Hell, eternal punishment... and literal flames?

[Guest]

With that kind of thinking we can say that, in like manner, perhaps the sheep that go into age-abiding (or eternal) life could become a goat during eternity and go into the goat category. This is a serious problem.



I don't think it's a matter of that kind of thinking or this kind of thinking it's just a matter of translating the greek word correctly which is simply some unknown period of time only God knows. I think that it's clear by all the evidence in the NT that when someone is raised to life at the resurrection it's eternal without having to believe that correction (kolasis) which is a process that moves forward is eternal. When something is moving forward toward a finishing point it can't be eternal by definition.

[Guest]

I will discuss the blasphemy into the Holy Spirit presently. But first let me clarify the meaning of the words translated so often as "forgive" and "forgiveness"

The primary meaning of "aphiami" is not "forgive" but "leave". It is used that way in most of the New Testament. The nounal form "aphesis" and its primary meaning is "deliverance". I am concerned that the words are translated as "forgive" and "forgiveness" far too often.

Let's see what the words our Lord quoted would be if they are so translated:

Luke 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim forgiveness to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to forgive those who are oppressed...

Do oppressed people need forgiveness? Is it not their oppressors that need it?

The Revised Standard Version translates the verse this way:

Luke 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed...

One more example:

Mark 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins... RSV

Now read the account of the John's ministry and try to find a single sentence which mentions "forgiveness".

Clearly John the baptizer proclaimed a baptism of repentance for the forsaking of sins or for deliverance from sins.

Now let's examine the verse in question in a literal translation with the words correctly translated:

Matthew 3:28

... whoever blasphemes into the Holy Spirit does not have deliverance into the age, but is in danger of a permanent sin.

The Lord Jesus said this in the context of the Pharisees stating that He cast out demons through the prince of demons. To attribute the work of God (that is, the work of the Spirit) to the work of demons is a great blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Such an attitude tends to persist. By it, we can impair or destroy our character, and persist in this attitude throughout our life time and even "into the age" (the next age). As long as we have this attitude, we cannot be delivered from it.

[Guest]

Paidion,

You said (again):

But "eternal correction" is impossible ("correction" is the meaning of the Greek word "kolasis").

Re your assertion regarding the meaning of "kolasis" do you have some authority the rest of us do not have? What is your authority for this statement? Would it not be more correct to say "correction" is a meaning rather than the meaning?

[Guest]

The concept of "eternal punishment" is contrary to the character of God, whether the flames of Gehenna are "literal" or not.

What purpose could eternal punishment have other than pure revenge?

Eternal punishment is not contrary to the character of God but rather it is a compliment to other characters of God such as God is "Just".

God who is infinite will administer infinite justice.

God does not seek revenge it is us who placed ourselves into the pit and not God. God told us not to drink Javex or else we will die but we still drink it because we said it's tasty surely we will reap the consequences. God sets the rules we don't. Actions equal reaction. What you sow you will reap. Those who have chosen to disobey God will never change even after they died (physically). Look at the fallen angels, they are still fallen angels. They will never repent because they don't want to repent.

[Guest]

What you sow you will reap. Those who have chosen to disobey God will never change even after they died (physically). Look at the fallen angels, they are still fallen angels. They will never repent because they don't want to repent.

Have you ever disobeyed God? Have you changed? Did Paul want to repent on the road to Damascus before HE SAW the risen Christ? How long did it take Paul to repent once HE SAW Christ?
And Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit called himself the chief sinner of all before he saw Christ. Was Paul using false humility or did he mean it?

[Guest]

What is your authority for this statement? Would it not be more correct to say "correction" is a meaning rather than the meaning [of "kolasis"]?

Aristotle distinguished between "kolasis" as that which, being disciplinary, has reference to the sufferer, and "timoria" as that which, being penal, has reference to the satisfaction of him who inflicts.

"Kolasis" is derived from "kolazo", a word whose primary meaning is "to curtail, dock, prune".

The verbal form is found twice in New Testament: Acts 4:21 and 2 Peter 2:9. The latter verse reads literally as follows:

The Lord knows to deliver the pious out of trial, but to keep the unrighteous being corrected for a day of judgment.

To me this indicates that those are pious, devoted to God, we can be delivered from trial, but God continues to correct the unrighteous, even by means of natural consequences. If they do not repent, then this correction continue until a day of judgment, where they will be further dealt with.

The nounal form "kolasis" occurs just twice in the New Testament: Matt 25:46, our verse in question, and I John 4:18. In both of these, the word "correction" fits. Although "timoria" is not found in the New Testament, it is found once is the Apocrapha.

1 Esdras 8:24 And whosoever shall transgress the law of thy God, and of the king, shall be punished diligently, whether it be by death, or other punishment, by penalty of money, or by imprisonment.

The "punishment" in this context is clearly penal.

The verbal form of "timoria" is found several times in the New Testament, all of them penal. Consider how Paul, before his conversion, had "punished" Chistians wherever he found them:

Acts 26:11 "And as I punished them often in all the synagogues, I tried to force them to blaspheme; and being furiously enraged at them, I kept pursuing them even to foreign cities.

Since these two Greek words are used, and since Aristotle distinguished them, we might ask why Matthew chose to use "kolasis" instead of "timoria" in Matthew 25:46 in reporting our Lord's words concerning the goats.

If it's "eternal punishment" it has to be "penal" satisfying "God's justice" (as well as Jonathan Edward's). For correction cannot be "eternal."

The fact that Matthew chose to use the word "kolasis" instead, indicates that he must have considered the punishment to be corrective rather than to be penal. Such correction can go from age to age until those receiving it have been corrected. It cannot go on forever, since the correction would never take place.

There are a number of theories of punishment in philosophical circles. One is the retributive theory, that punishment ought to be administered because the recipients "deserve" it. This was C.S. Lewis's position. He wrote an essay about it. God would have to be retributive in order to send people to hell forever. Oh yes, some try to save God's character by saying that people "choose" hell by rejecting Christ, and so they send themselves there. But that argument won't wash. For God created hell, "prepared it for the devil and his angels."

To my way of thinking the retributive statement concerning punishment is a truism, trivially true because of its own constituent terms. Those who uphold the retributive theory of punishment are saying that people ought to be punished because they deserve to be punished, that is, they merit punishment. In other words they ought to be punished because they ought to be punished.

I believe in the remedial theory of punishment, that the main purpose of any punishment is, or ought to be the correction of those punished. To punish for the sake of "getting even" or taking revenge is exactly what the Lord Jesus asked us not to do.

In summary, in answer to your question, Homer:

Would it not be more correct to say "correction" is a meaning rather than the meaning [of "kolasis"]?

I see see nothing "more correct" about it. I have no problems in translating the word as "punishment" as long as we understand the word as implying correction. But if we understand it as implying retribution, then I would say it is an incorrect translation. Because of the variety of understandings of the word "punishment", I think the word "correction" is more meaningful. If Matthew had intended to reperesent our Lord as having taught retributive punishment for the goats, he would have used the word "timoria" instead.

[Guest]

Paidion:

Consider this from THe Apologists Bible Commentary:

46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

" Commentary:
Jesus teaches that the unrighteous will inherit "eternal punishment," while the righteous inherit "eternal life." Many have argued that this verse does not teach the doctrine of Hell as a place of eternal suffering and torment apart from God. Much stress is laid on the translation of "eternal" and "punishment" (see Other Views Considered, below). However, if these words are translated correctly, this verse must be considered strong evidence in support of the orthodox view.
The word translated "punishment" reflects the common meaning of the word in Koine Greek (see Grammatical Analysis, below, for more details). The word occurs in over 130 documents contemporary with the Greek New Testament, and in all cases, the translation "punishment" is correct. We must further stress that the word translated "eternal" in this verse modifies both "punishment" and "life.". This verse presents a parallel construction. Jesus is contrasting "punishment" with "life." If we take Him to mean that our life in Him is eternal - everlasting, without end - then it seems most reasonable to understand Him to be teaching that the punishment of the unrighteous is also eternal - everlasting, without end.

Thus, Jesus tells us that the eternal hope of the righteous is in Him, just as eternal punishment awaits the unrighteous who are apart from Him. And since we know none are righteous (Rom 3:10), our only hope is in Christ - for our faith alone justifies us (declares us righteous) in God's sight (Rom 3:20 ff.).

Some have argued that this doctrine has turned many people into infidels; but so have other Christian doctrines. The question is not how men respond to a doctrine but what Jesus and the NT writers actually teach about it. Human response is a secondary consideration and may reveal as much about us as about the doctrine being rejected. Nevertheless two things should be kept in mind: (1) as there are degrees of felicity and responsibility in the consummated kingdom (e.g., 25:14-30; cf. 1Cor 3:10-15), so also are there degrees of punishment (e.g., Matt 11:22; Luke 12:47-48); and (2) there is no shred of evidence in the NT that hell ever brings about genuine repentance. Sin continues as part of the punishment and the ground for it (EBC).

Grammatical Analysis kai apeleusontai outoi eiV kolasin aiwnion, oi de dikaioi eiV xwhn aiwnion


KAI APELEUSONTAI OUTOI EIS KOLASIN AIÔNION, OI DE DIKAIOI EIS ZÔÊN AIÔNION



And these will go away into punishment eternal, but the just into life eternal.



KOLASIS (2851)

Punishment (BAGD, Moulton & Milligan, TDNT, Vine)

Correction, punishment, penalty (Thayer)

Chastisement, correction, punishment (LS).

To punish, with the implication of resulting severe suffering (Louw & Nida)

Moulton & Milligan, BAGD, and Thayer list dozens of occurrences of KOLASIS in late classical and early Christian documents, and cite "punishment" as the proper translation in each case. There are no other meanings listed for KOLASIS in any of these lexicons. Here is just one example from Moulton and Milligan: "for the evil doers among men receive their reward not among the living only, but also await punishment (KOLASIN) and much torment" (Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840).



AIÔNIOS (166)

Without end (BAGD)

Without end, never to cease, everlasting (Thayer)

Eternal (TDNT, Louw & Nida)

In the vernacular as in the classical Greek (see Grimm-Thayer), it never loses the sense of perpetuus (Moulton & Milligan)

Vine suggests that AIÔNIOS may mean either eternal or "duration...undefined but not endless." However, the verses he cites in support of the latter definition (Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2) all refer to past time, not the future. BAGD and Thayer both define AIÔNIOS in these verses as "without beginning." Vine assigns the "eternal" meaning to AIÔNIOS in Matthew 25:46 - no doubt because whenever AIÔNIOS is combined with ZÔÊ ("life") in the Greek New Testament, it always means "eternal." Thus, if the second occurrence of AIÔNIOS in this verse means "eternal," it seems reasonable to accept the same meaning in the first usage, particularly given the parallel construction.



In conclusion, the lexical evidence is very strong that "eternal punishment" is the correct translation of KOLASIN AIÔNION in this verse. Thus, we may confidently conclude that Jesus taught that the unrighteous would be consigned to punishment everlasting, while those who call upon Him as their only Lord and Savior, will receive life everlasting."



Paidion, this commentary makes the following assertion:

there is no shred of evidence in the NT that hell ever brings about genuine repentance.

Where do you find that the NT indicates hell will in fact bring repentance to life?

[Guest]

Where do you find that the NT indicates hell will in fact bring repentance to life?

Pardon me for interjecting Homer but all this sounds familiar.
"The Spirit and the bride say, Come and let him who hears say, Come. WHOEVER is thirsty, let him come ,and WHOEVER wishes ,let him take the free gift of the water of life." Rev 22.17

Almost everyone would agree that after Jesus returns the rest of Revelation is chronological and this invitation is clearly to people in the lake of fire since the bride constitutes the believers. Some would say this invitation is to all people throughout the church age but it's still chronologically after the lake of fire.

[Guest]

"The Spirit and the bride say, Come and let him who hears say, Come. WHOEVER is thirsty, let him come ,and WHOEVER wishes ,let him take the free gift of the water of life." Rev 22.17

By the way the "Spirit" refers to the Holy Spirit and the Bride is the Church. The invitation is now and not after the lake of fire.

[Guest]

Paidion, do you believe in the bible?