The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Why Kolasis In Matthew 25:46 Is Corrective Punishment

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#1

The Bible speaks of a universal love that God has for everybody. (God’s essence is love) There is however a special dimension to God’s love. The fact that God loved Jacob and hated Esau proves this point. Here we are seeing a love/hate contrast that shows God loves some more than others. Jesus spoke of this when He said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:26). Jesus is not saying have an attitude of hostility towards them. What He is saying is that we ought to love Him above all others. The word “hate” is used this way to mean “loved less” in Genesis:

This doesn’t mean that all won’t eventually be saved. Only that God has a special love for some before all make it to heaven. We also see this special love in this scripture:

This passage corresponds with the command to show special love to believers:

God has a chosen people in this lifetime who are saved by grace. The goats undergo the corrective punishment in hell. For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth - Proverbs 3:12

  1. God corrects those He loves

  2. God loves everybody

  3. Nobody suffers forever

To harmonize the scriptures Kolasis must be interpreted as meaning correction. After all that is it’s meaning in Greek.

#2

The definition for Kolasis is

  1. Correction, punishment, penalty

So, while it does carry with it a punishment (or retribution), it’s clearly corrective. It’s corrective punishment. It’s both/and not either/or. Destruction of the old self.

#3

Yes, Michael!

i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/Paidion9/Emoticons/goodpost.gif

By the way “κολασις” need not be INTERPRETED to mean “correction”. It actually DOES mean correction.

Also interesting to note. Since “κολασις” means “correction”, then “αιωνιος” in Matthew 25:47 CANNOT mean “everlasting”. For what would it mean to say, “These will go away into everlasting correction”? How could there be everlasting correction? For if the correction is everlasting, then there would be no point at which the correction would be completed. The one being corrected would NEVER become corrected. So why, then, would it be called “correction”?

#4

Nice quotes, Paidion. Very useful. :slight_smile:

#5

That IS useful, as well as interesting.
Did the usage of the word change much between Aristotle’s time and Jesus’ time?

#6

Further to Michael’s great example from Gen 29:30-31 of how ‘love vs hate’ are to be understood I’d add this…

God’s apparent dismissiveness towards Esau as stated by Paul in Romans was not that of a rancid hatred, but rather needs to be seen and understood in the light of redemptive history – God’s redemptive story, that is… Esau was not the one chosen or elected for such a high redemptive calling. When God “hates Esau” Rom 9:13] it means God had no regard towards him – in relation to the outworking of the Divine redemptive plan.

This is why ‘election’ in its proper context of redemption was [past tense] about purpose NOT position, it was about service NOT security. ‘Election’ as defined in the Scriptures was NOT about getting to Heaven, but rather about Immanuel!! God with us… Yahweh dwelling and present with man now reunited and restored to Him through the last Adam.

Thus rejection, or as some wrongly label “reprobation” – simply means: NOT chosen for the higher redemptive purpose. Take for instance the account of the call of David as found in 1Sam 16:1-13. Note in particular verse 7 where refusal or rejection by God clearly means nothing more than NOT CALLED for that specific redemptive ministration.

1Sam 16:6-7 So it was, when they came, that he looked at Eliab and said, “Surely the LORD’s anointed is before Him!” But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused rejected]* him. For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."*

This then is the true nature of Paul’s election issue of Romans 9… whether helped, hindered or hardened of the Lord had nothing to do with one’s individual and exclusive post death destiny, but had everything to do with God’s corporate and inclusive redemptive and reconciliatory plan for mankind. That was the story of Israel… to be the world’s light. Christ and his ELECT firstfruit saints fulfilled Israel’s mission.

#7

I don’t think so, but some claim that it did, and became practically a synonym for “τιμωρια” (vengeful or punitive punishment). I was sure this idea was erroneous. However someone showed me an extra-biblical quote in Greek from a later period in which “κολασις” was clearly used in a punitive sense.

#8

Perceptive :sunglasses:

#9

“lasting correction” seems like a very good translation of the intent. If it is "lasting, it is also “everlasting” and “eternal”. It is not a very well supported view, but nonetheless, I would think it is a very profound grasp of the meaning that the early fathers had overlooked. These corrected measures, I think, should be resisted in this age so as to secure God’s grace while it avails. A little bit like receiving a prosthetic leg because we failed to act on early symptoms of gangrene. The prosthetic leg is lasting, it is corrective, but it is not perfect. A choice we make in this world.

S.

#10

It’s interesting that Chaucer, a writer in the 1300s begins his “Parson’s Tale” as follows:

Chaucer speaks of that “blissful life” as being “perdurable” (a middle Englilsh term defined by Websters as “long lasting”). The word originates from the Latin word “perdurare” which means “to endure,”

Yet Chaucer was very much acquainted with the word “eternal”, and used it in several places in his writings. So it seems that Chaucer understood the Greek phrase “αιωνιος ζωη” (aionios zoe, which virtually all modern translations render as “eternal life”) as “perdurable life” or “long lasting life”. Thus Matt. 25:46 would become:

#11

Very interesting Paidion!

S.

#12

I’d like to throw into the mix this excerpt from J. W. Hanson’s Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years:

“Philo, who was contemporary with Christ, generally used aidion to denote endless, and aionian temporary duration. He uses the exact phraseology of Matt. xxv: 46, precisely as Christ used it: ‘It is better not to promise than not to give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and æonian punishment (chastisement) from such as are more powerful.’ Here we have the precise terms employed by our Lord, which show that aionian did not mean endless but did mean limited duration in the time of Christ. Philo adopts athanaton, ateleuteton or aidion to denote endless, and aionian temporary duration.”

So it seems that Philo, who lived from 20 B.C. to 50 A.D. and thus was a contemporary of Christ’s, used the Matt. 25:46 phraseology to denote temporary punishment.

Hanson also argues that Josephus (who lived in the 1st century) used “aionion” to mean temporary …

“Josephus, writing in Greek to Jews, frequently employs the word that our Lord used to define the duration of punishment (aionios), but he applies it to things that had ended or that will end.”

tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html#36