Well said!!
In classical Greek it means correction (as opposed to ‘timoria’), however I have read articles, that in Koine Greek it lost this meaning, and simply meant punishment, punishment - not torment - though without the implication of remedial punishment as it had in classical Greek
If we argument that in Koine ‘aionios’ did not mean eternal, we must accept that ‘kolasis’ also had another meaning than in classical Greek, it still is a weaker term than ‘timoria’, also found in the NT, or other terms.
One should check all occurances of kolasis in the NT to determine if its used in a remedial sense, which I think it actually is.
Another instance is 1John 4:17,18; were the context implies paternal chastisement
A form of kolasis is also found in 2Peter 2:9, from a Universalist point of view, chastisement would perfectly fit
Interestingly ‘timoria’ is used in Acts 22:5 and 26:11 where the context rather implies a harsh punishment
concordances.org/greek/2851.htm
what you think, given Matthew 25:46, 1John 4:17,18 and 2Peter 2:9 opposed to Acts 22:5 and 26:11
would you say the classical meaning is preserved in the NT?
Acts 22:4,5 Green’s Literal
I persecuted this Way as far as death, binding and delivering up both men and women to prisons, as also the high priest and all the elderhood witnesses to me. And receiving letters from them to the brothers, I traveled into Damascus even to lead those to Jerusalem being bound there, in order that they might be punished [timoria].
Acts 26:10,11
which I also did in Jerusalem, I also shut up many of the saints in prisons, receiving authority from the chief priests; and they being put to death, I cast a vote. And often punishing [timoria] them through all the synagogues, I compelled them to blaspheme. And being exceedingly furious against them, I even persecuted as far as the outside cities.
it implies a retributive, non remedial punishment in both verses, timoria is used
Catherine I’m right where you are at. I too have abandoned Universal Reconciliation and to be honest it has been the most freeing and life-giving experience for me. Yes I still hope for all to be saved, but it is simply a hope. The center of my focus now is no longer on humanity and trying to justify them before God, but instead knowing and experiencing God Himself. Would I trade all of humanity for Jesus? In a word, yes. Is it because I do not love people? Of course I do! I try to love them as much as I used to love myself. But Jesus was not kidding when He said,
He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
I wished for UR to be true so bad, yet fear and cowardice haunted every step I took. I felt trapped by the words I read, I could not escape the so-called “Blessed Hope”, I forgot about Jesus, about how much I simply wanted Him. To focus on Hell is not right, but neither is it right to focus on UR. We put our focus on mankind to much in either case, however, we are supposed to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. As I read the Scriptures now I see how much I had limited my understanding of God’s revelation by believing in UR, there is so much more in the word, but this one belief will make you worried about every single passage you read and you will be unable to see the beauty of truth. To see the word of God through a UR lens eventually leads to confusion and fear.
Now that I am free, I feel as if I was taken captive by the philosophy which Paul sternly warned us about. Even as I write the spirit within me bears witness to the light which dwells there. Now I am able to proclaim the gospel without having to try and fit it into my presuppositions, I accept what the Spirit of Christ says and I will never apologize for it. Praise God if all are saved, and praise God if they are not! It is all about Jesus, don’t you see? His truth is what sets us free, we can proclaim judgment and love, mercy and wrath, grace and truth. We are not bound to a mental assent of dead-doctrines, but instead we are guided by the Spirit of truth into all truth.
You will ask me how I can defend scripturally what I say, my simple reply is this: The soulish person does not understand the things of the Spirit for they are foolishness to him. Do not think I am saying you do not understand ECT as if it were a spiritual truth, I am not defending that at all here, my mind leans more toward annihilation. However, my spirit is free to believe whatever He wishes to reveal to me, I am not chained to any opinion or doctrine, but I am free to know the truth. The entirety of Your word is truth (Psalm 119:160).
Universal reconciliation was on my mind every waking moment, I researched it, argued it, dissected it, grew sick over it, was afraid of it not being true, it wasted my life slowly. And in the end, absolutely nothing should take our eyes off of Jesus Christ, plain and simple. Anything that consumes our energy and focus other than Christ, is an idol and one which will lead us as far away from the truth as possible. Jesus must be the center, that is Christianity 101. I have seen it with many who have adopted UR, it consumes their thinking, most status updates on Facebook are about UR, almost every video they like on YouTube, verses they post etc. It is unhealthy. Conversely it is wrong for people to focus solely on hell, either focus will hurt our relationship with God.
Catherine do not be afraid of mankind’s doctrines and ideas, let the Spirit of God teach you, let Him breath life into the Scriptures. He will show you the truth in this matter. I am still not fully sure what the judgment is out of the big 3 (ECT, UR, AN). I mainly take my view from John 3. Is it correction or punishment in Matthew 25? I do not know, but what I do know is this: That the judge of all the earth will do what is right. My job is simply to proclaim His unending love, His righteousness, His hatred toward sin and those who love it, His grace and truth, and to teach people the gospel of the Kingdom.
1 Like
Awakeninggalatheia, I’m glad that your focus has turned to Jesus instead of being consumed with any doctrine. And that’s a good thing. I was raised in a church that was very exclusive. If you didn’t believe like we did we did not recognize you as a brother in Christ, questioning your salvation. Doctrine was central to our relationship with God and with one another, especially a few doctrines that we felt were key to salvation. And then, well, I encountered the Lord and it shook one of my primary doctrines. I came to a place where I had to put my trust in the Lord and not in my own understanding of scripture. This freed me from much fear concerning being right or having it all figured out. It freed me to have strong convictions about what I’ve come to believe, but also have the freedom of humility to recognize that I could be absolutely wrong.
I suppose what I’m trying to say is that having a conviction about UR, ECT, Annihilation, or any other doctrine does not necessarily mean that a person’s focus is not on Jesus. I for one, being a teacher, love to study doctrine and come to a place of conviction; but such only flows out of my love for the Lord. I appreciate the well-used definition of theology as being “Faith seeking understanding” though I would change it to “Faith and Love seeking understanding”. It is my faith in the Lord and my love for Him and for people and my gifting as being a teacher that compells me to study scripture and worship and pray, trusting God to lead me into truth. And in seeking the Lord through study, prayer, fellowship, and fasting I came to believe in UR. And I’ve found it to be very liberating, trusting God to reconcile all to Himself in the end, and to reconcile us all with one another.
So for me UR is rooted in my faith in and love for the Lord and has increased my faith in the Lord and love for Him. I no longer have faith in him just to save myself, but I’ve come to have faith in Jesus to save all whom I love - more faith in Jesus. And I no longer only love Him because He has forgiven and loved me, but I love Him more because I believe He’s loved and forgiven all. I no longer wrestle between the sovereignty of God and His love for all, but accept both. I no longer limit the atonement in either scope (Calvinism) or power (Arminianism), but revell in the unlimited scope and power of the Cross!
1 Like
AG, I hear you. You are right in that it is unhealthy to focus on one doctrine to the exclusion of all else. We need a balanced diet – and that diet is the Tree of Life and the Water of Life. Our food is our Teacher, Shepherd, Bridegroom, Brother and Friend; our Father, our very Breath, the blessed Holy Spirit. There is so much more to Him/Them than UR.
But . . . I do believe God works with us in seasons. There is a season for this and a season for that, and everything in its season.
Early this year (or maybe late last year) I had a dream in which one of the little boys of our fellowship was greedily devouring one beautiful colorful casserole (we all eat together every week) and eating nothing else. Now this particular boy is not a big eater, so this was odd, but I grew concerned that he was being greedy and needed to save some for others and also that he should be eating some of the other good things that had been provided. I didn’t want to take it away from him, but I began taking some of the food from the casserole to put on another dish so that some of the others could also have some. As I took it from its baking pan, it lost color and became mostly white and tan – very ordinary looking and not appealing at all. And that was the dream.
Later in the morning, I still remembered it. That’s kind of my personal criterion for a “God dream;” that I remember it later, without having tried to. So I asked Abba what it meant. The upshot was that this little boy represented me, and that I shouldn’t try to take the dish away, but should allow him to eat as much as he wanted. At this time, that was what he was supposed to be eating. No one else in the group was in a position to appreciate it as he did, at least at that/this point in time. If I took it from him it would become bland and uninteresting and no one else would want it. I would deprive him and not help anyone else.
Interpreted? I had decided it was time to move on (now this is for me, not for you, so don’t feel I’m preaching at you at all, please!). I felt I was in danger of becoming imbalanced, focusing so much on this new, tasty dish of studying the UR leanings of the Bible. Abba told me (I believe) that He wanted me to stay with this for a while – not to the exclusion of all else, but that this should be my primary focus until He let me know that it was time to move on. He wanted me to understand as much as I could understand, in that this would enable me to share it with others as well as giving me assurance of its truth.
Again, this was my experience, pointed at me. I’m NOT saying that you’re doing wrong by moving on or by holding UR as a hope only. It’s likely that this is God’s will for YOU to do.
But I do want you to understand why some of us stick with it. I agree that it’s wrong and unhealthy to make UR the center of our lives instead of Jesus Himself. For me though, this is an aspect of our Lord that He wants me to learn well. I am AMAZED at His depth and breadth and height, and how there is NEVER an end to searching Him and knowing Him. He is so GOOD to reveal Himself to us so freely and to feed us with His very own life, like a mother nursing her child. His care is beyond my ability to fathom and His goodness, never ending.
Love in our magnificent, vast, and all provident Lord,
Cindy
1 Like
Hi Cindy,
That’s an awesome dream. It’s so cool how God speaks to us personally like that. I don’t know that I’ve ever had God speak to me through a dream, but He has spoken to my wife through dreams. On the other hand, I’ve both had a few visions and heard God speak to me very clearly at times.
In my journey, I’ve undergone a few significant changes in belief. And each one was at the result of months of study and prayer concerning that issue, one plate at a time kind thing. I recall when I first started studying the doctrine of Marriage, Divore, and Remarriage. That was a major focus of my life for about 4 years. I studied it until I came to a place of conviction and had worked through most related issues and studied all related scriptures. And that doctrine is not as complex or foundational as UR!
Well, anyhow, thanks for sharing your dream and what God spoke to you through that. That’s awesome.
Thanks, Sherm. God is good.
Hi all,
My first post on this forum; I hope it’s ok bumping up this thread.
Quote from this article.
What are your views on that article?
My first thought was that it is interesting how they omit a large part of Moulton and Milligans definiton of aionios and only cite the part that fits into their agenda.
I’m not surprised at that. I wonder how lexicographers work when reading this “In Matt. 25:46, kólasis aiṓnios (166), eternal, does not refer to temporary corrective punishment and discipline, but has rather the meaning of timōría, punishment because of the violation of the eternal law of God.”
Sound like: It means pruning but it in this case it must mean torture because my pastor says so.
I have a few quotes from the times of the papyri that seem to disagree with the modern lexigraphers.
I’ll post them later if there is any interest, but for now I’m looking forward to the views of others.
I would like to see them.
Concerning dictionaries, at least Strong’s appears as if to Hebrew or Greek words all the meanings were ascribed which were given them in the KJV, rather than to translate the KJV according to the meaning of the orginal words they defined Greek words by the translation of the KJV, circular reasoning.
I’m not entirely sure, but Strong claims to show how the word evolved over time. The top most in the list is the meaning during Jesus time.
Words are defined by society. If enough people use a certain word with a new meaning, eventually that new meaning gets added in the dictionary. Of course it’s different from a theological dictionary because that pretends to list word meaning as in use during Jesus time.
When reading the KJV we should use the meaning of English words in 1611.
Sorry for the bad layout. I hope it’s readable. TDNT is a very respected lexicon and the only one mentioning 288AD.
Does someone has another source with that info?
TDNT
βάσανος, βασανίζω, βασανισμός, βασανιστής
-
The βάσανος originally belongs to the calling of the inspector of coins . It is linked with the Heb. root בחן (“to test ”) and the Egyptian bḫn; (“basalt ”). According to K. Sethe.1 bhn is the word which underlies the Heb. בחן2 and the Gk. βάσανος. βάσανος is generally accepted to be a loan word. βασανίτης is most closely related to it. Βασανίτου λίθου ὄρος is the mountain of the bḫn stone. R. Herzog3 thinks that he may deduce from the etymological development that the ars spectandi, the testing of gold and silver as media of exchange by the proving stone , was first developed by the Babylonians,4 then came to the Aramaeans and Hebrews by way of Lydia (Λυδίαλίθος [Bacchyl. Fr., 14, 1, Blass]; βάσανος, Bacchyl., 8, 58), and from them to the Gks. In non-biblical Gk. βάσανος is a commercial expression, or is used in relation to government. It then acquires the meaning of the checking of calculations, which develops naturally out of the basic sense of βάσανος, βασανίζειν (P. Oxy., 58, 25 [288 a.d.] ). In the spiritual sphere it has the figur., sense, which is closely related to the original concrete meaning, of a means of testing (Anth. Pal., VII, 54: ἀνδρῶν κρινομένων ἐν βασάνῳ σοφίης).
The word then undergoes a change in meaning. The original sense fades into the background. βάσανος now comes to denote “torture” or “the rack,” espec. used with slaves (P. Lille, I, 29, 22; Ditt. Syll.3, 356, 12). βάσανος occurs in the sense of “torment” in Theocr. Idyll., 13, p. 13, 5, Meineke; Thom. Mag., p. 94, 4, Ritschl; Demetr. Eloc., 201, 4. An inscription from Cyprus (Salamis), BCH, 51 (1927), 148, 18, contains the malediction: ἐν βασάνοις ἀπόλοιτο. Vet. Val., IV, 13, p. 182, 19, Kroll has a reference to torments of soul (ψυχικὰς βασάνους).5
The change in meaning is best explained if we begin with the object of treatment. If we put men instead of metal or a coin, the stone of testing become torture or the rack. The metal which has survived the testing stone is subjected to harsher treatment. Man is in the same position when severely tested by torture. In the testing of metal an essential role was played by the thought of testing and proving genuineness. The rack is a means of showing the true state of affairs. In its proper sense it is a means of testing and proving, 6 though also of punishment. Finally, even this special meaning was weakened and only the general element of torment remained. -
In the LXX7 the word βάσανος and deriv. are seldom found except in the originally Gk. books, or those preserved only in Gk. A corresponding basis in the Heb. is lacking in almost every case. The word group is most common in 4 Macc. With βάσανος and βασανίζειν we here find βασανισμός, βασανιστήριον (tormentum) and προβασανίζειν. In general two groups of meaning may be discerned: a. testing afflictions which the righteous have to suffer in the world at the hands of the ungodly; and b. judicial sufferings which by reason of his conduct the ungodly will receive from the righteous in time and eternity. The martyrdom which the righteous have to suffer can consist in spiritual or physical torments (Wis. 2:19). In a few passages (e.g., Wis. 3:1) βάσανος is to be understood eschatologically. In Ez. 12:18, where we have βάσανος with ὀδύνη and θλῖψις, it has the meaning of eschatological affliction. In Ez. 32:24, 30 βάσανος refers to future torments. In Ez. 3:20; 7:19 (Heb. מִבְשׁוֹל), the LXX has altered the original meaning of the text; βάσανος is suffering in the sense of punishment. There is a similar alteration in 1 Βασ. 6:3, 4, 8, 17, where the Heb. has אָשָׁם and refers to guilt to be stoned, whereas the LXX speaks of trouble for which payment must be made. The same is probably true in Ez. 16:52, 54; 32:24, 30 (Heb. בְּלִמָּה), where instead of shame or disgrace the LXX has affliction in the sense of punishment. The reference in Sir. 30:35 (33:27) is to the punishment of a wicked slave. Here στρέβλη (στρέβλαι καὶ βάσανοι) is par. to βάσανος. In one passage (Wis. 2:19) βάσανος is par. to ὕβρις (mockery).
With βασανίζειν we sometimes have the basic meaning of testing genuineness, as in Sir. 4:7. The predominant meaning, however, is “to torment” or “to torture.” In Wis. 11:9 (10) βασανίζειν and πειράζειν are set in juxtaposition.
Of the other translators Ἀ in Qoh. 1:18 and 2:23 has βάσανος8 for מַבְאוֹב, whereas the LXX uses ἄλγημα. In Ἰερ. 20:2 Σ according to Jerome has βασανιστήριον sive στρεβλωτήριον, which in the LXX is found only in 4 Macc.; the LXX and Θ here have καταράκτης. At Prv. 10:8 (LXX: ὑποσκελίζειν) Σ has βασανίζειν, obviously in the sense of punishing with plagues; cf. Ἀ: δέρω (δαρήσεται); the (יִלָּבֵט) לָבַט of the Heb., however, means to bring to pass. Θ at 1 Βασ. 15:33 has ἐβασάνισεν in the sense of penal torments (Ἀ Σ : διέσπασεν, LXX: ἔσφαξε, Heb. שָׁסַף). -
βάσανος occurs in the NT only in Mt. and Lk. At Mt. 4:24 νόσοι and βάσανοι are co-ordinated.9 At Lk. 16:23, 28 the plur. βάσανοι refers to the torments of hell.10 Hell is called ὁ τόπος τῆς βασάνου.
βασανίζειν means strictly “to test by the proving stone” (βάσανος), i.e., “to rub against it,” “to test the genuineness of,” “to examine or try,” then “to apply means of torture to find the truth,” “to harry or torture” in a hearing or before a tribunal.11 In the NT it is found only in the general sense of “to plague” or “to torment.” The centurion’s servant lying sick of a palsy is grievously tormented (Mt. 8:6).12 To those possessed with demons encounter with Jesus is a tormenting experience (Mt. 8:29; Mk. 5:7; Lk. 8:28). At Rev. 12:2 βασανίζειν, like βάσανος in Anth. Pal., IX, 311, is used of the pains of labour.13 At 2 Pt. 2:8 there is reference to the inner torment of soul at the sight of the acts of the ungodly; Lot suffers as he sees the licentiousness of the inhabitants of Sodom.14 This is the only passage in the NT in which βασανίζειν is connected with the suffering of the righteous. In Rev. βασανίζειν is used of the torments of the last time. At Mt. 14:24; Mk. 6:48 it is used to depict the serious situation of the disciples on the lake; their boat is hard pressed by the waves.15 The suggestion that βασανίζεσθαι denotes the torture of the disciples rowing16 is artificial. In both passages it must be taken passively.17
βασανισμός occurs only in Rev. In 9:5 it is used actively of the torment which will come on men as the first woe after the fifth trumpet. In 18:7ff., however, it is used passively and denotes the suffering of Babylon when deprived of its power. This torment strikes the once powerful city in retribution for its wicked conduct.
βασανιστής does not occur in the NT in the original sense of a “tester” but it is found once in Mt. 18:34 in the sense of a “tormentor.”18
Schneider
Heb. Hebrew.
1 Pauly-W., III, 39, s.v. Βασανίτου λίθου ὄρος.
2 בחן is especially used of the testing of metal . Cf. Jer. 6:27 ff., where בִּכָּחוֹן is used in the sense of “one who tests” or “one who tests metal” (בָּחוֹן == δοκιμαστής, LXX).
Gk. Greek.
3 R. Herzog, “Aus der Geschichte des Bankwesens im Alterrum,” Abh. d. Giessener Hochschulgesellsch., 1 (1919), 29 f.
4 According to Herzog the stems בחן and צרף are synon.; the derivat. of the stem s̥rp are borrowed from Accadian. But צרף means “to purify” rather than “to test.” Thus the thesis of Herzog is not solidly grounded. v. on צרף and s̥rp F. Delitzsch, Assyr. Handwörterbuch (1896), 574, s.v.
Bacchyl. Bacchylides, of Ceos (505–450 b.c.), the most important writer of Greek odes after Pindar, ed. F. Blass, 1904.
Fr. Fragmenta (-um).
P. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. B. Grenfell and A. Hunt, 1898 ff.
Anth. Anthologia Palatina, a collection of minor Hellenistic poetry based on ancient collections of epigrams, assembled by Konstantinos Kephales in Byzantium in the 10th century a.d., and so called because the only MS. is in Heidelberg Library, ed. H. Stadtmüller and F. Bucherer, 1906.
P. Papyrus Grecs Lille, ed. P. Jouguet, P. Collart and others, 1912.
Ditt. W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum2, 1898 ff.;3, 1915 ff.
Theocr. Theocritus, of Syracuse (born c. 305 b.c.), celebrated Hellenistic poet and master of bucolic poetry (the idyll), later at court in Alexandria under Ptolemaeus II Philadelphus, ed. U. Wilamowitz in Bucolici Graeci, 1905.
Idyll. Idyllia.
Thom. Mag. Thomas Magister, really Theodulus of Thessalonica (?), a teacher of rhetoric and monk in the 14th century a.d., ed. MPG, 145, 1904.
Demetr. Eloc. Pseudo-Demetrius. Demetrius of Phaleron, peripatetic, brought Greek learning from Athens to Alexandria 308/7 b.c. He is not the author of the work which has been handed down in his name (Περὶ ἑρμηνείας, On Oratorical Expression), but it probably dates from c. 100 a.d., ed. L. Radermacher, 1901.
BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 1877 ff.
Vet. Val. Vettius Valens, later Greek astrologist (2nd century a.d.), ed. W. Kroll, 1908.
5 Cf. also Vett. Val., IV, 25, p. 201, 32; V, 2, p. 211, 28, Kroll.
6 Cf. the common NT thesis that buffetings and sufferings serve to test our faith.
7 We are indebted to G. Bertram for the section on the LXX.
par. parallel.
8 In 2 Ch. 6:29 Cod. 93 also has βάσανος for מַכְאוֹב.
pass. passive.
NT New Testament.
9 Cf. P. Leid., 7, 26 ff. (Preis. Zaub., II, 102; XIII, 290), where we have together ἐν βασάνοις, ἐν ἀνάγκαις, and ἐν ὥραις.
plur. plural.
10 Cf. the similar linking of κόλασις and βάσανος in P. Oxy., 840, 6, βάσανος having the sense of penal torment.
11 Thuc. VIII, 92, 2. Thom. Mag., p. 62, 12 ff.: 93, 17; 94, 2, Ritschl. Cf. also Preisigke Wört., 257; and further pap. material in Moult. Mill., II, 104, s.v. βασανίζω.
12 δεινῶς βασανιζόμενος. Cf. Ps.-Luc. Asin., 25: τῆς βασάνου τὸ δεινόν. v. also Luc. Soloec., 6; Thom. Mag., p. 62, 13, Ritschl; Jos. Ant., 2, 14; 9, 101; 12, 413.
13 On βασανιζομένη τεκεῖν (Rev. 12:2), cf. T. Jeb., 9, 4: האשה שמקשה לוולד (simil. S. Nu., 76 on 10:9) and Gn. 35:17.
14 Cf. also Herm. m., 4, 2, 2.
15 On βασανίζεσθαι (of the ship), cf. S. Nu., 76 on 10:9: “When a ship is tossed to and fro” (מִטָּרֶפֶת == βασανιζόμενος).
16 Zn. Mt. on 14:24 and B. Weiss Mk. on 6:48.
17 Kl. Mk. on 6:48.
18 Cf. Thom. Mag., p. 93, 17; 94, 4, Ritschl.
Schneider Johannes Schneider, Berlin (Vol. 1–2, 8), Berlin/Breslau (Vol. 3), (Vol. 4), Berlin (Vol. 5, 7). -
The βάσανος originally belongs to the calling of the inspector of coins. It is linked with the Heb. root בחן (“to test”) and the Egyptian bḫn; (“basalt”). According to K. Sethe.1 bhn is the word which underlies the Heb. בחן2 and the Gk. βάσανος. βάσανος is generally accepted to be a
Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (1:561). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Sven the requested quotes.
Passages from the works of Clement, only a few of which we quote, will sufficiently establish the fact that he taught universal restoration. “For all things are ordered both universally and in particular by the Lord of the universe, with a view to the salvation of the universe. But needful corrections, by the goodness of the great, overseeing judge, through the attendant angels, through various prior judgments, through the final judgment, compel even those who have become more callous to repent.” “So he saves all; but some he converts by penalties, others who follow him of their own will, and in accordance with the worthiness of his honor, that every knee may be bent to him of celestial, terrestrial and infernal things (Phil. ii:10), that is angels, men, and souls who before his advent migrated from this mortal life.” “For there are partial corrections (padeiai) which are called chastisements (kolasis), which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish (timoria) for punishment (timoria) is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually.” This important passage is very instructive in the light it sheds on the usage of Greek words. The word from which “corrections” is rendered is the same as that in Hebrews xii: 9, “correction” “chastening” (paideia); “chastisement” is from kolasis, translated punishment in Matt. xxv: 46, and “punishment” is timoria, with which Josephus defined punishment, but a word our Lord never employs, and which Clement declares that God never inflicts. This agrees with the uniform contention of Universalist scholars.
Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine.
The word by which our Lord describes punishment is the word kolasin, which is thus defined: “Chastisement, punishment.” “The trimming of the luxuriant branches of a tree or vine to improve it and make it fruitful.” “The act of clipping or pruning–restriction, restraint, reproof, check, chastisement.” “The kind of punishment which tends to the improvement of the criminal is what the Greek philosopher called kolasis or chastisement.” “Pruning, checking, punishment, chastisement, correction.” “Do we want to know what was uppermost in the minds of those who formed the word for punishment? The Latin poena or punio, to punish, the root pu in Sanscrit, which means to cleanse, to purify, tells us that the Latin derivation was originally formed, not to express mere striking or torture, but cleansing. correcting, delivering from the stain of sin.” 4 That it had this meaning in Greek usage, see Plato: “For the natural or accidental evils of others no one gets angry, or admonishes, or teaches, or punishes (kolazei) them, but we pity those afflicted with such misfortune for if, O Socrates, if you will consider what is the design of punishing (kolazein) the wicked, this of itself will show you that men think virtue something that may be acquired; for no one punishes (kolazei) the wicked, looking to the past only simply for the wrong he has done–that is, no one does this thing who does not act like a wild beast; desiring only revenge, without thought. Hence, he who seeks to punish (kolazein) with reason does not punish for the sake of the past wrong deed, but for the sake of the future, that neither the man himself who is punished may do wrong again, nor any other who has seen him chastised. And he who entertains this thought must believe that virtue may be taught, and he punishes (kolazei) for the purpose of deterring from wickedness?” “Do we want to know what was uppermost in the minds of those who formed the word for punishment? The Latin poena or punio, to punish, the root pu in Sanscrit, which means to cleanse, to purify, tells us that the Latin derivation was originally formed, not to express mere striking or torture, but cleansing. correcting, delivering from the stain of sin.” That it had this meaning in Greek usage, see Plato: “For the natural or accidental evils of others no one gets angry, or admonishes, or teaches, or punishes (kolazei) them, but we pity those afflicted with such misfortune for if, O Socrates, if you will consider what is the design of punishing (kolazein) the wicked, this of itself will show you that men think virtue something that may be acquired; for no one punishes (kolazei) the wicked, looking to the past only simply for the wrong he has done–that is, no one does this thing who does not act like a wild beast; desiring only revenge, without thought. Hence, he who seeks to punish (kolazein) with reason does not punish for the sake of the past wrong deed, but for the sake of the future, that neither the man himself who is punished may do wrong again, nor any other who has seen him chastised. And he who entertains this thought must believe that virtue may be taught, and he punishes (kolazei) for the purpose of deterring from wickedness?”
Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine.
Clement insists that punishment in Hades is remedial and restorative, and that punished souls are cleansed by fire. The fire is spiritual, purifying the soul. “God’s punishments are saving and disciplinary (in Hades) leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance than the death of the sinner, (Ezek. xviii, 23, 32; xxxiii: II, etc.,) and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh.”
He again defines the important word kolasis our Lord uses in Matt. xxv: 46, and shows how it differs from the wholly different word timoria used by Josephus and the Greek writers who believed in irremediable suffering. He says: “He (God) chastises the disobedient, for chastisement (kolasis) is for the good and advantage of him who is punished, for it is the amendment of one who resists; I will not grant that he wishes to take vengeance. Vengeance (timoria) is a requital of evil sent for the interest of the avenger. He (God) would not desire to avenge himself on us who teaches us to pray for those who despitefully use us (Matt. v: 44). Therefore the good God punishes for these three causes: First, that he who is punished (paidenomenos) may become better than his former self; then that those who are capable of being saved by examples may be drawn back, being admonished; and thirdly, that he who is injured may not readily be despised, and be apt to receive injury. And there are two methods of correction, the instructive and the punitive, which we have called the disciplinary.”
Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine.
I’m doing some research into kolasis for a sermon I hope to give on Matt 25. Interesting usage in the LXX:
Rolf Furuli"]the Hebrew text never has “punishment”
where the LXX has KOLASIS.
Jer 18:20 SHUCHA “pit”
Ezek 14:3,4,7,30; 44:12 MIKSHOL “stumbling block”
Ezek 43:11 LXX: "and they shall take (or, bear) THN KOLASIN AUTWN
MT: “and if they are ashamed” KALAM
I do not have the Greek text of Josephus at hand, but from previous studies
I remember passages where he used KOLASIS with the meaning “punishment” or
“torment”. In 2 Macc 4:38 KOLASIS is evidently used for the penalty of death.I looked them up (inserted URLs above) & it seems he’s correct. I wonder what Barclay would make of that 
Ah, I’ve found another helpful post about it:
Which I reckon explains why it’s translated “stumbling block”, because if you cut off someone’s legs (i.e. maiming) they would stumble 
Dr. Larry Perkins"]To conclude, the claim that Matthew’s use of kolasis in 25:46 describes a temporary punishment that is designed to be corrective, i.e. a kind of pruning to stimulate a more appropriate response, does not seem to be borne out by the evidence of usage in the century before and after Jesus, given the context of Jesus’ teaching in that section of Matthew’s Gospel. The noun and verb both are used to describe divine punishments meted in accord with God’s judicial sense and in response to human impiety, both in this life and in the life to come. The usage in Wisdom of Solomon, Philo and Josephus is particularly telling, along with the Phrygian and Lydian inscriptions, I would suggest.
However he mentions in the footnotes:
I might be wrong but 1 Peter 2:20 actually sounds like discipline??
e.g. receiving God’s favor after suffering -> good coming out of suffering
Similarly with 1 John 4:18:
We fear Love’s correction but Love removes this fear (but not the correction). While we still fear we have not yet been corrected by Love.
Yes, “kolasis” meant “cutting off”. It was originally used in the sense of pruning trees to correct their growth. Later, it was figuratively used in the sense of correcting human behaviour. Is that not the sense it is used in Matthew 25:46?
And these [the “goats”] will go away into lasting correction but the righteous into lasting life.
Paidion… although I see things from an eschatological angle I’m not completely averse to this, but… what in your estimation does text’s “lasting life” actually mean? I ask because someone is bound to conclude that the “correction” you mention MUST by the nature of things also have the same “lasting” meaning applicable to it? Assuming (always a dangerous thing to do) the “lasting” carries the typically accepted notion of unceasing continuity wouldn’t that leave the “correction” with a permanency of which the text itself (according to your notion) provides no way out? Or, is there another explanation?
I’m sure someone somewhere has put something similar to you –- what is your solution to this from the text?
Paidion can give an answer based on the original languages, Davo, but I would say that the correction lasts (that is, it works and has permanent results) and the life lasts (it too is permanent).
Well, let’s consider what “αἰωνιος” (aiōnios) actually means. I claim that it means “lasting”, and that that meaning fits every context.
However, it is important to observe that “lasting” can be applied to things that are temporal, or to things that are everlasting. So in “The Wars of the Jews” by Josephus, the word applies to Jonathan’s jail term, which was said to last 3 years. That 3-year period was “lasting”, but certainly not everlasting. But the word is also used to describe God. (Rom 16:26), and it is true that God is lasting, though He’s also everlasting.
In Jesus parable of the sheep and the goats, the goats go into “lasting correction” and the righteous go into “lasting life.” The correction of the goats is temporal. For “everlasting correction” doesn’t make sense. How could correction be everlasting? If it were everlasting, then those enduring it would never actually be corrected. That correction comes to an end at some point, and so it is not everlasting. On the other hand, the life given to the righteous is lasting, and also everlasting.
Paidion,
I like what you are saying. But if the correction is everlasting (which I don’t believe) couldn’t those who receive it reject and refuse the correction forever?