Word Study: "Phthora" (Destruction) in Galatians 6:8

“The Epistle ends on a similar note. ‘The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from the nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life’ (Galatians 6:8)” (“Galatians 6:8,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

The last two posts have concentrated on Joshua 7 and Fudge’s annihilationist presupposition. Fudge posits that Joshua 7:25 refers to the deaths of Achan and his family as annihilation, when the text only speaks of cremation. To argue the concept of annihilation involves a discussion of the mortality of the soul (for the traditionalist, immortality), which then involves the metaphysical and spiritual. Achan and his family’s deaths are presented to us biblically on a physical, mortal level. The discussion of the soul is never given thought here. And, if we assume hypothetically that Fudge is right, his view is further defeated by the words of the writers in Hebrews 10:28-29, which stresses that in contrast to death as prescribed in the Mosaic Law, there is a “much severer punishment” prescribed for those who insult the Spirit of grace and trample over the blood of Christ. If the first death is annihilation, the second death cannot be the same as the first.

Today’s post will cover the word “destruction” as Fudge traces the word in both the Old and New Testaments. Fudge provides a word study of “destruction”:

In ordinary Greek this word spoke of ‘ruin, destruction, dissolution, deterioration, corruption’ according to Arndt and Gingrich. Paul uses it of perishable food (Col. 2:22) and the decaying world (Rom. 8:21). Peter applies it to animals destined to be killed (2 Pet. 2:12, NIV, ‘destroyed’). Arndt and Gingrich cite non-biblical sources where the word refers to an abortion or a miscarriage; it had the same meaning in Christian literature of the second century. ‘You shall not murder a child by abortion’ is the injunction of both Barnabas (19:5) and the Didache (2:2). ‘Abortion’ is phthora, the word Paul uses here” (Fudge, The Fire That Consumes).

The word was used in the second century to mean abortion; but again, this doesn’t do away with the idea that abortion is a physical crime. To abort a baby is to kill that baby. But, once again, this refers to nothing more than cremation does (the act of Joshua 7:25). Abortion involves the killing of the flesh, not the killing of the soul. Abortion is a physical issue, annihilation a metaphysical one. The word phthora can also refer to spoiled food, as well as the killing of animals and the decaying of this present world. The word does refer to all of these things, but the word must have different connotations when applied to these things. The decay of food is not the same as decaying of the world or the killing of animals. This is a point I have made: that Fudge cannot distinguish the different meanings when the same word is used to refer to these three different contexts.

This is where Fudge’s words take an interesting turn:

“Metaphorically, the word could be used in a moral sense as in the ‘depravity’ of wicked men (2 Pet. 2:12). The verb (phtheiro) meant to ‘corrupt’ or to ‘ruin’ and can speak of destroying a house (1 Cor. 3:17), seducing a virgin (2 Cor. 11:3) ruining a man financially (2 Cor. 7:2), or corrupting someone’s morals (1 Cor. 15:33; Eph. 4:22; Rev. 19:2). The building is extinct as a building, the maiden’s virginity is forever gone, the man’s financial security is annihilated, and the good character that once existed now exists no more” (Fudge, The Fire That Consumes).

As Fudge says above, the verb for corruption, phtheiro, can be used to refer to the destruction of buildings, the destruction of a woman’s virginity, the destruction of someone’s reputation, and the corruption of good morals. However, does destruction in each of these contexts look the same? Can we say with certainty that the destruction of a house looks exactly like the destruction of someone’s reputation? No. While it is true that the end is the same (that is, that the house is no more and the reputation is no more), the end destruction occurs in different ways. The house is no longer, but there is still debris (traces of the elements that built the home). With the reputation, the destruction of the man’s reputation does not mean that he can never get it back. It simply means that, at the time, the good reputation he had is gone (for the time being).The one exception to the above list is the woman losing her virginity: that is something that, once she loses it, she cannot reclaim it again. Still though, it is metaphorical (she is not physically destroyed by the destruction of it).

Does destruction mean the same thing when we look at these various contexts in which the word is used? Of course not. Here at The Center for Theological Studies, I was once approached by an annihilationist commenter (someone who wanted to backup Mr. Edward Fudge in this series) and told, “Of course, every conditionalist (conditional immortalist) knows that the word ‘destroy’ has different meanings in different contexts.” He seemed to believe that I was wrong for critiquing the annihilationist on the view that destroy means “annihilate” in every context. However, this is where I will demonstrate what I have said about Fudge in posts past. Here is where I will show the readership the problem with Fudge’s word studies. In his study of the word “destruction” (Grk. phthora), Fudge will plaster the same meaning on the word for all contexts:

“According to many traditionalists, these words cannot have their normal meaning when applied to final punishment because biblical figures of ashes under foot and rising smoke do not signify literal, chemical annihilation. Having ruled out this supposed literal sense of ‘destroy,’ ‘ruin,’ and ‘perish,’ traditionalists conclude that these very words that, on their face, clearly speak of loss of life, must mean eternal conscious torment instead” (Fudge, The Fire That Consumes).

Why is it that traditionalists reinterpret the notion of destruction to refer to eternal, conscious torment? They do so (at least I can say I do) because they are convicted by the biblical text; they are convicted by passages of Scripture such as Revelation 14:9-11 and Mark 9:42-48. Traditionalists are convinced that, if the Bible teaches that the torment of the wicked will be forever and ever, and that the wicked will have no rest for all eternity, then the wicked must feel the torment (and thus, will experience eternal, conscious torment). The question to ask is, “Does the text ever argue temporary torment?” Fudge can turn the tables on the traditionalist...but does his own presupposition hold to the truth of the Scriptures?

The only response provided by Edward Fudge is that the Bible does not explicitly discuss the immortality of the wicked...therefore, the wicked cannot live eternally in torment. But passages like Revelation 14:9-11 show that the torment and unrest are eternal. Does Revelation 14:9-11 not imply eternal, conscious torment? What in the biblical text implies temporary torment and subsequent annihilation?

Does the destruction of a house equal annihilation? No. Is it true that the destruction of a house, or food, or the ruin of a person’s reputation accurately portray literal annihilation? No. As I’ve said throughout this series, the question we have to ask is, “Does ‘destroy’ mean the same thing in these contexts?” The answer is a resounding “No.” God bless.

Qualifying Language: Anathema in the Old and New Testaments

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: if anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8-9)

In my last post, I discussed the annihilation of ungodly men and women, Satan, his angels, and ultimately, of Hell itself. I stated that, if everything in Hell is to be annihilated, Hell itself would be annihilated because Hell would serve no purpose. Why would God create a Hell if there would be no one to inhabit it permanently? Consider this along with the fact that Jesus Himself states that Hell was created “for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). Nowhere in the biblical text do we read of the annihilation of the lake of fire and brimstone, nor do we read of the annihilation of Hell. Fudge may claim that annihilationism is “grounded firmly in Scripture” (see “Some Biblical Details That Inspire Change,” from The Fire That Consumes), but where is the annihilation of the ungodly, Satan, demons, false prophet, beast, and Hell itself found in the Scriptures? And if it is not found there, nor is there a biblical inference we can make regarding it, how then can we trade in the traditionalist view regarding Hell? Upon studying this subject matter, I have come to learn that many individuals think that “the grass is green on the other side” of theology until they search out these matters...then, they maintain little desire to look across the green grass over to the other side, ever again.

Today’s post will focus on the word anathema in Galatians 1:8-9 as quoted above. What does the word anathema mean in this context? What does the word anathema mean in John 3:18?

Let’s read the context behind this word:

“The word [anathema] literally means something set up or laid by to be kept, as a votive offering might be hung on a temple wall after being devoted to a god. Because offerings devoted to the true God were commonly burnt in their entirety or otherwise destroyed, the word in biblical usage signifies something ‘accursed’ or doomed to destruction” (Edward William Fudge, “Galatians and Corinthians: Exposition, Galatians 1:8-9,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

The word anathema means “destruction,” a word that Fudge also studies in the biblical text to argue for annihilationism. In context, the word often referred to objects, offerings devoted to God that were burned when offered on an altar. In the context of Galatians 1, however, the word refers to “he,” a person who preaches or teaches a different gospel than what Paul and his companions preached. I will ask this again, as I’ve asked it in earlier posts of this series: can we really say that people are destroyed in the same way that objects are destroyed? For those who have never thought about this question, let me explain something here: the words “anathema” and “destruction” will be interpreted in one of two ways: (1) the words will mean the same for both objects and persons, or (2) the words will mean different things for the two distinct groups of objects and persons. And where one ends up on this question is a matter of the philosophy of language.

Now, does this mean that theology does not play a role? Au contraire, I think it does! As I’ve shown in my post, “Lost in the Fall: The Image of God in the Book of Genesis” (August 2011), the image of God in man is what preserves the sanctity of human life. In fact, it is the image of God in Genesis 9:6 (post-flood) that serves as the reason why humans cannot murder one another. Humans are, however, allowed to kill the animals for food post-flood, but not each other. Why? Because humans bear the image of the divine God. It is this same image that preserves the sanctity of human life that annihilationists will deny still exists within man today.

At this point, Fudge provides an Old Testament background on the word anathema (LXX):

“The Septuagint [LXX] had ordinarily used anathema as the Greek translation of the Hebrew herem, the usual term for something ‘devoted’ to God and therefore, under ordinary circumstances, to be totally destroyed. It is used of the Canaanites whom God tells Israel to ‘totally destroy’ and whom they do ‘completely destroy’ (Num 21:2-3)...the site of this destruction is called Horman (from herem), that the Greek text gives as Anathema...When the Canaanite spoils are ‘set apart for destruction,’ the Septuagint uses anathema (Deut 7:26). The most famous incident involved Achan and Jericho. The city and all its spoils were anathema---‘devoted to destruction’—and so would be any Israelite who took from its spoils for himself (Josh 6:17-18; 7:12)” (“Septuagint/Old Testament Background,” from The Fire That Consumes).

Here we see that the spoils (POW= possessions of war), along with people, could be destroyed. But again, the question I ask is: “Are humans destroyed like objects or things?” Fudge seems to agree with the traditionalist take on the philosophy of man, though he skirts over it immediately and refuses to contemplate the implications of such an agreement:

“Death is lack of relationship with God. In this [death], men and women differ from the animals, who share their earthly origin and gift of life” (“Life In Relation to God: Human Death,” from The Fire That Consumes, brackets mine).

The death of human beings is qualitatively different from the death of animals (see my post titled “Qualitatively Different,” from August 2011). If this is so, how much more so must mankind differ from objects or possessions? This lesser-to-greater argument makes sense when one considers that animals are qualitatively superior to objects. It is this philosophy (provided for us from the opening pages of Genesis) that should complement our theology. If we have an incorrect view of man from the Scriptures, our philosophy of man will stray from the truth.

Annihilationists are the ones who maintain an incorrect philosophy of man (because they deny the image of God in man, a theological concept). This explains the following comment:

“No Israelite doubted that Achan was destroyed because there were physical remains. No one chortled that Achan was not literally annihilated. Nor did they think that ‘destruction’ meant he should be fastened in a cage and tortured endlessly. They knew what it meant to be herem/anathema, and they carried that out” (Fudge, “Septuagint/Old Testament Background,” from The Fire That Consumes).

Fudge exposes the reader to his own view here. “No one chortled that Achan was not literally annihilated” tells us all we need to know. Fudge believes that when the text says, “And all Israel stoned them [Achan and his family] with stones, and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones” (Joshua 7:25b),” the text is in fact confirming the doctrine of annihilationism. But what do we see here? Nothing to do with annihilationism! The text doesn’t even so much as provide a hint that annihilationism is the action here. Rather, what we are told is that Achan and his family are killed by stones and then their bodies are burned. To be brief, Achan and his family are cremated, not annihilated. In regards to the immortality/mortality of the soul, the text remains neutral---and silent. Neither the traditionalist nor the annihilationist can use Joshua 7:25 to make their case.

Last but not least, Fudge ends this section of the word study of anathema with another troubling philosophical claim:

“This is the word’s [anathema] meaning throughout the Scriptures. Because Paul refers to a punishment of the age to come, we need not automatically assign anathema a meaning it has never had before. The method of God’s punishment will surely be different, but the meaning of it will be the same. If even an angel from heaven preaches a different gospel, Paul says he comes under this sentence. He is anathema---herem---devoted to utter destruction” (“Septuagint/Old Testament Background,” from The Fire That Consumes).

But why must the word maintain the same meaning throughout the Scriptures? As I’ve stated in my posts on the philosophy of language this past month, a word can be the same word in two places of Scripture but have two different meanings, depending on context. This is the problem with the annihilationist interpretation: it assumes that the word means the same thing, no matter the context. This is why, for Fudge, anathema means “annihilate,” whether it pertains to possessions of war or to people. This assumes, however, that man is equivalent to the objects of war, the rocks, the rivers, and the trees. But did not Fudge say that man’s death is qualitatively different from that of the animals? If man has a different essence (and different death) than the animals, how can his destruction be of the same nature as that of spoils of war, of things, of possessions, of objects? To conclude that the destruction of man and the destruction of gold and silver are the same is to contradict Fudge’s own statement about the different nature of man’s death from that of the animal kingdom.

I will conclude by saying that Fudge’s own words contradict his earlier words. How can man’s destruction be the equivalent of the annihilation of property when man and object have distinct essences? It is the distinctions of essence that dictate the differences in punishment. Achan and his family, we are told from Joshua 7, were killed with stones and then burned. This is physical death, but the eternal death is of a different nature than the physical one. Noah’s day is compared to the day of the Lord’s return (see Matthew 24:37-41), but the second death will not be drowning by water. Instead, the second death will be of an eternal nature, a death involving the soul, a death that will give way to eternal torment in body and mind. Cooling the tongue will be the least of troubles in the minds of those who enter forever the home of the devil and his angels.