or Annihilation?, Kindle ed., (Anchor Recordings, 2011), Kindle locations, 614-21.

What is the best way to respond to this argument from Blanchard, Dixon, and Pawson?

People who know me will know that my answer has to do with sound exegesis. By this I mean if we properly exegete Exodus 3:2 and Daniel 3:18-28 we will find cues in the text indicating the fire in question would not consume that which it was burning. In the case of Exodus 3:2 the LXX translation offers us some important clues that show how an NT author might have expressed the idea that the fire associated with the final punishment of the lost will not fully consume them. For those who are not familiar with the Greek used in the LXX and the NT, I will try to keep references to the Greek at a minimum but in a way that will help the reader see how the language is used to explicitly make the point. I have inserted the Greek word and its English transliteration to aid any reader unfamiliar with the Greek to explain how the language helps conditionalism when traditionalists do cite this verse. Here is Exodus 3:2,

And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning (καίω, kaiō), yet it was not (οὐ, ou) consumed (κατακαίω, katakaiō).5Unless otherwise stated, the English translation used in this article will be the ESV.

Notice the English word burning is a translation of καίω (kaiō). This word is flexible in that it can be used to express the idea of starting or keeping a fire burning (e.g. Ex 27:20-21; Isa 50:11; Jer 7:18; Matt 5:15; Luke 12:35) or can be used to express the idea that something is fully consumed by a fire (e.g. 2 Sam 23:7; Job 15:34; Job 31:12; Isa 5:24). The word can be used in other ways, but it is sufficient to note that it has a somewhat broad range of meaning. This cannot be said for the second word for burning used in Exodus 3:2. That word is κατακαίω (katakaiō). This word has the preposition κατά (kata), which intensifies the more general καίω (kaiō).6William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, (Zondervan, 2006), 90; Cleon Rogers Jr. and Cleon Rogers III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, (Zondervan:1998), 6. Now, I do not wish to give the impression that καίω (kaiō) could not be used to express the idea of total destruction by fire; it certainly can (e.g. Isa 10:17; Jer 32:29-31; Jer 49:27; John 15:6). Nevertheless, κατακαίω (katakaiō) intensifies that meaning so it has to do with burn down or fully consuming something.

In the LXX, κατακαίω (katakaiō) is used in reference to sacrifices that have been burned to ash (Lev 4:12, 21; 8:17; Num 19:5; 17), the disposal of left over or unclean parts of sacrifices (Ex 29:14, 34; Lev 6:30-31; 7:17; 19; 8:32; 9:11; 16:27; 19:6), prescriptions for how to destroy infected clothing (Lev 13:52-57), and as the punishment for particular sexual sins (Lev 20:14; 21:9). In contexts where judgment is in view, it is frequently used when the Israelites were commanded to burn and destroy foreign places of worship (Deut 7:5, 25; 12:3), thus removing them so that they would not be tempted to fall into idolatry (Deut 29:21-28). It is employed frequently in the prophets in ways that clearly depict the complete consumption of the unrighteous by fire (Is 33:11-12; 47:14; Jer 21:10; 34:22; Ez 5:1ff.; 20:47). The point I wish to make is that κατακαίω (katakaiō) was used when an author wished to express the idea that something was to be done away with completely. It is not the kind of word used to express the idea that a fire would continually burn without ever fully consuming the fuel.

This is where the third Greek word I highlighted in Exodus 3:2 is relevant. I am referring to the negative particle οὐ (ou), which means “not”. It is this word that tells the reader that the burning bush is not incinerated. I realize that this is a rather mundane point but it bears mentioning because without it, the reader would naturally think the bush was being incinerated by the fire. Instead, we are told the bush “was not (οὐ, ou) consumed (κατακαίω, katakaiō).

So what?

Well, when we discuss Matthew 3:12 and 13:40, where the meaning of κατακαίω (katakaiō) is relevant, and given the fact that κατακαίω (katakaiō) really does mean “to incinerate”, then it is more than reasonable to think that Jesus meant to say that those who are thrown into the fire will burn up.

Now, I know that people think “unquenchable fire” (Mat 3:12) and “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mat 13:42) indicate the people cast into the eschatalogical fire will never be incinerated by it. I have previously discussed the unquenchable fire imagery here. When the unquenchable fire imagery is used in a context of divine judgment elsewhere in the Bible, it has to do with emphasizing judgment which cannot be resisted or prevented from being inflicted on the wicked (2 Kg 22:16–17; 2 Chr 34:25; Isa 1:28–31; Jer. 4:4; 7:20; 21:12; Amos 5:5–6). It means that no one can prevent that judgment from being fully and completely meted out on the wicked. As for Jesus’s statement in Matthew 13:42 that people will weep and gnash their teeth, there is no reason to suppose that this is intended to indicate they will live on in the fire in great pain for eternity. Those thrown into that fire would indeed weep and gnash their teeth as they are dragged to the fire, thrown into it, and consumed by it.

Unquenchable fire and weeping and gnashing of teeth are hardly a sufficient basis from which to conclude the fire in Matthew 3:12 and 13:40-42 will never go out, and so therefore that fire will continually burn the wicked forever.

There are also many other clues in Matthew 3:12 and 13:40-42 indicating the fire will incinerate that which is thrown into it. In both cases the righteous are compared to things that are stored in safe places like a barn (Mat 3:12; 13:30), while the wicked are discarded and burnt, not stored. Aside from the unquenchable fire imagery, Matthew 3:12 uses chaff to represent the wicked. Chaff is dried out vegetable matter, so it is exactly the wrong thing to communicate the idea that the wicked could survive the unquenchable fire. Furthermore, the Baptist explicitly says the threshing floor would be “thoroughly cleared” of the chaff by that fire. Matthew 13:40-42 is part of Jesus’s explanation of the parable in 13:24-30 where the weeds7The weeds of the ESV are darnel, which was superficially similar to wheat early in the plant’s life cycle and when planted with wheat crops. sown by an opponent of the farmer are disposed of in a fire at the harvest of the wheat crop. As with chaff, the weeds are hardly the kind of thing capable of symbolizing the idea that the wicked would never be incinerated in a fire, and both are implicitly denied storage by contrast with the explicit storage of the wheat. Even more significantly, in his explanation of the parable in 13:40, Jesus uses language that leaves the reader in no doubt that the wicked will be incinerated in the eschaton just as the darnel are incinerated in the harvest fire.

Just (ὥσπερ, hōsper) as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so (οὕτως, houtōs) will it be at the close of the age.

Notice that I have included (ὥσπερ, hōsper) and οὕτως (houtōs) in the verse. This is because I wish to briefly discuss this word combination. When this combination of words is used in a Greek sentence the idea is to set up a contrast between two things to emphasize a similarity between the two. We should think of it as saying “just as this … so also that”. We see this in Matthew 12:40.

For just as (ὥσπερ) Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so (οὕτως) will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Here the point of similarity turns on the three days. Jonah was in the whale for three days and night and Jesus is saying this is exactly how long he will be dead before being resurrected.

We see it in John 5:21.

For as (ὥσπερ) the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so (οὕτως) also the Son gives life to whom he will.

Here the point is that the Son will resurrect people in the same way the Father does.

Even in examples that are more ambiguous like Matthew 24:27 the ὥσπερ (hōsper) clause governs how we are to read the οὕτως (houtōs) clause.

For as (ὥσπερ) the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so (οὕτως) will be the coming of the Son of Man.

In this instance, the parousia of the Son is like lightning in some way — perhaps that it will be openly visible.

Returning to Matt 13:40, Jesus’ point is “just as” (οὕτως, houtōs) the weeds in the parable would be incinerated in a fire at harvest time (cf. Matt 13:30), so also (οὕτως, houtōs) the all causes of sin and all lawbreakers will be incinerated in a fire at the end of the age (Matt 13:40-42). What happens to the weeds in the parable is what will happen to those who end up in the eschatalogical fire. Like chaff, weeds are hardly the ideal basis for communicating the idea that the wicked will survive that fire.

Furthermore, most commentators on Matthew point out that “throw them into the fiery furnace” (Matt 13:42) is an allusion to either Daniel 3 where Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are thrown into a superheated furnace or to Malachi 4:1 where the day of judgment is likened to a burning oven. In the case of Daniel 3, the fiery furnace is so hot that the guards who throw Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego into it are killed. As for Malachi 4:1 the burning oven will set the wicked ablaze so that “it will leave them neither root nor branch.” In case you think this verse only refers to earthly judgment, Joseph Dear discusses the reasons why Malachi 4:1-3 ought to be regarded as referring to the final judgment here.

Andrew Hill explains the significance of what is taught there,

The destruction of the wicked with the Hebrew community is absolute, reflected in the merism of root and branch, the extremities of a plant signifying its entirety. The metaphor highlights ‘the totality of the coming destruction, with its completeness made more evident through the burning even of the roots, which ordinarily do not succumb to a flash fire, being protected by the earth’.8Andrew E. Hill, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary, (Inter-Varsity Press: 2012), 358.

As it turns out, καίω (kaiō) is used in Daniel 3 and Malachi 4:1 to depict the ferocity of a fire that is superheated to ensure it completely consumes that which it burns. In the LXX of Malachi 4:1 there is the clause “burning (καίω, kaiō) like an oven)” and in the LXX of Daniel 3 there is the repetition of “into a burning (καίω, kaiō) fiery furnace” (Dan 3:6, 11, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 26). Although κατακαίω (katakaiō) can be more emphatic than καίω (kaiō), nevertheless this shows that in the OT source texts behind Jesus explanation of his parable in Matthew 13:40-42, and from the context of being “like the tares,” the word καίω (kaiō) carries the same strong sense of “incinerate” as κατακαίω (katakaiō). So there is every reason to think that Jesus intended to teach that the wicked would be incinerated like the tares in a fire at the end of the age.

But wait, you might ask, did not Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego survive the superheated fire uninjured by its flames? Yes. However, we are told that they were protected by a mysterious fourth figure (Dan 3:24-28) while the guards were killed just by going near its flames (Dan 3:22). We know that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were not incinerated in the superheated fire precisely because we are told so in no uncertain terms. We know the righteous will likewise be protected in a safe place (Mat 3:12; 13:30) and so will “shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father”(Mat 13:43; c.f. Dan 12:3; Mal 4:2). In contrast, we are told in no uncertain terms that all who are thrown into the eschatalogical fire at the end of this age will be incinerated by it (Mal 4:1; Mat 13:40-42).

Even traditionalists do not typically think that the wicked will be protected from that fire. For instance, Matt Slick states,

If there are weeping and gnashing of teeth, it must be something that the wicked experience. This means that the wicked undergoes some terrifying ordeal … the terrifying experience that is described by the weeping and gnashing of teeth would be of eternal conscious torment.9Matt Slick, ‘Annihilationism and Matthew 13:40-42, wicked are burned with fire’, https://carm.org/annihilationism/annihilationism-and-matthew-1340-42-wicked-are-burned-with-fire/, accessed 9/13/2022.

Likewise, Eldon Woodcock concludes,

It [the imagery of fire] also portrays conditions in Hell as a fury of fire and a “fiery furnace”–terrifying images. Their conscious pain prompts their weeping and gnashing of teeth, as their woeful reaction to their agony (Matt. 13:40-42).10Eldon Woodcock, Hell: An Exhaustive Look at a Burning Issue, Kindle ed., (WestBow Press, 2012), Kindle locations, 4553-4556

Even where a traditionalist emphasizes hell as separation there is still often an admission that the fire does affect the wicked in some way. See, for instance, Christopher Morgan,

Hell is exclusion/separation from the kingdom of God (13:40-41, 49-50); it is described as “the fire” (13:40; cf. 3:10-12), “the fiery furnace” (13:42, 50), and a place of suffering, and again depicted as a place “where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (13:42, 50; cf. 8:12).11Christopher W. Morgan, ‘Biblical Theology: Three Pictures of Hell’, in Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment, eds., Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A Peterson, Kindle ed. (Zondervan, 2007), Kindle locations, 3373-3381

Or, see William Crockett,

When Jesus talks about hell, he often uses gehenna and the hellenistic [Greek] term hades (Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23) to dramatize hell’s suffering. Behind these two words is the image of fire, a picture often used to describe hell in antiquity. In Matthew 13:49-50 Jesus talks about the Last Judgment …

Should we take these words as indicating a literal, fiery abyss? Or as a severe, though unspecified judgment awaiting the wicked?12William Crockett, ‘The Metaphorical View’, in Four Views on Hell, eds. Stanley N. Gundry and William Crockett, Kindle ed., (Zondervan, 1996), Kindle locations, 5736-5743.

So, traditionalists really do think the judgment fire will affect the wicked when they are thrown into it but they ignore the ways in which the Bible emphasizes that this fire will incinerate them (Matt 3:12; 13:40-42) ‘so that it will leave them neither root nor branch’ (Mal 4:1).

To be sure, Blanchard, Dixon, and Pawson are correct that God can cause a person or thing to be in a fire but not burn up. However, in Daniel 3:22 and Exodus 3:2, that was because of God’s supernatural intervention. We know this precisely because the language in those passages explicitly tells us the fire did not consume them.

Does the fire always consume that which it burns? No.The righteous are the exception to the rule because God will supernaturally intervene in some way to prevent the fire from doing what it would normally do.

When it comes to the fate of the unrighteous as described in Matthew 3:12 and 13:40 this is not the case. The language in these verses is explicit. It is unambiguous. It tells us that any unrighteous person thrown into that fire will be incinerated by it.

 

References
￪1 John Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell?, Kindle ed., (Evangelical Press, 1993), Kindle locations, 4241-54.
￪2 Stott’s argument was as follows:the fire itself is termed “eternal” and “unquenchable,” but it would be very odd if what is thrown into it proves indestructible. Our expectation would be the opposite: it would be consumed forever, not tormented forever. Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has done its work) that “rises forever and ever” (Rev 14: 11; cf. 19: 3). John R. W. Stott, ‘Judgment and Hell’, in Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism , Kindle ed.,(Cascade Books, 2014), Kindle Locations 1344-47.
￪3 Larry Dixon, The Other Side of the Good News: Confronting the Contemporary Challenges to Jesus’ Teaching on Hell, (Christian Focus Publications, 2003), 99.
￪4 David Pawson,The Road to Hell: Everlasting Torment or Annihilation?, Kindle ed., (Anchor Recordings, 2011), Kindle locations, 614-21.
￪5 Unless otherwise stated, the English translation used in this article will be the ESV.
￪6 William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, (Zondervan, 2006), 90; Cleon Rogers Jr. and Cleon Rogers III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, (Zondervan:1998), 6.
￪7 The weeds of the ESV are darnel, which was superficially similar to wheat early in the plant’s life cycle and when planted with wheat crops.
￪8 Andrew E. Hill, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary, (Inter-Varsity Press: 2012), 358.
￪9 Matt Slick, ‘Annihilationism and Matthew 13:40-42, wicked are burned with fire’, https://carm.org/annihilationism/annihilationism-and-matthew-1340-42-wicked-are-burned-with-fire/, accessed 9/13/2022.
￪10 Eldon Woodcock, Hell: An Exhaustive Look at a Burning Issue, Kindle ed., (WestBow Press, 2012), Kindle locations, 4553-4556
￪11 Christopher W. Morgan, ‘Biblical Theology: Three Pictures of Hell’, in Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment, eds., Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A Peterson, Kindle ed. (Zondervan, 2007), Kindle locations, 3373-3381
￪12 William Crockett, ‘The Metaphorical View’, in Four Views on Hell, eds. Stanley N. Gundry and William Crockett, Kindle ed., (Zondervan, 1996), Kindle locations, 5736-5743.