Sodom and Gomorrah: Exhibited, not Undergoing
Here is Jude 1:7 (NASB)
When I read that verse, it seems clear enough. That is, what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah is an illustration of what will happen to those men who suffer the punishment of eternal fire at the judgment day. I realize that it doesn't explicitly mention the judgment day, but it does mention the eternal fire and it does say they are exhibited as an example.
Others, though, read this verse differently. Some have argued that Jude intended to express the notion that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are currently undergoing a punishment of eternal torment. From that, they conclude that this verse supports the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment. This essay will present evidence showing that assertion to be indefensible.
As I heard it, the argument can be summarized this way:
Since Jude uses a present tense verb when he writes the verbs “serve”, he intends his readers to understand that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are currently serving as an example of undergoing eternal fire.
This argument was supported by referring to the ESV translation of this passage, which is given here:
On the surface, this might seem to have some legitimacy. The ESV translation does use the present tense verb “serve” in its translation. However, a closer examination will reveal that this conclusion is not justified.
I will present five distinct pieces of evidence against this argument:
'Exhibit' not 'Serve'
The Greek word translated as ‘serve’ in the ESV version is πρόκεινται. Πρόκεινται is the third person middle/passive form of the word πρόκειμαι.
In Strong’s Concordance, this verb is indicated to mean "to be set before, to be set forth". Here is a web page which gives that entry from Strong's:
http://biblehub.com/greek/4295.htm
Here is another reference from the Greek-English lexicon of Liddell and Scott:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=pro/keimai
In that lexicon, they give many examples of this word being used. In not one of those passages is the word translated as “serve”.
Below are the five passages in the New Testament where this word is used. In each case, I’ve underlined the English word that comes from the Greek word πρόκειμαι:
Not one of those verses translates πρόκειμαι using the word “serve”. The lexicon entries and examples above make it clear that πρόκειμαι should not be translated as “serve”, at least not on its own.
Why then did the scholars translate the ESV using the word “serve”? This translation is what we might call a “thought for thought” translation. In this practice, the translation attempts to express the same thought as was originally intended, even if the specific words are not the same in themselves. With that in mind, let’s compare the phrases used by the NASB, which I referenced earlier, versus the ESV:
You can see that these two translations express a similar thought, even if the words are different. Since most people would understand these two phrase to express a similar thought, the translations essentially agree. However, the NASB is more faithful to what Jude actually wrote, because it uses the words “are exhibited” to express the same meaning giving in the Greek-English lexicons (to be set forth). Using the word “serve” is not terrible, as long as it remains contained within the thought as a whole, but it is technically the wrong verb to use, since Jude did not use a word that meant “serve”. This is important to remember, because the arguments I’m opposing put a heavy emphasis on this word “serve”. The conclusions they draw are not justified if you understand the original language.
Let me give an example from English. The phrase “pulling my leg” is understood to mean “joking with me” So, if I said, “Kyle was pulling my leg by telling me I won the lottery”, that would mean essentially the same thing as if I said, “Kyle was joking with me by telling me I won the lottery.” The thoughts are the same.
However, what if somebody took the verb “pulling” and extracted it out of the context? Then, as a second step, he concluded that Kyle was physically tugging on my leg. In that case, he would be wrong. And he would not just be slightly wrong, he would be totally and unambiguously wrong. We can’t take specific words from a “thought for thought translation” out of the context and then reach additional conclusions based upon the meanings of those specific words.
So, extracting the word “serve” out of the context of “serve as an example” is just not appropriate. This error is magnified if you understand the difference in voice that this extraction leads to. I will address that next.
Currently ‘Exhibited’ not Currently ‘Undergoing’
Let's examine the voice of the verb in question. The word πρόκεινται is in the passive voice*. In this passive voice, the subject of the sentence is acted upon. The subject of the sentence takes no action. The verb 'are exhibited' is in the passive voice and so correctly expresses the Greek grammar. The alternative to this passive voice is the active voice. When using an active voice, the subject of the sentence is the one taking action. 'Serve' is in the active voice and so departs from the Greek grammar.
In this Jude passage, the subject is “Sodom and Gomorrah”. What is it that Sodom and Gomorrah do? They don’t do anything. They are just exhibited. Jude makes no comment all about their current state of consciousness. Some other entity, not specifically mentioned in the sentence, is the one taking the action of exhibiting. In this case, even though the acting entity is not mentioned, it is clear that the acting entity is the Old Testament itself.
If you doubt that Jude would claim the Old Testament to be exhibiting anything, here are two additional examples that illustrate a similar mindset.
In the first verse, Jesus says that the Scriptures currently testify about him. In the second, the author of Hebrews says that Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. Each of these if very similar in nature to the assertion that scripture currently exhibits the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The Old Testament exhibits the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and hence Sodom and Gomorrah are exhibited. I hope the impact of this is clear. One crucial element of the argument I am opposing is that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are currently conscious, since they are currently serving as an example. This conclusion is totally unjustified from the text.
In addition to an improper conclusion using the verb 'serve', the argument I'm addressing places great emphasis on the word 'undergoing' in Jude's sentence. This assertion claims that, since the verb 'undergoing' is in the present tense, we can conclude that Jude communicated that the punishment was currently happening. That conclusion is also incorrect. The primary verb in the sentence is 'exhibited' not ‘undergoing’. Jude is saying that a certain scene is exhibited. He is not saying that the scene is currently happening.
Let me present an example just to make this perfectly clear. At the top of this page you can see a picture of the famous painting of George Washington crossing the Delaware River. We could say this about that painting:
That sentence makes perfect sense and is easily understood. If you notice, the word ‘crossing’ is a present tense participle, just like the word ‘undergoing’ in the Jude verse. According to the argument in question, George Washington must currently be crossing the Delaware river, since the participle ‘crossing’ is in the present tense. Of course that is absurd. That is not the way language works. The painting is currently exhibited, and the scene that is depicted is one of Washington crossing the Delaware. No one would suggest that Washington is currently crossing the Delaware, just because the word ‘crossing’ is present tense.
One difference between the sentence above and the one described in Jude is the fact that one is a painting and the other is in a story in the Old Testament. Regardless, we understand that they are both exhibited for us to consider. In the familiar story, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are depicted as undergoing a punishment of eternal fire, but it is unjustified to conclude from Jude’s sentence that they are still undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
What is Exhibited?
If one were trying to illustrate torment, it would make sense to find a story where torment is displayed. However, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah illustrates no images of suffering for the guilty parties. We don't see Sodomites writhing in pain as the brimstone burns into their skin. All we are told about the execution of judgment is that the cities were totally destroyed.
If Jude wanted to illustrate suffering, he had much better examples to draw upon. What about Job? Now, if Jude used Job as an example of the final punishment, you might have a case for a punishment of eternal torment. Or Jude could have used an example from one of the sieges of Jerusalem, where people are trapped and starving, with little hope of rescue. Any number of examples from the Old Testament could be used to illustrate the concept of suffering, but not the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. That story clearly illustrates the total destruction of those who have sinned against God.
So, it makes no sense to say that Jude would present the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as an illustration of eternal torment, since no torment is mentioned in this story.
Contradicting Jesus
Another reason to dispute the argument in question is because it directly contradicts the words of Jesus, and of other Scriptures. Specifically, Jesus said that the ultimate punishment for men won’t happen until the end of the age. Here are just two passages with that message:
The first verse clearly says that all who are in their tombs will come forth. How can they come forth if they are already serving their sentence? They can’t. So, they must not be serving their ultimate sentence already. The second passage says that the wicked will be thrown into the furnace of fire at the end of the age.
The only way for Jude to conclude that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are currently experiencing the eternal fire is to contradict the words of Jesus. I’m confident that he had no such intent.
What Can We See?
Clearly, Jude was trying to communicate something to his readers. He was encouraging them to turn their backs on sin and follow Christ. As part of that effort, he would obviously try to use an example that would make his point stronger. People often use examples and we know that the best examples are those that have been clearly observed by our audience.
Imagine I said this to you, “You’d better change the oil in your car, because you know what happened to Uncle Joe.” If you actually knew what happened to Uncle Joe, and if the consequences for his actions were especially dire, then this reference to the example of Uncle Joe might add significant power to my warning to you. But if you don’t know what happened to Uncle Joe, then referring to him would add nothing to my exhortation. If you didn’t know what happened to him, it would be silly and totally useless for me to refer to his example in hopes of emphasizing my point.
This is obvious. Therefore, common sense tells us that Jude must have been referring to something that his audience already knew well. What is it that they already knew well about Sodom and Gomorrah? They knew the Old Testament story, and certainly it is a memorable story.
Even if you grant the possibility that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are somehow already experiencing their ultimate punishment, they still wouldn’t serve as a good example, because nobody can see what they are currently experiencing. Where could we go to view these people suffering their punishment? Is there a cathedral basement somewhere that enables you to peer down into a vast pit, viewing the agony and hearing the screams of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah below? Obviously not.
Regardless of their current state of those people, that current state can’t serve as an example because we can’t see it. It is totally unsupportable to assert that Jude would use an unseen and unknown example as a way to emphasize his point.
For all of these reasons, it makes no sense to assert that Jude was using the example of Sodom and Gomorrah to illustrate the doctrine of eternal torment.
(Thanks to Chris Date for helping me working through many of these passages.)
*Based solely upon the spelling of the word πρόκεινται, one might conclude that it is in the middle voice, instead of the passive, since the spelling of the two voices is identical. The 3rd person middle voice would be translated something like "exhibit themselves". While the behavior of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah might leave us open to the suggestion that they would be willing to "exhibit themselves", that meaning seems very unlikely in this context.
- just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
When I read that verse, it seems clear enough. That is, what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah is an illustration of what will happen to those men who suffer the punishment of eternal fire at the judgment day. I realize that it doesn't explicitly mention the judgment day, but it does mention the eternal fire and it does say they are exhibited as an example.
Others, though, read this verse differently. Some have argued that Jude intended to express the notion that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are currently undergoing a punishment of eternal torment. From that, they conclude that this verse supports the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment. This essay will present evidence showing that assertion to be indefensible.
As I heard it, the argument can be summarized this way:
Since Jude uses a present tense verb when he writes the verbs “serve”, he intends his readers to understand that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are currently serving as an example of undergoing eternal fire.
This argument was supported by referring to the ESV translation of this passage, which is given here:
- Jud 1:7 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.
On the surface, this might seem to have some legitimacy. The ESV translation does use the present tense verb “serve” in its translation. However, a closer examination will reveal that this conclusion is not justified.
I will present five distinct pieces of evidence against this argument:
- 'Exhibit' not 'Serve' The verb used by Jude means “to be set forth”, it does not mean “to serve”.
- Currently ‘Exhibited’ not Currently ‘Undergoing’ Jude tells us what is currently exhibited, not what is currently happening.
- What is Exhibited? The story of Sodom and Gomorrah exhibits no elements of suffering.
- Contradicting Jesus Claiming that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are currently serving the final punishment is a direct contradiction to the teaching of Jesus.
- What Can We See? Even if the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were currently suffering the punishment of eternal fire, they couldn’t serve as an example to us because we can’t see them.
'Exhibit' not 'Serve'
The Greek word translated as ‘serve’ in the ESV version is πρόκεινται. Πρόκεινται is the third person middle/passive form of the word πρόκειμαι.
In Strong’s Concordance, this verb is indicated to mean "to be set before, to be set forth". Here is a web page which gives that entry from Strong's:
http://biblehub.com/greek/4295.htm
Here is another reference from the Greek-English lexicon of Liddell and Scott:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=pro/keimai
In that lexicon, they give many examples of this word being used. In not one of those passages is the word translated as “serve”.
Below are the five passages in the New Testament where this word is used. In each case, I’ve underlined the English word that comes from the Greek word πρόκειμαι:
- 2Co 8:12 For if the readiness is present, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have.
- Heb 6:18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.
- Heb 12:1 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,
- Heb 12:2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
- Jud 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
Not one of those verses translates πρόκειμαι using the word “serve”. The lexicon entries and examples above make it clear that πρόκειμαι should not be translated as “serve”, at least not on its own.
Why then did the scholars translate the ESV using the word “serve”? This translation is what we might call a “thought for thought” translation. In this practice, the translation attempts to express the same thought as was originally intended, even if the specific words are not the same in themselves. With that in mind, let’s compare the phrases used by the NASB, which I referenced earlier, versus the ESV:
- NASB: are exhibited as an example
- ESV: serve as an example
You can see that these two translations express a similar thought, even if the words are different. Since most people would understand these two phrase to express a similar thought, the translations essentially agree. However, the NASB is more faithful to what Jude actually wrote, because it uses the words “are exhibited” to express the same meaning giving in the Greek-English lexicons (to be set forth). Using the word “serve” is not terrible, as long as it remains contained within the thought as a whole, but it is technically the wrong verb to use, since Jude did not use a word that meant “serve”. This is important to remember, because the arguments I’m opposing put a heavy emphasis on this word “serve”. The conclusions they draw are not justified if you understand the original language.
Let me give an example from English. The phrase “pulling my leg” is understood to mean “joking with me” So, if I said, “Kyle was pulling my leg by telling me I won the lottery”, that would mean essentially the same thing as if I said, “Kyle was joking with me by telling me I won the lottery.” The thoughts are the same.
However, what if somebody took the verb “pulling” and extracted it out of the context? Then, as a second step, he concluded that Kyle was physically tugging on my leg. In that case, he would be wrong. And he would not just be slightly wrong, he would be totally and unambiguously wrong. We can’t take specific words from a “thought for thought translation” out of the context and then reach additional conclusions based upon the meanings of those specific words.
So, extracting the word “serve” out of the context of “serve as an example” is just not appropriate. This error is magnified if you understand the difference in voice that this extraction leads to. I will address that next.
Currently ‘Exhibited’ not Currently ‘Undergoing’
Let's examine the voice of the verb in question. The word πρόκεινται is in the passive voice*. In this passive voice, the subject of the sentence is acted upon. The subject of the sentence takes no action. The verb 'are exhibited' is in the passive voice and so correctly expresses the Greek grammar. The alternative to this passive voice is the active voice. When using an active voice, the subject of the sentence is the one taking action. 'Serve' is in the active voice and so departs from the Greek grammar.
In this Jude passage, the subject is “Sodom and Gomorrah”. What is it that Sodom and Gomorrah do? They don’t do anything. They are just exhibited. Jude makes no comment all about their current state of consciousness. Some other entity, not specifically mentioned in the sentence, is the one taking the action of exhibiting. In this case, even though the acting entity is not mentioned, it is clear that the acting entity is the Old Testament itself.
If you doubt that Jude would claim the Old Testament to be exhibiting anything, here are two additional examples that illustrate a similar mindset.
- John 5:39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
- Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.
In the first verse, Jesus says that the Scriptures currently testify about him. In the second, the author of Hebrews says that Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. Each of these if very similar in nature to the assertion that scripture currently exhibits the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The Old Testament exhibits the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and hence Sodom and Gomorrah are exhibited. I hope the impact of this is clear. One crucial element of the argument I am opposing is that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are currently conscious, since they are currently serving as an example. This conclusion is totally unjustified from the text.
In addition to an improper conclusion using the verb 'serve', the argument I'm addressing places great emphasis on the word 'undergoing' in Jude's sentence. This assertion claims that, since the verb 'undergoing' is in the present tense, we can conclude that Jude communicated that the punishment was currently happening. That conclusion is also incorrect. The primary verb in the sentence is 'exhibited' not ‘undergoing’. Jude is saying that a certain scene is exhibited. He is not saying that the scene is currently happening.
Let me present an example just to make this perfectly clear. At the top of this page you can see a picture of the famous painting of George Washington crossing the Delaware River. We could say this about that painting:
- George Washington is exhibited crossing the Delaware.
That sentence makes perfect sense and is easily understood. If you notice, the word ‘crossing’ is a present tense participle, just like the word ‘undergoing’ in the Jude verse. According to the argument in question, George Washington must currently be crossing the Delaware river, since the participle ‘crossing’ is in the present tense. Of course that is absurd. That is not the way language works. The painting is currently exhibited, and the scene that is depicted is one of Washington crossing the Delaware. No one would suggest that Washington is currently crossing the Delaware, just because the word ‘crossing’ is present tense.
One difference between the sentence above and the one described in Jude is the fact that one is a painting and the other is in a story in the Old Testament. Regardless, we understand that they are both exhibited for us to consider. In the familiar story, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are depicted as undergoing a punishment of eternal fire, but it is unjustified to conclude from Jude’s sentence that they are still undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
What is Exhibited?
If one were trying to illustrate torment, it would make sense to find a story where torment is displayed. However, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah illustrates no images of suffering for the guilty parties. We don't see Sodomites writhing in pain as the brimstone burns into their skin. All we are told about the execution of judgment is that the cities were totally destroyed.
If Jude wanted to illustrate suffering, he had much better examples to draw upon. What about Job? Now, if Jude used Job as an example of the final punishment, you might have a case for a punishment of eternal torment. Or Jude could have used an example from one of the sieges of Jerusalem, where people are trapped and starving, with little hope of rescue. Any number of examples from the Old Testament could be used to illustrate the concept of suffering, but not the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. That story clearly illustrates the total destruction of those who have sinned against God.
So, it makes no sense to say that Jude would present the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as an illustration of eternal torment, since no torment is mentioned in this story.
Contradicting Jesus
Another reason to dispute the argument in question is because it directly contradicts the words of Jesus, and of other Scriptures. Specifically, Jesus said that the ultimate punishment for men won’t happen until the end of the age. Here are just two passages with that message:
- Joh 5:28-29 "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
- Mat 13:49-50 "So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The first verse clearly says that all who are in their tombs will come forth. How can they come forth if they are already serving their sentence? They can’t. So, they must not be serving their ultimate sentence already. The second passage says that the wicked will be thrown into the furnace of fire at the end of the age.
The only way for Jude to conclude that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are currently experiencing the eternal fire is to contradict the words of Jesus. I’m confident that he had no such intent.
What Can We See?
Clearly, Jude was trying to communicate something to his readers. He was encouraging them to turn their backs on sin and follow Christ. As part of that effort, he would obviously try to use an example that would make his point stronger. People often use examples and we know that the best examples are those that have been clearly observed by our audience.
Imagine I said this to you, “You’d better change the oil in your car, because you know what happened to Uncle Joe.” If you actually knew what happened to Uncle Joe, and if the consequences for his actions were especially dire, then this reference to the example of Uncle Joe might add significant power to my warning to you. But if you don’t know what happened to Uncle Joe, then referring to him would add nothing to my exhortation. If you didn’t know what happened to him, it would be silly and totally useless for me to refer to his example in hopes of emphasizing my point.
This is obvious. Therefore, common sense tells us that Jude must have been referring to something that his audience already knew well. What is it that they already knew well about Sodom and Gomorrah? They knew the Old Testament story, and certainly it is a memorable story.
Even if you grant the possibility that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are somehow already experiencing their ultimate punishment, they still wouldn’t serve as a good example, because nobody can see what they are currently experiencing. Where could we go to view these people suffering their punishment? Is there a cathedral basement somewhere that enables you to peer down into a vast pit, viewing the agony and hearing the screams of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah below? Obviously not.
Regardless of their current state of those people, that current state can’t serve as an example because we can’t see it. It is totally unsupportable to assert that Jude would use an unseen and unknown example as a way to emphasize his point.
For all of these reasons, it makes no sense to assert that Jude was using the example of Sodom and Gomorrah to illustrate the doctrine of eternal torment.
(Thanks to Chris Date for helping me working through many of these passages.)
*Based solely upon the spelling of the word πρόκεινται, one might conclude that it is in the middle voice, instead of the passive, since the spelling of the two voices is identical. The 3rd person middle voice would be translated something like "exhibit themselves". While the behavior of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah might leave us open to the suggestion that they would be willing to "exhibit themselves", that meaning seems very unlikely in this context.