Talbott on Matthew 25:41, 46?

james.goetz · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

Hey Luke,

First, I agreed that aionion in Matthew 25:31-46 implies “everlasting”. However, Matthew 25:31-46 is a parabolic prophecy, so the imagery of everlasting fire and everlasting punishment might be nonliteral. And given the wider NT eschatological context, I conclude that the imagery of everlasting punishment is nonliteral. You might find me expressing different views on aionion in the past, but reading Bauckham and Hart, Hope Against Hope (1999) convinced me of their view.

Second, many ideas in biblical studies and church history clinch my views of universalism. My following two articles summarize my reasons for universalism:
theoperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/10/orthodoxy-and-gregory-of-nyssas.html
theoperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/02/kings-earth-heaven.html

I’ll also develop a lot of these ideas in my book with Wipf & Stock:
theoperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/07/conditional-futurism-new.html

roofus · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

Is “pertaining to a long period of time” considered an older tradition that “endless”?

Bob_Wilson · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

I’m not coversant enough with the etymological history to answer that! I do have the impression that before the NT, Septuagint OT translators chose “aioniois” to describe OT episodes that plainly were not “endless.” So it seems to me, despite our dominant tradition’s theological incentive to maintain a translation like “everlasting,” that the burden of proof falls on those who want to show that this was plainly the original connotation in the early uses of a term whose literal meaning does not appear to imply such a meaning.

roofus · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

An exhausting study needs to be done, or so it seems to me. I wonder why such zeal seems so rare?

SLJ · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

Here’s a study of aion/aionios from 1875: tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html

I haven’t read all of this yet myself–just bits here and there. I have it saved in my To Read folder.

Sonia

stellar_renegade · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

Yeah, that’s one of the first pieces of universalistic literature I discovered. It was just after I prayed that I’d find something, too.

This is what I’ve tried to get across on a few different occasions:

It does not seem to have been generally considered by students of this subject that the thought of endless duration is comparatively a modern conception. The ancients, at a time more recent than the dates of the Old Testament, had not yet cognized the idea of endless duration, so that passages containing the word applied to God do not mean that he is of eternal duration, but the idea was of indefinite and not unlimited duration. I introduce here a passage from Professor Knapp, or Knappius, the author of the best edition of the Greek Testament known, and one in use in many colleges and ranks as a scholar of rare erudition. He observes:

“The pure idea of eternity is too abstract to have been conceived in the early ages of the world, and accordingly is not found expressed by any word in the ancient languages. But as cultivation advanced and this idea became more distinctly developed, it became necessary in order to express it to invent new words in a new sense, as was done with the words eternitas,perennitas, etc. The Hebrews were destitute of any single word to express endless duration. To express a past eternity they said before the world was; a future, when the world shall be no more. . . . The Hebrews and other ancient people have no one word for expressing the precise idea of eternity.”

Sherman · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

To me, the debate over the meaning of aionios in Mt.25.46 is a side issue, a rabbit trail. A key point in understanding this verse is the meaning of *kolasis *- remedial punishment. It simply does not make sense to say “endless remedial punishment”, for “remedial punishment” speaks of punishment meant to effect a positive change. When the positive change is made there is no further need for the punishement.

Also, the judgment spoken of is based on works, how one treats others; it is not based on faith. And yet, traditionalists who point to “aionios kolasis” as affirmation of there being a Hell, routinely dismiss that judgment in this passage is based on works and instead they affirm that salvation is based on faith.

The Believer’s Bible Commentary notes:
25:46 Thus the goats go away into everlasting punishment, but the sheep into eternal life. But this raises two problems. First, the passage seems to teach that nations are saved or lost en masse. Second, the narrative creates **the impression **that the sheep are saved by good works, and the goats are condemned through failure to do good. …
As to the second problem, the passage cannot be used to teach salvation by works. The uniform testimony of the Bible is that salvation is by faith and not by works (Eph. 2:8, 9). But the Bible is just as emphatic in teaching that true faith produces good works. If there are no good works, it is an indication that the person was never saved. So we must understand that the Gentiles are not saved by befriending the Jewish remnant, but that this kindness reflects their love for the Lord.

The reason this passage is problematic for this author is because he assumes that the passage is warning of Hell, endless torture. If we recognize though that it is warning of remedial punishment (in this life and possibly the life to come), then the above “two problems” are no longer problems. God deals with individuals and nations, bringing about punishment that is needed to effect a positive change.

Word Biblical Commentary :
Although sometimes understood as confirming a salvation by works, this passage need not be understood as incompatible with the gospel of the kingdom as a divine gift. The apostle Paul, the champion of grace, can also stress the significance of good works (see esp. Gal 6:7–10; 2 Cor 5:10). Matthew does stress the importance of righteousness as good deeds, but as a part of a larger context in which God acts graciously for the salvation of his people (see Hagner, Matthew 1–13, lxi–lxiii and Comment on 5:20). The deeds of mercy in the present passage are symbolic of a deeper reality, and as Gray notes, “the main point of the parable is the acceptance or the rejection of the Christian faith” (353; cf. 359). For a balanced and helpful discussion of this problem, see esp. C. L. Mitton.

The “main point” of the passage is NOT “acceptance or the rejection of the Christian faith”! The “main point” of the passage is how we actually treat others; acceptance or rejection of the Christian faith is not even mentioned! By reading into this passage Hell and endless torture, one looses the whole point of the passage.

This passage is speaking of social maturity, looking out for others who are less fortunate. Those who are selfless, socially mature naturally looking out for the needs of others will be rewarded by God with a blessed life. Those who are selfish, all-about-me, socially immature, who do not even see the needs of others around them, they can expect chastizement from the Lord, punishment meant to help them grow up and become socially mature!

By interpreting aionios kolasis as Hell or endless punishment one is completely misinterpreting this passage, nullifying it’s power to call everyone to righteousness! Believers say, “Well this passage doesn’t apply to me because I have faith in Christ.” And unbelievers don’t care what this passage says anyhow. In fact, if the unbeliever is a selfless, socially mature person, and the Christian who is mis-using this passage to warn them to “turn or burn”; the unbeliever simply need point out the hypocricy of the Christian who disregards that this passage actually speaks of how we take care of the less fortunate.

The traditional interpretation of this passage is a case of not being able to see the forest because of being consumed with trying to use one small limb to beat others over their heads - to try and prove that others are surely going to hell.

Every day I grow increasingly sick of the traditional doctrine of Hell – “I’m saved by grace, but others are damned inspite of grace!” And “Jesus either fails to save (Arminianism) or chooses not to save (Calvinism) most of humanity!” Of course, traditionalists would not actually say this, but these statement do sum up the traditional doctrine!

Judgment is an eternal reality. When we encounter the Lord in judgment, it burns the hell out of us! As mentioned in other threads, I’ve encountered God’s judgment of me and particular sinful patterns of life that I had. It was terrible, but very good for me, working in me awesome changes in my character and in my life-style. God judges us to change us if we’re acting badly, and to encourage us if we’re acting rightly!

roofus · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

Thanks, Sonia. Yea, that was the first book on universalism I ever looked at. It’s OK, kinda disappointing from what I remember…

roofus · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

stellar renegade:

Yeah, that’s one of the first pieces of universalistic literature I discovered. It was just after I prayed that I’d find something, too.

This is what I’ve tried to get across on a few different occasions:

It does not seem to have been generally considered by students of this subject that the thought of endless duration is comparatively a modern conception. The ancients, at a time more recent than the dates of the Old Testament, had not yet cognized the idea of endless duration, so that passages containing the word applied to God do not mean that he is of eternal duration, but the idea was of indefinite and not unlimited duration. I introduce here a passage from Professor Knapp, or Knappius, the author of the best edition of the Greek Testament known, and one in use in many colleges and ranks as a scholar of rare erudition. He observes:

“The pure idea of eternity is too abstract to have been conceived in the early ages of the world, and accordingly is not found expressed by any word in the ancient languages. But as cultivation advanced and this idea became more distinctly developed, it became necessary in order to express it to invent new words in a new sense, as was done with the words eternitas,perennitas, etc. The Hebrews were destitute of any single word to express endless duration. To express a past eternity they said before the world was; a future, when the world shall be no more. . . . The Hebrews and other ancient people have no one word for expressing the precise idea of eternity.”

Yes, I’ve seen that. Interesting, but there isn’t much to demonstrate it offered by Hanson, I don’t think…

roofus · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

Sherman · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

“The problems is…scholars don’t all agree”… about anything it seems.

As I noted, to me the passage is speaking of the punishment that comes from God upon those who are immature, selfish, so wrapped up in themselves that they do not even see the needs of others around them much less seek to meet those needs. Of course, such immaturity is not only seen in unbelievers, but also in believers. To take this passage and interpret it to speak of Hell and salvation one must then make salvation and not going to Hell based on works regardless of faith. The focus of the passage is God’s judgment of how we live, the good works we do or lack thereof, and does not mention salvation, grace, or faith.

If we are selfless, mature, and naturally take care of the needs of others then God will bless us. If we are selfish, immature, and rarely even note the needs of others, God will punish, chastize us, seeking to bring correction in us. If one reads heaven and hell into this passage it would then only affirm that salvation is by works and has nothing to do with grace. In this parable the people “earn” their reward, positive and negative. Don’t be fooled, what a man sows, so shall he reap.

roofus · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

Sherman:

“The problems is…scholars don’t all agree”… about anything it seems.

As I noted, to me the passage is speaking of the punishment that comes from God upon those who are immature, selfish, so wrapped up in themselves that they do not even see the needs of others around them much less seek to meet those needs. Of course, such immaturity is not only seen in unbelievers, but also in believers. To take this passage and interpret it to speak of Hell and salvation one must then make salvation and not going to Hell based on works regardless of faith. The focus of the passage is God’s judgment of how we live, the good works we do or lack thereof, and does not mention salvation, grace, or faith.

If we are selfless, mature, and naturally take care of the needs of others then God will bless us. If we are selfish, immature, and rarely even note the needs of others, God will punish, chastize us, seeking to bring correction in us. If one reads heaven and hell into this passage it would then only affirm that salvation is by works and has nothing to do with grace. In this parable the people “earn” their reward, positive and negative. Don’t be fooled, what a man sows, so shall he reap.

But isn’t faith manifested by our works? Yes it is!

Origen · June 18, 2018, 12:24am

tomtalbott:

Whatever its correct translation, “aionios” is clearly an adjective and must therefore function like an adjective, and it is the very nature of an adjective for its meaning to vary, sometimes greatly, depending upon which noun it qualifies. For more often than not, the noun helps to determine the precise force of the adjective. As an illustration, set aside the Greek word “aionios” for a moment and consider the English word “everlasting.” I think it safe to say that the basic meaning of this English word is indeed everlasting . So now consider how the precise force of “everlasting” varies depending upon which noun it qualifies. An everlasting struggle would no doubt be a struggle without end, an unending temporal process that never comes to a point of resolution and never gets completed. But an everlasting change, or an everlasting correction, or an everlasting transformation would hardly be an unending temporal process that never gets completed; instead, it would be a temporal process of limited duration, or perhaps simply an instantaneous event, that terminates in an irreversible state. So however popular it might be, the argument that “aionios” must have exactly the same force regardless of which noun it qualifies in Matthew 25:46 is clearly fallacious.

Accordingly, even if we should translate “aionios” with the English word “everlasting,” a lot would still depend upon how we understand the relevant nouns in our text: the nouns “life” (zoe) and “punishment” (kolasis). Now the kind of life in question, being rightly related to God, is clearly an end in itself, even as the kind of punishment in question seems just as clearly to be a means to an end. For as one New Testament scholar, William Barclay, has pointed out, “kolasis” “was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better.” Barclay also claimed that “in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment”–which is probably a bit of a stretch, since the language of correction and the language of retribution often get mixed together in ordinary language. But in any event, if “kolasis” does signify punishment of a remedial or a corrective kind, as I think it does in Matthew 25:46, then we can reasonably think of such punishment as everlasting in the sense that its corrective effects literally endure forever. Or, to put it another way: An everlasting correction, whenever successfully completed, would be a temporal process of limited duration that terminates in the irreversible state of being rightly related to God. Certainly nothing in the context of Matthew 25 excludes such an interpretation.

This would not be my preferred interpretation, however, because the English word “everlasting” does not accurately capture the special religious meaning that “aionios” typically has in the New Testament.

That’s a brilliant interpretation. It seems to have similarities to how annihilationists understand Matthew 25:46 & some other passages. If i understand your viewpoint, the verse could be understood as “everlasting corrective punishment” in the sense that its corrective effects are “everlasting”. My question is, if we also translate aionios as “everlasting” in other passages, will this type of perspective hold up as well as it does in Mt.25:46. For example Mark 3:29, which says in various translations:

New International Version
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin."

Darby Bible Translation
but whosoever shall speak injuriously against the Holy Spirit, to eternity has no forgiveness; but lies under the guilt of an everlasting sin;

Young’s Literal Translation
but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness – to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment;’

tomtalbott:

Here is how I expressed my own understanding of this matter in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate , p. 46:

The first point I would make is that on no occasion of its use in the New Testament does ‘aionios’ refer to a temporal process of unending duration. On a few occasions–as when Paul spoke of a ‘mystery that was kept secret for long ages ( chronios aioniois ) but is now disclosed ’ (Rom. 16:25-26)–the adjective does imply a lengthy period of time. But on these occasions, it could not possibly mean ‘eternal’ or ‘everlasting’. On other occasions, its use seems roughly Platonic in this sense: Whether God is eternal (that is, timeless, outside of time) in a purely Platonic sense or everlasting in the sense that he endures throughout all of the ages, nothing other than God is eternal in the primary sense (see the reference to ‘the eternal God’ in Rom. 16:26). The judgements, gifts, and actions of God are eternal in the secondary sense that their causal source lies in the eternal character and purpose God. One common function of an adjective, after all, is to refer back to the causal source of some action or condition. [Endnote: A selfish act, for example, is one that springs from, or has its causal source in, selfish motives.] When Jude thus cited the fire that consumed Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of eternal fire , he was not making a statement about temporal duration at all; in no way was he implying that the fire continues burning today, or even that it continued burning for an age. He was instead giving a theological interpretation in which the fire represented God’s judgement upon the two cities. So the fire was eternal not in the sense that it would burn forever without consuming the cities, but in the sense that, precisely because it was God’s judgement upon these cities and did consume them, it expressed God’s eternal character and eternal purpose in a special way.

So, even as the fire that consumed Sodom and Gomorrah was eternal in the sense that it expressed God’s eternal character and purpose in a special way, the same is true of the fire to which Matthew 25:41 alludes. That fire is eternal in the sense that, despite the harsh sounding language, it expresses God’s eternal love for us in a special, albeit especially severe, way. For as we read in Hebrews 12:29, the eternal God is also a consuming fire, one that will eventually consume all that is false within us. In no other way could God perfect all of us and express his eternal love for all of us. And similarly for eternal punishment: Like any of God’s eternal actions in time, it should be interpreted theologically as a process or event that has its causal source in the eternal God himself. Or, as William Barclay put it, “Eternal punishment is then literally that kind of remedial punishment which it befits God to give and which only God can give” ( A Spiritual Biography , p. 66)

My question here is similar to that above. How, in this view, are other passages with aionios to be understood, especially those referring to punishment, e.g. Mark 3:29? If “Eternal punishment is then literally that kind of remedial punishment which it befits God to give and which only God can give”, what is an “eternal sin” (Mk.3:29)?

Likewise, if in Mt.25:46 & 41 aionios is to be rendered “eternal”, then how is the parallel passage of Rev.20:10 to be translated & understood. For example, the usual translation speaks of torments “for ever and ever”.

Origen · July 12, 2018, 10:11pm

Tom Talbott posted (on 22 February 2015) at the url below:

Hi Mike,

Concerning the correct interpretation of Matthew 25:46, you note the following widely accepted argument. In your own words, “There is a parallel usage of the word [aiōnios ] between life and punishment. Since the ‘life’ part must be unending, so must the ‘punishment’ part.” And concerning my own suggestion that this is a misguided argument, you write:

Are the arguments as presented in Talbott’s book plausible? Sure, I guess. Barclay may be onto something, but I’m just not convinced. And I’m not able to easily dismiss the parallels of #2 [the argument just quoted above] by qualifying it away in saying that it’s an adjective describing very different realities. It seems forced to me.

Here I find myself wondering whether you might find the example I provide in the book helpful. I understand that you may already have thought about this; but even if you have, I would be most interested in your response to it. In the book I ask my readers to set aside the Greek word aiōnios for a moment and to focus on the English word “everlasting.” I then write:

I think it fair to say that the basic meaning of this English word is indeed everlasting. But consider also how the precise force of “everlasting” can vary in different contexts. An everlasting struggle, if there should be such a thing, would no doubt be a struggle without end, an unending temporal process that never comes to a point of resolution and never gets completed. The Manichaean idea of an everlasting struggle between good and evil illustrates the point nicely. But an everlasting change, or an everlasting correction, or an everlasting transformation need not be an unending temporal process that never comes to an end and never gets completed; it might instead be a temporal process of limited duration, or perhaps even an instantaneous event, that terminates in an irreversible state and whose effects thus literally endure forever.

Suppose, then, that someone should insist upon the following parallel. If an everlasting struggle would be a temporal process that is never completed and thus never comes to an end, then an everlasting correction must likewise be a temporal process that is never completed and thus never comes to an end. My point is that we are here talking about a very familiar aspect of language: a small brick is not small in the same sense that a small number is small, because bricks and numbers belong to different categories of things. Similarly, whereas everlasting life would presumably be an end in itself, an everlasting correction might be a means to an end, perhaps even a means to the end of everlasting life; hence, in the latter case, but not in the former, we can meaningfully speak of the noun describing a process of limited duration, one that terminates in an irreversible state and whose effects thus endure quite literally forever. Does that still seem forced to you?

Anyway, thanks for some excellent contributions, here and elsewhere, to this discussion.