Weirdly, I don’t think I’ve ever made a thread specifically for that argument yet. Huh.
Oh well. Here is the argument as I used it in my debate against TFan last October.
*MAIN ARGUMENT ON MATT 25 SHEEP/GOAT JUDGMENT
This parable (for want of a better word, since it definitely follows two other parables) is the capstone to Jesus’ set of three warning parables including the ten foolish virgins and the lazy servant who hid his talent. It’s pretty obvious that there is no direct indication that things are hopeful in the previous two parables for the foolish virgins or the lazy servant.
Everyone will, I suppose, also acknowledge that the other two parables should be interpreted in light of the sheep and the goats.
When people debate what this parable is trying to say about heaven and hell, they typically focus on the use of “eonian” to describe the life and the punishment. I think we can all agree that “eonian” at least means the life and the punishment both come uniquely from God. And for various reasons, I would recommend that this is as far as the term should be interpreted here. But, since it’s very normal to hash out a discussion on eonian, and since the non-universalist case from this passage (not reading into it from material concepts elsewhere, proper though that may also be) entirely depends on this term usage shutting down (for one or another reason) any hope for the goats–I’ll save that discussion for the rebuttal.
A tactic increasingly more common is to debate what “kolasis” means. Everyone agrees it’s a term for punishment; and I think everyone agrees it’s borrowed from an agricultural term for cleaning sick branches from a vine. What people disagree on, is whether the sick branches are thrown hopelessly into a fire (as Jesus’ imagery at the beginning of His final discourse in GosJohn might mean–although that might be a rather different meaning if the purpose of the unquenchable fire, even in Gehenna, is to salt our hearts so that we will be at peace with one another!); or whether the sick branches can be grafted into the vine of Israel once they are healed (even if they have been cut off previously), as Saint Paul definitely uses the metaphor in Romans 11.
Context is what counts, whether in interpreting “eonian” or in interpreting “kolasis”. So, let’s go to the contextual details of the story.
Christ gathers all the nations together when He comes with His angels to sit on His glorious throne, and separates them from one another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
Three things worth noting already: First, Christ acts as the shepherd of the goats as well as of the sheep. The goats belong to Him just like the sheep do.
Second, the word here translated sheep, “probaton”, doesn’t exclusively mean sheep. It’s a general term for any small herd animal including goats. It’s also almost always the term used in the New Testament where the English translates as “sheep”. This means in most cases we could just as easily be talking about the Good Goatherd herding His goats, and going out after the 100th goat to save it! Sheep are admittedly more numerous than goats, usually, whether altogether or in distinct flocks, but that doesn’t mean the term exclusively means sheep.
On the other hand, the word translated goat here, “eriphos”, does mean goat. But it very specifically means BABY GOAT! (The same term is used in the parable of the prodigal son when the older son complains that his father never gave him and his friends a baby goat to party with.)
If Matthew, or whoever translated Matthew’s Gospel into Greek, or even Jesus originally (in Aramaic or Greek), went to the trouble of calling them baby goats… why haven’t translators usually followed suit?! As we shall see, those baby goats do make an important difference as baby goats!
Meanwhile, if the goats are specifically baby goats, then the “probatons” by contrast are probably mature sheep, or maybe the mature herd in general. Is there any evidence that their maturity is being contrasted to the im-maturity of the baby goats? Anyone familiar with the story ought to be able to guess the answer!–but let us proceed.
Christ sends the sheep (let us call them for now) into “eonian life”, with the praise that they have served Him very well. This catches the sheep entirely by surprise: when did they ever serve Christ??? Any Christian (especially one familiar with this judgment parable) ought to know the answer already, and certainly ought to be expecting to have been serving Christ, which indicates that these people are not formally Christian! But Christ counts them as His servants anyway. Why? Because when these people (the “righteous” or “just” ones) were feeding the hungry and giving drink to the thirsty and inviting strangers in, and clothing the naked, visiting the sick and those imprisoned–to the extent they did this “to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.”
Who are these brothers of Christ He is pointing to? (The grammar in Greek is emphatic that Christ is indicating someone there on the scene.) Some people have supposed it was the righteous angels in disguise, or other sheep, since the only other characters in the scene are the baby goats, the least of Christ’s flock. But that would be ridiculous–right!?
The baby goats, on the other hand (literally!), are sent by Christ into “eonian kolasis” (whatever we decide from the context that involves). This surprises the baby goats: they thought they had been serving Christ! When did they ever refuse to give charity to Christ??
When they refused to feed, clothe, visit in prison etc., “even the least of these”, to that extent they did not do it to Christ.
The story warns ostensible followers of Christ that they may be revealed to be the least of Christ’s flock. And what constitutes this revelation? The baby goats did not act to bring the least of Christ’s flock (whether really so or in the perception of the baby goats) out of their misery: the way Christ acts. The sheep, the mature flock, were following Christ; the baby goats were not.
The story is a reversal of expectation, but it’s also set up to test the audience. And the test is this: how are we to regard the baby goats, the least of Christ’s flock?!
Are we to deny the baby goats shepherded by Christ are of Christ’s flock at all? If they are hungry, thirsty, strangers outside, sick and imprisoned, are we to ignore them? Is that what the mature flock does?! Should we expect the good sheep (and the Good Shepherd!) to start behaving like the baby goats now?! Or should we expect them to continue behaving like good sheep and the Good Shepherd?
Because we know from a bunch of other judgment details what’s going to happen to those baby goats (whether analogically or literally). They’re going to be hungry now, and thirsty, and outside the gates of the New Jerusalem, and their clothes will be dirty, and they’ll be imprisoned in the lake of fire (along with the rebel angels), and be sick at least in mind (fondling their sins impenitently).
That’s the scene set in the final chapter of the Revelation to John.
So: what are the Son and the Spirit, and the Bride (the mature flock), doing there? Are they treating those “baby goats” the way the “sheep” in this judgment would? Are they going out to exhort those strangers outside the New Jerusalem to slake their thirst in the freely given water of life flowing out of the never-closed gates of the city, and to wash their robes, so that they might obtain permission to come inside the city and eat the fruit of the log (i.e. the cross) of life, the leaves of which are for the healing of the nations?
Or, is the mature flock now acting like baby goats to the baby goats of Christ, who have themselves been condemned to “eonian kolasis” for acting like baby goats to the baby goats of Christ?!
Even if I didn’t have the end of RevJohn, though, I would still know what to expect, from the narrative and thematic logic of this judgment parable.
I would expect the sheep, and the Shepherd, to keep on acting toward the baby goats like good sheep and the Good Shepherd.
On pain of being found, myself, to only be a baby goat.
And that’s also the challenge on how we should interpret the other verses we’re debating tonight.
Should we interpret them like mature sheep would?
Or should we interpret them like baby goats would?
END MAIN ARGUMENT*
ADDENDUM/REBUTTAL ON EONIAN AT MATT 25*
Proponents for a hopeless punishment here, acknowledge (and indeed insist!) that context should determine what eonian means, whether as a set of options (if there are any options) or as a single meaning; and that even if there are options, context would still determine which options are in play. In regard to this he appeals to the parallelism of the eonian life and the eonian punishment of the sheep and the goats, and further appeals to the principle that a relevant comparison is thereby intended. If eonian means never-ending for the life, then how could eonian not mean (by virtue of the comparison) never-ending for the punishment? Or vice versa, if eonian does not mean never-ending for the punishment, how could it hope to mean never-ending for the life?! So from this direction our hope for the life must be in direct proportion to the hopelessness of the punishment; if the hopelessness is threatened the hope is threatened.
This is a popular and reasonable complaint, but aside from the answer I have already given from the context of the overall structure of the judgment, I can make some further observations.
First, non-universalists of all people are absolutely committed to exegeting identical terms in important close topical context, and even in direct comparison, as meaning substantially different things. The most famous (or infamous) example off the top of my head is Romans 5, where direct immediate parallel comparisons of “all” are required not in fact to both mean “all” (and similar comparisons of “many” are required not in fact to both mean whatever “many” means). It is entirely clear enough, that if “many” by contextual comparison to “all” means “all” each time “many” is used there, and if “all” means “all” each time “all” is used there, then Paul would be teaching universal salvation from sin by Christ. Typically, non-universalists appeal to other indirectly related testimony to try to argue against this, rather than to direct context in Romans 5; which I will allow could be proper to do, perhaps. My point here is not to argue Romans 5 (that’s a whole other debate) but to give an example where non-universalists as such must be committed (whatever their reasons may be) to reading identical terms very differently in closely connected context on the topic of salvation.
Similarly, in order to avoid a universal salvation conclusion from exegeting Colossians 1, non-universalists must either deny that the same words used in affirming the utter divine supremacy of Christ over creation do not have the same meaning when talking immediately afterward about the scope of God’s action to reconcile all things to Himself through the blood of the cross; or they must deny that the same word for “reconcile” when used immediately afterward to speak of the salvation of enemies of God from sin (namely Paul’s readers in the Colossians congregation) does not mean the salvation of enemies of God from sin when speaking of the scope of reconciliation of all things to God by God through the blood of the cross. My point here, again, is not to argue Colossians 1 (that’s a whole other debate) but to give another example where non-universalists as such must be committed (whatever their reasons may be) to reading identical terms very differently in closely connected context on the topic of salvation.
It may be replied that “all” and “many” are common general terms–although I don’t know how far that reply would stretch to include the terms in Colossians 1! But those terms aren’t the important word “eonian”. Maybe it’s theoretically possible for “eonian” to mean two superficially similar but also importantly different things in close context, but are there any Biblical examples of such usage?
In fact there are a few such times!
In the final blessing address of his epistle to the Romans, Paul writes in verse 25 of that 16th chapter that a secret hushed in times eonian has now been revealed which it is our responsibility as Christians to proclaim. Now, those times did not continue but are in the process of ending, and so in a sense have already ended, and will certainly end (one way or another) when Christ Jesus is finally heralded to all creation. Nor did those times stretch without beginning into the past. So those times had a beginning, and are having an end, and will someday be completely ended, and yet are described as “eonian”.
But in the very same sentence, only a few words later, Paul talks about this secret of eonian times having been manifested both now and through prophetic scriptures thanks to the injunction of the eonian God! The same word absolutely cannot mean only never-ending or only ending in both cases. It has to be talking about something that never ends in one case (God) and something that (sooner and later) definitely ends (the times of the secret).
But it may be replied again that Paul does not here directly compare the eonian God with the times eonian. No, that’s true. But the prophet Habbakuk makes such a comparison!
Habbakuk 3:6, “He (speaking of JEHOVAH in the Day of the Lord to come) stood and measured the earth; He beheld and drove asunder (or startled) the nations. Yes, the perpetual mountains were shattered, the eonian hills collapsed. His ways are eonian!”
Here we have an example of a primitive word, AHD, originally similar in meaning to another word used here in this verse, oLaHM. Both refer to the horizon, but AHD means the line of the horizon (or any similar line beyond which something still exists) and oLaHM refers to that which is beyond the horizon. Either way both words by metaphor are often employed to talk about the absolute everlasting greatness of God; but both words are also occasionally used for things which aren’t actually everlasting. This verse might have been expressly designed to contrast those two concepts! For not only are the AHD mountains shattered but the oLaHM hills collapse (using a verb which has a double-meaning of bowing down), when faced with the true oLaHM of God.
oLaHM is the same word usually translated “eonian” in Biblical Greek (although AHD sometimes could be, too.) And this is in fact how the Jews translated this verse for the Greek version of the scriptures, the Septuagint.
So this is a direct example of eonian (both in Greek and in its underlying Hebrew) meaning two similar but ultimately also very different things, not only in close proximity, and not only in close topical proximity, but in actual direct immediate comparison.
In this case the narrative and thematic context immediately clarifies the distinction. I argue that in the judgment of the sheep (or the mature flock) and the baby goats, the nearby narrative and thematic contexts also clarify a similar distinction. Both the life and the kolasis (or punishment) are from God, and both can go on for a long time, but the similarities end there. The eonian life goes on forever, by God’s intention; but God intends an end to the eonian kolasis.
So, such a different double-usage of eonian in immediate context may not happen often. But it does happen to various degrees, including at least once in the closest possible comparison of things described by the term eonian.
Of course, if we go with my preferred interpretation, where “eonian” is used to describe things that come especially from God (yes, even God from God as Romans 16:26 may thereby be rendered!–which no one affirming “very God of very God” will dare deny the propriety of!), then there is no problem at all: the life and the punishment are both equally and especially from God. But that usage is entirely neutral as to the question of whether the punishment (like God!) is unending. It might or might not be. But then so much for using the term in itself as definite evidence that the punishment will be unending.
And, if the issue is pressed that this means eonian life might or might not end, well yes that’s true based on God’s intention: our lives are always derivative of God anyway. I have less than no problem trusting that God will continue to give His life to those who continue in fellowship with Him; just as I have less than no problem noting that unfallen angels also have eonian life from God. Including Lucifer and his allies!–before they fell!
So, eonian life is not in itself a guarantee of its own continuation–which maybe Lucifer was expecting!–but rather God gives eonian life or withdraws it according to His love and justice. He grafts branches into the Vine and breaks branches off; and those He grafts in may be cut out, and those born by God’s decree natural to the Vine may be broken off–but those broken off by God may easily be grafted back in by God when-if-ever God so deems it proper to do so.
END REBUTTAL/ADDENDUM ON MATT 25**
Especially since I tend to be a very zorchy kind of person. 
)