I have been in a lively discussion about the eternality of hell and its punishment, particularly over a verse in Matthew which reads:
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life (Matt. 25:46).
I have become convinced that this is a terrible way to translate this verse and misses the entire point.
The original greek reads as follows:
καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰςζωὴν αἰώνιον.
The key phrase in question is κόλασιν αἰώνιον, which in many translations is rendered “eternal punishment” or “everlasting condemnation” or even “damnation.” Yet upon deeper examination this cannot be the case.
The first problem comes with the adjective aionion, which literally means “an age.” In Marvin Vincent’s (Union Theological Seminary) Word Studies in the New Testament, aion is defined as a “period of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself.” He goes on to say that “the length of an aion depends on the subject to which it is attached.”
What does this mean? It means that there is no set time reference to an aion. When attached to Jonah and the time he spent in the whale, it is limited to 3 days, for example. In Hab. 3:6 we read, “And the everlasting mountains were scattered…His ways are everlasting. The same word “aionios” is used here to describe both the mountains and God.” Both are translated as “everlasting.” However, while mountains may indeed last a long time they are not eternal. Only God is eternal. This is but one example of how the duration of the age is dependent upon the subject to which the age is attached.
The same word, aion, is used in these following verses. I will put “eternity” in place of aion and let’s see if it makes any sense…
Deliver us from this present evil [eternity] (Gal. 1:4)
Not only in this [eternity] bu talso in that which is to come (Eph. 1:21)
Walked according to the [eternity] of this world (Eph. 2:2)
Where is the disputer of this [eternity]? (1 Cor. 1:20)
Upon whom the ends of the [eternities] have come (1 Cor. 10:11)
These are but a few examples. Thanks to Gerry Beauchemin for making them readily accessible.
So obviously “aion” does not mean eternal. It can when in reference to God, but it’s duration is dependent upon it’s subject. Augustine argued that since aionios in Matt. 25:46 referred to both life and punishment it had to carry the same duration for both. Therefore, if life is “eternal” than so should be the punishment. But this fails to take into account the fact that aion is dependent upon its subject. Rendered literally, this passage would read “an age of punishment” and “an age of life.” What is really interesting, however, is the sort of punishment in mind here.
The word Matthew uses for punishment is kolasis. Some translations render this as destruction or damnation or condemnation. But this is to miss the point. Kolasis also means correction. In fact, that is the dominant meaning of the word in the time Matthew would have been writing. Thomas Talbott, Professor of Philosophy and author of The Inescapable Love of God, explains:
According to Aristotle, there is a difference between revenge and punishment; the latter (kolasis) is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer, the former (timoria) in the interest of him who inflicts t, that he may obtain satisfaction. Plato also appealed to the established meaning of kolasis as support for his theory that virtue could be taught: “For if you will consider punishment (kolasis) and what control it has over wrong-doers, the facts will inform you that men agree in regarding virtue as procured.” Even where a punishment may seem harsh and unforgiving, more like retribution than parental chastisement, this in no way excludes a corrective purpose. Check out the punishment that Paul prescribes in 1 Cor. 5:5. One might never have guessed that, in prescribing such a punishment – that is, delivering a man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh – Paul had in mind a corrective purpose, had Paul not explicitly stated the corrective purpose himself (”that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”). So as this text illustrates, even harsh punishment of a seemingly retributive kind can in fact serve a redemptive purpose.
William Barclay notes that in all Greek secular literature the word “kolasis” is never used of anything but “remedial punishment.” i.e. it is meant to bring about a response of repentance and growth.
The only other place this word kolasis is used in this form in the NT comes here:
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has punishment. He who fears is not made perfect in love (1 John 4:18)
Notice that here the same word is not translated as condemnation of damnation but “punishment.”
But the fascinating part to me is that it recognizes that with fear comes its own sort of punishment. There is little life here – no joy. No love. People who fear are in a sense being punished. They have not yet been made perfect in love – something God desires to do in all of us.
Yet God’s punishments are for a redemptive purpose throughout Scripture. They are calls to repent. Sometimes when we come face to face with our fear and hit our lowest is when we discover God the most – with arms open ready to show us love and forgiveness.
In Matt. 25:46, those who are raised up to take part in an “age of punishment” are most likely being confronted with truth. They are being made perfect in love.
What does all this mean? It means that to translate kolasis aionios as “eternal punishment” is to miss the point. The punishment is indeed punishment but it is for a purpose – to bring about virtue, to prune, to make new. It’s a purging of sorts. And the “age” describing it is for a duration applicable to this task. God’s punishment is not without purpose or telos.
There is redemptive ends in sight when God chastises us. In this often misused and abused passage teaching the eternity of hell we are actually being told by our Lord that the wicked will be raised to a take part in an age of punishment – one which will hopefully perfect them in love thus preparing them to enter the holy city for a “life of the ages.”
Filed under: Theology | Tagged: Aion, Augustine, damnation, eternity, God, hell, Jesus, Judgment, Justice, Kolasis, Matthew 25:46, punishment
Great thoughts, Chad. I have always had a very difficult time thinking of a loving, forgiving Abba saying “Times up!” and then breaking out the flame thrower.
Justice is necessary, but I prefer grace and mercy. To think of God’s punishment being a gracious act is difficult but much preferable.
watchman, thanks for the comment.
One point of note I want to be very clear on, however (and I am not saying this because I think you meant it this way), is that I do not come to these conclusions because I find them preferable or more tasteful to my sensibilities. I come to these conclusions because I have become convinced that this is who God is as revealed to us through Jesus as well as Scripture.
I believe the grand narrative being told from Genesis to Revelation is God putting the world to rights – this is what judgment essentially is. We long for God’s justice because it is a justice that brings healing – it is one that all of creation stands on its tip toes waiting for (Rom. 8).
I think God’s command upon us to love our enemies is indicative of the sort of God we serve. Why love our enemies? Maybe because God does. And maybe there is something about love that can transform even the coldest, most obstinate heart. I believe that when we all come face to face with the God who IS Love we will be transformed. Some of us may take longer than others. But by learning to love our enemies here it will be perhaps far easier on us when we look up from our banquet table to see the people we labeled as vile and beyond hope sheepishly entering our worship.
grace and peace.
In light of my recent facebook post, I have to argue against you chad. How can we then, as good dukies, tell carolina to go to hell, if it not be eternal and terrible? I am at such a loss.
Joe, it was your FB status that inspired this post
I’m afraid to say they won’t be in hell. But they will be your butler, maid and cook.
Brother, blessings on your studies but I believe your exegesis is incorrect in this case. First off, you begin by identifying the correct root as the adjective aionios but then give it the definition for a noun form aion. The noun form does indeed mean an ‘age’ or a ‘time’ but this is not a noun, it is the adjective modifying punishment which means ‘eternal’ and ‘without beginning or end’ and ‘a period of unending duration’ (verify in Kittel, Verbrugge, or Danker/Bauer). You will note that the same form is used in the well known John 3:16 as well as at the end of the sentence being studied. Would you apply the same time limitation to the eternal life to come? Here are some other uses:
Rev 14:6 – the ‘everlasting’ gospel – time limited gospel
1 Peter 5:10 – called us unto his ‘eternal’ glory by Christ Jesus – God’s glory is time limited
I’m also concerned that you find the Greek word forms in Habakkuk to make your case. Shouldn’t we rightfully read that passage in Hebrew if we are doing a lexical study? The two words you encounter in that verse are ad and owlawm both of which refer to everlasting, forever, eternal.
So, which position are you arguing in favor of, Annihilationism to end the suffering at some set point in the future or a Purgatorial view where the punishment ends when by works of penance one is released to heaven?
Slave to Christ,
Thanks for dropping by and for your comment.
Actually, aionios follows the same rules as its noun form. Just as aion means “an age” so does its adjective form. Mavin Vincent in his Word Studies of the NT writes, “The adjective aionious in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting. They may acquire that sense by their connotation…Aionious means ‘enduring through’ or ‘pertaining to a period of time.’ Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods.”
The bottom line for both is that they are defined by the word they are attached to – in the case of an adjective (as we have in Matt. 25:46) it’s duration is defined by the noun it modifies.
Since Kolasis is punishment with correction in view than the aionious in question here is an age pertaining to that period of corrective punishment. We can’t say how long it is. Presumably it is until whatever needs corrected is corrected.
You prove the point further with your examples in Rev. 14:6 and 1 Peter 5:10. Aionious, when describing God, can mean eternal. But it is also used to describe times which we know are not eternal. Jonah 2:6 is one example, where Jonah says he was in the belly “aionious” (forever?) but we know it was 3 days. It was a duration that is attached to that situation.
I’m using the LXX in Hab 3:6 to compare the Greek use of the word aionious. Greek thought found it acceptable to change the Hebrew in this way, understanding that there is an age pertinent to mountains and one to God. Same word, but different time durations.
I’m not arguing for annihilationism. I’m saying the text itself points to a time when the wicked will under go kolasis: punishment for the purpose of correcting, to prune, to purge. How this looks, how long it takes is not stated.
grace and peace,
Chad
We need to look closer at the implication you are applying to kolasis as having correction in view. What lexicon supports this assertion? BADG, Kittel, and Verbrugge do not allow for this extension of the word nor do the 2 instances of the word in the NT (Mt 25:46 and 1 Jn 4:18). Theologically, wouldn’t the propitiation of Christ have “corrected what needs to be corrected” in the case of believers? The penalty for sin, however minor, does not diminish with time. If life for the saved is eternal, we are not at liberty to apply a false sense of time-limits to perdition. We might have a theological argument (ala Pinnock) but if we stick to the text alone, the argument can’t be made.
I think if we are going to narrow the meanings of words, it is a better practice to stick with Hebrew in the OT. In the case of Jonah passage we are again dealing with olawm, meaning ‘everlasting.’ In the proper context, Jonah’s prayer in ch 2 indicates that he thought that he was lost forever – ‘to the grave’, ‘banished from your sight’. He does not know that the whale will release him shortly so we cannot take liberties with the text to assume that Jonah did not mean forever.
Beautiful family by the way! Peace
Both George Ricker Berry in “A Greek English Lexicon and New Testament Synonyms” and the New Thayers Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament define kolasis as “Correction, punishment, penalty” (the former renders it as “chastisement”)
As for the 1 Jn 4:18 use of the word I address that in the post above. I find it significant.
“Theologically, wouldn’t the propitiation of Christ have “corrected what needs to be corrected” in the case of believers?”
Ah. See, I would say Christ has corrected what needs to be corrected for all the cosmos. His life, death and resurrection had (and has) cosmic implications that extend far beyond just those who presently believe. But that might be for a different time and discussion.
If we stick to the text alone I think we need to acknowledge that kolasis could very well have a remedial element (as the secular literature of the day would suggest) and as such aionious is merely an age respective to however long that takes.
Thank you for the compliment on the family! They keep us moving!
grace and peace.
(and thank you for the dialog and for the courteous tone)
Thanks for your thoughts…and it’s great you’re a pastor too!
It seems that there are an increasing number of Christians who are discovering that aionios means an age and not eternal, which is brilliant!
There are too many Evangelical Christians who have adopted the errors of Augustine and Jonathon Edwards, who both believed that babies and infants would be in a perpetual unceasing hell forever.
However, thank God that God seems to be moving the hearts of theologians and church leaders to discover how good the good news really is.
Even in the Orthodox and Catholic churches, people are realizing that God’s love is limitless. For example, here, the Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion speaks to Roman Catholics about the remedial nature of hell:
http://thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3132
http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_6_10
However, I always prefer Gregory of Nyssa, one of the co-writers of the Nicene Creed, who defined what it meant to be a Christian.
He had the faith that the devil would one day be in hell/gehenna to be punished, but after that, would be made pure.
“Our Lord is the One who delivers man, and who heals the inventor of evil himself”. — Gregory of Nyssa (332-398 A.D.)
God bless you, and I pray that you bring the good news to all Christians!
Oh, and after 27 years as an Evangelical who defended the doctrine of an Eternal Unceasing Torment of Hell, I am now an adamant Universalist.
Of course, what it took is Bible college and studying historical theology to change to a Universalist. Thank God for the Early Church Fathers!
In the spirit of the faith of the Early Church theologians, Gregory of Nyssa, Macrina the Younger, Clement of Alexandria, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Diodore, Didymus the Blind, Isaac the Syrian, and Peter Chrysologus.
God bless!
Rene,
Hi! Thanks for dropping by and for your comments/encouragement. I love Gregory of Nyssa as well. And, like you, studying and listening to the overall tenor (song) of God’s revelation to us has convinced me that my old ways of thinking on this issue were seriously mistaken.
What is interesting is the push back by many who cannot fathom a God (or a Christian) who can believe against hell. One of my favorite lines is from Karl Barth, who, when asked if he believes in hell answered, “No! I believe against it!” I think this is the posture Christians should take. I think it is the one of our Lord.
grace and peace to you,
Chad
Rene, while I can appreciate your heart and your enthusiasm for discovering new meanings in old words, in order to support your assertion that the word means “an age” you will have to apply it equally in every use, especially the parallel uses. As Chad and I discussed earlier, you can use Matthew 25:46 as your example. If you see an time limitation in the “eternity” of Hell, how long will the “eternity” of Heaven last?
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
We are not free to “discover” new meanings to words. However unpleasant the reality, we must accept the words as they are written. Reading our theological presuppositions into words is no way to handle the Bible.
When you say you are a universalist, are you referring to the belief that ALL people (saints and sinners) will one day be redeemed? Can you provide some scripture in support of this? In all of my years of ministry, I have not found a reference that would support this.
Blessings.
Doulos,
You are making the same mistake Augustine made and everyone since.
Aion simply means “an age.” Zoe aionios is an idiom for “life of the ages.” Why must Matt. 25:46 be about time at all? It need not be. It is perfectly in keeping with the Greek to say that the wicked go to an age of corrective punishment and the righteous to the life of the ages. There is no reason to say more or less than that.
Two things Brother. If I am guilty of making the same mistake of “Augustine & everyone since” I’m not sure that it would be sound theology to camp on a minority, opposing position. If the majority of theologians throughout the history of the Church have come to the same conclusion, I am hesitant to think that somehow I (you/we) have suddenly discovered a new theological or doctrinal truth.
As to the original thread you and I were discussing, I’m still confused at your hermeneutical method. You insist on attempting to substitute a noun in place of an adjective. In the 45 instances of aionios that I have reviewed in Greek, they all carry the implication and definition of eternity. We are not talking about aeon, which we both agree is the noun time, without a necessary definition of duration.
I’ve reviewed Vincent’s article but I don’t find it convincing. The greatest evidence he offers in support of his weakening position is based upon translation of Greek from Hebrew in the Septuigant. He also insists on intermixing nouns and adjectives (see his reference to Mt 21:19 (to stay to the immediate context) in order to support his point of limiting the span of eternity. As we discussed earlier, I reviewed a number of first tier Greek lexicons (Kittel [long and short], BADG, and Louw-Nida) and none of them support the time limitation that Vincent wants to read into the word.
Why must Matthew 25:46 speak to time? Because, in the context of 25:31-46, the Lord is speaking to the gravity of the coming judgment. To remove the gravity of one’s choice for or against Christ by giving some hope that the wrong decision can be reversible in the future leads to carnality. Why seek Holiness in this life when you can change your eternal condition later?
Peace
Doulos,
Sorry for the late reply.
A couple things to point out here. One, Augustine was not right about everything. He, like all of us, made mistakes. What I admire about him most is that late in life he even wrote a book of retractions on many things he once thought (something that later theologians (e.g. Calvin) would have done well to emulate).
Second, the idea of universal salvation has always been a report within the Church. It was far more abundant prior to Augustine and admittedly get quieted a bit (at least in the West) since Augustine. Whereas Origen had pretty much everyone in heaven Augustine had pretty much everyone in hell. The pendulum swung. The West followed suit and much of theology has been shaped by this ever since.
Third, I believe the Holy Spirit is still leading Christ’s Church into truth. For centuries the Church had it wrong about slavery, race and sexism. Slowly but surely God has opened up our eyes to the gospel. It comes in fits and starts, it seems, but it comes all the same. We would be doing a grave disservice to the gospel if we adopted the attitude that “majority rules” or “this is how it has always been.” Imagine if that were the attitude taken by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15? “Sorry, Peter, but we, Israel, have always been the sole people of God. Are you asking us to go against everything we have known to be true for the past many millennia?” Thank God (for our sake as Gentiles) that listening hearts prevailed and they followed the Holy Spirit’s guide on this one rather than tradition or even their own interpretations of Scripture.
As for noun vs. adjective, do you not agree that the adjective can never be of more force than the noun it modifies? If we agree that aion does not necessarily mean a duration of time but simply an “age” than why must aionios mean “eternal”? There is good reason to believe it is referring to the quality of the noun it modifies rather than the quantity. There is no reason to insist that Matt. 25:46 cannot mean “an age of corrective judgment” vs. a “life of the ages.” “Zoe aionios” was a common topic of the day. The question, “What is it that gives a ‘life of the ages?’” would be a common discussion amongst philosophers of the day. They were not referring to a duration of time but a quality of life. It’s a life that is solely rooted in God. Now, from that we can suggest that a life rooted in God will lead to a life everlasting since God is immortal and has no end. But we need not say more than what Matt. 25:46 is saying – some go to a time of corrective punishment while others go to the life in God.
I hear this objection all the time. It seems to be the linch pin for many. Why follow Jesus if there is no fear of hell? I think part of our human nature is that we cannot imagine God operating outside our own principles.
Do you know anyone personally that believes God is going to save everyone and this is because of what God has done in Jesus Christ and yet lives like a hedonist? If you do, you will be the first I have met that knows such a person. Scripture teaches us that we love because God first loved us. It does not teach that we love because we live in fear of hell. In fact, we come to know that perfect love casts out all fear. I do not honor my mother and father because I fear their wrath if I do not. I do it because I love them. And because I know they love me. And because Scripture teaches that if I do it will go well for me – it begets a sort of “life of the ages.”
When are eyes are opened to the truth about what God has done in Jesus for all the universe it should bring us to our knees. We recognize that this is the true Lord of heaven and earth. In this life we have all sorts of gods vying for our allegiance. We all worship something. It comes down to whether or not we want to worship a lie (that which cannot truly give life) or worship Truth (the One and only one who can give life and wishes to give it “abundantly”). I give my life to Jesus not because I fear if I don’t he will cast me in hell forever and ever. I give my life to Jesus because he saved me from all the lies the world and I have been telling myself and has invited me to be a co-worker with God in something far bigger than my own personal eternal destiny.
Can you honestly say that your motivation to follow Jesus is out of a fear of hell? Or is it out of something more?
peace,
Chad
In the context of Matthew 25:31-46, practically every American is bound for eternal damnation.
Agreed, jjoe.
Doulos –
One more note about carnality. When Paul writes to the Corinthians, our infamous “carnal” Church, how does he admonish them? Does he tell them to shape up or they will go to an eternal hell? For that matter, does any evangelist in Scripture share the gospel in such a way that compels people to make a choice based on fear of an eternal destiny vs. opening their eyes to the GOOD NEWS of what God has done in Christ?
I find these words by Paul to the Corinthians enlightening :
“The work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.” (1 Cor. 3:13-15).
Could that “saving through fire” be the “kolasis aionios”?
I’m coming late to this discussion, but I was just studying this subject in connection with my witnessing to a woman friend of mine. I found your graphic and followed to your page.
What about Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
“…few there be that find it.” Doesn’t sound like everyone makes it –
or
Isaiah 66:24 “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases 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.”
“…neither shall their fire be quenched” — sure doesn’t sound temporary.
Since neither of these passages involve the controversial word “aionios,” I look forward to your interpretation.
May God bless you with His wisdom.
Merryheart
Merryheart,
Thanks for your comment. Sorry I am so late in responding. I have been traveling and haven’t been devoting as much time as I used to to blogging.
Just a few brief remarks:
1 – Matthew 7:13-14 need not be about an eternal destiny. Jesus came to give life. We will never find life if we do not walk the way Jesus walked. An interesting historical note: In Jesus’ day there were gates that were wide and narrow. If you were traveling by camel or had lots of supplies (baggage) that you were carrying and wished to enter by the narrow gate you would have to drop all that you were carrying with you. The wider gate allowed access without having to change very much. This is the way most of us go through life – holding on to our possessions, not wishing to change very much. Essentially, Jesus is instructing us to drop our baggage, to change, to enter the narrow way that leads to true life. None of this must insist on some eternal hell as the only alternative.
2 – Comments like “the fire shall never be quenched” speak to the seriousness or consequences of our choices. God is not to be trifled with. There will certainly be a day of Judgement when the world will be set to rights and we will have to answer for ourselves. But this must not be divorced from grace. Judgment and grace are two sides of the same coin. What’s more, the Bible is not adverse to hyperbole. Jesus, a Jew, spoke in hyperbole often (as did the prophets before him). It’s a way of speaking that gets one’s point across in dramatic fashion. There are examples in Revelation, for instance, where John writes that the smoke never ceases to rise and yet these same people who are ostensibly being tormented for ever are the same people that are later on entering the Kingdom and paying homage to the Lamb.
I need to pause here and get to work on Sunday’s sermon. If you are still around and would like to discuss this some more I’d be happy to. Again, thanks for stopping by!
grace and peace.