THE UNDYING WORM AND QUENCHLESS FIRE.
Mark 9:43, 44: “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better
for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into
hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth
not, and the fire is not quenched.”
Twice our Lord repeats this solemn sentence against the wicked, “Where
their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Verses 46, 48.
These passages are relied on with as much assurance, perhaps, as any, to
prove the eternal misery of the reprobate. If this language had never
been used by any of the inspired writers of the Scriptures, till it was
thus used in the New Testament, it might be urged with some degree of
plausibility, as an expressive imagery of eternal torment. But, even in
this case, it might be replied that fire, so far as we have any
experience with it, or knowledge of its nature, invariably consumes that
upon which it preys, and hence must be a symbol of complete destruction;
and that the expression, as it occurs in Mark 9:44, can denote nothing
less than the utter consumption of those who are cast into that fire.
But this expression was one which was well known and understood by those
whom Christ was addressing. Isaiah and Jeremiah frequently use the
figure of the undying worm and quenchless fire. In their familiar
scriptures the people daily read these expressions. Let us see what idea
they would derive from them. We turn to Jeremiah 17:27, and read:--
“But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day, and not
bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath
day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour
the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.”
From this text we certainly can learn the meaning that was attached to
the expression, “unquenchable fire,” by the Hebrew people. This fire was
not to be quenched, therefore it was unquenchable. But it was to be
kindled in the gates of Jerusalem, and devour the palaces thereof. It
was therefore literal, natural, fire. But how could a fire of this kind,
thus kindled, be supposed to be a fire that would burn eternally? They
certainly would not so understand it. No more should we. Moreover, this
threatening of the Lord by Jeremiah was fulfilled. 2 Chron. 36:19: “And
they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and
burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly
vessels thereof.” Verse 21. “To fulfill the word of the Lord by
Jeremiah.” Thus Jerusalem was burned according to Jeremiah’s prediction
that it should be consumed in unquenchable fire. But how long did that
fire burn? Only till it had reduced to ashes the gates and palaces on
which it preyed. Unquenchable fire is therefore simply a fire that is
not quenched, or does not cease, till it has entirely consumed that
which causes or supports it. Then it dies out of itself, because there
is nothing more to burn. The expression does not mean a fire that must
absolutely eternally burn, and that consequently all that is cast
therein to feed the flame must forever be preserved by having the
portion consumed immediately renewed.
To the wicked the threatened fire is unquenchable because it will not be
quenched, or caused to cease, till it has entirely devoured them.
Ps. 37: 20: “But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord
shall be as the fat of lambs; they shall consume; into smoke shall they
consume away.” Mal. 4: 3: “And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they
shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do
this saith the Lord of hosts.”
Ezekiel speaks of unquenchable fire in a similar manner.
Eze. 20: 47, 48: “Thus saith the Lord God: Behold I will kindle a fire
in thee, and it shall devour every green tree in thee, and every dry
tree; the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the
south to the north shall be burned therein. And all flesh shall see that
I the Lord have kindled it: it shall not be quenched.”
Though this is doubtless figurative language, denoting sore calamities
upon a certain land called the forest of the south field, it
nevertheless furnishes an instance of how the expression, unquenchable
fire, was then used and understood; for that generation many ages ago
perished, and those judgments long since ceased to exist.
Isaiah not only speaks of the unquenchable fire, but he couples with it
the undying worm, the same as the language in Mark:
Isa. 66: 24: “And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the
men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die,
neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring
unto all flesh.”
This is undoubtedly the language from which the expression in Mark is
borrowed; but a moment’s examination of it will show that the worm is
not the remorse of a guilty conscience, but that, like the fire, it is
something external to, and distinct from, the objects upon which it
preys; and moreover that those upon whom it feeds are not the living,
but the dead: it is the “carcasses” of the men that have transgressed
against the Lord. In Isa. 14: 11, and 51: 8, the prophet again speaks of
the worm as an agent of destruction, but it is always in connection with
death. It is thus evident that the terms employed by our Lord in
describing the doom of the wicked would convey to the minds of his
hearers the very opposite of the idea of eternal life in misery.
There is other evidence, though no other is necessary, to show that the
idea which would be conveyed, and which the language was designed to
convey, to their minds, was that of complete extinction of being, an
utter consumption by external elements of destruction. The word
translated hell in the passage under consideration is _ge-enna_. It is
better to enter into life maimed, than to go in full possession of all
our members and faculties into _ge-enna_. Did those to whom Christ spoke
know anything about this place, and what kind of a fate awaited those
who were cast therein? A vivid picture of the place of torment to which
our Lord refers was in constant operation before their eyes, near by
Jerusalem.
Greenfield defines the word thus:--
“Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, once celebrated for
the horrid worship of Moloch and afterward polluted with every species
of filth, as well as the carcasses of animals and dead bodies of
malefactors; to _consume which_, in order to avert the pestilence which
such a mass of corruption would occasion, constant fires were kept
burning.”
Such was the fire of Gehenna; not a fire into which people were cast to
be kept alive and tortured, but one into which they were cast to be
consumed; not one which was designed to prey upon living beings, but
upon the carcasses of animals and the dead bodies of malefactors. Hence
we can see the consistency of associating the fire and the worm
together. Whatever portion of the dead body the fire failed to consume,
the worm would soon seize upon and devour. If a person had been
condemned to be cast alive into this place, as the wicked will be cast
into their Gehenna, what would have been his hope of escape? If the fire
could have been speedily quenched before it had taken his life, and the
worms which consumed what the fire left, could have been destroyed, he
might have had some hope of coming out alive; but if this could not be
done, he would know of a surety that his life would soon become extinct,
and then even his lifeless remains would be utterly consumed by these
agents of destruction.
This was the scene to which Christ pointed his hearers to represent the
doom that awaits the wicked; that, as they gazed upon the work of
complete destruction going on in the valley of Hinnom, the worms
devouring what the flames spared, they might learn that in the future
Gehenna which awaited them, no part of their being would be exempt from
utter and complete destruction, one agent of death completing what
another failed to accomplish.
As the definition of the word _ge-enna_ throws great light on the
meaning of this text, so the definition of another term used is equally
to the point. The words for unquenchable fire are _pur_ (long u)
_asbeston_, and this word _asbeston_, primarily means simply unquenched,
that is, not caused to cease by any external means: the idea of eternal
is a theological definition which has been attached to it. Ancient
writers used it in this sense. Homer, in the Illiad, xvi., 123, 294,
speaks of the Trojans’ hurling “unquenchable fire” upon the Grecian
ships, though but one of them was burnt by it. And Eusebius, who was a
learned Greek, employs the same expression in two instances in
recounting the martyrdom of Christians. Cronion and Julian, after being
tortured in various ways, were consumed in an “unquenchable fire,” _puri
asbesto_. The same is also said of Epimachus and Alexander. “The _pur
asbeston_,” says Wetstein, “denotes such a fire as cannot be
extinguished before it has consumed and destroyed all.”
Such is the evident meaning of this passage, and the sense in which it
must have been understood at that time. Yet commentators, eighteen
hundred years this side of that time, presume to turn this whole
representation upside down, and give to the terms a meaning exactly
opposite from that which they were intended to convey. That sense alone
can be the correct one in which they were first spoken; and concerning
that there can be no question.
There is another text often urged to prove the eternal conscious misery
of the wicked. It is one in which fire is mentioned as the instrument
used for the punishment of the wicked; and this fire being called
eternal, is understood in the same sense as the unquenchable fire of
Mark 9:43. It may therefore properly be examined in this connection.
Jude 7: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like
manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange
flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal
fire.”
This text, when rightly understood, will, we think, like that in Mark 9,
be found to convey just the opposite meaning from that popularly given
to it. The first great error in the interpretation of this text, lies,
as we view it, in a wrong application of the tense employed. It is
claimed that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, having been
destroyed, were committed to the flames of hell, where they are now
(present tense) suffering the vengeance of that eternal fire. But a
moment’s glance at the text will show that it is the example set forth,
and not the suffering, that is in the present tense. There are other
facts mentioned in the same tense with the suffering; thus, “giving
themselves over to fornication,” “going after strange flesh,” “suffering
the vengeance of eternal fire.” If one of these expressions denotes
something that is now going on, the others also denote the same. If they
are now suffering the fire, they are now giving themselves over to
fornication, and going after strange flesh; for all these declarations
are in the same construction. But no one will claim that the Sodomites
are now taking the course here described; neither, then, can it be
claimed that they are now suffering the pain of fire.
The sense of the passage appears to be very evidently this: That the
Sodomites, giving themselves up to their wicked practices, and, as a
consequence, suffering an eternal overthrow by fire rained down upon
them from heaven, are thus set forth as an example to the ungodly of all
coming ages, of the overthrow they will also experience if they follow
the same course.
Peter speaks of the same event, as an example to the wicked, and tells
what effect that fire had upon the cities of the plain. It did not
preserve them in the midst of the fire in unceasing torture, but turned
them into ashes. He says, 2 Pet. 2:6: “And turning the cities of Sodom
and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making them
an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.” This language is
too plain to need comment. How are the Sodomites made an example? By
being overthrown and turned into ashes for their open and presumptuous
sins. It is God saying to the wicked of all coming time, Behold, how
your sins shall be visited unless you repent.
But those fires are not now burning. Seek out the site of those ancient
and abandoned cities, and the brackish waters of the Dead Sea will be
found rolling their sluggish waves over the spot where once they stood.
Those fires are therefore called eternal, because their effects are
eternal, or age-lasting. They never have recovered, nor will they ever
recover while the world stands, from that terrible overthrow.
And thus this text is very much to the purpose on the question before
us; for it declares that the punishment of Sodom is an exact pattern of
the future punishment of the wicked; hence that punishment will not be
eternal life in the fiery flame, but an utter consumption, even as Sodom
was consumed, by its resistless vengeance.