Kolasis- punishment or torment?

[Eaglesway]

Looking at the lake of fire as an example of aionian kolassis I have a theory backed up by some verses as to the nature of it, and perhaps even how the duration is determined.

In brief,

In Revelation John sees Jesus, his eyes are as flames of fire and sword proceeds from his mouth.

12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

I believe that light is fire to darkness. That fire consumes impure motives(1 Cor 3;15). So no one can resist correction for any longer than it takes for the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ to penetrate their veils and expose the secrets of their hearts, “You shall not escape until you have payed the last penny”

the last penny is confession and repentence, remorse and change of heart Psalm 51)

But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them…6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Whether time is a factor in the lake of fire, or whether it is a matter of intensity(many stripes few stripes), the goal is for the light/fire of God, in the form of the sharp two edged sword of the word(Logos- inclusive of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ- the presence and light of God in Christ) to “bring every hidden thing to light”.

Isaiah 27
In that day the Lord with His severe sword, great and strong,
Will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent,
Leviathan that twisted serpent;
And He will slay the reptile that is in the sea.
2 In that day sing to her,
“A vineyard of red wine!
3 I, the Lord, keep it,
I water it every moment;

Everyone has a Leviathan in them until the Lord slays it with His word, the revelation of Christ crucified, the piercing of the heart and discerner of the reins and motives, the secrets of the heart.

For some this occurs in this life- and these are written in the lamb’s book of life. “Come enter the joy of your Lord”.
For some it will occur through an experience of being penetrated by the light, the two edged sword exposing the secrets of their hearts, and the fire of God that is in the eyes of Jesus consuming every darkness in the soul, until they are subjected(1 Cor 15 22-28), reconciled(Col 1;16-21), gathered into one in Christ(Eph 1:9-11). Until every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

IMO, no one could resist that light forever. The superiority of the love of God, expressed in the cross of Christ, is the ultimate argument in favor of love versus hatre, light versus darkness, harmony versus chaos, and it will consume every stronghold and fortress that exalts itself against the true knowledge of God.

[Cindy_Skillman]

That was an awesome post, Eagle’sWay!
http://www.wargamer.com/forums/smiley/229031_thewave.gif

[Eaglesway]

Thx

[Paidion]

I know I posted the following in another thread, but it seems to belong in both that one and this one.

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 “αἰων ιος” 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 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

[Eaglesway]

aidos in Jude does not mean everlasting does it?

6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting(aidiois) chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;

it only means until the judgment of the great day.

[davo]

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.

Thanks Paidion… you’re right, “everlasting correction” doesn’t make sense. It seems unfortunate though that the other side of the coin doesn’t quite gel consistently with regards to the “lasting life” either. IOW… to just switch the understanding of the selfsame term between temporal and then non-temporal for no other reason than a latter rendering would make no sense with regards to “the life given to the righteous” if it isn’t “eternal”, just seems a little unconvincing.

Fortunately “αἰων ιος” 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.

Actually I think you might be closer to the mark here with the combined thoughts of “agey” and “enduring”. Young’s Literal Translation pretty much uses “of/to the age/s” and or “age-during” so ‘age-lasting’ would seem quite a reasonable rendering for “αἰωνιος”.

Given that God is ever enduring He is God of the age/s, of each and every succeeding age. Thus whatever age may be in view though it be temporal, He is yet the God of it as in “age-lasting”… what we call eternal.

[Paidion]

Davo, I think “lasting” as a translation of “αἰωνιος” fits every context. Inherent in the meaning of the word is no indication as to the duration of that lastingness. It could last 3 days (as Jonah’s time in the belly of the fish), 3 years (as Jonathan’s time in prison), Many decades (as a stone wall), thousands of years (as mountains) or everlasting (as God). The length of time the goats must be corrected is unknown, but when they have been corrected, the correction process will come to an end. All we know about that process is that it is lasting, and that it may be uncomfortable.

[Eaglesway]

aionios is the Greek for olam, or owlam. A study of olam gives a lot of insight into aionios as a Greek word translating a Hebrew thought.

[davo]

Inherent in the meaning of the word is no indication as to the duration of that lastingness.

Yes absolutely. My point is that “age” (αἰων) along with this sense of defined “lasting” thus “age-lasting” (however long that might be) makes obvious grammatical sense.

Of course this is all just one side of the coin because “eternal” or “everlasting” as Jesus specifically uses it at one point shows it carries an unequivocal QUALITATIVE meaning, thus NOT quantitative in terms of longevity… no matter how sort/long we might think it to be.

Jn 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Understood in this qualitative manner as above it is possible to see that what the goats and sheep received at “the end of the age” was the FULLNESS (this is qualitative) of retribution or reward. NEITHER had to do with an endlessness of destruction or life, but rather the FULL measure associated with either. Remember… Jesus said “I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.”

[Paidion]

Of course this is all just one side of the coin because “eternal” or “everlasting” as Jesus specifically uses it at one point shows it carries an unequivocal QUALITATIVE meaning…

I’ve heard the qualitative meaning stated rather often, but I have never encountered any convincing justification for it. As I see it, the simple translation “lasting” fits every context, and is the straightforward meaning. “aionios” life is simply lasting life, and this lasting life that we have in Christ also happens to be everlasting.

[Cole_H]

I’ve heard the qualitative meaning stated rather often, but I have never encountered any convincing justification for it. As I see it, the simple translation “lasting” fits every context, and is the straightforward meaning. “aionios” life is simply lasting life, and this lasting life that we have in Christ also happens to be everlasting.

I agree with you 100% on this Paidion!

[davo]

Of course this is all just one side of the coin because “eternal” or “everlasting” as Jesus specifically uses it at one point shows it carries an unequivocal QUALITATIVE meaning…

I’ve heard the qualitative meaning stated rather often, but I have never encountered any convincing justification for it.

So you’re NOT at all convinced by Jesus’ most direct and defining explanation… “THIS IS eternal life” i.e., ‘to know God’ (Jn 17:3) – who then will you believe? This is the SAME “life” Jesus speaks of earlier in Jn 10:10… it is qualitative life, that is LIFE TO THE FULL, the very essence of what it means to live life. How is that not hard to understand

[Cole_H]

I would also like to add that the words “fire”, “torment” and “brimstone” in the Greek Lexicon have the definitions of:

1. Torment - a testing by the touchstone

2. Brimstone (sulfur) - divine incense, because burning brimstone was regarded as having the power to purify

3. The word “fire” in “The Lake of Fire” comes from “pur” which means to purify.

Definitions come from “Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament”

[Cole_H]

Just to back up what Paidion is saying:

The LXX generally translates Olam by Aion which essentially has the same meaning. That neither the Hebrew or Greek word in itself contains the idea of endlessness is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past, and also by the fact that it is thought desirable to repeat the word.

Harris, Archer, Waltke Theological Wordbook Of The Old Testament page 673.

The argument made that because the passage is in Matt. a parallelism the Greek word cannot take on it’s finite meaning in one instance and it’s eternal meaning in another doesn’t hold. Paidion is being consistent by using the Greek words meaning as “lasting” both times. The term in and of itself doesn’t mean forever although it can refer to eternity because eternity is lasting. This follows the principle of consistency in interpreting the Greek as “lasting” in both instances.

[Paidion]

So you’re NOT at all convinced by Jesus’ most direct and defining explanation… “THIS IS eternal life” i.e., ‘to know God’ (Jn 17:3)

There is nothing in those words which state or indicate that “aiōnios” defines a quality of life, that is if we understand the way in which the NT writers used the word “is”.

Take for example the clause “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). Is “God’s word” synonymous with “truth”? Or does the clause simply mean “Your word is true”? If “God’s word” is synonymous with “truth”, then any time anyone speaks what is true, he is speaking God’s word!

Consider Romans 14:17

for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Again, Paul is not saying that the Kingdom of God is synonymous with righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, but rather:

The Kingdom of God is not characterized by eating and drinking, but by righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit

There are many other examples, but I’ll post one more for now:

He [Christ Jesus] is our peace. (Eph 2:14)

Does this statement say that “Jesus” is synonymous with “our peace”? or does it affirm that Jesus is the SOURCE of our peace?

Similarly, in John 17:3, I suggest that Jesus was saying that lasting life is the consequence of knowing God—not that lasting life is synonymous with knowing God.

[davo]

So you’re NOT at all convinced by Jesus’ most direct and defining explanation… “THIS IS eternal life” i.e., ‘to know God’ (Jn 17:3)

There is nothing in those words which state or indicate that “aiōnios” defines a quality of life, that is if we understand the way in which the NT writers used the word “is”.

We may just have to agree to disagree… but the Greek “ἐστιν” estin translated “IS” emphatically identifies said “eternal life” as being a then present reality… Jesus did not say “this will be” (future tense) but “this IS” (present tense).

Similarly, in John 17:3, I suggest that Jesus was saying that lasting life is the consequence of knowing God—not that lasting life is synonymous with knowing God.

Again THAT suggestion may work for argument’s sake WHEN you incorrectly futurise (sp) the exact intent of Jesus’ words; but I find that unconvincing and unnecessary and simply take Jesus’ words as gospel… equating “eternal life” with “knowing God” being a PRESENT reality.

[Eaglesway]

Jesus is making a qualitative statement about aionios zoe, not 'defining the word “aionios” for us. He was explaining how we enter and are ‘swallowed up’ by(1 Cor 15:54) “aionios zoe”- by “knowing God”.

I think Jesus is establishing the context and perspective through which we ought to look at “lasting life”- not giving the definition of a word, but from then on one must take into account Jesus’ definition when considering the words together. “aionios zoe” is qualitative as well as quantitative.

He is giving the kernel of the truth about lasting life. He communicates like this often, subjecting words to concepts and in the process redefining ideas through phrases that have to be looked at as the sum of a new whole not the limit of a part. It is also a very common scriptural method- one of the ways the Holy Spirit, in writing the scriptures, makes ethereal realities available through the limitation of words- by expanding the meaning of an individual word by attaching it to a broader concept for emphasis, revealing the essence.

For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

The kingdom of God, in my opinion, IS righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. That is the “essence of it” and that is what Paul is saying. The Lord’s kingdom parables and the sermon on the mount would affirm that as one legitimate definition, at least that’s how I read it.

Jesus used words, all the time, to communicate ideas and to relate revolutionary concepts that transcended the words themselves. The object is the idea- not one word. The idea flows out of and dances around the word through the usage and context- it is not bound by it. The context reveals the weight of what Jesus is communicating perceptually. In other words, it is about the “combination of words”.

In my opinion, through that statement, Jesus imputes and expands the qualitative sense extending from olam and the Hebrew concept represented in that word which includes(clearly) the element of “unknownness”. His statement has to be looked at as two words together, revealing something previously unknown. But this doesnt mean that now aionios must be viewed as qualitative as a simple and separate word. Only when it is yoked with “zoe”

“aionios zoe”

Jesus tells us plainly that aionios zoe is defined qualitatively as knowing God. The lasting nature of such life, in essence IS knowing God and its quantitative aspect (that it is lasting) proceeds from its essence, the matter of which it is composed- knowing God, fellowship, communion, walking in the spirit, etc.

When yoked with “kolassis” or “pyr” it no longer imputes the same quality- but I do like the connection to fullness davo- a common quality to many usages and consistent with the use of “olam” in many of its hundreds of occurrences, perhaps as in

lasting pertaining to life - fulness is forever full in the all in all- knowing, communing with God

Lasting pertaining to correction-- fulness of correction being the subjection, reconciliation and restoration of the corrected- to knowing, communing in the all in all.

[Paidion]

The kingdom of God, in my opinion, IS righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

A kingdom consists of a king and his subjects. So it is with the Kingdom of God.

Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” (Luke 17:20,21ESV)

The Pharisees hadn’t realized that the Kingdom of God was right in their midst! How so? King Jesus was standing among them surrounded by his disciples. There stood the King and his subjects! True, the Kingdom would grow, as Jesus indicated in his parables of the Kingdom. And true, the Kingdom would come to its completed stage. Jesus also had parables for this. But the Kingdom is ALWAYS about King Jesus and his subjects (until the day that all of Jesus’ enemies are subject to Him, and He delivers the Kingdom over to his Father, so that God may be all in all (1 Cor 15:28).

The Kingdom IS King Jesus and His subjects. Again I say that Paul’s statement, The Kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness, peace (well-being), and joy in the Holy Spirit" is saying that the Kingdom members are known, not for fancy food and drink, but for their righteousness, well-being, and joy. After all, how could the Kingdom possibly BE food and drink? But the possibility is there, or Paul wouldn’t have affirmed that the Kingdom wasn’t food and drink. So He was actually affirming that the Kingdom (that is the King and his subjects) is not characterized by eating and drinking. It is characterized by righteous living, well-being, and joy in the Holy Spirit of God.

[Eaglesway]

The kingdom of God is many things. You are defining it quantitatively and insisting that is THE definition. Some things can be defined quantitatively and qualitatively, and the kingdom of God is one of them.

The quantity, in this case- is meaningless without the quality

I am not excluding the quantitative definition by stating the qualitative one, nor was Paul, who was also defining the qualitative essence of the kingdom- elements of what makes the kingdom what it is.

[Eaglesway]

1 Corinthians 4:20 For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power.

This is a similar qualitative evaluation of the kingdom, that imo goes beyond just defining it by the King and His subjects, but also and in this case particularly- by its essence/elements.

Luke 8:10 And He said, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand."

IMO, in Luke 8:10 “mysteries of the kingdom of God” does not refer in a way limited specifically to the King and the subjects, but to the mysterious(by reason of being of the nature of God- inscrutable to natural men) elements of what makes the association of the inhabitants a unique kingdom.

I see Paul defining those elements in the verse in Romans and in 1 Cor 4;20 as well.