A Quick Examination of Matthew 10:28
As an annihilationist, whenever I’m asked which verse most clearly teaches my view, my lips—almost reflexively at this point—immediately begin to recite Matthew 10:28:
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Depending on the type of interlocutor, my recitation elicits different types of responses. But regardless of which type I’m speaking to, everyone at least admits that, on the surface, Matthew 10:28 sounds like it teaches my view. That said, it really doesn’t matter how far beneath the surface one wants to dig; the exegetical shovel does nothing but uncover golden reasons to take the verse the way it sounds on the surface.
Firstly, in the rest of Matthew and the other synoptic Gospels, whenever the word translated “destroy” (apollymi) is used in the active voice as a transitive verb describing an action done to a personal agent (like in Matthew 10:28), the word always means “slay” (i.e., “kill” but in a more emphatic way – Matt 2:13; 12:14; 21:41; 22:7; 27:20; Luke 17:27; 17:29; 19:47; 20:16; Mark 3:6; 11:18; 12:9).
Secondly, the word translated “kill” in Matthew 10:28 is apokteinō, and when we look to the Septuagint, we see that whenever apokteinō and apollymi are used in proximity and share the aforementioned semantic features, apollymi invariably means “slay” (e.g., Gen. 18:24-25 LXX; Esther 9:15-16 LXX; Dan. 2:24 LXX; etc.).
Thirdly, whereas Mark 3:4 records Jesus asking, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill (apokteinō)?”, Luke 6:9 records him saying, “I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy (apollymi) it? Evidently, what Jesus meant was communicable with either word.
At this juncture, though some still try to argue for a different meaning of the word by appealing to other, less-than-pertinent uses of apollymi, some concede the meaning and instead make a beeline for the fact that the verse merely says that God “can” slay both soul and body, not that God will do so. Though I could say more in response to this point, it suffices to point out that in Matthew 10:39, Jesus goes on to say that “whoever finds his psychē will apollymi it.” For those unaware, the word translated “soul” in Matthew 10:28 is also psychē, so what Jesus said God can do to the psychē, we explicitly know he will do to it.
Once this is pointed out, the move is often to sidestep Matthew 10:28 altogether and try to prove me wrong by showing that some other verse in the Bible teaches eternal torment. The reasoning goes something like: “I can’t explain Matthew 10:28, but this other verse teaches eternal torment, and since Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, your reading of Matthew 10:28 can’t be right.” But of course, the sword cuts both ways. So, even if they could somehow show that another verse taught eternal torment, I could simply employ the same reasoning and we’d be at an impasse. However, I wouldn’t need to employ such reasoning because to be deep in exegesis is to cease to be a traditionalist. No traditionalist proof text in Scripture can withstand conditionalist scrutiny.
Introducing 4 Maccabees: What Can Traditionalists Draw from It?
That also goes for 4 Maccabees 13:14-15. Only a handful of traditionalists are even aware that this non-canonical book contains some support for a traditionalist understanding of Matthew 10:28—at least, on the surface. According to the Lexham Bible Dictionary, “the work must have been composed around the middle of the first century.” For the sake of argument, I am happy to grant that it was not only written prior to Matthew, but prior to when Jesus spoke the words recorded therein. Not only so, but I’ll even grant that Jesus had 4 Maccabees 13:14-15 in mind when he spoke said words. Here’s how the passage reads:
Let us not fear him who thinks he is killing us, [15] for great is the struggle of the soul and the danger of eternal torment (aiōnios basanos) lying before those who transgress the commandment of God.
There’s certainly no disputing that the passage resembles Matthew 10:28. But is that cause for throwing out the solid exegetical basis for understanding Matthew 10:28 the way we annihilationists do? Most certainly not. Even if this passage actually taught that the wicked will be tormented without end—and we’ll see why it most reasonably doesn’t in a moment—I still don’t think traditionalists could reasonably conclude that Matthew 10:28 teaches their view. The best way to harmonize every data point, I think, would be to conclude that Jesus likely appreciated the basic framing of 4 Maccabees 13:14-15 (one ought to fear God for what he can do rather than fear man for what he can do), but adapted it by specifying a different punishment, namely destruction, to set the record straight concerning what awaits the wicked. In other words, Matthew 10:28 could easily be taken as a kind of drive-by polemic against the teaching of 4 Maccabees 13:15.
Eternal Torment Doesn’t Refer to… Eternal Torment?
OK, don’t get me wrong: I know this sounds absurd on the surface. We at Rethinking Hell ceaselessly refer to the traditional view as “the eternal torment view,” and here I am saying that a passage that explicitly contains the phrase “eternal torment” (aiōnios basanos) doesn’t actually communicate “the eternal torment view.” Not only so, but in Part 1 of my series of articles in response to Trent Horn, I wrote:
Trent begins by rightly representing what we conditionalists believe, saying that our view is “the view that God destroys the damned in hell instead of allowing them to experience eternal torment.” Firstly, it is at least interesting to note that to describe our view, Trent says that God destroys the damned, which seems to indicate that when he is not seeking to reconcile the Bible’s language of destruction with other texts that he understands to be teaching eternal torment, he implicitly acknowledges that such language communicates what our view teaches. When interpreting a verse like 2 Thessalonians 1:9, however, Trent is forced to oppose the evident meaning of the word.
Yikes. Am I being a hypocrite here? Is my consistent use of the phrase “eternal torment” to refer to the traditional view an “[implicit acknowledgment] that such language communicates what [the traditional] view teaches”? Am I “forced to oppose the evident meaning” of the phrase in 4 Maccabees 13:15? No, no, and no. First of all, I, here and now, explicitly acknowledge that the phrase “eternal torment” can communicate what the traditional view teaches—but that’s not the only thing it can reasonably communicate (more on this further down). In passages like 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and Matthew 10:28, the destruction language only reasonably communicates annihilation. Second of all, 4 Maccabees is not infallible Scripture, and even if it taught that the wicked will be tormented forever and ever, no reasonable conclusion could be drawn from 13:14-15 to undermine the solid exegetical basis for understanding Matthew 10:28 the way we annihilationists do, so I’m not forced whatsoever. Suggesting that the phrase means something different in 4 Maccabees than what it means in common parlance is not a necessary move for me to remain an annihilationist—nor even a remotely important one. Writing this article, for me, is just a funny opportunity to demonstrate how even the phrase “eternal torment” does not necessarily refer to… eternal torment.
Reasons to Question the Meaning of Eternal Torment in 4 Maccabees…
Let me be more specific: when I say that the phrase “eternal torment” does not only reasonably communicate what the traditional view teaches, I mean that there is more to be considered than merely the individual meanings of the words “eternal” and “torment.” This should become increasingly clear as we go along, especially when we get to the point of considering how a similar, related phrase is used. That said, I freely grant that if you simply take the words “eternal” and “torment” and put them together, it could very well refer to torment that goes on forever, as the traditional view teaches. No question about it. But is that what it refers to in 4 Maccabees? What do we discover when we pull out our trusty exegetical shovel to dig beneath the surface? Do we uncover reasons to stick with an interpretation in line with the traditional view? I don’t think so. Instead, we uncover at least four reasons to think that the phrase “eternal torment,” i.e. aiōnios basanos, likely, and surprisingly, communicates our view.
Immortality and Life for the Righteous
In order to be tormented forever, one must necessarily be immortal. Put another way, immortality is a prerequisite for being tormented forever. However, the impression one gets from reading 4 Maccabees is that immortality and endless life are reserved only for the righteous. Indeed, in 4 Maccabees 17:9-12, which sums up well the account recorded throughout the book, we read:
“Here lie buried an aged priest and an aged woman and seven sons, because of the violence of the tyrant who wished to destroy the way of life of the Hebrews. They vindicated their nation, looking to God and enduring torture even to death.”
Truly the contest in which they were engaged was divine, for on that day virtue gave the awards and tested them for their endurance. The prize was immortality in endless life.
Unless one has 21st-century participation ribbons in mind, it is quite evident that to call immortality (aphtharsia) in endless life (polychronios zōē) a “prize” implies that it is only reserved for winners. To quote Paul, “Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it” (1 Cor. 9:24). In this case, “virtue gave the awards,” meaning that they were deemed winners for refusing to renounce virtue, even unto death (cf. Rev. 2:10-11). Three chapters earlier, in keeping with Paul’s race analogy, 4 Maccabees 14:4-5 says: “None of the seven youths proved coward or shrank from death, but all of them, as though running the course toward immortality (athanasia), hastened to death by torture.”
Concerning the eldest son, we read: “Although the ligaments joining his bones were already severed, the courageous youth, worthy of Abraham, did not groan, but as though transformed by fire into immortality, he nobly endured the rackings” (4 Macc. 9:21-22). The image is one of a metal being refined by fire; the fire with which they were burning the youth to death, as it were, resulted in him coming out of it immortal, since he died faithful to the religion God instituted. More to the point, 4 Maccabees 15:2-3 states: “Two courses were open to this mother, that of religion, and that of preserving her seven sons for a time (proskairos), as the tyrant had promised. She loved religion more, the religion that preserves them for eternal life (aiōnios zōē) according to God’s promise.”
Consonant with this, the fourth son, refusing to obey the tyrant’s call to renounce his religion, said to those who dragged him in: “You do not have a fire hot enough to make me play the coward. No—by the blessed death of my brothers, by the eternal destruction of the tyrant, and by the everlasting life (aidios bios) of the pious, I will not renounce our noble family ties.” (More on the tyrant’s eternal destruction later)
In sum, 4 Maccabees presents immortality in endless life as a prize according to God’s promise for those who do not renounce their religion to the end of their lives (in this case, Judaism, prior to the new covenant). Unless we wish to say that immortality in endless life—”the prize of virtue” (4 Macc 9:8)—is also given to the impious, it seems like we have a solid reason for doubting that aiōnios basanos refers to torment that persists for eternity. Indeed, without immortality, one is bound to die.
Basanos’ed to Death
Having considered what 4 Maccabees has to say about immortality, another point worth considering is how basanos, i.e. torment, is consistently linked to death throughout the book. Indeed, consider again 4 Maccabees 14:4-5:
None of the seven youths proved coward or shrank from death, but all of them, as though running the course toward immortality, hastened to death by torture (thanatos dia basanos).
Basanos is here explicitly identified as the means through which death was inflicted upon the seven youths. Similarly, in 4 Maccabees 13:27, this time using the verb form of basanos, we read: “But although nature and companionship and virtuous habits had augmented the affection of family ties, those who were left endured for the sake of religion, while watching their brothers being maltreated and tortured to death (basanizō mechri thanatos).
In 4 Maccabees 6:27, 30, it says: ”You know, O God, that though I might have saved myself, I am dying in burning torments (basanos) for the sake of the law… After he said this, the holy man died nobly in his tortures (basanos); even in the tortures (basanos) of death he resisted, by virtue of reason, for the sake of the law.” As yet another example, 4 Maccabees 7:16 reads: “If, therefore, because of piety an aged man despised tortures (basanos) even to death, most certainly devout reason is governor of the emotions.”
I could stop here, but why not another example? In 4 Maccabees 9:5-8, we read: “You are trying to terrify us by threatening us with death by torture (basanos), as though a short time ago you learned nothing from Eleazar. And if the aged men of the Hebrews because of their religion lived piously while enduring torture, it would be even more fitting that we young men should die despising your coercive tortures (basanos), which our aged instructor also overcame. Therefore, tyrant, put us to the test; and if you take our lives because of our religion, do not suppose that you can injure us by torturing (basanizō) us. For we, through this severe suffering and endurance, shall have the prize of virtue and shall be with God, on whose account we suffer…”
More examples of this close conceptual link can easily be multiplied (4 Macc 11:1; 12:13-14; 16:1; 17:7; 17:10; 18:20-21), but the above should suffice to establish the point: in 4 Maccabees, basanos is repeatedly either said to culminate in death, or to cause it. Taking this into consideration, and pairing this consideration with the notion that immortality is a prize reserved for the righteous, could it be the case that aiōnios basanos culminates in death?
The Eternal Destruction of the Tyrant
The exegetical shovel is not yet done digging. While the previous two puzzle pieces alone seem to suggest that aiōnios basanos results in death, the fourth son also gives us an interesting puzzle piece. Consider again his words to the torturers in 4 Maccabees 10:14-15:
You do not have a fire hot enough to make me play the coward. No—by the blessed death of my brothers, by the eternal destruction (aiōnios olethros) of the tyrant, and by the everlasting life of the pious, I will not renounce our noble family ties.
On the surface, “eternal destruction” certainly seems to lend itself to the case I’ve been making so far. If a person is basanos’ed to death and remains dead forever, it seems reasonable to call that an eternal destruction. Indeed, in 3 Maccabees 6:34, we read of people who were “appointed… for destruction (olethros) and to be food for the birds,” clearly meaning that they were appointed to be slain. Consonant with that use of the word, we read the following in 2 Maccabees 13:6-8: “There the whole community pushes one who is liable for sacrilege or those guilty of other excessive evils to their destruction (olethros). So it happened that the lawless one, Menelaus, died such a death and did not happen to have ⌊a burial⌋. This was altogether just for, given that he performed many sins with respect to the altar, of which the fire and the ashes were holy, he received his death in ashes.”
The only other place besides 4 Maccabees 10:15 where the phrase aiōnios olethros can be found is actually in the New Testament. Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, says:
and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire (en pyri flogos), inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction (aiōnios olethros) from the presence of the Lord (apo prosōpou tou kyriou) and from the glory of his might…
Much can be said about this passage, and all of it can help us confirm the meaning of aiōnios olethros. For one, it bears a striking similarity to a certain passage from Psalms of Solomon, a pseudepigraphal collection of Jewish psalms written in the first century BC with which Paul was probably familiar as a well-read Pharisee. After all, Paul even evinces a level of familiarity with pagan writings while pleading his case for Christianity before the Areopagus in Acts 17. Indeed, it seems most likely to me that Paul had these psalms in mind while putting pen to paper and chose to borrow some of their language. Here is Psalm of Solomon 12:5, 8:
may a slanderous tongue be destroyed (apoloito) by the holy ones with the fire of flame (en pyri flogos)… and may sinners be destroyed (apolointo) from the face of the Lord (apo prosōpou kyriou)…
Apoloito and apolointo are simply different forms of the verb apollymi (the word we saw earlier that means “slay” in Matthew 10:28), just like how “think, thought, or thinking” are forms of the same verb, and these all come from the same root word: olethros. Now, given that Paul seemingly alludes to what Psalms of Solomon says about the fate of the wicked, it seems reasonable to conclude that Paul agrees with what it teaches on this matter, and that we can therefore reasonably confirm the meaning of aiōnios olethros by considering what the psalms mean by the words Paul borrowed.
In the following chapter of Psalms of Solomon, chapter 13, we read the following in verses 9-10: “For the life of the righteous is for eternity. But sinners will be removed into destruction (apōleian – root: olethros), and their memory will no longer be found.” On one hand, the righteous live forever, while on the other hand, the unrighteous are destroyed, never to live again. Indeed, back in Ps Sol 2:35, we are told that God “puts the arrogant to sleep for destruction of eternity (apōleian aiōnos),” a phrase practically synonymous with aiōnios olethros, and even simply translated “eternal destruction” by the Lexham English Septuagint. Lastly, in Ps Sol 3:11-16, we read:
The sinner stumbled and curses his life, the day of his birth and the labor pangs of his mother. He added sins upon sins to his life. He fell, because his downfall was wicked, and he will not arise. The destruction (apoleia) of the sinner is for eternity… This is the portion of the sinners for eternity. But those who fear the Lord will arise into eternal life, and their life will never come to an end in the light of the Lord.
Here, more of the same notion is set forth: the destruction of the wicked is contrasted with the never-ending life of the righteous, meaning that the wicked will forever remain deprived of life as a result of their destruction. This is certainly what Irenaeus of Lyons, writing around 185 AD, understood Paul to mean in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, who paraphrased the verse this way in Against Heresies 4.33.11: “And the apostle in like manner says [of them], ‘Who shall be punished with everlasting death from the face of the Lord…’”
In the second volume of his monumental Hermeneia commentary on 1 Enoch, George W. E. Nickelsburg draws a connection between 1 Enoch 58:3 and the Ps Sol passage above. Here is what the 1 Enoch passage says:
The righteous will be in the light of the sun,
and the chosen, in the light of everlasting life.
The days of their life will have no end,
and the days of the holy will be innumerable.
“The second line of the distich,” Nickelsburg writes, “ties the light imagery to the newly introduced motif of everlasting life. For the same cluster of motifs, see [Ps Sol 3:11-16].” The similar teachings, however, don’t end there. For example, when Ps Sol 2:35 says that God “puts the arrogant to sleep,” it’s evident that this means that “worms shall be their bed,” as 1 Enoch 46:6 says. What’s more, in the very next line of 1 Enoch 46:6, the author adds that “they shall have no hope of rising from their beds,” just like Ps Sol 3 above, which says that the sinner “will not arise,” in contrast with God-fearers who will arise to endless life. Of relevance to this present section, however, is 1 Enoch 84:5’s use of the phrase “eternal destruction.” Here’s the verse:
And now, O God and Lord and Great King,
I implore and beseech Thee to fulfil my prayer,
To leave me a posterity on earth,
And not destroy all the flesh of man,
And make the earth without inhabitant,
So that there should be an eternal destruction.
This translation of the verse is by Robert Henry Charles in his Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Although I don’t have access to the original language, there seems to be no reason to doubt that “eternal destruction” is an accurate translation of the phrase, seeing that the phrase is also translated this way by James H. Charlesworth in his The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, and by George W. E. Nickelsburg in the first volume of his monumental Hermeneia commentary on 1 Enoch. Nickelsburg notes that his “translation is as literal as possible within the limits of good English usage.” He also assures us that his “fresh English translation is supplied with a full apparatus of all significant variant readings in the Ethiopic manuscripts, the manuscripts that preserve parts of the Greek version, and the Qumran Aramaic fragments.” Relevant to the verse in question, he makes no mention of any variant reading of 1 Enoch 84:5.
So, what we have is a phrase with no variant reading that’s been translated “eternal destruction” by a highly competent translator whose “translation is as literal as possible,” and by two other highly competent translators. Now, in 1 Enoch 84:5, the meaning of “eternal destruction” is quite evident from what leads up to it. Eternal destruction, in this passage, is what would result if God destroyed all the flesh of man and made the earth without inhabitant, and left Enoch without posterity. With all mankind destroyed and nobody left to procreate, you get an eternal destruction; i.e. no more humans from that point onward.
Let’s sum up what we’ve seen in this section. First, when we look at the couple other uses of olethros in previous Maccabean literature in punitive contexts, we see that the word refers to being slain. Second, the Greek phrase aiōnios olethros is only used one time outside of 4 Maccabees 10:15, namely in 2 Thessalonians 1:9. When we consider the Psalms of Solomon, which Paul seems to allude to in this verse, we see that they use a very similar phrase (apōleian aionos) to describe the result of when God “puts the arrogant to sleep.” The Psalms of Solomon also contrast the “destruction… for eternity” of the unrighteous with the “eternal life… [that] will never come to an end” of the righteous, much like what we see in 4 Maccabees 10:15. And third, the phrase “eternal destruction” in 1 Enoch 84:5 unambiguously refers to permanent extinction.
Putting all of these pieces together, namely that immortality in endless life is the prize of virtue, that basanos repeatedly culminates in or causes death throughout the book, and that eternal destruction most reasonably refers to permanent extinction, it’s seeming harder and harder to maintain that aiōnios basanos should be understood as an eternity of torment.
How Should We Understand the Phrase Aiōnios Basanos?
This is the question that needs an answer. Knowing that basanos means “torment,” it seems only natural that aiōnios basanos would refer to torment that goes on forever. After all, we take aiōnios zōē to refer to life that goes on forever, and aiōnios olethros as permanent destruction. Although some annihilationists and universalists (and even traditionalists) claim that aiōnios can mean something like “belonging to the aiōn to come”—which doesn’t speak to a thing’s duration but to when it’s set to take place—I don’t think this suggestion is borne out by the evidence. Aside from the fact that aiōnios consistently denotes duration throughout the Septuagint and the New Testament, one of the main biblical passages that causes me to reject this claim is Luke 18:30, which speaks of those who will “receive… aiōnios life in the aiōn to come.” If aiōnios meant “belonging to the aiōn to come,” then the words “in the aiōn to come” would be redundant. Jesus would be saying that people will “receive… life belonging to the aiōn to come in the aiōn to come.” It seems much more reasonable to think that aiōnios speaks to the duration of life in the aiōn to come, since the words “in the aiōn to come” already tell us the aiōn to which “life” belongs. As it is, I’m convinced that aiōnios is best defined as “everlasting” or “perpetual,” and that’s what we will (continue to) assume going forward.
Who Can Dwell With Everlasting Burnings?
Earlier in the article, I wrote that we would “get to the point of considering how a similar, related phrase is used.” Well, we’ve now reached that point. The related phrase in question is “eternal fire” (aiōnios pyr), which is used a total of three times in the New Testament. Before briefly considering each instance, however, I want to turn our attention to a practically identical phrase in Isaiah 33:12-14:
And the peoples will be burned to lime,
like thorns cut down, that are burned in the fire.
[13] Hear, you who are far off, what I have done;
and you who are near, acknowledge my might.
[14] The sinners in Zion are afraid;
trembling has seized the godless:
“Who among us can dwell with the consuming fire?
Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings (môqeḏê ʿôlām)?”
Convenient for my case, the passage not only asks a pertinent question but also offers a pertinent answer. In verse 14, the sinners in Zion ask: “Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?” The word ʿôlām, translated “everlasting” here, is the Hebrew equivalent of aiōnios, reflected in the fact that the Septuagint routinely translates it as such. Significantly, the implied answer to the question is that none of them can dwell with everlasting burnings; the consuming fire of God will burn the peoples to lime. Unless one’s mind is permeated with the idea that the wicked will be tormented forever and ever in Hell, no rational, thinking person would answer the question any differently. Nobody can withstand day-long burnings, never mind everlasting ones.
No One Can Dwell With Aiōnios Burnings; Aiōnios Fire Awaits the Unrighteous; Therefore…
Now, a bit of logic can go a long way, especially when each premise is taken directly from Scripture. Knowing from Isaiah 33:14 that no one can dwell with aiōnios burnings, and from Jude 7, Matthew 18:8 and Matthew 25:41 that aiōnios fire awaits the unrighteous, it’s only logical to conclude that the unrighteous will be unable to dwell with aiōnios fire. That said, let’s now examine Jude 7, Matthew 18:8 and Matthew 25:41 more closely to confirm the line of logic I’ve just presented.
Jude 7 says that “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities… serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of aiōnios fire,” referring to the fire by which Sodom and Gomorrah were reduced to ashes in Genesis 19. Indeed, Peter, in a parallel passage (2 Pet. 2:6), says that “by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly.” Similar to these two is 3 Maccabees 2:5, which reads: “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.” Evidently, to speak of Sodom and Gomorrah undergoing aiōnios fire isn’t to speak of them being tormented by fire for eternity, but to speak of them being eradicated.
In Matthew 18:8, Jesus says it’s better to get rid of body parts that cause us to sin and enter life than to get thrown into aiōnios fire with all our members intact, implying that it’s better for only part of us to be gone than for all of us to be gone. This is how Irenaeus interpreted the verse in Against Heresies 4.27.4, writing: “And just as then, those who led vicious lives, and put other people astray, were condemned and cast out, so also even now the offending eye is plucked out, and the foot and the hand, lest the rest of the body perish in like manner.” Again, aiōnios fire eradicates those thrown into it.
Lastly, in Matthew 25:41, the threat of aiōnios fire is quickly followed by Jesus contrasting the fate of the wicked with that of the righteous, saying: “And these will go away into aiōnios punishment, but the righteous into aiōnios life.” Since both fates are presented as mutually exclusive, it follows that the fate of the wicked doesn’t involve living forever, contrary to what the traditional view posits.
Seeing that all the evidence in Scripture points to the fact that aiōnios fire and burnings destroy their subjects, how are we to understand the phrase “aiōnios fire”? Well, what if we understand it in a manner consistent with how we understand the phrase aiōnios olethros? If destruction is the result of destroying, then to speak of everlasting destruction is to speak of an act of destroying whose effect (or consequence) is everlasting. That being the case, it seems reasonable to take it that everlasting fire is everlasting in that its effect (or consequence) is everlasting.
One might object by saying that the effects of the fire that consumed the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are not actually everlasting because those whom God destroyed will rise to face God on the last day; and that, therefore, Jude must not mean that everlasting fire is everlasting in that its effect is everlasting. To this, I would say (1) that even if this objection were granted, it still wouldn’t suddenly justify taking eternal fire as not deadly, and (2) that this objection is bad in that it’s overly granular: even if the inhabitants of these cities rise, their resurrection obviously isn’t an act of restoration or reversal; it isn’t designed to undo the damage that was done to them. Rather, it is designed to confirm their guilt before the righteous Judge of the world before returning to where they belong: in the dust of the earth. All things considered, it makes perfect sense to take it that the fire Jude mentions is everlasting in that its effect is everlasting.
Aiōnios Fire Kills; Aiōnios Basanos Is inflicted by Fire; Therefore…
Convenient again for my case, 4 Maccabees inextricably ties aiōnios basanos with fire. Consider 4 Maccabees 9:8-9:
For we, through this severe suffering and endurance, shall have the prize of virtue and shall be with God, on whose account we suffer; but you, because of your bloodthirstiness toward us, will deservedly undergo from the divine justice eternal torment by fire (aiōnios basanos dia pyr).
Knowing that the prize of virtue is immortality in endless life (4 Macc 17:12), it only makes sense to understand aiōnios basanos by fire to be a deadly punishment. To conclude otherwise, one has to imply that the author is too foolish to realize that for the tyrant to be tormented forever and ever, he would also have to receive the prize of virtue, namely immortality in endless life. The principle of charity, I think, ought to dissuade anyone from following such a course. The existence of a verse like Jude 7, where “aiōnios fire” refers to the fire that “condemned [Sodom and Gomorrah] to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly” (cf. 2 Peter 2:6; 3 Macc 2:5), makes it highly plausible that the author thought of aiōnios basanos as a deadly punishment with which no one can dwell; torment that is everlasting in that its effect—death—is everlasting.
Dealing With Two Final Verses
To tie a bow on my case, I want to address two more passages in 4 Maccabees that, at face value, may leave folks scratching their heads, wondering how my case can still hold up in light of them.
4 Maccabees 12:12
Dealing with this verse first, I think, will lead to a smooth transition to the second verse. That said, let’s turn our gaze toward 4 Maccabees 12:12, which contains the seventh son’s words to the tyrant and deserves some time in the spotlight:
Because of this, justice has laid up for you intense and aiōnios fire and tortures, and these eis holon ton aiōna will never let you go.
At this point, the phrase “aiōnios fire and tortures” should no longer be taken as problematic for my case—at least, not by itself. But what about the rest of the verse? Doesn’t it suggest that perhaps the author really did believe that aiōnios fire and tortures can be dwelt with, and that they will in fact be dwelt with for all eternity? In the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible with Apocrypha, the phrase “eis holon ton aiōna” is translated “throughout all time.” Though I’ve been using the NRSV’s translation of 4 Maccabees throughout this article, I think “throughout all time” misses the mark. It’s not that it couldn’t mean that in isolation, or even in a different context, but that every plank in the case I’ve laid out so far suggests that it cannot mean “throughout all time.” Having said that, the question of what it does mean now naturally arises. Frankly, I think the answer is rather easy to figure out. First, let’s consider the passage leading up to verse 12:
When [the sixth] too, thrown into the caldron, had died a blessed death, the seventh and youngest of all came forward. [2] Even though the tyrant had been vehemently reproached by the brothers, he felt strong compassion for this child when he saw that he was already in fetters. He summoned him to come nearer and tried to persuade him, saying, [3] “You see the result of your brothers’ stupidity, for they died in torments because of their disobedience. [4] You too, if you do not obey, will be miserably tortured and die before your time, [5] but if you yield to persuasion you will be my friend and a leader in the government of the kingdom.” [6] When he had thus appealed to him, he sent for the boy’s mother to show compassion on her who had been bereaved of so many sons and to influence her to persuade the surviving son to obey and save himself. [7] But when his mother had exhorted him in the Hebrew language, as we shall tell a little later, [8] he said, “Let me loose, let me speak to the king and to all his friends that are with him.” [9] Extremely pleased by the boy’s declaration, they freed him at once. [10] Running to the nearest of the braziers, [11] he said, “You profane tyrant, most impious of all the wicked, since you have received good things and also your kingdom from God, were you not ashamed to murder his servants and torture on the wheel those who practice religion? [12] Because of this, justice has laid up for you intense and eternal fire and tortures, and these eis holon ton aiōna will never let you go.
In verses 3-4, we read that the first six brothers died as a result of torment. In verse 2, the tyrant has compassion on the seventh brother and gives him a chance to escape being tortured to death, which, in verse 8, results in the boy tricking the tyrant into thinking he would comply with his demands by asking him to be let loose. In verse 9, having been tricked, the tyrant’s lackeys freed the boy, but rather than complying, he scolded the tyrant. He told him that, unlike in his own case, God would not give him an opportunity to escape being tormented—and much less free him from his fetters—but would instead subject him to inescapable aiōnios fire and tortures. Presumably, what the boy envisions is that these inescapable tortures will ensure that the tyrant dies, as did his brothers. Having now considered the passage leading up to verse 12, can we now figure out a reasonable way of understanding the phrase “eis holon ton aiōna” that fits with eternal fire and tortures slaying the tyrant?
As it turns out, we can. In the Lexham English Septuagint (LES), for example, Exodus 21:5-6 reads as follows: “But if in reply the male servant says, ‘I have come to love my master and my wife and my children. I do not want to depart a free man,’ then his master will bring him to the place of God’s judgment and will bring him up to the door, up to the doorpost, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl, and so he will serve him throughout his life (eis ton aiōna).” Even though the phrase eis ton aiōna may literally mean “for eternity,” it is clear that it is being used as a sort of idiomatic expression meaning something like, “as long as he lives,” starting from the moment the slave’s ear is pierced. Similarly, in 1 Samuel 27:12 LXX we read: “And David was trusted by Achish completely, saying, ‘He has dishonored himself with shame among his people in Israel, and he will be a servant for me always (eis ton aiōna).’” Again, the expression here doesn’t mean that Achish expected David to serve him forever as if they would both never die, but that he would serve as long as they lived. It seems fair to conclude, then, that even if a phrase like eis ton aiōna means “for eternity,” it doesn’t preclude it from being used idiomatically.
So, in line with this, I think that eis holon ton aiōna in 4 Maccabees 12:12 refers to however long the tyrant remains alive, starting from the moment the torment begins. Thus, if I were to translate the verse according to the functional equivalence theory of translation, I would render it this way: “Because of this, justice has laid up for you intense fire and tortures of everlasting consequence, and these, as long as you live, will never let you go.”
4 Maccabees 10:11
This verse, preceding the fourth brother’s mention of eternal destruction by only four verses, records what the third brother, moments before dying, promised the tyrant would befall him:
We, most abominable tyrant, are suffering because of our godly training and virtue, [11] but you, because of your impiety and bloodthirstiness, will undergo unceasing torments (akatalytous basanous).
In the passage we just finished examining, recall that the boy said to the tyrant, “Let me loose” (12:8), and that his lackeys “freed him” (12:9). Relevant to the present verse, both instances translate the same Greek verb, lyō, which just so happens to be the root of akatalytous, translated here as “unceasing.” 4 Maccabees also happens to use the verb katalyō, which is even more closely related to akatalytous, the latter simply being the negative, adjectival form of the former. In 4 Maccabees 4:24, for example, we read that the tyrant “had not been able in any way to put an end to (katalyō) the people’s observance of the law.” Indeed, the renowned Greek-English lexicon BDAG lists “put an end to” as one of the definitions of katalyō. With that in mind, it seems to me that “unceasing” isn’t a very good translation of akatalytous. A far better translation, I think, would be something like “unstoppable,” communicating more directly that akatalytous basanous refers to torment that the tyrant will be not be able to put an end to; torment from which he will not be freed. While “unceasing” can convey that meaning (a thing can be unceasing within the confines of a finite timeframe), it can also mislead a reader into thinking that the torment is unceasing in an absolute, unconfined sense. Hence, again, “unstoppable” is a better translation, since it is less likely to convey that false impression. That being said, the fact that the tyrant will be faced with unstoppable torment is precisely what ensures that his end will be eternal destruction (i.e. permanent extinction).
Summary
All things considered, I believe I’ve not only shown that an annihilationist interpretation of Matthew 10:28 wouldn’t be threatened by 4 Maccabees 13:14-15 if it taught eternal torment, but also that aiōnios basanos in 4 Maccabees doesn’t actually communicate the idea that the wicked will be tormented forever.
Indeed, the phrase is used twice in the book: once in 4 Maccabees 9:8-9 where it is directly contrasted with “the prize of virtue,” which we know to be immortality in endless life (4 Macc 17:12); and a second time in 4 Maccabees 13:14-15, a passage to which Jesus may have been alluding in Matthew 10:28, where it is beyond reason to posit that any punishment other than extinction is being described by Jesus.
By referring to immortality in endless life as “the prize of virtue,” the author delineates it as exclusively reserved for God’s athletes—that is, for those who finish the race. In the words of Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to Polycarp, “Be sober as an athlete of God: the prize set before you is immortality and eternal life” (Poly 2.3).
In addition, throughout the book, basanos consistently culminates in or causes death, a theme that would make sense if extended to aiōnios basanos also, considering that immortality in endless life is not extended to those who spit in the face of virtue.
Not only so, but it would make sense of the fact that eternal destruction—a fate that elsewhere only ever refers to permanent destruction—is reserved for the tyrant, for whom aiōnios basanos is also said to be reserved (4 Macc 9:9).
Lastly, we have seen that aiōnios basanos refers to torment that is everlasting in that its effect (or consequence), death, is everlasting—just like how aiōnios fire refers to fire that is everlasting in that its effect (or consequence), death, is everlasting. The original Jewish audience to whom this book was written would have known and understood that no one can dwell with eternal torment by fire, as common sense on its own would suggest.
