”THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED” IN MARK 9:48: ITS MEANING AND BACKGROUND (1)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The expression of “their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Gr. ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ, καὶ τὸ πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται) in Mark 9:48 had been a dispute since early Christian era. The expression which is quoted by Jesus from Isaiah 66:24 has been interpreted diversely by scholars. Modern biblical scholars have wrestled and debated on the phrase and have no consensus.

Most of biblical scholars interpret the expression to support the doctrine of immortality of the soul and conscious eternal punishment in hell. Scholars such as Morey,[1] William Hendriksen,^[2] Walvoord,[3] Jonathan Edwards,[4] John Jr MacArthur,^[5] Allen Black,^[6] Robert G. Bratcher^[7] and  are among of those who favor such kind of interpretation as Robert H. Gundry states that the worms and the fire feed forever on the body of the damned.[8] Motyer views the worm as “ceaseless corruption” and the fire as “unending holy wrath” of God.[9]  Henry Barclay states, “ like the fire, the worm is undying: “the wounds inflicted on the man himself by his sins, the degradation and deterioration of his being, have no limitations of time.”[10] Robert Morey states that the view of the eternal torment consciously in hell is major nowadays and all orthodox theologians pointed out it repeatedly.^[11]

However a number of scholars refute such interpretation. They assert that the expression does not mean as an eternal punishment in hell. John Stott,[12] Philip Hughes,[13] Edward Fugde,[14] John Wenham,[15] LeRoy Edwin Froom,[16] John Barton,^[17] and Clark H. Pinnock[18] propose that the souls of wicked will not be tormented forever in hell but destroyed or annihilated in the final judgment. It is the consequences of punishment that will be eternal.

Among those of the church father, the views were various. Justin Martin, one of the church fathers, refutes the view of eternal torment in hell and asserts that such interpretation is influenced by Platonism.[19]

 The basic reasons why there are different interpretations because of the different approaches of understanding the Greek word γέενναν as the antecedent of the expression as well as the translation of worm (Gr. σκώληξ) which is translated into English as a hell in most bible translation. Generally the word γέενναν is understood as a place of punishment.

 Some scholars such as Warren W. Wiersbe[20] and Craig A. Evans[21]  interpret gehenna literally that it refers to valley of Hinnom the word which approximately transliterates the Aramaic גיהנם gêhinnām. Other scholars interpret gehenna methaporically as Barnes says, “it is not to be supposed that there will be any real worm in hell--perhaps no material fire”^[22] and Lamar Williamson states that the language is figurative and hyperbolic.^[23] William Crocked believes that gehenna is a place where the spirit and the body are united at the resurrection. 

Statement of the Problem

            What is the meaning and background of the expression “their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” in Mark 9:48? Does it mean that the death person is tormented forever consciously in hell? What is the meaning of gehenna “hell” according biblical understanding? 

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the meaning and background of the expression, “their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” in Mark 9:48, since there are some disputes among the scholars. There is a necessity research and study of the biblical exegesis to understand the meaning of the expression.

Delimitations

This paper is delimited on the investigation of the meaning of “their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” in Mark 9:48 in the context of Mark 9:42-50 and its background in Isaiah 66:24.

Methodology

This research uses grammatical historical method to answer the statement of the problem above. The steps of the study are: 1) Discuss the literary context such as authorship, structure and setting, 2) Examine its lexical-grammatical, and 3) investigate the background of gehenna intertextualy and in extra-biblical sources. Finally summary and conclusion will be made. 

---

[1] Robert A. Morey, Death and the Afterlife, Includes Indexes. (Minneapolis, Minn: Bethany House, 1984), 91.

^[2]William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, vol. 10, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark, Accompanying Biblical Text Is Author's Translation., New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 366.

[3]John F. Walvoord, “The Literal View,” in Four Views on Hell, ed. William Crockett (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 11–28.

[4]Jonathan Edwards, in John Gerster, Jonathan Edwards on Heaven and Hell (Grand rapids: Baker, 1980), 56.

^[5]John Jr MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, electronic ed. (Nashville: Word Pub., 1997, c1997), Mk 9:43.

^[6]Allen Black, Mark, The College Press NIV commentary (Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub. Co., 1995), Mk 9:43.

^[7]Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, Originally Published: A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, 1961., UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993], c1961), 304.

[8] Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdsmans Publishing Company, 1993), 526.

[9] J. Alec Motyer, the prophesy of Isaiah (Downer Grove, III: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 544.

[10] The Gospel According to St. Mark. The Greek Text With Introduction, Notes and Indices, ed. Henry Barclay Swete (London; New York: MacMillan and co., limited; The MacMillan company, 1898), 212.

^[11]Robert A. Morey, Death and the Afterlife, Includes Indexes. (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House, 1984), 202.

[12] David L. Edwards and John R. W. Stott, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), 312-20.

[13] Philip Hughes, The True Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 398

[14] Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes (Fallbrook, CA: Verdict Publications, 1982),

[15] John Wenham, The Goodness of God (London: Inter-Varsity, 1974), 27-41

[16]LeRoy Edwin Froom The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol.1, (Washington, DC: The Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1965), 301

^[17]John Barton and John Muddiman, Oxford Bible Commentary (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), Mk 9:42-50.

[18] Clark H. Pinnock, The Conditional View, in Four Views on Hell, ed. by William Crockett (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 135-66.

[19] James Hasting, Encyclopedia of Religion and Etihcs v.3 (Edinburg: T. & T. Clark, 1974)

[20] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, "An Exposition of the New Testament Comprising the Entire 'BE' Series"--Jkt. (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1996, c1989), Mk 9:30.

[21] Craig A. Evans, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 8:27-16:20, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 72.

^[22]Albert Barnes, Barnes NT Commentary (Joseph Kreifels), Mk 9:44.

^[23]Lamar Williamson, Mark, Interpretation, a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching (Atlanta, Ga.: J. Knox Press, 1983), 171.