I’m not sure. I would certainly be open to that, and the idea posted elsewhere, that the wicked dead are tormented in the presence of the Lamb, etc., would seem to lend weight to the possibility that the different subjective states of existence can/will/may occupy the same location. Good thought. Makes sense. That the tormented may in fact be among us, and in time, come to perceive that there is a state of blessedness into which they may enter, once they have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb . . . perhaps our Lord will even allow us to be of service to them.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the lake of the fire and the burning brimstone being the presence of God. You very well could be right, especially if in 14.10 it is the lake of the fire and the burning brimstone that is surrounded by the Lamb and the angels. “IF” what John saw was not the Dead Sea, but was something akin to a lake of molten lava, understanding it as the all-consuming presence of God fits very well. I too have understood it that way for some time now. On the other hand, “IF” what John saw in his visions was the Dead Sea, then this is a radically different picture and would thus carry a significantly different connotation. Sadly, John doesn’t describe what he saw, only calls it the lake of the fire and the burning brimstone. Apocalyptic artistic literature is challenging to interpret anyhow, especially if the visions are not clear to us.
Okay, if the Lake of Fire is IN the presence of the Lord…
Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone** in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:**
…then what does this verse mean?
Matthew 25:41
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Depart?
Also, why do those who believe in ECT think the Lake of Fire is AWAY from God’s presence for all eternity? When clearly in Rev 14:20 it says it is IN God’s presence? Where do they get the idea that it is eternal separation?
Note that 14:10 does not actually use the phrase “the lake of the fire and the burning brimstone”. It says that those with the mark of the beast will be tormented with burning sulfur. It actually reminds me of when Isaiah had a coal (brimstone?) from the altar placed on his lips and he was purified, delivered from evil within and sent as a messenger to those still in bondage to evil.
Mt. 25:46 is warning of judgment of everyone, with the wicked, those who are selfish and not meeting the needs of those around them, suffering the discipline of separation, being rejected and feeling rejected because of their selfishness. Have you ever noticed how selfish people often feel so lonely and ostracized, like no one wants to be around them. This is a natural outcome of selfishness - isolation and loneliness!
And this is apparently what the devil and his angels are now experiencing being cast out of heaven, separated from God, held in Tartarus until judgment. And “if” demons are angels that have been cast out, then we live in their Tartarus, what Paul calls “this Present Evil Age”.
Also, separation, being cast outside the camp was a civil discipline meant to bring change in the person being disciplined.
There are different modes of discipline, and different analogies. God disciplines those whom He loves! And who does God love? “For God so loved the World that He Gave!” The World, everyone.
Yes but it’s still the same place, no? “With fire and brimstone” is a reference to the Lake of Fire.
Yes and this from Isaiah 30:33 For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.
There’s the term “brimstone” again as describing the Lord’s breath…
I got this excerpt below from this site here: scaredofhell.com/thelakeoffire.html
Good site, explains a lot. You all should check it out, unless of course you already know about it…
It goes on to explain:
"The Lake of Fire and Brimstone signifies a fire burning with brimstone; the word ‘brimstone’ or sulphur defines
the character of the fire. The Greek word THEION translated ‘brimstone’ is exactly the same word THEION which
means ‘divine.’ (emphasis mine) Sulphur was sacred to the deity among the ancient Greeks; and was used to
fumigate, to purify, and to cleanse and consecrate to the deity; for this purpose they burned it in their incense. In
Homer’s Iliad (16:228), one is spoken of as purifying a goblet with fire and brimstone. The verb derived from
THEION is THEIOO, which means to hallow, to make divine, or to dedicate to a god (See Liddell and Scott Greek-
English Lexicon, 1897 Edition). To any Greek, or any trained in the Greek language, a ‘lake of fire and brimstone’
would mean a ‘lake of divine purification.’ The idea of judgment need not be excluded. Divine purification and
divine consecration are the plain meaning in ancient Greek. In the ordinary explanation, this fundamental meaning
of the word is entirely left out, and nothing but eternal torment is associated with it.”
Charles Pridgeon; Is Hell Eternal, or Will God’s Plan Fail; pgs 116 & 117.
Here, Brother Pridgeon makes a vital point: brimstone is for purification, not punishment. This thought went
unquestioned until the Dark Ages. His purpose was understood to purify and consecrate, not separate and
punish. This Lake of Divine Fire will purify, refine, restore and consecrate til there is nothing left that is contrary to
Him.
An interesting note here, going along with the train of thought is that the Greek word for fire is pur, and is where
we get such words as pure, purify and purgatory. Fire in this sense is for purification, not destruction."
And from The New Testament Greek Lexicon
Definition of theion is…
brimstone: divine incense, because burning brimstone was regarded as having power to purify, and to ward off disease
It’s possible that Rev.14.10 is a reference to the lake of the fire and the burning brimstone because it does mention burning brimstone, and this would make sense “IF” the lake of the fire and the burning brimstone had already been mentioned, but it hadn’t. So I don’t picture 14.10 as the lake of the fire and the burning brimstone, but as the Lord “tormenting” those with the mark with burning brimstone.
Concernng Mt.25.46, that is a completely different passage, different metaphor, different author, to a different audience. Thus I do not use one to interpret the other, but seek to understand each passage individually based on its own context and merits.
In Mt. 25:31-46, Jesus is speaking of His coming and judging all of humanity; and He particularizes the judgment presenting it as based on how one treats those less fortunate - the poor, strangers, hungry, thirsty, naked, prisoners. Some people see those needs and meet those needs almost unconsciously. Others do not even recognize the needs of others, likely because they are so self-absorbed. And then Jesus compares this judgment to a shepherd separating out the kids from the flock. Unfortunately, most, if not all, English versions mistranslate probaton as “sheep” when it actually means “any small 4-legged animal” that is part of a shepherd’s flock. Could be sheep, goats, small cattle, even donkeys. Shepherds to this day in the Middle East run diverse animals together in one flock. The word mis-translated “goats” is eriphos and specifically means “kids” as in baby goats.
The shepherd is separating out the kids from the flock, not sheep from goats. The difference highlighted is Maturity NOT Kind! Kid goats need focused training, discipline so that they can be functional members of the flock. This understanding fits well with the word “kolasis” which is best understood as chastizement, I think. And of course, this chastizement comes from the Lord, is aionian, aionian kolasis.
Not necessarily. It’s a different vision/painting. It might “mean” the same thing, but the more I read this passage, the less I think of it as the lake of the fire and the burning brimstone, but think more of it as being like Isaiah’s encounter with the Lord where he was purified by fire, a coal (brimstone?) from the altar.
Why did they translate it as “sheep”? I do not know. Possibly because translating it that way helps to make people think the passage is talking about God separating Christians and non-Christians. Imo, it’s likely they “assumed” this interpretation of this passage and interpreted with that slant. The doctrine of Hell has been assumed as being true for so long and by so many people that it is not only read into scripture but has even been translated into scripture.
Why is Gehenna translated as Hell when the translators know full well that it was/is the name of a valley/ravine just outside Jerusalem? Even Jerome, an advocate of Hell, did not mistranslate Gehenna as Infernum in his Latin Vulgate but transliterated it as Gehenna. Gehenna wasn’t mistranslated as Hell until the first English translations. Even the 1395 Wycliff Bible mistranslated it as “Helle”. It’s likely that coming out of the Dark Ages, Hell being a common assumption, it was unconsciously translated into scripture, and continued by tradition. Translators have many reasons to follow what is “accepted” and not shake up things - “IF” they want their translation accepted and sold.
It’s not incorrect to translate probaton as “sheep.” Probaton does mean sheep, and it also means livestock or cattle in general, and more specifically small livestock such as sheep and goats.
I suspect what we have is a culture/language difference here, where if you ask them how to say “sheep” they would tell you “probaton” and if you ask them how to say “goats” they would also say “probaton.” And if you ask them how to say sheep and goats, they would also say “probaton.”
Now if you ask specifically how to say “ewe,” “ram,” “male kid” and so on, then you get different words. Languages and concepts don’t neatly line up one for one.
So it’s probably not an intentional mistranslation, just a place where lack of specialized knowledge leads to misunderstanding. And while this can be seen in a universalist light – especially given the use of “kolasis” – it can also be seen in other ways. If I believed in ECT, I’d argue from this passage that the shepherd is culling the flock and separating the male kids for sale or slaughter. But then that picture also works from a universalist perspective – they go to the second death in the lake of fire.
Giving the translators the benefit of the doubt is good. I suppose I think they should know better, knowing that probaton doesn’t specifically mean sheep like eriphos specifically means kids. This particular passage translation goes all the way back to Wycliff, and it’s possible that he translated it as sheep, not realizing that it would have been better translated as flock. And then subsequent translators just stuck by tradition, not having a compelling reason to correct it, if they noticed it.
Concerning a shepherd separating out the kids from the flock for slaughter, it’s not likely, I think, that a shepherd would cull out all the kids for slaughter. He might pick out one or two, but not the whole group. Him separating out all the kids for training and discipline though, does make sence to me. But of course, this is one of the challenges of translation and interpretation.
Sonia, I certainly could have been more generous in my previous post though, and not assumed anything negative concerning the translators. Thanks
You all should check it out, unless of course you already know about it…