Why not Universal Reconciliation?

[Homer]

Robby wrote:

The Bible contends that unredeemed men will dwell forever in hell. Jesus’ own words confirm that the time spent in heaven for the redeemed will last as long as that of the unredeemed in hell. Matthew 25:46 says, “Then they [the unsaved] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” According to this verse, the punishment of the unsaved is just as eternal as the life of the righteous.

The Oxford scholar, C. F. Burney, d.1924, wrote his book "The Poetry of Our Lord", as a work intended to prove the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels are authentic. To show this Burney translated Jesus' words from Greek back into Aramaic and demonstrated that they are spoken in Palestinian poetry. The poetic form was commonly utilized to enable the hearers to easily remember what was said. Burney wrote that this technique was widely employed by the Old Testament prophets, which is obvious when we look at many modern translations.

Burney had no axe to grind about universalism in this book . He listed Matthew 25:46 as one of the numerous uses of Jesus of the poetic antithesis. In this form the words "eternal" bear the same meaning in both instances and "life" and "punishment" are in opposition. We have an antithetical parallelism, otherwise the poetry is destroyed. And this is why the great logomachy waged by the universalist over this one verse. The very words of our Lord destroy their speculative system, while the traditional and annihilationist views can both easily accommodate the verse into their systems.

[steve7150]

Burney had no axe to grind about universalism in this book . He listed Matthew 25:46 as one of the numerous uses of Jesus of the poetic antithesis. In this form the words "eternal" bear the same meaning in both instances and "life" and "punishment" are in opposition. We have an antithetical parallelism, otherwise the poetry is destroyed. And this is why the great logomachy waged by the universalist over this one verse. The very words of our Lord destroy their speculative system, while the traditional and annihilationist views can both easily accommodate the verse into their systems.
User avatar
Homer Posts: 2078Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm





I also have no axe to grind as annihilation seems fair to me as God owes us nothing including eternal retribution. The simple fact is as we have gone over ad infinitum is that the greek word "aionios" means an undefined period of time. Could mean ages upon ages or from one age to the next , but since the unsaved may spend different amounts of time in the LOF an undefined amount of time would make sense. The fact is that the righteous already have immortality so by nature they have eternal life.
As far as a speculative system I have to ask why the KJV intentionally started translating "sheol" and "hades" into hell when their bible version was the only game in town?

[backwoodsman]

What exactly is it in their exegetical explanation of that point that you don't find convincing?

Basically, the position contends forever doesn't mean forever when relating to judgment upon unbelievers.

That's a misstatement of their position, but no matter as far as my question is concerned. I was trying to learn whether you've actually familiarized yourself with their points enough to engage them exegetically and Scripturally, and I got my answer.

What they actually say in this regard is that 'forever' is a mistranslation of 'aionios', and they seem to have several pretty solid bases for saying that. This has been discussed at length a number of times on this forum; just search for 'aionios' and read what you find. When you've done that, I'd like to see any comments you may have, especially if you can offer a Biblical refutation on this point.

For instance, I would be curious to know how a proponent for UR would exegete the following:

The Bible contends that unredeemed men will dwell forever in hell. Jesus’ own words confirm that the time spent in heaven for the redeemed will last as long as that of the unredeemed in hell. Matthew 25:46 says, “Then they [the unsaved] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” According to this verse, the punishment of the unsaved is just as eternal as the life of the righteous.

If 'aionios' really meant 'eternal', and if we had no evidence for eternal life that didn't depend on 'aionios', then your statements would be logically justified. But even if we ignore all instances of 'aionios' we still have a solid Biblical case for eternal life; eternal torment, on the other hand, is left with virtually no support whatsoever. So statements like yours here, and statements by proponents of eternal torment that without eternal torment we don't have eternal life either, are incorrect.

[Homer]

Hi Backwoodsman,

You wrote:

But even if we ignore all instances of 'aionios' we still have a solid Biblical case for eternal life; eternal torment, on the other hand, is left with virtually no support whatsoever.

I'm curious what other "time" statements assure us of eternal life. I would like to study them. Could you list a few of the best ones at making the point?

Thanks

[steve]

Hi Homer,

You certainly are aware that there is a word "immortality" in scripture, and a phrase, "shall never die," which do not involve the word "aionios." If the word aionios never appeared in scripture, we would still have adequate scriptural testimony that salvation brings us into an unending life.

In fact, you have been involved in these discussions from the beginning, which means you also know that the best modern lexicographers say that aionios does not necessarily mean "endless." Alternative meanings, given by the best evangelical scholars, include "long-lasting," "age-enduring," "uninterrupted within a particular timeframe," and "pertaining to an age" Some things that are aionios may be everlasting, but aionios things needn't be everlasting. This point has been demonstrated beyond question in this forum so many times that there is no excuse for someone who has followed these dialogues to be ignorant of it.

If anyone is interested in the meanings that scholars assign to aionios, my book devotes half of a chapter (pp.99-109) to the subject.

Before any traditionalist seeks to make a point using the word aionios again, I would like to hear him/her actually engage the arguments in those pages. I know you have read the book, Homer, so you should either know that the statements you are making about aionios are incorrect, or you must have some exegetical reason for rejecting my points there. If the former is the case, you should stop making arguments that you know are invalid; in the latter case, you should point out the flaws in my arguments about aionios that justify your rejection of them.

In any case, you should never again try to prove a point by appeal to the word aionios, until you have engaged the arguments against your position that have been on the table from the earliest discussions of the topic here.

[Paidion]

Jesus’ own words confirm that the time spent in heaven for the redeemed will last as long as that of the unredeemed in hell. Matthew 25:46 says, “Then they [the unsaved] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” According to this verse, the punishment of the unsaved is just as eternal as the life of the righteous.

Hi Robby,
You must have a lot of faith in the translations.

To find out what a Greek word means, one should look up the word in many writings. Lexicons can be deceiving. Besides with a dozen of more "definitions" how can you know the primary meaning of the word? I find that the dozens of meanings which lexiconophers (newly coined word) produce are usually possible words that may be placed in translations to make sense. It doesn't really help much to understand the word. I go also by the etymology of the word. I have studied Greek for several years, and my faith in lexicons has been steadily decreasing. I look up the words as they are normally used in the Septuagint (including the apocrypha), and in extra-biblical Greek writings.

The words which have been translated as “eternal punishment” are the Greek words “αἰωνιος κολασις” Let’s consider “κολασις” first. This word was originally used for “prune” as in pruning plants. Plants are pruned by cutting off certain parts so as to correct the growth of the plant. “κολασις” was used in classical Greek in reference to a means to correct an offender. Look at any Greek lexicon, and you will find “correct” is given as one of its meanings.

The word is found only twice in the entire New Testament --- Matthew 25:46 in regards to the goats in Jesus’ parable, and I John 4:18 :
There is no fear in love, but complete love casts out fear. Fear has κολασις. The one who is afraid is not completed in love.


What could the statement “Fear has punishment” possibly mean? I could understand “Punishment has fear”, but not “Fear has punishment”. Do you know of anyone who has been punished because he is afraid?

However, I CAN understand “Fear has correction”. The context of this statement indicates what the correction is. A state of fear in a person can be corrected when that person is completed in love.

Now back to Matthew 25:46 where the goats are to be sent into “αἰωνιος κολασις”. If we agree that “κολασις” means “correction”, then what would “eternal correction” mean? If a person were corrected eternally, the correction would never be completed, and thus the person would not be corrected at all!

Fortunately “αἰωνιος” DOES NOT mean “eternal”. Indeed, it never means “eternal”. It is the adjectival form of the noun “αἰων”, which means “age”. So, I suppose we could translate “αἰωνιος” as “agey”, but as far as I know, the latter is not an English word.

The word was used in koine Greek (the Greek spoken from 300 B.C. to 300 A.D.) to refer to anything which is enduring. The word was used by Diodorus Siculus to describe the stone used to build a wall. The word seems to have been used as meaning “lasting” or “durable”.

Josephus in “The Wars of the Jews” book 6, states that Jonathan was condemned to “αἰωνιος” imprisonment. Yet that prison sentence lasted only three years.

But the clincher comes from the Homily of the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Ephesians, written by Chrysostom. He wrote that the kingdom of Satan “is αἰωνιος (agey), in other words it will cease with the present αἰων (age).” So Chrysostum apparently believed that “αἰωνιος” meant exactly the opposite to “eternal”! ---- that is “ lasting” but in this case also “temporary.”

As I see it, the following would be a correct translation of Matthew 25:46
And they [the goats] will go away into lasting correction, but the righteous into lasting life.


Lasting correction is correction which endures. At some point it comes to an end. Lasting life is life which endures. But it just so happens that the lasting life we receive from Christ endures forever. But the idea of "forever" is not inherent in the word “αἰωνιος”. The adjective can apply to eternal things and also to temporary things.

The true Greek word for "eternal" is "αἰδιος". That word is found in the following verse:
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. Romans 1:20

[dizerner]

It's amusing that under the claim to be Biblical, no one has come up with a universal damnation doctrine... easy to see this logic there, "all have sinned" and "sinners will be cast into hell." But we're not influenced by our own interests and emotions? Universalism and annihilationalism all benefit human emotions, whatever the claim to Biblical purity is... and all this claim to Biblical purity is just too hard to believe.

[steve]

dizerner,

I do not understand your post. No one has argued here for either annihilationism or universalism by any appeal other than to scripture. Did someone (other than you) appeal to emotions at any point? Does the fact that these alternatives happen to be more palatable than the traditional doctrine render their biblical arguments less tenable? Must we arrive at our theology strictly on the basis that, if something sounds reasonable and just, it cannot possibly be what God intends? It seems to me that you are arguing your case entirely from emotion—namely: "My view is the correct one because it is universally acknowledged to be emotionally repugnant." You have provided no compelling biblical case, so you resort, finally, to emotionalism alone. Has any other opinion on the topic been defended similarly?

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

Good to hear from you! You may not be a universalist but you certainly are an able and eager surrogate.

You wrote:

You certainly are aware that there is a word "immortality" in scripture, and a phrase, "shall never die," which do not involve the word "aionios." If the word aionios never appeared in scripture, we would still have adequate scriptural testimony that salvation brings us into an unending life.

It is good that you mentioned this; it helps clarify the idea Matthew conveyed when he wrote in Greek what he heard Jesus say in Aramaic, related to us in matthew 25:46.

In fact, you have been involved in these discussions from the beginning, which means you also know that the best modern lexicographers say that aionios does not necessarily mean "endless." Alternative meanings, given by the best evangelical scholars, include "long-lasting," "age-enduring," "uninterrupted within a particular timeframe," and "pertaining to an age" Some things that are aionios may be everlasting, but aionios things needn't be everlasting. This point has been demonstrated beyond question in this forum so many times that there is no excuse for someone who has followed these dialogues to be ignorant of it.

Are you thinking I am ignorant of it? Have I somewhere in this thread said that? But you acknowledge that aionios can mean eternal, or appear to do so in your book. But the question before us is not whether aionios may mean eternal or merely an age, but what did Jesus mean in Matthew 25:46 when he spoke in Aramaic and did not use aionios? Perhaps you missed my earlier post regarding C. F. Burney's translation of Jesus' words back into Aramaic. Burney wrote that "the first fact that strikes the eye is our Lord's free use of parallelism, and that especially of the kind which is known as antithetic." Burney goes on to write "Our Lord's teaching, like the gnomic teaching of the Wisdom-literature, tended to express itself in sharply marked antithesis; and these antithesis are commonly expressed in balancing couplets. The antithesis is very often produced by the use of opposites...". In the case of Matthew 25:46 we have the fate of the sheep and goats in opposition and aionios necessarily the same in both instances, otherwise the antithesis is lost and His meaning obscured to those who heard him.

In the past you have argued (correct me if my memory is faulty) that the meaning of the life of the sheep was expressed in terms of quality. Both you and backwoodsman say we have ample proof elsewhere in scripture, apart from aionios, that this life is eternal. I agree. And it is just common sense that this is what Jesus meant in reference to the sheep, which is strong evidence of what the same word, in the same sentence, in an antithetic statement, meant.

As far as both the traditional and annihilationist views are concerned, neither has a problem with this understanding of the meaning of aionios. For the annihilationist it is simply the second death, after which there is no second resurrection; the punishment lasts forever.

Perhaps its just me but you seem rather irate in your post. I have made no statement about the meaning of aionios in general, so why the outburst about there being no excuse for my ignorance?

Edit: I was stating from memory that Burney had listed Matthew 25:46 as an example of Jesus use of antithetic parallelism but I was mistaken. Alexander Campbell had argued the point of the antithesis in his debate with B. F. Skinner. Burney diagrams several examples in his book but didn't use this one.

[steve7150]

In the case of Matthew 25:46 we have the fate of the sheep and goats in opposition and aionios necessarily the same in both instances, otherwise the antithesis is lost and His meaning obscured to those who heard him.

In the past you have argued (correct me if my memory is faulty) that the meaning of the life of the sheep was expressed in terms of quality. Both you and backwoodsman say we have ample proof elsewhere in scripture, apart from aionios, that this life is eternal. I agree. And it is just common sense that this is what Jesus meant in reference to the sheep, which is strong evidence of what the same word, in the same sentence, in an antithetic statement, meant.






As Paidion pointed out the translation of "aionios" into "enduring" or "lasting" works well and would satisfy the parallelism requirement if this requirement does exist. Also although Jesus may have spoken Aramaic it was Matthew who wrote his words into greek and used "aionios." Can we trust Matthew?