Matthew 25:46

[Jess]

"And these will go away into eternal punishment but the righteous into eternal life."

Christ's story about the sheep and the goats. I am curious how this verse would be explained by those of the conditional immortality or universal reconciliation persuasions. Thanks ahead of time for your insights.

In Him,

Jess

[darinhouston]

The way I've heard it is that "eternal punishment" is not the same as "eternal punishment." A conditional immortality / annihilationist (my particular leaning) would say that the effect of destroying something utterly is pretty eternal. Yes, Christ is the judge, but if Christ is always having to punish for eternity, then it's hard to say things have been "put to rights" as NT Wright might say.

I'm not sure what the universal reconciliation view of this passage would be.

[mikew]

I wonder how Matt 25 sheep and goats event can be described as applying to a universal judgment

Matt 25:35 for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. 25:36 I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.’
...
25:38 When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? 25:39 When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’ 25:40 “The King will answer them, ‘Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.

The passage addresses judgment about how the sheep and goats treated Christians (assuming we are reasonably able to say that "my brothers" is a reference to believers). So the only judgment here would be upon those who were in contact with Christians in order to treat them well or to shun the believers.

[steve]

It may be true that this parable primarily (or exclusively) deals with the fates of those who were not Christians themselves, but who treated Christians in a certain manner (I am not sure of this), but the severity of the punishment remains an issue. If somebody treats me (I am a Christian) in a bad way—say, I am hungry and they do not feed me—do I wish for them to experience protracted torture for their lack of sympathy? I think the teaching of Jesus would forbid me to desire any such disproportionate retaliation (Luke 6:27-37). Nor would it be in my heart to wish it. So the question would be: "Is God less compassionate toward such people than I am, or than He commands for me to be?"

As Darin pointed out, those of the conditional immortality view sometimes say that what is described in the passage is "eternal punishment" (that is, annihilation—a one-time punishment that is eternal, or irrevocable, in its results), and not "eternal punishing" (i.e., an eternally continuous application of punitive afflictions).

Universalists often point to the etymology of the Greek word for "punishment" and say that it originally meant something like "pruning [a tree]" or "correction." This would suggest that the goats undergo divine "correction" after the judgment. But how can correction be said to be eternal? Does it mean that the correcting process goes on forever without the person ever reaching the desired point of "correctedness"? Or does it mean that they are "corrected for [that is, to be fitted for] eternity [i.e., with God]"?

One suggestion I have made elsewhere—which would fit equally with either traditionalism, annihilationism or universal reconciliation—would be that the adjectives "everlasting" and "eternal" (aidios and aionios), in certain contexts, may intend to be understood to mean "proceeding from, or pertaining to the eternal God." This could explain the otherwise difficult passages which say that the fallen angels are kept in "everlasting chains" awaiting their future judgment and that Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed by "eternal fire" (Jude 6 & 7). I don't necessarily have lexical backing for this suggestion, but sometimes the drift of a statement can better be grasped by an author's idiosyncratic usage than by etymology.

It is noteworthy, in this connection, that Paul says the lost will experience "eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord" (2 Thess.1:9). What does this last phrase mean? It could mean that their "destruction" is actually another way of saying exclusion from the presence of God. This is how most of the authors on hell seem to understand it. The NIV, NASB and ESV actually add words to the verse to give it that meaning (the NIV adds "shut out from the presence of the Lord; and the other two add the word "away"—thus, "away from the presence of the Lord"—but none of these added words are in the Greek text).

The exact phrase "from the presence of the Lord" is also found in Acts 3:19—"so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord"— where its meaning obviously does not speak of exclusion from God's presence, but something that proceeds from God's presence. If that meaning is also taken in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, then Paul is saying that "eternal destruction" means "destruction proceeding from the presence of the Lord"—providing support for my suggestion above.

If this suggestion has any merit, then "eternal punishment" might not be saying anything about its duration so much as its divine origin, and would be capable of agreeing with any of the three viewpoints, without, in itself, supporting any one of them against the others.

[Jess]

Thanks for the insights from all of you. Very helpful. Makes a lot of sense. I have been doing some study since my earlier post. When one compares the Jude 6&7 passage with Gen 19 it's clear the the fire itself was not literally eternal as in continuing forever (Abraham got up the next day and saw the smoking remains of the destroyed city). I get your meaning of it being eternal in its results and/or its being from God.

BTW, Steve, you need some sleep! 1:28 am posting time? Sheesh!

Take care Bro's

In Him, Jess

[Homer]

Jess,

You wrote regarding the sheep and the goats:

The passage addresses judgment about how the sheep and goats treated Christians

I believe you are correct in this statement. IMHO, the passage is one of the most misunderstood statements of Jesus. I do not take it as being primarily about helping those in need (there is plenty about that elsewhere), but in accepting the message the Christians bring about Jesus. Hospitality meant something in those days, much more than it does today - it could mean acceptance of the person and in particular, the message they bring.

See for example:

2 John 1:10-11 (New King James Version)
10. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11. for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

John 13:20 (New King James Version)
20. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.”

So to my mind, the sheep and goats is about the final judgement, which depends on acceptance or rejection of the gospel message, shown by the treatment of those bearing the good news.

[RickC]

On another thread on Matt 25:31-46 (Parable of the Sheep and Goats) I commented:

I've been considering that the judgment spoken of here might be of Jews in the dispersion and in Israel (Jews in all nations); that the judgment was initiated (took effect) upon the Ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ: The "sheep" being the believing remnant of Israel, the "goats" being apostate Israelites.

My theory so far is that this judgment began when Jesus took King David's Throne (as the parable suggests): but the carrying out of the sentence of the judgment will not be till the last day (verse 46). In the interim, the remnant (sheep, believing Jews) anticipate their full and final inheritance of eternal life; the apostates (goats, unbelieving Jews) may anticipate being awarded punishment. However, I haven't studied this out fully. So I won't be able to comment further now.

Added in now:
If my proposal has any weight (merit); this parable would apply to Jews of the present time, up till the Return of the Messiah-King. It would have implications for Romans 9-11 (the current remnant of believing Jews, and the true potentiality of unbelieving ethnic/racial Israelites coming to Christ before he returns).

(Sorry I wasn't exactly on-topic).

Thanks,

[Homer]

Hello brother Rick,

Matthew 25:32 (New King James Version)
32. All the nations (ethnos) will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.

How do you get around the difficulty of ethnos, in the plural, being a reference to the Jews? I believe when it refers to Israel, it is singular, and plural it was often translated Gentiles, but can refer to all peoples as in "all the nations".

[Paidion]

I looked up every reference to "ethnos" in the NT. I found that even in the singular it means "nation". It doesn't have any particular reference to Israel. Sometimes it happens to refer to Israel as when a Jewish person spoke of "our nation", but the word itself does not denote Israel in particular.

[mikew]

The idea came to my mind that the nations here may be referring more to the culturally or politically distinguished nations and not that of individual people. So I have thought of this passage as being the "Judgment of Nations" which is also an idea mentioned in passing by J. Vernon McGee.

Since then there have been other passages that appear to speak of a judgment of nations, such as Isa 13:11 (and verses around it) and Dan 2 and 7.

This Matt 25 passage then may be more of a judgment like was done to Gomorrah, a destruction into oblivion of a city. Of course the idea of eternal punishment could have different connotations if applied of a city rather than of people.