PUNISHMENT, EVERLASTING (αιώνιος κόλασις).
I. The Biblical references. The term aiōnios kólasis (“eternal punishment” in RSV, “everlasting punishment” in KJV) is used once in the Bible (Matt 25:46). Equivalent terms, however, are used in a number of instances. In these instances, RSV always renders aiōnios “eternal,” whereas the KJV sometimes uses “eternal” and sometimes “everlasting.” Matthew 18:8; 25:41; and Jude 7 mention “eternal fire”; 2 Thessalonians 1:9, “eternal destruction”; and Mark 3:29, “eternal sin” (KJV renders “eternal damnation”). Jude 6 speaks of “eternal (aiōnios) chains.” Jude 13 states concerning the wicked, “for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved forever” (Gr. eis aiōna).
In Revelation 14:11, eis aiōnas aiōnon (“to ages of ages”) is rendered “for ever and ever” in describing the fate of those who worship the beast, “and the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever.” The similar phrase eis toùs aiōnas tōn aiōnon (“to the ages of the ages”) describes the duration of the punishment of the great harlot (Rev 19:3), “the smoke from her goes up for ever and ever,” and that of the devil, the beast, and the false prophet (20:10), “and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” The language of these passages is a reflection of that describing the fate of Edom (Isa 34:9, 10), “and the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into brimstone; her land shall become burning pitch. Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up for ever (Heb. ’ōlām). From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.” ’Ōlām is used also to describe the duration of the fate of Edom in Obadiah 10, “and you shall be cut off for ever.” Both KJV and RSV tr. the Heb. ’ōlām as everlasting in Daniel 12:2, which speaks of “everlasting contempt” as the condition of the ungodly who are resurrected, compared to “everlasting life” as the condition of the godly.
II. The meaning of “eternal.”The Biblical doctrine is that the ungodly are subject to punishment without end after death. The important question is this—Does aiōnios mean “endless”? Aiōnios comes from aiōn, which means “the age.” Plato, however, used it of the Eternal Being compared to Time. The LXX used it to tr. the Heb. ’ōlām, which contains both the idea of a long time and the metaphysical idea of eternity in the sense of unending. Whether or not aiōnios indicates a long period of time or endlessness therefore must be determined by the context. For example, when the term is used by John to speak of eternal life, the emphasis is on the qualitative rather than the quantitative, although the very nature of the quality of the life being described would presuppose its being unending. A passage where it is clearly used in contrast to that which only lasts for a time is 2 Corinthians 4:18, “Because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” That the term aiōnios is used in the same passage to describe both the condition of the saved and the lost, is the strongest evidence that the NT intends to teach the endlessness of punishment in hell. In Matthew 25:46, Jesus says of those who have failed to help the needy, “they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” The phrase referred to above, eis toùs aiōnas tōn aiōnon, is used again and again describing the duration of the glory of God and clearly speaks of endlessness. W. R. Inge says, “No sound Greek scholar can pretend that aiōnios means any thing less than eternal” (Inge and others, What is Hell? 6). F. von Huegel says, “If we follow the New Testament, the essence of hell lies assuredly above all in its endlessness” (Inge and others, What is Hell? 7). E. Plumptre, who opposes the doctrine of eternal punishment, yet says of universalism, “It fails to prove that the element of duration is, as has been mentioned, altogether absent from the word” (E. Plumptre, The Spirits in Prison, 14); and P. Dearmer, another opponent dealing with the subject, speaks of NT “passages which, however accurately they are translated, are inconsistent with the teachings of Christ” (P. Dearmer, The Legend of Hell), by which, of course, he means inconsistent with his own preconceived notions of what Christ ought to teach.
There are a number of NT passages that do not use the word aiōnios, but nevertheless confirm the fact that endlessness is involved. For example, the punishment is described in terms of “unquenchable fire” (Mark 9:43; where the parallel in Matt 18:8 speaks of “eternal fire”), and “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:48). He who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit “never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (3:29). In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the permanence of the condition of those being punished is described thus: “between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us” (Luke 16:26). The unchangeableness of the condition of punishment is implied also in the many passages that speak of the judgment with its resulting rewards and punishments, which depend on the acts committed in this present life.
III. The nature of the punishment. It is generally accepted that the descriptions of fire and darkness are symbolic—symbolic of a terrible reality! The Bible does not specifically describe the nature of the punishment, which can be inferred only from the total Biblical picture. Since the punishment is the result of sin, it must bear certain similarities to the consequences of sin that take place already in this life. If eternal death is the opposite of eternal life, it must contain elements that contrast with those the Bible includes in its picture of eternal life. The essence of life is life lived in loving relationship to God; therefore eternal punishment includes the absence of this great blessing. Life apart from God is existence filled with guilt, hollowness, despair, meaninglessness, and hopelessness. The agony of eternal punishment apparently involves both body and soul because Scripture says both are ultimately cast into hell. Apparently this would involve inner anguish as well as detrimental effects upon the body. It may involve the torment of being cut off from fellowship with one’s fellow man, and also the results of living within a society of men from which the grace of God has been completely withdrawn. It must be admitted that the above is somewhat speculative, although based on Biblical inferences, since the Bible is silent when it comes to specific information as to the nature of the punishment, being satisfied simply to emphasize the horror of its reality (see Hell).
IV. The alternative views. There are basically two alternative views to eternal punishment. One view is that either after no punishment following death or after a limited period of punishment, the lost cease to exist. This view is called annihilation. The other view is that, following death either after a period of punishment or with no punishment, all will eventually be saved. This is called universalism.
A. Annihilation (also called Conditional Immortality). This is the official position of the Seventh Day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and some individual Bible students. They claim that the words “destruction” and “death,” which sometimes are used in the Bible to describe eternal punishment, are to be understood as involving the complete cessation of existence. Arguments against this position are as follows:
(1) These words obviously are not used to describe cessation of existence in other Biblical passages. For example the Heb. word for “perish” is used also to describe the condition of the righteous (Isa 57:1) and the loss of Kish’s asses (1 Sam 9:3, 20). The Heb. word tr. “cut off” to describe the condition of the wicked (Ps 37:9) is used to describe the fate of the Messiah (Dan 9:26). The wicked will be destroyed (Ps 145:20) but the word cannot mean complete annihilation for it is used also to describe the fate Israel had experienced (Hos 13:9) and the fate of Egypt during the plagues (Exod 10:7). It is predicted that sinners will be “consumed,” but the same word describes a wall demolished by hailstones (Ezek 13:13, 14). The fate of the wicked was that “he was no more” (Ps 37:36), but the same Heb. word describes the blessed fate of Enoch (Gen 5:24).
(2) The Bible describes destruction as punishment, but if it means annihilation, in many cases it would actually be a happy relief from punishment and therefore no punishment at all.
(3) Life as described in the Bible is not simply existence, it is existence in fellowship with God. The death that the Bible describes as the alternative to life need not mean the cessation of existence, but rather continued existence cut off from the fellowship of God.
(4) The practical effect of this doctrine undermines morality. In making light of the results of moral choices, it therefore makes light of the moral choices themselves.
B. Universalism. Arguments that are put forth by those who believe that ultimately all will be saved are as follows:
(1) There are Scripture passages, such as Acts 3:21, which reads in the KJV, “whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things.” This v., however, does not intend to teach universalism, for just two vv. later one reads “every soul which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.” The RSV more accurately trs. Acts 3:21, “whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke,” which removes the universalistic element completely. Various vv. do refer to “all” men, for example, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” (John 12:32), “as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph 1:10). The term “all” is used in other than an absolute sense in Scripture: for example, when the wise men came to Jerusalem, Herod “was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him” (Matt 2:3). Obviously every individual did not hear about the problem, let alone be deeply concerned about it. Again, when John the Baptist preached, “then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, and they were baptized by him” (Matt 3:5, 6). This surely did not mean that every inhabitant of these areas came to John, and certainly every individual was not baptized.
(2) God would be unjust to punish men for all eternity for sins they committed within a span of a few years. This argument fails to recognize the seriousness and the true nature of sin. Sin is rebellion against God Almighty, a horrible action that deserves the most drastic punishment. Furthermore, the nature of sin is such that it produces abiding consequences. God is just, for sin produces the very results that the sin deserves—results that are abiding except for the intervening grace of God.
(3) A loving God would not punish His creatures for ever. Those who advance this argument say: “A good man would not punish his enemies forever; surely a good God will not do this either.” But God is not man; He is loving, but He must also be just. He is the gracious Creator, but He is also the just Judge. The fact is that sin does produce horrible consequences in this life, and the loving God does not prevent this. What is the basis for assurance that He will prevent these consequences hereafter?
(4) A sovereign God will not be defeated. Some recent theologians who take sin and judgment much more seriously than did the older liberals still tend toward universalism on the basis of the sovereignty of God. Who is man to say how God should exercise His sovereignty? The same Bible that reveals God as sovereign also reveals punishment as eternal.
Bibliography L. Townsend, Lost Forever (1875); J. Hanson, Aion-Aionios (1880); E. Pusey, What is of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment (1880); J. Reimensnyder, Doom Eternal (1880); W. Shedd, The Doctrine of Endless Punishment (1886); C. Mann, Five Discourses on Future Punishment (1888); H. Buis, The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment (1957).