(46) And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
(46) καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
This verse comes at the end of Jesus' discourse about giving water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, shelter to the homeless, etc. He is explaining that those who are truly His disciples will take care of folks who have need. The result is that those who truly are His disciples (the righteous) will enjoy eternal life, or ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Conversely, those who are not His disciples will suffer from eternal punishment, or κόλασιν αἰώνιον.
The definition in Thayer for this word is:
κόλασις
kolasis
Thayer Definition:
1) correction, punishment, penalty
This tells me that there is a real chance of eternal punishment or eternal reward. I'm not sure their textual rationale, but the NWT of the Jehovah's Witnesses translates this as:
And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.
The three dictionaries to which I have easy access (Strongs, Thayer, and the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance) all have the glosses of "correction" or "punishment" for this word. If anyone is interested, I can look this up in BDAG as well.
This exercise shows me that there is value in being able to read the original languages, particularly when debating doctrine with those who have some drastically different readings in their own Bibles. It is true that sometimes glosses are chosen based on theology; however, they should also be rooted in phonology as well.
EDIT: I looked and there are no textual variants for this verse either. That was something I thought about after I wrote this so I looked it up in the interest of integrity. There aren't any according to the UBS4, though perhaps the NA26 lists some.
EDIT: I looked and there are no textual variants for this verse either. That was something I thought about after I wrote this so I looked it up in the interest of integrity. There aren't any according to the UBS4, though perhaps the NA26 lists some.
10 comments:
Yes, it's good to know Koine Greek to better understand the original texts of the gospels.
But there's a problem you've overlooked. We don't have the original autographs! And as you've pointed out, there are a considerable number of variations in the copies of the copies of the copies that we do have.
What's more, neither do we have the first copies, the copies made from them, and the copies made from them. We're really not sure just how many generations old are the copies we do have!
So, what to do when we try to take what we do have to get an accurate idea of what the original autographs said? The answer is that, because the historical Protestant view on inspiration (listen up here) applies only to the originals, we have to use our noggins to figure it out and, thankfully, the rigorous methods used in the arts of textual and literary criticism help us to get really close.
One of those methods is to look at the context for things that stick out like sore thumbs. Well, guess what, the verse in Matthew you've quoted not only sticks out, but is bleeding too!
After telling a very long story in which Jesus tried so hard to explain how much he empathizes with human suffering, so much so that he says we ought to think of even the "least" as if s/he were him...only to turn right around and all in the same breath say, "Oh, but one day I'm going to be the direct cause of the worst suffering ever" makes no sense, now does it?
Well, the explanation for this contradictory statement is simple--Jesus never said it!!! It's an interpolation that was, in all likelihood, inserted by a Greek Christian scribe while making a copy of the text, totally distorting the message of the originally inspired autograph! When you read the story without it, the text flows much more smoothly, because Jesus did not believe in Hell. He couldn't have.
I've actually written an entire book on this topic--"Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell," (for anyone interested, you can get a free ecopy of my book at my website: www.thereisnohell.com), but if I may, let me share one of the many points I make in it to explain why.
If one is willing to look, there's substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: "You don't know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!" Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it.
So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY!
True, there are a few statements that made their way into the copies of copies of copies of the gospel texts which place “Hell” on Jesus’ lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.
Again, bear in mind that the historical Protestant doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures applies only to the original autographs, not the copies. But sadly, the interpolations that made their way into those copies have provided a convenient excuse for a lot of people to get around following Jesus’ real message.
Rick,
Thanks for stopping by. I agree with your summation of the doctrine of inerrancy that the original autographs are indeed inerrant. I also agree that can be problematic when there is a text-critical issue. However, I am not familiar with the research on which you base your argument. There are plenty of statements where Jesus refers to Gehenna. Now you can take that to mean the trash heap outside of Jerusalem, but that's not the full semantic range of the word. This passage seems to bring it all together. Jesus spoke a lot more on hell than He did on heaven.
If I read your comment correctly, you are basing your argument on what you believe to be a later interpolation. However, my Greek New Testament does not have any text-critical notes for this passage. I would be a lot more open to your line of reasoning if there were some. However, it seems clear that the UBS4 committee (as well as Westcott-Hort) consider this completely unambiguous.
The underlying assumption of your thesis destroys any authority in Scripture. If you can suppose that there was a later interpolation "in all likelihood" on a passage like this then how can we be sure about anything in the Bible?
Incidentally, my reading of Revelation tells me that most of the world is going to be really unhappy for a really long time when Jesus returns. Therefore, He will indeed be part of the "worst suffering ever." Also, this passage comes at the end of many parables where those on the wrong side will end up in "outer darkness" with "weeping and gnashing of teeth." That sure seems consistent with the traditional reading of Mat 25:46.
Please provide some credible scholarship for your reading of the text and then I will be happy to talk.
Is it not an assumption that 'eternal punishment' demands consciousness? For example, could not an evildoer put to death, once for all time, never to be resurrected, be said to have suffered eternal punishment? His execution certainly is 'punishment,' and since he is not resurrected nor sees any sort of life again, it is 'eternal.'
Tom -- I suppose so, but then how will there be "weeping and gnashing of teeth?"
If, contrary to your expectations, you found yourself sentenced to death row, you might well 'weep and gnash your teeth.'
But how do you deal with the language of eternality that appears elsewhere regarding this state of angst?
I take the items one by one. I believe they all fall apart under scrutiny.
So are you saying that it is inappropriate to use Scripture to interpret Scripture? I'm confused by your "one by one" statement.
No, I don't say it's inappropriate. We do it all the time. But each scripture has to hold up in its own right. If they all fall apart under scrutiny, how sound can the structure be that is built upon them?
OK Tom, I'll bite. Please give me sound textual reasons to reject the traditional understanding of the verse I wrote about here. In other words, how do you defend the NWT despite the traditional glosses for the word in question?
Post a Comment