Matthew 25:46 from Universal Reconciliation perspective

User avatar
Nathan
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:55 pm
Location: El Dorado County, CA

Matthew 25:46 from Universal Reconciliation perspective

Post by Nathan » Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:37 pm

I have been looking at the three views of hell, on and off, for nearly 3 years and have been perplexed how Universal Reconsiliationists handle Matthew 25:46, where Jesus says, speaking of the goats on the day of judgment:
Matthew 25:46, ESV
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
The best argument I'm aware of against Universal Reconsiliation points to the two uses of eternal, as modifying punishment and life, and claims that it must be used for similar durations, which makes perfect sense. In otherwords, if life is an eternal state then punishment must be too, or conversely, if punishment is of limited duration, then life must likewise be so.

I have read some interesting interpretations of this passage from Premillennial UR'ists who say that the life and punishment refered to in this passage only take place during the 1000 year millennial reign of Christ. This would make some sense, if I held to that view, but I'm amillennial in my understanding of the reign of Christ, and thus don't find this explanation particularly convincing.

I just interested in finding out if anyone out there is familar with any other UR explanations of this passage. Thanks!

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Matthew 25:46 from Universal Reconciliation perspective

Post by steve » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:53 pm

The words "eternal" and "punishment" have been much discussed here.

It seems that the word for punishment is a Greek word for corrective discipline. Whether it can sometimes mean merely vindictive punishment or not has been debated here, but the meaning of "correction" as a primary meaning seems indisputable.

Also the Greek word for "eternal" has been demonstrated, from a great number of sources and examples, to not necessarily have "endless" in its proper definition. It is a word related to "an age" or "the age"—but its exact meaning seems fluid. The meaning that seems to fit all usages would seem to be something along the lines of our word "enduring"—which might mean "enduring forever," or else "enduring for an indefinite period," depending on context.

The argument that "enduring punishment (or correction) must last the same length of time as does "enduring life," is an argument first made, I believe, by Augustine, and repeated, apparently, by every advocate of eternal torment who has ever written on the subject. It is apparently a major argument for the traditional view of hell. However, it is illogical. For me to say that my two best friends each have an enduring relationship with me does not mean that I have known them both for an equally long time. I might have known one for twenty years and the other for forty years. There is no indication about specific length in the word I am using, nor the slightest reason to believe that the use of the same word for both relationships necessitates their being of the same duration as each other. If I were to say "I have had an enduring loyalty to Apple computers" and also to say, "I have an enduring faith in God," it would not be necessary for anyone to conclude that my loyalty to Apple will be with me for as long as my faith in God endures. I might someday become weary of Apple products, while my faith in God may last into eternity.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Matthew 25:46 from Universal Reconciliation perspective

Post by steve7150 » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:39 pm

Matthew 25:46, ESV
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."





The righteous as Paul tells us are already immortal, so for them it is not necessary to translate this as eternal life because that's what immortality already has.
So if "aionios" means "enduring" or "age to age" or a finite period of time it does'nt take away anything from the immortality of the righteous.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Matthew 25:46 from Universal Reconciliation perspective

Post by Homer » Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:07 am

Steve wrote:
The argument that "enduring punishment (or correction) must last the same length of time as does "enduring life," is an argument first made, I believe, by Augustine, and repeated, apparently, by every advocate of eternal torment who has ever written on the subject.
Justin Martyr (circa 150AD) said, "Some are sent to be punished unceasingly unto judgment and condemnation of fire." Again Justin said, "He goes to the everlasting punishment". So eternal life or eternal condemnation was either everlasting life or everlasting condemnation. Likewise, when the bible says God is eternal, that means that God is everlasting (who ever referred to God as "enduring?"). What Justin calls "eternal fire" in one place he calls "punishment for endless duration" elsewhere. Justin used the words "everlasting", "unceasing" and "endless duration" synonymous with "eternal".

Irenaeus (circa 180AD) contrasted temporal life with "length of days forever and ever" which the ungrateful in this brief life would not receive. He said "To such, He has assigned everlasting damnation by cutting them off from life". "Eternal" to Irenaeus was the same as "everlasting" which was the same as "length of days forever and ever". Elsewhere he described the "eternal" as "without end" or "never-ending".

And Augustine was clearly not the first to note the antithetic parallel between eternal life and eternal punishment. Irenaeus long before Augustine said "good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these things is also eternal and never-ending".

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Matthew 25:46 from Universal Reconciliation perspective

Post by Homer » Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:19 pm

Steve,

You wrote:
It seems that the word for punishment is a Greek word for corrective discipline. Whether it can sometimes mean merely vindictive punishment or not has been debated here, but the meaning of "correction" as a primary meaning seems indisputable.
That is a misleading statement. I am not accusing you of deliberately misleading anyone; I know you would not do that, but your statement is like saying a "gay" man is someone who is happy, not recognizing the change in meaning of a word.

I offer some comments from The Apologists Bible Commentary on the Greek word kolasis:
The word translated "punishment" reflects the common meaning of the word in Koine Greek. The word occurs in over 130 documents contemporary with the Greek New Testament, and in all cases, the translation "punishment" is correct.
The difficulty with much of the scholarship regarding kolasis is that it is outdated, lacking information since discovered in papyri that was not available at the time:
Before we look at each references in detail, I would note that these sources are dated. All but the last two are 19th Century lexicons. Berry is fairly recent, but is a classical Greek lexicon, not a New Testament Greek lexicon. Why is this important? The discoveries and publication of the various papyri at the end of the 19th century and continuing in the early decades of the 20th brought a new understanding - and appreciation - for the fact that Koine Greek was a developed language, with significant differences from Classic, or Attic, Greek. Many of the lexicographers of the 19th century simply did not have access to the papyrological evidence, and so their lexicons favored more Classic definitions. This is why you won't find these lexical sources showing up in many scholarly papers - if any! The standard works are BAGD, Moulton & Milligan, Louw & Nida, and the TDNT.
Moulton & Milligan, BAGD, and Thayer list dozens of occurrences of KOLASIS in late classical and early Christian documents, and cite "punishment" as the proper translation in each case. There are no other meanings listed for KOLASIS in any of these lexicons. Here is just one example from Moulton and Milligan: "for the evil doers among men receive their reward not among the living only, but also await punishment (KOLASIN) and much torment" (Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840).
It is true that KOLASIS is derived etymologically from KOLAZÔ. It is also true that in Classic Greek, KOLAZÔ means "to prune, to cut off." However, there are several problems with asserting that KOLASIS should be properly translated "cutting off" because of its relationship with KOLAZÔ. First, determining the meaning of a word by its derivation is an example of the "etymological fallacy." D.A. Carson states that presuming that a word's meaning is bound up with its root or roots is "linguistic nonsense" (Carson, Fallacies, p. 28). Words may or may not share semantic range with their etymological forebears. In many cases, they do not. The fact that all modern lexicons define KOLASIS as "punishment" and not one lists "cutting off" as a possible definition, suggests that it does not mean "cutting off," regardless of what KOLAZÔ may mean.
When I read your comments about kolasis I immediately thought of DA Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies".
Second, KOLAZÔ had the meaning "to prune, to cut off" in Classical Greek. However, as the Liddell-Scott lexicon shows, even in classical times, it began to take on the meaning of chastisement or punishment:
to chastise, punish, Sophocles, Euripides, etc.:—Med. to get a person punished, Aristophanes, Plato:—Pass. to be punished, Xenophon. (LS)
While KOLAZÔ may have originally had the meaning "cut off," it was commonly used in late Classical Greek and in Koine Greek to mean "punish, chastise, restrain." A quick check of the modern lexicons will confirm this fact:
Prop[erly] to lop, prune as trees, wings ... to chastise, correct, punish: so in the N.T. (Thayer)
"To cut short," "to lop," "to trim," and figuratively a. "to impede," "restrain," and b. "to punish" ... A common use is for divine chastisement....The NT uses kolazw in Acts 4:18 and 2 Peter 2:9. Only the latter refers to God's punishment (TDNT)
Punish (BAGD) - This lexicon lists dozens of examples from literature contemporary with the NT and lists "punish" as the only meaning for kolazw in this time period.
Moulton & Milligan suggest that kolazw retains the meaning "correcting," "cutting down" in later documents, such as Galen, but note that "punish" is the proper translation in the NT, and cite several contemporary sources supporting this meaning.
Thus, we may conclude that there is no lexical support for the NWT translation of KOLASIS in Matthew 25:46. The NWT (New World Translation) offers an anachronistic rendering, consistent with its theology but not with common usage in New Testament times.

User avatar
RICHinCHRIST
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:27 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Matthew 25:46 from Universal Reconciliation perspective

Post by RICHinCHRIST » Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:19 pm

I've also heard the explanation that the word "eternal" may not necessarily be referring to duration, but rather to the source of the life and punishment. The following quote is from the article I shared on the thread "Barclay was convinced":
William Barclay wrote:"The word for eternal is aionios. It means more than everlasting, for Plato - who may have invented the word - plainly says that a thing may be everlasting and still not be aionios. The simplest way to out it is that aionios cannot be used properly of anyone but God; it is the word uniquely, as Plato saw it, of God. Eternal punishment is then literally that kind of remedial punishment which it befits God to give and which only God can give."
Therefore, 'eternal' may not be referring to the specific length of time (everlasting), but rather to the eternal source from which that life and punishment come from (i.e. God).

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Matthew 25:46 from Universal Reconciliation perspective

Post by Paidion » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:49 pm

It would help us a lot, Homer, if you would give the references to the writings to which you refer, with regards to Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.

Even a much later writer, Chrysostom, knew the word “αἰωνιος” does not mean "eternal". Indeed, in his Homily of the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Ephesians, he indicates that the word has the opposite meaning! He wrote that the kingdom of Satan “is αἰωνιος (agey), in other words it will cease with the present αἰων (age).” So Chrysostom obviously believed that “αἰωνιος” means exactly the opposite to “eternal”! ---- that is “temporary.”
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Matthew 25:46 from Universal Reconciliation perspective

Post by Homer » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:28 am

It would help us a lot, Homer, if you would give the references to the writings to which you refer, with regards to Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.
They are not hard to find. I posted a longer list from the earliest church fathers long ago. If you have Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs that is a good start. A google search should find even more.

Roberto
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Matthew 25:46 from Universal Reconciliation perspective

Post by Roberto » Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:41 pm

I hope that a thorough job is done here concerning "aionios" and "kolasis", before feathers are ruffled and folks pack up in a huff as I have seen happen in theological discussions! Let's give it our best honest shot!

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Matthew 25:46 from Universal Reconciliation perspective

Post by Paidion » Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:45 pm

So Homer, are you then unable to provide citations where "κολασις" in extra-NT literature CLEARLY means retributive punishment? You seem to be telling me to look it up for myself, and so I have begun to look at the word as it is used in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, and have found no occurrences of the word which cannot mean "correction".

I offer the following example where the word CLEARLY means correction:

And you, son of man, show to the household of Israel, the house, and show its appearance and its arrangement,that they may cease from their sins. And they shall receive their κολασις concerning all their doings, and you shall describe the house, and its entrances and its foundation, and all its systems, and you shall make known to them all it regulations and describe them in their presence, and they shall guard all my righteous ordinances and all my commands and do them. (Ezekiel 43:10-11) a translation of the Septuagint.

In this passage, God states His purpose in asking Ezekiel to show the house to Israel, namely that they may cease from their sins. He immediately follows this with And they shall receive their κολασις concerning all their doings. If God wants them to cease from their sins, and then gives them κολασις, is he punishing them retributively, or is He correcting them? The answer seems plain. Furthermore the conclusion of the matter is that the Israelites will guard all my righteous ordinances and all my commands and do them.

Surely this is reformation, and not mere revenge for their wrongdoing in the past.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “The Gospels”